kye

I needed a colour sensor for a specific project (my primary camera being a M11M) and just picked up a G9ii - it’s a fun little thing. Seems well built and easily customised to play nicely with individual requirements. Even with a (Smallrig) cage it’s a convenient size (identical to LUMIX S range I think - although lenses are presumably smaller). Currently just the Lumix 14-42mm but plenty of exciting options. Until I read this thread it wasn’t really an option I’d have considered. Glad I can read!

Z6 III vs ZR, you said?
Both are full frame, both use the Z mount, both have subject detection AF for 9 subject types, and both offer internal RAW up to 6K/60p.
The Z6 III has a 24.5MP full-frame sensor, and the ZR also uses a 24.5MP full-frame partially stacked sensor with EXPEED 7. From there, though, the split becomes pretty obvious.
The ZR is the one Nikon has shaped as a compact cinema camera. It gives you internal R3D NE, RED colour science, Log3G10 / REDWideGamutRGB, 32-bit float audio through the internal mic and 3.5mm jack, plus a 4.0-inch screen designed more for actual filming without leaning as heavily on external accessories. Nikon is very clearly positioning it as a compact cinema body.
The Z6 III, on the other hand, is much more complete as a stills camera.
It has a 5.76M-dot EVF, burst shooting up to 120fps, Pre-Release Capture, mechanical and electronic shutter options, and up to 8 stops of stabilisation with Focus Point VR. It is simply the more all-round camera of the two.
Physically, the ZR is noticeably smaller and lighter at around 134 x 80.5 x 49mm and 540g body only, or 630g with battery and card, whereas the Z6 III is larger and heavier at roughly 138.5 x 101.5 x 74mm and 670g body only, or 760g with battery and card.
The viewing setup also says a lot about the intent behind each one.
The Z6 III has an electronic viewfinder and a 3.2-inch vari-angle screen.
The ZR goes the other way with a 4.0-inch rear monitor and is not really being sold as an EVF-centered body at all, but as a video monitoring-first tool.
Audio is another area where the ZR is in a different class, because the 32-bit float recording is a major selling point and still quite unusual in this form factor. The Z6 III has serious enough audio for video work, but that is not one of its defining features.
Even the card slots tell the story. The Z6 III uses CFexpress/XQD plus SD UHS-II, while the ZR uses CFexpress/XQD plus microSD. That alone already says a lot about the difference in philosophy between a photographic hybrid and a compact cinema camera.
The Z6 III is still the more rounded hybrid camera, while the ZR looks much more like a compact cinema body built primarily around video use.
On paper they overlap in some important ways, because both sit in the same broad full-frame Z-mount ecosystem and both are clearly meant to appeal to shooters who care about strong video features, but the intent feels different.
The Z6 III is the camera I’d look at first if the job includes serious stills as well as video, because it gives you the EVF, the more conventional hybrid ergonomics, the stronger photographic identity and a much more all-purpose way of working.
The ZR, by contrast, seems aimed at the person who is leaning far more into filmmaking and wants a smaller cinema-oriented body, RED-style workflow influence, more specialised video tools and a more stripped-back approach that is less about being a do-everything camera and more about being a focused moving-image tool. That is really the core of it.
The Z6 III is the safer all-rounder. The ZR is the more interesting specialist.
So if somebody mainly shoots photo and video in equal measure, I’d say Z6 III. If they are really after a compact cinema camera in Nikon form, then the ZR is the one that makes more sense.

Remember what kye wrote about ;- )

I mean, the lens mount makes it very adaptable, but not having auto focus seems like a big deal breaker.

Getting good affordable 960p would be cool for lots of people.  I see the science explainer channels showing bad quality 960p and the richer channels with Chronos setups.
Don't get me wrong about them not being cameras that appeal to a large number of people.  They're very good for getting the new "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME AND WIDE AND SMOOTH AND DEFINITELY SHARP SHARP SHARP!!!!" style of video that looks more like video than anything ever made before, but as soon as they say it's a cinema camera, there are 27 things they have to change from every other model ever made, and to bet they'll get every single one of them right is a very long shot indeed.

I would say that Z mount would be the way to go.
It can adapt everything you’ve got in your lens collection to be near native.
Not just your AF EF and F mount but with the TechArt you can have AF of all your manual lenses as well.
If you can stretch to a used Z8 then that would close the argument on every aspect and would be a - if not THE -forever camera.
I say this as someone who has still failed to buy one for the past three years despite it being THAT camera to me.
But I’m going to London this weekend and you know what, I might well end up feeling saucy and doing a Wayne Campbell…

 

Slowmo modes are actually OOAK for this price range — 9600 pictures in 10 seconds burst of 1080p is something indeed: more than 6 minutes and a half going with 24p, oh well...
 
