TomTheDP

I'll answer it for you and I've used the A7s3 and FX6 but not the A7IV.
Both cameras have heavily processed shadows that ruin the image. The A7s3 and FX3 are superior because you can shoot RAW externally and bypass the processing. Dynamic range isn't useful when it's being ruined by noise reduction.
The fx30 has much less processing at the lower native ISOs and would be my choice over either of those cameras. Or get a Nikon Z8.

Yes I'm talking shooting in 8 bit 709. When I mentioned log I meant 10-12 bit. I was saying even though the master is 709 you can potentially make 10 bit log better looking than a baked in 709 profile. For instance the emotive color lut looks nicer than the 709 profiles out of most cameras straight off the card.

It's partly a theoretical point, but I'm not actually sure this has to be the case.  It's definitely not the case if you're comparing 709 8-bit vs LOG 8-bit, as LOG 8-bit can be so fragile that you can't even make nice images if you don't need to change WB or exposure at all.
The missing piece (and why I said "I'm not sure this has to be the case") is having the colour management to convert back from 709 into something where WB and Exposure adjustments will be made proportionally to the image (ie, like they were done in-camera).  I've done a lot of work with the GX85, as I'm sure you've seen, and am still planning on doing more, and I got quite good results with the Gamma wheel when the image was in 709, and using the WB and Offset controls when I'd done a CST to a LOG space (in my case using DWG/DI in Resolve).
The reasons that I suggest this are that:
when shooting 8-bit there is far more data in the saturation, so the impacts of quantisation are much less when grading the final image to have a normal level of saturation when shooting 8-bit the image SOOC is much closer to the final image in terms of the gamma curve, so you're not stretching those bits that much further apart than they already are, whereas 8-bit LOG needs a lot of additional contrast to be added Of course, the ultimate is having 10-bit HLG, which has full 709 levels of saturation, has a gamma curve much closer to a 709-style output but still retains all the DR from the camera, and it has all the benefits of 10-bit.  Once again, HLG isn't a standard so the conversion is a challenge, but I've found that interpreting it as either Rec2020 or Rec2100 works pretty well.
I'm currently programming my own grading tool in DCTL for Resolve and my main aim is to incorporate the tools that I'll need to grade 709 images, considering that the GX85 is now my main focus and it's the one that is hardest to get right with the existing tools.  Once I have a working prototype I'll be filming my rec709 WB/exposure tests again (with skintones this time) and will update the other thread.

Makes sense. I think the main differences between these Sony cameras are rolling shutter and the ability or lack of ability to record RAW if that is a feature you want to use. Dynamic range is all very similiar in latitude tests and imatest measurements. 

My pick for Sony is the FX30 as it is the cheapest and has a damn good image and a lot of cheap 3rd party lenses for it too. 

I really think Redraw is coming or at least a varient of it. I get market segmentation but Nikon already displayed its willingness to put internal RAW in their cameras with no caveats. REDraw is coming to Nikon mirrorless. 

I don't think this will kill sales for any of the "RED" cameras. They are made for a traditional on set workflow. No one is going to want to use a Z8 with HDMI on a large production unless its a crash cam. 

Plus the RED Komodo is priced the same as the Nikon Z9 to begin with. It's not like its ARRI where they don't sell any cameras lower than 50,000 usd. 

RED never had the capacity to put out a mirrorless body and compete with the likes of Nikon or Canon, now they don't need to. 

We shall see soon enough. 

Makes sense. I think the main differences between these Sony cameras are rolling shutter and the ability or lack of ability to record RAW if that is a feature you want to use. Dynamic range is all very similiar in latitude tests and imatest measurements. 

My pick for Sony is the FX30 as it is the cheapest and has a damn good image and a lot of cheap 3rd party lenses for it too. 

True latitude tests are the best indicator. With firmware 3.0 the Z9/Z8 does peform incredibly well and like you said bests the Venice 2 which is crazy. The Venice 2 captures 16 bit linear RAW which I would imagine gives you a much beefier file to work with. That said 8.2k 12 bit RAW with that kind of latitude is more than enough for any application. 

One of the biggest draws of the Z8/Z9 for me is the NRAW, Prores RAW, Prores, and H265 options all in camera. Pretty much can fit to any workflow in any NLE without needing to transcode. 

