Leaderboard

Yes, if one has the means to acquire the best camera, then maybe use the best --but look at the images posted by the OP, do any of them look like they'd be impossible to capture/create with modern/cheap gear? "400 Blows" especially. The more wonderful and advanced consumer gear gets, the sillier we all look [points finger at self] hanging out on-line talking about things rather than doing things.

Jonpais when the moderator starts to post sacarcasric comments about several forum members it sets the wrong tone. Are you sure this is the example you want to make? I really hope that this just reflects a bad day. And I hope that you soon feel better

Just looked at Martin Walgren's footage of his short Film Winters grip...this footage looks as good as anything I see from top cinema cameras...thought I'd just toss in my totally subjective little "review" of a properly filmed Gh5... my review also maybe has a place in this thread, as it seems it' easily as subjective, as the one Cinema5D did. I did not blow anything up to 400 percent, as I will not be using the camera in the way, cine5D seems to be intent on. The images I wanted to see were right in front of me and in normal aspect completely satisfied my needs...amazing stabilization...flawless functioning, in obviously freezing temperatures, and I hope the clip I watched was shot on Leica 12-69....just confirmed in the comment section....so my conclusion...if you want a stunning image that grades well...shoots well, under trying conditions and a system that's extremly robust, the GH5 is the right camera for you!....if you want to use a camera the way cine5D does....perhaps I'd recommend the Canon C700...it little bit more expensive!!!...but when you blow it up 400 percent, the C700 really come into it's own!!!

'Look' works as it captures any possible effect at all. The argument has been: does sensor size, by itself, create any specific visual effect or look, whatsoever, or not. Do lenses made for different formats have any special characteristics related to the intended capture format? One could argue size, however some full frame lenses are bigger than some medium format lenses. I had asked Brian Caldwell if he'd be making a medium format Speed Booster and he said no. There are now many very high quality full frame lenses and medium format lenses have no unique properties, so there was no point. A lens is defined by its optical transfer function, that's it. In this thread we learned that some medium format lenses can be found for very low cost. Combined with a focal reducer for full frame bodies that provides a cost effective way to get shallow depth of field, swirly bokeh, or other desired artistic looks. That's cool and useful info, thanks again @Mattias Burling! In summary, what we have been discussing is the notion that any format has any special and unique look or characteristic: 'full frame look' and 'medium format look' really mean a 'shallow depth of field look' or in some cases 'swirly bokeh' or other lens artifacts, which aren't specific to any sensor size or any lenses designed for a specific format.

35NAP 2-2 (mod) | Helios 44-2 F:2 (VariND) | Sony A6300 (SLog3 | ISO800)

This is a great post, especially for a Sunday... but seriously I am going through a similar thought process. I have bought, tested and returned/sold about a dozen cameras over the past year and a half. And the one thing I have learned is that no camera is perfect. all of the cameras at the $1000 or less price point are flawed in one way or another. They're all capable tools though, as many have proven over the years. However, it's easy to say that I can make my films with a t2i, or a GH2... of course you can... but what's the point? How will a t2i or a GH2 help you make your film? How will they hinder you? Movies are hard enough, practically impossible if you reside within the... "I have absolutely no fucking budget to make this movie but I am going to try anyway because I am a masochistic asshole" budget, so your tools must be tools... no more and no less. For me, there are specific features that I have come to rely on in a camera... focus peaking being one of them... but I don't need it. What features have you come to rely on... do you need them? The problem really is that the BMPCC is not that expensive of a camera and I'm unsure it would be wise to sell the camera to pay for one costume, for one short. In 3 to 6 months when that short is done and you are looking toward your next project... then what camera will you want... or need? With that being said... yeah fucking sell the BMPCC. Get a GH2, or a G7, or better yet get an AF100... I've seen them selling for around $500. Go bold and tell a cool story and when you're doing junkets at a festival tell them why you chose to make your short with a 5 year old camera... just make it sound cooler than I wanted money for a costume. Actually this would be a cool challenge for those who still have access to their t2i, or GH2, or D5xxx... make a 3 minute short, in a month, and post it in the shooting section... we'll vote on a winner, but to keep it fair, only the members with a hundred posts or more can vote so we don't have a bunch of people signing up to vote for their friend... the winner gets one of Reid's cameras... LOL.

Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take. Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later. Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story. But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting. In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness. Take from that what you will.

I cut a concert film once where the two main cameras were a 5d and a gh1. Liked the gh1 image more, but they were close enough IQ-wise that it didn't really matter. "Filmlook" really comes down to other things beside the sensor. I truly believe sensor preference is akin to choosing a particular film-stock. No more, no less. So...maybe you don't have the fastest and cleanest "film" for your movie, doesn't mean jack-squat that it would stop you from making a cinematic production.

Check out the test video of the Rapido Single Focus Solution, my setup is as follows: Camera: GH4 Taking Lens: Rokion 85mm T1.5 Cine Lens for CANON Anamorphic Lens: KOWA for Bell & Howell Anamorphic Clamp: Rapido V2 Clamp ISO setting: 1600 Shutter speed: 400 Aperture: T1.5 Video format: MOV, FHD Aspect ratio: 3.556:1 (1920:1080 with 2X anamorphic squeeze) The minimum focus is 1 meter. Different anamorphic lenses are used as focus targets, set between 1 meter and 2.5 meters from the camera. The video shows racking focusing from close focus to infinity. The aperture is kept wide open at T1.5. There is no sharpness drop comparing to the original Kowa & Rokinon combination, and there is no change of the original flare/bokeh character from the anamorphic lens. This is the main difference comparing to other Single Focus Solutions, like SLR Magics, FM Module, and Rectilux. More test videos will be uploaded soon. Youtube video is here: https://youtu.be/h96fqNsKpEI Vimeo video is here: https://vimeo.com/206798264 (better resolution) Music: Cloud by Ehrling, link: https://soundcloud.com/ehrling/ehrling-clouds

So, two years ago I bought a Samsung NX1. Then I sold it, so I could have some money in the bank when I moved in with my girlfriend. I still owned the GH1 I bought four years earlier. I convinced myself that I could get equally cinematic imagery out of either camera with good lighting and cinematography. Then I bought a GX7 months later, since it as cheap, we were doing okay financially, and it had microscopically better image quality. Then I sold both cameras and got a BMPCC. Last year we needed some extra cash to get us through a financial rough spot. I convinced myself that I could get just good imagery out of the T2i I bought. Then I get a Nikon D5200 because it had better low light performance and didn't seem to have the moire problems. Then I got the BMPCC camera again because the DSLRs just weren't good enough. I needed the dynamic range, Prores, 4:2:2 color space, etc. Then I watched a video by a filmmaker explaining why he hasn't, and still won't "upgrade" from his T3i. And his argument had little to do with his particular camera at all. It was the same old mantra of "story over equipment". Instead of spending $3K on an A7S, he could use that money into paying good actors, paying for a production designer, etc. And this is the first time, I think, that I've finally started to believe what I told myself repeatedly about gear not mattering. The idea that the color space and dynamic range of the BMPCC will give me a more cinematic image is the same foolish idea that "shallow depth of field = cinematic" when shallow DOF is just one effect you can use in a shot. But what about the framing, composition, lighting, movement (or lack of), color, focal lenght, production design, costume design? These are still the most superficial aspects of what makes something cinematic. The story, and more specific moments, the acting, direction, music, plus the cinematography, and actual EVOCATIVE IMAGERY itself, the kind that really sticks with you. Like this: I started thinking "If I sell my BMPCC kit, and my Nebula 4000, and bought a used GH1 or GH2, I would have at least a little money leftover for a short film I've been trying to get done for a while now. It requires a special costume that needs to be fabricated. And that costume is practically the whole movie. I haven't had the extra money to pay someone for their time and materials. And I'd probably still have money leftover after that for the rest of the film. The idea that I can only shoot great images with the BMPCC or a Red is as ridiculous as thinking shooting on film will allow you to create great images. The format/capture medium is at the bottom of the list of what makes a great image. It's hardly even relevant. I've seen terrible indie movies shot on Super 16, and what made them even worse was knowing the director and/or DP who made that choice probably thought they were a fucking artist for shooting on film, even though they couldn't create a single memorable image in their film. I have recently been hired to direct and DP an episode (and possibly more) or a web series. This is not the first time I have been asked to be a director and direct someone else's script, it's not the first time I've DP'd for someone else, but this is the first time I'm about to be paid actual money to do what I love. Previous episodes were directed and shot by another filmmaker with the BMCC and BMPC4K, so I was considering keeping my BMPCC to at least somewhat match. But...it doesn't really matter. The producer/writer doesn't give a shit what I shoot with, as long as it records moving images. He wouldn't even know the difference between the cameras--he's not technical, which is why he hires other people to direct and shoot. Now I'm kind of getting excited by the challenge of matching a GH2 to BM cameras. I want to put the specs and camera aside and focus on the direction, lighting, and imagery. I've always believed what I'm saying, but now I'm finally taking the truly important filmmaking shit to heart. And I'm not trying to convince everyone here to sell their stuff in favor of older, cheaper stuff. I'm just trying to explore what makes an image unforgettable, or "cinematic". Here's the video that actually explained this philosophy in both artistic and practical ways and inspired this wall of text: I've really come to love this youtube channel. His older videos are more about tips and gear, but his more recent stuff is all much more about creativity. It's inspiring me. Maye I just needed to hear all this in a British accent for me to take it seriously. TLDR: I'm selling my bmpcc and getting a GH2.

