kye

Can anyone recommend any non-cinema c-mount zooms without the little dips caused by the internal runners when wide open? So far, I've only heard of two:
Canon V10X15 15-150 f2.8
Cosmicar 22.5-90 f1.5
I'm still trying to make this a "no gear year", but that doesn't mean I can't look!

I think Pana versus Oly/OMDS lenses having zoom rings that operate in opposite directions is really annoying...
Anyway, here are pics of the Pana 12-32, 14-42 PZ, 14-42 kit and Oly 14-42 EZ on my GX80 (all with filters on the front), with the zoom set to give maximum lens length (which was max wide on the Pana and max tele on the Oly - minimum lens length was in the mid zoom range). Also the ZV-1 set to maximum lens length, and a GX80+Oly14-42 and ZV-1 side-by-side. Note the 10cm mark on the ruler is approx. aligned to the front of the body, so the all the lens lengths are between 55mm and 60mm i.e. around the same...
(The ZV-1 has a JJC filter adaptor stuck to the front of the lens tube - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07GWQ6CXL )

That's all pretty reasonable.  Though at least for me, the ZV-1 works well at its widest - partly since I don't often want to film myself in extremely crowded situations.  I have a mount on my dashboard with a 1/4x20 (it's on a little t-track that is made for the mounting points on a Jeep) where I can use it to film myself while driving (nearly the perfect focal length for this) and then since I'm usually going out to the middle of nowhere, there's really nobody to care that I'm there.  When I put the ZV-1 on the little Sony bluetooth handle, it puts it just about 4-5 inches further from me which works out well enough for a head & shoulders shot (which is still tighter than a lot of the kids prefer, but I like it).

This is an example - most of the "vlog" parts were with ZV-1 - either dash-mounted or on the handle.  I think the car-mounted cameras were a Hero 9 and an Insta360 One R with 1" mod.  Just about everything else including the silly thing with the Racetrack rocks at the end was on the original GFX 100.  About the only thing that I'd change would be for the handle to be about 2-3" longer, to have the internal ND on the camera be another stop stronger, and for the lens OIS to be a bit better for bumpy roads (Jeeps, by design, have pretty stiff suspensions).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faS2uFTCZBM
 

I've got the Pana 12-32, 14-42 (non-pancake) and 14-42 PZ lenses, plus the Oly 14-42 EZ (power zoom) lens. No LX10 (or GX800 anymore), but my ZV-1 might be an interesting size comparison.
I'll take some photos of the extended lenses on my GX80 with a ruler alongside.
Note that of the pancake lenses, only the Oly has a focus ring, but it doesn't have any OIS - swings and roundabouts...

Just window shopping for tiny cameras (tiny-er than the GX85) and realised I don't really care that much about the size of the camera with the lens turned off, I care about the size when I'm waving it around actually shooting footage.
Comparing the LX10 with GX850+12-32mm kit lens, I think the LX10 might be longer??
The zoom ratio is only 3.0 compared to 2.66 for the 12-32, so they're almost identical lenses too.
Obviously, it's smaller when closed:


BUT, the LX10 lens really really extends (at least for some of its zoom range)...

and (as far as I can tell) the 12-32 doesn't extend nearly as much?  These are the best images I could find of the lens extended:



Also, the 14-42 doesn't look much larger either:

Does anyone have all these bits and can give a more definite answer?
If the incognito factor is important then it might be that the GX850 and 12-32mm might be better.
In fact, the LX10 might not even have much of size advantage over the GX85 with the 12-32 lens, when both are fully extended...  I got a direct size comparison image and superimposed the best quality images of the two lenses extended that I could fine (the lens images are transparent so you can see the overlays - the size match is almost perfect on both).

Obviously lens extension isn't everything, but in use it's potentially a factor.  Members of the public are aware that the longer the lens the more zoomed it is, so anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of being filmed from a distance might really notice such a thing.

