Leaderboard

I had a play with the Nikon Zr today and quite liked it, it's a capable, good value for money Sigma-Fp style camera with very good autofocus and finally a screen with which you can see what is in focus and what isn't. Well done Japan for going large after 25 years of 3.0 inches. It's the sort of camera that would be very exciting back in the day of the DSLR video revolution to say the least... Nowadays though, I find other stuff more exciting. Also the screen tilting mechanism sucks... I'd far rather they'd drop the YouTube vlog-style swivel screens on a camera like this and have a standard tilt screen that is ON AXIS with the fucking lens, and with it being so large it really feels unbalanced stuck out at the side and blocking the ports. In a way the Zr feels like a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K but done well. But it doesn't feel very high-end, even if the image is. Also I miss the EVF and think the Z6 Mark III is even more bang for buck. So yeah, doesn't set my hair on fire but it's going to be a very decent buy for a lot of people.

I have the 35/50/75 Saturn in E mount and haven't experienced any focusing issues on the A1, and of course that's with no Desqueeze support. It does have a bit better EVF than the Panasonic cameras, but I haven't found the EVF to be a night and day difference. I own the 35 & 50 Saturn in L mount and have had great results on the S1RII. The 35 isn't quite as well corrected as the longer lenses, so it has a bit of character, especially against the light. Still, none of the Sirui lenses can rival the results I get with my favorite anamorphic adapters, but there is something to be said for simplicity and reliability. Also - I'm not sure if the S5II was included, but the recent update for the S1II/S1RII now provides 1.6x desqueeze. Still attached from the 35 Saturn on S1RII.

Nikon ZR vs Arri Alexa Mini Color (R3D NE, N-Log, Log C) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJGK3YpIx0

Here is some completely unbiased coverage of Scotland’s previous meetings with Brazil.

I have a colleague from Kansas that use to do second unit for Malik back in the 70’s and this anecdote is right on target. My buddy’s job was to wander around the set’s region and find shots of bugs.

Especially with so much competition, and smaller cameras.

Well in the newer cameras (S1II and S1RII) it opens up certain data heavy codecs that are not available in SD but I think with the S1R, it was more a case of having a more robust (and cheaper!) card option? I had mine set up writing to both for peace of mind insurance but beyond that, no other needs.

"You reach a level where that 5% more cannot justify the 10, 20x the price." true

As the saying goes it's same as a Leica SL2 inside, so $800 is a real bargain. The S1 / S1R ergonomics are alright, bit too heavy and big. I prefer Sony 4th gen (a7 IV onwards) in that respect, but the S1R really did feel and look like a high-end camera when it came out unlike the new stuff.

Liked the results mine produced on the stills side and the 5k was special. The only thing that annoyed me really was the different ergos to the S1H, especially the position of the on/off switch, but a great bit of kit and exceptional value used as is the S1H!

Made a lowball offer on ebay and scored the “Vintage Lumix” S1R kit for $800 US this week. I have a book project and need to photograph a lot of oversized art in high megapixel raw so i couldn’t pass it up for the money. Been wanting to try out the 5k mode for a while now and have a whole list of vintage lenses to adapt. As much as I wanted the SL2 or the GFX 100s the prices haven’t come down as much as the Lumix stuff and I can always revisit those later. For now the Original S5 with Ninja V for prores raw and the S1R for high res stills and 5k Super 35 Anamorphic. A little S9 for $800 is next and that will round out my 3 camera budget system for under $2,300, Not bad…

I've been rocking 2 secondhand S5s all this year, mainly with my Super Takumars (I've got the 20-60 kit for when I'm feeling lazy) and I've yet to touch the edges of their capabilities.

A couple of years ago, I was saying on Forums that Arri would fail, and people were calling me stupid. Ohhh its image is so special, etc etc how peasants could understand this. But the problem is you can't sell a lot of 70-100 000 usd cameras, the market is what it is, even more so when you have very capable cameras coming for much less. You reach a level where that 5% more cannot justify the 10, 20x the price. Before you had the highend market where camera cost/rent is peanuts compared to the overall cost, but that secondary market, the people that used to rent those highend cameras, can now buy a camera that will do 90% of what they need, and will rent only 10% of what they used to do. Arri and most US/german companies are going to be eaten by the Chinese ones. They still live in the rental business, for camera and other gears light lighting etc. The principal of the Chinese is that they will produce affordable equipment for the many, that will help them also produce for few highend that they will sell. You will find Aperture/Godox/Nanlight models that will cost less than a hundred dollars, to 4k led light costing more than 10 000 USD. They will sell a thousands of the 300 USD 300 watt cob monolight, for perhaps every 10 000 USD 5000 watt one. But those thousands of 300 USD lights will help them for R&D for those big lights. same for camera, imagine if Arri had repackage the original Arri LF in a more affordable casing, taking out some features of frame rate and sell it for 10K. They would be selling thousands of them, perhaps at the detriment of their higher ends, but those thousands of 10k models would overall bring so much money.

