zerocool22

Awesome! Arri is set for another 10 years of camera domininating. Hopefully one day I can afford one. 

Also prepare for the following posts:
What no IBIs, what no autofocus, noisy at iso 3200... what a dealbreaker ?

Would love to see these features added to this pair. It would boost sales hugely. 
I’m not sure what, if anything can be done for the crop in the R, but if it could be addressed many would jump on board.

It's Canon, what you think will happen lol.

Fujinon MK 18-55 and 50-135
Canon CN-E 18-80 and 70-200 are the cheapest.
If you are a Sony user, the Sony E PZ 18-110mm f/4 G OSS Lens (SELP18110G)
is acting like a real cine lens, it isn't, but acts like it and it is very convincing at it!

There are a number of them listed here on a Pentax forum.
PK mount is easily adaptable to other mounts but a number of the lenses listed from 3rd parties would be available in other mounts anyway.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/201887-list-parfocal-zoom-lenses.html
If you are looking for a cine lens then the RED 18-50mm PL zooms do pop up not far off that price point from time to time.

Awesome! Arri is set for another 10 years of camera domininating. Hopefully one day I can afford one. 

Also prepare for the following posts:
What no IBIs, what no autofocus, noisy at iso 3200... what a dealbreaker ?

Here is a scan of the user guide. Page 74 onwards details the operation of the light meter.
http://www.cameramanuals.org/leica_pdf/leica_m6_ttl.pdf
With regard to exposure control in general, depending on the conditions you are shooting in, you may find the 1/1000th shutter speed to be a limitation if you are using ISO800 film and shooting at f2 as you are describing. In that case you would have to either carry some ND filters with you to keep the correct exposure within those fixed parameters or pull (overexpose) by setting the ISO lower on the camera for the metering and then have the overexposure corrected during development.
For the opposite problem where you do not have enough light you would push (underexpose) by setting the ISO higher on the camera for the metering and then have the underexposure corrected during development.
A guide to pushing and pulling is here 
https://thedarkroom.com/pushing-and-pulling-film/
 
 

Nope, but seems like LED still has some catching up to do. Aputure 300D is not nearly bright enough for me during noon. 

Looks like it's happening.
Great review on the other hand.. I will try my best but I haven't shot a cinema camera for a while 
It will at least be medium format because I can't put the Baveyes down for a minute. Been using it at least a little for each session I've done since getting it.
 

Yeah I know, but it will give me enough of a headstart of starting my own business. As of now I have too big of a risk too take as I have a steady job( and I need a steady income to pay for house, kids, wife,...). 

For a million dollars I sure as hell will give up my smartphone. (internet probably not, as using google, netflix, vimeo, forums is something I cannot miss) As with that million dollars I can start living the life I want, quit my dayjob. Do video/film full time, creating a business that if my family has interest can take over when I retire. Heck they may even film me and make a tv show out of it for all I care..  

There must've been something seriously wrong with your copy of the URSA, unless it was the 4K version (in which case sure it was a piece of shit). I can even underexpose pretty heavily on the 4.6K (Running on old pre-manual-blackmapping firmware) without issues with noise. No FPN at 800ISO, you get some fine grain on extreme underexposure but even that's fixable with a little NR. This is the first time I've heard there's noise on the midtones.
The 120fps windowed mode is pretty lackluster on the OG 4,6K though, and you really need to ETTR to get a clean image because any noise gets heavily pronounced by the crop.

Well only addition is 300 fps. I never even used 120fps on the ump. So for me the g2 is not worth the upgrade.
What, I would even prefer my pocket 4k over the fs5 ii.

What also is interesting if you shoot light into the lens. To check how the lens flares, or milks out + the achromatic abberation will show up on backlit objects. Which is also something I keep in mind when choosing a lens set per project. 

