IronFilm

JazzBox, how did you manage to get your hands on an early pre-production copy?? :-o

Obviously the best option would be an A7s, I'd seriously suggest stretching to that if you can. 

Otherwise, go for a Sony A5100 (I got mine for a mere US$310 like new from Amazon some months back. Go for the A6000 though instead if overheating could be a serious concern you wish to avoid) plus a focal reducer (another hundred bucks) plus a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 (which would be a few hundred dollars second hand). Won't be as good as an A7s of course, but is the next best thing on a budget!
 
A5100 is the A6000 but with XAVCs added in as a bonus, and at a cheaper price too!
http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/

And the A6000 is the D5200, but with a mirrorless mount and more features. Which allows you to double the light with use of a focal reducer!
http://www.eoshd.com/2013/02/nikon-d5200-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/
 

JazzBox, how did you manage to get your hands on an early pre-production copy?? :-o

JazzBox, how did you manage to get your hands on an early pre-production copy?? :-o

This would be a great present to my 10 yrld neice... Actually she would prob laugh at me and return it for  a Panasonic fz1000 and a Mac....

You can put all kinds of glass on an NX1 with adapters.

you kinda did it too jfr, and tons of people here love the nx1. I'd rather we get off topic than nasty

Here is one more a mini movie shot with it.
 

Here is a new video out shot with the JVC looks darn good to me.
Other then better low light shooting i do not see the Sony as any better in any other way,  Both the JVC and NX1 record 4K, And the JVC gives you pro audio, Video streaming and a lot more. I like the JVC for a camera you can go shoot with that has everything built in ready shoot, I have had no problems shooting with my NX1 i have had since December i have well over 100 hours on it the image quality is sharper then the Sony and when you need auto focus the NX1 is much better, and i have no problem with Dynamic Range. And he HD slomo is quite good to at 60 and you have 120 as well.
 
And here is the guy that shot all that talking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW_U93HJbAo 

​That's not bad at all! I'll put it forward. 
Lots of opinions and suggestions - very interesting how there are many differences but i've noticed a big push for a major camera body in the league of an FS7 from most. 
My own business doesn't own a "Big A Cam", we normally rent when it's needed and we do just fine. An FS7 for example is £130+VAT per day, good value for a days shoot. (although plans are in place to get a Big A Cam soon).
My own opinion is simply not to cannibalise his budget for investing in a huge item, and use the money more sensibly. Get some lenses for corporate work (as suggested by some) and boost the vintage set for more creative purposes. Make more money and THEN invest in the Big A Cam, especially with cams like the URSA Mini on the horizon. 
What I've learnt from running my own business is that efficiency is key to being successful. If your Mac starts playing cheeky buggers, things get bad quickly and deadlines are missed. If you don't have bare essentials on hand for quick bread and butter jobs, you lose money. If you don't have decent storage cases, gear gets wrecked and repairs are costly. 
Another way of looking at it is if he buys something like the FS7+Mac+lenses, then hires more lights if needed and uses some profits to purchase the lights he needs. He can make money off the rental fee for the FS7 when not in use, undercuts rental houses. Sells his other camera bodies and unused equipment to get the A7S as B-cam for current gimbal, slider etc. That's another nice solution.
Now my head hurts......I should really get him to sign up to the forum and do this for himself! I like helping out though!
 
 
 

FS7 is a more professional form factor for serious use. Being shoulder mount lends well to a mobile shooting style, making a gimbal less necessary. 
The Sigma 18-35mm Art Lense is a very sharp piece of glass. So sharp it  can replace a set of primes. This saves both time and money.
Miller Compass - the quality, strenght and smoothness of Miller is well known. It was in fact Miller who invented the fluid head. Their compass series can handle a wide range of cameras from as light as 4.4 lbs to around 20 lbs. 
This setup is a serious pro kit on a budget.

I would buy the FS7, Sigma 18-35 Art lense, Miller Compass tripod.

