KnightsFan

Newsshooter is there and brings these exciting news:
https://www.newsshooter.com/2025/09/13/viltrox-nexus-pl-to-e-pro-adapter-that-enables-full-af-capabilities-when-using-pl-mount-cine-lenses/
Comes by 4Q 2025 in the end of the year...

If the Smallrig cage for the ZR is used, the bottom left side is Arca-Swiss compatible and the right side has a hole which allows the battery door to be opened and at least the CFExpress type B card should be easy to swap. This depends to some extent on what kind of construction the camera is mounted to, if there is space for opening the door, but it would be possible to do on some of my tripod/monopod heads. I have the Smallrig grip for the Zf and I haven't taken that off in ages. Card and battery access on the Zf is similar to the ZR. I think this situation is just an inevitable consequence of making the camera so small. You can plug in external power via USB-C to extend the shooting time. CFexpress cards are available at least up to 4 TB capacity so that would cover quite a lot without having to open the door frequently. I am sure Nikon will make larger ZR-series cameras that have fewer compromises in how the ports, cards, etc. are accessed.
 

For context, I went to film school and have worked on many projects with 2-3 people per camera, ones where I managed multiple cameras on my own, 16mm film projects, and everything in between. On the other side, I've also shot live concerts for music videos, which, incidentally, the ZR would be a fantastic choice for. So while I don't have the experience of many of the active pros here, I understand camera use cases.
I never said anything about single cards being a requirement. I said that if you use the camera on any kind of support (tripod, jib, car rig, shoulder rig, gimbal) it's going to be a massive pain to change the card, ergo the ZR is designed almost exclusively for handheld, unrigged use. Almost every shot on most (not all) cinema projects uses a support system. The Alexa and Raptor are quintessential cinema cameras.
Actually, I consider dual cards to be most beneficial in documentary settings, where retakes are impossible and you don't have multiple cameras for coverage.
@eatstoomuchjammentioned the Z Cam F6. Z Cam's original prototypes for the E2 put the CFast card on the bottom, but they changed it because of feedback saying it would be too cumbersome to access. I consider the F6 to be a cinema camera, as a category, because it is designed to be used in a variety of situations that are typical for cinematic capture, and Z Cam discovered that included being able to change the card. Obviously, it's a lower end camera, relatively speaking, and there are plenty of photo cameras with better video quality.
Because it's impossible to tell on the internet, I'll reiterate that I'm quite happy to agree to disagree about terminology! And I am genuinely happy when people do things differently than I would.

I think Gerald got the categorization right, and of all the things you can call the ZR, cinema camera is not one of them. No reason it can't be used for great movies. There's also no reason you can't pull still frames from a Komodo and sell them as photographs without it being a photo camera or even a hybrid. You don't need to be a photographer or a cinematographer to understand categories of tools.
The thing about these comparisons between cheap and expensive cameras is that it kinda works with all cameras. The ZR isn't unique in being indistinguishable from an expensive camera when shot in a controlled environment and viewed in compressed 4K YouTube videos. It's been a few years since I had any concerns about pure image quality from really any camera.
I for one have high hopes for Nikon/Red going forward, which is why I'm relatively disappointed that their first camera is not really ergonomically catered to what I'd like.

For context, I went to film school and have worked on many projects with 2-3 people per camera, ones where I managed multiple cameras on my own, 16mm film projects, and everything in between. On the other side, I've also shot live concerts for music videos, which, incidentally, the ZR would be a fantastic choice for. So while I don't have the experience of many of the active pros here, I understand camera use cases.
I never said anything about single cards being a requirement. I said that if you use the camera on any kind of support (tripod, jib, car rig, shoulder rig, gimbal) it's going to be a massive pain to change the card, ergo the ZR is designed almost exclusively for handheld, unrigged use. Almost every shot on most (not all) cinema projects uses a support system. The Alexa and Raptor are quintessential cinema cameras.
Actually, I consider dual cards to be most beneficial in documentary settings, where retakes are impossible and you don't have multiple cameras for coverage.
@eatstoomuchjammentioned the Z Cam F6. Z Cam's original prototypes for the E2 put the CFast card on the bottom, but they changed it because of feedback saying it would be too cumbersome to access. I consider the F6 to be a cinema camera, as a category, because it is designed to be used in a variety of situations that are typical for cinematic capture, and Z Cam discovered that included being able to change the card. Obviously, it's a lower end camera, relatively speaking, and there are plenty of photo cameras with better video quality.
Because it's impossible to tell on the internet, I'll reiterate that I'm quite happy to agree to disagree about terminology! And I am genuinely happy when people do things differently than I would.

also on the photo I posted the viltrox logo is on the left, but on the product photos of the adapter the logo's on the top?

Yea, the PL-L adapter should look like this

Occam Razor here.
 
