nigelbb

Who said anything about letting the camera control shutter speed? Variable NDs introduce other undesirable effects like colour casts that are potentially more problematic & noticeable than any reduction in motion blur. BTW You do realise that the sensor size has nothing whatsoever to do with exposure, aperture, shutter speed or ISO? So whether it's M43 or FF is irrelevant.

An awful lot of nonsense is talked about shutter speed & motion cadence which while true with regard to film simply does not apply with regard to digital video. You can live without NDs by raising shutter speed & nobody will notice the difference.

The Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L zoom lens has a great reputation which I think is mainly due to the beauty of a full frame image at F/2.8 between 100mm & 200mm.

There are however significant changes in other aspects of these cameras e.g. the RX100 V introduced super duper AF & 24fps high speed burst mode stills while the RX100 VI introduces a super duper zoom lens plus Bluetooth plus HLG.

ProRes is designed to be very light on CPU & does a great job at the expense of larger files sizes but that first system is a 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 & will not be up to the task of 4K video even with a graphics card upgrade. The second system is a 2010/2012 Mac Pro 5,1 (or a 2009 4,1 that has had the firmware upgraded) & the hex core W3680 3.33GHz CPU is still a decent performer as CPU performance hasn't improved all that much over the last 10 years. That should handle 4K ProRes fine with an upgraded video card. However you need to look at the price carefully. It does draw a lot of power but is beautifully made & will chug through the work without missing a beat. If you are not committed to Mac then a similarly specified HP Z400 Windows workstation with a hex core W3680 3.33GHz CPU can be bought for a lot less than half the price of a Mac Pro 5,1.

As tools of the trade go a C200 isn't expensive compared to the car or van you will drive around in. Relatively it's cheap. I bought a C300 in May 2012 for £12K which is almost double the price of a C200 today.

Neither of these cameras shoots 4K video.

What is gained is the extra zoom from 200-600mm so that I only need one camera. I shoot more photographs than video nowadays & often wind up using the FZ1000 more because of the option of extra zoom from 200-400mm. At 1095g the RX10M3 is quite a bit heavier than the RX10M2 (813g) but even today I have to very deliberately go out with my pair of cameras but if I were to get an RX100 too then I would carry that on far more occasions.

@BTM_Pix Thank you very much for the interesting insights from someone who actually owns & uses the RX100 & LX15. I am glad to hear that it's possible to get a thread mount RX100 as inability to fit a filter was putting me off. Do you have a link to the teleconverter? I have seen some very cheap & nasty ones that are frankly a waste of money as just using digital zoom will produce a better image but if you have found a good one I would be interested. I am currently mostly using a Sony RX10 II which is 24mm at the wide end so am used to it & find it fine. I also have a Panasonic FZ1000 which is great at the long end with a 25-400mm FF equivalent for photographs but again it crops the sensor for video so for 4K video the lens is a 37 - 592mm FF equivalent. I am contemplating exchanging the two cameras for an RX10 III plus a tiny pocket camera & at present the RX100 is the top candidate.

I'm happy to be contradicted so please chip in & tell us the model number of the Panasonic that will match the OP's requirements. I have researched this quite extensively myself as I am looking for a very small camera that can be pocketed & thus far the Sony RX100 is the one that ticks most boxes for me (& satisfies the OP's specifications).

The LX10 is crippled in other ways as regards video though as a sensor crop is used so in 1080p the lens is a 30-90mm FF equivalent & in 4K is 36-108mm FF equivalent so badly lacking at the wide end. You have still not come up with a single camera model that answers the OP's requirements. On the other hand my suggestion of the Sony RX100 matches all requirements. The OP doesn't tell us what they want the camera for so while a 5 minute clip limit may be an issue for talking head interviews it certainly isn't for creative narrative cinematography. Why propose cameras that do not match the OP's requirements? The GH4 weighs 560gm without a lens & in comparison to the small bridge cameras is not by any stretch "compact camera but really compact" The LX100 does not have a tiltable screen.

Are you serious? The OP specified "a compact camera but really compact" & the FZ300 weighs over 600gm versus the 300gm of the RX100 so it's literally double the weight so not really compact at all. Worst of all the FZ300 has a 1/2.3 inch sensor versus the 1" sensor in the RX100 so the video quality is vastly inferior.

