kye

The C100 would suffer from the same problem that all workhorse cameras suffer from - the best images from them are made by people who are so good at making images they don't post to social media and/or don't list their equipment if they do post.
I wonder how many big budget productions have C100 shots mixed in with the C200/C300 main stuff but used the C100 as a higher-risk or mounted cam due to its size and relatively low cost if something happened to it.
I've got the occasional beautiful image from my XC10 when the stars aligned and the location and lighting and composition were all working together, and that had a tiny sensor and 10x variable aperture zoom lens.  The C100 almost matched it in pixel-peeing terms despite being 1080p and In similar situations the much larger sensor and ability to have nice lenses would be game over.

If I understand correctly what you mean, I think so...
I have used stills previously, but not 'matching' stills.
What I am proposing going forward is ensuring my video and stills match perfectly in the grade and if frame grabs intended to be used as stills, identical to that exact frame in the video.
The primary intention and purpose is to cut back drastically on stills photo capture in the first place and therefore also editing time and move towards a more cohesive and less time intensive approach.
So currently I'll do a full capture, cull and edit etc on both photo and video.
Going forward, I'd like to capture even more video and reduce the stills capture back to just certain elements, mainly details and family groups.
Pics will be captured in raw + Jpeg 3:2 ratio with my LUT baked into the Jpegs (which is the same LUT I bake into my video footage in camera). I normally bin the Jpegs and use the raws, but I am proposing using the Jpegs and simply keeping the raws as backup just in case.
Edit the video timeline to the point where it's still in 3:2 open gate format and then pull the frame grabs for use specifically as stills, rather than to insert back into the video.
I can then go back into the timeline and put my more 'cinematic' 17:9, or 2:1 or whatever crop on it, and add all the twiddly bits that are video specific such as any text, transitions etc.
Et voila, a finished wedding film plus a set of stills that look like frames from a movie. As intended, ie, when someone says, "your photos look like frames from a movie", it will be because most of them are.
Anyway, I am going to give it a go as all last year, this year so far and the next 2 jobs, I've been shooting stills on the A7RV and Nikon Zf with 90% of the footage for my wedding films coming from the S9.
After these next 2 jobs are in the bag, the A7RV and Zf get replaced with a single S1Rii shooting 7.2k 30p clips and the S9 which was shooting video exclusively at 6k 30p, will be shooting a mix of some stills and some secondary video.
Pretty sure it will be a good set up based on the kit I have and some of the trials I have attempted, but as with all these things, it's only when you climb out of the trench and charge the enemy, with bullets flying, you truly know. Or you step on a landmine and it all goes tits up.
 

I just start a new timeline with the finished production as a single entity.
Or rather that is what I have been doing to date with the few attempts I have made.
I think what I will do now, for the rest of this year at least, is introduce a new chapter as it were in my process which is after culling, importing, colour grading, while the clips are all still 6k 30p on a 6k 30p timeline, but prior to any speed changes, transitions, graphics, text etc, is export a 3:2 6k copy and then pull the stills from that.
These will then match my same baked in LUT stills also in 3:2.
I can then import the results from both into Lightroom as a single set for any final grading and reexport as JPEGs.
The only thing I hoped to do other than this was have AI find, select and export 350-500 frames from clips for me…amd maybe that software exists and if it doesn’t it should as that will be one of those things worthy of the title ‘game changer’.
Kills or at least severely limits the photographer in me, but hey, choices…

I last did some screen grabs in resolve 18, when i bothered to dl 20, i think they changed how you grab frames as nothing i did seemed to grab a frame. 20 was new at the time and there were no tutorials that i could find More by good luck than good management i figured it out. I do think its easier / faster in to do in 20. Just letting you know so you avoid some hiccups. 

EH FILMS gave an interesting take on the GH7:
 

I love that lens. Wish I didn't sell it. 

Speaking of IS, the entire thing culminated in me buying a 24-70 f/4L IS from somebody on ebay - since an irrelevant search result when looking for info on the 28-300 reminded me that it existed - and it's smaller and lighter than the 24-70/2.8L II and has IS.  And being an f/4 lens, it's not popular and cost me less than $400 used.  If I decide to bring the R5 as a second camera, I'll just put that on it and call it good.  The entire combo will be smaller than some of the Fujinon lenses for GF.  😅

It also benefits from having IS.
 

