Emanuel

Ok I'm more interested, now that its got a mft mount. I feel that alone will elevate the litle gopro to next level for a lot of people.  The open gate mode sounds interesting and i would like to pair that with my 24mm sirui anamorphic. No idea how that would turn out but it does sound interesting and then there's 3 other mft lens i own and a whole bunch of vintage glass to play with as well. 
Looks like gopro have a whole range of accessories to buy as well, tailored to fit, for that integrated look. Cant blame them for that i guess and it kinda cuts out the others from getting a slice of the pie...  
 I like the concept so far.. still unsure about the photo and video file types. Apart from saying its 10 bit, there's not much to go on. I just hope theres some flexibility built in and the ai doesn't just burn a lut in 🙄.  Abit pessimistic i know, but i'm not a fan of the default settings from gopro for things like sharpness and saturation. So i'm still not preordering. I'll wait for some initial reviews, and then hopefully wait for some more before i do anything rash...

This is why, for me, there are two likely ways to use it:
1) My small bag full of C-mount and D-mount lenses and possibly attach it to the smallest 5" monitor that I have (which is quite small)
2) Throw it in my bag where it takes up almost no space and attach it to the back of existing short telephoto lenses which now function like long telephoto lenses

There's a realisation I keep hitting in my setups, despite me trying to keep a small kit.  It goes like this:
Start with a small camera body Think about the lenses I'd use with it for that project Think about the shooting style and approach and think about extra rigging and accessories that would require
----<realisation occurs>---- If the setup is going to be that big - why not use a larger body with better features / quality I'm having that realisation with this GoPro.
Not that there's a ton of small bodies with 10-bit recording, which we've all complained about at great length, but just having a camera body with more than 3 buttons and a screen that is larger than a postage stamp etc is actually quite useful.

Matt, that half-cropped head makes it even funnier.
@kye great post! ; )
:- )

I heard this recently and think it's pretty interesting.  I'm not sure if it's the best definition I've read, but it's more practical than other ones, so is useful from that perspective.
“He who works with his hands is a laborer.
He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman.
He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.”
- Saint Francis of Assisi
I'm 100% for not gatekeeping.  Even from a practical perspective, saying someone/something is or isn't 'art' doesn't mean anything, and people who like to be critical are really just telling us about themselves, not the thing they're talking about.

There's a colleague in my town that is trying to make "animation" films with 100% generative A.I.  What would Francis conclude about someone working without 'hands' and 'head'?  Or at best, no hands and half their head.
Like Gerald, this colleague is hoping he's able to maintain a financially rewarding YouTube channel. 
It could be that he is jumping on the slop-train.  But, on the other hand, at least he's making a novel effort production-wise to try and pay his bills.
Whereas, my naive thinking is that there's still a chance my documentaries will be, somehow, someway, financially rewarding.  And, even though that's unlikely, making docs is at least creatively fulfilling.

Luc Forsyth likes it, or what he saw at NAB anyway.
This is a setup they had with a broadcast servo-zoom lens on it.

His comments (link with timestamp)
He's worked on the survival show Alone for a few seasons and they use dozens of GoPros, but the footage always looks like it came from a GoPro This new model with a proper lens attached looked like footage from a real camera The broadcast zoom setup (with a phone as a monitor) handled like a proper camera He doesn't use AF when rigging cameras to vehicles etc most of the time so the lack of AF doesn't bother him in that context

Kinda interested on this GoMFT - I still like to take stills and video in concerts, and security is an increasing pain in the ass each show.

But for me an active mount would be much better - just to power the OIS in the lens that have it, and maybe just a CDAF autofocus.

(other option are these new phones with external lens like the Vivo and Oppo ones)