My 2c.
That guy has an S1R and that video is about ND filters. he made a mess using different cameras and blurring by mistake his S1R too. 

If DJI enter the MILC market, I assume they will start at the consumer end rather than professional. There probably isn't a ton of overlap between consumer camera buyers, and pilots serious enough to own a drone with interchangeable lenses. My gut instinct is that basically none of their initial target market already own DL lenses.
I also believe the consumer market has a short memory for system support. Canon dropped the EF-M mount one day, and within 1-2 years no one cared anymore. My gut is that an L mount camera will sell better. Either way, breaking into this market is difficult.

I love the trend of designing a slightly less ergonomic mirrorless with a flat top, and calling in a cinema camera.

Disregarding the use of AI by professional filmmakers as a tool to make serious content, can I just say, fuck those same 2 voices reading garbage AI scripts in YouTube videos, and all generated images of celebrities. And especially fuck AI images of real landscapes and mountains on Facebook. The Grand Canyon doesn't look like that.

It's been a while since I've been able to work on any kind of movie, but here are some recent landscapes photos. I'm not doing anything artistic, just trying to capture some of my favorite places the way they felt at the time. The only edits are very slight changes to saturation and exposure. 90% of my photos are from 10+ mile hikes so I only bring my lightweight 28mm and a CPL, but in this group is a rare photo taken from the roadside using a 24-105.

It's been a while since I've been able to work on any kind of movie, but here are some recent landscapes photos. I'm not doing anything artistic, just trying to capture some of my favorite places the way they felt at the time. The only edits are very slight changes to saturation and exposure. 90% of my photos are from 10+ mile hikes so I only bring my lightweight 28mm and a CPL, but in this group is a rare photo taken from the roadside using a 24-105.

It's been a while since I've been able to work on any kind of movie, but here are some recent landscapes photos. I'm not doing anything artistic, just trying to capture some of my favorite places the way they felt at the time. The only edits are very slight changes to saturation and exposure. 90% of my photos are from 10+ mile hikes so I only bring my lightweight 28mm and a CPL, but in this group is a rare photo taken from the roadside using a 24-105.

It's been a while since I've been able to work on any kind of movie, but here are some recent landscapes photos. I'm not doing anything artistic, just trying to capture some of my favorite places the way they felt at the time. The only edits are very slight changes to saturation and exposure. 90% of my photos are from 10+ mile hikes so I only bring my lightweight 28mm and a CPL, but in this group is a rare photo taken from the roadside using a 24-105.

It's been a while since I've been able to work on any kind of movie, but here are some recent landscapes photos. I'm not doing anything artistic, just trying to capture some of my favorite places the way they felt at the time. The only edits are very slight changes to saturation and exposure. 90% of my photos are from 10+ mile hikes so I only bring my lightweight 28mm and a CPL, but in this group is a rare photo taken from the roadside using a 24-105.

As much as subscription models suck for us individuals, they are often preferable for businesses, even regarding software like Adobe. Obviously Arri's target market is rental houses, and the comment earlier about a rental house passing those temporary upgrades to customers is quite likely the intent.
It's worth spelling out the difference between subscription editing software and camera upgrades, though. With Adobe's product, if you stop paying, you can't open your old projects. In Arri's model, if you stop paying, you can presumably still open files shot with those upgrades. Losing access to the creative work that you've already done is a big difference.

I only made it about 5 minutes through the video before I got bored with it so maybe he addresses some of this after that.
But I'm not sure why it's news that Arri give people an option to buy the full camera or a base model that disables some features until they're enabled.  That's been a thing for a long time.  When one buys the base model, there are options to pay to  enable those features on a temporary or permanent basis.  It's one of the reasons that when you see used Arris for sale, they'll frequently say things like "includes high-speed license" or "includes raw license."
Speaking for myself, I kind of hate subscriptions in general for this kind of thing, but that is very much mitigated by having the option for a permanent license.  I still don't like it a lot since (in most cases), it's not really reducing the camera price.  In the case of things like the GH4/5, it's not like Panasonic would have needed to charge more for the camera if they just threw in vlog-l.
In Arri's case, I suspect that the decision was pushed by big rental houses - if I'm a rental house, a reduced cost base model lets me buy more cameras.  Add a license to enable certain features and I can just tack that onto the price of the rental.  Renting for a week?  X dollars.  You want raw on that rental?  Add Y dollars.  Camera reaches end of service life, the buyer can turn on any feature they want on a permanent basis.
I don't love it, but it's not terrible.

In Arri's case they offer (1) Alexa 35 with all features included in the purchase price, (2) Alexa 35 base model with the most commonly used features enabled, and (2a) subscription to optional features that you may need for a specific project, (2b) permanent licensing of those features that you want to keep, so the subscription is just one option and permanent licenses to those features are available if you want them. 
 
