IronFilm

What nonsense! "Decay" doesn't mean videos get deleted. Indeed, DigitalRev very much had a "Top Gear for Photography" vibes. And we still don't know why they removed those videos! (I don't buy the argument that it is because they're part of a MCN, and if that is true... that's outrageous a MCN could do that to you!!)

Thanks for giving all the extra details in your post! As so often when people ask for a "mid range" option, it's hopelessly vague! As "mid" depends entirely on where your end points are you measuring from? If you're starting at webcam level and ending at handycam level, then you're looking for a very different answer than someone who starts at FX3 and ends at VENICE! With your context & background I'd say probably a Sony FX6 or Canon C70 or similar is what you're looking for, as they're the cheapest entry level "pro cameras". But you also list your budget, so it clearly shows they're well outside your range. What to do? Step back to a previous generation and get a secondhand pro camera? That would be my immediate first thoughts, as the likes of a Sony FS7 / Sony PMW-F5 / Canon C200 / RED Scarlet / etc are all very very cheap on ebay. However, it seems that AF is a very high priority for yourself, and unfortunately only the latest generation of pro cameras (such as the FX6) have had decent AF. So that kills that entire train of thought. My immediate next thoughts are to go for one of these: FX30, FX3, or S5mk2. (Fujfilm XH2S is worth considering too, but in my opinion not as good as those first three I listed. Canon is out of the question, because they've decided to go for a closed system with their lens. Nikon Z9 is very nice, but outside your budget. The Nikon Z6mk2 / Zf is nice too & within your budget, but again it lags behind those three I just listed above. However.... the rumor mill is spinning saying the Z6mk3 is only days away from being announced? Panasonic GH6 & G9mk2 are excellent too, but again I'd say be lagging a bit behind the FX30/FX3/S5mk2, however I guess the GH7 is surely coming out this year? Well, "2024") Sony FX30 is my personal top pick out these three, because from my perspective it has phenomenal low light (just compare it against what we had to work with the ARRIs or a RED Dragon or a Sony PMW-F5 etc, the FX30 does very well!), and would make the perfect B Cam for my Sony FS7 in a way that the FX3 is not. Plus the FX30 is the cheapest out of those three! I half suspect however you'd be wanting even "more" out of your low light. Which thus then cuts down the discussion now to just two: Sony FX3, basically identical to the FX30 but with the drawbacks of higher cost, lack of compatibility with S35 lens, & shallower depth of field (wellll... some might see the forced shallow DoF as a benefit! But if you're wanting the best low light performance and great autofocus, it's a negative). However, you gain better low light performance overall if you really want to push it there. Worth the drawbacks? Not in my personal opinion, but depends on your perspective / priorities, and I think for you the FX3 likely edges out the FX30. Panasonic S5mk2, with the release of the mk2 (not just the S5mk2, but the G9mk2 too) then Panasonic finally leaps to the top tier for autofocus performance, on par generally speaking with the best from Sony & Canon. Panasonic also always gives you that polished implementation and reliability that some other brands have struggled with. I'd very much see the Panasonic S5mk2 as comparable to the Sony FX3 but at a much lower price. However.... the S5mk2 is missing a few little details that only pros would likely care about (such as no timecode support in the S5mk2?? wtf Panasonic!! Guess we need to wait for the S1H mk2, ugh), and much more importantly for some: won't smoothly and effortlessly slot into a bigger production also shooting on Sony. As Sony FX6/FX9 (and even still the FS5/FS7) are very popular at the low/mid budget level. If you were still working professionally, then I'd say it is a slam dunk decision to go for a FX3 (or FX30) because of this, & needing to work with others. But because you're just doing it for yourself, then likely the only downside is the somewhat smaller lens selection for L Mount vs E Mount (but L Mount has been getting better and better with more and more options, so I'd no longer see this as the negative it was a few years ago). And the fact you can get the S5mk2 at wholesale pricing then surely makes the S5mk2 the slam dunk decision to go with for you? (very quick edit: I forgot to mention the a7Smk3, as basically once the FX3 I feel that killed any point for the a7S. But anyway, the a7Smk3 is very similar but with the pro features of the FX3 stripped out. You might not care, and happy to just have "a lower priced FX3")

https://www.cined.com/camera-foundry-cineback-for-sony-fx3-and-fx30-launched/ We're making cameras smaller, just to make them bigger again.

True, it's definitely not a statement as strong as saying "Jack will NEVER get married". Exceptions and oddities always exist. And yeah, if only a few dozen people out of billions of people on planet earth like Jack, then their odds of getting married is very slim indeed! (plus, will Jake even like them?? Are they even in the same country? Or on the same continent?)

Shot with only a Sony a6600! But she's upgraded now to a Sony FX30.

