kye

some people can't understand why some oil painters have no interest in selling their paintings ,the satisfaction is in the pleasure of creating the painting ,and even sometimes it may be better than the last one.

It's an interesting update for sure.
While I find the upgrading process to be too much of a PITA to upgrade unless there's a killer feature in the next version I really want to use, there are a few things in there that are interesting from an AI perspective.
The first is the AI Face tools, with AI Face Reshaper & AI Face Age Transformer.  This is interesting because it shows their ability to track and understand faces is vastly improved from the previous generation of Face Refinement tool, which was obviously designed to have very soft masks because their tracking wasn't that great.
I did an excellent course in Beauty Retouching which used Resolve and basically you apply different treatments to each area of the face as each has a different tone/colour/texture and you had to mask each one manually yourself.  The ultimate would be for the AI face tools to detect the face and output a mask for each area of the face, automating the masking/tracking.
The second is the Adjust Focus with AI CineFocus, which simulates a shallower DOF, and is a combination of a blur plugin with their depth map plugin.  When the depth map plugin came out I tried it on some deep DOF shots to see how it did, and the results were worse than the iPhone 'cinematic mode' with the edges being a very obvious blurry transition, and you couldn't apply anything more than a barely perceptible blur before the edges ruined the shot.
The fact this is now an integrated plugin means it's gotten better to the point they're willing to put it forward for this application.  It's probably still a long way from blurring the background but keeping each hair on the subject in-focus, but it shows increased confidence.
I know they are also doing tonnes of little things in the background too.  I went through a phase of posting to the BM forums and suggesting features as I came upon things that annoyed me, and to my amusement I had professional colourists (including from Company3) reply and say they've been suggesting the same improvements to BM for year after year, and I notice that a number of these have gotten fixed in the last few versions.
Still, there are gaps in the things I'd really like.  One is the stabilisation, which can't handle any kind of shot that isn't perfectly rectilinear, and has no support for removing rolling shutter etc.  This is possible, and I went down a deep dive at one point some years ago looking for a solution and there was a product that did it flawlessly, but the product was in the thousands-of-dollars price range so wasn't worth it for me.
The stabilisation also lacks the ability to stabilise the tilt/pan/roll/zoom in different amounts.  If I shoot with the BMMCC and an OIS lens for example, the lens stabilises the tilt/pan quite well but has zero roll stabilisation.  I'd like to stabilise the roll almost to 100% to keep it almost perfectly fixed, while also stabilising the tilt/pan maybe 40% just to smooth off the rough edges.  This isn't possible, except if I build something in Fusion, which apart from forcing me to learn Fusion, also requires I go into the Fusion window to track the shots as well, I can't build a custom OFX and then apply it in the Edit or Colour page.
I don't know why BM didn't just make the stabilisation occur in a node, that way you could just apply it several times however you wanted, but it's a 'special' thing that happens once in the image pipeline, and once only.
My biggest wish for Resolve 22 is lens emulation.  Like the Face and CineFocus tools, the lens emulation ingredients are all there if you combine them yourself manually, but integrating them into one plugin would be pretty sweet!

Luckily photography/videography are my hobby so my decisions don't need to make any sense... so I just bought a new-in-box Nikon ZR & a 40mm f/2, both for 30% off. Same store had a Megadap ETZ21 Pro for half price.
So far having a blast with the camera.. I like the form factor a lot and the screen is just exciting, both the IBIS & AF are easily better than my Fujifilm X-H2s. The H.265 is definitely subpar, but it's still ok for social media use because once it's 1080p on a phone, anything will look good.
You should buy things the way they are now, but I sure am hoping they'll bring a firmware update to bring the H.265 to the same level as in the Z6III.