To expand on it, let's take 24 frames or one second at film rate. With film you have 24 full images, motion blur is kept in each image, not smeared netween them. With ML 5D raw, Alexa Pro Res, Red Raw, Blackmagic cameras etc, you have 24 distinct images, individually compressed either losslessly or mildly lossily. Motion blur is kept within each image. With AVCHD and other Long GOP CODECs, the I-frame image is divided into pools of pixels for analysis across time. only some frames are whole, the I frames, the rest refer the different pixel pools to the I frame and usually to a frame in the middle of the group too. In order to remove data the codec only moves what it has to. Your one second may have only two complete images, the rest are created as best can be from the other frames, with huge changes causing pixellation and blocking due to so little data headroom. On top of this, the red-channel resolution is quartered, and the blue channel halved in 4:2:0, so the spatial resolution for movement is cut down, as well as the temporal resolution. In short, the plastic movement you get from many implementations of such long GOP CODECs reflects the methods use in compression. Motion blur is also smudged and blurred by chroma sub-sampling (4:2:0:) and by interframe compression.

The Alexa has a really fast sensor readout, 2ms... motion cadence on that is of course fine as it is on all of ARRI's cameras, so that probably excludes fast readout as being the issue. Maybe some cameras implement the shutter timings differently to others? Say if you are in 1/50 or 1/40 or 180deg shutter the sensor might still remain in 60fps and it will just expose for longer and then the image processor converts it from 60p to 24p and then the codec maybe fudges things further with trickery like inter-frame compression and inter-frame noise reduction, whereas on a simpler camera like the Digital Bolex there is none of that shit and basically a global shutter sensor and entire image pipeline optimised for 24fps at 180 degree shutter. Maybe some of our modern mirrorless camera sensors have a true 24fps mode and others only have 60fps mode, process the 24p from that. Maybe some codecs are truly awful at motion... On the 50D it didn't have a video mode at release if I remember correctly? Magic Lantern enabled it via the raw video hack, but there's no H.264 mode is there? I could understand why some of the older H.264 low bitrate codecs hurt motion a lot, Cinema DNG and Magic Lantern were like going from digital video to film. The leap was that big. I should do some tests in Cinema DNG on my Sigma Fp-L as it is a direct sensor feed, uncompressed RAW and no pixel binning in the 1.3x crop mode. I bet that looks pretty good at 180 degree shutter in 24p.

Ah, my favorite topic (and it comes up every couple of years). Hopefully we can have this discussion without the usual accusations. I've done a lot of personal experimentation in this area because most cameras looked off to me. Where I've landed is that I don't think that global shutter or CCD sensors is a surefire recipe for pleasing motion. I spent a lot of time and money figuring that one out. My list of favorite motion capture cameras is a motley crew and includes the Red One MX (but oddly, not the DSMC1 line), the EOS-M in 1:1 crop, and believe it or not, the hacked GH1.

Agreed completely on your assessment of the image characteristics. I truly appreciate the performance of classic anamorphic adapters and am happy that they are coming down in price. I just picked up a baby Kowa Anamorphic 8 2X for cheap and it's a jewel. A few examples of what I consider ideal performance below. First three are the ZIA 1.5x with an older Leica 50 Elmar collapsible, which is a tiny and wonderful combo that just covers full frame 3:2. Second is the baby hypergonar 1.75x with a Voigtlander 75 2.5, which also covers full frame but is a bit more muted (although this adapter can be fickle against the light sometimes).

I've been thinking about global shutter for a specific project, after being unsatisfied with test shoots using my S5. There are several to choose from now, but you're totally right that it's surprisingly difficult to find quality reviews or comparisons, particularly older models like the F55 in a modern context. If I move forward with it, I'll probably end up with a Komodo--but I've struggled to find direct comparisons between the Komodo, F55, Ursa Mini 4K, and A9III, not to mention comparisons with IMX410 cameras that I'm already familiar with.

