Mmmbeats

This, basically. You haven't yet got the budget for a decent wireless system. It's not worth getting a cheapo one. I use the Rodelink, which has worked very well for me. If you are using a camera mounted recorder for interviews, just about any kind of alternative is going to make a noticeable improvement. Getting the mic closer to the subject (as detailed above) is the winning strategy. I now use a boom buddy and an NTG2 (which I kind of want to upgrade, but is certainly reasonable - and close to your price range, btw), with the Rodelink relegated to backup most of the time.

Is there a RAW out to external workflow that gives you reasonable files? Can the Atomos recorders covert RAW to 10 bit video on the fly?

Everyone says that, but this is clearly a RAW camera for people who want top notch cinema images at low cost (by the crazy standards of this industry!). If they had also included mid-level codecs, who would then buy a C300? They would have destroyed their own highly-successful line of cameras.

Atmosphere (fog or haze) is very often used to give torch lights those volumetric beams, btw. One more point - the most important aspect of these kinds of lighting setups is the modifiers. Particularly you will need quite a range of flags to control where your highlights end up, and to protect the rest of the set from stray light. If you can't get hold of professional ones, you can improvise these with bits of thick cloth or cardboard. But *IMPORTANT* be aware of fire safety using these materials alongside hot lights.

Wait. Shooting a dark scene does not necessarily mean crazy high ISO. You really need to think about what you are exposing for. Do you want to see beams of light, with body shapes looming out of the shadows? Or is it important to see the actors faces, even when they are in the dark parts of the set? Darkness is suggested by high contrast, not just by making everything dark. So the trick is to get some specks of bright light hitting just the things you want the audience to see. Also, it's common for dark scenes to be lit slightly higher than intended and then 'crushed' somewhat in post (the shadow values taken down). This allows you to preserve a bit of detail in the shadows without the crazy ISOs you are correctly trying to avoid. The problem you will have with this last method is that, as I mentioned before, the real trick is to preserve high contrast, and if you raise the shadows, you also have to raise everything else - in other words, your flashlight and accent lights will then have to be pretty powerful. Spot metering is your friend. Do some tests. Grade the tests. A monitoring LUT might help on set if you are doing a kind of 'day for night' job.

Paul Leeming (DP and LUT creator) has been enjoying his first outings (well, tests) with the camera. This from Facebook:

He's a good thinker. He's inspired me to want to try shifting the battery from the rig to a hip (belt bag) mount, which was something else I noticed him do in the past.

Which is the Ripple tutorial referred to? Googling suggests a few different options.

Any way of speculating whether the Panasonic lenses for this system will be focus-by-wire only?

Just for a bit of variety - I happen to think that Cinelike V is really nice for a quick-turnaround profile. The image looks really nice out of the camera, although it might be a bit contrasty for some tastes. I use - Cinelike V: -4, -5, -3, -1, 0

Not such a big problem. You either buy one really good camera, or the other really good camera. Happy days.

Dunno about obsolete. Most established professionals would pay a big premium for a fully-equipped cinema camera over a luxury hybrid, even if the jump in image-quality was tiny or non-existent. Not the same for entryists and monied enthusiasts of course. While the EVA1 might be a bit dented (or even seriously so), Varicam would be untroubled I'd imagine. For a piece of the expensive but mass-market FF mirror-less sector, that maths might possibly add up for Panasonic.

Are there likely to be advantages for video of the S1 over the S1R, or the other way round, would people think?

I hope it does end up on the S1. I always figured the the V-LOG-L charge was a way of keeping it out of the hands of inexperienced graders as much as anything?

Well I have had good useable results with a monopod, but it's closer to a hand-held look than a rock-steady locked-off tripod look. Sometimes that energy works well with fast-moving event or doc footage. I've never had any complaints. Before I got the tripod I did, for a brief period of time, use to use a single leg of a tripod as a makeshift monopod, but that's not very good for the health of the locking mechanisms. It's true that you can't really pan or tile very easily with them though. You can do some interesting faux slider movements though, that sometimes work well.

