aldolega

Seems extremely unlikely to me when the GH5 is due out in two months. Why would they want their $700 camera to be more competitive with their probably-$1800-2000 flagship?

It is possible with the 501/577 plate, I remember seeing a video showing at least one of the newer Manfrotto heads top-loading with it. If nobody makes a separate top-loading QR plate you could probably technically order the appropriate parts or whole top assembly from that model, Manfrotto sells pretty much every part separately, and turn it into a QR plate. Other than that, if you find a cheaper generic compatible QR plate that has a lot of travel on the clamp, you might be able to loosen it enough to top-load, or file the face of the clamp a bit to let it do so. Just like how you can top-load with Arca-Swiss, if you have a QR plate that lets you loosen the clamp far enough. Does that fancy Kessler QR system use the 501 plate or its own dedicated plate?

Blair Witch 2: She's back, and wobblier than ever! Reserve your ticket/Dramamine combo pack today!

Assuming it's shaky-cam style like the first, I can't think of many cameras worse than the A7s/A7sII. Jello city!

Another thing to consider is how you'll be lighting and shooting- would you be better off getting two or three cheaper cams, lighting/blocking differently, and shooting multi-cam? There's a member here named Andy Lee who's shooting a feature with a fleet of Panasonic G6s, each rigged with Nikon glass. Usually using 2-3 cams per scene. There's a thread here somewhere with some BTS pics to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Good to know about the 10-18. Personally I would probably go for the Tokina 11-16 or 11-20 over the 10-18 anyways... I would imagine maybe the FFD is slightly altered on the BlackMagics to accommodate the filter-stack difference? I'm not sure. I just know that the designer of the Speedbooster, Brian Caldwell, has posted here & elsewhere explaining the differences with the BM-specific boosters, and that using my BMCC booster on my GH4 follows exactly what he's said (image goes a touch soft at faster than f2.8).

I would start with finding a cage that fits the camera well. Then you have a solid base to add your other stuff- rail mounting, a top handle, EVF or monitor mount, shoulder pad and handles, etc. Ideally you can find or rig something that lets you bolt your speedbooster's tripod foot down, to eliminate flex/play. If you do that and have a good lens support on the rails, out at the front of your lens, you shouldn't have any flex or misalignment in your optics when moving the camera or pulling focus. Smallrig stuff is great, well made and affordable, with a wide variety of stuff (that unfortunately you have to wade through on their site to find exactly what you need). Gini stuff is great too, real Gini stuff that is, there was some confusion a few years ago with one of their distributors going off on their own and putting the Gini name on cheap Indian crap. Make sure you're getting actual Gini stuff, made in Korea. The Fotga DP500IIS or the newer DP500III are both good affordable follow focuses.

Taking the rear shroud (which is what interferes with the speedbooster) off of the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 is pretty simple and easy. And 17-55 is a much more usable range for general work than 24-70, 24, or even 10-18 (although the 10-18 would be a perfect partner to it). I would definitely stick with the Pocket-specific (.58X power) booster though. The Blackmagics have a thinner filter stack over the sensor than regular m4/3 photo cams, and the BMPCC and BMCC boosters are engineered to accommodate for this, while the regular m4/3 boosters are not.

Right, but you're posting in a thread about the results from the raw upgrade... the natural implication then being that you think your non-raw results are relevant.

You shot FS5 + Shogun, but without the raw upgrade? So, to be clear, the uncompressed (but still debayered/processed) image, out the HDMI or SDI, to the Shogun which processed/compressed it to ProRes? Not really a fair way to assess the output with the raw upgrade, is it? I admit it's probably a pretty small difference, but still... compare apples to apples.

It's a mixed basket either way, but I agree that most people, assuming they don't reaaallly need the ultra-low-light capabilities of the SII, should go for the RII. But, to be fair, I do prioritize rolling-shutter performance more than some, and I am only ever finishing/exporting at 1080p, so for instance the FF mode on the RII being slightly less than 4K is perfectly fine with me, because it has much better RS performance than the s35 mode.

The C300 is 6lbs with everything- side grip, top handle, screen, cards, battery. The UM4.6K is 5lbs before adding a viewfinder, top handle, big ol' V-lock battery (and mounting plate!), or cards. The C300 takes regular CF cards- much cheaper than CFast- and at 50mbps, versus even whatever the lightest ProRes the Mini will do (~200mbps?), they'll go a lot farther. This isn't even getting into low-light, battery run-time, or reliability issues, where the Canons will easily trump the BlackMagic. "Just turning an ND filter" sounds great until you need no ND at all, and can't stop your shot because you're filming something that won't wait for you.

That would be the absolute worst camera in this price range for the stated needs... no NDs, super high media and power costs, heavy, and he wouldn't even be able to get it up and running for less than $6K anyways. It sounds like the C100II would be the best option, maybe with a recorder for slower shoots. C300 doesn't seem at all worth it with the C100II still being cheaper. FS5 being a close second, or even first pick, depending on how important super slo-mo and 4K is to you. Or how useful the variable ND would be on your docs (I imagine in bright sunny Mexico, seamlessly moving from inside to outside without skipping a beat or going super-deep-DOF, would be pretty useful).