It has been on my "someday maybe I'll buy that lens" list for about 20 years now.  Every year, the price comes down a bit more.  Prices in the US are now about $500-600 and ebay prices from Japan are about $450.  What's the inflection point where it goes from "maybe someday" to "buy?"  Only time will tell.
It was also superseded by a 28-300/3.5-5.6L which is a more useful range.  Still a push-pull zoom along with the rude comments from friends that comes with that when using it.  Used prices in the US are still high - $800+.  Although...  there is one on ebay for $400 which intermittently throws a communication error connected to the camera.  Kind of tempted to take a flyer on that one and do the rubber eraser trick on the contacts - and if that doesn't work, disassemble the rear of the lens to see if it's a solvable problem...
Exactly.  It's important, when traveling, not to be too focused on a single specific outcome.  In the end, it's about the adventure and the time spent together (the woman I'm dating lives in Brasil so we need to treasure our shared time, at least I can spend a few months there yearly because my job tolerates me working from there for a while).  Renting a truck with a camper on it, there's always a danger that it breaks down and we miss some stuff due to lost time waiting for repair/replacement.  By going with a vague itinerary, it's easier to focus on what we're actually doing vs fretting about things that will be missed (and if they are missed, just about all of them are guaranteed to be there if I ever choose to go back again).
It's a strange world.  😅
Both of our countries feature landscapes from harsh desert to tropical jungle.  Yours has a lot more aggressively dangerous flora/fauna, though.  In mine, the danger is mostly from the residents of rural areas.  In both places, there are spots to stand, breathe, and feel in awe of the amazing landscape sprawled out before you.
(Even here in Minnesota, we have some places like that despite that it's objectively one of the most boring/flat states in the country)
 

I have this lens and this is a simple range example from one spot that  I did with it for someone on here many moons ago.

It is actually more like a 70-200 f2.8 size wise for carrying but that is down to it being a push pull design which isn’t exactly great for smooth continuous zoom shots.
But is ideal for practising the trombone.

Over the past decade I've been a part of thirteen independent micro or no-budget budget films.  Five of which I'd actually feel comfortable enough to show to strangers and say, "I've done this."  It's weird because I've never been too precious about IQ.
My personal-tech-craft-sloppiness-indifference does show in the final product, but only if you're looking real hard (at least I think so).
I kind of want to be better, but I also don't really feel a strong pull to eek out that extra little juice, you know?  I'm more interested in trying to shape a story by putting a bunch of note cards on the wall in the writer's room.
Anyway, I've held tight to my LUMIX cams since the 20-teens.  Also have an Oly cam.  Haven't bothered to upgrade much.  I know I'm missing out on the latest and greatest, but when I look at stuff a decade old vs. the film I just finished, and I think they both look a-okay, I guess I'm just not the type of filmmaker that's eager to change gear.
Anyway, if anyone wants to see those five films I mentioned, let me know.  I've posted them here before, but can share anew.

This looks incredible!
Great images and colour, and I really like the music and edit too.
It really is a different world down there isn't it...

Another range example I did with it here, this time on a GX80.

 
Its a very powerful combo but, despite the 35-350 being compact for what it is, when it is mounted on the GX80 it is all a little bit ... 