And everything about my post there still stands. (of course I'm not denying that exceptions exist. But it would be very unusual for a camera rental house in the film industry to buy this Kodak camera. I'd be less shocked if they purchased a Kinefinity or ZCam, and then those would be very surprising) HAHA! Agreed

The difference between renting a $5K camera vs a $20K camera is kinda irrelevant when it comes to many budgets, and if a rental house already owns a $20K camera, they don't want to massively undercut themselves with a $5K camera unless they have to offer it. If productions can already get say an Aaton XTR or an ARRI 16SR3 to rent for a shoot, it kills a lot of the reason as to why a rental house should buy a Kodak Super 8mm camera for $5K That's why this Kodak camera will mainly appeal to buyers of it as their personal camera, and not most rental houses. Anyway, on the topic of video taps, this was an impressive DIY go at it: https://optroniceye.tumblr.com/post/118678962762/super-8-video-tap Exceptions will always exist. Of course I can't rule out one could exist. Just like if a person made and sold an overpriced hipster hand cranked film camera then there might be a rental house which gets it, just it would be weird and unusual for them to do so. My point has always been this is not being made and marketed primarily to rental houses, this is not of interest to them.

When you can count how many there in the world on the fingers of your hands, then that is basically a rounding error that rounds down to zero Of course exceptions always exist, but I'll ignore those. Nope. The typical camera rental house in hollywood won't have it Very few will But outside LA or NY? This is not happening. So sure, a very small number of rental houses in major places such as LA or NYC might get it. But in other cities? Munich? Melbourne? Mumbai? Moscow? Madrid? Manila? Montreal? Milan? Miami? Minneapolis? Marseille? Manchester? Medellín? Milwaukee? Montréal? Minsk? Mexico City? Nah, they won't be spending $$$$$ on this ultra niche Super 8mm camera from Kodak.

These fall into the categories of: 1) people hiring out old cameras (which they picked up cheap, or have been in their inventory for donkey years. The marginal cost to keep an item in your rental inventory vs acquiring it in the first place is very different maths) 2) private individuals renting out stuff, which is not a rental house 3) a primarily stills camera store which has a sideline in other related stuff, certainly not what we'd regard as "a rental house" in a conventional filmmaking sense My point stands, if anything, this has strengthened my point with your examples given. Extremely niche, a few individuals. You'll be able to count on your fingers (probably won't even need your second hand!) how many dedicated camera rental houses in the film industry will worldwide be picking up this Kodak S8 camera to add to their rental inventory

1) Peter Jackson is not a DP 2) even famous DPs have to respond to market forces (and heck, their ability to accurately feel the pulse of the market forces is quite likely a contributing factor why they're a famous DoP) Earlier you gave an example of a HFR 60fps film, which was actually a 24fps film Not "no cost", but very minimal cost vs the overall production budget.

Ohhhh... what made you go for the URSA Mini 12K? What will you be using it on?

Perhaps, just because LA is the biggest market for this in the world. But outside LA or another similar major metropolis (such as perhaps NYC) then it just wouldn't work. Hard to justify ownership of it just on the basis of the low budget rentals from music videos! How many commercials or higher budget music videos will want to shoot on Super 8mm?? And of those very few which want the Super 8mm look, how many will want the awkward workflow of actual film vs shooting on an ARRI then degrading it down in post? (or some other similar-ish approach, such as shooting with an OG BMPCC or Digital Bolex or Magic Lantern)

Hell no! Keep away from the a6000 series of cameras for filmmaking, they just are not as reliable as the FX series and lack all the many filmmaking features of the FX series then again, if you're not doing it professionally, just go with whatever? So long as you enjoy using it, that's all that matters Hmmm... maybe a Sony RX10 IV then? Or Sony FDR-AX700 or Sony PXW-Z90V?

Why do we almost never film only with a normal field of view? Why do we purposefully distort reality by choosing these range of other focal lengths to film with? Why do we light scenes in a manner that you're highly unlikely to come across randomly in real life in a natural manner? Why is 180VR massively unpopular vs conventional films when 180VR is so much "closer to realism"?

Maybe. Or perhaps 46fps would have flopped eventually, and it was naturally to drift to 24fps (or similar, such as 23fps or 25fps) as the framerate of choice

well sure, I suppose if someone is in a small town and being rung up to do a news piece as there are no usual ENG cameramen to cover the story, then they'll just use whatever camera they have it! There are always exceptions that exist. But would someone use a RED ONE MX as their daily/weekly workhorse for regular news work?? Hell no, I'd rather grab say even an old Sony PMW-EX3

Nobody sane is shooting news with RED ONE MX

Only if a new and much better camera module for the Pi comes out

I think that won't matter to @Jedi Master, as they can just buy S35 PL lenses.

Is that you @zlfan? Because their entire workflow is set up for that, they're not going to ditch millions/billions of dollars worth of gear just so that they can embrace 24p. Don't try to fix what is not broken.

Filming for social media has been also one of the biggest factors in making 4:3 popular. Exactly, most of us are not filming nature documentaries where we want a 100% accurate reflection of the real world. (heck, not even nature documentaries want that!)

Yes, "The Hobbit" was more than just "a few years ago", and it has decisively proved the case against higher frame rates than 24fps. You'll be shooting yourself in the foot if you film and release a film in 60fps. It's not what people want. You might believe millions/billions of people "are wrong", but this is what reality it, and you're not going to change this by yourself.

Can't see why a rental house would be interested, when you consider the up front costs + overheads vs how often they could rent this out, then there isn't any sensible price they could rent this out at per day where they could make a profit on it.

I think I'm floating dangerously in the middle between those two groups, straddling both worlds.