You can flip the Gini over and it will correct for the "backwards" Nikon focus direction.

I plug/unplug the MicroUSB on my smartphone probably eight times a day, have been for years, and I've never had it fail. Sony's jack is probably just cheap and/or poorly designed.

... it would be massive and super-expensive.

The newest version of the Leeming GH4 LUT is based on setting more contrast than the earlier versions... 0 I believe, or maybe -1.

The Micro Studio doesn't record, and CFast and UHS-II are both still in a different price class than the UHS-I cards the pocket/Micro use. Although the 7" Video Assist using UHS-II is a good sign I guess. Either way, assuming the replacement for the Micro keeps its form factor and connectivity, a control grip for the current camera would continue to be useful for the next.

I doubt the Pocket or Micro form factors will get 4K anytime soon, not until small/affordable media (so SD cards basically) catches up to the continuous-write specs needed. And even if they do, I'm sure the next-gen Micro will have the same expansion port and protocol and the grip would work just fine.

AFAIK the HDMI protocol does include control/communication between two devices, so theoretically (short of the Micro or VA HDMI hardware lacking support for that part of the protocol), it is possible. I guess Blackmagic was just too busy with the 4.6K's problems max out the VA and Micro's possibilities. I would just be patient though, if Emm from Cheesycam and other shooters have already been able to cobble together buttons/switches to control basic camera functions through the expansion port, out of off-the-shelf parts, I'm sure companies like Zacuto, Wooden Camera, etc are already working on grips and other control interfaces for the camera. In less than a year I imagine they'll have rosette-mount grips with buttons for ISO, iris, shutter speed, etc that works right out of the box. And in another year after that, you'll probably be able to get a generic Chinese copy off eBay for cheap. With this type of control grip, a cage, and a loupe/viewfinder for the 5" VA, the Micro would be like a budget, mini FS5, but with better codecs...

As I said before, my gut instinct is that the real max payload in the H4 is more like 4.5-5lbs, but I haven't loaded it nearly that much so I can't say for sure. So payload-wise it's probably right between the HD1000 and HD2000. Construction-wise the Glidecams are a bit nicer but the H4 is good too. The only thing I would keep an eye on is the twist locks on the center column and gimbal, they have plastic pieces where the Glidecam is all metal. Emm at Cheesycam has a nice long in-depth video about the H4 and balancing stabilizers in general.

It's disappointing that he has taken the oversized sensor off the table completely, but if they can eliminate the few compromises/shortcomings of the GH4, along with even a modest spec increase, and emphasize the usability and reliability of the camera they could still have a market share. Not everyone can/wants to deal with mega-jello or overheating or fleeting battery life. Basically, just give us a GH4 with clean 1080/120, and 4K with no crop at >30p (even if it's only 36 or 48p). Improve low-light as much as possible, go down to 12MP if necessary, nobody complains about the a7S being 12MP. Get rolling shutter as low as you can- sub-20ms for 4K, 10-12ms or better for 1080p. You're not gonna make the GH4 big or pricey enough for CFast/XQD/SSD/etc, and UHS-II is still kinda pricey, so go to h265 so you can still use U3 SD. Or go to UHS-II and stick with h264. Either way you need to do 10-bit 4:2:2 internal, at 100-150 mbps for h265, or 200-250mbps or more for h264.

Right now this instant, I grab the HD1000, just because I've barely used the H4 yet. I wasn't putting the HD1000 up as the specific HD model you should get, by the way. That's just what I have. My 60D setup (body, Tokina 11-16, Rode VMP, Manfrotto QR adapter) was about 3.5lbs and that was maxing it out I think. It always flew well for me but I wouldn't want to go any heavier. I only loaded the H4 to about 3lbs when I used it, but I'm also suspicious of that supposed 6lb max. My gut says more like 4.5-5. Between the two, from my very limited experience with the H4, I think the Glidecam is going to be the better performer, but the H4 packs up much much smaller/lighter and goes inverted much easier, which for me personally are more important than that last tiny bit of performance. Frankly I haven't really used the Glidecam much at all in the last two years because I got sick of hauling it around, and combined with getting over the typical initial OMGGLIDECAMALLTHETIMMMMEEE phase everyone goes through, it just started staying at home pretty much always.

The screw-style fine adjustment (HD series, DG edition, Came H4 etc) is welllll worth the extra money over the simple sliding adjustment (XR series/Flycam/etc). It makes fine-tuning your balance actually practical/possible, which if you have to work anywhere near quickly is essential. If you're just putzing around on personal stuff with infinite time to fiddle with your rig, and you're a patient but broke person, save the money on the cheaper units with the sliding-style adjustment... I guess... still not worth it IMO. I shot with my Flycam maybe four-five times before shelving it and picking up an HD1000. Night & day difference, and worth every penny of the $200-ish difference at the time, just for being able to pull the HD1000 out, have it still be 98% balanced, and then tweaking the knobs to get to 100% within a few seconds. The Flycam was a ten-minute struggle every time, if not more, and even then its cheaper gimbal and build quality didn't give quite as good of performance. I actually have a Came H4 too, that I have yet to really run through the paces, but it seems promising. Good build quality, much more compact than the HD1000, and the sliding gimbal lets you switch to inverted mode pretty painlessly.