Digital camera's do not have inherent looks? LOL! So, they all look the same? I'm confused. Why do people choose to shoot with an Alexa over a RED then? It's seems you're just here to troll, since you're not elaborating on your ridiculous statements. Have you ever seen behind the scenes footage and then the actual footage for a music video let's say? Or a family video at the beach vs. a movie scene at the same beach? That goes to show you that the location isn't the primary variable.
It's hilarious how worked up people are. These days "cinematic" means "looks like a movie". For most of these "internet filmmakers" they'd probably just put widescreen letterbox on their video and call it a day, right? I find that you have to break down digital video of most cameras to get a somewhat "cinematic" image (adding noise as an example). The closest thing to me digitally is an Arri or strangely enough the Ursa Mini 4.6k. It really is dependent on many things, color science, frame rate, camera movement, lighting and sound is also huge. The guy has 37k subscribers. If you think you're opinion has value maybe you should start sharing it with people who you think need to hear it. Here you're just preaching to the choir, complaining about some millennial who's using his platform to share his opinion. You guys sound like bitter old men. Truthfully, cinema is in the eye of the beholder. There is science behind cinema, but cinema is art, not science.
I have the Voigtlander Nokton set for m4/3 (10.5mm, 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm), I think they produce a beautiful image. However, there is something to be said for showing up to a project with a camera that LOOKS like a "real" camera. People tend to take you more seriously.
I think there is a huge opportunity for Panasonic in the $4000-5000 range. This camera should probably fall in that price point imho. Especially in a world where the Ursa Mini Pro exists. Based on what I'ved seen, the image quality isn't any better than the GH5. Sony is overpriced, they will always be overpriced. As a GH5 owner, what am I gaining by spending and addition $5000+?? Not much. I have 4K 60p, I have ND filters (circular), I have Super35 (speedbooster) I have V-LOG, I have 400mbps internal, I have 180fps...
The footage looks just as good and anything I've seen from the EVA1 to this point. 400mbps ALL-I may be able to compete with ProRes.
Exactly! Sure it looks good, but not so much better that I'd give up my first born and refi my house to get it. Do you think Moonlight wouldn't have won Best Picture if it was shot on a GH4? They could have shot it on an iPhone. In film, sound is more important than picture quality. Everything else is also important (camera movement, framing, etc.) but the difference in picture quality between an iPhone... No, a handycam from 2001 and a Red Helium is not going to change the content. If Spielberg shot a great film on a iPhone in vertical orientation people would call him a genius. Anyway, my original comment was to say that this EVA1 footage doesn't look any better than GH5 footage to me and if you aren't going to the big screen the GH5 is probably your best choice.