solovetski

The a1 has by and large flown under the radar so its diminishing price on the used market does make it an interesting proposition a bit down the road to do a poor man's 10% of the price / 90% of the image version of the Burano with one.
Need a name though.
Base it on the Venice* obviously, so it has to be something with lots of canals.
But a bit more rough and ready to reflect the price.
And a bit more northern for the dourness and attitude.
Right, the Birmingham it is then.

 
* Fun fact is that Birmingham is one of the gazillion places referred to as the Venice of the North but in actual fact it should be that Venice is called the Birmingham of the South as Birmingham actually has more miles of canals. All built by order of The Peaky Fucking Blinders presumably.

As you can see here with this Sony rep and his Zeiss CZ.2 lens, shaving those precious millimetres off the camera has revolutionised the way he shoots.
And that is before you even get to the main raison d'être of a 1.4kg weight saving vs VENICE 2.
That 1.4kg is crucial and a game changer when you have 35kg of tripod head, rails, cages, matte box, monitors, EVF and lens attached.
He must really feel the difference in his back all day long.

Here is one of our most adventurous and creative shooters, Nino.
As you can see the size of the BURRITO is once again a total game changer here as it allows the lovely new Cooke to move back a few cm making it necessary to break your wrist to reach it.
The added advantage here is that your hand forms a lens hood, reducing that nasty flare from the single coating!
And as we can see, the ENG style rig high up on the body definitely isn't unbalanced with a high centre of gravity from all the shit mounted on the top handle!

Finally we have the more minimal rig here.
The 2.8kg BURRITO clearly needs the 68 rods under it and a tripod head the size of a bus. Otherwise the whole thing would collapse, giving an unprofessional aura to the shoot.
I think that is an absolute brick of a battery on the back which is all part of the absolute game changing form factor as a cinema camera.
Have you EVER seen a rig like this before!?
REVOLUTIONARY!!!
Yours for only $25,000!
*Or just get a Sony a1 with same sensor from cash converters

SONY BURRITO

Great read and recap! Thank you! @kye I feel, like my LX15 is almost everything i need in the image quality department but that is for my personal work of course. Or maybe beyond? I got inspired by this great but slippery camera to shoot personal stuff again. The slippery tiny body forces me to shoot, frame, move and conceptionalize in the moment with care and dedication. The odds of ergonomics become a challenge and by practice actually great. Realizing its advantages, there are many of them, this camera has indeed become my favorite personal camera. It equals my love I had for my old time favorite, the legendary G6.
Image quality is plenty. That 8bit codec in 4k is the same as in the GX85 and punches far above its weight. Grain, texture, color palette are beautiful. I shoot in vivid for gradeabilty in post. I got this advice from reading Harrison Kraft giving advice on his LX. Ooc colours are okay in this profile, in other profiles really gruesome what made me diguise this camera right after purchase. Thanks gosh I was wrong about it.
Another thanks to kye for elaborating on pushing the color in the color profile or at least not berobbing the camera of it, due to the logic that the processing is before codec compression.
So, filming in vivid and taming the peak of highlights down to around 768 in post and the image becomes already much better. Working knee and toe, saturation, coolness and warmth and I am already close to what i like. That is in the classy 8bit 4k, no 10bit in sight or needed, cheek in tongue.:) The HD 50p 25mbps codec on the other hand is pretty gruesome. On a side note, the tiny 10mbps codec for 25p 720p on the GX85 is surpisingly strong, which sounds admittedly silly. But that's what I had to find out on accident when I filmed an important family celebration in 720p glory. Of course I was silently screaming "Shyte, I fxxxked up big time this time!" when I wanted to drool over some of my cinema verité awesomness. 😊 But surprise, it held up pretty good regarding achievable hues and color work. Just another example how good even now super affordable or cheap 8bit 709 cameras have become. A Sony A6000 with the 50mbit codec update is an interesting prospect in that regard and would be the ultimate 1080p S35 8bit 420 somewhat pocketable hybrid cinema camera. Lotta categories of greatest cameras. So every fan finds their altars. 😊
Lens on the LX is beautiful. Such a magnificient rendering in all focus lengths. Btw, as many of you know, in 4k the LX15 has only 2/3 inch sensor estate. Still trumping a G6 in lowlight, despite the m43 sensor of the G6, which is four times the area size. I call the LX my personal 16mm cinema pocket cam. I don't mind the missing S16 and be happy with close enough to 16mm powerhouse.:)
Here is a repost of Harrison Krafts video. Thanks to this guy I started doing personal work again.
 