Z6 III vs ZR, you said?
Both are full frame, both use the Z mount, both have subject detection AF for 9 subject types, and both offer internal RAW up to 6K/60p.
The Z6 III has a 24.5MP full-frame sensor, and the ZR also uses a 24.5MP full-frame partially stacked sensor with EXPEED 7. From there, though, the split becomes pretty obvious.
The ZR is the one Nikon has shaped as a compact cinema camera. It gives you internal R3D NE, RED colour science, Log3G10 / REDWideGamutRGB, 32-bit float audio through the internal mic and 3.5mm jack, plus a 4.0-inch screen designed more for actual filming without leaning as heavily on external accessories. Nikon is very clearly positioning it as a compact cinema body.
The Z6 III, on the other hand, is much more complete as a stills camera.
It has a 5.76M-dot EVF, burst shooting up to 120fps, Pre-Release Capture, mechanical and electronic shutter options, and up to 8 stops of stabilisation with Focus Point VR. It is simply the more all-round camera of the two.
Physically, the ZR is noticeably smaller and lighter at around 134 x 80.5 x 49mm and 540g body only, or 630g with battery and card, whereas the Z6 III is larger and heavier at roughly 138.5 x 101.5 x 74mm and 670g body only, or 760g with battery and card.
The viewing setup also says a lot about the intent behind each one.
The Z6 III has an electronic viewfinder and a 3.2-inch vari-angle screen.
The ZR goes the other way with a 4.0-inch rear monitor and is not really being sold as an EVF-centered body at all, but as a video monitoring-first tool.
Audio is another area where the ZR is in a different class, because the 32-bit float recording is a major selling point and still quite unusual in this form factor. The Z6 III has serious enough audio for video work, but that is not one of its defining features.
Even the card slots tell the story. The Z6 III uses CFexpress/XQD plus SD UHS-II, while the ZR uses CFexpress/XQD plus microSD. That alone already says a lot about the difference in philosophy between a photographic hybrid and a compact cinema camera.
The Z6 III is still the more rounded hybrid camera, while the ZR looks much more like a compact cinema body built primarily around video use.
On paper they overlap in some important ways, because both sit in the same broad full-frame Z-mount ecosystem and both are clearly meant to appeal to shooters who care about strong video features, but the intent feels different.
The Z6 III is the camera I’d look at first if the job includes serious stills as well as video, because it gives you the EVF, the more conventional hybrid ergonomics, the stronger photographic identity and a much more all-purpose way of working.
The ZR, by contrast, seems aimed at the person who is leaning far more into filmmaking and wants a smaller cinema-oriented body, RED-style workflow influence, more specialised video tools and a more stripped-back approach that is less about being a do-everything camera and more about being a focused moving-image tool. That is really the core of it.
The Z6 III is the safer all-rounder. The ZR is the more interesting specialist.
So if somebody mainly shoots photo and video in equal measure, I’d say Z6 III. If they are really after a compact cinema camera in Nikon form, then the ZR is the one that makes more sense.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/release/20260414-01
 
In Portuguese.
 
In conclusion, now in English:
The big leap in Resolve 21 is this: it is no longer just an editor and colour-grading system for video. It now also includes a new Photo page, designed for still photography, with album management, node-based grading, crop and reframe at original resolution, tethered capture with Sony and Canon cameras, support for LUTs and Resolve FX, and collaboration through Blackmagic Cloud.
On the AI side, the package has become much more aggressive. It now includes IntelliSearch to find people, objects, and even words spoken in dialogue, a voice generator from text, CineFocus to recreate depth of field, Face Age Transformer, Face Reshaper, skin-imperfection removal, automatic slate reading with AI Slate ID, UltraSharpen, and Motion Deblur.
In the Cut and Edit pages, the most visible additions are improvements to keyframes and curves, the ability to adjust Fusion effects directly inside those editors, native support for HTML and Lottie graphics, improvements to Text+ and MultiText, and more practical smart bins for filtering footage in the Media Pool.
In colour, VFX, and audio, Resolve 21 adds MultiMaster Trim Manager to generate HDR and SDR versions from the same timeline, Magic Mask render in place, list and layer views in the node editor, and group versions for grades. Fusion gains the Krokodove library, improvements to the macro editor, and an updated USD toolset. Fairlight adds track folders, 6-band clip EQ, EQ and Level Matcher, and Chain FX.
For creators and modern workflows, there are ready-made square and vertical resolutions for social media, direct upload to YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, and X, support for IntelliScript with Final Draft, import of ATEM Mini ISO projects, and major reinforcement of immersive workflows, including VR180 and VR360, Panomap, ILPD retargeting, MainConcept H.265/MV-HEVC, and foveated rendering for Apple Immersive.
In short, Resolve 21 seems to be three things at once: more useful AI, tighter integration between areas that used to be separate, and a much broader opening toward photography, creators, and immersive content. Blackmagic itself presents this version as a major update, with the new Photo page, dozens of new features, and many usability improvements.
 
This is no small improvement. And who said they were focused only on the SMPTE crowd?! ; ) LOL
Amazing upgrade, kudos to them! : -)

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/release/20260414-01
 
In Portuguese.
 
