eatstoomuchjam

Another vote for "buy used from a reputable dealer with a return policy" when possible - both with camera bodies and lenses. They usually have a 30-day return policy as well - so that gives you some time to test the camera. Personally, for the most part, I don't buy extended warranties and if you're going to buy one from a third party, try to do some investigation to understand whether people are happy with it when they try to use it. I do carry extra camera insurance, though, for a bunch of my stuff. On the rare occasion that there is a problem with the camera, you can send it back to the manufacturer for repair, even if it's out of warranty. It'll just cost you a bit to have it repaired. For me, over the last 25 years or so, I've definitely spent less on repairing cameras than I would have spent on extended warranties for all of them. YMMV

For AF-S, unless you're shooting really fast-moving subjects (sports, race cars, etc), nearly every AF lens made since 1995 will be fine. Even stinkers like the Canon EF 85/1.2L are workable. With DFD, Panasonic made AF-C CDAF about as good as it seems likely ever to be. If not for the pulsing on still subjects, it would probably be enough for most projects. My GH5 was always frustratingly close to being usable with AF. Sure - people make a big deal of super fast apertures and extreme shallow DOF these days, but f/5.6 at 140mm is still relatively shallow, even on M43. Heck, even the RF 800/11 has relatively shallow DOF on FF. I'd add "Don't make yourself miserable by hauling around a boat anchor on a strap around your neck all day and night."

Since one of the stated reasons for documenting the journey was accountability, how did your first night of shooting go?

Gotcha - if you're more comfortable with the 35mm equivalent FOV, a 17ish vs a 20ish mm m43 lens makes total sense - and if you value AF, it's not your best option by far. From what I remember, it's a bit noisy and slow. I'm sure the Olympus 17 or the Panasonic 15 is faster. For me, the 14/2.5 and the 20/1.7 were no brains to keep in my kit when I was still using M43 because they were just so tiny. It felt silly not to bring them, especially since they're both really decent lenses. For me, the 75/1.8 was always useful for either portraits (though one has to stand a little further away than I like) or for landscapes (as I age, I like telephoto landscapes more and more - just choose the little bit of the scene that I want). The fast aperture let me get pretty sharp stuff even when shooting from a moving car or train without having to crank the ISO on a smaller sensor. At this point, I have a Summicron-M 90/2 ASPH so unless I'd need autofocus, I'd just prefer it for that sort of landscape shot (and on FF, it's a really nice length for portraits, to boot). Anyway, if you don't mind the aperture limitations of the 14-140 when it's racked to 75mm, you're definitely set there. For me, my travel kit contains a few redundant focal length primes - though they're less for the faster aperture now and more for being smaller/lighter/nondescript. Does 1 extra stop on the Fujinon 63/2.8 make any substantial difference than the 32-64/4 racked out? Not really. Is there any appreciable difference in quality on the prime? Not really. Are people more likely to ignore me when it's on there? Yes.

Oh, that and why prefer the 7Artisans 17/1.4 over the smaller (and pretty great) Panasonic 20/1.7?

Did you ever consider adding (or replacing one of the other lenses) with the Olympus 75/1.8? It's also pretty tiny, pretty cheap, and IMO it's one of the greatest lenses ever made for Micro 4/3.

For me, my willingness to use kickstarter is perversely whether or not the company already has a track record of delivering quality products successfully, either through kickstarter or through other platforms. Like recently, I backed a 4x10 film camera being made by a guy who has been selling a well-regarded line of pinhole cameras for years. I'm very confident that it will ship eventually. I've thankfully only been burnt a couple of times on pretty small things for products that never delivered... products that delivered and were awful? That's another story. Anyway, as I said, my interest in it, if I have any at all after it's released, would be as something I can mount on the back of a telephoto lens - or as something that can turn a pretty normal portrait lens into a long telephoto. Could be nice for travel where (at present) a long lens (200mm+) is a big and heavy thing that I often leave home.

You assume correctly. Yeah, I'm not saying in any way that it's perfect or that I don't get why a lot of people prefer a wider angle. It's why Sony came out with the ZV1 II - I just wish they hadn't taken a note from Canon and taken away a useful feature for every other useful feature that they added. The next time I buy a new iPhone (probably when the new one is announced later this year), it might even remover that use of the ZV1 for me since the newer ones can apparently record to an SSD now. I assume that there are also close-up diopters for those action cameras that also feature ND? One of the reasons that I shy away form using any of my action cameras for that kind of thing is that it's annoying to have to remember all of the necessary accessories and it's a bit fussy to have to put them on/take them off when the light changes (e.g. when walking into a building). With the ZV1, I just push a button and an ND filter pops into place. 🙂 Also, even if I were still regularly vlogging, I definitely wouldn't be trying to do it at the Vatican. When traveling abroad these days, I pretty much bring the GFX 100 II and a few lenses (and maybe a DJI Mini 3, depending on where)... and maybe a film camera, depending.

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

If not for the challenges focusing/framing on the teeny tiny screen and lack of HDMI output (or wired connectivity to iPhone for video preview), I think my Backbone-modified Insta360 One R would be superior in almost every way (1" sensor, lots more frame rates/resolutions). It's too bad that wifi preview is laggy and that (at least the last time I checked), still pretty small since it won't rotate to landscape with the phone. But yeah, totally agreed that their main competition is action cameras. I'd also add used ZV1 ($450ish right now) and used RX100 V ($500ish) to the competitor list. I'd still use my ZV1 for vlogging stuff if I didn't have a backlog of unedited vlogs going back to 2020 or so. You can't swap the lens, but it's basically a 24-70 equiv. If people really want the 20mm of the wide for the micro, I guess they could get a used ZV1 II ($700) which has like an 18-50 equiv. lens (and better 3x ND filter), but has the minus of a slower and non-stabilized lens. For me, assuming the HDMI output is decent and not overly laggy (or the built-in screen is better than I'd expect), it'd be something I could mount on the back of some of my telephoto lenses to turn them into telescopes. 1/2.3" sensor + Leica R 250/4 = 1500mm equivalent lens. Or on the 560mm Telyt-R, a 3500mm (though since both lack any sort of stabilization, even on a heavy tripod with a sandbag, the slightest breeze will cause visible jitter) - and if any of the first-party lenses are better than the example images indicate, maybe they'd be a nice plus. 🙂

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

Looking at the product pages on Metabones' site, this note is interesting: I don't know if the standard speed boosters can be powered by micro usb - I'd find that out before considering one if you have a BMCC 2.5k and want to use electronic EF lenses.

