Laurier

1. modern glass, so native high quality M4/3 glass from Panasonic or Olympus or veydra.
2. cinelux ES
3. Rectilux HCDNA

You will get oval bokeh and some corner distortion ,that will be very sharp but sterile .
You should rather consider vintage primes as taking lenses, you will get less sharp results but something with more live in it.

1. modern glass, so native high quality M4/3 glass from Panasonic or Olympus or veydra.
2. cinelux ES
3. Rectilux HCDNA

You will get oval bokeh and some corner distortion ,that will be very sharp but sterile .
You should rather consider vintage primes as taking lenses, you will get less sharp results but something with more live in it.

Except that slog is unworkable internally ,you get color noise and compression artifact all over the place, so If you want to have all the DR that the sensor have to offer you need to record externally .
I do a lot of post work and when you start to move things around, it s immediately visible .
The youtube argument is a nonsense, because even in cinema your bitrate is limited to 250 Mb/s, it s about having some room in post to get your image where you want it before you compress it again.
But my work sometime get screened at festivals so to me it matters.

The motion blur look very different as well.
The examples you sent me have little motion to them.
But yeah, if you shoot cine4 and upload straight to youtube, that make less sense. 
 
I disagree with the face tracking comment , I shoot with Batis and it work very well, way better than any focus puller would manage on large format/long lens/large aperture , I do MV and fashion mostly and I can t always know where the model/performer is going to move ( and if it s dancer, I want to let him/her do his/her things).
Beside on a shoulder rig you can see both the rear screen and the recorder so you know when it lock in, the screen don t go off if you setup the video signal/trigger properly.
You need to go to the menu and force 4k 24fps out then deactivate the internal recording , and activate to control trigger over hdmi.
If you leave the default parameter, the screen go black and you loose face tracking.

I think the 24-55-85 K35 are based on the FD but the versions before the L line was introduced.
I did read that the Aspherical elements were hand polished, I guess the L version industrialized the process more and got more consistent.

But then the K35 are a full and fast super 35 set, the 18mm 1.4  don t have a FD close equivalent.

I don t know how much better the mechanics are on the original K35, compared to a FD, and I wonder what the initial cost of a set was,  but I think the cost is over inflated today for what they are.
I considered getting the 24-55-85 FD and convert them to e-mount but after watching a lot comparison I found them barely more interesting than a set of samyang .

There is a lot of marketing BS for this kind of things, when the K35 are warm, low contrast and soft it s cool and fancy, but when you get the same thing with a cheaper option is a defect and its not desirable anymore.

As someone who's recently moved from premiere, I agree with previous posters about premiere's strength in organization. There's a little bit of a learning curve moving to resolve's color panels but once you get some time in your belt, I think it's a far more intuitive approach using nodes vs layers. 
If I were Adobe, I'd be worried. 

The P4K doesn't really have "better codec options" at this point unless you mean braw - and that will probably be less of a competitive advantage when ZCam release the first version of their raw implementation sometime this month.  Otherwise, the ZCam has ProRes HQ at up to 4kp30 and ProRes 422 at up to 4kp60 as well as h.265 with decent bitrate.  If you tested months ago, the quality of 4kp120 has improved since then - they upped the bitrate on it a bit.  In the next release, they are upping it more (I think to 500 megabits/second).

And you're very likely right about the A73 sensor - or something similar to it.  In general, if you check the features of a Z-Cam vs a list of modern Sony sensors, you'll find that they align really nicely.  It's why people keep asking about 4kp120 in the bigger sensor cameras and getting turned down.  None of the bigger Sony sensors support it.

The BMPCC4K is a great camera and a fantastic value, no doubt about it, but the E2 is also excellent and I'm glad I bought it over the BM.  I love that I can rig it on a big heavy shoulder rig with huge EF lenses and F-970/V-mount batteries for long life... or I can throw on a tiny Micro 4/3 prime like the Panasonic 14/2.5 or 20/1.7 and put in an F550-type battery and have a super tiny light camera.

The lack of a built-in screen is mitigated very nicely by being able to wire in my phone as a screen which I very much prefer to using wifi - it gives me an excellent 5" or so low-latency screen with a built-in battery.  Not bad.

At entry level production I still see a lot more A7s and canon dslr than blackmagic cameras ( I owned 2 blackmagic cameras and 3 sony cameras )
The truth is that Canon and Sony are simply more convenient to use , you get better low light performance, autofocus, stabilization, size ....of course you loose on the codec side , but considering that most small production never budget proper color grading and that the content end up on youtube, that not as important as getting relatively clean image in a challenging environment .
My point is that , even at 5kusd for the 6kFF ( if they offer something similar to the MAVO , that an excellent price), they will still have to compete with a 3.5Kusd camera that will offer better performance and features overall.

You can get a a7III for 2k with probably the same sensor as the E2 6k FF , you loose slow mo and 10bits, you win autofocus and stabilization, better screen/evf and form factor.
and there is a 3k usd difference between the two option.
 

