TomTheDP

Sounds like a good setup. No auto IBIS focal length detection is a bummer but its not terrible like you said. I am getting out of using still lenses for video though, focus throw is just usually subpar. I did use the Helios 58mm for one scene on my last feature. Looked amazing but was annoying to work with.

Yes at least this is how I shoot 35mm film stills. But what I was saying is once those decisions are made its kind of final. With digital its hard to mess up.

Some stills from a feature film I just wrapped on yesterday. This is just with a lut applied no further adjustments or corrections.

I am talking latitude. If you want to change your exposure you have to push or pull the film in the developing stage. Or maybe I am missing something?

I might consider it just as an AF gimbal camera if it is cheap enough.

I honestly think it is more about lighting than film vs digital. Tarantino said that Roger Deakins likes digital because he is lazy, he doesn't want to light for film. S35mm Film requires a lot more light to get a clean image. Roger Deakins shot 1917 at 1600 iso and it was clean. 1600 iso film (there aren't even any 1600 iso motion picture stocks as far as I know) is super dirty. You can light way more naturalistically with film and get away with it. Lighting for 800 iso vs 100 iso looks completely different, especially at night. Lighting style has also changed. Partly due to how easy it is to monitor digitally. You can see exactly what you are getting. Old school method was using a light meter, exposing skin at proper values all the time. Look at a movie like Jaws, they were blasting 20,000 wat light fixtures through fresnels right at actors faces to balance the light from full sun on a beach. Harder and more light used to be the norm. These days you'd just diffuse it or shoot naturally more likely. You can also fix digital easy in post. With film once you develop it you lose most of the dynamic range. You can't just go in resolve and turn down the highlights like you can with an Alexa or RED. Yes film texture and color is amazing but lighting was a huge part of it. I honestly hate the way modern films are lit and shot sometimes. The shallow DOF, shooting the shadow side, dark asf cinematography gets a little old. Another thing is LED's have a slightly different look. Anything prior to 2010 was HMI's and Hot lights.

Pocket 6k pro with canon 24-70 for ois Honestly below 3k there aren’t a ton of options. An S5/S1/S1H isn’t bad either. Zoom lens with vari ND. Decent battery life. GH6 with DZO 20-70

I’d argue modern hybrid cameras are noisy too unless using heavy internal noise reduction. Shadows are always noisy at base iso. You gotta over expose to negate that. for example on my pana S1, for a noise free image, I would overexpose by 2 stops. Pretty much the same thing on my Alexa, I’ll shoot at 200 iso if I want it completely clean.

Open gate and oversampled 4k will look virtually identical aside from the slightly larger field of view.

It is rarely within the scope of the budget. All the projects I have seen that were shot on film shouldn't have been as they ended up cutting the budget for every other department severely.

I feel it is useful for a ton of people. I would assume run and gun/vlog/youtube style shooting is what the majority of camera users are doing these days. I feel Industry industry shoots are not the majority of what cameras are being used for. A super formal shoot is probably using a cinema camera although hybrids are sometimes used.

Definitely the case for me mostly. If you do a lot of run and gun shooting on longer lenses though it can be a life saver. I wish Sony's electronic ND was in every camera. I value that way more than RED's compressed RAW.

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course. But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post. But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography. That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range. But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse. Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue. Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech. There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look. I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.

Basically what @kye If the industry becomes mostly VR it will be a different ballgame. God forbid.

I'd imagine you could shave off a decent amount of weight. Camera's are already so small though so we are talking pretty small amounts in general.

Pretty uninspired stuff but that isn't the camera's fault. Definitely a good value. Hard to beat the capabilities of the FX FF 4K sensor.

Amazing congrats!

I just sold mine, now I am almost regretting it. 😅 I really wish companies would continue pursuing the film look. I think even ARRI has moved to high res/clean digital look with the Alexa 35. I get it, capture the cleanest image possible and make all the choices in post. It just isn't my style at all.

Same, the Classic sensor in a komodo sized package would be a blessing. They were able to drastically reduce the size while increasing the size of the sensor and frame rates with the mini in 2015. I would think 8 years later they could probably further reduce the size and power draw especially using the Classic sensor. Definitely not going to happen as ARRI only serves the biggest industry clients who it wouldn't appeal to.

I am kind of over the GH5 but it's certainly a capable camera. You can definitely get a worse image from a technically better camera, so much has to do with all the other factors that go into a production. Some will say, myself included, that I just like geeking over camera tech and that it is a hobby. But how much is the interest being influenced by these companies. Are they dictating our interests through marketing? Are people capable of independent thought or are we all just following the arrows laid by these large corporations. It definitely sometimes feels like the latter. Content and the world seems to be less and less creative and more and more just a bunch of cheap and lifeless products paired with boring and lifeless people. I am getting too pessimistic at this point. There is certainly still a ton of creativity in the world. It is just easier to talk about product releases I suppose as it is easy and doesn't really challenge the mind.

It is for acquiring plates though. DSLR's have been used for a while for crash cams or things like this. I remember the 5d was listed on the Avengers. Not really going to be ever seen as an A, B or even C cam on a major production. This isn't to discount the GH5 or any other camera just being realistic. There are some good voices on youtube. Most channels are selling cameras though so of course they are not going to promote old stuff. Consumerism is definitely in full swing though and the filmmaker market is insane in this regard. There is a recent trend to do reviews of old cameras which is refreshing (maybe saying it is a trend is exaggerating it).

I have already given up RAW, battery life, size and resolution for dynamic range, color science, and fast readout (the Alexa Classic). Dynamic range and color science are top priority for me and then sensor readout speed. After that battery life, then weight and then resolution.

Yeah I have always loved the idea of AF but in practice have never liked it even with Sony and Canon. Maybe I just don't do enough event work or weddings though.

I prefer going with older used pro equipment over cheap prosumer Chinese stuff. Miller fluid heads often come up for good deals.

I could do prores, the cards I have tested won't work in any format though.