Ha! You have a point, but that was when 4K was cutting edge. Do any current Sony bodies without IBIS overheat in 4K mode? At least in the case of the R5, the heat management is a little bit improved, but also Canon just stopped doing stupid things like having a hard-coded cooldown timer instead of basing it on actual temperatures. That should probably set some sort of record for dumbest decision made in the development made in a modern camera.

I'm going to go on a limb and guess the micro 4k g2 has no IBIS. There are a lot of 4K cameras without IBIS that don't overheat. A number of people have used Z Cams in all-day shoots in similar or worse conditions and said that while other components (storage, monitor) were failing, the camera just kept ticking along (even at 6K). Once IBIS is introduced, sensor cooling gets a lot harder - it's pretty tough to attach a heat sink to a thing that is suspended by magnets. 😃

If it's CDAF, it will pretty useless for AF-C anyway. Panasonic spent years of time and tons of development hours trying to make AF-C not suck and in the end, they made it suck a little less. AF-S can be pretty great with CDAF, though. I'll have to check out the review - I'm not usually a fan of BMD's consumer/prosumer line, but I DO love tiny cameras with a good image...

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.

Keep in mind from context (quoted below) that the OP is potentially not talking about the actual fx3 and more likely is talking about the zve1 and is comparing it to the fx3/a7s3 due to similar sensor. The zve1 doesn't shoot raw. Also, if it's worth mention that recording raw on any of these cameras requires an external recorder which will add $300+ to the price. Also also, that the OP doesn't currently have a video camera or experience (so raw might be questionable choice) 😃

If you haven't used a mirrorless ILC for video before, either camera is more than enough to get started. I'll go back to saying that if you care about a specific feature on one of them, that's probably the one to choose. If not, neither of these cameras will be what holds you back. The differences in dynamic range between the cameras in most practical shooting situations are unlikely to be severe. The A7 IV has some of the best test chart performance for DR of any camera in the industry, similar to my C70 and my GFX 100 II (in 4K with DR boost turned on) - and they are both fantastic. The other one tests about half to a full stop worse? If your exposure is way off or the scene has too much contrast, there's a good chance that the difference won't be enough to save your image. Using similar exposures on my C70 (best DR of any camera under $10k) and my R5 (comes in at like #30 or #40 on cined's charts), the visibilities in DR are different in the form of highlight/shadow details, but it's FAR from night/day.

Is there an existing camera? Sorry if I missed that. If so, which is it? That could also be useful to know.

I'd say that if there is a specific feature that one has which the person cares about (higher frame rate, etc), then go for it. If not, the majority of differences between those cameras will become negligible pretty quickly once you start using them. I try to make sure to go rewatch Reverie every so often. It's a great reminder that the 5D Mark II, released in 2008, could look pretty good in the hands of a Vincent Laforet. Is the quality equal to even an entry-level modern mirrorless camera? Not really. Does it look better than about 40% of short films being made by local filmmakers in my area? Yes. So nobody can tell you which camera is the best one for you. That's a personal decision - but FWIW, between the two cameras that you're looking at, I don't think either one is the WRONG choice, especially if you're just getting started.

You could check the cined lab tests for both. If you do, the a7 iv seems to have better DR (though much worse rolling shutter).

In some ways, this already exists - Atomos are charging to upgrade to AtomOS 11 on older devices. Some vendors have also included paid firmware features (Panasonic with V-log on the GH5 or ProRes on the S5 II). In an ideal world, paid firmware upgrades would incentivize manufacturers to actually invest in them, especially for somewhat older but still popular cameras. In the real world, they would also do it for cameras that are still on the market and try to extract money from existing users even though new users would just get it as part of their purchase (even if the camera ships with older firmware on it (since no stores gonna open all the boxes to update firmware), they usually need to grant the new firmware to prevent RMA count from increasing as people send back devices with outdated firmware). Anyway. I don't like it, but it's where the world is going these days, sadly.

I, for one, can say that I enjoy having internal raw available (even if I don't always use it) and that I have little or no use for 8kp120. I'd also say "Nikon won't enforce their new patent" and "they'll probably license it" are completely incompatible statements. If they don't enforce it, other companies would be stupid to pay for a license. Even if Nikon fought to invalidate the patent in the past, now that they own it, there's a decent chance that their opinions on the validity of the patent have evolved.

I'm not sure if it was brought up before in this thread, but apparently Yaroslav got some new old stock of the Z Cam E1. https://www.soltyscameras.com/product-page/z-cam-e1 I really didn't like mine at all when I had it (and I was so pleasantly surprised by the E2), but as far as I know, it is still the smallest 4K ILC camera ever produced. If you do get, avoid the log profile.

The "X" vignette is basically inherent to variable ND filters - those that don't have it just have a hard stop before it becomes visible. I'd also say that in the real world, having accurate full stop measurements is not that important if you're shooting digital. You have plenty of tools available to dial in your exposure. Plus, in the real world, light rarely perfectly aligns to full stops anyway.