I have one and it really is a good camera when it comes to the image quality. I love the image it makes. It's brought my own filmmaking to another level. It's not a run and gun camera though. More of like using a 16mm film camera. Nothing automatic. Manual everything. The dream of an all-in-one isn't quite true with it though. You need to rig it out with an EVF. (Although I don't have and have never used the shark fin shaped viewer with the mirror so maybe that's okay.) I used to see them come up on eBay a few times a year but now they rarely do. And people are asking US$11000 with accessories. (I also notice that nobody is bidding on them at that price and the listing ends without any bids, then gets relisted.) I occasionally see them listed for about US$5000 but they don't last long at that price. They're a good camera, worth $5000 but not worth $10000. I think that it's no longer such a unique camera image-wise and you can get a close enough image with a used Alexa or Blackmagic Production camera 4K and be making your movies. (Still if one came up and you could afford it, get it.) If you're handy you could make your own using the same sensor. Check out this project: https://github.com/lafauxbolex https://www.youtube.com/@LaFauxBolexDigitalCinemaCamera/videos

By the way the collapse in price of the vintage stuff is extraordinary, you can get an Iscorama close to 500 euros now, almost back to 2010 pre-DSLR video prices

Yeah, thanks this shot is exactly what I'm talking about - the muted way it handles the sun is not what a good cinema anamorphic should look like. They don't have the big stretched ovals in the horizontal flare, the fatter flare lines and blooming. All these kids putting down pretty significant $$$$ for all this sterile stuff from China No question is it more practical though.... But better image it ain't 🙂

In terms of colour in LOG and rec.2020 the only difference between cameras these days is how easy (or otherwise) they are to grade, for example C-LOG on the old Canon 1D C was so easy, it only needed the addition of contrast and barely any colour grading at all to look cinematic. Now there are massive differences between LUTs compared to between LOG curves and colour. So when you see all these reviews, tests and comparisons you are just seeing a LUT! It's almost comical really, nobody gets under the skin of what the camera is doing - they're just putting their grading skills and LUTs on show. And the codecs are all so good... no more 8bit banding. I compared the Sony a1 SLOG3 H265 8K to Nikon Z9 NRAW 8K and there was nothing in it really, not even in terms of noise and shadow detail. You could do just as big a grade or white balance shift on the H265 footage as you could with NRAW. Now the way I like to think of RAW as useful is as follows: - As a way to bypass poor camera image processing... Hardly needed now... In the old days, light and day difference between something like 5D Mark II compressed H.264 and uncompressed Magic Lantern Raw (in Cinema DNG), even at 1080p it was a different league of image quality. - As a way to increase image quality with drawback of huge file sizes. Now we get if we're lucky a 1-2% increase in image quality for a 1000% increase in file size (over H.265 10bit) - As a way to turn off in-camera sharpening and white balance (do it in post). However image processing has got so flexible you can turn sharpening off in LOG... look how smooth and natural Canon LOG looks on the old 1D C or EOS R6 III 10bit H.265 for example - A file format to show to clients that says you're serious 🙂 And we all know why the majority of videographers are fawning over raw delivery whereas ARRI ALEXA DPs casually go round doing it all in ProRes That is another comparison the YouTube bros refuse to do well... the ALEXA ProRes vs ARRI RAW and Canon LOG vs RAW I haven't seen a single good comparison!

The modern lenses are closer to the Panasonic LA7200 in terms of look, just a lot sharper edge to edge. Whereas the Iscorama even when there's no flare still looks more cinematic and it borrows from the look of the taking lens you pair it with as well so you can play with that. There are no decent adapters as good as the Iscorama 2x. Still for £150 I am not complaining 🙂

The later Sony CineAlta F55 (CMOS) also had a global shutter and can be had for dirt cheap these days, as low as $1k Perhaps that's the key. To expose the entire sensor at once.

