Tim Sewell

Out of interest, here is a "6x the price, 6x better?" comparison of the two lenses.
I have the cheaper one and it is indeed a great little lens.
 

I like Sony Beta FX3 Max

I like Sony Beta FX3 Max

One could make the argument that it should be the Sony Beta FX3.  😉

So other than some plug in stuff, the screen it deserved in the first place because all Sony cameras prior to the FX30 and A7RV have dog shit rear LCD's.
I was actually going to go with a pair of A7CR's over my single unit A7RV but for a couple of things, the dealbreaker being those rear screens.
So this is the mildest of updates at best hence the FX3A moniker though IMO they should have called it B and then everyone could refer to the OG as the 'A' model.

Apparently the previous screen is no longer in production, which is why they've had to do this.

Does this mean that those specialist art films his wife made back in the old country will now have a 100% tariff ?
 

This is a topic that comes up in this forum frequently.  I don't think you'll get any argument from the majority of people here that there are a number of sub-$10,000 cameras that will get you really close to Arri quality.  But for a majority of Hollywood productions, they're not reaching for this camera.  As I said in another message above, it's extremely polarizing among people who have used it.
If your use case is shooting an hour-long oner and you can run 14 takes of it to choose your favorite, it may be the best cinema camera on the market.  If you're shooting nature, it's a pretty awful camera - lidar autofocus doesn't work that far out and the focus motor can only go about an inch past the lens mount, not to mention that balancing a lens longer than 130mm or so will definitely put you over the 4th axis' weight capacity.  If your use case is putting the camera on sticks and using Arri Master Primes, it may be the absolute worst camera on the market.  I'm not even sure that they could be mounted, even using the Flex + a cage to add rods.
It's a really cool niche camera that is finding success (and will continue to find success, I think) for specific use cases in Hollywood... and in my own short films too.  But if people at Arri are losing any sleep, it's not for the DJI chicken head camera.

I think the thing to remember (and hence not to get too carried away) is that the camera choices in Adolescence were led by the story and the way in which the creators wanted to tell it. You literally couldn't have done it using full size cinema kit without massively increasing the budget - and maybe not even then. Likewise, Civil War was mostly shot on Venice, but used the Ronins when the story demanded it.
So it's great that big budget movies are doing inventive stuff with non-traditional camera systems, but they're doing it when it's required, not for any financial savings or because they think those systems are overall better.

I have said before on here and I'll maintain it, DJI's taking one of the smartest plays here.  Especially on mid-high end productions, regardless of any other factors, it's going to stay primarily Arri.  If you make a traditional camera and try to compete, you'll have a huge uphill fight.
On the other hand, if you make a camera that takes something that's a pain in the ass, whether it's Arri or another decent camera system, and your thing makes it really easy, your camera might get used in parts of films that are shot on Arri or Burano or similar.  Putting cameras on a gimbal is legitimately annoying.  Wanna have that gimbal-based camera track subjects?  Time for hacks like putting a second camera on the gimbal and needing to use multiple tools to track and monitor.  One of the Ronin 4D's real superpowers is integrated tracking based on what the camera is seeing.
Today, a friend and I shot some tests with mine while between blocks at a local film festival.  In the first, I experimented with an "impossible" shot where I tracked her walking and then had her pause while I pulled the camera back, planning to do a faux dolly zoom by reframing in post.  It's imperfect, but with some practice and a less ambitious distance, I think it could play.
For the second, I recently got a Hydra Alien and wanted to see how it would work.  My car is a worst-case scenario for rollers - the Wrangler has an extremely stiff suspension.  Yet, after 40 minutes of stumbling around with putting the Hydra on my car for the first time ever, I mounted up the camera and had my friend drive while I operated.  There are some micro-vibrations, certainly, and I might experiment with the alternate/softer shock plate, but it's kind of amazing how turning on autofocus + tracking on a random car on the road resulted in such great footage. 
The last shot was to see if I could do a Tarantino-style shot spinning around the subject.  If doing this on set, I'd want to set up something to ensure a consistent distance to the subject(s), but similar to the others, given the results after doing no planning or setup, the results are a bit unbelievable for just getting to the parking lot and saying "Hey, I bet we could do this.  Let's try!"
 
 

Great value in every country in the world except the US where it will cost 17,000 US dollars.

I don't own a single bottle - but I do have over 20 cameras!

... which I, personally, thought were gorgeous.

... which I, personally, thought were gorgeous.

The community, overall, seems to really like the Canon EF 40mm f/2 pancake.  I can confirm that AF works well (using Fringer) and it has really decent edge-to-edge coverage.  I'm not sure, though, that it'd satisfy the 100 megapixel-peepers that the GF series tends to draw.
(I say "not sure" because lenses for me fall into the categories of "too sharp," "pretty sharp," "a bit soft," and "coke bottle" - zero interest in doing in-depth lens sharpness tests)

Rules are meant to be broken and Von Trier & Vinterberg did so by the early 2000's. 
Their first films under Dogme95 were shot using MiniDV and they later quickly embraced RED/ARRI digital cinema.
Breaking the Waves was shot on 35mm but digitally scanned to process it in post and give it an aesthetic. Basically early modern color grading.
All movies shot on film today are scanned digitally and graded. 35mm usually scanned at 4K-6K and 65mm/75mm 8K and beyond. Projection is also digital. Its a fallacy to think film is super soft with lack of detail.
People romanticise old 35mm movies but they were usually scanned at 480p/720p for TV, VHS, DVD.
Most of the time from from second or even third gen prints not even original film negatives or masters.
Maybe you are into soft grainy contrasty Lo-fi analogue aesthetic and that's fine but you can emulate that look pretty well today in Davinci. Personally I embrace digital cinema and how its democratised filmmaking on a lower budget.
And while I do have a deep appreciation for analogue medium in general (especially as a musician, engineer) I recognise it is more about the tactile experience and workflow than sound/image quality which can be closely emulated today in digital. 

Yep. We've been their neighbour for a few centuries and know their tendencies (expansionism, etc.) We were fine for over a hundred years before we had a free trade agreement so we could do that again I suppose. I think it's okay for a country to protect its own industries, I just don't like the territory expansionism part. Like why can't they just buy minerals from Greenland? Why do they need to own it?
I think Canada will be in this world longer than Trump will.

I don't own a single bottle - but I do have over 20 cameras!

Nothing against students but you can tell they are part-timers at MPB.

@Emanuel I also love my FX-30. It just came back from 2 months in the camera hospital (a whole other story) but I just love that thing. A beautiful sensor and lovely ergonomics. And so relatively cheap! The C100 of its days.

Funnily enough, just found some pics from that evening. Days of innocence (kinda).

I mean, she can stand up in a car, but she ain't Sydney Sweeney.
 

Interesting fact - everybody thought they did the billboard stuff with Ai, but in fact they had to do it frame by frame themselves. Nice bit of film making, in my always humble opinion.

I mean, she can stand up in a car, but she ain't Sydney Sweeney.
 

@Emanuel I also love my FX-30. It just came back from 2 months in the camera hospital (a whole other story) but I just love that thing. A beautiful sensor and lovely ergonomics. And so relatively cheap! The C100 of its days.