Another great bit of advice I got in my early days was to go study paintings.  Particularly Vermeer's and Caravaggio's.  
As an idiot that didn't understand what made a nice image work and a bad one fail, just analyzing and deconstructing the craft of painting helped a ton.  Absolutely brand-dead simple ideas like having your subject brighter than the background (contrast) confounded me as a newbie, but once I started seeing the techniques like that in practice I couldn't unsee it, and I got better.
Which is why I'm pretty camera agnostic these days.  There's so many fundamental techniques that need to be in place and exercised to create awesome images.  Grabbing the most expensive camera/lens doesn't accomplish that for you, it only assists.

I've learned a lot about film-making over the years, most of it came through discovery and experimentation, but the best film-making advice I ever got was this...  
See how much contrast and saturation you can add to your images
This probably sounds ridiculous to you, and I can understand why it would, but hear me out.  Not only is it deceptively simple, but it's hugely powerful, and will push you to develop lots of really important skills.
The advice came from a professional colourist on some colour grading forums after I'd asked about colour grading, and as I make happy holiday travel videos it seemed to be a logical but completely obvious piece of advice, but it stuck with me over the years.  The reason I say "over the years" is that the statement is deceptively simple and took me on a journey over many many years.  When I first tried it I failed miserably.  It's harder than it looks...  a lot harder.
The first thing it taught me was that I didn't know WTF I was doing with colour grading, and especially, colour management.
Here's a fun experiment - take a clip you've shot that looks awful and make it B&W.  It will get better.  Depending on how badly it was shot, potentially a lot better.
It took me years to work out colour management and how to deal with the cameras I have that aren't supported by any colour management profiles and where I had to do things myself.  I'm still on a learning curve with this, but I finally feel like I'm able to add as much contrast and saturation as I like without the images making me want to kill myself.  I recently learned how the colour profiles work within colour management pipelines and was surprised at how rudimentary they are - I'm now working on building my own.
The second thing it taught me was that all cameras are shit when you don't absolutely nail their sweet-spot, and sometimes that sweet-spot isn't large enough to go outside under virtually any conditions, and that sometimes that sweet spot doesn't actually exist in the real-world.
Here's another fun and scarily familiar experiment - take a shot from any camera and make it B&W.  It makes it way better doesn't it?  Actually, sometimes it's astonishing.  Here's a shot from one of the worst cameras I have ever used:

