dbp

Yep, same. Got the SLR-Magic MkII after rave reviews on bmcuser. Only downside is that 6 stops often isn't enough to shoot wide open on a sunny day, but there's really little to no hit on image quality, and the ergonomics are great.

Agreed. I welcome the day when AF is usable, it'd be wonderful for live events, weddings etc. Not like you can still practice manual focusing for moments where you want ultimate control.

As a GH2 and GH4 owner, I am not. I don't mean that as a slight, or that it's a bad camera. Far from it. It's an incredible value and the image is pretty good. The IBIS, 4K60p and 10 bit are great. I just haven't seen much that really wows me in terms of mojo or color. It doesn't seem all that much better than the GH4, image wise. I shoot with the blackmagic pocket and GH4. Pretty much 100% of the time, I prefer the image on the pocket. Without that image quality or better, it's hard to get all that excited about the GH5. Even if it's jam packed with features.

Definitely not arguing that the IBIS is useful, it's incredibly impressive from all tests I've seen.

Why? It's good discussion material. Please don't let this place be another that sticks it head in the sand saying "lalala I can't hear you" about certain issues.

Came in to post this. Only a matter of time, I suppose. Maybe they move the GH line to the video division?

I think dynamic range has more value than seeing out a window. Makes for smoother and more pleasant transitions between light and dark, even if you don't need to see the detail on either of those ends. That and color and motion cadence are what seperates the good from the great cameras, in my view.

I think he's right. I think what people mean when they say you get an APSC sensor, is t hat the 50 f2 now looks and behaves the same as it would on an APSC camera, in terms of FOV and DOF.

Looks great, love that camera! The stabilizer in resolve is the one thing really keeping me from diving into it as a fulltime NLE.

TV is definitely a better medium from a storytelling standpoint, IMO. Glad to see the production values are really stepping up.

Nothing major, so I can't think of any names. Mostly indie stuff I've seen online that looks+sounds good and mentioned having a budget. That and ads, lots of ads as a scroll my FB feed. I have nothing against handheld. I like it when it works, and when it's physically done well. When it looks like a heavy camera that someone is doing a good job of holding pretty steady. Not the jittery, excessive I stuff i see often today.

Does anyone else get annoyed by this? I'm not talking about quickie vimeo tests either, I mean proper commercials/TV shows/Movies with a budget. Especially with ads. I'm seeing more and more handheld... and not the good, heavy, weighted handheld. The microjitter, I'm holding a light camera kind of handheld. Often with stuff that's lit well, colored well, sounds well... I'm starting to appreciate the good ol' tripod.

I just got the apurture amaran 672s (Spotlight version) with an umbrella for diffusion and their ez-box kit for the egg crate, which helps control spill quite a bit. Fairly versatile for cheap, and light quality is pretty. Doesn't have a ton of punch, though.

Warp Stabilizer is fantastic, but you really gotta be careful how you use it or it makes things worse, as you said. It's definitely not a get out of jail free card with shakey footage.

Cool, another good example. Can definitely see improvements on the dolls face by the red/pink and yellow-ish spots. Transition is smoother. This makes me happy. I was pretty sure that 10bit ought to show improvements that don't require pixel peeping, based on my experience. Glad to see a few tests are confirming that.

That's a huge difference, holy cow

Sure. I don't usually do formal tests like shooting charts, color charts, etc. I might come to my conclusions quicker if I did this, but my test is usually just taking it out and shooting anything and everything, combined with my paid work (weddings, corporate videos, events). I have owned and used 4 cameras extensively. Panasonic HMC150, GH2, GH4, and Blackmagic pocket. With all of them, they have strengths and weaknesses I find. It's not as simple as one is better than the other in every category. The lowly Panasonic HMC150 still wins on motion (CCDs, and all) and has color science second only to the pocket. Yet technically it's far inferior in other ways. With all of them, I come back with footage that i'm sometimes thrilled with it, okay with, and outright disappointed with. Takes me a bit sometimes to see the variables. The GH2, for instance... over time, I noticed that under daylight, it was always great. Generally good under tungsten. But flourescant and mixed lighting, it took a big dive. And I would encounter this alot at weddings and events. Sometimes a second shooter would have a 7D, and it always handled the color on mixed lighting better. Same with the pocket and tungsten. Brilliant in daylight and florescent, but goes to the shits under tungsten. Even the stuff with an IR cut helps, but doesn't seem to cure it. That sensor really wants to be at daylight, it seems. I shoot for this woman who does canine aqua therapy. Her pool is lit by these crappy mixed tungsten and florescent lights. I've used all 4 cameras there. I can *never* get the GH2 and GH4 to look good, color wise. Every profile and white balance setting, doesn't matter. HMC150 always did a much better job with the color, only exceeded by the pocket raw. HMC does a ton of stuff wrong, like resolution, dynamic range, highlight handling, but it always had nice color. So that's kinda what I mean. Rather than definitely say Camera A is better than B, which is better than C... each seems to vary depending on the conditions. Only constant is that the pocket raw exceeds all. *Especially* in harsh sunny conditions. It blows them all away, there. Though in tungsten, especially the 2800k tungsten, that gap narrows. And it takes a lot of using them to work this out.

