Bioskop.Inc

If you don't mind the size then this will be cheaper than the Samsung T5.
All you need is an enclosure (lots out there so look around, as you might find cheaper & be careful, as you should be getting Read/Write speeds of about 400 min - should be over 500 if it's a good enclosure) & the Samsung SSD 860 evo (has the best TBW or lifespan), there are other brands which might be cheaper. This solution will be cheaper, but bigger than the T5 - that's why the T5 is so much more expensive.
I've gone this way for external storage (also can double as hard drive to boot from), but didn't bother with an enclosure & just got a cable - a lot cheaper & faster read/write speeds than the T5 (mine gets well over 500 for R/W speeds).

This is great news - heads spinning with so many great options that are presenting themselves to us.
Yep, this is exactly where i am & I like it. Think if they get the 4K working on the 5D, this might be a better option to the P4K as it will take photos too.

This is great news - heads spinning with so many great options that are presenting themselves to us.
Yep, this is exactly where i am & I like it. Think if they get the 4K working on the 5D, this might be a better option to the P4K as it will take photos too.

Again, use the P4K with vintage lenses & it shines!
Low light was amazing & I wouldn't worry too much about the sun - the choice was made to see her & blow the sun. You've gotta remember it's the brightest thing you'll ever film & there will always have to be a pay off. There's also nothing wrong with crushing blacks or blowing highlights - it's a modern malady that tries to enforce that you can't do this.

Again, use the P4K with vintage lenses & it shines!
Low light was amazing & I wouldn't worry too much about the sun - the choice was made to see her & blow the sun. You've gotta remember it's the brightest thing you'll ever film & there will always have to be a pay off. There's also nothing wrong with crushing blacks or blowing highlights - it's a modern malady that tries to enforce that you can't do this.

I think the problem is user-related than ML
They got 3.5K RAW out of the 2012 5D Mark III, and the response on here was pretty underwhelming. I wrote a big guide about how to get it working, and again, not much interest. The original raw video ML on the 5D III got a LOT more interest.
So I suggest, people should be more excited about this stuff than they actually are. Have we become spoilt? Have we just got lazy?
I don't understand why more of you aren't making use of that incredible 3.5K image.

Yep, I read that too a few years ago that the CP.2s were rehoused ZFs - the 50mm f1.4 was the first lens I got for the new 60D I bought years ago. I think the Sigma (Art) will probably be sharper wide open, but IMHO it lacks the creamy quality of the Zeiss ZFs - if you like the Zeiss look, then the ZFs are a good modern take & I thought they were great for filming (and you can always sharpen in post).
Also, got to remember that Zeiss have made a ton of great lenses over the years & you don't have to go for the Contax versions. I bought some of the Zeiss Jena MF lenses ages ago & they were really nice & you shouldn't get put off by seemingly underwhelming F stop numbers on MF lenses, as they are brighter than they first appear. This was the article that helped identify which ones to buy: 
https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/vintage-zeiss-glass-on-modern-cameras/
I'm thinking of going back to MF lenses & in particular the Mamiya Sekor 645 lenses - seen some things filmed on them & they look great. Too many lenses & not enough money to try them all or keep them.
 

I still can't believe people are trying to compare a camera which shot HD with one that shoots 4K. It's like when we moved from SD to HD (here i'm refering to the TV world back then) - all the tests, all the moaning & then the slow realisation that we would have to change the way we did things.
What BM have given us so far are 3 different tests, using 3 different types of lenses & thus gave us 3 different shooting styles. Yes, i thought John's looked the best - lens choice & experience?  But the Balloon film was meant to show off what a Documentary style piece could achieve - there was never a point where I thought it should look cinematic. The Nature piece really showed of the DR in extreme circumstances, but I could really do without ever seeing another piece made with that Sigma zoom, absolutely hate that thing, yuck - if someone gave me one for free, I'd sell it & buy something else. 
I laughed when Frank (over at BMUser) slapped on the Tokina ATX Pro to his BM4.6K last year & it shone - then everyone went scrambling for one. This is a lens we've known about here for ages (thanks to Andy Lee) & how could you go wrong with such a lens - it's an Angenieux recipe lens that screams that cinema feel/image. If you slap on an over sharp modern photography lens, as is, you're going to get that video look in 4K - it's not rocket science. Maybe, just maybe, you might need to really start thinking about what you pair with this camera & stop thinking that it's only the camera.
The recommendation has always been to invest in glass, not camera bodies - that's really where the mojo starts & ends. I wonder what that Nikon "Bourne" lens would look like on the P4K, probably amazing!?