Motion cadence for me, is matching the target frame rate with the sensor and shutter speed-sensor interplay. It is also about rolling shutter vs global shutter as that plays into the look of motion. The less distortion or jello the better. I wish people would SHOW things again. Where are all the tests on the a9 III with global shutter showing what it's like in video mode at 24p vs the a1 II? I miss the Vimeo days of being able to compare with meaningful shots rather than the standard YouTube guff of a candle for low light, ridiculous whip pans for rolling shutter that nobody ever does in proper cinema, a model staring blankly at the camera for skin tones and a crazy underexposed shot with the shadows lifted until everything looks flat and dirty with no tonality - yeah that's a dynamic range test, sure. The best motion cadence I've ever shot was on the Digital Bolex with the CCD sensor. I think some of the faster sensor readouts are losing something important. They all look like 60p in their 24p modes. For 60p and 120p motion cadence has less meaning. Since there's no motion blur subtleties that need taking care of.

A Parrot would now be a more appropriate bird, since they are resorting to piracy... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/10/venezuela-oil-tanker-seizure/?itid=hp-mv-top-stories_top-table-main_p001_f001

I think people see politics these days as a form of show-biz entertainment soap opera drama, what a surprise they are going to get when the frogmen smash their door in next.

A bit of a stretch to go from developing an Alice in Wonderland app to accusing Tim Cook of being a pedo.

The new entry-rule is doubleplusgood. Giving five-year socmedia record to Borderforce is only goodthink. Right citizens with nothing to hide welcome full truthcheck, for it keeps out crimethink, facecrime, and all ungood elements. Freedom is Strength, and more watch means more freedom. The Party merely sees what all goodthinkers already show. Only unpersons fear oversight.

One of them leaked the script of Witkoff's negotiations with the Russian guy. Another one, an admiral, questioned orders and forced to resign. The problem is there won't be enough of them, because unlike Hollywood scenarios, you need more than few heros to save the country from fascists, it needs uprising by millions of people (tho I don't believe these clowns are fascist. They're too dumb to stick with a particular ideology).

I've been thinking for a while that, internationally, Hollywood is going to get cooked by the 'new' USA. Think how many of the biggest movies over the years have been predicated on the notion that the USA are, once you get down to it, the good guys, the freedom guys, the justice guys - how does that notion survive in a world shown, daily, evidence of resurgent American fascism, cruelty and opression. Even in those movies where the US state is engaged in bad stuff, the day is saved by upright American patriots (with great teeth) - but IRL, where are those patriots? We're now aware that they're not to be relied upon to do that. So how does a global cultural hegemony based on an vision of the US as that shining city on the hill survive the revelation that the shine is an illusion (obviously many of us already knew that it was a tortured myth anyway, but the grotesquery is now so pronounced it's unignorable even to the millions of normies who make up the entire international audience for Hollywood's product)?

In my experience, distance from screen matters the most.

This is my point. If a 20 year old varicam 27h can can do a lot that 35mm film rolls can do, the modern crop of mirrorless and cinema cams are much better, the gap between these new ones and the 35mm film rolls is really not that much, hard to justify the 100x cost and the much long time for processing.

The woman with bubbles at 1:00 or so or the sun behind the mountain at 1:50 or so are more challenging scenes than the baby and the rolloff in both looks really rough to me. The image at 0:49 also looks pretty bad to me, as do the highlights in the water at 0:40ish. It's great for a camera from 20 or so years ago, but in modern terms, I'd expect better from any mid-tier hybrid. Like with most things, in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, it can look great - but so can a Nikon ZR or a Canon R6 III. 😃

Somebody discovered the h.265 softness issue is a variable bitrate bug. With Nlog its too low. It should be 320Mb/s but its 32Mb/s. They forgot a zero 🙂

Enjoy, I really liked my time with my S1R (and onto the S1R2 now)

Anyone watching this cringe fest World Cup draw would swap in a heartbeat.

I don't know what people see in new cameras really. Used ones just so much more exciting. A GFX 100 for £1800. You don't need to buy a single medium format lens for it... Bang on a 10 quid adapter and Minolta 50mm F1.4 for 50 quid and it looks like a Leica M11 with Noctilux F0,95. A7 IV for £1300... What a bargain that is. Does everything. If you need the exotic frame rates and codecs... EOS R5, 4K/120p, 8K raw, £1700. Sony a1... You can go to Japan and the flight pays for itself. The list goes on. I will never buy a new camera or pre-order one again.

Best footage I ever shot in my life was on a XH-A1. It was the situation and lighting, not the camera. Could it have been better with a new 4K-whatever-camera? Sure! But only marginally so.