It's a difficult term to define but I tend to think of it as a lot of things done really well, in the narrative context that we're used to it. It's a miracle that a good movie exists when you think about it. So many things have to fire on all cylinders to at least a competent level. Writing and Acting are the obvious key factors Then directing, blocking, cinematography Sound, production design Editing and color grading to bring it all together. Helps to have a nice soundtrack, too. That's a lot of stuff that has to be done well. When I look at good movies vs amateur efforts on vimeo, the big ones that stick out are always acting, sound and production design. I find there's a decent amount of stuff that looks good in terms of camera technical quality and shot choice, but usually the "world" is lacking because the above 3 are off. The latter 2 are criminally underrated in my opinion. I love cameras and imagery, but I'm willing to admit that I genuinely think sound is more important. Yet even on big budget stuff, people report that it's considered an afterthought sometimes. I love gear and tech, so I don't want to fall into one of the "Who cares what you shot on, content is king!" guys. I really do like looking at charts, comparing resolution, dynamic range etc.. I love forums like this. Gear discussions are very enjoyable. Filmmaking, especially at our level, seems to mostly be a problem of limited resources, so the trick is figuring out what to prioritize. Hollywood (at least some movies) can just throw money at every department, but we cannot. There's a difference between a GH4, C300, Red Epic, Alexa etc.. but sometimes, if you using a lesser camera means you get better lighting equipment, sound equipment, time/money for better locations and production design, I think that's a worthwhile trade off and the end result will be better. In general, I think the issue with gear discussion is not that there isn't a difference between cameras, but that usually the difference is way exaggerated. Time, energy and stress is spent worrying over this minor 1% difference when it could be worried about other things that will have a much greater % of quality impact. If you have everything in place, there's no way someone could convince me that a BMPCC or GH4 is preventing them for making a quality movie. An Alexa will be better, sure, but not THAT much better. Take a GH4 or a pocket on a big budget, well designed and lit set, and I think people would be shocked at how suddenly cinematic it looks.

Always difficult to make heads or tails of a camera at launch time. Hell, even my own cameras that I've shot with, sometimes I remain a little unsure of how I feel about them sometimes.

There totally is, but I've read that the Ursa Mini 4.6K interior is basically one massive heatsink, so I don't think it's physically possible to make a pocket like that just yet.

Pocket Raw is amazing, no doubt. Gives you a lot of choice. No sharpening at all with stylistic grade? No problem. Sharpen a bit, for a bright, saturated nature show type of look? Also no problem.

It'll sell more if it's proven reliable, and honestly, blackmagic will likely have to be patient and put in work to undo the damage from their past offerings. People remember that stuff, and won't trust gear on important shoots if there are QC issues.

I've heard of that phenomenon. Never thought of that, actually. Same with finding work, I've read from many that if you charge too little, it can hurt you based on that same logic. Interesting.

Perhaps it will take some time to return to the pocket form factor, but who knows... maybe a few years down the road, they can solve the issues and release a 4K version. I'm really struggling to see why they wouldn't, *if* they were able. Protecting their high end, I suppose? But so many get annoyed with the form factor and rigging up smaller cameras, those types are never going to buy a pocket anyway. OR they will buy it a long with their A camera as a B camera that fits in awkward places and doesn't need bells and whistles beyond an image. I think that maybe they just don't want to repeat past failures and that they're reluctant to put it out if they can't be more confident about its reliability. All speculation of course, but that's my best guess.

This is mostly true. The battery life, as much was I wanted to ignore it, was a major limiting factor and prevented me from using it for almost 2 years after I brought it. Almost sold it. Got a juicebox magicpower and that all changed. Runs for like 7 hours straight and mounts on top of the camera. But as you say, not really a pocket camera anymore. And another expense to consider. But I have used it for events with said battery. You'll get 2 hours of prores 422 on a 128gb card, 4 hours on a 256gb card. Wouldn't be my first camera choice, but it is doable. Just had it as a 3rd camera for an hour long ceremony, no issues. And as much as I rarely use them, it is nice to have the mini batteries for when I do want it to be pocketable. Getting a few snaps on vacation, or wanting to be really inconspicuous. I like small cameras, because you can build them up if need be, but also keep them small if the situation calls. Can't do the reverse with a large camera. At this point I have to feel like they are doing a pocket v2 for a very good reason. It was a really popular camera and their best seller, from everything I've read. So if they could do it, it seems like a license to print money. I'm thinking they cannot do 4k with the heat issues, small form factory and limited ability for decent batteries.