Ninpo33

All I know is that I’m super excited to be able to scoop up the older 4 year old tech for bargain prices right now. Older S bodies are dropping in value like crazy and if you need an extra camera to sit on a tripod for multi cam shoots we are really spoiled these days. I think I’m going to grab a Leica SL2 now that they are selling for $2,000 US. We’re reaching the point in video where photos were a few years back. A lot of cameras can do 4k/24 raw 12 bit and 4k/60p internal or external. Now it’s all about IBIS and AF and other features to help out filming or workflow. If you are comfortable with manual lenses and adapting things it really is a buyers market. Fun times.

Rolling shutter is really going to be your enemy here. If you’re not shooting with much movement you might be able to deal with it. GFX 100ii is the first GFX to finally have decent video specs using the full sensor width but readout speeds are still just too slow. You’ll have to stay in 4k mode to see the most usable results. “In 14-bit mode, the sensor takes around 164ms to read its full 102 million pixels, so it's not plausible that it's using all its pixels to produce most of this footage, even if you assume a drop to 12-bit sampling for video. The 8K modes are the ones that appear to be sampling every pixel (seemingly from a fractionallyless than 8K region, and upscaling) and these have the worst rolling shutter despite using the smallest crops of the sensor. So it's reasonable to assume the other modes are pixel-binning or line-skipping to some extent.” As mentioned above, you should definitely rent one and play around to make sure you’re getting what you want. For me I was excited to pick one up and use all my Mamiya 645 lenses for doc work but the deeper I dive into the specs, the more I realized it’s just too soon. For the money I would get a used Sony A1 and a Ninja Ultra and have fun with that for a while. The “Medium Format Look” is an interesting combination of factors and a much heated debate surrounds it. I don’t want to get into here but suffice to say, you can achieve very similar if not the same results with the right combination of lenses on a nice full frame sensor like the Sony A1. There are alsoa lot of advantages to full frame sensors for video and I’m personally waiting for a couple more GFX iterations before making that deep investment for video.

I’ve used both. I don’t recommend things blindly. I used two ZV-E1’s to shoot a music video for an international band here in Los Angeles. Worked great. Rolling shooter is 8.4ms, what are you talking about? That’s pretty good bud. it’s the same sensor as the FX3 - a7S III, and the Bionz XR imaging processor is the same as the one found in the a7R V, the a7 IV, the a1, and a7S III. Never had it overheat once on a 10 hour shoot. Firmware updates might have helped issues some people had early on, I’ve read mixed reviews. The original poster is looking for a small camera that won’t break the bank for pretty casual interviews, he’s not shooting a feature film. I agree the body isn’t as durable as the FX 3/FX 30 but it’s $1700 and basically a mini FX3 full frame not crop sensor like the FX30 But whatever.

Yeah I’m with you. But I’ve also gone in thinking I was going to use certain features on a new camera and ended up not being prepared because I didn’t bring wide enough lenses. I’ve also been yelled at by editors because the super 35 crop didn’t really match the full frame at all and had really ugly noise that took a lot of time to clean up. As mentioned, Fuji has done a great job being transparent about the new GFX 100ii crop modes and most likely that is because they are a feature a lot of people will be excited to utilize. The 40% crop on the ZVE1 however is kind of buried and Sony actually won’t give a straight official answer about the true crop with stabilization on. It makes sense though, totally different user and market segment . Cinema cameras are well specced and mostly give us all we need in the documentation so I was just thinking it would be nice to provide others with a quick tool they can use to actually see what the various modes do to the image/crop. Sort of like what people have done for anamorphic desqueeze and such. As we move into 8k sensors soon I’m sure these things will probably be a non issue soon enough.

