One could have graded it differently, obviously, as is a personal wont. But, having watched some of "Vinyl" and some much admired feature films shot by Lubezki, I find the modern cameras, in relevance to the final output, to be getting very close to a painter's brush. This was shot on a $1,000 camera and recorded externally using ProRes and, if one goes off specs only, it's sufficient enough for a theatrical release (provided there are no fast moving subjects).
And I guess I like the "high contrast" a lot more than the flat washed-out look that our friends from the UK prefer.
PS. I thought "Wilfred", shot on several DSLR's over the course of its production, was good enough as a TV show too, though its cameras were inferior on specs visavis a higher end camera of the day. Nowadays, any difference is negligible.
and then todays interview got rescheduled so wont be able to compare to the FS5 (so if anyone does shoot with these to before I would love to know what you used setting wise to make them match. Im going to try cinegamma 4).