It's true - though if they made that lens and it had decent quality, I might be one of the only people who would be excited to get it as soon as it hit the second-hand market.
It's true - when on set, I'm usually shooting my t/1.2-t/2 lenses at closer to t/2.8-4, partly because getting the subject in focus is better than having a razor-thin focus plane.
I tend to like to deliver in 4k, but yes, post-cropping flexibility is the main reason that I usually capture in 6k or 8k for narrative.  I also like wider aspect ratios (even in film, where I like 6x17, 4x10, and 8x20 the most) so even shooting 4k gives some room to reframe up or down a little bit.
I used to have the EF 24-105/4 and I never liked it much, but I have the 24-70/2.8 and it's fantastic.  It could certainly be an option.  I've also, at various points in my life, considered the Canon 35-350/3.5-5.6L - still a fairly large lens, but it's a 10x zoom for FF that manages quality a bit nicer than a coke bottle.  It's pretty affordable used these days.  But I'm more likely to try to stick with things I already have.
Guided safaris are extremely expensive from what I've seen.  It's potentially good advice, but I prefer that we go our own way.  There's always the possibility of seeing one of the guided tour buses rolling around and following it for a bit too.  Plus, if I gave somebody $1,000-2,000/day to show us the animals, I'd probably mentally feel a bit entitled when seeing them.  If we go on our own and I see a single giraffe head snacking on a tree, I'll be beside myself with excitement.  Plus we can research before arriving to see if there are sites listing the most likely places.
I also am focusing on the time in Etosha, but it's also going to be 2-3 days of a 2-week trip.  I'm also really excited to see some of the shipwrecks along the skeleton coast, the dune-filled houses of Kolmanskop, the huge sand dune fields of Sossusvlei, and to take my own version of the iconic field of dead trees in front of an orange dune at Deadvlei...  (among other things)... and from what I've read, random wildlife encounters (zebras, etc) are pretty likely when driving around a lot of the countryside.

Youtubers are snoring! Better quit watching, cuz it's so boring!

Yes, it's the AF that makes me think of manual lenses on the GF3.  For stills it's a fully featured camera, but for video it's auto-everything* and so having an AF lens on it is a pain because the CDAF will hunt occasionally.
(* actually I recorded some clips with it last night and discovered it keeps the current WB setting - how odd that's the only thing it will let you lock down!)
If you don't already own the Olympus body cap lens then perhaps the "7Artisans 18mm f/6.3 Mark II" might be a better choice as it's cheaper and faster than the Olympus. 

Equivalency of DOF is the elephant in the room for sure.  In comparison, MFT lacks in the selection of gargantuan lenses with super-shallow DOF and FF lacks in small lenses without shallow DOF.  If someone made a FF 28-280mm F7.0-11 lens then it should be the same size as my 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 lens, but of course the internet would go ballistic over it and run whatever manufacturer dared to create such an abomination out of town faster than you can say "grab your pitchforks - the devil has come for our children!".
It depends on what you're doing of course, but for me personally when I switched from watching YT lens reviews to watching award winning movies and TV shows from the worlds leading professionals I had the Ah-ha moment when I realised very few shots had shallower DOF than could be achieved with relatively normal MFT lenses.  Even when looking at the shots that would have required quite fast lenses on MFT, the aesthetic penalty for the DOF being deeper was very low.
I then looked at what potential benefits would be traded-away for it....  lighter cameras that make me more likely to carry them around and use them and therefore get more shots to use in the edit...  smaller equipment making me more pleasant to be around and having a nicer trip and causing the people around me to be happier and more relaxed and look nicer in frame...  the smaller rig making the people around me less distracted and suspicious...  the deeper DOF meaning there was less chance of having one person in focus but the others out of focus or it simply missing focus by focusing on the wrong thing...  the much lower likelihood of having a difficult conversation with law enforcement or self-important security staff, etc.  I concluded that getting slightly shallower DOF was a very small benefit competing against a significant number of advantages that would make far more impact to the end product and to my experience in using it.
The extra cropping potential is one of the only benefits I can see for sensors above 2.5K.  I put the cropping modes on my GH5 and GX85 into good use when I was shooting on primes and have been hugely impressed with them with my GH7 + 9mm F1.7 PanaLeica which I'll use for shooting in ultra-low-light.
The R5 + EF-RF + 40mm F2.8 would be a great medium size setup.  Perhaps the best second camera FF setup I could think of would be your R5 + 24-105mm F4.  Like I mentioned above, the flexibility and speed of using a zoom when shooting in uncontrolled conditions just gives you more coverage - there's a reason doco and ENG shooters use zooms!
Yeah, that's a real gem, I'm still seeing footage crop up on YT that really shows how much you can push things.  I've also noticed it's very popular with the vlogging crowd and it seems to give really good results, similar to those who might use a small mirrorless, which is definitely saying something when you consider the size of it.
Nah.
Do a complete end-to-end analysis of what gives you the best results in the final edit or final photos, work out what equipment aligns best with those trade-offs, buy it, test it and learn the settings, then shift focus to actually shooting and don't look back.
Beauty magazines make you feel ugly, and camera YT makes you regret your equipment.  Best strategy is to ignore both.
By far the most important skill in uncontrolled environments is being able to understand and predict the behaviour of your subjects.  Not only does this matter for shooting people in public, but it matters doubly (triply?) for safari because the biggest struggle seems to be even finding the animals in the first place.
A professional animal tracker would probably get better footage with an iPhone than an amateur with all the equipment in the world who spent a week and only saw a few animals the whole time.  
Perhaps a good exercise is to think about what the total cost will be of the trip, think about how much it would matter if you didn't see any animals at all, and then see how much it would cost to hire a guide or some other service that would help you locate things.  There's a reason that people hire a model instead of just walking the streets hoping to find someone to shoot!