Yeah, that makes sense, I get it. But really some of the crop modes punch in almost 40%...!!! That's no joke. And after cropping in the newly advertised high frame rates like 120p and 240p modes turn to mush and are totally unusable so in the end, just a marketing gimmick. Lastly, everyone these days online is being sold on the full frame sensor for video in the consumer space and I constantly hear people laughing at micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras and thinking they have no value. I feel like it would be enlightening to a lot of newbies to see that their ZV-E1 is actually only shooting 10.2 megapixels for video and already cropped in on the full frame sensor to even achieve the measly 3840x2160 UHD. And then when you apply dynamic active stability you have a 30% crop in on that. So it's even more than Super 35 and those specs aren't advertised by Sony.

All of the things you mention are just the side effects and not the intended use for Anamorphic. The original comment about increasing resolution is because you are able to shoot in a full height open gate more and stretch the image thereby retaining the full sensor readout and not cropping the top and bottom off of a 16:9 image to achieve a wide aspect ratio. That is really the whole point of it to be honest and in that way, it does retain more pixels/resolution compared to loosing things by cropping off the top and bottom. The look that's associated with the process has become partially what people think of when they think "Cinematic" but that's all after years of watching films shot this way on the big screen. I'm not misunderstanding you, when you use a word like "downgrade" to mistakingly describe desired characteristics of a lens, I'm going to react accordingly.

I agree with the use case and non IBIS. Studio cams mostly I think based on how they advertised the networking ability. I don't think they sold too many to be honest so people don't have a lot of reference for the value since so few are listed for sale. The ones that are tend to sit for a while and are priced pretty high for what they are in my opinion.

I think Apple and Sony are the companies that just make things work really well most of the time and things are really tested and thought out and designed for consumers. When it comes to the fine details they’re like, “don’t worry about that, just use it, everything will be fine”. And most of the time it’s true, it will be fine. The FX3 is a great image and it’s a little pricey for a 3 year old camera but it’s still selling really well so who am I to argue. But there are a lot of us in the filmmaking community that want to extract the best possible image out of our tools and will research and tweak things. Even hack the camera, mod the physical design, really push it. At the very least I want to know my tools and their limitations and be at my best on set or on location. Some companies are really good at giving you all the info and letting you dial in what you need and make informed purchases. Others not so much. Not to mention all the people that scoff at micro 4/3 and Super 35 sensor cameras who end up shooting in active stabilization modes and end up loosing all the benefits they always talk about in full frame.

The people selling them have been really highlighting the networking capabilities and I can understand the usefulness for multicam shoots. That’s the reasoning behind no IBIS and it makes sense. However if they would have just given us a small screen and IBIS it would have sold really well in my opinion. Bit the used market is flooded with S model cameras and the newer models are cheaper and have better specs so it’s a tough spot to be in for trying to sell older used Lumix gear. But you already know that ; )

Man, I can't tell if you are just trolling with your comments on this forum or if you are serious? Here's why... Spending $2,000 - $6,500 on a camera and not knowing that the features you thought you were getting are compromised or different than advertised because they are buried in the fine print somewhere. That you are able to shoot in 4k/60p but only with terrible rolling shutter and artifacts and a 2x crop into the sensor. Because you bought a full frame camera because you read online that it was worth it for various features but now when you go to use in in the real world it crops into APS-C mode and behaves like the other camera you were looking at for $1,000 less and all your lenses have a different field of view. You don't own any fast wide angle lenses and now you need to rethink things because you bought the camera to use your full frame fast wide angle lenses. Sony's most extreme image stabilization on some cameras crops in like 40% on the sensor. That means you are shooting with an area almost Micro 4/3 sensor sized. Try to find that information easily on a Sony website or YouTube video. I know why they don't disclose things right up front and it's pretty obvious it's because they want to list the features to sell the camera and kind of bury the details about how or why it works. The headline is the 8k or 240p and the brand new shiny thing, meanwhile you have to wait for some honest YouTube reviewer to actually go through things and tell you what's ACTUALLY useable and not just a gimmick. The Sony Burano as an example. The HD 120p feature on a lot of new cameras... Just garbage image quality but looks great on paper.

Nah, not really. Anamorphic isn't "Just a look". Plus, If you simplify things down to that level EVERYTHING is JUST a look. Why shoot with promist filters? Why choose Zeiss lenses with 3D pop? Why color grade? Just shoot in the basic "natural" profile and be done... All that work for just a look. If you say that Anamorphic lenses "downgrade" an image what do you even mean? See, now you have to define what "downgrade" means. If it's a desirable "look" that top DP's select and productions pay THOUSANDS of extra $$$ to achieve why would they do that just to "downgrade" the image? Maybe you don't even realize that more than half the films you've enjoyed over the years were shot Anamorphic?

What usability issues on the ZV-E1? You should really specify why the ZV-E1 isn't a good recommendation with some facts. Overheating has been mostly fine for people who own and use the camera daily. The add on fan is an option in case you want to be extra safe. After the last firmware update the overheating has been fine for everyone I know who isn't shooting in the hot sun at 4k/60 for an hour. Camera has some nice features for a solo shooter on small projects and won't break the bank. ZV-E1 is a full frame sensor vs Crop sensor of the FX30 so better in low light and less noise at higher ISO's. Also doesn't have the the same rolling shutter artifacts as the FX30. FX30 is a great choice too but for different reasons. He mentioned rental is not an option in his original post due to the nature of how he will shoot these clips a little at a time.

Agreed. I was going to pull the trigger on the BS1H when it went on sale to $1995 for a bit last year. Would have been great for my needs but then I learned it had no IBIS and it was an immediate non starter. Why would you build a mini S1H box camera and then take out one of it's most desirable features? Panasonic is weird sometimes...I feel bad for people that bought it, there are a few online used for close to what they were new meanwhile the S1h is 1/4 the price it was when launched. These people are stuck with a dud for sure...

I think you're overthinking it. When I see Panasonic and Sony putting all of their flagship tech from 4-5 years ago into smaller and cheaper cameras, (S5ii, S9, ZVe1, ZV10ii, A6700) I just see them offloading parts before they debut something else. We've all been waiting for a S1H successor and so anything less feels disappointing. They've taken too long on all this though and that's part of why it feels like a big nothing burger. Also the fact that they are all having to chase after a different market than our demographic and the different needs of Get Z/ Gen A

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-100-ii-initial-review-medium-format-movie-maker?comment=8057115270 DP review has done a good job charting and showing this information with easy to follow interactive tools on their GFX100 II review. I like it. Now if only everyone could get on board with this.

Someone needs to make a website that compares *actual sensor sizes between cameras while recording in all the different modes with the various crops. I've had to do a deep dive comparing various models trying to get the real info on effective area used during filming and man, what a pain. Some sites are good at showing detailed info but that's before getting into actual use case scenarios. Really hard to just get the basic specs for shooting in ALL the various modes. I sold off my older Micro 4/3 Lumix gear a few months ago and finally said goodbye to some solid workhorse documentary gear. I was excited for new flagship gear from Panasonic and tried to time the market a bit and hold out as long as possible to sell the GX85 and GH5s. When the GH7 and S9 were announced I was a little disappointed since there was no new S2H or S2R to move to. The S5iix became a nice stand in and is great but I need a 3 camera setup for some travel doc stuff coming up in the fall and have been researching options since no new Panasonic flagships are coming just yet. The S9 is cool and I'll find one used here shortly but I miss my little GX85 a lot and there is really no full frame replacement. Coming from years with micro 4/3, speed boosters and adapted lenses I am comfortable with the benefits and strengths of smaller sensors and the open gate modes on the GH5+ bodies really performed brilliantly. As I started looking into some FF and S35 alternatives I kept noticing how often an advertised cam would start to crop in significantly when switching between modes and while using various IBIS settings. Sony especially seems to do a great job of selling everyone on full frame cameras at a premium and then not being super transparent about how and when the camera punches in. Some S35 sensor cameras end up cropping in all the way to 2x once the stab is applied and here we are, back to Micro 4/3 again... One takeaway from all of this is that it's really quite amazing that the FX3 has had such a solid 3.5 year run. It's low 10.2 mp video specs and cropped in 3840x2160 UHD aren't that amazing on paper. It is already a repackaged A7sIII and just keeps on performing with minimal updates and the barest of features compared to the competition. The image is quite good for such low specs and the Sony fanbois show no signs of slowing down on their love for the little guy. Finally getting shutter angle and C4k at least and still a favorite all over social media. I want to see a direct comparison to the Fujifilm X-H2s in open gate 6k and the Sony FX3 shooting in UHD with full IBIS on. If using a 1.6x Anamorphic on the Fuji you're actually getting quite a bit of real estate there. And since the Sony crops in on the 3:2 sensor to achieve 4k 16:9 I feel like you are coming pretty close to a similar active area.

I second the s5ii but for slightly extra for the S5iix ($1,500 used) for the ability to record to tiny NVME SSD's and save on time/memory cards. You can use the Panasonic DMW-XLR1 XLR Microphone Adapter for nice, clean audio mounted right on the hot shoe. 6k open gate for reframing later in post and punching into 4k on the edit. Great color science and skin tones for ease of color grading, Great IBIS if doing any handheld B-Roll. No overheating, solid and dependable. Fx30 is solid but you will pay a premium for minimal specs and have to pay more for the audio top handle unit. No 6k for room in the edit and less low light performance from the smaller sensor unless adapting a speed booster (And loosing the great native Sony autofocus) Have you considered a Sony ZV-E1? I want to try that out on some interviews and see how it does. Poor man's FX3 with most of the same specs and a few more the FX3 doesn't have. The only reservations I have is the potential to overheat if things run long or it's hot in the space I'm shooting. External add on fan can help that and it's only $1,700 right now.

If you want to talk about trust fund cameras I think you are really talking about flagships and Leica's. For someone that has a Rolex or better watch, a little $1,500 Lumix is probably a joke. Yet none of these except the GFX shoot Anamorphic or have the built in LUT's or IBIS the S9 has. Fuji GFX100ii - $6,700 Fuji 100V - $2,700 Leica Q3 - $6,300 Sony A 1- $6,500 Hasselblad X-Pan - $5,000 used

Just curious, what's the right price for enthusiasts? Is $1,000 good but $1,500 you need a trust fund? Compared to the Sony ZV-E1 which is probably the closest competition in full frame, The S9 $300 cheaper. And that camera is known as the vlogger camera and the FF entry point into the video space. Even the ZV-E1 doesn't do a lot of the video features that the little S9 can do at ($1,395 on sale right now at B&H) If you're talking just photo specs and shoot in the studio or do fast moving sports, I get it. But honestly, I see no real issues with how I will use it.

Lot's of other options for grips though, I think the Sigma FP crowd has shown me the awesome creativity possible when enthusiasts get behind something. I am going to add a small grip but keep it minimal. My GX85 ended up selling for $700 on eBay which was a big surprise to me. I knew prices were going up on small cameras but that was a shocker. I just missed out on a Japanese auction for a silver S9 with the pancake lens that went for $1,100 a couple days ago. If I can score one below $1k US I know it will work for me. Shouldn't take too long, Besides Sony, most cameras aren't really holding value very well these days. I could be wrong but I really think they might get rid of the record limits on the next firmware update. If not, I can live with it being gimped for just short clips as a BTS/Steet camera useful as a third angle in interviews. Mostly Leica M lenses or fun Anamorphic 6k open gate experiments. A little brother to the Sigma FP that doesn't shoot 12 bit raw all the time.

I'm not sure I understand your question, anamorphic lenses and speed boosters do very different things. Anamorphic keeps the height roughly the same as a spherical lens but gives you a wider field of view with various degrees of interesting distortion and focus falloff. The look of 50mm lens so to speak but with a wider field of view more like a 35mm. (generalizing of course) A speedbboster/focal reducer would simply give you back most of the focal length lost by the 1.5x crop from full frame to S35 etc... Your 50mm looks to have the field of view more like a 52mm with similar bokeh and possibly an extra stop of light. But the whole field of view is changed, not just on the horizontal. Plus you now have to crop the top and bottom and loose pixels to achieve a wider aspect ratio. What I like about using FF Anamorphic lenses on a crop sensor camera is that you can loose some of the more extreme distortion and out of focus bits because you are not out at the edges of the lens.

To be honest, in many cases Anamorphic lenses are still very much relevant today. I don’t think the “resolution increases” you mention is really the right term but without a doubt anamorphic lenses make the most out of smaller sensor sizes and help modern sensors achieve cinematic aspect ratios. 
 It’s pretty simple really, by using the full height of the sensor and then desqueezing later in post, you’re able to use the most area. So a Super 35 camera like the Fuji X-H2s with 6.2k open gate ends up being similar to a full frame camera like a Sony FX3 which ends up cropping in on the sensor to achieve UHD or 4k DCI at 4k. Or the full frame LUMIX cameras that do open gate end up having massive anamorphic files with plenty of room to crop in and reframe etc after the desqueeze. 
 Anamorphic flares although a matter of personal taste, do indeed bring many of us back to certain moments in film history and can evoke a sense of nostalgia/cinematic feeling. Oftentimes overused and done poorly these days so yeah, maybe becoming a bit gimmicky at this point. 
 I will say that the other elements of anamorphic lenses are still very desirable today considering how clean and sterile things can look with modern cameras lenses and digital sensors. Highly dependent on the project of course and not for everything but narrative filmmaking benefits greatly by the look. Number one, it’s partly why things look “filmic” or “cinematic” to people. It’s creates a perspective and view that more closely resembles how humans actually see the world. The distortion, out of focus areas, focus fall off and bokeh are all helping to assist in taking the viewer into the story and sustaining the suspension of disbelief. Helping to focus objects and actors in a way that keeps attention and creates background separation/3D pop. It also really helps soften the general production design and background elements so they are more natural looking and don’t look like cheap props. I mean, there’s a reason why the good ones cost what they do and many of the top directors and dp’s have used them on the most celebrated films in history.
 It makes sense that the democratization of cameras and film tools would include anamorphic lenses at this point. it also means we are stuck with people using them to film cat videos for YouTube.

Did you end up selling your Leica SLS? I remember there were some issues with power management or something? I'm looking at a cheap used S1R right now but seeing the SLS dip to $2,600 US has me wondering if it might be a good time to revisit it. The SL3 is getting really bad reviews. What would you say about the difference between the two in 2024? Mostly interested in the 5k 4:3 mode but having L-Log sounds nice as compared to just HLG or "Flat" in the S1R

Funny enough, I went to go buy a Fuji GFX from Oren the DP recently. He used the GFX100s on the film in preproduction and to document some BTS while they were filming at all the locations around the world. Really nice guy. I've gone back and read through the comments in this thread. Kind of dated now that things have slowed down on the FX3 news but as I've heard it, the FX3 was just the smallest and lightest package to rig up minimally and get good low light and raw out to the Ninja. Even though an FX6 is not much bigger, the way they were traveling and shooting, the FX3 was the tool they wanted. I know for me as a travel doc shooter that every bit of size and weight shaved off the kit makes a huge difference. Also, we all now how much easier it is to shoot in scenarios where a small camera keeps people at ease and creates opportunities to steal shots and go un-noticed. Oren said that they were filming in a lot of locations in Asia where the locals were in the background and people just thought they were dumb tourists shooting Tim Tok reels. He said they wouldn't have been able to do a lot of stuff they did with even a slightly bigger setup. Passed on the camera BTW, I need the GFX100ii for the better video specs even though this would have been a great conversation piece LOL.