A Sony RX100 V matches all your requirements & is really, really compact.

All those complaining that this is a step back from the RX100 V should realise that as previously the new model is an alternative not a replacement for older models. You can still buy the RX100 plus the II III IV & V. They do the same with the RX10 so you can still buy the original plus the II III & IV.

You need to understand the history. Originally Olympus & Kodak introduced the Four Thirds system which was for DSLRs with a mirror box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system. Subsequently Olympus & Panasonic introduced the Micro Four Thirds system using the same size sensor but for mirrorless cameras. It was called "Micro" because the cameras & lenses were significantly smaller than those from the older Four Thirds system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system.

VR will always be the next big thing (like 3D has been for the past 60 years) HDR will become the norm matching the display technology.

12 minutes is about the same length of time as filming using 35mm cassette on a "proper" movie. It's only wedding videographers who obsess about the video limit. 12 minutes is a long time & ML does an auto restart if necessary so you lose less than a second. I have owned both 5D2s & 5D3s. They feel almost identical in your hands. The build quality of both is exceptional. They will take a lot of punishment. I wouldn't worry too much about reselling a 5D2 in a few years. I doubt that the used price will drop much lower. Shutter count can't be relied on as a measure of how much use the camera has has as if it's been used mostly for video it may well have a very low shutter count.

You can adjust the WB every which way so you have no idea whether the images you are seeing are stock WB or where it's been skewed between blue, amber, magenta & green. See White Balance Correction on page 68 of the 5D2 manual.

The OP is on a tight budget & a used D750 is twice the price of a used 5D2. The 5D2 also gives the option of Magic Lantern RAW.

Crap! The 5D2 is a great stills camera & is also capable of shooting absolutely amazing video with Magic Lantern RAW but also very decent cinematic video without any hacking. Just because there are newer more expensive cameras with even better low light performance & higher resolution that doesn't suddenly make the 5D2 a rubbish camera. Here in the UK you can buy a used 5D2 from Wex for £500 including a 12 month warranty. That's amazing value for the quality of the camera & the images it is capable of. This video made over nine years ago before the 5D2 was shipping is what started the whole DSLR revolution (unfortunately for some bizarre reason there are no 1080p HD versions that I could find online any more) If resolution & dynamic range is what you want then what about this shot with a 5D2 with Magic Lantern RAW?

The budget is perfectly reasonable. An adapter & decent manual lenses are cheap. I shot video on the 5D2 & 5D3 for years & never used a monitor. The 5D2 was groundbreaking & still produces lovely images. OK it's not razor sharp 4K but that is part of the beauty of the image. The colours are great especially flesh tones. I was blown away when I first saw these clips posted by SmugMug founder Don MacAskill in November 2008 & immediately bought a 5D2 & sold my Canon XH A1 HDV camcorders These videos still look amazing https://cmac.smugmug.com/Photography/Paris-and-San-Franciso-videos/i-NmGTgrh

A used 5DII is a great buy almost half the price of a D750. I can see why the OP wants to buy a 5DII. It's a great camera & feels just right in your hands. You get all the FF shallow DoF & bokeh loveliness plus the superlative Canon cloud science & look. You have access to RAW with ML if that's important & it's a superb stills camera.

Just for clarification. The 5DIII is not eight years old but just a tad over five. It shipped in March 2012. I took delivery of two of the first in the UK on 17th March 2012. The body only one was £2999 & the one with 24-105mm F/4L was £3689. Used a body only 5DIII is still worth £1000-1500. I think that it's amazing that the Magic Lantern guys are still squeezing new features out of a five year old camera that is still a decent pro tool. It doesn't shoot 4K but the colours & the full frame look are still gorgeous.

So have I & criticism in the review surprised me as it was one of the features that was immediately noticeable when I first used the RX10M2. Compared to any other hybrid camera that I have used the Continuous AF was much more like a proper camcorder like the AX100 (which I also own).

The lower resolution slightly soft image is one of the cornerstones of the Canon look. It's very flattering for close-ups