In conclusion, now in English:
The big leap in Resolve 21 is this: it is no longer just an editor and colour-grading system for video. It now also includes a new Photo page, designed for still photography, with album management, node-based grading, crop and reframe at original resolution, tethered capture with Sony and Canon cameras, support for LUTs and Resolve FX, and collaboration through Blackmagic Cloud.
On the AI side, the package has become much more aggressive. It now includes IntelliSearch to find people, objects, and even words spoken in dialogue, a voice generator from text, CineFocus to recreate depth of field, Face Age Transformer, Face Reshaper, skin-imperfection removal, automatic slate reading with AI Slate ID, UltraSharpen, and Motion Deblur.
In the Cut and Edit pages, the most visible additions are improvements to keyframes and curves, the ability to adjust Fusion effects directly inside those editors, native support for HTML and Lottie graphics, improvements to Text+ and MultiText, and more practical smart bins for filtering footage in the Media Pool.
In colour, VFX, and audio, Resolve 21 adds MultiMaster Trim Manager to generate HDR and SDR versions from the same timeline, Magic Mask render in place, list and layer views in the node editor, and group versions for grades. Fusion gains the Krokodove library, improvements to the macro editor, and an updated USD toolset. Fairlight adds track folders, 6-band clip EQ, EQ and Level Matcher, and Chain FX.
For creators and modern workflows, there are ready-made square and vertical resolutions for social media, direct upload to YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, and X, support for IntelliScript with Final Draft, import of ATEM Mini ISO projects, and major reinforcement of immersive workflows, including VR180 and VR360, Panomap, ILPD retargeting, MainConcept H.265/MV-HEVC, and foveated rendering for Apple Immersive.
In short, Resolve 21 seems to be three things at once: more useful AI, tighter integration between areas that used to be separate, and a much broader opening toward photography, creators, and immersive content. Blackmagic itself presents this version as a major update, with the new Photo page, dozens of new features, and many usability improvements.
 
This is no small improvement. And who said they were focused only on the SMPTE crowd?! ; ) LOL
Amazing upgrade, kudos to them! : -)

Just curious what advantage the cine versions would bring in your application over the stills versions, particularly for the price bump ?
Are they parfocal or have significant reduction in focus breathing ?
Or are you looking at having wireless motor FIZ control with a Nucleus etc?

Z6 III vs ZR, you said?
Both are full frame, both use the Z mount, both have subject detection AF for 9 subject types, and both offer internal RAW up to 6K/60p.
The Z6 III has a 24.5MP full-frame sensor, and the ZR also uses a 24.5MP full-frame partially stacked sensor with EXPEED 7. From there, though, the split becomes pretty obvious.
The ZR is the one Nikon has shaped as a compact cinema camera. It gives you internal R3D NE, RED colour science, Log3G10 / REDWideGamutRGB, 32-bit float audio through the internal mic and 3.5mm jack, plus a 4.0-inch screen designed more for actual filming without leaning as heavily on external accessories. Nikon is very clearly positioning it as a compact cinema body.
The Z6 III, on the other hand, is much more complete as a stills camera.
It has a 5.76M-dot EVF, burst shooting up to 120fps, Pre-Release Capture, mechanical and electronic shutter options, and up to 8 stops of stabilisation with Focus Point VR. It is simply the more all-round camera of the two.
Physically, the ZR is noticeably smaller and lighter at around 134 x 80.5 x 49mm and 540g body only, or 630g with battery and card, whereas the Z6 III is larger and heavier at roughly 138.5 x 101.5 x 74mm and 670g body only, or 760g with battery and card.
The viewing setup also says a lot about the intent behind each one.
The Z6 III has an electronic viewfinder and a 3.2-inch vari-angle screen.
The ZR goes the other way with a 4.0-inch rear monitor and is not really being sold as an EVF-centered body at all, but as a video monitoring-first tool.
Audio is another area where the ZR is in a different class, because the 32-bit float recording is a major selling point and still quite unusual in this form factor. The Z6 III has serious enough audio for video work, but that is not one of its defining features.
Even the card slots tell the story. The Z6 III uses CFexpress/XQD plus SD UHS-II, while the ZR uses CFexpress/XQD plus microSD. That alone already says a lot about the difference in philosophy between a photographic hybrid and a compact cinema camera.
The Z6 III is still the more rounded hybrid camera, while the ZR looks much more like a compact cinema body built primarily around video use.
On paper they overlap in some important ways, because both sit in the same broad full-frame Z-mount ecosystem and both are clearly meant to appeal to shooters who care about strong video features, but the intent feels different.
The Z6 III is the camera I’d look at first if the job includes serious stills as well as video, because it gives you the EVF, the more conventional hybrid ergonomics, the stronger photographic identity and a much more all-purpose way of working.
The ZR, by contrast, seems aimed at the person who is leaning far more into filmmaking and wants a smaller cinema-oriented body, RED-style workflow influence, more specialised video tools and a more stripped-back approach that is less about being a do-everything camera and more about being a focused moving-image tool. That is really the core of it.
The Z6 III is the safer all-rounder. The ZR is the more interesting specialist.
So if somebody mainly shoots photo and video in equal measure, I’d say Z6 III. If they are really after a compact cinema camera in Nikon form, then the ZR is the one that makes more sense.