Yes, AI is a real wildcard.
I see that there are really three fundamentally different groups when it comes to generative content.
The first is professionals who create material for the general public, or various niches of the public.  This is where AI will have incredible impacts.
The second is professionals who create for their clients directly.  This is people like wedding photographers etc, where the client is the audience.  This has been debated, but I think that there will still be a market here.  If I did something and wanted a record of it, I would want the final images to be of me, not AI generated content that looks like the people I know might have looked during the thing that actually happened.
The third is people creating for themselves, where there is no client or money changing hands.  This is every amateur, every personal project from professionals, etc.  The goal is to have a final result that this person created.  Amateur photographers take photos and print and hang the best ones, not because they're the best photos ever taken, but because they were taken themselves.
Personally, I'm in the last category and I am completely resigned to the fact that my videos will never be great, will never attract a significant audience, will never be regarded as important, etc, but that's not why I do it so in that sense AI is no threat to me at all.  I do understand that people are all in different segments of the industry and have very different perspectives for very good reasons..

This is my most recent finished edit.
I wrote the music for this too.
I've shared it before, but some might not have seen it.  Shot on the trip I did to Seoul last August where the wife and I got sick and spent most of our time in the hotel.
OG BMMCC + 12-35mm F2.8 + TTartisans 50mm F1.2.  Graded in Resolve with heavy use of the Film Look Creator tool.  Music written in Logic Pro.

Yes, AI is a real wildcard.
I see that there are really three fundamentally different groups when it comes to generative content.
The first is professionals who create material for the general public, or various niches of the public.  This is where AI will have incredible impacts.
The second is professionals who create for their clients directly.  This is people like wedding photographers etc, where the client is the audience.  This has been debated, but I think that there will still be a market here.  If I did something and wanted a record of it, I would want the final images to be of me, not AI generated content that looks like the people I know might have looked during the thing that actually happened.
The third is people creating for themselves, where there is no client or money changing hands.  This is every amateur, every personal project from professionals, etc.  The goal is to have a final result that this person created.  Amateur photographers take photos and print and hang the best ones, not because they're the best photos ever taken, but because they were taken themselves.
Personally, I'm in the last category and I am completely resigned to the fact that my videos will never be great, will never attract a significant audience, will never be regarded as important, etc, but that's not why I do it so in that sense AI is no threat to me at all.  I do understand that people are all in different segments of the industry and have very different perspectives for very good reasons..

This is my most recent finished edit.
I wrote the music for this too.
I've shared it before, but some might not have seen it.  Shot on the trip I did to Seoul last August where the wife and I got sick and spent most of our time in the hotel.
OG BMMCC + 12-35mm F2.8 + TTartisans 50mm F1.2.  Graded in Resolve with heavy use of the Film Look Creator tool.  Music written in Logic Pro.

This looks incredible!
Great images and colour, and I really like the music and edit too.
It really is a different world down there isn't it...

prepping a no budget feature.

here's some stuff that i like somewhat from the past year and a half or so:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Speaking of new cameras...
This was shot by a friend of mine on a "vintage" Lumix LX10 in Nauticam housing and different wet diopters.
 
 

Test video - GX85 with Standard profile and 12-35mm F2.8 wide open.  A few shots were ISO 400 or 800 towards the end.
SOOC:

After grade:

Despite being fully manual, the shots had significant colour variation.  Not sure if it was the vND or what, but colour management is critical to give ability to WB and expose in post on 709 footage.