You make it sound as if you have to stop down the camera loads to get a sharp picture, but to f4 it's only one stop! And you've got to remember it's an oldish lens without all the modern coatings. I've never worried about CA, to me it's like complaining about Moire & Aliasing, just a waste of time - people are too often obsessed with absolute perfection instead of just getting the shot. But it certainly has that Angenieux look, which isn't for everyone. Don't ever try the original as it'll leave you sobbing mess.

I still can't believe people are trying to compare a camera which shot HD with one that shoots 4K. It's like when we moved from SD to HD (here i'm refering to the TV world back then) - all the tests, all the moaning & then the slow realisation that we would have to change the way we did things.
What BM have given us so far are 3 different tests, using 3 different types of lenses & thus gave us 3 different shooting styles. Yes, i thought John's looked the best - lens choice & experience?  But the Balloon film was meant to show off what a Documentary style piece could achieve - there was never a point where I thought it should look cinematic. The Nature piece really showed of the DR in extreme circumstances, but I could really do without ever seeing another piece made with that Sigma zoom, absolutely hate that thing, yuck - if someone gave me one for free, I'd sell it & buy something else. 
I laughed when Frank (over at BMUser) slapped on the Tokina ATX Pro to his BM4.6K last year & it shone - then everyone went scrambling for one. This is a lens we've known about here for ages (thanks to Andy Lee) & how could you go wrong with such a lens - it's an Angenieux recipe lens that screams that cinema feel/image. If you slap on an over sharp modern photography lens, as is, you're going to get that video look in 4K - it's not rocket science. Maybe, just maybe, you might need to really start thinking about what you pair with this camera & stop thinking that it's only the camera.
The recommendation has always been to invest in glass, not camera bodies - that's really where the mojo starts & ends. I wonder what that Nikon "Bourne" lens would look like on the P4K, probably amazing!?

Really is a great combo - BMPCC & Tokina. I'm Sure the P4K will look great with this lens.
Just hate it when people think you should judge a lens by how well it shoots wide open, utter rubbish!

Visually, in general I like them more than Contax  - they are full metal and always smaller, so very pretty and... sexy as full set, resembling me to SLR Magic line 
Construction wise - as I bring some of them to refreshing treatment to master - they are on the same level as Contax, but my impression that they are little bit or two-three more prone to time-passing effect... so try always to find nice condition examples, lubrication etc. wise. Also, zooming operation is stiffer - at least with examples I had. 
Coating of Contax is always little bit better - so Rolleis are more prone to flaring... but there is, of course, some magic.
"Sharpness" and all connecting with image wise, there's no difference between Contax and Rollei, besides, probably, as usual sample variation.
BUT... pay attention that signature should always be Rollei Zeiss line... Although Japanese version of just Rollei engraved could be also equally nice, German origin is more proven to quality.
I especially liked 35mm 2.8 Rollei Zeiss.
Sometimes they are on the market even more pricey  than Contax... for example 85mm 1.4 is very very rare, as even more 35mm 1.4
f2.8 line  is wonderful as set for gimbal - little and powerful 25mm (strange painting instrument!), 35mm (astonishing smooth rendering from 2.8), 50mm (also sharp from 2.8), 85mm (same as Contax secret 85mm 2.8 favorite). 
Once upon a time there was an Ikarex 50mm 1.4 concave version - it could be easy the most astonishing rendering lens that I was lucky to try with proper adapter.... extremely rare, but my country is inside old East German optic circle, so these lenses today mostly come from Eastern Europe.
Just be careful not to messed them with Rolleinar lenses - these are not at the same league... so just Rolleiflex line...

The Tokina 28-70 2.6 is a wicked lens. I haven't had many issues with CA but it is noticeably softer than the Zeiss and Sigma lenses I'm used to but the image that it produces is, to my eye, much prettier. Cant wait to test it on the new pocket. Also I picked it up for like £120.

I'd follow Rich's advice & stick with what you have, since you'll almost certainly ruin your lens. Your lens does have character & most people tend to think that horizontal flare is the only thing anamorphic lenses are good for, which is completely false - there's so much more to using anamorphics, you just have to experiment a little harder. I've got MC anamorphics to flare just fine, eventhough I don't particularly like horizontal flare
This was a quick'n'dirty flare test that I did with a MC Isco 54. My personal favourites are examples 9+10 (9 was a vintage Tomioka with Gold-ish coating & 10 was a new MC Zeiss ZE).

It's fine, as long as people can accept that others won't have the same opinion as themselves & that discussions don't descend into hurling insults!
Yes, I just wrote that & understand we're on the internet. Just leave your Twitter brain at home, don't get offended so easily & accept different points of view.
No Racism, Sexism etc...
Oh! And instead of just continuing to bang the same drum, perhaps engage people about why they hold a certain position? Yeah, I just wrote that & I still know we're on the internet.