Remember what kye wrote about ;- )

I mean, the lens mount makes it very adaptable, but not having auto focus seems like a big deal breaker.

Z6 III vs ZR, you said?
Both are full frame, both use the Z mount, both have subject detection AF for 9 subject types, and both offer internal RAW up to 6K/60p.
The Z6 III has a 24.5MP full-frame sensor, and the ZR also uses a 24.5MP full-frame partially stacked sensor with EXPEED 7. From there, though, the split becomes pretty obvious.
The ZR is the one Nikon has shaped as a compact cinema camera. It gives you internal R3D NE, RED colour science, Log3G10 / REDWideGamutRGB, 32-bit float audio through the internal mic and 3.5mm jack, plus a 4.0-inch screen designed more for actual filming without leaning as heavily on external accessories. Nikon is very clearly positioning it as a compact cinema body.
The Z6 III, on the other hand, is much more complete as a stills camera.
It has a 5.76M-dot EVF, burst shooting up to 120fps, Pre-Release Capture, mechanical and electronic shutter options, and up to 8 stops of stabilisation with Focus Point VR. It is simply the more all-round camera of the two.
Physically, the ZR is noticeably smaller and lighter at around 134 x 80.5 x 49mm and 540g body only, or 630g with battery and card, whereas the Z6 III is larger and heavier at roughly 138.5 x 101.5 x 74mm and 670g body only, or 760g with battery and card.
The viewing setup also says a lot about the intent behind each one.
The Z6 III has an electronic viewfinder and a 3.2-inch vari-angle screen.
The ZR goes the other way with a 4.0-inch rear monitor and is not really being sold as an EVF-centered body at all, but as a video monitoring-first tool.
Audio is another area where the ZR is in a different class, because the 32-bit float recording is a major selling point and still quite unusual in this form factor. The Z6 III has serious enough audio for video work, but that is not one of its defining features.
Even the card slots tell the story. The Z6 III uses CFexpress/XQD plus SD UHS-II, while the ZR uses CFexpress/XQD plus microSD. That alone already says a lot about the difference in philosophy between a photographic hybrid and a compact cinema camera.
The Z6 III is still the more rounded hybrid camera, while the ZR looks much more like a compact cinema body built primarily around video use.
On paper they overlap in some important ways, because both sit in the same broad full-frame Z-mount ecosystem and both are clearly meant to appeal to shooters who care about strong video features, but the intent feels different.
The Z6 III is the camera I’d look at first if the job includes serious stills as well as video, because it gives you the EVF, the more conventional hybrid ergonomics, the stronger photographic identity and a much more all-purpose way of working.
The ZR, by contrast, seems aimed at the person who is leaning far more into filmmaking and wants a smaller cinema-oriented body, RED-style workflow influence, more specialised video tools and a more stripped-back approach that is less about being a do-everything camera and more about being a focused moving-image tool. That is really the core of it.
The Z6 III is the safer all-rounder. The ZR is the more interesting specialist.
So if somebody mainly shoots photo and video in equal measure, I’d say Z6 III. If they are really after a compact cinema camera in Nikon form, then the ZR is the one that makes more sense.

It seems to be the case. Pretty amazing what Nikon has accomplished in the past few years.
That is a pretty cool feature, even though my mind cannot grasp how the Techart is accomplishing it. I had a quick look on BH and they only seem to have an EF to Z and a Leica M to Z... do they make an F to Z? The M mount one is kinda interesting because the more I get into shooting film, the more I have become interested in an M6 or earlier model... again completely perverse for my needs considering I usually shoot with an FE or the random Pentax/Canon/Minolta camera, but there's just something unique with a rangefinder.
Speaking of the FE... the FE/FM variants are damn near perfect cameras for stills for the type of stuff I shoot so as I started researching Z mount cameras, I almost forgot about the ZF and I instantly got a little excited about it... even though it lacks a lot of the video requirements I want for a hybrid... but so does the ZR... anyway after a quick search I found this...