Adding to the post from @jcs: The FoV (or angle of view for photography/videography) relative to the sensor size and focal length is given by the following equations: Horizontal FOV = 2 * arctan( SensorWidth / EffectiveFocalLength) Vertical FOV = 2 * arctan( SensorHeight / EffectiveFocalLength) Here is what happens when you move the camera relative to an object (Changing the FoV only keeps the transversed magnification constant to make the perspective changes easier to spot) :

To bad. I saw Hateful Eight shot and projected on 70mm film last year. It was awesome.

Here is my first 4K-based adventure with the GX80. I am suprised I didnt really miss the slow-mo at all. Although rendering takes ages on my Macbook Pro 2011 (3min video took 3:45h for rendering!), editing with proxy files works without any hickup. I am amazed by the quality and I think I will continue using 4K from now on. Lenses used: Sigma 18-35, but mostly the Panasonic 20mm. I already sold the Speedbooster XL and the Sigma, it is just too huge and even with the 4K crop one sees the vignette when the stabilization kicks in.

Because he wanted to win an Internet forum argument, so obvious.

There are just too many films out there for the term Cinematic to have any real meaning or relevance to filmmaking. Personally, I think the term should really refer to any film that gets shown in a Cinema. The way the term is thrown about in forums makes me laugh, because every film is different & so the requirements are also different. So, basically if you want your film to have a documentary feel to it, it will be pointless to make it look like a big budget Hollywood blockbuster with fancy lighting etc. & vice versa. As far as a camera goes, the term that should be used is Filmic & by this I mean a digital camera that tries to or does replicate celluloid/film [without it being so]. If you only watch Hollywood films or big blockbusters, then you really can't have a good grasp of how many films are out there, with so many different styles of cinematography! Remember The Blair Witch Project? Shot for the price of a used car, got shown in cinemas all over the world & made a shed load of money - cinematic? Who cares - it got made for the price of a used car, got shown in cinemas all over the world & made a shed load of money! This & only this! Stop worrying & shoot something! ATM i'm editing up some footage shot on a Canon 60D from years ago & it's not the greatest IQ wise. The main thing is...I don't care what people think of the footage, it's not important to me, the only thing that matters is if the story/idea for the film works.