I think its all a conspiracy, as Gardians of the Galaxy 2 was soooo shit & really not funny at all, Disney saw the script for No.3 & just found an excuse to get rid of him, in order to save the 3rd film from turning out to be an absolute turd.
Disney knew exactly who James Gunn was when they hired him - this is the guy who made "Slither" (big phallic penis invasion horror film), a TV series called "PG Porn" (yes you read that right!) & "Movie 43" to name a few. When you hire someone nowadays, the HR department does their due diligence and their first stop is Facebook & Twitter, without exception. I know people who simply haven't hired people for what they've written on Social Media, regardless of whether their posts have been jokes or not - "Hate going to work on Monday mornings or any morning for that matter", "Think I'm going to pull a sickie today", "My boss is a C**T" etc. And that's just for work related things.
So, now do you really think or believe Disney didn't know about these tweets a long time ago? Of course they did & they played their trump card (yeah!!!) now to get rid of him for whatever their real reason/s where.
As far as jokes about peadophilie tendencies are concerned, just not my thing....  

This is probably the most complete database for what is [potentially] out there, in terms of Anamorphic Attachments:
http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Anamorphic_Lenses

Shall we ask him back, by popular demand then?
I must admit I do miss the guy a bit.
But it was a bit like having a spambot around.

I recently shot a very short film in Chinatown (Chicago). I decided to use the GH5s for discreet purposes. All natural lighting. Zeiss 50mm Master Anamorphic. 3200 ISO VLog L.
 
https://imgur.com/a/FTy8OtI
 

Yep, small & no moving parts.
Never seen any distortion with the Isco Widescreen 2000 or it's smaller counterpart the Isco S8/X2 - again, small lenses & no moving parts, as they're fixed focus.
Just got to remember that Anamorphics are completely different from spherical lenses - for the most part, you just aren't going to get this lovely pristine look. Most people who turn to anamorphics tend to like & want all the imperfections, what is normally described as a lens having character. They're not for everyone, that's for sure. If you just like the flares, then there are plenty of options out there - blue streak filters etc. Same goes for Oval Bokeh - you have options now.
IMHO it's sacrilege to want to make these lenses fit into a prescribed look. They have their own look, which a lot of people love & you adjust yourself for the really serious distortions (like the big fat heads in close ups). It's like that Lens thread that has been overtaken by certain people posting examples of newish lenses, which you can find examples of all over the net - it kinda ruins the whole point of why that thread was started in the first place. Love the vintage look, gotta love the imperfections.

I agree.  I don’t personally care for Von Trier’s films, but that’s about as irrelevant as it should be.  There is too much influence portrayed as a universal acceptance in cinema simply because of the bandwagon.  I saw Black Panther because I felt like I was the only person in the world who wasn’t hash tagging how amazing it was....  Bullshit.  I felt like I was “supposed” to like it because if I didn’t, that was racist.  I just didn’t.  The fact that it’s a problem these days if you don’t, and not prioritizing the acceptable cool kids club agenda - is more offensive to me than anything Lars will ever do and I guarantee only about 10% of the 100 critics who decided to walk out of the movie were just not interested.  The rest probably left because if they didn’t, what does that say about “them”.  Get a damn load of Gasper Noe..  lol

"Anamorphic Mumps" occur when you're doing a close up of, say, a person & was a common feature of early  Cinemascope lenses, which was later fixed in some makes, but not all. The Mumps doesn't appear at longer distances. It's basically to do with the fact that at closer range, you loose the x2 squeeze ratio & when you go to desequeeze in post you get the mumps.
What @ken, said is probably correct - the fact that they were also projector lenses would have meant that they would hardly have ever been used to project at close range. Don't know if one Kowa branded adaptor is different from another, but am guessing that they won't be - I was always led to believe that the B&H branded ones just had better QC on the glass used.
So, I'm guessing user error/misunderstanding is to blame for the examples of the mumps that you've seen on the B&H, rather than one example being worse than another. This is common when people start to use anamorphics & is compounded even more by people using wide angle lenses with these attachments to do close ups. So many quirks, not enough time or energy to explain everything.
The mumps is summed up best thus:
"The Problem and the Fix... The problem was called "CinemaScope Mumps", in which the center of the image received less horizontal squeeze when the lenses were focused at short distances. When projected, the center of the image was expanded more than its original compression. In the early days of anamorphic photography close-ups were avoided. When they were deemed necessary, the actor was placed either to the right or left of center where the inconsistent squeeze would pose no problem. It is easy to see what Gottschalk and his team at Panavision were able to accomplish. The upper image is a close up taken with an early Bausch and Lomb CinemaScope lens and the lower image is a 35mm reduction print taken from the newly developed M-G-M/Panavision process. We can thank Panavision that this beautiful woman and all others photographed with anamorphic lenses don't look like broadcaster Cokie Roberts. This promotional photo was produced by M-G-M to promote the new system.