It once was that the pros had 16mm an 35mm film and the "amateurs" had Super 8 and videotape. Now that's all changed. Yesterday I was capturing some old videotapes from a friend's project that we did in 2011 on a Canon HV20. It looked amazing. I was expecting it to look worse than cameras of today but it doesn't. Just shows that even a camera from then, with a CMOS chip from that era, MPEG 2 encoding, 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, 1440 x 1080 frame size recorded of the wide screen image, and 8 bit colour, it still can look amazing. It just shows that cameras have been very good for a long time now. The differences are mostly ergonomics and physical size. When deciding on a camera, you have to consider what you want to spend months living with.

I do. Or at least I suspect I do and that is an FX3ii is coming and that WILL have all the ‘missing’ video stuff that is not in the new A7V. The FX2 is a bit of a Frankencamera (I quite like the concept but not quite the execution) possibly to use up a lot of old sensor stock but 🤷‍♂️ The new A7V is not meant to be a video-centric camera but a stills orientated hybrid, same as the IV was. If they had allowed 6k and left the gate open etc with it, other than the body type, what incentive would there be for any new FX3ii…which I think is certainly coming because although they have had some criticism lately, this is Sony and something they do perhaps more than any other company, is churn out cameras. Very good silent shutter mode on this new A7V for wedding shooters! Not enough to tempt me personally but it’s a really solid stills/hybrid unit at the new price point for such things.

I'm talking about in cinema, there's no use case for it. Sports yes.

I'd argue it is the MOST important because without the camera, you don't have a picture. It is the small differences between the latest sensors and codecs that's the unimportant thing. In cinematography, our job isn't to worry about the costumes or set pieces, that's the job of someone else. So lighting and camera are the most important for a DP. What has happened is the gap between the top-end i.e. ARRI and the cheap stuff has closed up. This has been going on ever since the start of the DSLR revolution so it's not a new thing but there's never been a smaller gap that exists now, for example between something like the Alexa 35 and a $1000 used Panasonic S1H. By the way although Magellan has beautiful content and really nice camera-work, the sharpness of it and the deep DOF isn't everybody's cup of tea. It does look a bit too soap opera in parts of that trailer, I think. It looks very different to an IMAX shot film. So there's big differences between formats and lenses still... The same cinema focal length for example on 16mm has always looked vastly different to same on IMAX or large format. Also there are big differences in grading style, camera movement style, and so on. I think most relevant for us is that you don't need to make a massive rig any more to get good results. It's horrible having the weight as a one-man DP. Probably why they used such a small camera on this.

I really do think the camera is the least important aspect these days though. Lighting, set pieces, costumes, locations, etc. are so much more important. Magellan could have been shot on pretty much any camera from the last 10 years and looked just as good, because everything else about it looks good and it's clearly made with skill and talent. 28 Years Later was a huge disappointment for me as a film (28 Days Later is one of my favorite films of all time) but it's still a gorgeous looking film that was shot on iPhones. If it was shot on a ARRI Alexa 35 it wouldn't have changed what I disliked about the film. And watching it, I didn't think to myself "jeez, this would've looked so much better if they'd film it on a better camera." A LOT of gear went into making it look as good as it does, but the camera itself was pretty low on the list, I think.

The gear doesn't matter thing is so boring, it does matter and you can't shoot much without it. The GH1 opened a door, because the aesthetic on offer was very different to the small chip digital camcorders at the time or Mini DV. It opened the door to all those interchangeable lenses, and there's a big difference in look between these lenses let alone between a GH1 and a Mini DV cam. Actually you can tell the Magellan is going for a certain look too with the GH7 - it isn't Hollywood, it's documentary style and looks quite clinical in places with a deep DOF, which they didn't have to do but the Lumix lenses are like that and it works well. So choice of gear, informs the look of what you're making and does matter greatly. The difference in image quality between a GH6 and GH7 doesn't matter quite so much... But the format of camera, and era of camera does.

