Alexa65 is unlikely to cost more than $30,000 to manufacture. Just look at one can get with $30,000 in computer parts. But ARRI made a smart move with the camera. It 's made about 70 units and placed them on a rental basis only. And that rental basis is around $10,000/week, although ARRI will often throw in some accessories and make package deals for the lenses, etc. And these 70 cameras are pretty much always booked. The basic math adds this up to $30M-$35M in fees per year. All company profit. No middle man.Yes, on big-budget movies, the cost of rentals on the cameras is almost inconsequential compared to so many other things. Yet, without the camera, what is anyone doing there? Kinda funny, isn’t it? At the lower tiers, everyone is worried about the cost of the cameras, even though that’s what it’s all about. Capturing “whatever” with the camera. And at the top-end, no one gives a rats a$$ about the cost of the camera and will get the absolute best, because they realize again, that it’s all for the camera. Why risk saving a few thousand dollars when you have A list actors getting paid MILLIONS of dollars to perform in front of said camera? ...
PS. As to lenses, I forget who linked to that long comparison video - it may have been you? - but I thought Zeiss Otus looked pretty good, even when compared to the Cooks and the Angenieux. When the "Revenant" was taking up the first Alexa65's, they rehoused the old Hasseblad medium format glass. Chivo won the statue anyway. He probably would have won it on Rokinons as well.