Sure, I'll give you a deep dive.  I'll also vent a little.  You might imagine there would be some worry matching footage, but for this project, surprisingly not really much of a big deal.  We had worked with the Alexa footage for months, so I didn't fret at all that a GH5 would do the pick ups.
Why?
None of the Alexa footage was shot with a deep consideration for the lighting.  It was all very workman-like.  And the "eye" of the shooter was decent, but average.  That's really the biggest thing.
Anyway, the cinematographer and director decided to bring a rigged out Alexa to a run-and-gun-available-light shoot.  The dudes are older gents and they just felt like "the best" camera was the logical tool to use.  Not true, honestly, but you couldn't convince the cinematographer of that notion.  Which is kind of a legacy mentality with older guys, but that's what happened. 
There was a political element here too.  It's a decent budgeted doc so the "shot on ARRI" rhetoric was desired. 
Okay, so the main reason re-shoots were required: there weren't a lot of compelling shots that could juice the narrative.  The footage was decent to look at, but not dynamic.  The cinematographer really couldn't get around easy with this big 'ol rig and sticks.  Interesting things would happen situationally with the characters, but he would unfortunately deliver a single shot when dozens were needed for a good edit.  He'd just end up being burned out physically as the day went along and couldn't move into interesting places for useful footage.
Ultimately, a big powerful camera was being underutilized because of "reasons".  An Alexa camera delivers nice footage, of course, but when you're pointing it into blown out skies and shooting mid-day with it on the regular, it's not like it'll give you miraculous results. 
Here's the other rub that had me slapping my forehead, the cinematographer and the director really like the crushed blacks sort of color grade.  And they didn't mind the whites being blown, so...  That's a style that was typical a few decades ago, right?  Well, you're taking a 14 stop Alexa, throwing away a ton of information, and delivering 9 stops for the final project?   That's certainly a look.  And Michael Mann loves it as well.  But then, why the hell spend the $$ on an Alexa in the first place?
Now, in this story you're getting a bunch of bias from a guy that spent my entire career as a one-man-band.  If my background was from the more collaborative perspective of traditional filmmaking, I suppose a lot of this wouldn't even stick in my craw.  Don't discount my naivete'.
As for lenses, the cinematographer was using a very clinical variable.  Ziess cinema Zoom 28 - 80 mm.  And he liked f5.6.  Great lens, but neutral character to it with how it was used, so when we went out for more footage I slapped my Olympus 12-40 on my GH5, packed a few ND's, and went with that.
At the end of the day, it turned into an effective modest film.  Could have been better, wasn't a disaster.  imo, it was too verbose and that ends up being a slog, but all that talky stuff appeals to people that vibe on the themes of the film.  And while the film doesn't stretch to get beyond that sort of thing, the director is happy with it, so all's well that ends well.

Well I came, I saw. I chickened out.
Bought a secondhand ZFc with a kit lens.
Effectively, I confidently walked in to get the 64 Strat in classic white with triple single coil pickups and a whammy bar…and walked out with a banjo.
Went from getting a forever camera to getting a foralittlewhile camera.
I had an FM2 when I was a kid and this drew me in as did the £450 price.
The Z8 will have to wait but…

Here's an anecdote regarding our level: 
A-Cam was an Alexa Mini on a documentary shoot.  The cinematographer didn't really get enough variety for the storytelling the director wanted.  We tried to make it work in the edit booth.  Couldn't do it.  Late in the edit/production when the budget had been burned, the two of us went back into the field to get necessary pick-ups.  Those pick ups ended up covering close to 1/3rd of the film.  All the footage was cut together, color graded, and released on one of the major American TV networks.  Every shot looks cohesive.  
That pickup stuff was done with my used, ebay purchased, 9 year old GH5. 
And there ain't no way anyone watching that film could readily tell the difference between the two.
That said, anybody got one of those Alexa-Minis laying around they want to give me? I'll trade you my GH5.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/release/20260414-01
 
In Portuguese.
 