They're just another tool set, aren't they? I've used monopods a lot for event work and other fast moving stuff. They are absolutely great, although I find some of the claims about them on this thread a bit of an exaggeration. Specifically there's almost always a bit of sway going on with them that distinguishes them from tripod shots. Also, the noise of the latches used to adjust height on my manfrotto monopod is sometimes problematic - not so much for ruining a shot, as for distracting the subjects and drawing attention to myself. On a very small number of occasions (coincidentally, I plan on doing so later today!) - I pull out my little GX80 and go IBIS handheld. It's a really good go-to, which means that I can pack light, be unobtrusive, move around swiftly, and get static shots that are equal in steadiness to a monopod. I say static shots - for tracking shots I find the movement quite unpredictable with IBIS, so I don't really use it in that way. So, yeah - a great new tool, that is going to compliment rather than replace the old methods. I feel similarly about AF. I'm all manual focus and have never had a camera with reliable AF for video. But there are certainly occasions when it would be useful. It would be ridiculous to say that either tool was suddenly 'necessary' though.

I was about to say that the Bucky Ball is the largest object to have been passed through the two-slit experiment (and exhibit wave-particle duality), but I notice that my information is way out of date, and they've been flipping significantly larger objects through that thing for quite some time now ?.

I did see that, but thanks for the nudge. I'm still a little confused as to whether the classics are still in production, or whether it's a case of snap up what's left.

Thanks. Yes, once again I find myself wishing B&H had a UK branch. I get stuff sent over from them, but I reckon I'd get smashed for duty on those lenses. Manual focus is okay by me. Honestly, clickable aperture hasn't been a thing for me yet (rare for me to have to radically alter exposure mid-shot, and when I do it's usually via vari-ND). Focus throw however is important, but it doesn't seem too too bad on these - they seem to range from around 125° to a pretty healthy 225°. Plus they seem to be reviewed as not overly sharp, in fact some complaints from stills shooters in that regard. I'm still tempted.

I don't know how quite to refer to the lenses I'm thinking of. They are stills lenses (also listed under videography!). On Zeiss's website they are listed as 'classic'. Elsewhere I read that some of them have been discontinued. https://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/photography/products/classic-lenses/distagon-225.html Seem like a value way to get into quality glass. Maybe I will one day, but I currently don't really need 'cine' features. They are cheaper (and a lot nicer looking!) than the Milvus range that seems to be their replacement. They are also, of course, a lot more affordable than the Zeiss cine ranges. But are they decent? Are they still being made / supported? And how to find them? (searches are corrupted with both vintage Zeiss and the newer ranges).

I really like the look of the Voigtländer Nokton f/0.95 lenses for MFT. I guess it's a kinda modern-but-veering-towards-vintage look. I'm considering getting a set, but now I'm backing off a little because I'll almost certainly be looking for a 35mm cinema camera (or perhaps a mirrorless FF) in the future and want to keep my options open a bit. Are there any modern prime lenses (I don't want to get vintage as my main set) that similarly have 'character'? I've started looking at Zeiss primes - though I'm finding the lineup a bit confusing. The ones I'm drawn to are the 'classic' range, which seems to have been recently retired, but is still available here and there. Any thoughts? Alternatives?

Why's that? Is it possible to adapt the lens at all? Say to MFT?

I'm guessing then there are no implications for video? (of pixel-shift)

So how does pixel-shift work?

I can really appreciate that post, and identify with the grievances you raise. I know how a drip drip of small slights can add up to a major frustration. I also think you are right to strike out at the fraudulent and self-serving nature of the camera release world. More power to you. I'm glad also that this post is a bit self-reflective. Like others I posted that your article was a bit of an own-goal - I was actually genuinely a bit worried for your state of well-being. I hope you achieve great success in challenging some of these goings on in the industry - and I hope you learn some lessons from this that make you better equipped to do so!!!