To this day, it’s still the fastest camera sale I’ve ever made, though. Just look at the number of subscribers on their official YouTube channel. These are numbers and facts.
 

+46.71% (+0.36) in the past 5 days...

Looks interesting with an MFT mount and the claim the Hypersmooth works with any rectilinear prime (their stabilisation is a pretty important feature, especially with how small they are).
Of course, if they don't have animal eye-detect PDAF then the internet will skin them alive!!

Well WTF - turns out "1 inch sensor" is marketing BS and it's actually 13.2mm wide, making the crop factor 2.73x, and only just a touch larger than Super 16 which is 2.88x.
Source
Lots of MFT glass and also lots of c-mount options too as already suggested.  Ironically, with the lack of electronic contacts you can't control the aperture on most modern MFT lenses, so much of the sharpest glass will be unavailable (making the 8K sensor spec rather redundant!).  
However getting shallow DOF will probably be more difficult, especially as we have no idea what kind of focus assists it will have, so stopping down might be the best move (focus wide open then stop down to eliminate any slight errors) and that will sharpen up older / lesser lenses.
This might end up being the mythical tiny S16 cinema beast that people have wanted (or said they wanted!).
It's much smaller than even the BMMCC and that's before you realise the BMMCC doesn't have a screen so you have to rig it up to use it.
I am still skeptical though - there's lots of stuff we still don't know about and given GoPros history I have complete faith that they'll include at least one fundamental fatal flaw that will prevent this.

Well WTF - turns out "1 inch sensor" is marketing BS and it's actually 13.2mm wide, making the crop factor 2.73x, and only just a touch larger than Super 16 which is 2.88x.
Source
Lots of MFT glass and also lots of c-mount options too as already suggested.  Ironically, with the lack of electronic contacts you can't control the aperture on most modern MFT lenses, so much of the sharpest glass will be unavailable (making the 8K sensor spec rather redundant!).  
However getting shallow DOF will probably be more difficult, especially as we have no idea what kind of focus assists it will have, so stopping down might be the best move (focus wide open then stop down to eliminate any slight errors) and that will sharpen up older / lesser lenses.
This might end up being the mythical tiny S16 cinema beast that people have wanted (or said they wanted!).
It's much smaller than even the BMMCC and that's before you realise the BMMCC doesn't have a screen so you have to rig it up to use it.
I am still skeptical though - there's lots of stuff we still don't know about and given GoPros history I have complete faith that they'll include at least one fundamental fatal flaw that will prevent this.

Hello all, settle in for a long post...
For the past 10 years I have mostly shot with my Canon 5D Mark iii with ML Raw. Other than a couple short stints with some native lenses, the only one I kept was a beat up 28mm 1.8 because it was cheap and I really like the rendering.
I also have a Sigma FP which delivers a fine raw image but I've always found it to be an awkward camera to work with... especially with its horrific battery life and annoying SSD tethered to the camera.
For the past year I've been using a GH6 a lot I bought on the cheap. It has the Arri LogC update, and I've been fairly happy with it except for my normal distaste for crop factors... although I have found the cheap 7artisans 24mm 1.4 lens to be a treat. For the most part, I think the GH6 could be the ultimate low budget filmmaker's camera. The LogC curve/color science mixed with 4K/5.7K ProRes HQ codec truly is remarkable... not to mention the IBIS which is nothing short of miraculous. Even the 1080p, with its small ProRes file sizes looks pretty amazing to me.
Otherwise, I borrowed a friend's Canon R7 for a few weeks and found it to be a pretty amazing little camera. The h.265 files were way better than I thought they'd be. The cLog2 was a treat to grade, the AF was practically perfect and the IBIS was better than I expected.
Since the pandemic, I've gotten into shooting stills a little. I first started with film and loved it. I still shoot some, but they're a little expensive since I don't have the capability to process/scan them myself. I then picked up an Open Box Pentax K10D which I enjoy taking out and getting some random shots with the beautiful CCD sensor, but video is more important to me than stills and I don't want to maintain multiple systems so I am thinking of starting over and investing in a new camera and a lens or two...
So... I was looking for some advice from anyone who has first hand knowledge about a few different systems. My criteria for stills is basically nothing... shoots decent stills. For video, I'm looking for a full frame camera that shoots internal raw video, or ProRes, has decent IBIS and decent AF. I'm a few months away from a purchase, but I'd like to keep it below $2500 for the main camera and then possibly pick up a second, lesser model,  camera in a year or so.
Right now, it seems like Canon or Nikon are the two obvious options, but after reading Andrew's mini review of the FX2, I'd be open to going Sony as well even though there's no internal raw. I have ruled out Panasonic and the L Mount. I have extensively used an S5iiX and have meh feelings about it. I just didn't jive with it.
I'm kinda leaning towards Nikon due to the ZR, but it doesn't seem like the best hybrid camera. But in a lot of ways, it's kinda my dream camera... even though I think 6K is a bit of overkill. I'm also interested in the Z5ii because it seems like it gets me a good bit of my list and gets me into the Z ecosystem for a fairly decent price.
But since I started shooting video with a ZR65, I've always gone back to Canon and have always been relatively happy about it.
And finally, although lenses are important for stills and those times I'd like to track an actor in a short film or something, I'd probably use my vintage lenses more often.
Anyway, I know this is a lot, but any insight you guys might have would be much appreciated.