We're really only now just starting to get sub-$1000 cameras where you don't have to be super-gentle in pushing the image around without risking it turning to poop.  (Well, with a few notable exceptions anyway...  *cough* OG BMPCC *cough*).  Did you know that cinematographers do latitude tests of cinema cameras when they're released so they know how to expose it to get the best results?  These are cameras with the most amount of latitude available, frequently giving half-a-dozen stops of highlights and shadows, and they do tests to work out if they should bump up or push down the exposure by half a stop or more, because it matters.
Increasing the contrast and saturation shows all the problems with the compression artefacts, bit-depth, ISO noise, NR and sharpening, etc etc.  Really cranking these up is ruthless on all but the best cameras that money can buy.
Sure, these things are obvious and not newsworthy, but now the fun begins....
The third thing it taught me was to actually see images - not just looking at them but really seeing them.
I could look at an image from a movie or TV show and see that it looked good (or great), and I could definitely see that my images were a long way from either of those things, but I couldn't see why.  The act of adding contrast and saturation, to the point of breaking my images, forced me to pay attention to what was wrong and why it looked wrong.  Then I'd look at professional images and look at what they had.  Every so often you realise your images have THAT awful thing and the pro ones don't, and even less often you realise what they have instead.
I still feel like I'm at the beginning of my journey, but one thing I've noticed is that I'm seeing more in the images I look at.  I used to see only a few "orange and teal" looks (IIRC they were "blue-ish" "cyan-ish" and "green-ish" shadows) and now I see dozens or hundreds of variations.  I'm starting to contemplate why a film might have different hues from shot-to-shot, and I know enough to know that they could have matched them if they wanted to, so there's a deeper reason.
I'm noticing things in real-life too.  I am regularly surprised now by noticing what hues are present in the part of a sunset where the sky fades from magenta-orange to yellow and through an assortment of aqua-greens before getting to the blue shades.
The fourth thing it taught me was what high-end images actually look like.
This is something that I have spoken about before on these forums.  People make a video and talk about what is cinematic and my impression is completely and utter bewilderment - the images look NOTHING like the images that are actually shown in cinemas.  I wonder how people can watch the same stuff I'm watching and yet be so utterly blind.
The fifth thing it taught me was how to actually shoot.
Considering that all cameras have a very narrow sweet spot, you can't just wave the damned thing around and expect to fix it in post, you need to know what the subject of the shot is.  You need to know where to put them in the frame, where to put them in the dynamic range of the camera, how to move the camera, etc.  If you decide that you're going to film a violinist in a low-bitrate 8-bit codec with a flat log profile, and then expose for the sky behind them even though they're standing in shadow, and expect to be able to adjust for the fact they're lit by a 2-storey building with a bright-yellow facade, well... you're going to have a bad time.  Hypothetically, of course.  Cough cough.
The sixth thing it taught me is what knobs and buttons to push to get the results I want.
Good luck getting a good looking image if you don't know specifically why some images look good and others don't.  Even then, this still takes a long time to gradually build up a working knowledge of what the various techniques look like across a variety of situations.  I'm at the beginning of this journey.  On the colourist forums every year or so, someone will make a post that describes some combination of tools being used in some colour space that you've never heard of, and the seasoned pros with decades of experience all chime in with thank-you comments and various other reflections on how they would never have thought of doing that.  I spent 3 days analysing a one-sentence post once.  These are the sorts of things that professional colourists have worked out and are often part of their secret-sauce.
Examples.
I recently got organised, and I now have a project that contains a bunch of sample images of my own from various cameras, a bunch of sample images from various TV and movies that I've grabbed over the years, and all the template grades I have developed.  I have a set of nodes for each camera to convert them nicely to Davinci Wide Gamma, then a set of default nodes that I use to grade each image, and then a set of nodes that are applied to the whole project and convert to rec709.
Here's my first attempt at grading those images using the above grades I've developed.  (This contains NO LUTs either)

The creative brief for the grade was to push the contrast and saturation to give a "punchy" look, but without it looking over-the-top.  They're not graded to match, but they are graded to be context-specific, for example the images from Japan are cooler because it was very cold and the images from India were colourful but the pollution gave the sun a yellow/brown-tint, etc.
Would I push real projects this far?  Probably not, but the point is that I can push things this far (which is pretty far) without the images breaking or starting to look worse-for-wear.  This means that I can choose how heavy a look to apply - rather than being limited through lack of ability to get the look I want.
For reference, here are a couple of samples of the sample images I've collected for comparison.
Hollywood / Blockbuster style images:

More natural but still high-end images:

Perhaps the thing that strikes me most is (surprise surprise) the amount of contrast and saturation - it's nothing like the beige haze that passes for "cinematic" on YT these days.  
So, is that the limits of pushing things?  No!
Travel images and perhaps some of the most colourful - appropriate considering the emotions and excitement of adventures in exotic and far-off lands:

I can just imagine the creative brief for the images on the second half of the bottom row...  "Africa is a colourful place - make the images as colourful as the location!".


In closing, I will leave you with this.  I searched YT for "cinematic film" and took a few screen grabs.  Some of these are from the most lush and colourful places on earth, but..... Behold the beige dullness.  I can just imagine the creative brief for this one too: "make me wonder if you even converted it from log...."

 

I can see Nolans point of view, I personally had to disconnect the internet in my work office because its too distracting, even told my boss to get me one of those dumb phones since we were required to take phone calls.
Only three times a day did I connect to the internet, when I came to work, after lunch and 30 mins before the workday was over, and all of that, was to check and reply to emails as those are primary source of tasks including updating the progress on various jobs online. 
I really hate working on computers in general for the simple fact its easier to draw concepts on paper than it is to make one in a computer says it all.
It even went to the point where if I had no idea what to design or create, I had to walk out the office, go sit somewhere, and I probably sit there for 2 -3 hours just drawing madly in my notes until the boss had enough of that and I quit 6 months later for burn-out. 
The world is so connected today its honestly mind blowing when people complain they are "lonely" in life, well I wonder why? Most people sit in their little echo-chambers feeding narcissism and other toxic attitudes, the days of social gatherings ended and I am so thankful to have actually lived in an era before social media just so that I personally know what it is like having to meet friends and go out do something, we used to go photography trips together a lot, but no one wants to do it, why? Oh they got smartphones now, it take pictures, they are bored of it.
Thats another problem, ease of access, makes things boring, there no struggle, there no challenge to anything thats easy, why work hard when you can work easy? Right? What took a team of 3 people to make a magazine design, is now pushed onto suckers like me who have deadlines in 1 week. 
The thing how Nolan was missing out is true to many extent, people making groups in social media and chatting away, but in my 14 years of experience, I never seen these groups ever do anything productive, its always toxicity brewing eventually. But if you were to meet out for a drink, thats rarely the case mostly because everyones too drunk to care. 
 
