IronFilm

Give us a livestream! ha
I want a brown retro case for my Fujifilm X-A3 too! Lost the case one night while out drinking, but phew, didn't lose the camera itself!!

https://petapixel.com/2023/04/12/sony-fx3-and-fx30-get-anamorphic-de-squeeze-dci-4k-at-24fps-more/
 

This film is a 20th Century Studios > Disney production so Sony competitor. CGI is by ILM, Industrial Light & Magic, same owner.

I agree and I think this idea is nonsense.
I use m43, Panasonic/Sony FF, and yet I preorderer the G9II.
So why the hell I bought this "big" and "expensive" m43 camera ?
There are a few reasons :
- Neither my A7IV or S5II can give me the fantastic stabilization of the G9II with "relatively small" telephoto and super telephoto lenses.
- Neither of these FF cameras have an acceptable rolling shutter or 60fps Open Gate/120fps 4K. Yes, the A7SIII has good rolling shutter and it has 4K 120fps, but there are always trade-off (much more expensive, low MP, no crop mode,worse details in 4K 120fps).
- While they are a lot of really excellent lenses of the FE mount and a few on the L mount, m43 has a lot of jewels as well. 
I can't see me stopping using some of my Panasonic Leica or my Oly Pro lenses. Some are irremplacable like the 100-400mm PL, some are outstanding to the point that even comparable FF lenses are no match, like the two f1.7 Panasonic zooms (contrast and colors are wonderful). 
I also tried to replace my 12-32mm, 12-35mm and 35-100mm with some FF lenses on my S5II and my A7IV, I can't. There are some options for Sony to replace the 12-35mm but they are not compelling for me (weight, price or features associated with the camera).
- This is subjective but I love the colors from the GH6 and I expect the colors from the G9II to be almost the same. I don't like the colors of the S5II as much, even less the colors of the A7IV.
So at the end of the day, there is no perfect camera and system, but they have strengths and weaknesses.
No, we can't get the low light performance of the S5II on the G9II. No, we can't get the FF look at some focal lenghts (like the 50mm GM f1.2) with our m43 cameras and lenses. 
But as pointed out above, m43 gives a lot of advantage as well. And if we should use m43 only with small cameras, we could not get everything this system can offer with the G9II.

I have and use the g9mki a decent amount and don't mind the body size as the lenses are still all so small, especially compared to their FF equivalents.
The g9, like most m43 cameras, really got attractive after a few firmware updates and price drops. It's so nice. I still have and love some smaller m43 cameras (gx85, bmpc OG, Z Cam E1) but when I'm doing a video gig I typically will use the g9. It's been wonderful to own and I bought it for $1000 USD new a few years ago. 

I'm currently still pretty tempted by the gh6 at $1300, but will probably hold off for a bit to see what they do. 

I love what m43s offers and personally don't mind if the top of the line bodies are a a bit chunky. The platform is still wonderful with the lenses they already have out. 

I do agree that I hope we see some more compact bodies with the new sensor and now PDAF soon though, but I don't mind the g9ii using the s5ii body.

@Andrew Reid Burano has shipped with X-OCN LT. If Sony charges you $25K for the lowest quality 16-Bit codec, it means that you will never see that on any Sony mirrorless. The smaller bodies wouldn't be able to deal with the heat management involved in 16-Bit readout, processing, and recording for video. This is also a slap in the face for those shooters who were hoping to see X-OCN in the FX series, since that is also less likely to happen for several years. It is Sony's answer to REDCODE, although it doesn't violate RED's patents as it is not technically RAW.

From John Brawley:
"No. Canon, like Sony won't license their mount. It's an open secret that Red did an IP swap for the ability to use RF mount on some of their cameras and in exchange, Canon can make their own internal raw codec that can be used in-camera.

It's easy to test the theory. Name a single camera (not lens) with E mount that isn't made by Sony? Same for Canon with RF (excluding Red)?"
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=173840&start=450#p956719 

But how much would you be willing to pay extra for the larger sensor and lenses that cover it? After all, many lenses have masks that minimize flare but also limit the image coverage to a rectangle.  Let's say lenses for a square 36 mm times 36 mm sonsor would have 1/2 stop smaller apertures and 50% higher price as a result, and camera body would also be 50% more expensive. Flash sync speed would be 1/125 s and sensor read time 50% longer. Would you still want it, and would you expect that everyone would be fine with it so that mass production would be realistic and square sensors would replace rectangular ones all over the market?

It's not just about the extra buttons for speedier usage, it is also about the tonnes of extra features that makes life easier:
TC
Built in ND filters 
Multiple (independent!) outputs 
SDI output(s)
etc etc etc etc 
Eh, I've been working since last week on a fairly "uncontrolled set" (man, I wish I had more control over the racket being made! Too much noise) and this camera is "rigged up" that we're using (if anything, this is a more minimalistic setup for itself currently, as it is stripped down for the ever suffering Steadicam Op):
 

 
It's only 250gm difference between a FX6 and FX3 body, so the difference would often be not even close to as much as 25% between the two rigs.

Even though the average movie goer (or even the average movie reviewer) doesn't know what "a Sony FX3" is, this still helps them massively create this underdog story of we're this plucky independent-ish film going our own way, doing things in our own manner, and we're not like those big studio films that some people are getting turned off by. 

Possibly because it kind of demonstrates that one of the least most important components of movie making is the camera itself?
Beyond a certain point. 
I’m sure they were not using the f4-5.6 kit lens but some 20k$ cine lenses and maybe less than in some other productions, but whatever lighting etc was needed.
We know that even just in commercial jobs, the type of camera you have can get you or at least deny you, the job.
’Average’ tool in skilled hands etc…
In terms of sensor though, just how far off a Venice is that of the FX3? Barely anything.