Think it’s a 1 inch sensor so it’s likely to be 2.7x

None are shown on any pictures.  Luckily, there are about a bazillion lenses that can be adapted to Micro 4/3 mount - including a lot of C-mount lenses and probably at least some D mount lenses will cover or work in a cropped mode.
'The same 50MP 1" sensor as..."
 

Looks interesting with an MFT mount and the claim the Hypersmooth works with any rectilinear prime (their stabilisation is a pretty important feature, especially with how small they are).
Of course, if they don't have animal eye-detect PDAF then the internet will skin them alive!!

Even better than that, I have the camera on a wrist strap and shoot with it at chest height like you describe, which means that when I'm walking / standing around the camera is barely visible, unlike a shoulder-strap where the strap and camera are front-and-centre all the time.
Lots of other things come to mind..
If there are people standing around in clumps, stand right next to one of them.  
This way you'll sort-of become part of the group, so people walking by will just identify there's a group of people there and 'see' all of you as one thing and walk around you, and people looking around won't be drawn to you as much as if you're on your own against a clean backdrop - this is sort of like camo clothing where you are trying to obscure your silhouette.
Pause a few seconds before showing the camera.
If you walk up near someone and stop, they'll probably glance at you to see who you are, what you want, etc.  If all they see is someone doing nothing (ie, not a threat or opportunity) they'll go back to what they're doing.
Shoot people who are distracted and doing things.



Most people who are distracted are just on their phones, but contrary to internet hype people do still do other things, and unless you're working on your doco series "People on their phones - Episode 27" its good to seek out these moments.
Shoot through people / things.




Be careful how you move and approach shots.
I try and be very focused on things that are just becoming visible.  As soon as you can see them, they can see you, so it's best to not get closer than you need to.  The further you are away the more likely there is to be layers to shoot through too, so that's a bonus.
People also have a sixth sense that someone is looking at them, even if you're looking "at them" on your camera screen, so although you can approach someone from the side or even from behind and they'll just turn and look right at you.  I'm not sure how to navigate this, but I'm sure there's some way to influence it that I haven't worked out yet.
This lady was facing directly away from me when I started filming and then turned suddenly a few seconds into the shot:

The guy nearest me suddenly turned around to look at me, despite none of his friends noticing me beforehand:

I know people do look around sometimes, but the timing is uncanny, so it's definitely a thing.
The old trick of finding the backdrop and waiting for someone to come into shot is a good one too, which is what this shot was.  It has the benefit that you're not coming into their environment, they're moving through yours.

Any situation where you're shooting through layers has the potential for someone to come into shot too.  
I was shooting compositions using the bikes mirrors and then a lady came and parked her bike right in front of me.  


I'm pretty sure she knew I was there, but as I was already standing there when she arrived I wouldn't have triggered that 'a new person just arrived' reaction, and also as she arrived at the situation from somewhere else she was probably quite distracted as the whole situation was new and she was trying to park her bike too, so it's possible she was completely oblivious to my presence.
Anyway, that's some further thoughts.  There's a lot online about how to stealthily take street photos (e.g. Garry Winogrand pretending to fumble with his camera, etc), but much less about street videography where you have to essentially remain motionless for many seconds while rolling, plus you can't 'drive by' people and freeze them with a short shutter speed either.  For one reason or other most of the street photography tricks don't really work.
I'd imagine that @BTM_Pix would be deep down this rabbit hole..