What a fascinating project!  I wish them well, but it's not exactly what I need.
I do think there is a niche here, though.  The competitors are:
MFT - much larger in comparison Action cameras - either don't shoot in high enough bitrates or don't have a good / large enough front-facing camera or don't have the lens options Smartphones - some don't shoot in high enough bitrates but all(?) either have one focal length on the selfie-side that isn't very wide or have several on the rear but no selfie screen at all (or it's tiny) The challenge with such a system would be the crop factor and getting lenses at the wider end - it's hard enough for the S16 crop of the P2K and M2K, but this is much worse.
Perhaps the competition is a smartphone plus an action camera with front-facing screen?  Still not the best combo.

Potentially of interest to the people who want the smallest possible 4K MILC to carry around, the people at I'm Back (mostly known for making a ridiculous replacement film back with a tiny sensor for classic film cameras) are kickstarting a new mirrorless system that they call "Micro Mirrorless."

Looks like it's based around IMX177 - so it's a 12 megapixel 1/2.3" sensor capable of 4kp24.  It looks like they have plans for an adapter that allows lenses from other systems to be used (though of course with a 6x or so crop factor courtesy of the tiny sensor.  From photos/video of the mount, I don't see any electrical contacts so I'm assuming that the adapter will be passive (hopefully it's micro 4/3 so that speed boosters are usable).

Mostly, it's something to keep an eye on - I thought about taking a flyer on it since it's so cheap ($315 with 3 extremely mediocre lenses), but then I saw that they're not planning to ship until December 2024.  If there's gonna be that much of a wait anyway, it puts me over the edge to "see what real people say about it after (maybe) receiving their rewards and just pay full price (which is still only around $400) if it's any good (90% chance that it won't be)."  In the meantime, maybe I'll just build one of those Raspberry Pi "cinema cameras" which use a similar (or the same?) sensor.
Anyway, assuming that it funds/ships, it will be the smallest shipping 4K ILC around.  As almost always, I dissuade anybody from risking money on kickstarter product speculation.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/samellos/micro-mirrorless-yashica-im-back

This strategy might've worked at the onset of the DSLR revolution when there was still a lot of room for cam improvement around essential features. But given where we're at with cam tech and needing for very little to tell a fantastic story - that is no longer the case. Right now, we actually seem to be arriving at a point where AI will disrupt our dependency - not just on using cameras to capture the world - but on the idea that we ALWAYS need cams/audio devices to tell visual/auditory stories that can 'authentically' capture our real world. That last part to me is one of the big things being blurred/contested. Either way, if you play it out, this particular type of subscription-based strategy will likely only work/make sense for large media companies, who for legal/tax reasons, do not buy gear from the used market.
As someone who works for a large media corporation, what I am seeing/hearing first/second hand, is an increased interest in PTZ cams, along with AI apps that can cover multi-cam switching duties (a quick google search showed me one by CognitiveMill). In that case I can definitely see the subscription model working, bcuz PTZ's (from what I can tell) require no camera people per se - moreso tech support people who make sure these PTZ's are ready to go for any given multi-platform show, on any given day, and are on standby to troubleshoot any daily issues that come up. So in a case like that I definitely see the subscription model working - albeit at the expense of the loss/shrinking of jobs/shifts for camera people, etc. 

I recently bought a new treadmill and was amazed that the high-end ones required a subscription model.
I wouldn't be averse to buying a GX85 updated firmware, but to buy and re-buy the damned thing over and over again is ridiculous.
Yet another reason to snap out of the specifications trance that everyone seems to be in and focus on making better videos, rather than making the same videos with better spec'd equipment.

Yes I'm talking shooting in 8 bit 709. When I mentioned log I meant 10-12 bit. I was saying even though the master is 709 you can potentially make 10 bit log better looking than a baked in 709 profile. For instance the emotive color lut looks nicer than the 709 profiles out of most cameras straight off the card.

All good points, but perhaps most significantly, it has a cooling fan.....  in something approaching the size of an action camera.

Sony, etc, have no excuses.

I think this entire line of thinking is a product of the online camera ecosystem - it is based on the idea that cameras can be evaluated separately to them being used.  It's designed to make you buy the latest stuff.
It makes as much sense as having forums devoted to discussing hammers, evaluating their shapes, the materials in the handle, the hardness of the metal, etc, but without talking about using them to build something.