Calculate the predicted rental charges on 3 years of FS7 or C300 Mark II shooting then deduct it from the predicted depreciation value of the cameras in that same time period. I predict the C300 II would lose $6000, the FS7 $4000.
If the rental costs exceed that in 3 years then it makes more sense to buy them.
Not to mention, buying allows them to be used for your own personal creative work!
Lenses hold their value well.
A7S a good choice too. But in his situation I'd probably get the FS7, a Mac Pro, a 4K display & spend the rest on Canon lenses and LED lights.

Remember you said this when the new model comes out.

​Yes, but global shutter and 60p add quite a bit. Also paired with a monitor like the SmallHD 502, that setup is tiny.

Caveat: I don't own either.
However, I've had to match many cameras before.
Trick is to first nail your white balance with a proper grey card (do this religiously, in the full light that your subject's faces will be reflecting) and THEN shoot a colour card (in the same place your grey card was). The LX100, from what I've seen, looks pretty good. Shoot it with settings as close to the final look as you can, and shoot the BMPCC in either RAW if you have the time or ProRes if you don't. You won't go wrong either way, since the LX100 will be "driving" the look as it will be more limited in it's ability to adapt in post. As long as you find a setting in the LX100 that looks close to what you intend to end up with, you'll be great, since the BMPCC can really stretch to match it. However, the LX100 can be made to adapt pretty well to the look you want to begin with. Try playing with the photo settings, and then fine-tune contrast, saturation, etc. to get to where you want.
The pros do test shots with both cameras under a variety of settings, then match in post and see what works the best for them. This is highly recommended for anybody trying to get two cameras of different ilk to work together.
And don't forget to control your lighting as much as possible. Help the camera out rather than forcing it to deal with high-contrast situations it may not be suitable for.

Andrew, I know you have wrote on the forum that you had send back the NX500 already because its 4k crop is horrible, but seeing that you have just done such a thorough review on the EOS M3 which you have found very lacking video-wise, wouldn't it be fair for the NX500 to have just as thorough a review, given that its video and stills chops are above the M3's at roughly the same price?  You just left a lot of folks expecting your 2nd installment on the NX500, me included, and at least for me I didn't realize that you weren't going to until I read your posts on the forum, after opening your main page daily to see if you had finished your review and wondering why it took you so long, so many folks don't yet know that you won't have a thorough review on it.  Please Andrew, give the NX500 the benefit of the doubt: it surely has a better 1080p than all other APS-C stills cameras out there, doesn't it?

​Sorry, I meant the Samsung NX500 - costs the SAME, and has all the features of the EOS M3, except the soft video, and it has a 28 MP sensor and a 4K option. There is a transcode...

I just took another look at the video. The GH2 actually still looks quite good in this test, and the colors are pleasing to my eye as well. 

I completely disagree that the D5300 has a rubbish image. I've seen some amazingly filmic stuff shot on the crop sensor Nikons, and very much appreciate their strong color science, great low light capability, sharp 1080p, and surprisingly good dynamic range/highlight roll off. I would never own one, but that's because I can't put my FD or Minolta glass on it, not because of its video quality.

Very encouraged the EOS M III's improved performance. It's not up to GH2 level--not by a long shot--but it's decent, and features that Canon color science everyone raves about (and I just like for certain projects). My enjoyment of the original hinged mostly on it being a great pocket cam with the 22mm f/2 (an exquisitely good pancake lens) and that it's a Canon sensor I could finally use my glass on. Once we see what can be done with this puppy on proper projects, I'd definitely consider picking one up...or an LX100. :D

Cheers!

Better to spend an extra 800 than waste 800 completely!

I'd go for the LX100 over the M3 in a heartbeat.    That said, the M3 looks better than the 70D and 7D so at least there's progress on the Canon front. 

​I bought mine used. But I heard they will declare low customs value, eBay style.