You're putting a different spin on my words than what I meant.
I said "harsh" and "sharp" not as in "makes them look too old" or "it highlights their wrinkles", and I didn't mean to say the Helios was more appropriate because it hid the way they look. The thing is, there was something in the way a 50mm shot with the Helios looked (in contrast to a 50mm shot with a micro 4/3 lens) that just *felt* much more right for that particular documentary. Me saying "harsh" and "sharp" was just putting that difference between the lenses into words.
Yes, the images from the Helios were softer, and yes, it softened their faces and skin, but somehow they also felt attentive, while the micro 4/3 images felt more clinical in their "vision". It's not something that needs to be put into words, we just knew the Helios was better.
The whole point of my post was to say that I think that it doesn't matter if a lens is soft, or has low contrast, or has weird vignetting, weird color casts, or weird flares, as long as it feels right for the particular scene you shoot with it.
"Look bad" is a bit subjective. If there's little to no motion in your scene, you can go to 1/200 or more for 24fps and it won't make a noticeable difference (like a landscape in a day with no wind, for example). But I, personally, don't like the way things move when I shoot above 1/60 for 24fps - to me, it looks "hyperactive", the motion becomes *too* clear, too sharp. But then again, it works for some things, like for scenes with very fast motion and lots of movement - precisely because it makes them more hectic, more hyperactive.
But this is just my opinion, and it's all in the eye of the beholder. If you can, try it out and see how you feel about what the shutter speed does to your image.
Agree with Guy on regards to the Canon 5D. RAW is way too intense for most uses and most budgets - disk space is not *that* cheap.
You also say "The less lighting you have, means you need to shoot at a lower shutter speed but no lower than 1/48th at 24 fps or 1/60th at 30 fps.". I think this is just wrong.
No lower than 1/48th for 24fps? Why not? In scenes with little to no movement, I go to 1/40th or even 1/25th all the time to get that extra exposure in the shadows, and if I'm careful even I won't be able to tell which shots were taken at 1/25th and which were at 1/50th. Sure, you have to pick the scenes in which you can do it, but it's very possible and very useful when you reach your maximum usable ISO.
And besides, shooting faster than 1/60th for 24fps, most of the times, looks like rubbish (for most things, at least to my taste), so I don't even get what you meant with that whole sentence.
Oh, and in reply to the OP, have you considered the Panasonic G7? I own one, and love it to death. Sure, it lacks a bunch of important features, but it's ridiculously cheap for how good it is.
Not long ago, me and and some colleagues were shooting a short documentary about a day care for old people. Out of ignorance, we shot some scenes with a micro 4/3 lens and a M42 Helios lens. Even shooting at similar apertures and focal lengths, the difference was night and day, and for that particular case, the Helios lens had a much, much more appropriate look, because it was not so harsh (i.e., sharp). Obviously, that meant the micro 4/3 footage was not usable, at least if it was to be intercut with the Helios footage.
It taught us to test before we shoot, and to make sure we choose the right lens.
You're not alone.
Thanks a lot for the reply! That's what I was thinking, just wanted to make sure to avoid making a dumb mistake.