The only setup that's truly "wrong" is one that you don't enjoy using and that doesn't get you the photos that you want.  The primary camera of a friend of mine is a pinhole that she made herself from... I think it's a coffee can or a cocoa powder jar.  The photos are low-resolution, dreamy, and perfect.  My setup would be totally wrong for her, or you, but I quite like it!  I was at Photostock a few years ago when David Burnett was the speaker - he is famously still shooting sporting events and major political events using either a speed graphic or converted Graflex SLR with an Aero Ektar.  At that event, however, he was carrying the camera he uses most of the time - an A7c with a small Sony lens.  Not a setup that I'd choose, but if it's good enough for one of the most famous living photographers, it's probably not "wrong."  😅
A number of the big name classic cinematographers/filmmakers favored lenses between 40-60mm or so FF equivalent.  A lot of classic street photographers like 35-50mm because it's seen as immersive.  But if you want an outsider perspective, your choice of a 70mm seems appropriate!

https://fotodioxpro.com/products/fltr-spy?srsltid=AfmBOorgYN_vx9pKJxxTg1DIdSUlKXOxH46m5QoEa0-ggy5WdjZGQmhq

After digesting my trip to China, I'm now planning the next trip to Japan, where we're mostly in a remote location but we have a few days in Tokyo in the middle so I'll try and spend as much time shooting there as I can (which really means leisurely meandering around shooting and having breaks with delicious food / drinks etc).
My equipment lessons from the China trip included:
The GH7 is a workhorse and I don't think about using it at all, just on what I'm shooting The 14-140mm is a great all-round day lens for home video stuff The Takumar 50mm F1.4 on speed booster is good, but a little soft on the sides of the frame and the rectangular insert is probably a bit much I also learned a bunch of stuff about how to shoot in crowded situations without drawing too much attention to myself.  I suspect that this is an infinitely-deep rabbit-hole that the best shooters probably do unconsciously, but like all things practice makes improvement.
One thing I did that I think also worked well was to just shoot as fast and as much as possible.  Not only did it lead to more shots and variety for the edit, but I think it also potentially helped me be less in my head and shoot more instinctually, which I suspect will yield more creative and expressive results. 
I've been thinking a lot (and talking to friends) about what I'm learning and what equipment is appropriate:
The 70mm FOV seems potentially universal because in crowded situations you want to focus in on something so the frame isn't just full of chaos (photography is the art of subtraction), but in situations where there are less people you get spotted at a much greater distance and so having the longer lens means you can still get closer shots of people without actually getting close to them If my goal is to make edits that feel more immersive, then it makes sense to shoot with a lens that's roughly "normal" so it has a perspective similar to the human eye, which is about 50mm on FF.  Having 70mm is a bit longer and would introduce a slight element of distance between myself and the subject, which is emotionally appropriate as I am an outsider in the places / cultures I visit, so this is coherent and adds to all the other decisions I'll make in what I shoot / how I shoot / how I edit / etc. I mentioned wanting a lens that was a bit sharper on the sides of the frame to someone and they countered by saying that having such a limitation will make my work more consistent (not only from the images themselves but also because it means I tend to compose with the subject nearer the centre of the frame) so this is a reasonable counter-point Despite all this, I suspect that I'll want a wider lens for when I get into the emptier narrow streets where it's more about the location rather than the people in it, and I suspect this is closer to 35mm or so As such, I'm mostly settled on the following lens contingent:
9mm F1.7 - for getting that wide-angle distortion that makes buildings etc really pop 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 - for day-time home video shooting 50mm F1.4 with SB - for that 70mm "night cinema" goodness 12-35mm F2.8 - for the wider "night cinema" duties, and being a zoom it means that I can use whatever focal length works for this task (35mm equivalent is just a guess) but also combined with the AF I can shoot a variety of angles / compositions really quickly

I'm also likely taking the following, partly as just-in-case and partly to experiment with: TTartisans 17mm F1.4 - if I find that the 35mm FOV is desirable then this is a fast prime I can swap to TTartisans 50mm F1.2 - obviously I'm a fan of the 70mm FOV and I wonder if this 100mm FOV would be useful / workable, especially as it's super fast with shallow DOF Risespray 35mm F1.6 c-mount - this is about a stop slower than the Takumar+SB combo but seems cleaner wide-open so is a way to challenge my assumption about needing the speed of the Tak I'm also contemplating shooting 24p rather than 23.976p, and also 1080p instead of C4K.  Both decisions have pros and cons to them though.