In conclusion, now in English:
The big leap in Resolve 21 is this: it is no longer just an editor and colour-grading system for video. It now also includes a new Photo page, designed for still photography, with album management, node-based grading, crop and reframe at original resolution, tethered capture with Sony and Canon cameras, support for LUTs and Resolve FX, and collaboration through Blackmagic Cloud.
On the AI side, the package has become much more aggressive. It now includes IntelliSearch to find people, objects, and even words spoken in dialogue, a voice generator from text, CineFocus to recreate depth of field, Face Age Transformer, Face Reshaper, skin-imperfection removal, automatic slate reading with AI Slate ID, UltraSharpen, and Motion Deblur.
In the Cut and Edit pages, the most visible additions are improvements to keyframes and curves, the ability to adjust Fusion effects directly inside those editors, native support for HTML and Lottie graphics, improvements to Text+ and MultiText, and more practical smart bins for filtering footage in the Media Pool.
In colour, VFX, and audio, Resolve 21 adds MultiMaster Trim Manager to generate HDR and SDR versions from the same timeline, Magic Mask render in place, list and layer views in the node editor, and group versions for grades. Fusion gains the Krokodove library, improvements to the macro editor, and an updated USD toolset. Fairlight adds track folders, 6-band clip EQ, EQ and Level Matcher, and Chain FX.
For creators and modern workflows, there are ready-made square and vertical resolutions for social media, direct upload to YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, and X, support for IntelliScript with Final Draft, import of ATEM Mini ISO projects, and major reinforcement of immersive workflows, including VR180 and VR360, Panomap, ILPD retargeting, MainConcept H.265/MV-HEVC, and foveated rendering for Apple Immersive.
In short, Resolve 21 seems to be three things at once: more useful AI, tighter integration between areas that used to be separate, and a much broader opening toward photography, creators, and immersive content. Blackmagic itself presents this version as a major update, with the new Photo page, dozens of new features, and many usability improvements.
 
This is no small improvement. And who said they were focused only on the SMPTE crowd?! ; ) LOL
Amazing upgrade, kudos to them! : -)

It’s for a personal travel/ski film next winter in northern Finland (supplemented by a Sony rx0ii). I have several manual Nikon lens which I previously adapted to the Pocket 4k. The 85mm is a favourite. Plus all my M/ZM/VM (one of my favourites is the Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 Vintage Line Heliar). I want the Panasonic/Leica 100-400 (not sure why but it seems ridiculously fun to go to 800mm equivalent!). I’ve also ordered the 9mm f/1.7 Panasonic/Leica to replace a MFT Voigtlander 10.5 (far too heavy). A healthy mix of MF and AF. Shallow dof is certainly not a priority.  Interestingly, I am finding that the “fun of using” is far more important that ultimate IQ… after all, none of this really matters! 

What are you shooting and what lenses are you contemplating?
I can't recall what your other normal equipment is, but MFT opens up a Pandoras Box whole world of possibilities with adapters etc too (if you don't need AF) so that can be fun too.  I've been shooting street video at night with two combos that work incredibly well..  the first is my 42.5mm F0.95 with the Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter on the front, making it an equivalent of 68mm F1.5 and creating beautiful rendering wide open, but the combo is 1.3kg / 46oz so I also got a Takumar 50mm F1.4 on a speed booster, which is equivalent to a 71mm F2.0, which is much more vintage but is tiny and almost a full 1kg lighter.
I'm contemplating a native 35mm F0.95 or F1.4 to replace both and have a less vintage but still lightweight for travel shooting.
I also rock the 14-140mm for day shooting while travelling, and in brighter places the 12-35mm F2.8 is pretty hard to beat.  So many great lenses.  If you don't need crazy DOF then MFT is a great option, even with the larger body sizes.

What are you shooting and what lenses are you contemplating?
I can't recall what your other normal equipment is, but MFT opens up a Pandoras Box whole world of possibilities with adapters etc too (if you don't need AF) so that can be fun too.  I've been shooting street video at night with two combos that work incredibly well..  the first is my 42.5mm F0.95 with the Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter on the front, making it an equivalent of 68mm F1.5 and creating beautiful rendering wide open, but the combo is 1.3kg / 46oz so I also got a Takumar 50mm F1.4 on a speed booster, which is equivalent to a 71mm F2.0, which is much more vintage but is tiny and almost a full 1kg lighter.
I'm contemplating a native 35mm F0.95 or F1.4 to replace both and have a less vintage but still lightweight for travel shooting.
I also rock the 14-140mm for day shooting while travelling, and in brighter places the 12-35mm F2.8 is pretty hard to beat.  So many great lenses.  If you don't need crazy DOF then MFT is a great option, even with the larger body sizes.

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!!