Back to topic, an imax shot presumely shot with the mamiya 80 1.9 (it does cover, I've tried it).

Wasn't the whole point of this thread, originally, to show what this adaptor can do i.e. allow people with FF cameras to adapt MF lenses to a different sensor & allow them to use these lenses the way they were meant to be used? Perhaps I'm just being silly here? I personally do not really like using speed boosters on the Pocket cam - I bought it because of its physical size, the S16 sensor size (which was more to do with nostalgia), ProRes HQ & the price! I use anamorphics to get a wider FOV & step back a little. I hate wide angle lenses. Oh, and i'm the guy that refers to a 24mm lens as a 24mm lens, regardless of what sensor i'm using it on!

I Love it, every single post is wrong.

And its all about taste. I mostly use small sensor cameras and usually a bit older with noisier ISOs (but its important to note that larger sensor does not make for less noise. There are examples of it going both ways and depending on mega pixels etc). But I prefer a little noise over the blurry images I would get by adjusting my shutter speed. In 99% of all images I take the shutter speed is locked. It can't be tampered with. In 70% the aperture is also locked. The only parameter I change maybe 50% of the times is ISO.

Ive said many times through out the thread that I will have tests in the review since you asked for it. But your right, its definitely laziness that makes me want to spend my Sunday doing something else than tests to show that there are differences, disadvantages and advantages to different sensor sizes/film sizes. And its just my ego blocking me when say what Ive always said: You don't need a Full Frame or APS-C. A s16/1" like the BMPCC or RX100 will get you very far. A wide angle down have to be a 15mm on Full Frame. A 18mm on s16 is still a wide angle, within the format. Be creative. SDOF isn't a problem either. And no, exposure doesn't change with sensor size so do not apply crop factor to aperture. And Im obviously just into arguing when I say that, some lenses have different artifacts than others. Wide angles for example have a tendency to be more likely to have fish eye distortion, depending on price and manufacturer. If you have a larger sensor you can use longer lenses and are more likely to not get such artifacts on a random lens. So enough talk here is a test. Both images have the same settings accept for the Equivalent focal length and aperture. Both are straight from camera. Both are jpeg. Im not gonna say which is which. And Im not gonna give comments on what I see. Its better people get to make up their own minds. Ok I will say one thing, IMO, and thats just my opinion, you don't have to agree. But I can't help but feeling that I find one of the images slightly darker than the other. I know, I know, its impossible since I used an equivalent lens and there is no difference between systems or sizes what so ever. Its just a feeling. Everyone can comment as they choose accept @jcs who needs to have a test in every post according to his own rules that he set after deciding for us that this from now on is a scientific debate and nothing else. "Anyone wanting to continue arguing without doing these tests for themselves is either lazy, blocked by their ego, or just enjoys arguing." Because I realize now that photography is a science and not an art form. A 20mp camera is always superior to a 18mp no matter what the other specs of the camera is. And everyone has to eat the same ice cream or they are idiots. I have seen the light. (BTW I posted a quick video test yesterday if someone is interested they know where it is. Please read description first) PS.

Wondering if he might want to part exchange it against my scooter.

Yeah and Red cameras suck ass for the cost of accesories on them. Someone can give you the Brain and you can't afford one. I am not saying the Pro is cheap, but it comes with most of the stuff you need. I mean I could Almost see myself being able to buy one new if I bust my ass on saving money for it for less than a year. Sure as hell never going to buy a New Red, Arri. Not even a used Red, unless it is a Red One.

I also agree. May I add that I am an owner of the large URSA, which I love by the way, and I'm still waiting for the 4.6K sensor!!! The reason I bought the large URSA is because of the ability to add new sensors, but alas I am waiting like everyone else.

may I ask why you spam here with at least 3 listings of the same lens??? it's too much man

Wow seems like you maybe in the right place at the right time to break into the big time. Hell go for it. You will regret it if you don't. Not many get That chance. It is more luck than skill to make it, we all know that.

