I also think his approach is compelling, and I also reject the idea of the invisible observer. But panoptic? no. Not ready to give up on that yet. The romantic in me would like to believe there's a place for a higher level of truth in cinema, even if it's lost in all the shuffle right now.
Kudos to Alexander for his dedication to a compelling idea.
I do wonder though whether this is a documentary, or something else. The "characters" are coached extensively, and I question how much reality there could be in the final product. Unfortunately the "fly on the wall" saying, which has never been a good one, is used far more often as a tool to reject ethical conventions or expectations as being impossible--and therefore null and void--than it is used to explain an ideal. Its relevance doesn't hinge on whether you can be as unnoticed as a fly. It is meant to explain non-interference, removing your own influence as much as humanly possible.
As a filmmaker he didn't do anything wrong (and appears to be doing a lot quite well), and it would appear that pretty much anything goes in documentaries these days, so he's clear there too. But I do wonder at what point something is no longer documentary. Or if it even matters to anyone anymore.
Writing as a still photographer... ACR is the worst of all RAW converters by a wide margin. Particularly with Canon. I'd go this route if I were feeling lazy or the client didn't matter.
By the way, didn't the runaway popularity of the C300 kinda prove it's not about the specs? I bought a C300 for just about everything else, though good image quality was a must.
Not sure what the hoopla is over the camera though. Seems like you're trading skin rendition for a little dynamic range, though we can't even be sure of that if the C300 wasn't C-Log (this was a case for C-Log but otherwise WDR is theoretically better if it's not a matter of extreme contrast).