Django

Totally get the frustration, mixed feelings here too. But honestly, I’ve been directing AI content for agency work and even for music videos where the budget wouldn’t cover full CGI. It’s not about losing work, it’s about adapting. Most clients are abroad and on tight budgets, so outsourcing is just reality. Learning to guide AI creatively is how you stay ahead, not get replaced!

Fun topic! I'd be tempted to say phone & action cam for actual biking and a compact mirrorless for off-road filming/vlogging. Weight, battery life & weather sealing probably the most important factors. Overheating something you wanna avoid too. I'd be tempted to recommend Sony FX line (FX2/3/30). Why? Built-in fan (zero overheating), rugged and compact, big sensors, mounting points, pro audio, class leading AF, cine OS (LUT support, shutter angle etc) and the cameras are discrete. Model wise, the FX30 is most affordable, APS-C means smaller lenses. FX3 is most expensive, full frame and has that extreme low-light ability, minimal rolling shutter and is Netflix approved. Just released FX2 is the middle ground and the model I'm currently eyeing: Does both FF/APS-C, oversampled 4K & 33MP stills, AI AF & the unique tilt EVF (very handy for harsh exterior shooting). I saw the R5 was mentioned by OP, if he can swing it the R5ii is much better: less overheating, C-log2 and 4K SRAW (small RAW files). But it's fairly heavy vs lighter options! Also Canon has a super cheap great 28mm f2.8 pancake RF lens which could be your one and be done travel / v-log lens. Casey here actually does an awesome job comparing the R5ii / 28mm combo vs DJI Pocket3 for V-logging & street videography on skateboard:

Your checklist is a good start however everyone has their own perception of what defines "cinema". People have been chasing cinematic vibes long before DSLRs and mirrorless cameras were a thing. This forum has been part of that journey, evolving alongside gear and trends. Online, “cinematic” usually means widescreen bars, shallow depth of field, slow-mo coffee shots, and the latest LUT everyone’s hyped about. Anamorphic lenses are popping right now, which probably explains why a lot of camera bros are jumping ship to Lumix to chase that look. My point I guess is that there’s no single “cinema look.” Real cinema is about intention and personal choices. It’s the lighting/exposure that sets the mood, the colors that tell the story, natural dynamic range, and framing that pulls you in. The texture your gear adds, your lens choice, and how you pace things.. that’s what really gives something its look. That’s why directors like Lynch, Soderbergh, and Baker sometimes break code and ditch the big rigs for DV, iPhones, or 35mm. Not because they can’t get a polished image, but because they want immediacy, rawness, and the happy accidents you just don’t get with giant setups. Baker’s Anora used 35mm not for nostalgia, but for the discipline and energy it forces, kind of like his iPhone stuff on the reverse end of the spectrum. Whether those projects click with you visually is personal, but that doesn’t make them any less cinema. Sure, high-end productions lean on ARRI, RED, or Venice with top glass. But smaller cameras get their day too. The FX3 showed up in The Creator, F1 & Severance because of its low-light chops, portability, and multi-cam flexibility. When matched up right, it can hang with the big boys. Chasing the cinematic look is totally valid, especially if it fires up your creativity. Again, your checklist is legit, but remember it’s always evolving and should serve what you want to say. Sometimes the weird or unexpected choices end up making something fresh and your own.

Totally get the love for the “celluloid look”: 24p, grain, soft image, widescreen bars. It hits a vibe. But these are aesthetic codes we’ve absorbed over time, not fixed rules. They signal “cinema” because of decades of conditioning, but it’s just one visual language. Some of the most “video” looking content was shot on film. Sitcoms like Friends or Seinfeld used 35mm, but lit and cut for TV brightness and fluidity. Meanwhile, filmmakers like Lynch or Soderbergh have used DV or even iPhones and still delivered pure cinema. It’s not about format alone, but how it’s used. Same with frame rates. 24p stuck around because of early sound sync limitations, and we grew to love its motion blur and softness. 60p feels more “real,” which works for news or sports, but often feels uncanny in narrative. The Hobbit in 48p was a bold move, but many rejected it because it broke the cinematic illusion we’ve grown used to. New generations are wired differently. They grow up on 30p iPhone clips, 60p YouTube, 120Hz TikToks. What feels “cinematic” is shifting. Same with aspect ratios: 4:3, widescreen, vertical. Even black bars have become a kind of shorthand that says, “this is a movie.” Resolution plays a role too. Some DPs shoot in 8K then soften or downscale to avoid the overly digital crispness. Others embrace every pixel. You’ve got people using 35mm, 65mm, anamorphic, spherical, vintage lenses, weird sensors. There’s no single “cinematic” look. Just choices.