My thoughts:
The Takumars have a distinct look to them.   The colours are kind of like adding an instagram filter over them, but they also add a kind of filter over the 3-dimensionality of the lens too, kind of giving it a 'look'.  I think this might be quite cinematic for some people but to me it removes some of the vibrancy of the real world. I've eliminated them from my options, partly because their focus rings work backwards, but also I want that 3D pop. This is evident even when you compare all the lenses at 5.6 and all of them (except the kit lens) should be in their best aperture range  I am eliminating the Mir too. Looking at all of them, the Mir at 2.8 seems to be more stopped down than the others at 2.8.  I checked against a few lenses and it appears that the other lenses are consistent with each-other so it doesn't look like I've made a mistake, but rather that the Mir isn't as fast as other lenses at 2.8 (notably, the Konica 40mm with its very similar focal length). Even just looking through the Konica and Mir side-by-side when wide open, the Konica looks closer to double the diameter rather than the 1.4x it should be, so I think the Russians might have been bending the truth a little The Mir is really soft at 2.8, especially compared to other lenses that are stopped-down by a full stop already.   The Mir at 2.8 is a lot slower than the Konica or Helios / SB combinations.  A normal exposure with the Helios / SB combination at ISO 100, requires ISO 160 from the Konica and ISO 400 from the Mir.  Combined with the GH5's ok-but-not-great low-light performance and my shooting in natural light even at night, it's not a good combination. I read that the Mir is Apochromatic and it may well be, but the other lenses are fine on the 2x crop of the GH5 so I don't really see that as being that critical. It's also worse in the corners at 2.8 than the Konica is at 1.8, and also less halation too, so that's more reasons. The m42 speed booster I have seems fine.  The Helios SB combo is very smeared in the corners, but the Takumar 55/1.8 doesn't have that problem, so it's the Helios lenses not the SB.  Unfortunately if I want the extra performance of the SB I'll need a 50-60mm lens that isn't the Helios or the Takumar. The Konica is an absolutely stunning performer. It has great contrast and sharpness wide open, corners are still sharp (on MFT) The Voigtlander is my main lens and the purpose of these tests are to choose the lens to go with it and my 8mm lens for traveling.  Out of the other lenses I have here, the Konica looks like the best overall performer, the Helios+SB combo is one-stop faster but soft in corners, and the Takumar+SB combo leaves me cold and focuses the wrong way.
I think it's really a choice between the Konica, buying a fast 50-60mm m42 lens for the m42 SB, or buying a fast 50-60mm lens and a SB for that lens mount.
 
No. Fixed WB on all shots.  I just did a little test and you can see the colour shift on the LCD as you adjust the aperture back and forwards.

Actually I'd like to see an F5 update for the legit "entry level cinema" space. Maybe something like a new sensor + Venice color + 4K 120fps internal instead of external. 

This! Unfortunately the FS7 has in many ways "replaced" the F5 (and even F55 at times), when in reality the FS7 is quite the step down. 

Thus there is a big hole left between the FS7mk2 and VENICE in Sony's line up. 

arri micro at 10K.

arri micro at 10K.

Whys that? ("Meteor man", "blade" were also black superheroes...)
 
Best film should not have anything to do by the margin of profits. Black panther was barely watchable, if you think black panther is one of the best 5 films of 2018, you either only have watched 5 movies or you have quostionable film taste.

Yes exactly, not sure how one can take the oscars seriously anymore after that "Black Panther" nomination..

Whys that? ("Meteor man", "blade" were also black superheroes...)
 
Best film should not have anything to do by the margin of profits. Black panther was barely watchable, if you think black panther is one of the best 5 films of 2018, you either only have watched 5 movies or you have quostionable film taste.

Yes exactly, not sure how one can take the oscars seriously anymore after that "Black Panther" nomination..

Whys that? ("Meteor man", "blade" were also black superheroes...)
 
Best film should not have anything to do by the margin of profits. Black panther was barely watchable, if you think black panther is one of the best 5 films of 2018, you either only have watched 5 movies or you have quostionable film taste.

What does best produced even mean?