This is fantastic looking footage Verbel. Are you using a bellows with this version?

Well, sorry, but you're not correct on this. If the camera position is the same on both cases (actually position of the entrance pupil) then perspective will be the same on both cameras. Field of view may differ depending on focal length and sensor size. Maximum field of view will be limited by the image circle size. Try sitting in a chair and staring straight ahead. Now try to change the perspective of the scene in front of you. You can't do this without moving your position, or moving the position of objects in the scene. Neither can a camera.

I was like him as well like I need to keep what I got. But now Im not sure... an acquaintance/friend that's a pro director here in the LA area has really started taking interest in me a bit... He has been giving me books and a great one was Nestor Almendros Man with a Camera a great book on the philosophy of a DP.(get it if you can its pretty rare) He shoots with a FS7 -FS5 and has been strongly "Suggesting" I get a A7s2 Im not sure but I think he would like to invite me on set to maybe shoot some behind the scenes stuff for him I dont think he cares personally but I get the impression his circle will think Im a buffoon showing up with my Kitted out NX-1 and 2 S Lenses and in turn look at him funny for inviting me.... or maybe he just would prefer to work with all sony It seems silly but this town is really that petty some times... out of curiosity I got a quote for all my NX gear from a big store in NY and they said minimum they would give me $3200 if in decent condition more if better... said if I would trade in they would sell me a used A7S2 for $2200 (said they will cut me a better deal if I trade instead of cash) Its just if I do it ill be knocked back to the stone age lens wise and have to learn a new camera (it seems it the opposite of the NX-1 where you underexpose for best image you overexpose a bit on the sony) but at least Ill still have my My 5 FD lenses that will probably sing on the A7s2... But right Now on I have I have 12mm- 150mm in lenses all 2.8 or faster. And then @webrunner5 had a great point THERE IS Some URSA MINI's Going for around $2400 on FeeBay. Geez... they may drop a 100 or so low when the PRO drops. I just need to decide if I want to be a lone wolf or possibly break into that "scene" its just I have an INTP type personality Im not to fond of the the Machiavellian bullshit required to flourish there. Ill probably just think about it till all the options pass lol

70mm film (actually 65mm, 70mm is marketing) provides a lot more resolution, so the projected image can be much bigger. Nothing special about the look other than marketing :P I watched Interstellar in 70mm and it was kind of a mess (Chinese theater in Hollywood), with lots of blurry shots and overall not very sharp (+ sound was way too high and distorted). The 35mm shots were glaringly too sharp when they cut in. A while later I watched Interstellar again in 4K digital (AMC Century City) and it looked more consistent (maybe it was a new edit- they had fixed the sound problem). 70mm is a marketing term, generally telling us to expect a giant, high resolution screen (they may imply a special magical look, however that's just marketing going after your money). The ARRI 65 is 3 ALEV III sensors rotated 90 degrees (A3X). This also provides a major boost in resolution. The ARRI look is at least partly due to the ALEV III sensor, and making one higher resolution with smaller pixels while maintaining the same look is likely challenging (though they may have solved it by NAB for a (true) 4K+ Alexa announcement).

I think that guy in the video uses ML on his T3i so he is shooting raw... so he is kinda in the ballpark of BMPCC I guess... I cant knock him has build an over 500,000 sub youtube channel on the back on them... he took it even further on this next video he put it next to an ARRI

All yeses so far!!! No, that's not possible. The only thing that influences perspective is subject distance. If the image circle is smaller or larger you get less or more vignetting, respectively, for a given format. Perspective doesn't change, not even if you add an anamorphic adapter. You're probably misunderstanding the term "perspective" - it has to do with the spatial relationship between objects in the scene. It can only be altered by moving objects, or moving the camera.