I think we learned long ago that the "camera" was one of the least important parts of telling a story. You can take an iPhone and create beautiful art if what you're filming is compelling, you are skilled enough, and the story you're telling is good. Frankly I'm surprised that we haven't seen more folks using mirrorless cameras, because if anything, they are overkill for a lot of films being shot today, especially ones that will never be seen on the big screen. My buddy made me re-watch Terrifier 3 since he just got into the series. It was filmed on an ARRI Alexa 35 using Panavision anamorphic lenses, but honestly, you never would've been able to tell if they'd shot it on a S1/H, S5/S5II, GH6/7, A7Siii, R5C, etc. and using any of the budget anamorphic lenses that have been released for these cameras. It's great to have an ARRI Alexa 35 and Panavision lenses, I can't really fault any low budget director using them if they have the opportunity to, but it didn't make the film any better and, no offense to the director and editor, but he wasn't skilled enough to get anything more out of using that camera and lenses than if he'd just used any mirrorless camera released in the last 5 years.

Mid season report. Actually, I am nearing end of season with just 2 more jobs to go this year until June next…which is quite normal for me. The TDLR is I almost love it… Why ‘almost’? I’ll get to that… The Good = The body design actually. Yes I would rather Lumix had moved to a body style more like the FX3, but I guess they thought that might scare photographers who expect a hump. Whatever the reason, it’s not as innovative as it could have been and despite not having a top screen, really is like a smaller S1H in the hand and IMO, that is a good thing. In my hands, with no battery grip or any other adornment other than the smallest Senheisser mic, it feels just right in terms of size, weight, build, comfort, ergos. It’s a true hybrid. It would be even better with an internal electronic VND, but hey ho, maybe that will come with the S1H2? With 5x C1-5 custom settings and a simple photo-video switch, it’s fabulous for hybrid work. I don’t even use all 5 photo and 5 video settings, but have it set up basically as: landscape photo, portrait/candid outdoor, portrait/candid indoor and low-light, all with a starting f stop, aperture, WB, ISO and equivalent matching settings for video so it’s actually only one flick of a switch to flip between video and stills in any given scenario. Brilliant. The sensor. 44mp. Perfect 👌 for me sweet spot between the more traditional 24mp and the 100mp of the bigger MF sensors. Suits both photo and video. Video files and capability. I shoot 7.2k 30p open gate and the file sizes are not huge or slow to work with. With baked in conversion LUT, SOOC I love them. Yes raw would be even better, but an almighty faff and overkill for my needs. The open gate allows any number of crops, 30p a 20% reduction in speed on a timeline and the 7.2k quite a bit of scope for punching in etc. Having said that, not fully edited a finished production yet but I have checked and edited a few bits here and there and it’s even better than the 6K I was using before which itself was better than the 4K from Lumix FF cameras so thumbs up. The Not So Good = Battery life is pretty poor. I’ve always scoffed at people reporting poor battery life and never experienced it on any camera. Until now. It’s not great, but a spare battery in my pocket at all times is how I now roll and is what it is. AF accuracy for video is good but not Sony level. Ditto for photo. Having come directly from an A7RV, I’d give the nod to the Sony for ultimate outright stills quality and AF, but the S1RII gets the nod for video and body. I don’t think there is anything else other than I have a pair of them matched with the 35mm f1.8 on one and the 85mm f1.8 on the other. The S9 is on lighter duties of video only, mostly longer than clips and sometimes even full length ceremonies and speeches and has only overheated once and that was on a very hot day in direct sunlight. The S1RII by the way, I have never even had a warning and has never got hot to touch, - just the usual warmth you might expect shooting a thing all day long. I may replace the S9 next year with an S1IIE for a bit more robustness and utility, but waiting to see if any S1H2 appears before doing that, if I do that. Almost certainly will trade the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 for the new Lumix 24-60mm f2.8 next year as I think it will suit my needs better and appears to offer better AF and detail/rendering. S5II soldiers on in its static role and just does what I need it to do. I do need to find a way to get rid of the battery grip and the heavy tripod however and working on that… So ‘almost’ love it. It’s the battery life and good but not stellar AF plus the less than exciting body design that drops it 2 points for me so I’ll give it an 8/10. Along with the Z8, probably the best all round hybrid camera available today? At least for my needs. Taking into account lens options and prices.