After digesting my trip to China, I'm now planning the next trip to Japan, where we're mostly in a remote location but we have a few days in Tokyo in the middle so I'll try and spend as much time shooting there as I can (which really means leisurely meandering around shooting and having breaks with delicious food / drinks etc).
My equipment lessons from the China trip included:
The GH7 is a workhorse and I don't think about using it at all, just on what I'm shooting The 14-140mm is a great all-round day lens for home video stuff The Takumar 50mm F1.4 on speed booster is good, but a little soft on the sides of the frame and the rectangular insert is probably a bit much I also learned a bunch of stuff about how to shoot in crowded situations without drawing too much attention to myself.  I suspect that this is an infinitely-deep rabbit-hole that the best shooters probably do unconsciously, but like all things practice makes improvement.
One thing I did that I think also worked well was to just shoot as fast and as much as possible.  Not only did it lead to more shots and variety for the edit, but I think it also potentially helped me be less in my head and shoot more instinctually, which I suspect will yield more creative and expressive results. 
I've been thinking a lot (and talking to friends) about what I'm learning and what equipment is appropriate:
The 70mm FOV seems potentially universal because in crowded situations you want to focus in on something so the frame isn't just full of chaos (photography is the art of subtraction), but in situations where there are less people you get spotted at a much greater distance and so having the longer lens means you can still get closer shots of people without actually getting close to them If my goal is to make edits that feel more immersive, then it makes sense to shoot with a lens that's roughly "normal" so it has a perspective similar to the human eye, which is about 50mm on FF.  Having 70mm is a bit longer and would introduce a slight element of distance between myself and the subject, which is emotionally appropriate as I am an outsider in the places / cultures I visit, so this is coherent and adds to all the other decisions I'll make in what I shoot / how I shoot / how I edit / etc. I mentioned wanting a lens that was a bit sharper on the sides of the frame to someone and they countered by saying that having such a limitation will make my work more consistent (not only from the images themselves but also because it means I tend to compose with the subject nearer the centre of the frame) so this is a reasonable counter-point Despite all this, I suspect that I'll want a wider lens for when I get into the emptier narrow streets where it's more about the location rather than the people in it, and I suspect this is closer to 35mm or so As such, I'm mostly settled on the following lens contingent:
9mm F1.7 - for getting that wide-angle distortion that makes buildings etc really pop 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 - for day-time home video shooting 50mm F1.4 with SB - for that 70mm "night cinema" goodness 12-35mm F2.8 - for the wider "night cinema" duties, and being a zoom it means that I can use whatever focal length works for this task (35mm equivalent is just a guess) but also combined with the AF I can shoot a variety of angles / compositions really quickly

I'm also likely taking the following, partly as just-in-case and partly to experiment with: TTartisans 17mm F1.4 - if I find that the 35mm FOV is desirable then this is a fast prime I can swap to TTartisans 50mm F1.2 - obviously I'm a fan of the 70mm FOV and I wonder if this 100mm FOV would be useful / workable, especially as it's super fast with shallow DOF Risespray 35mm F1.6 c-mount - this is about a stop slower than the Takumar+SB combo but seems cleaner wide-open so is a way to challenge my assumption about needing the speed of the Tak I'm also contemplating shooting 24p rather than 23.976p, and also 1080p instead of C4K.  Both decisions have pros and cons to them though.