Then I searched for a size comparison of the ZF vs. the DF and other than the grip, they were basically the same size... I thought mirrorless was supposed to give us smaller, lighter bodies. I mean my GH6 is only a little smaller than my 5D3...
What a joke in some ways...
Rant over.
The Z8 would be amazing, but I don't know if I could do it. I think I'd rather have a ZR/ZF combo or just a Z6iii. Maybe if I could figure out a way to make some money from this stuff, a Z8 could be in my future... but then that would open a whole new set of possibilities... an R6iii/C50 or C70 combo...
And this is the problem I have been dealing with since I started this hobby. No camera meets all my needs (wants) but it's obscene for me to really have more than one camera. 
Another off topic rant... I've been seeing social media posts from the filmmaker Pete Ohs... I posted about him a long time ago because he made a film a year with a 5D Mark iii with ML Raw and his films were screened at SXSW and Sundance and they all got some type of distribution deal... well he's still making at least a film a year... his films are still being screened at SXSW and Sundance and he still gets distribution deals and he still makes his films using his 5D Mark iii with ML Raw and when asked, his reason is... "that's the camera I own." I immediately feel like an a complete asshole for chasing these other cameras. Of course, he's a tripod guy with very static shots that he shoots in basically one location (or very few) whereas I am trying to shoot more run and gun and stealing locations whenever possible., so I've realized how important IBIS is to my style of shooting and AF on some level... but not as important...
END RANT.
Anyway, I'm still in my early phase of thinking this through. I guess if I was smart, I'd dust off my tripod and shoot with my 5D or FP... or learn how to grade Log footage and use the GH6... but I really want 32 bit float audio and R3D/ProRes files... or nRaw/ProRes files... and IBIS in FF with some halfway decent AF... is that too much to ask?
first world problems...
Do it!!! You're a Nikon guy at heart it seems and you've been taking about it for a while... how nice would it be to have your "forever camera?" 

Very small mice are operating pulleys to physically move the lenses in and out of focus.
Hang on, it’s not mice it’s small motors.
Nikon’s FTZ adapter takes care of the AF Nikkors and for manual focus ones you just use the M mount one with additional M to F adapter stacked.
And indeed the same for any other type such as C/Y and M42 etc that have M adapters.
The other Z mount adapter that you may or not be interested in is the MegaDap E mount adapter which opens up the world of small and affordable primes.
There is even a Fuji X to Z adapter which is obviously only for APS-C lenses but would come in handy if your additional down the line Z camera was the not at all shit Z50ii.

It would be a tacit admission that the end is nigh 😂

Thanks for the reply. It looks like I'll probably go Nikon or Canon, but if I was thinking about this at this point last year, the FX30 and possibly an a7c2 would definitely be in the running. I love the output from the FX30 but the media and the price isn't worth it to me. If the FX30 was $1200 or less, it would be a contender. As far as the BM 6K FF... just not a fan of BM cameras for what I do.

Getting good affordable 960p would be cool for lots of people.  I see the science explainer channels showing bad quality 960p and the richer channels with Chronos setups.
Don't get me wrong about them not being cameras that appeal to a large number of people.  They're very good for getting the new "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME AND WIDE AND SMOOTH AND DEFINITELY SHARP SHARP SHARP!!!!" style of video that looks more like video than anything ever made before, but as soon as they say it's a cinema camera, there are 27 things they have to change from every other model ever made, and to bet they'll get every single one of them right is a very long shot indeed.

Yes, Z8 is a temptation. And now ZR... : ) However in my case, the Blackmagic 6K FF and the FX30 are both in a league of their own.

Slowmo modes are actually OOAK for this price range — 9600 pictures in 10 seconds burst of 1080p is something indeed: more than 6 minutes and a half going with 24p, oh well...
 
To this day, it’s still the fastest camera sale I’ve ever made, though. Just look at the number of subscribers on their official YouTube channel. These are numbers and facts.
 

+46.71% (+0.36) in the past 5 days...

Yes, Z8 is a temptation. And now ZR... : ) However in my case, the Blackmagic 6K FF and the FX30 are both in a league of their own.

If you do decide to go with Nikon the FTZII adaptor works very well with F mount AF-S lenses and the resulting auto focus speed is very close to z mount.AF-S lenses are easy to get second hand and far cheaper than the new lenses in Z mount .My AF-S 35mm f1.8 was only Aus $200 second hand and to purchase new in Z mount is around Aus $1000.

I would say that Z mount would be the way to go.
It can adapt everything you’ve got in your lens collection to be near native.
Not just your AF EF and F mount but with the TechArt you can have AF of all your manual lenses as well.
If you can stretch to a used Z8 then that would close the argument on every aspect and would be a - if not THE -forever camera.
I say this as someone who has still failed to buy one for the past three years despite it being THAT camera to me.
But I’m going to London this weekend and you know what, I might well end up feeling saucy and doing a Wayne Campbell…