His key advice on LOG2/3 picture profiles: Don't tinker with them. There is a ton of info about picture profiles, shooting LOG etc etc on Sony cameras. The only source of information that I found consistently reliable and informative is the page form a guy called Alister Chapman. And I'd probably rely on the one provided by the camera manufacturer. Particularly for filming Nature you really only need 2 LUTs to bring the color space 'back to normal' (ie Rec709): one for Slog2, one for Slog3. But then that seems to be the game of the day. and people having found their way of skinning a cat: One being selling custom picture profiles, the other selling a ton of - to a large extend - dodgy and crappy looking LUTs. If it comes to LOG footage you will find a lot of crap info on the net. I have seen some footage shot with picture profile of sony cameras directly in video with some parameters altered for knee and slope that to me looks good most of times and requires no post processing

If your final result is similar or same of using a standard ITU/REC709 profile with some more contrast probably you have just wasted time I guess it is a matter of also understanding how much post processing workflow you want to endure and you like your final footage to look. Maybe for ambient light at depth this is an option but for normal depth and macro footage with artificial light not so much of an option. Generally working in a normal range may loose one Ev of dynamic range so you would be working at 11 Ev, I guess it really depends what that extra EV can do for you.

If you push the ISO to 1600 or 3200 you then need a ND filter to get back to a range where the lens does not experience diffraction. My main concern with this approach on micro four third cameras is the fact that the lenses work best up to f/8 in some cases f/11 The Sony Slog is 1600 to 3200 depending on camera. If I recall correctly the black magic range works at around 800 ASA. It really depends on the base ISO you can work with.

Best cinelike d lut davinci resolve