Wow, that pricing is aggressive! 
Would love to hear more about frame rates / codecs - expecting ProRes, H265, and RAW in some modes. 

Of course, but I am talking further into the future! 
I can predict that in 10-20 years from now, you could be able to buy all the components from ebay, and 3D print and manufacture your own digital camera at home.
2-3 years is nothing for what we have in front of us!
 

I believe that the sensor inside the pocket 4k is from Sony , the same as GH5s and Terra4k and E2.

They might be slow at releasing their own products, but they are the ones driving innovation. 
Without Sony/Panasonic ( and soon Samsung ) making affordable component available to small companies, those company would not even be able to make digital cameras.
In the sensor technology world, Sony is two years ahead of pretty much everyone else ( I m not making this up, you can have a look online).

People are putting too much faith in Canon and Sony.
The smaller companies will revolutionize the products and processes of next decades (and the generation Alpha).
BM can print a body, put a sensor and some chips and make a 1400$ raw 5" monitor camera, while established companies with huge capitals need 4 to 6 times the money for similar, or worst, performance.
The A7Siii will probably be a better camera than the P4K, but for how much? And when?
I say, the future is now, and it is happening from small companies.
P.S don't you think that an SDI output and an ND filter for 5.000$€£ is too much?!
 

Not sure sony would release something that will wipe their FS5/FS7 line of the table. 

Well, The cameras are massively more expensive to buy/rent, most content end up in 1080p on youtube so that a cost hard to justify.
4k+ camera also mean more data and more expensive post production.
Plus the DOF is more shallow, when you pull focus it make things harder, and if you want a deep DOF you need more light if you want to keep the iso low.


 
I don t think that much of an issue, they are many options available both modern and vintage, available already and rehousing solution for those have already been here for years
Even the alexa 65 use rehoused mamiya 645 glass for the Arri DNA set ,and people are fine with it, vintage cinema glass also breath, much more than modern glass .
For FF/vistavision you can get old cooke double panchro, panavision glass, leica R glass, russian glass ect....

I mean for the Alexa LF specifically over a regular Alexa, I don t have the exact numbers in mind but It cost about  3 times the money to rent a LF over a regular Alexa , plus the extra storage and battery consumption. 
So for a small commercial that just overkill, in my experience the majority of decently produced jobs will try to be as cost effective while maintaining a good output, that why the Alexa mini with let say a set of kowa anamorphic is popular, it s fairly cheap to rent and get you the look .
 
 

Well, The cameras are massively more expensive to buy/rent, most content end up in 1080p on youtube so that a cost hard to justify.
4k+ camera also mean more data and more expensive post production.
Plus the DOF is more shallow, when you pull focus it make things harder, and if you want a deep DOF you need more light if you want to keep the iso low.


 
I don t think that much of an issue, they are many options available both modern and vintage, available already and rehousing solution for those have already been here for years
Even the alexa 65 use rehoused mamiya 645 glass for the Arri DNA set ,and people are fine with it, vintage cinema glass also breath, much more than modern glass .
For FF/vistavision you can get old cooke double panchro, panavision glass, leica R glass, russian glass ect....

Really interesting stuff. First time I've heard of Duclos, Celere, CML or most of the rest that was written. 
Surely the easiest way to prove Celere and Samyang lenses are different would be to post the lens diagrams? 

They are good lenses , I had the 16mm t2.2 and the 135mm t2.2 
For the prince nothing come close, when you buy vintage there are very often some issues , plus the cost of adapting/declicking. 
Here it s plug and play.
The big bonus for me is the weight, for cinema primes the year are quite compact and light .
The issue for me is the same as any entry price cinema gear, it s accessible to a wider untrained audience, who produce tons of garbage with them. So you get a biased judgment based on that and brand loyalty. 
Look at the Celere, some DOP were  praising them for their look , until duclos pointed out that they are rehoused Samyang....
 

I have a a7iii + ninja V as my main video camera setup (and a a7rii for photo )
i got the a7rii when I still had my blackmagic ursa mini 4.6k .
the a7rii in slog 2 had a bit more DR thank the ursa mini in pro res , so I sold the ursa ( mostly because of the form factor and the video autofocus)
The a7iii is a killer camera , I shoot HLG with it because I found Slog 2 to be unusable ( too much chroma noise , even externally) , but in resolve I do a color space transform back to slog3 and use the Venice rec 709 Lut , so you get great colors.
Dynamic range is really not an issue anymore on modern camera , I don t believe that the Alexa is that much better anymore , but it still have a nicer roll off in the highlights when it clip .
 
The roll off is more important than the dynamics range at that point , also realistically Film only have 11 stop , so it s hard to blame mordern cameras over analog for DR.

