eatstoomuchjam

To elaborate on my previous post because you keep saying this nonsense: Professional cinema cameras including those from Red and Arri do not have redundant media. They are not gimmicky. They are professional tools. R5 overheating? It's a good thing to keep in mind if your use case is recording for hours at a time. I have used my R5 in 8K raw mode on multiple short films. They never showed any sign of overheating. This style of shooting has the camera rolling less than 1/3 of the time. It cools enough between takes and while resetting for the next scene/angle. Battery? Yes. You need to get LP-E6N and you can't use your old E6 batteries in the most demanding modes. No idea why you'd call this gimmicky. Was it a gimmick when Sony moved to Z100 batteries for their mirrorless cameras and abandoned the old ones which had less capacity? Canon seems to be trying to be consumer-friendly and say that if you just want to take photos or shoot in a lower resolution, you can just keep using your older batteries with less output and less capacity. Seems less like a gimmick and more like a kind of nice feature. Any other hot takes about the R5?

I'm also a fan of acquiring in 6K and delivering in a lower resolution. Plenty of room to crop in.

It's true - any proper cinema camera would have redundant storage. That's why neither Red nor Arri make proper cinema cameras. 🤣

I find the statement to be just weird. I've shot several things with it as well. Even if I prefer 4K from the C70 to 8K from the R5, it's pretty far from a "gimmick."

Does the lens have EF contacts on the modification (they were popular for a bit for getting the camera to give focus confirmation)? If so, you could try blocking the camera from reading them somehow. If it were me, I'd try blackening them with a washable marker.

Have you already tried the various options in Resolve (motion effects in color tab, motion blur effect in Fusion) or the motion blur plugin in After Effects and found them lacking for your needs? Looks like your link ends with "fcp" so maybe Final Cut doesn't have an equivalent to them?

If Metabones says it would work, I'd trust them.

I'd go another way and say that if they make a newer fp, the most important thing for me would be a better internal recording mode. Ideally, it'd be 12-bit, but I'd settle for a good H.265 (or ProRes). Second for me would be a small internal EVF, doesn't need to flip. Runner up could be a tilting screen that doesn't require a complicated mod. Third would be some combination of better DR and faster readout. For anything else - resolution, IBIS, etc, it's less important to me... but 1/2 address the things that for me, tend to result with the fp being almost as big as other cameras (which have faster RS, 6-8K internal raw, etc). I'd use it mostly with M mount glass, especially my beloved collapsible 50/2.

(Sorry to be the one who pulled you into the thread by suggesting a lovely Fuji camera)

Agreed that everything other than 12-bit raw from the fp is a bit crap. It also has a fairly dim non-flippy screen which requires using an external display, add-on EVF unless you want to sit directly behind the camera and hoping that you're not outside on a sunny day. Bottom mounted sleds can be a bit tricky because you'll either need to make it taller to handle 1/4x20 or lose the tripod mount. It looks like 52 Weeks went the route of losing the mount, but making the sled Arca-compatible. That can work, but only if you're the kind of monster who puts on their tripod mount sideways (making the use of almost any video-friendly tripod head pretty awkward, since the Arca Swiss mount on them is usually front-back vs side-side). Anyway, that sled is not too dissimilar from the DPL solution. You might also consider their "FP mate" side-mounted SSD sled option which won't need a cable and which also doubles as a weird/awkward left-side hand grip. https://darkpower.aliexpress.com/store/1102339831/pages/all-items.html?productGroupId=40000005805009&storeId=1102339831&sortType=bestmatch_sort&shop_sortType=bestmatch_sort

FWIW, you can record in anamorphic-friendly modes on the fp, but you can't do it in raw (so you'll be limited to a mediocre h264). The trick is to use the director's viewfinder feature. I ended up trading in my fp and fp-l because I realized I was never using them because they didn't actually do anything better than any of my other cameras - and when set up to record 12-bit raw, even with the darkpowerlabs rig, they became as big as my R5. Thanks for the heads-up, though, on the KEH sale! I hadn't heard of it - my CN-E set (currently 14,24,50,85) just grew to include a 35. 😃

If you want to move to mirrorless, I'd go with the best used Fuji X series body that you can afford. Maybe an X-Pro 1 or similar.

If you can adapt the Yashica glass to EF mount, you can use it with an EF focal reducer.

There are also some sensor smear issues visible at times with very bright stuff in the frame. For me, it's not very objectionable even when it is there, but I've noticed it in a few scenes.

I'll repeat - if you want a dedicated video camera, the GFX 100 II is IMO one of the worst values you will find. If your goal is to have one of the best (arguably the best) still cameras on the market and have a lot better video than the original GFX 100, it's a great idea. Anyway, I'd suggest that you rent one and put it through its paces. You will likely find a number of concerns beyond moire.

The poll needs an option for "seems to work well, but it is annoying to have the extra processing step" and "I hope they'll just add it to Resolve (if they didn't already and I missed it)"

I haven't done much raw video with mine, but perhaps I can find something to shoot to confirm it with/without raw. Though in general, I'd say that I consider the movie modes on my GFX 100 II to be secondary to the still photo modes. If I needed a dedicated video camera, I'd get any number of other cameras for $7500 (for that kind of money, you could get a used FX6 and still have $2k left over for lenses). An add-on AA filter seems potentially problematic with a camera that has IBIS. Has that been done in the past?

Anamorphic wasn't made for resolution, IIRC. It was made to allow a wider image on standard 35mm film. The main uses these days for anamorphic lenses are the horizontal flares and oval bokeh, though some anamorphic systems also are said to feature shallower DOF at the same f-stop and some people say that focus rolloff is also nicer with them. As far as modern times, cropping a 4k or 6k 17:9 image to a 2.35 aspect ratio is plenty for most uses (and gives a bit more flexibility than getting it right in camera. If you really want horizontal flares, stretch some fishing line vertically over the front of the lens. You could also probably create oval bokeh by putting an oval aperture over the front or back of the lens (though the fishing line and weirdly-placed aperture will result in some other visual artifacts). Mostly, shoot anamorphic if you or your customer want it/like the look. Otherwise, there's no purpose/need.

Yes, that is all why I said that it's already been discussed to death and is well-understood. Use a decent codec if you want to shoot 24p and pan/tilt.

The Z Cam EVF already has SDI and is cheaper (and comes with built-in wifi transmission).

The "jumpy" thing has been addressed/discussed to death already. There's no need to re-litigate this.

Con el nombre "besos señorita," posible habla español. Estas una persona o un un robot, señorita?? Diga nos la verdad, por favor!

If so, I propose we call that move "the reverse Fuji," given that the GFX 100 II (and moreso, the 100s II) is a medium format camera in a somewhat large full frame body (the S II is smaller than a Z8 by about 5% and the 100II is smaller than a Z9 by about 15%, though the latter isn't a totally fair comparison since the Z9 has an integrated vertical grip).

In that case, one of the greatest cameras ever made for low-light photography was the Kodak K-24 aerial reconnaissance camera which was used by the US in WW2. Its "Aero Ektar" 178mm f/2.5 lens was ideal for low-light photography with the films that existed at the time. You're welcome, robot.

Are you really basing your evaluation of 29.97 fps on having captured using an interlaced format?