The difference between the two photos is at the same time accurate and deceiving. While the system did yield a CinemaScope compatible print without the distortions of contemporary Bausch & Lomb lenses, in fact the low anamorphic squeeze factor of 1.25x would never have created such distortion had it been applied to the B & L design. By the same token, the prismatic anamorphic design would also never create the distortion even if it was 2:1."
(above quote taken from) http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup1.htm
And David Mullen's explanation:
"I don't know the exact mechanics but the squeezed bokeh is actually the byproduct of fixing a problem with early CinemaScope lenses, called the "anamorphic mumps". Basically what happened was that as you focused near minimum, like for a close-up on a 50mm anamorphic (the first focal length made for CinemaScope), the squeeze ratio dropped below 2X. But the unsqueezing is always a consistent 2X by the projector, so the end result was that faces looked slightly fat in CinemaScope.

Panavision solved this with some cams in the lens barrel that compensated as the lens rotated towards minimum focus so that the object in focus is always squeezed consistently by 2X -- but the side effect was that objects out of focus now got squeezed more than 2X and thus look skinny when unsqueezed by 2X during projection.

John Hora explains it in the ASC Manual. It has something to do with the fact that the vertical plane of focus is spherical and thus focuses at a different point than the horizontal plane of focus which comes from the anamorphic elements. Using two astigmatizers and counter rotating the anamorphic elements when focusing, Panavision kept a constant 2X squeeze on the subject but caused out of focus objects to get more than a 2X squeeze. So the squeezed bokeh effect is more obvious as you focus closer and when shooting at wide apertures, which is why the lens breathes as you rack focus."
(above from) http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?99606-ANAMORPHIC-ARTIFACTS-amp-SQUEEZE-RATIO-QUESTION/page2

Make it 40... to me this camera doesn’t even exist. 
Eventually we’ll have footage from John Brawley or Frank Glencairn or Noam Kroll and the footage will look amazing. More people will love it but a few will find something wrong with it...
Eventually card info will be released, and more people will complain.
Eventually AF tests will show up comparing this camera to the PDAF of the a6500 and more people will complain.
Eventually low light tests will show up comparing this camera with the GH5s or the a7sii and more people will complain.
At the end, when it’s released, a bunch of people will complain because they hate that they have to use an IR Cut filter and they will complain that they only get 45-60 minutes of battery life and that they wish it had IBIS...
And eventually the usual suspects will be the only people that have the camera and the footage will be absolutely gorgeous.
The End.

LOndon is a complete nightmare (especially the public/private land thing), but where I am in Bristol, no one cares. I've even had 2 Policemen stopping whilst I was filming so as not to walk into shot - I was using the BMPCC with a K3 pistol grip/shoulder mount & probably looked like we were filming tourist stuff. As far as photography is concerned, there's a 24hr photo competition & you get given a time slot to take a photo - never heard of anyone being stopped or the police being called, but they do have better things to be doing & you hardly ever see them walking about these days.
If you are filming with a crew, whether it be 2 or 5, it's really easy to get a permit to film & doesn't cost a bomb. But i've shot loads of stuff & never been stopped - quick & discrete is the rule of thumb. But in general, where I am, no one is going to approach you or call the police - perhaps we're just a little bit more chilled as a city.

Those are the ones, especially the 105mm f2.5, also it's worth trying the 28mm, but i suppose it's quite close to the 5mm - these really are a great set of lenses. Most people will be put off by the fact that they aren't very fast, but that's just silly & normally it's people following the idiotic rule that you should shoot wide open with fast apertures.
For vintage lenses, 55mm is normally the best due to the fact that the lens recipe is simpler & they perfected it. Have you tried any Tomioka (Japan) made lenses? The 55mm f1.4's are worth a try, very nice for video. They made for various people: Chinon, Yashinon, Revuenon etc.., must have "Tomioka Japan" on the inner ring & have the "Auto" moniker. They did do a 55mm f1.2, which is dreamy wide open & a lot more expensive.
At the moment, my goto lenses have been either the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6-28 (the first version is an Angenieaux lens recipe) or the Mir 24m 35mm f2 - for me they are must have lenses.
You're right on the money there - 44-2 is an excellent lens if you get a good copy. Lots of other Russain lenses, actually most of them, give this lovely low contrast - it's why people have raved about them for video for a long time. Dirt cheap as well, but you might need to shop around for good copies