It's partly a theoretical point, but I'm not actually sure this has to be the case.  It's definitely not the case if you're comparing 709 8-bit vs LOG 8-bit, as LOG 8-bit can be so fragile that you can't even make nice images if you don't need to change WB or exposure at all.
The missing piece (and why I said "I'm not sure this has to be the case") is having the colour management to convert back from 709 into something where WB and Exposure adjustments will be made proportionally to the image (ie, like they were done in-camera).  I've done a lot of work with the GX85, as I'm sure you've seen, and am still planning on doing more, and I got quite good results with the Gamma wheel when the image was in 709, and using the WB and Offset controls when I'd done a CST to a LOG space (in my case using DWG/DI in Resolve).
The reasons that I suggest this are that:
when shooting 8-bit there is far more data in the saturation, so the impacts of quantisation are much less when grading the final image to have a normal level of saturation when shooting 8-bit the image SOOC is much closer to the final image in terms of the gamma curve, so you're not stretching those bits that much further apart than they already are, whereas 8-bit LOG needs a lot of additional contrast to be added Of course, the ultimate is having 10-bit HLG, which has full 709 levels of saturation, has a gamma curve much closer to a 709-style output but still retains all the DR from the camera, and it has all the benefits of 10-bit.  Once again, HLG isn't a standard so the conversion is a challenge, but I've found that interpreting it as either Rec2020 or Rec2100 works pretty well.
I'm currently programming my own grading tool in DCTL for Resolve and my main aim is to incorporate the tools that I'll need to grade 709 images, considering that the GX85 is now my main focus and it's the one that is hardest to get right with the existing tools.  Once I have a working prototype I'll be filming my rec709 WB/exposure tests again (with skintones this time) and will update the other thread.

Perhaps the premise of the question would be interpreted differently if the two cameras were more different to each other.  For example, if I asked the same about the GH5 vs GH6, then there would be things to talk about, and spending time looking at the various specs and performance would be worthwhile.  It's also helped by the likelihood that I'd own the GH5 and be questioning an upgrade - so it's a question that would have real-world implications and would be of value to discuss, rather than a purely theoretical question.
In the case of the A7S3 vs A74, the strengths are very similar or don't really matter (both have enough DR for almost anything you might want to shoot) and the weaknesses are similar too.

Thanks for watching! I've wanted to get into anamorphic right from the get-go for precisely the reasons you mention. One thing I like about this adapter is that the flares are pretty subtle.

The camera itself can’t be powered over USB but that hub does allow the zoom on demand to be used simultaneously with SSD recording so that is a positive, albeit that BM doesn’t specify it in the manual.
He reports no issues with doing it so that’s all we have to go on and it might well be that BM doesn’t specify it because there are a LOT of USB hub/SSD combos that people could use that would make it a support nightmare.
The zoom on demand handle is very much a sledgehammer to crack a nut to get that external control though as it certainly takes away the Micro element and its primary function is only compatible with a few very average lenses.
The hub usability (difficult to refer to it as compatibility until BM official support it!) does open up the possibility of them making a more appropriate form factor interface for some external control.
Or maybe someone else will if there is sufficient demand from people buying the Micro as a cinema camera…

I think you might be partly missing the point.
1) If Sony put a modern sensor in one of these things, it would have the same spec as a modern camera because it would BE a modern camera.  There are a shit-ton of smartphone sensors that have excellent specs that are in the right size range.
2) When compared to a modern mirrorless camera and a superzoom lens and a gimbal, it would be positively tiny by comparison.  
Also, camcorders often have completely internal mechanisms (zoom and focus) potentially making them much easier to weather-seal.  The benefits in terms of being less fragile in your bag etc might also be welcome.
Also, also, for amateur use, a camcorder looks FAAAAAAAAR less threatening in public than a MILC and large lens...  let alone when you add the gimbal.  Put an A6700 with superzoom on an RS3 or Crane and you may as well have activated a homing beacon for all private security, toxic law enforcement, Karen's, etc to come out of the woodwork and hassle you.  If you're holding something the shape of a camcorder, the fact that it's larger might even make you look less of a threat because buying a big camcorder might make you look a bit silly - the opposite look of a professional setup.