LMAO. Fun thread! Oh I agree completely. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But if you have skill, or want to learn to be skilled, heck any camera gets the job done. You can bet your butt all these big movie names that make movies all started out on a 8mm cheap Sears film camera or the like. They did not buy a ArriFlex to start with! It takes time and skill to do this stuff. Very few ever go onto making a living do it. But it is a fun as hell, albeit expensive, but what hobby isn't, rewarding as hell thing you can create. But I am just saying people are selling the hell out of cameras We can buy now for 3k or less that some of them were over 10, 15 thousand bucks or more not 5, 6 years ago that made people, a lot of people counting cast and crew, a living. It is like a miracle that we can buy that old used stuff. It is a Miracle what Blackmagic makes for us. Just go out and buy these gifts and take advantage of it. That way you can't blame the camera, it is your lack of knowledge that is to blame, learn the camera and you are golden.

You would really like my brother. He collects guitars, dozens and dozens of them. But he likes to show me the cheapest ass guitar every made with the cheapest ass guitar amp ever made, and the sound that comes out of them is well, it is pretty awesome! Grungy as hell, punk rockish crap you just have to love. It sucks balls but it is great! You need to start collecting cheap band equipment. It is meant for you!!

Ha, I have none. Not sure how to take that But you're right that if I was married it would only last a few days.

I've always loved and believed in the idea that we can do amazing things with nothing. This is probably a little bit of a tangent, but I've been so depressed lately at how few people around you will see things the same way... The filmmaker will say "I love filmmaking, and this film will only cost me $500 out of pocket!! I'm in heaven." My friend is a composer and keeps posting about how terrible it is that people want him to work for free. There are also very few composition competitions that charge a fee for submissions, which is apparently completely evil... Every film festival charges a fee. I look forward to meeting actors and collaborators at my next film festival, but I dread hearing what they cost. Out of frustration of it all, I played two parts in my last film, and I'm slowly and painfully learning to draw and animate so that I can be all the actors in anything bigger down the road. My own time is worth nothing, or less... I do it because I want to. I mean, I probably hate money more than the average person, but where the hell is the passion? Where's the fun?

Sure. I don't usually do formal tests like shooting charts, color charts, etc. I might come to my conclusions quicker if I did this, but my test is usually just taking it out and shooting anything and everything, combined with my paid work (weddings, corporate videos, events). I have owned and used 4 cameras extensively. Panasonic HMC150, GH2, GH4, and Blackmagic pocket. With all of them, they have strengths and weaknesses I find. It's not as simple as one is better than the other in every category. The lowly Panasonic HMC150 still wins on motion (CCDs, and all) and has color science second only to the pocket. Yet technically it's far inferior in other ways. With all of them, I come back with footage that i'm sometimes thrilled with it, okay with, and outright disappointed with. Takes me a bit sometimes to see the variables. The GH2, for instance... over time, I noticed that under daylight, it was always great. Generally good under tungsten. But flourescant and mixed lighting, it took a big dive. And I would encounter this alot at weddings and events. Sometimes a second shooter would have a 7D, and it always handled the color on mixed lighting better. Same with the pocket and tungsten. Brilliant in daylight and florescent, but goes to the shits under tungsten. Even the stuff with an IR cut helps, but doesn't seem to cure it. That sensor really wants to be at daylight, it seems. I shoot for this woman who does canine aqua therapy. Her pool is lit by these crappy mixed tungsten and florescent lights. I've used all 4 cameras there. I can *never* get the GH2 and GH4 to look good, color wise. Every profile and white balance setting, doesn't matter. HMC150 always did a much better job with the color, only exceeded by the pocket raw. HMC does a ton of stuff wrong, like resolution, dynamic range, highlight handling, but it always had nice color. So that's kinda what I mean. Rather than definitely say Camera A is better than B, which is better than C... each seems to vary depending on the conditions. Only constant is that the pocket raw exceeds all. *Especially* in harsh sunny conditions. It blows them all away, there. Though in tungsten, especially the 2800k tungsten, that gap narrows. And it takes a lot of using them to work this out.