I miss the analogue world, and while I do appreciate the modern wonders, too many side effects.

Peter Doyle (colourist on Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc) speaks about how closely we can reproduce the colours in the real world.  Spoiler: no.  (linked to the relevant timestamp)
 

Yeah I had the same concern watching YT reviews before I bought an R7, I think it's mainly the users though, not the camera. 
I have both the R7 and the Lumix S1 plus som GH5s. Definitely a bit lower DR on the Canon compared to the S1, but not a big deal overall. Watching where you put your exposure and doing a good rolloff curve in post is much more important than actual numbers in my opinion when it comes to DR though. Seems pretty close to the GH5s IMO

I never thought about it that way but I think you're right......  Sony delivers enormously expensive firmware updates, they just come with a free camera!

At least…
I think they should have either launched the GH6 sooner than they did, or waited even longer and gave it PDAF.
For me, it was a moment like when Fuji released the XH1 only to pop out the XT3 6 months later.
GH6 and S5ii…
I know we can’t always have everything we want, when we want it and the GH6 ticks a lot of boxes for many but the lack of phase and the need to shoot what is it, 2000 iso to get the most DR requiring a lot of ND? 
I went off it at that point and tried an OM-1 which I loved…except not so much video.
M4/3 died for me then. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with it, just that APSC and FF offers me more of what I personally want.
I would like to see the format developed and who knows. I never say never, just what works.

The wait for the GH6 was years.
I suspect any GH7 might not be perhaps as long but I wouldn’t imagine anything sooner than 2025?
Just speculating…

Was this color graded? Yes, heavily (and no LUTs) like all of my videos, to create the "illusion of reality."
Think National Geographic video of meerkats - no film-like color tints or distortions; rather see the habitat and watch the activities of its inhabitants as if you were there. But with humans, unlike with animals and birds, one cannot hide or wear a disguise or shoot with an enormous lens.
Some good stills too:

I don't think so. It looks like zoom lens for Canon XL1 camcorder. It has 3X 1/3 inch CCD sensors and "an exclusive XL lens-mount system". You can put EF lenses on that camera (with special adapter) but You cannot put this lens on C100 camera.

Just to share a little personal story - the S5 II really restored my fun in shooting little personal video's. I shoot almost daily for work and I always swore by large cinema camera's. I'm one of those crazy people that thinks an Ursa mini is the perfect body shape. (part of this is copied from a Reddit comment I made earlier but I thought it would be interesting to share here).
For the longest time I was really torn up between having a kit that is able to capture what I consider to be professional quality and something that I actually would WANT to bring with me on a walk or a day out. I carried a little Pocket 4k (GREAT camera) with me, but by the time you rig that out to shoot comfortably with a monitor/filter holder/NDs/mic, you’re still carrying something that takes up most of your bag and it just sucked the fun out of it for me. On a job, no problem, for home video’s it just wasn’t worth it for me. I was really looking for something I could just pull out of a bag pack and shoot.
So then I bought a Canon R6, and honestly that camera’s video quality was such a massive step back from even the Pocket 4k that it just wasn’t worth it for me (esp. dynamic range but also the out of camera colors). Also just awful awful video assist tools on that camera.
The S5 II kinda hits all the marks for me: very small, good enough dynamic range, good colors, good monitoring tools and good AF (better than the R6 in my opinion) on my EF lenses. That last thing (combined with it being newer, so longer firmware support) pushed me over the edge when compared to the S1H by the way. I don’t mind pulling manual focus at all, but if I’m shooting on a 3 inch screen, the AF is really nice to have. Never felt like I could really trust it with the R6 but the S5 II has really really good autofocus.