I'm confused...  you obviously don't want one, so why are you in this thread about camcorders arguing that no-one wants them?
I'm not interested in buying any cameras that exist right now, but I'm not sitting in all the threads arguing with people about them.

All good points, but perhaps most significantly, it has a cooling fan.....  in something approaching the size of an action camera.

Sony, etc, have no excuses.

All good points, but perhaps most significantly, it has a cooling fan.....  in something approaching the size of an action camera.

Sony, etc, have no excuses.

Picked this up second hand at a good price as my introduction to anamorphics. Here's some tests shot last night.
 
 

The very question is flawed.  You're asking which sensor produces the best image, but the sensor is only a part of the image pipeline.  The same Sony sensors are sometimes used in cameras from Sony and several other vendors and the image that gets output differs radically.  Each manufacturer is applying their own denoising algorithms, color interpretation, internal debaying algorithm, etc.

I'd also say that @kye is fully correct that there's really no way to evaluate which camera produces the "best" image.  What is "best?"  Is it the most faithful reproduction of colors?  Or is it the interpretation of colors that I like more?  Is it preserving every single detail from corner to corner?  Or is it producing an image where my actors like how their skin looks?  How contrasty is best?  Is the image being color graded in post?  Or is it being given to somebody straight out of camera?  If one camera has better DR and the other has more pleasing colors, which one wins?

This kind of thing is also why, in the example above, industry professionals could end up preferring the image from a $1k GH4 to a $25k Red or a $70k Arri.  Were the images straight out of camera?  Red and Arri might not spend as much time with the SOOC image because almost any production that can afford to use their gear can also afford to have a colorist. Meanwhile, many people shooting with a GH4 don't.  If the images were graded in post, was the colorist more familiar with the GH4 than the Red or Arri?  Could be.  Did that test result in any of those Hollywood DPs choosing the Panasonic GH4 as the A camera for their next feature film? Nope.

It's not useful to obsess about the micro-differences between two cameras.  It's far better to actually get (or rent) a camera and spend some time shooting with it.

Actually, I take back my comments that overheating testing is incomprehensible, because I found this.... (linked to timestamp)
...and in case you don't want to hit play, the BM Micro Studio Camera was used to film inside the race car of a 24 hour race in Daytona, and:
it was being powered from the car it was recording 4K to a 4TB SSD in BRAW 8:1 it recorded for 24 hours straight with no overheating and no dropped frames the average temp in the car was 120F / 48C the suspension in a race car is stiff and shaking the camera too Just goes to show - all these huge cameras that overheat in air-conditioning are just flat-out design failures.

There is no such thing as objectively better.
There was a famous blind test that included high end cameras like the ARRI Alexa and Red Epic Dragon 6K, but also much lower-end cameras like the GH4..  here's a couple of articles talking about it:
https://www.4kshooters.net/2014/08/20/12-cameras-blind-test-bmpc-4k-bmpcc-gh4-arri-alexa-red-epicdragon-6k-sony-f55-fs700-kineraw-mini-canon-c500-5d-mark-iii-1dc/
https://www.4kshooters.net/2014/08/24/12-cameras-test-part-iii-arri-alexa-red-epic-dragon-6k-blackmagic-4k-kineraw-mini-gh4-5d-mark-iii-more/
But here's the kicker - the audience was industry professionals and some of them preferred the GH4 to the ARRI or the RED.
In the end, everything is subjective.

I agree with @eatstoomuchjam that either would be fine, even for the more extreme situations.
My experience has been that the GH5 (9.7 stops) often wasn't enough for people-in-front-of-sunset but that the P2K (11.2 stops) was hugely better.  I wouldn't say that it's all you'd need in that situation, but it made a HUGE difference in that situation for me.  Going up to the A7S3 (12.3 stops) would be a huge jump up again and would likely be all you'd need in that situation.
But remember, that situation is a really demanding one, and waaaay more than you need in any other lighting scenario - the P2K (11.2 stops) is enough when the sun isn't in shot.
It's fun to talk about cameras and look at the specs, but asking which is "better" involves so many variables that the situation really matters.  Even things like how you feel matters because you use the camera differently.