kye

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.

As this is a once-in-a-lifetime thing, and you'll likely be overwhelmed with the logistics of using a camera you've never used before + a format you've never used before + a cost per second you've never experienced, my suggestion is to keep it simple and keep it meaningful.
My suggestion for lenses....
Go to a rental house and tell them what you're doing and get their recommendations.  I'd suggest lenses that are neutral in look, easy to use, reliable, and probably not too heavy / expensive.  Perhaps something classic like a set of Zeiss Super Speeds (which were popular for a reason!) etc.
My suggestion for shooting.....
As this is a never to be repeated thing, I'd suggest shooting people and places and subjects you love.
Not only will this be a lower-stress approach, but you'll end up with lots of images that will be relevant for the rest of your life, and perhaps longer for friends and family.
Completely secondarily to this, shooting a range of different things will be fun, and it will also be great if you want to nerd out and pixel pee etc, as you'll have a range of different subjects and scenes.

Recently came into possession of this nice and functional 35mm 2C-BV ARRIFLEX.  Before I eventually sell it I'm considering shooting a 200' roll to notch that experience; just to say "I done done that"  2 whole minutes of footage!  What the hell.  Ain't cheap, kind of financially stupid to do this sort of undertaking, but maybe ultimately worth the effort, I think? Anyone out there willing and able to offer advice regarding the lens situation with these old things?
 

"How Another Man REALLY Shaped Wong Kar-Wai's Aesthetic // Christopher Doyle" is a far better title... ; )
(>_<)

WTF Lies?? Well, I (try to) follow the point but perhaps when the verb is irregular instead? : X 
oh gosh
Wong Kar-Wai’s directing is just something from another world (FULL stop!) ...for those who truly understand its meaning.
 
Cinematography is part of the filmmaking process, no doubt about that, but I tend to see the other, more distorted side of the debate: those who overlook who truly shapes the work, when the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.
 
- EAG :- )

Christopher Doyle  what a legend and his movie making skills were virtually self learned/experience.He is able to film with fluid and movement with such heavy lumps of cameras ,goodness knows what this one weighs on his shoulders ! Our modern camera rigs are a dream -I try and keep mine under 2 kgs total.

Not even in 4K!
It's like they've never watched a single YT tutorial on how to make their footage cinematic.

I watched a great video talking about Christopher Doyles contributions in working with Wong Kar-Wai (I'll post below) and there's a great line in there where Doyle basically says (when comparing his films to Hollywood blockbusters)
"I think we have absolutely opposite attitudes to what's film-making.  We make the film we can, they buy the film they think they want" (around 5:00 mark)
When talking about small budgets and tight timeframes these films are often a lot more like my own travel videos than a Hollywood blockbuster.
In my videos I shoot on-location with available lighting and no control over the scene whatsoever.  In some ways I am capturing something that is more authentic, because I'm not constructing sets or rigging lighting that might deviate from the actual location, but this also means I have less flexibility to work around the camera etc (where sometimes cheating things makes them look more normal rather than less), and it requires me to capture things in a way that more authentically depicts the location rather than including/excluding things in a way that's not balanced or authentic.
Obviously these lower budget films are still working with lighting, (probably) closed sets and production design, but they're not constructing everything from scratch on a soundstage in a warehouse in Burbank.
In the video he talks about how because they filmed in real locations the actors were responding to their surroundings in an authentic way, rather than having to pretend they're somewhere that they're actually not:
"The environments that the two worked in dictated the movement, emotion, rhythm, and transformation of those locations into an active force within each film.  The physical surroundings were always used to shape psychological states. Hong Kong becomes the central site of this transformation."
This idea of filming on location and letting the day-to-day (and perhaps moment-to-moment) shooting experience influence the acting and filming reminds me of what Noam Kroll preaches, which (to me) is really the fundamental advantage of the low-budget film.   Wong Kar-Wai sometimes wrote the next days scripts the night before, which means they could adapt to how shooting was going and the weather etc.
With the technological advances (film getting faster and not needing lighting / 16mm cameras that were light enough to use without a tripod / on-location sound then sync sound / digital) that enabled Italian Neorealism / French New Wave / British New Wave / Dogme 95 it's all about it getting smaller/lighter/cheaper, so taking these advantages and then still doing a full pre-production cycle then rigidly shooting to that in prod is really just throwing away much of the new potential that technological advancement has delivered. 

Not even in 4K!
It's like they've never watched a single YT tutorial on how to make their footage cinematic.

There it is.  Great point.
One of the best features of modern NLE's

Even more amazing they were low budget B-movies with shoot schedules under five weeks !

Not even in 4K!
It's like they've never watched a single YT tutorial on how to make their footage cinematic.

Not even in 4K!
It's like they've never watched a single YT tutorial on how to make their footage cinematic.

Part of the reason they could make these film was the introduction of Kodak Eastmann Super  XX film after WW2.It was rated at around 160-200 ASA which was over 2 stops faster than film of the 1930s.It also was known for its ability to be pushed (underexposing and overdeveloping)It was regularly pushed one stop to 320AS and sometimes two stops to 640ASA like on Citizen Kane. 

If so, I'd strongly consider the 50/1.2L or the Sigma 50/1.4 Art.  The Sigmas are, generally speaking, too clinical for me, but lots of people like them - it really depends on how clean you wanna go.  The 50/1.2L has been around for a long time now.  I got mine pretty close to when they released it - it might be old enough to vote, at this point.  That's to say that it's been out long enough that you could probably find a copy with clean glass and some external dings for not too much money.  Bokeh is completely a matter of taste thing, but I hated the bokeh on the EF 50/1.4.  I remember it was ugly/busy enough that even non-photographers noticed it on some photos.  Maybe I just had a bad copy?  I liked the EF 50/1.8 more, even.
There's also Otus, of course, but used prices on them have stayed surprisingly high.  I think there was also a Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 which is probably more affordable.  I never tried it.  It's probably very good.
If considering the Sigma f/1.8 zooms, you might want to double-check how the coverage is with the 0.64x SB.  I remember the 18-35 had a pretty small image circle - the 50-100 is probably a bit better, being more telephoto.