My bad! It's not a set of Panavision lenses we're currently using, it's Cooke Anamorphics:

Good points. The marketing-push regarding it being shot on the FX3 seems somewhat inorganic to me, and I say that as a massive fan of the FX3.
The other issue is that (based on the trailer) it does not seem like a movie that showcases the potential of the FX3 for low-budget indie filmmakers. This is on account of the dense, and expensive, SFX and post-production which does not represent features of the camera itself.
I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

Do guys think sony will charge $5000 for Open Gate license on Burano? ( its $5000 for unlocking open gate on Venice )

Dealing in coke is the way to go to able to afford cooke 
 

I just don't quite understand why a filmmaker such as Edwards used a FX3, when much better cameras for productions such as Sony BURANO (or back then, the FX6) are available cheaply. 
Camera gear is shockingly cheap to rent. I'm working on a low budget / self funded short film right now, which is using an ALEXA 35 with Panavision anamorphics. 
You're not saving that much from the overall budget by shooting with an FX3 instead, it just feels a bit gimmicky, like when people want to be able to say we "shot it on an iPhone" purely for the sake of the marketing aspects for driving the film out there to be seen by the audiences. 
After all, would we even be talking about this film at all today if he'd chosen an ALEXA 35 for it instead? 

Nikon started at 2018 and now has more 400mm lens than Sony has 40mm. Glass business is hard, and Canon/Nikon are basically optics company. Canon didn't start the full frame mirrorless transition with a bold sensor message, it started with a bold glass message: 28-70mm f/2.

Are polls still there? 
Maybe this topic requires a poll? With suggestions for the options, before the polls are opened.
Mine would be 'too slow to adopt PDAF', and 'abandoning small cameras like the GM/GX lineup'. 
Their supply chaim and marketing are also disappointing. 

https://www.aputure.com/products/amaran-200x-s/
https://www.aputure.com/products/amaran-300c/
https://www.aputure.com/products/amaran-150c/
Am looking at replacing my trusty but slightly cumbersome 4 and 2 bank flourescent tube lights (daylight and tungsten) with these new LED's from Amaran - the 200x S as my key light and a 150c or 300c as fill and versatile does it all light including colour backgrounds/washes if needs be. I will keep my Dedolight DH4 for hairlight, accents etc
I make documentaries mainly for galleries and museums so do a lot of talking heads, green screen, filming artefacts and also occasionally room settings/interiors
Just wondering if anyone has any experience with these LED's or if there are other lights I should also be considering?
Am often on my own filming lighting and capturing audio - be nice to be able to dial in colour temp, brightness etc all from an app on my phone as I set up, will speed up the process a lot and hopefully create better control of light, nicer images...
From what I've read the 200x S has better accuracy and skin tones than the 150 and 300 so that would be my key light when filming people. Is the 300 worth the extra over the 150 for when I occasionally film in large historical rooms and want to bring out features, am imagining a little more power is always good to have?
I love the soft light I get from the floursecents so would augment the LED's with softbox. Is the light quality similar, would the 200x S with softbox be able to light as much as a 4 bank floursecent? I also like hard light at times so will also use the LED's with barn doors. 
The floursecents would still be useful especially for lighting the green screen, am currently using some old photo lights with no control of spill and harsh hot spots. The floursecents would light the green screen more evenly and with more control hopefully, and use the LEDs to light the talent
Anyway am open to other suggestions and also best ways of transporting these lights, my bag for the floursecents is horrible - huge and falling apart, be nice to be a bit more streamlined whilst also keeping the lights safe. 
 

Dealing in coke is the way to go to able to afford cooke 
 

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/rogue-one-godzilla-gareth-edwards-201500503.html
That was an interesting read about how he go back the indie root of film making.
I totally agree about the huge bloated cost of blockbuster now, and the cgi still look crap.

Got to up your offer even further! Let your daughter borrow a Fujifilm GFX100 
 
Well, the GH7 will probably be at a higher price? 
And will likely have even more video features:
1) mini XLR??
2) mini SDI?? 
3) built in fan? 
4) 4K 240fps??? 
5) multi aspect sensor?? 
6) six channel audio recording?? 
 
True. Better to have a "do it all camera" than a specialist stills vs video mirrorless. 
Wish Panasonic would 

Dealing in coke is the way to go to able to afford cooke 
 

To me the perfect embodiment of the four-thirds mount was actually the original Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera, which technically speaking was only using the mount but equipped with a smaller sensor. The only true ‘pocket cinema’ in my book.
That camera was so much fun shooting.
It was imperfect, having to change the damn battery every 15 minutes, amongst other quirks and limitations. But the shooting *experience* was completely different from other cameras because it left out anything else and the interface was simple. 
The footage felt very…organic. Something I haven’t seen in their later products. Not sure what it is.

I used it often in combination with a pancake lens while having the flexibility to mount other lenses.
I have 4 lenses collecting dust (and a broken GH5 which died when I forgot to turn it off, using it as a webcam).
Why is no company making a new version of this concept? It’ll be optically superior to a phone.

I agree, the release of the G9mk2 with PDAF hints at the fact that there will be either a GH6mk2 (basically identical to the GH6, but with PDAF) or a GH7! (maybe even both)
If it is a GH6mk2 then it will be "soon" (maybe this year?? At least, "within a year" for sure), if it is a GH7 then it will probably be a bit further away when it happens. 
Hopefully it will be both? Like what happened with the GH5mk2 / GH6
My hope is they'll surprise us with the GH6mk2 (that adds PDAF, but otherwise makes zero changes to the GH6mk1) and at the same time as they release the GH6mk2 they say that the GH7 is "in development" together with some ground breaking features. (mini SDI, mini XLR, six channel recording, and eNDs pretty please! We could easily fit all this into a S1H sized body for the GH7)