I have the S1RII and the S1II. I also still have the old S1 and S5. The S1II is the same than the S5II about video details, even if some youtubers said the details rendering has improved, it's not true at all. Same bad rendering as the S5II. I understand some people are not bothered or can't see the difference and it's nothing wrong about that, but the difference is clear by example if you zoom inside your videos on people faces. Like the S5II, there is a sort of rough detail sharpening and in the same time a lack of very fine details. As always V-log looks better than the 709 profiles but it's still not great in my opinion. The S1RII also has the same detail rendering and I was very disappointed by the 6,4K Open Gate, it was not better than the 6K of the S5II, maybe even worse, like if this mode used a tiny bit of binning like the 5,9K 16:9. The new 7,2K is ok and looks better than the 6,4K. The 8,1K Open Gate is even better but limited to 24fps. Even if the video engine is the same between the S1II, S5II and S1RII, the later has much more resolution in 8K, hence the fine details looks finer even with the bad processing. it's only when the footage is a bit underexposed or overexposed that the S1 6K looks better. I read somewhere something interesting about Real Time Lut, using a burned in lut with a good amount of contrast helps to recover fine details. When recording V-log without Real Time Lut and grading in post, some fine details can't be recovered. I can confirm it's true. So using Real Time Lut V-log on the S1RII in 8,1K Open Gate is the best for details rendering. I'm glad Panasonic has fixed the colored pixels issue in Prores Raw on the S1RII and now the footage looks great, same details rendering than on the S1 or S5. But it's really crazy we must use Prores Raw to get the same good details rendering than on the S1 or S5 H264/265. And the crop is a shame, 1,45x ! When cameras like the Z8 or Z6III offer 6K or 8K 60fps raw video without crop ... About the S1II, Prores Raw only has a minimal crop (about 1,05/1,1x I think) and it was the main reason I bought this camera. Like on the S1RII, Prores Raw is excellent and like it has much less crop, fine details looks even sharper (in a good way). Finally we have a Panasonic camera with not only excellent IBIS but also excellent detail rendering and good AF without using external recorder (even if Prores raw is a pain for the workflow). The only issue I found is the 240fps 1080p mode, it is clearly not finalised because some horizontal lines appear randomly. I also found the photo raw files of the S1II and S1RII to be slightly less contrasty than the S5 and S1, they have less that punchy looks and I still prefer the rendering of the S5 and S1 with my best lenses like the 50mm S or 24-70mm Pro. it can be because of ACR but the JPEGs out of the cameras also looks slightly less contrasty than on the S5 and S1. Other than that, IBIS is stellar but sometimes more digital than on the G9II or GH7, color science is good but not as good as the GH6 to my eyes. The S1II also has better AF than the S1RII and I can feel the difference. Compared to Nikon, Lumix has several advantages like the IBIS and Open Gate. L-mount also has great "practical" lenses but I think they lack really great lenses with very nice rendering and more pancakes. After using most of the L-mount lenses, only a few looks really fantastic, like the 50mm S Pro (if it has not the coating issue), 24-70mm S Pro, 28-45mm Sigma and the APO Summicron SL. While absolutely great, the APO SL are really too much expensive for most people and it will be hard to attract a lot of people in the system, it is why Lumix try to attract people with smaller lenses and never released again new S Pro lenses since 2019/2020. Nikon has better AF most of the time but also more great lenses. The 50mm f1.8 is much better than the Lumix, the Nikon 35mm/50mm/85mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8 are some of the best lenses you can buy. You can also adapt Sony FE lenses and there are more interesting "cheap" lenses available from third party manufacturers like Viltrox (mainly the 35mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8).

Motion cadence is a phrase I use to make clients think I'm a pro.

I agree with you that the term cadence is somewhat confusing: In fact, I would I'd dare say that most of the "cadence" problems do not exist. They are simply a question of footage not properly shot or encoded. Many, many videos on the web use fast shutter speeds in sunlight to compensate the lack of an ND filter, causing an akward cadence. Some others use a very slow shutter speed in low light to compensate the lack of proper lighting, causing an akward cadence. Some in camera codecs record "fake" progressive framerates that are actually interlaced or the footage is interlaced-deinterlaced in the NLE to fit a certain standard, causing an akward cadence. Some other times, 23.976 footage is edited and encoded as 24p, which is not exactly the same. And finally, some other times it's the players fault (though I don't own an Apple TV) or the encoded stream, or any of the absurd TV "image enhacements" of any recent TV set. Under normal circumstances, any professional camera recording true progressive footage at a proper 180º shutter angle should yield that cinematic motion. And I can include DSLRs and midrange cameras, too. You don't see those "cadence" problems when you go to the movies, even though you see movies recorded (not filmed) with a mix of Alexas, Reds, C300s, C500s and even 5Ds. Because the footage is properly shot, conformed and handled throughout the whole workflow.