When I think of cinema, I think of being sucked into the story and not having my attention torn away by some flaw in the story, image or sound. If the selected camera does not distract or detracted from the story being told, it is cinematic enough. The said from my personal experience shooting with different types of camera I found that the BMCC with an old canon 1' c-mount TV (15-150 f1.8) lens and other c-mount primes gave me what I would consider the most cinematic image as compared to the GH1, NX1 and the A6300 with their compatible lens. Order of importance for me is: 1. story and actors 2. lighting, composition and lens selection 3. camera and sound equipment. 4. post production

Yes, I think so. Having AF is very convenient if you are on the run or simply cant really see the peaking on the screen / evf. Now with the Summilux 15, it seems i got the perfect allrounder - good fov, fast AF and a decent focus ring - all in a small package!

I think in this day and age Gear matters a Hell of a lot because, just like your A7s, there is a lot of cameras that can be bought for less than 2000 bucks, that a skilled person can make a film, documentary, Band video that you can look back at 5 years from now and say damn, that is really not too bad. This crap where you use a piece of shit camera is just that, crap. If you want to do this stuff pony up 2k for a camera rigged and just do it. There is too many great used cameras for 2k to make excuses. You are wasting your friends, paid actors time, and yours with a friggin Canon T3 in this day and age. Make a commitment to do the best you can do gear wise, give up smoking, drinking, eating out ,and buy a camera that stands the test of time. OK, off my soap box LoL.

Again perspective depends only on the distance from the lens. It does NOT depend on the focal length and it does NOT depend on the sensor size.

The Bahamas are quite famous for their swimming pigs - no one really knows where they came from, yet they are there We really wanted to see them, so thats the reason why they have such a big feature in my edit And no, no UC filter this time. I think that I will only use it when there is no sun at all, because with sunlight (or any other bright light sources) the thing gets quite annoying.

Imo, it murdered anything digital I ever saw. Much much better quality. And this is the point of everything. We have different tastes and put different aspects on top of the list when we say "image quality". Some are all about mp others DR, etc.

I always just use the shutter release button on the front , never the small red video button

Once you have Professional actors,light,etc and suffer the whole crappy experience it is to work with people who are over their limits (you included) most of the Time near an anxiety attack, 6000$ for a Camera are nothing, and at least it will give you some good files. Unless you really have something to tell, I don't think it's worth it. Unless you enjoy posing, of course.

I think composition, lighting, movement (or as you say, lack of) and sound* are the big factors. Camera aesthetics do play some part, especially dynamic range, highlight rolloff and colour. *Obviously sound doesn't affect the image, but it is a massive part of making something cinematic.

BTW am I worried about this "problem?" Not at all. And I did not mean to imply that I was. I was shocked to be asked if I was cancelling our nonprofit's orders. Absolutely not. the majority of our work goes to the web, and no one will ever notice. Not even me. If I ever need to shoot for the big screen I will use our Atomos, or 400mbs.

James Miller demonstrates that this is an codec problem that disappears when an external recorder is used, suggesting that the 400mps upgrade will help or elimaite this occasional problem. https://we.tl/wC2RIj8TjI

Yes, that too. They could probably rate a Sony Smartphone Camera better than a Panasonic GH5.

I never thought of it that way, I would say that they do tend to favor SONY quite a bit from what Ive seen.

Thanks! Yet double focus, now I waiting for big focusing lenses. Focusing method of current setup With some skills time to capture focus in my case around 10 sec max. Minimum config now is two lenses in 3D-printed frames. Bellows can be added also. You can make for yourself, buy this cheap lens on ebay (look for good condition), info of rehousing and drawings for 35NAP 2-3M here https://www.facebook.com/groups/verbascope/ If some additional questions, please welcome to PM.