Here's somethign small I shot with it:
 

I knew it.
I went to Perth WA for an entire week once and it was just too quiet.
You could pull up for instance and park right outside a restaurant on a Friday evening without a problem.
There was a big movie being filmed around the same time elsewhere and they needed a lot of extras, so it makes sense now why the artificial city of Perth was so quiet.
My brother lives there now. Says he does but now I realise that is a lie. My own family lie to me. What is this world coming to?
Must dash, I have Aslan and Mr Tumnus coming round for breakfast shortly.
Conspiracy theorists 🤣

Ah!  When I read "S16 sensor size pocket love" and I saw the lovely organic colour grade I took the word "pocket" to mean the OG BMPCC...  You did very well!
The more I learn about colour grading (and other post-production image manipulations), the more I realise that the potential of these cameras is absolutely huge, but sadly, un-utilised to the point where many cameras have never been seen even remotely close to their potential.
The typical level of knowledge from solo-operators of cameras/cinematography vs colour grading is equivalent to a high-school teacher vs a hunter-gatherer.  I am working on the latter for myself, trying to even-up this balance as much as I can.
As you're aware I developed a powergrade to match iPhone with GX85 and it works as a template I can just drop onto each shot.  Unfortunately I am now changing workflows in Resolve and the new one breaks one of the nodes, so it looks like I will have to manually re-construct that node, which I have been putting off.
I've also been reviewing the excellent YT channel of Cullen Kelly, a rare example of a professional colourist who also puts knowledge onto YouTube, and have been adapting my thinking with some of the ideas he's shared.  One area of particular interest is his thoughts on film emulation.  To (over)simplify his philosophy, he suggests that film creates a desirable look and character that we may want to emulate, but it was also subject to a great number of limitations that were not desirable at the time and are likely not desirable now (unless you are attempting to get a historically accurate look) and so we should study film in order to understand and emulate the things that are desirable while moving past the limitations that came with real film.
I recommend this Q&A (and his whole channel) if this is of interest:
As I gradually understand and adopt various things from his content I anticipate I will further develop my own power grades.  
I'm curious to see how you're grading your LX15 footage, if you're willing to share.

Wow, that is small!  I'd love something that small..  it's a pity that the stabilisation doesn't work in 4K or high-frame-rates.
Having a 36-108mm equivalent lens is a great focal range, and similar to many of the all-in-one S16 zooms back in the day.  I love the combination of the GX85 + 14mm f2.5 + 4K mode crop as it makes a FOV equivalent to a 31mm lens.  I used to be quite "over" the 28mm focal length, preferring 35mm, but I must admit I did find the 31mm FOV to be very useful when out and about, and having the extra reach is perfect for general purpose outdoor work.  I want to upgrade to the 12-32mm kit lens, which gives the GX85 a 26-70mm FOV in 4K mode (and 52-140 with the 2x digital zoom for extra reach).

After my close friend decided to upgrade to the Lumix S5 II X he gave me an incredible deal on his Lumix S5 that I couldn't pass up. As a result I just finished packing up my trusty GH5, 12-35mm mk II, 35-100mm mk I, 25mm, and 14mm to ship off to MPB. For the first time in nearly a decade I will no longer have any M43 cameras or lenses. I think my time in the system has finally come to an (unplanned) end. 😞
I'm feeling some kind of way about it right now, honestly. I still believe in the promise of M43, I just don't know that Panasonic will ever realize it or if the market will ever be there to make it viable. It's a damn shame, honestly. I'll be happy with my full frame cameras, and having three of the same bodies will make things a bit easier for me, but I still can't help but wish there was a professional level compact M43 camera that could fit my needs and fit in with my two S5 bodies. I just don't see it happening. 
I had planned to always have at least one M43 camera in my kit. Eventually I was going to upgrade to the GH6 in a couple years, once they were even more affordable on the used market, but I couldn't pass on another S5 with kit lens for $750, so plans changed. It just didn't make sense to keep the GH5 and follow through with my original plans anymore, as these three S5 bodies will get me through until I can snag some S5 II bodies in a couple years when people upgrade to the latest camera.
The GH5 was a total game changer for me and my work. I'm sad to see it go, because in many ways it did things that I never thought a camera would be able to do. It really cannot be overstated how much the IBIS changed things for people like me. I no longer had to set up a cumbersome shoulder rig, I could simply hold it and get steady shots even as I rushed around a wrestling ring and dodged people flying all over the place! Life goes on though, I guess.
 