These days, my travel setup looks a bit different, but with a similar goal of traveling light.
I just bring the GFX 100 II and for lenses, the EF 35/1.4L II and the Fujinon 110/2.  I used to bring the Fujinon 32-64/4 instead, but then I needed to bring something for lower light/night shooting.  Plus a 2x zoom makes less sense when I can just crop anyway.  I was looking at the GFX 100RF, but it's really not all that small and when I realized I was willing to accept a fixed 35 with that, I decided to just do the same thing, but, y'know, fast.
For video, the GFX also makes it more like I have 4 lenses instead of 2.  I can record in 4K or 5.8K at full sensor width - so effectively a 28mm or 80mm lens in FF terms - but if I switch to 8K, the crop is close to FF so I also have a 35 and 110mm lenses - with plenty of resolution to crop in if I want to.  The fact that it's 8K is less interesting than it being a bit cropped.  😅
I don't really need to get all that wide so the 35 is usually enough, even if I crop in a little when IBIS darkens the corners a little.  For photos, there's enough room to crop in that I can get reasonable results going anywhere from around 27-28mm on full frame to...  something like 200-300mm after cropping.
For ND filters, I just bring a set of Kase clip-in filters - ND8, ND64, and ND1000.  The entire set fits in a tiny little box and weighs almost nothing.
For a tripod, I... don't.  The IBIS in the GFX is decent enough that I can get sharp photos handheld as long there's at least some light (if it's too dim for around 1/15second at f/1.4 at ISO 6400, that's rough - but it's just not a scenario I'm optimizing for these days).
Limitations?  Longer exposures for waterfalls are hit and miss.  I usually just turn on the 2s timer at about a 1 second exposure and shoot it like 5 times and if I don't get something that's sharp with smooth water, I decide that wasn't meant to be.  I have a lot of pictures of waterfalls already (I really like waterfalls).  The camera and lenses are obtrusive - the GFX 100 II is smaller than my GFX 100 was and that's nice, but it's still not small.  Rolling shutter in some modes is enough to be noticeable even with relatively small movement.
The fact that it's obtrusive can be a really big problem - in a lot of cities, it's not a camera to casually hang around the neck and stroll around.  I'm in Sao Paulo right now - there are only a few parts of the city where I'd even bring it out.
BUT the good news is that my phone (iPhone 16 Pro) works absolutely fine in all of the places where I wouldn't take out my big obtrusive camera.  The iPhone is good enough that I take out the big camera less and less, even when it would be totally safe to take it out.

I've been told it's a decent camera for indy films.
 

Been using the GH6 with the cheap  7artisans 24mm 1.4. I really like the lens, are there any other 7artisans hidden gems?

Highly unlikely they'll produce two versions. More than likely you purchase the base kit which is basically a GoPro and then for X dollars more you can purchase the cinema kit which will be a new faceplate that has some type of mount. Probably a weird bayonet or c-mount. From there, they'll sell you adapters to PL, EF, etc...
The screen will go away on the cine plate but they may leave an hdmi port for a monitor. Once you unsnap the faceplate, you can unplug the screen which you can reconnect to the hdmi port... or whatever.
Either way, interesting camera. 

100% - I'd assume that this was the best image that an expert with all the other associated equipment was able to get with a decent travel budget and after a decent period of having it.
I've always maintained that there are three useful references for a piece of equipment:
The best images that anyone is able to create
This shows the upper limit of its potential The images that competent reviewers get
This shows the type of images that people of moderate skill are able to get in non-ideal conditions The worst images
You never get to see these until you get one yourself, but in theory this would show how fragile/flexible the camera is (for example you can expose an Alexa pretty horribly wrong and still get a half-decent image from it, but try that with a camcorder and it's a complete disaster) The promo is only the first category, and the fact there are only a few shots in there is a statement in itself.
I think the 15mm is a lot better than people make out, but of course most discourse online is from people who think that a Zeiss Otus is the ideal lens and that Michael Bay doesn't use large enough apertures.  To be honest, when reading / listening to most opinions now I am just hearing that the person hasn't been to the cinema for years, hasn't watched any/much classic cinema, and isn't even familiar with the saying "F8 and be there" let alone thinks that it is the cornerstone of almost all the important photography in the history of the field.
I was always interested in the 9mm but as I bought the SLR Magic 8mm F4 as one of the first lenses I bought, then upgraded to the Laowa 7.5mm F2 lens later on, the selection of slow wider pancake lenses was never really justified for me.
Right, I guess that makes the moon shot even easier then.  If you have enough light then almost any camera will look pretty good.
Looking at the mount again, there doesn't appear to be any visible mechanism to attach the lens..

I'm wondering if this might be a magnetic mount of some kind, like MagSafe perhaps.  If that's true then it might just be a matter of pulling the lens off and snapping another one on.  That would certainly fit with the GoPro ethos of it being a fast no-nonsense experience.

35mm is daunting, but it's not my first time shooting film.  It's been decades, but I've rolled 16mm before.  I just think it's funny that I'm so frugal about modern digital gear, yet here I am seriously thinking about spending 200x more money to accomplish ... well, let's be totally honest, nothing of substantial IQ advantage!
I mean, I bought a EM10III for $300 a few years ago, and that camera will shoot impressive 4K.  I can't even get 1 minute of 35mm film shot and scanned for less than that.
I'm very amused at how ridiculous this all is.