I have a a7iii + ninja V as my main video camera setup (and a a7rii for photo )
i got the a7rii when I still had my blackmagic ursa mini 4.6k .
the a7rii in slog 2 had a bit more DR thank the ursa mini in pro res , so I sold the ursa ( mostly because of the form factor and the video autofocus)
The a7iii is a killer camera , I shoot HLG with it because I found Slog 2 to be unusable ( too much chroma noise , even externally) , but in resolve I do a color space transform back to slog3 and use the Venice rec 709 Lut , so you get great colors.
Dynamic range is really not an issue anymore on modern camera , I don t believe that the Alexa is that much better anymore , but it still have a nicer roll off in the highlights when it clip .
 
The roll off is more important than the dynamics range at that point , also realistically Film only have 11 stop , so it s hard to blame mordern cameras over analog for DR.

Warning harsh opinion ahead.
 
Indie filmmakers need to be realist, the general audience/distribution platforms won t care about your project if it s not up to the industry standard.
If you have a very good script and are surrounded with people with decent credentials, you are likely to find some money to make it happen properly.
If you are complaining that the audience is crap and don t understand you, your project is the issue.
It s definitely possible to create good content with very little money but it s very hard to maintain the quality all the way to the end to the production, you need talent and discipline. 
I recently saw Shoplifters, the movie got a lot a attention and won a lot of prices ( and yes, was well funded) but honestly that definitely the kind of movie that can be done with a super small budget.
I did a fair amount of grading/ post production for indie movies, mostly shorts, you can see that the directors were more focused on shooting expensive equipement than really focusing on their script/skills.
But couple of times, I also meet very talent emerging directors that, in the same shooting conditions made very high quality movies.
But to really get produced properly, I think you either need to make a decent indie feature with no money, or very successful shorts and have a feature script ready.
No one is going to come to you if you are no one with big dreams and no actual material.
I think all those platform are really looking for new quality content, and are willing to fund all kind of projects, I think the issues is more down to the filmmakers with unoriginal obsessive zombie movies projects .
 
 
 

Warning harsh opinion ahead.
 
Indie filmmakers need to be realist, the general audience/distribution platforms won t care about your project if it s not up to the industry standard.
If you have a very good script and are surrounded with people with decent credentials, you are likely to find some money to make it happen properly.
If you are complaining that the audience is crap and don t understand you, your project is the issue.
It s definitely possible to create good content with very little money but it s very hard to maintain the quality all the way to the end to the production, you need talent and discipline. 
I recently saw Shoplifters, the movie got a lot a attention and won a lot of prices ( and yes, was well funded) but honestly that definitely the kind of movie that can be done with a super small budget.
I did a fair amount of grading/ post production for indie movies, mostly shorts, you can see that the directors were more focused on shooting expensive equipement than really focusing on their script/skills.
But couple of times, I also meet very talent emerging directors that, in the same shooting conditions made very high quality movies.
But to really get produced properly, I think you either need to make a decent indie feature with no money, or very successful shorts and have a feature script ready.
No one is going to come to you if you are no one with big dreams and no actual material.
I think all those platform are really looking for new quality content, and are willing to fund all kind of projects, I think the issues is more down to the filmmakers with unoriginal obsessive zombie movies projects .
 
 
 

Warning harsh opinion ahead.
 
Indie filmmakers need to be realist, the general audience/distribution platforms won t care about your project if it s not up to the industry standard.
If you have a very good script and are surrounded with people with decent credentials, you are likely to find some money to make it happen properly.
If you are complaining that the audience is crap and don t understand you, your project is the issue.
It s definitely possible to create good content with very little money but it s very hard to maintain the quality all the way to the end to the production, you need talent and discipline. 
I recently saw Shoplifters, the movie got a lot a attention and won a lot of prices ( and yes, was well funded) but honestly that definitely the kind of movie that can be done with a super small budget.
I did a fair amount of grading/ post production for indie movies, mostly shorts, you can see that the directors were more focused on shooting expensive equipement than really focusing on their script/skills.
But couple of times, I also meet very talent emerging directors that, in the same shooting conditions made very high quality movies.
But to really get produced properly, I think you either need to make a decent indie feature with no money, or very successful shorts and have a feature script ready.
No one is going to come to you if you are no one with big dreams and no actual material.
I think all those platform are really looking for new quality content, and are willing to fund all kind of projects, I think the issues is more down to the filmmakers with unoriginal obsessive zombie movies projects .
 
 
 

Testing the A7iii in anamorphic setup in exterior condition, some quick run and gun test shoots but I m very happy with the result .
A7iii ( full frame mode ) + Ninja V + Cinelux ES + Rectilux HCDNA + Russian Primes.
 
 

Testing the A7iii in anamorphic setup in exterior condition, some quick run and gun test shoots but I m very happy with the result .
A7iii ( full frame mode ) + Ninja V + Cinelux ES + Rectilux HCDNA + Russian Primes.
 
 

Testing the A7iii in anamorphic setup in exterior condition, some quick run and gun test shoots but I m very happy with the result .
A7iii ( full frame mode ) + Ninja V + Cinelux ES + Rectilux HCDNA + Russian Primes.