Canon's quietly building a full spectrum system: RF hybrids, Cinema EOS, bridging bodies like the R5C, and now smart hybrid lenses + the V line. Less hype, more ecosystem thinking. Nikon is I indeed in the strongest position since acquiring RED to really blow our socks off with whatever is coming. The one brand I’d like to see step up in video is Fuji. The XH2S was a strong start, would love to see that concept pushed further. I know they’ve got that Eterna GFX high end cine cam, but something in between would hit a sweet spot.

I don't think neither this RX or FX2 is aimed at consumer mass. RX has always been compact premium even if you can now find the ageing models at bargain pricing. I think the negative reception is actually from seeing things in a vacuum of saturated camera releases. Not trying to defend Sony here, they are clearly stagnating with incremental releases and recycled tech.. and the pricing doesn't match the expectations. That said I think the online reception has been bit unfair with FX2 dismissing it completely because it crops 4K60p etc. Also strangely to me, the tilt EVF has been redeemed by some as useless! Oddly videographers and even photographers (including yourself I believe) have abandoned EVF shooting in favour of display shooting. To each their own and clearly that's become the norm maybe thanks to smartphone habits, but for me, and I guess I'm a minority, that tilt EVF is brilliant and something unique and missing in the mirrorless world. So for that alone I give Sony a round of applause. Now if they could gives us open gate, internal RAW etc across the FX line, now that would be serious game changer..

Like I said, that video won’t help you hit the celluloid film look you’re after. But it does help with visual language. The cinema refs aren’t about lenses or LUTs.. they’re about framing, rhythm, tone, and storytelling. For me, it’s not just about tricking the eye into thinking it’s film. It’s about intent behind the image and everything working together. Too many people today slap on a grain layer and think that’s the sauce. You can shoot dreamy bokeh with a vintage anamorphic and add film emulation, but without a clear perspective or thread, it can still feel hollow. The Gawx stuff works because it’s curated. A lot of it incorporates visual language of cinema. Now all that said, if you are only chasing the look, I saw he uses Film Vision Pro which many consider it the best current film emulation pipeline: Exactly, it works only because it’s a full on tribute to Fallen Angels. He’s borrowing the whole visual language: ultra wide handheld, pacing, colors, even the music. Sure, it’s a watered down version, but that’s kind of the point. You have to know the reference to really appreciate what’s going on otherwise it just looks like “cinematic” vibes.

There’s a whole language baked into those Hollywood classics frames: actors, wardrobe, blocking, lighting, set design… every element supports the tone. Even a single still says so much because it’s built around subject, not just color and grain. Also checked the Mexico & Tokyo Gawx videos. What’s cool there is how different the tools are (one shot on Fuji, one literally on an iPhone), yet both look super filmic. That’s not just the grade in DaVinci, it’s how he shoots. The variety of angles, the rhythm of edits, the way shots alternate between wide/symmetrical and close/intimate. There’s a real visual language there, and the music choices help carry the mood. Kinda Wes Anderson meets lo-fi travel doc. All of which kind of reinforces the point that gear and grading matters, but what you point it at and how you frame/cut it matters a whole lot more. Vintage lenses and power grades are dope, but the film look really comes alive when there’s composition, movement, and some intention behind the shots. As someone else mentioned above, it’s hard to judge when youre shooting plants or the kitchen. Nothing wrong with testing gear but cinema’s called motion pictures for a reason. If nothing’s moving, not the subject or the camera, it starts to feel more like still photography with a film LUT on top. You don’t need actors either, just find something with a bit of energy or make the camera do the work. For further inspiration, there’s a young travel filmmaker on YouTube whose shorts are very cinematic (albeit clean digital, not in any retro lofi aesthetic). I found him as I was looking for Canon R5ii 4K SRAW footage. This probably won't help you in the chased 35mm film anamorphic look aesthetic but in the end what really stood out is how mature his visual language and storytelling is, and his last video breaks down his inspirations and techniques:

As a Leica M user (28mm f/2 crew), I get the appeal of premium fixed-lens compacts like the Q or X100.. great balance of size, IQ, and shooting feel. But after watching this RX1R mk3 announcement I can't help but feel underwhelmed. It uses the 61MP sensor from the A7R V, which is solid but no longer new, and you can pick up an A7R V for almost half the price. Pair that with the same Zeiss 35mm f/2 and Sony’s typical UI, and it starts to feel like a repackaged spec sheet rather than something truly fresh or innovative. Meanwhile, Fuji recently dropped the GFX100RF in the same price range with a 100MP medium-format sensor, a dedicated aspect ratio lever, teleconverter toggle, retro dials, built-in ND, and beloved film simulations. It’s a camera made for photographers who want both insane IQ and tactile shooting joy. If it weren't for the f4 lens it would be my dream camera. Compared to that, the RX1R III feels safe and soulless. Leica Q shooters get simplicity and killer glass; Fuji GFX shooters get medium format, dials galore and genuine character. At $5K+, you want more than specs, you want experience. FWIW I actually really dig what Sony did with the FX2 by adding the tiltable EVF, that alone excites me. Not this.

I’m not chasing specs here. The FX2 isn’t even a hype-driven release; in fact, it’s been met with a lot of skepticism online. What genuinely interests me is how it fits into the Sony pipeline I’m already working in. The tiltable EVF is actually what I’m most excited about, ergonomics and UI refinements make a big difference when you shoot solo. For me it’s less about spec sheets, more about practical workflow and how the camera feels in real-world use. In the end pricing and ecosystem is what’s going to guide you, and not every camera fits every workflow, and that’s okay.. but dismissing others’ needs as just gear-chasing isn’t very helpful.

Yeah they cheaped out on the lcd a shame but for me the EVF with 3.6Mdot makes up for it. Guess it’s a make or break design choice. I also see the display info finally rotates in video when you shoot vertical. Small but crucial detail as clients ask for vertical more and more. Would have preferred open gate but hey with Sony you have to take what increment they give you. I’m locked into Sony for pro video work so within that ecosystem FX2 fits my needs, not so much the bill though. Tough deciding between it and FX3 since I do shoot low light and run & gun, but then again the 800-4000 double ISO range may be more flexible overall. I also see the rolling shutter drops to 12.8ms in 4k60p & S35 mode so I guess for quick pans and action shots you could use those modes with appropriate lenses for more usable shots. Assign a custom button to s35 crop and boom that nasty rolling shutter dissipates when needed. I’m all about practical workarounds so that could work!

How bad is it? I may be in a minority but I love the fact it has that oversized tilt able EVF, gives a third point of contact and I hate shooting stills with just an lcd. Also very practical in certain daylight scenarios. I can live with the rear LCD just displaying the big 6 data. I wonder how the lowlight is. Like how clean is the image above the 4000 second base ISO.

Well after watching a couple reviews my opinion has drastically changed I must admit. While the above issues remain, if you compare it further to the FX3/A7Siii this FX2 actually brings substantial improvements as a hybrid camera. The fact you get 33MP, tiltable EVF, video/stills switch, and mechanical shutter makes it a quite usable photo camera as well. And on the video side, the 7K downsampled image makes it sharper and allows S35 4K which you don't get on the FX3. Great for adapting S35 lenses. I also like the new S-Log3 stills mode, great for consistent shots while filming. The EU price and poor rolling shutter is still a problem but if/when price comes down, this could actually be a great hybrid within the Sony ecosystem and a very valid alternative to FX3. I could see myself picking one up at the USD price.

I got really excited for a second when I saw the EVF but that A7IV sensor is a buzzkill. For a video first camera I can't get around the 26ms rolling shutter. Unless you shoot static shots, this is just bad performance. I also find it insane Sony is still not offering resolution above 4K or internal RAW in 2025. For 3200€ I find that unforgiving considering you can get a used/grey FX3 for around that price. Not even going to mention the competition options. Don't get me wrong, this is still a very solid hybrid camera with some worthy improvements but I'd still pick FX3 over it unless you absolutely need an EVF and even then an A7S3 would probably still give you a better image, especially low-light. Sony is still doing one step forward, two steps back.

R5C got some solid updates including AF. I find it actually way superior to Nikon Z8/Z9. Smoother, more reliable tracking. Less pulsing/hunting. Nikon AF can sometimes trip or get confused but Z lenses do offer minimal breathing which is nice. The main catch with R5C is no IBIS and average battery life. If you can live with those two cons it's a better hybrid in my opinion. Grading N-log is also more time consuming than C-log.