It should be pointed out that it is not mandatory to have a short shutter speed for photos.
Let's review two examples.
The first is this guy, who is obviously playing at an extreme level here, with huge energy and drive:

It is an incredible photo, there's no doubt.  But does it convey the sense that he's pushing himself to the limit?  The more I look at it the more it looks like it could be a still life, maybe he was on wires and it's a setup.  In a sense, it implies motion but doesn't actually express any.
Contrast that feeling to this image:

There is no denying this.  Not only is it a great photo, and not only does it show that world-class people are pushing themselves to the limit (the three guys on the right definitely are!) but it shows the results of that effort.
Now scroll back up to the first image - what is the energy level of the first image now?
I would suggest that the obsession with short shutter speeds is part of the same obsession with getting "sharp" images, which is driving lenses to be clinical, sensors to be enormous, megapixels to be endless, computers to be behemoths, and images to be soul-less.
To be a bit practical, there are likely limits to how much blur you want in a scene, and it's relative to the amount of motion involved, which often varies quite significantly, even from moment to moment in a lot of sports.
Some more examples of varying amounts of blur..
This one is a great image, but if it was important who the defender was then it's too blurry.  If not, then maybe not..

Sometimes it's not important to get anything completely sharp..  images without feeling are of limited value, and I find that motion is full of feeling.  Here's one that is full of emotion (especially if you knew the subjects):

Also worth mentioning is that you don't always have to have the subject still and the background blurred, it can be the other way around, but it changes the subject of the image somewhat.

and with video you're taking lots and lots of photos so the creativity is endless...

Remember - don't let the technical aspects blind you to the point of capturing things in the first place.

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course.

But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post.

But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography.

That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range.

But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse.

Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue.

Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech.

There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look.

I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.


 

Absolutely.  Once you've managed to go through all the effort of hiring a team of people and hiring a good amount of lighting equipment etc, you're not going to quibble about the cost if hiring a dedicated cinema camera, that would be silly.
Of course YT is dedicated to new shiny things, that's to be expected.
The reason I have some frustration here is that this attitude of OLD = CRAP is unfortunately very common on this forum, where (I would hope) no-one has a financial incentive to promote new cameras.
I'm talking both subtly as well as directly, not only are the older cameras given less attention, but I have been explicitly told by forum members to stop talking about the GH5, even though it was relevant to whatever brand new camera body we were discussing and I was presenting a balanced view of pros as well as cons.  It's one thing to criticise a camera, but to say that it's no longer relevant or even welcome in a discussion due to its age, that's a whole other level.
To tie this together, I absolutely agree that no-one is using a BGH1 or GH5S as an A/B/C camera on a major production, but the fact that they're used at all by anyone in that world should give pause to those who think that they're no longer fit for use in low budget / no budget / amateur settings.
I mean, I thought the entire premise of EOSHD was to use and make the most of affordable consumer cameras for video.

....and in todays episode of "the camera YT echo-chamber doesn't know shit about the real world", here's a real-world and very high-end studio shooting VFX background plates with a gazillion BGH1 units, or arrays of GH5S paired with 12-35mm f2.8 zooms.
Their website indicates they've worked on Joker, Stranger Things, Mission Impossible, and dozens of other high-end productions.
The thumbnail appears to show 17 BGH1 units:
One shot from the Stranger Things rig detailed on their website shows "our standard nine camera array" is 9 x GH5S units - 5 at the back (with two facing sideways) and 3 on the front:

To all those who suggest that the size/weight advantage from MFT is gone, their page says "The rig was still able to fly as luggage and efficiently attach to a rental car, all while being street legal."  How much does a 24-70mm F2.8 weigh again? If you can't remember then the short answer is more than double the MFT equivalent.  In the video he talks about how each BGH1 + lens is about 1lb, and keeping the weight down allows them to rig the car up in such a way that keeps them from needing increased permitting and things like escort cars (which for 360 cameras appear in the shot).
So, the GH5S (2018) and BGH1 (2020 - 3 years old), which aren't FF, don't shoot RAW, don't have IBIS, and have been completely forgotten by the entire camera YT echo-chamber, are being actively used on some of the biggest and most VFX heavy films being made in Hollywood.
They also just casually mention in the video (11:35 if you don't believe me) they've been involved in over 2000 productions, and that "these cameras are able to match perfectly with all your A-cameras".

Yes, but have they shot weddings?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/make-believers/mystery-romance-short-the-orange-of-daydreams
 
From the director of MAKE-BELIEVERS:
 
Any helpful hand is welcome, thanks for watching! :- )

The cart: