FHDcrew

Basically, yes.
To get from DWG back to 709, the common approaches to use are:
CST to 709/2.4 CST from DWG to Arri then use the Arri LogC-709 LUT CST from DWG to Arri then use a Film Look LUT (PFE) like 2383 or 2393 etc As far as I understand it, only the new HDR colour wheels are meant to be "colour space aware" but I've found that the normal LGG wheel panel also works great, much better than I remember them working in years past.  This is particularly useful if you have a BM Colour Panel (I have the Micro one) which can be used with either the HDR or normal LGG wheels but is more suited to the normal LGG wheels than the HDR ones.

I've found that the more I learn about colour grading the better my cameras become.
I don't know if it's Resolve or just my experience but I've had a bit of a breakthrough in the last couple of years by using CSTs to change the cameras colour space to Davinci's Wide colour space, grading in that colour space, and then doing a CST / CST+LUT to get back to 709.  I use this workflow even if the camera shoots in 709.
This seems to give a process where WB changes and exposure changes work as intended instead of ruining the images, and you end up with great and consistent contrast and saturation, even between cameras of different manufacturers.
I always struggled to get good colour from the GH5, and found the colour from the newer FF models to be much nicer, but Resolve now basically fixes this, it really is incredible.

My general rule, as someone that likes to spend as little money as possible, is to run the camera into the ground and only upgrade when it stops working or it no longer can do what you need it to do. I'm still running a GH5 and don't see a scenario where I "upgrade" for at least another year. There just isn't a need to. The image I get from it is more than enough, and the stabilization is still great. Those are my primary needs.
I think Nikon is a fine system to invest in, and I think they are one of the most forward thinking companies when it comes to video right now. And with lenses you'll still get a decent amount back if you decide to sell them. 
Just my two cents!

Apparently the ghost of DPREVIEW is lurking...

You're in a good spot in that F mount glass is so damn cheap at the moment.

I have the z5 and and have been using my F mount glass on it as well as slowly buying Z mount glass over the past year or so.
If I were you I'd poke around and find a Z mount 24-70mm f/4. It's a pretty awesome lens and can be found around $400.
If that's too pricey, but the F mount 24-85mm f/3.4-4.5 VR, it's a very similar lens but can be found for like $200.
The other F mount lens that is always going with my at the moment is the latest nikon 70-300mm AF-P. Super sharp throughout the range and works so well on the Z cameras.
I'd grab or look into those two lenses, though there are truly some other great F mount lenses out there like the 16-35mm f/4, the 70-200mm f/4, and all the telephoto stuff. You can also get a v1 or v2 70-200 2.8 for really cheap too.
Going EF or E mount is another viable option for sure, but I'd probably target the Z 24-70 to start. If you buy it used, you won't really lose any money if you go to sell later and get out of the system and will most likely be able to bundle it with your camera.

I don't think so.
Most of the photography blog were just endlessly repeating "more resolution cameras, more resolution lenses, more resolution computers" but using different words over and over again.  The odd post of "15 things to do with a fisheye lens" disguised this myopia, but it was the water that the entire camera internet swam in, and still mostly is.
Now cameras have huge resolution and social-media can sustain the endless resolution-navel-gazing that people seem to want.  I think there's room for one or two blogs that discuss non-resolution-based-topics, but that assumes that the writers actually have enough knowledge of non-resolution-based-topics to keep a blog alive.  That's drastically fewer people than there were camera blogs, thus the "market correction" we're currently experiencing.

100% agree with you here. And it’s like my mind has been split. A good chunk has consistently been in the mindset of stop worrying about gear. Just keep progressing and learning as you go. And I see the results; what I make now in all aspects is better than what I made 2 years ago. When I was shooting with the exact same gear.  I really see the impact learning various skills such as lighting and color grading have really amped up my visuals.  But yes I still struggle with the very tendency I know is awful and tell people never to get into. The tendency to obsess over gear, having those “if only” moments. 
 
I spoke to a friend who shoots on a Nikon D850. Told him about how I wanted to upgrade from my Z6. He asked why, I said because I don’t like how long it takes to use the Atomos Ninja V / Ninja Star each time I setup.He asked how long it takes to setup, I said maybe a minute at the longest  
His reply: “Isn’t it funny how just 60 seconds can seem so long?”
 
Anyways, thanks for the therapy session @kye.  I need to not worry about upgrading my camera because I genuinely don’t need to do so. 

I totally understand why people are trying to buy their way to better videos, it's a much easier experience to research cameras and discuss (dream) about what cool new things you could buy, and it's brutal to admit you don't know much about a subject and start studying it (forcing your brain to work hard) and to do that for months and months.
Unfortunately, that's what it takes to actually become a better film-maker.  I posted over in the "Once in a lifetime shoot" thread about the Tokyo episode of Parts Unknown that won a bunch of awards, but long story short, the cinematography didn't include any shots that were amazing in a grandiose kind of way, but it had a huge variety of solid shots from creative angles the editing and sound design were absolutely spectacular - end result..  awards and nominations, and a great viewing experience that is far from the pedestrian nature of most professional content, let alone us mere mortals.
The innovative nature of that episode alone is enough to make you crawl into the foetal position under the blankets, but the news is actually tremendous...  most of the content in the world is so bland by comparison that to create solid professional-level edits you don't have to get to knowing 80% of what the greats know - a solid 20% will do just fine.

There’s your answer. 
Work with what you have whilst keeping a future eye on that Z8 which I think may turn out to be something a bit special.
But right now, be smart.

Don't buy anything unless the lack of it gets mentioned by a client, or drives you nuts in the edit.
Instead, focus on colour grading, editing, sound design, storytelling, etc etc.  Some of the biggest videos that get the most views or likes etc are shot exclusively iPhones, lots of working pros are shooting on 5+ year old cine/ENG style cameras, and some of histories most critically acclaimed TV and movies were shot in SD on a single prime or zoom lens - if you can't make good enough videos with your Z6 and a Ninja Star and a few AF or MF lenses, then the problem isn't the camera.

Great post with lots of practical / useful info!
A few thoughts..
I would argue that no-one can help imparting their style to anything they shoot, simply because shooting involves so many decisions that it's practically inevitable that everyone will make them differently, at least in subtle ways.
I can tell you, being someone who has never shot for a client, my "style" would likely involve not keeping the client happy, and based on some of the amateurish coverage I've seen online I think lots of working "pros" are also falling hugely short of hitting it out of the park, so if you're really delivering what the client wants then that's a big statement about your style right there 🙂 
How close do you think the low-light performance of modern FF cameras are to letting you use a single lens (maybe a 24-70/2.8) for all (sensible) lighting conditions?
When I combined my GH5 with the 17.5mm f0.95 my testing showed that the combo saw better in low-light than I did, so I was happy with that.  Obviously the lens wasn't the sharpest wide open and this was to my tolerance of noise levels etc, but I have pretty good night vision and I figure if I can film everything I can see then that's success.
There's a critical distinction between "feeling like they were there" and "feeling jealous they weren't there" and I think that the former suggests using a 35mm of 50mm lens and the latter suggests using the full range of focal lengths to make everything seem as awesome as possible.
In terms of a lens giving the "feeling like I was there" feeling it's a subtle thing, but definitely there, and it's something that you can learn to see if you're interested in it.  I know you're a working pro and are getting what you want so there's no need to explore this if you're not curious.
For those that are curious to understand how lens choice can give this kind of feeling, there are some fun exercises I can recommend.  The best one is this:
Get a camera that can shoot in three focal lengths, a phone with three cameras is a great choice.  If you're not using your phone I recommend either 16/35/80mm or 24/50/100+mm combinations. Film a very quick video, maybe of 8 shots, and film those same 8 shots with each lens, making sure to match the composition between the lenses.  This means getting closer with the wide and being much further away with the tele.
I suggest, to make this fun, making a video of an outing to a cafe with a friend who will let you film them.  Either shoot each shot in quick succession on the same outing, or make a shotlist and go for coffee three times! Edit the 3 versions together with the same exact timing and matching the framing (crop in post to fine-tune it). Watch the three back-to-back and see how they make you feel about the person in the video, and about the experience in general.  If you don't feel the difference, watch them on loop for a few cycles each day and see if you gradually start to feel differently about them. I haven't done the above directly, but as I tend to shoot videos using prime lenses, and often shoot little personal projects with a single prime, I've had lots of experience of making videos with one lens (anywhere from 15mm to 80mm FOV) and seeing the differences.
One of the things that made me graduate from the "what new camera should I buy to make my videos better" mindset was really understanding what requirements a good edit had and where I was falling short, and that was in getting sufficient variety of shots.  Not only do the variety of shots allow for keeping the visual interest up by having lots of shots ready to cut up into faster montages, and not only did more shots mean that the ones that made it to the final edit were more visually interesting, but it also gave me more shots to solve problems in editing.  I've heard editors talk about editing as mostly solving problems, and I think that's true.
To this end, I realised that just shooting more shots was a higher priority than the absolute quality of the shots I was getting.  Of course, you can't shoot a million shots that all look like crap, but if you're making videos that are more b-roll driven (like you and I are) rather than dialogue driven, then the shots don't need to all look spectacular, just solid and with good composition and with the technical elements done properly.
There's an episode of Parts Unknown in Tokyo that won or got nominated for a bunch of awards (American Cinema Editors Awards: Best Edited Non-Scripted Series - won, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Cinematography for a Nonfiction Program - nominated, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Picture Editing for a Nonfiction Program - nominated, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Nonfiction or Reality Program (Single or Multi-Camera) - nominated).
It's free to watch on YT, even if you don't watch the whole thing (although I recommend it highly highly highly), just watch the intro to give a taste of the content of the episode...
I pulled it into Resolve and cut it up on the timeline (as I showed in this thread) and the Tokyo episode was spectacular for a few reasons...
Over 40 minutes it contained about 2500 clips, which is a cut per 1.04 seconds on average.  But, that's not the full story, there are shots in there that are 9s and there are shots in there that are 4 frames.  Lots of them!  The edit sort of ebbs and flows, creating and building and releasing tension, etc. The shots aren't special.  I mean, it's professional cinematography, but just skip around randomly in the YT video and see if these are breathtaking shots or if they're just solid normal shots that you and I could take.  It's the latter. This is professional TV but using techniques that are rarely seen outside of trendy puke-inducing YT travel influencers.  It includes speed-ramps, extreme slow-motion, crazy wide angle follow shots, overhead shots, under-shots looking straight up at people, etc.   This is professional TV edited to the music to the extent it's more musically-driven in sections than most music videos are.   It's shot in 1080p, on limited DR cameras (some shots in this or other episodes have the skies clipped or other issues) and often uses slow-mo footage at normal speed, which means it has very short SS video - and it still won an award for cinematography..... In short, it's a film-making masterclass for anyone who wants to edit fast, to music, for shot-on-location unscripted materials.
Here's the timeline of it:

V1 and A1/A2 are the actual show cut up at the edit points, the V1 on top shows the different sections of the show (different topics), the bottom three audio tracks are (top to bottom) voiceover, on-scene audio, and music.
I use this view to understand the macro structure of the edit, which reveals how much of the show is essentially a music video, how much voice-over there is, etc.  
Here's a little bit zoomed right in to show the ebb and flow of the edit:

For scale, the selected clip is 3s16f and the ones after the playhead are 7-9 frames long.  What is clear from this section is that there's an interview section with music in the background and a 'normal' editing pace, then the music comes up and we get very fast editing of the band, then it goes back to the interview again.
I have cut up 10 episodes of Parts Unknown, as well as a few other episodes of food shows like Chefs Table (as these are all heavily shot-on-location unscripted b-roll and music-heavy shows much closer to what I film than narrative or dialogue driven shows) and my overall lesson that I took away was these:
The camera basically doesn't matter except in how fast it is to shoot with and how little it gets in the way The camera settings basically don't matter except if they make the footage literally unusable Get lots of shots and get as much variety and coverage as you can Learn to edit Learn to do sound design Everyone on YT who isn't also a working pro is either a featherweight or an outright joke who is just wasting everyones time  To this end on my last trip I moved from my GH5 to the GX85 and using my phone as a second camera with a wide angle.
Yeah, that's one of the most important aspects.  The biggest critic of how you shoot is the person that needs to edit it together.  I'm still getting to the edit and seeing gaps and all manner of issues in what I shot and trying to make mental notes for next time, but I'm also remembering the edit process when I'm out shooting so I'm learning and improving.
TBH most folks around here talk about cameras like they exist in a little bubble and it's clear that most are trying to compensate for their lack of colour grading skills, editing skills, or sound design skills.

I see a lot of these types of posts and really think only you can answer those questions, each of us has our own shooting style, also each of our responses will come from a position of bias; either conscious (deliberately trying to sway you to adopt their chosen ecosystem) or subconscious (their shooting style matches their gear so well that they really want you to see just how great your experience will be with their setup). 
So with that long winded caveat out of the way, I personally am now a 100% Canon shooter so that you will know that everything that comes after that statement will probably have a bit of Canon bias in it because yes, my current Canon setup (C70, R5, R7) fixes every problem I had with every previous setup and happens to fit my particular requirements perfectly.
Option 1 - Based on my limited knowledge of Nikon, I would take the same route I took when I was shooting with the Panasonic S5....there's simply no way I would invest in more glass, with the S5 I went with an EF adapter which let me switch to Canon far cheaper than if I had gone all in on L mount glass.
Option 2 - If you only have a single lens right now, now is the perfect time to decide once and for all what ecosystem you are moving to, if you truly believe you will change ecosystems in the near future that will determine what adapter and lens ecosystem you move to. If you are going Canon then obviously EF or Sony then E mount. The one problem with the EF route is that you will be buying older EF glass and if you move to Canon then you will be stuck with all of that EF glass; not a bad situation to be in since EF glass is way cheaper than RF and with EF glass and an RF mount camera you have access to the excellent Viltrox vND filter, but its just something to keep in mind.  I personally went with this option and all I had to do was buy the RF to EF adapter to start using my EF glass on my R bodies.
Option 3 - Once again only you know your financial situation, how badly you want a new ecosystem, etc. As a Canon shooter though, there is no way I could recommend the R6 due to its continued overheating problems. The R7 or R6II is the far better choice right now. The S5 II would be a hard one since it has literally everything but the kitchen sink; but you would either be buying into what I consider the dead L mount "alliance" or once again need to stick with non native EF adapters and EF glass you also wouldn't have access to the vND EF to RF adapter which is somewhat game changing for event shooters like myself.  Sony I know nothing about but if you are into photography at all then the A7IV is probably a better choice than the FX30.

Nikon Z6, Tamron 45mm 1.8, Internal 8-bit Neutral PP with i-Dynamic set to High, 1080p internal (not 4k or oversampled FHD)

Shot on a Nikon Z6, Tamron 45m 1.8, NLOG 10 bit oversampled 1080P.  BROLL primarily shot in Nikon FLAT.

Let’s share our work guys!  I’ll start. Here is an interview I shot and lit the other day, featuring a congresswoman from Indians!  One camera was a Nikon z6 recording into an Atomos ninja v.  With a Tamron 45mm 1.8.  The other was actually the ancient, cheap Canon 7D fitted with a Canon 85mm 1.2 shot at f/2.5!

Will share once I done the edit
 
Just use HDR-PQ which will have more DR than cinestyle profile, like this guy shot in HDR to get the most of DR.
 

Looks like a new camera will be announced soon. Nikonrumors claims it’s the Z8…but I’ve heard that’s pretty expensive still. Nikon need To come out with an answer for the Sony a7iv, canon r6 ii, etc.  

Looks like a new camera will be announced soon. Nikonrumors claims it’s the Z8…but I’ve heard that’s pretty expensive still. Nikon need To come out with an answer for the Sony a7iv, canon r6 ii, etc.  

None of you can appreciate this kind of dynamic range on a normal display. It is going to look horrible.
HDR1000 minimum requirement.
And I would not but much stock in Cinema5D's testing methodology for dynamic range.
The whole dynamic range technique is total bullshit in the real world... underexposing by 5 stops rather than lighting properly or appreciating good natural light. Nobody actually shoots a film this way. You would have a completely unusably dark frame on the monitor.
The Canon sensor isn't anything special. Really it isn't. The rolling shutter in 6K is about the same as an old GH4. The resolution is lower than 8K or what RED offers. The sensor size is smaller than the current state of the art larger format cameras like the 4K 10bit GFX 100. The dynamic range is no better than the sensor in a $2000 mirrorless camera. The S1H is $12,000 cheaper and good enough for a top-end Netflix show, in terms of the image. The Fuji GFX 100 has still a very powerful processor and 10bit codec in a much smaller body with great battery life. So forgive me if I don't jump up and down in excitement and rush out to spend $16k on the C500 II for creative reasons.

i've done it a bunch. not going to pretend these are amazing or anything, but it's absolutely justifiable to light boring shit this way

I think these are really good too, but i think they would look even better if you had the darker side of the face towards the camera. You’re looking for natural contrast in light which is what it’s all about, but if you put the person from still 1 in the same position as the lady from still 2 with the same background and lighting condition as you had before, that would be something i would prefer myself. The same with still 2, if you just put her in the right side of the frame, and rotate her 180 degrees.

Whenever I'm doing interviews I check to see what direction the light is going in and therefor what directions the camera might point. Then I find a background I like and frame that up with the camera at the height of the interviewee's head and at around 70-135mm full frame equivalent. Then I place the person within the frame, moving them forward or back, left and right until I get the composition I want. If it's an off-centre framing then I'll get them to angle their hips and shoulders towards the other side of the frame slightly.
And I always try to shoot people standing as I think it looks better - they're less likely to slump or slouch than when sitting. This works well until I get someone who hops and jumps about and gradually crawls closer to the camera.
One thing I've learned is that there's no perfect interview location. But good enough is good enough!
Available light, S5II, EF 70-200 f4.

you guys are getting a monitor pic from me since i’m not grading the last project i dp’d.

 
i think lighting wise this looks nice, but framing wise i would set up the camera a bit higher, and then angle it down slightly to make this man look a bit better. I personally wouldnt center frame interviews, but i don’t necessarily mind it either. Ideally i also wouldn’t show anything beneath the logo of the football team to get a proper medium close up. I think most of your work looks good, and this is personal preference, i think you should consider stopping down more. I think you would benefit from having to shoot at f/5.6 on that big of a sensor and getting to see your background a bit more.

Nikon Z6, Tamron 45mm 1.8, 8-bit 4k 24p, Neutral PP with iDynamic set to High

Let’s share our work guys!  I’ll start. Here is an interview I shot and lit the other day, featuring a congresswoman from Indians!  One camera was a Nikon z6 recording into an Atomos ninja v.  With a Tamron 45mm 1.8.  The other was actually the ancient, cheap Canon 7D fitted with a Canon 85mm 1.2 shot at f/2.5!