If they actually put REDraw that would be awesome for possible compression options. 

No Opengate square aspect ratio options for anamorphic but hey you can't get everything. I appreciate Nikon's new move of not holding back. Feels like Lumix until recently where they seem to put out the same thing over and over again. 

True latitude tests are the best indicator. With firmware 3.0 the Z9/Z8 does peform incredibly well and like you said bests the Venice 2 which is crazy. The Venice 2 captures 16 bit linear RAW which I would imagine gives you a much beefier file to work with. That said 8.2k 12 bit RAW with that kind of latitude is more than enough for any application. 

One of the biggest draws of the Z8/Z9 for me is the NRAW, Prores RAW, Prores, and H265 options all in camera. Pretty much can fit to any workflow in any NLE without needing to transcode. 

If they actually put REDraw that would be awesome for possible compression options. 

No Opengate square aspect ratio options for anamorphic but hey you can't get everything. I appreciate Nikon's new move of not holding back. Feels like Lumix until recently where they seem to put out the same thing over and over again. 

It is a shame they can't do slight compression like 2:1 or 3:1 like the old BMPCC

Prores 444 and 4444xq are really nice codecs to work with. The issue is compressed RAW is often actually smaller in terms of file size compared to Prores 444. I shoot 2k Prores 444 which is about 500mbps, which is a reasonable size. 

To me 12 bit is important but it doesn't matter if it in the RAW format, Prores 444 or semiraw like BRAW. For me I notice the difference in shadows and skintones compared with 10 bit recording. The differences can be subtle though. 

This video demonstrates some differences you can see in a real world scenario. FX6 10 bit vs REDRAW
 

 

Prores 444 and 4444xq are really nice codecs to work with. The issue is compressed RAW is often actually smaller in terms of file size compared to Prores 444. I shoot 2k Prores 444 which is about 500mbps, which is a reasonable size. 

To me 12 bit is important but it doesn't matter if it in the RAW format, Prores 444 or semiraw like BRAW. For me I notice the difference in shadows and skintones compared with 10 bit recording. The differences can be subtle though. 

This video demonstrates some differences you can see in a real world scenario. FX6 10 bit vs REDRAW
 

 

Prores 444 and 4444xq are really nice codecs to work with. The issue is compressed RAW is often actually smaller in terms of file size compared to Prores 444. I shoot 2k Prores 444 which is about 500mbps, which is a reasonable size. 

To me 12 bit is important but it doesn't matter if it in the RAW format, Prores 444 or semiraw like BRAW. For me I notice the difference in shadows and skintones compared with 10 bit recording. The differences can be subtle though. 

This video demonstrates some differences you can see in a real world scenario. FX6 10 bit vs REDRAW
 

 

Yeah it's not bad at all, but still too much when on set. If you are using a Sony FX9 it could be as quick as a lens swap because the you can get adapters that attach the same as a lens. That isn't as secure as a mount that is bolted in though. 

If you aren't using vintage or stills glass it doesn't matter though. 

 

For me as someone who isn't renting high end cine glass it gives me more lens options. Most vintage lenses can be adapted to EF but very few can be adapted to PL, at least not without really expensive modifications done by pros. If I want to throw on an old FD lens or something like that I'd have to swap the mount from PL to EF, which is time consuming. Now that depends on the camera. Swapping the mounts on a mirrorless system is usually fast. On an ARRI or Blackmagic it is a pain. 

Have you considered a C500 MK2 

6k, Internal ND, Great lowlight performance, great latitude and good dynamic range, internal RAW and 10 bit capability. 

Pretty well designed package that works great for building up or building down, good battery life. 

To me IQ/usability wise it would be the C500 MK2 or the RED Monstro. In that price range they are the top performers. With the Monstro you have to deal with 8k but you have tons of compression options. You're getting better dynamic range and color depth over the C500. Only downside is no internal ND's, probably more expensive media (redmags), and power consumption is higher(though not terrible). 

I see some mentions of the S1H. I think it's a great bang for your buck camera. Great battery life, great sensor. They sell used now for incredibly cheap.

Downsides are the HDMI out latency is terrible, slow rolling shutter, no internal 12 bit/RAW, and color isn't the greatest compared to higher end cameras. Again you can get great images out of it and for a hobby camera it would excel. If you are looking for a more high end experience I just don't think that would be it. In terms of value it is incredible though. 

I might also suggest an ARRI Alexa XT, but that might be too far into the too heavy spectrum. It's quite a beast. 

The Pocket 4k has BRAW which means you get 1 stops more in the highlights with highlight recovery in Resolve. The Red Komodo does this internally to get its 12.5 stop rating ( a $6000 "cinema" camera). That makes around 12.6 stops for the Pocket. Also the C70 only gets 12.3 stops in RAW, because it has no NR. Again you can get an additional .5 stops or so out of the Pocket with NR. 

The comparison between a RODE wireless GO and the Pocket 4k makes little sense to me. 

Also the Pocket has held its value pretty well over its entire lifetime. Hardly a waste of money. I still see them making money all the time on different projects.

M43 mount is hardly dead. The GH6 just came out with a brand new dual gain sensor, Z-cam is putting out a new global shutter M43 camera with higher dynamic range. Z-cam didn't likely design that sensor, probably made by Sony, which wouldn't be designing and making M43 sensors if there was no demand. 
But it doesn't really matter. If you aren't shooting for clients the camera you have is irrelevant outside of it giving you a usable image, which almost any camera on the market in the past 5 years does. 

Recommending a cheaper camera is not dissing someone's abilities. Award winning films have been shot on a GH2. The Pocket 4k is very capable. 

Anyways the Pocket 4k wouldn't be my choice in camera. Something like an S1H, FX30 would be as they are more run and gun friendly. My reason for not getting something "high end" for hobby uses is not because I don't want to spend money. It's because such tools are inconvenient and annoying for doing anything non work related. But that's me. Maybe you like to move slowly for your hobby uses an a big ass camera rig works for you.

Even a DSLR for photos is annoying, would rather have the smallest APSC or M43 mirrorless option that I can at least sort of fit in my pocket. 

Have you considered a C500 MK2 

6k, Internal ND, Great lowlight performance, great latitude and good dynamic range, internal RAW and 10 bit capability. 

Pretty well designed package that works great for building up or building down, good battery life. 

To me IQ/usability wise it would be the C500 MK2 or the RED Monstro. In that price range they are the top performers. With the Monstro you have to deal with 8k but you have tons of compression options. You're getting better dynamic range and color depth over the C500. Only downside is no internal ND's, probably more expensive media (redmags), and power consumption is higher(though not terrible). 

I see some mentions of the S1H. I think it's a great bang for your buck camera. Great battery life, great sensor. They sell used now for incredibly cheap.

Downsides are the HDMI out latency is terrible, slow rolling shutter, no internal 12 bit/RAW, and color isn't the greatest compared to higher end cameras. Again you can get great images out of it and for a hobby camera it would excel. If you are looking for a more high end experience I just don't think that would be it. In terms of value it is incredible though. 

I might also suggest an ARRI Alexa XT, but that might be too far into the too heavy spectrum. It's quite a beast. 

The Pocket 4k has good dynamic range. Above 12 stops when using davinci highlight recovery. 

You can mount a small Sony NPF on top the camera and get good battery life pretty easily. Variable ND's are very easy, you can get a magnetic one for quick removal. Variable ND's aren't great for skin tones but he's shooting landscapes. M43 lenses are tiny and cheap, but if he wants he could just get EF mount or something to future proof. 

If you aren't making a lot of money off your cameras it makes little sense to spend $4000+ on it. 

The Pocket 6k Pro is a good compromise though. You can get them for under $2000 used. Battery life is better and the built in screen is really nice. 

Honestly when I am not on set I like to have the smallest camera possible. The FX30 has been great for me. I want it to feel like there is no camera at all. 

On narrative film productions that is when I prefer a cinema body with all the bells and whistles. Carrying anything substantial around when I am doing solo or non paid stuff is a pain in the ass. 

Honestly the FX30 would be a good choice. The image looks great, especially for landscapes. Lens options are cheap and tiny. Good battery life too. The weight of the camera feels like you are carrying nothing. 

They could have just used much smaller spherical lenses and done the look in post like Fincher does. At the end of the day DP's/Directors almost always sacrifice convenience and time for a certain look that the audience won't really care about. 

The Pocket 4k has good dynamic range. Above 12 stops when using davinci highlight recovery. 

You can mount a small Sony NPF on top the camera and get good battery life pretty easily. Variable ND's are very easy, you can get a magnetic one for quick removal. Variable ND's aren't great for skin tones but he's shooting landscapes. M43 lenses are tiny and cheap, but if he wants he could just get EF mount or something to future proof. 

If you aren't making a lot of money off your cameras it makes little sense to spend $4000+ on it. 

The Pocket 6k Pro is a good compromise though. You can get them for under $2000 used. Battery life is better and the built in screen is really nice. 

Honestly when I am not on set I like to have the smallest camera possible. The FX30 has been great for me. I want it to feel like there is no camera at all. 

On narrative film productions that is when I prefer a cinema body with all the bells and whistles. Carrying anything substantial around when I am doing solo or non paid stuff is a pain in the ass. 

Honestly the FX30 would be a good choice. The image looks great, especially for landscapes. Lens options are cheap and tiny. Good battery life too. The weight of the camera feels like you are carrying nothing. 

The Pocket 4k has good dynamic range. Above 12 stops when using davinci highlight recovery. 

You can mount a small Sony NPF on top the camera and get good battery life pretty easily. Variable ND's are very easy, you can get a magnetic one for quick removal. Variable ND's aren't great for skin tones but he's shooting landscapes. M43 lenses are tiny and cheap, but if he wants he could just get EF mount or something to future proof. 

If you aren't making a lot of money off your cameras it makes little sense to spend $4000+ on it. 

The Pocket 6k Pro is a good compromise though. You can get them for under $2000 used. Battery life is better and the built in screen is really nice. 

Honestly when I am not on set I like to have the smallest camera possible. The FX30 has been great for me. I want it to feel like there is no camera at all. 

On narrative film productions that is when I prefer a cinema body with all the bells and whistles. Carrying anything substantial around when I am doing solo or non paid stuff is a pain in the ass. 

Honestly the FX30 would be a good choice. The image looks great, especially for landscapes. Lens options are cheap and tiny. Good battery life too. The weight of the camera feels like you are carrying nothing. 

I think the choice for the FX3 was the second native ISO of 12,800. That is two stops more than the Sony Venice's native ISO. The RED Raptor may be pretty usable at 6400 iso but the FX3 is still a stop above that. 

The less light you need the quicker you get it done. I have done projects using almost all natural lighting and it is so much quicker in almost everyway. 

I once worked at a production house that produced TV movies for American TV. There was a guy there whose job was to go through the scripts and change things to make it cheaper. Replace expensive aspects of the story with cheaper things that had the same story progression, change the locations of two or more scenes to be the same location, etc. Pretty effective in lowering the budgets. 

Well my opinion is that RED rushed their products to the Market. If you look at the image from an Alexa Classic, which came out around 2011 same time as the Scarlet, it's image aside from resolution is pretty much identical to the more recent Alexa LF. If you compare the RED Scarlet to the most recent RED you can't say the same thing.

 Red has continually put completely different sensors in next gen cameras since the start. The image pipeline from RED has also changed. The older RED cameras are known for being pretty dang accurate in Daylight but not so much tungsten. It improved with the 6K epic dragon sensor. I really think they have nailed it with the Komodo. I compared all three cameras Epic Dragon, Komodo and the Alexa Classic. The Komodo was pretty much identical, the Drgaon looked quite a bit different.

I mean that was part of the appeal of REDRAW, you can get any look you want. It was meant to be something you had to fiddle with in post. The ARRI look has been known to be life like, what you see is what you get. Can't say the same for RED, at least in the past. Cameras in general are much more color accurate now though. I was really shocked how easily the Sigma FP matched to the Alexa. The gap is closing in on ARRI.

That said older RED cameras definitely have an appeal. The name still stands high in film circles and there are a lot of advantages to a camera designed for cinema use. It pisses me off incredibly that RED has their RAW patent, but you can't get around that 16 bit REDraw is a joy to work with.

Second image has a lot more detail each time but that certainly could be the lens. The GH5 resolves a lot more detail though as its 5k downsampled to 4K or HD, over just straight up HD. 

I am still a fan of HD as unless its a side by side it looks detailed enough. Though the GH5 was great with having no moire.