I don't understand what the issue is. Having more options in how the payment is made is good and means more people/companies will be able to afford the stuff. No one is complaining that leasing or renting cars (or getting a taxi ride) are available in addition to the option of purchasing and owning a car. Public transport tickets are available on a single trip, load value, or pay for use for a period of time basis. Again no one is complaining about the existence of these options. Why then is subscription software or firmware as an option a problem?
 
I think people are complaing about these things because they don't understand that software development costs money and if you want to continue developing a particular piece software in the future you probably need to keep those same people who developed it continuously employed so that you can do it efficiently in the future. If you have to let the people who developed something go, to add features, the cost is multiplied because no one new initially understands the existing code. The subscription model works best for software because it enables continued employment so the knowledge of how the software works internally is not lost.
 
Today since operating systems are continuously changed, the applications software also needs frequent maintenance. So for Adobe the subscription model works best. They are able to maintain broad hardware support and have a huge library of cameras and lenses that are supported in terms of raw processing and lens corrections. The subscription cost is really low for the (still) photography software kit (LR + PS) and while the other stuff is kind of expensive, it was always expensive even in the then-thought-permanent license era. And as there are free or inexpensive options available for the tasks which Adobe prices expensively (Davinci Resolve instead of Premiere Pro), there is something for everyone available in the market. 
 
What would be much worse is that people rely on a particular product and have a lot of material made with it and suddenly those files could not be opened or edited as a result of the company making the software ending their operations or support of the product.

If you think that it is unethical to copy a commercial movie and personally sell those copies without the permission of the movie's owner, then it's hard to imagine how it could be ethical to use that same movie to train a model that is then sold without the permission of that movie's owner.

There's a pretty big difference between one person stealing a screenplay or synopsis, and scraping the entire internet to make a generalized tool that billions of people use daily. Both can be unethical, but it's a few orders of magnitude difference in how many people it harms and to what degree.
I believe that we should create technology for its own sake. I don't want to halt AI progress. There just needs to be a way to ensure that it benefits all people, particularly the people who (unwillingly/unknowingly) contributed to creating the models.

There's no chance I'll get one, but I don't think the S1II is that bad. Price is too high, but as I said a few pages ago, tariff disruptions drive all prices up.
I'm curious whether the S1IIE uses the sensor from the S1 or from the S1II. It's quite a bit cheaper. Newsshooter says "partially stacked" for the S1IIE, and it has 4k120, so I wonder if it's got the faster readout of the S1II. If so, that's a decent discount for losing 5.1k60, raw, and DR boost, non of which I really care about, while (maybe?) keeping the features I like: faster readout, full size HDMI, 32 bit XLR adapter, and non-jangly neck trap loops.

The leaked price (if correct) might reflect tariffs and that uncertainty, in which case other manufacturers might raise prices on both new announcements and existing products. Value comparisons this year might not be as useful as usual.

Do you think it applies to ad revenue collected from YouTube videos shot in another country? What about ad revenue from ads shot in other countries? Does Google pay the tariff on their ads, or does the advertiser pay it when they sell a product?
Do you think it's about what is in the shot, or camera placement? Ie if I stand on the US side and film something across the border, is it a US shot or not? What if I place a giant mirror across the border and film it, giving the exact perspective of the camera being placed on the other side?
Well Canada is the 51st state, so no tax. Obviously.

I wrote a similar post earlier, maybe in this thread, but a hurdle to overcome in the US is that a significant portion of our population believes that the more credentials a person has, the less trustworthy they are. This includes professors, reporters, researchers, and other experts. It applies especially to those in academia or have higher education.
If the head of the IRS with 20 years of experience says that more auditors leads to more revenue, and explains how auditors find discrepancies and why it takes time, and shows historical data to back it up, many Americans will automatically believe the opposite. If an anonymous dude in a Dinesh D'Souza doc says that a person he can't identify dumped 20 extra ballots in a mailbox, it's believed--not in spite of lack of rationality, but because of it.
This isn't without analogy in the rest of the world. In some way, it's a logical extreme of believing that "street smarts" is better than "book smarts," which is commonly believed in many places, and is true in some situations. However, many Americans are aggressively uneducated, and ideologically see education itself as wrong. ("Education" here means a thought process that uses data and logic to draw conclusions, not knowledge of specific trivia). Personal truths, often derived from religion and specific personalities/influencers, are held to be truer than empiricism, the scientific method, and data, while any appeal to rationality is rejected as part of the deep state conspiracy that every academic is part of.
Once a person intentionally rejects objectivity and rationality, their actions cannot be explained as being out of personal interest. They often actively vote against their personal interest, because their worldview rejects data and analysis.
And, to be clear, there are still rational people here, including many Republicans and conservatives. But we've reached a critical mass of the voting public that we now have elected officials at every level, from local to president, who also reject rationality.