jax_rox

I would find it odd for Canon to not announce their product before NAB to create some hype around their stand - or alternatively hold their own event to launch a major camera. I imagine the fact that they're trying to build hype without being too specific might point to something overall kinda disappointing. May be something we're not expecting - a la last year's XC10, but overall may be kinda disappointing.. Are the cameras that Blackmagic announced at last year's NAB even shipping properly yet? One wonders if they would announce new additions to the line-up considering they obviously can't even ship their cameras that were announced only a year ago.. That being said, Blackmagic tend to like to have something impressive at NAB so who knows what they'll come out with.. Maybe an affordable 360 VR camera. I think the focus this year will be on 360 VR, drone tech and other innovative stuff so you may see some tech along those lines from players. I would've expected a DCI 4k recorder from Atomos that accepts V-raw from the Varicam, but considering they've just launched the Flame series, I doubt that will be out for a little while.

I'm currently using the Peak Design Everyday Messenger and it's awesome! Would fit your needs pretty well I think

Way to get off-topic They're certainly getting rarer, though there's still a few around. The F3 body weights about the same as an Epic Dragon body (just better form factor!) I'm used to a rigged up Alexa or similar weight, so to me the F3 is light, even rigged up. It's a touch over half the weight of an Amira, which is a light camera to me! I do try and keep my F3 rigged light - though I have a top plate (purchased at stock clearance for $9 down from $250), the ET baseplate with shoulder pad, some handles, a lightweight FF, lightweight lenses, Shogun... I've avoided the V-mount for now, but I'm considering it to even out the weight a little when using longer lenses, matte boxes, etc. I'm currently trying to find a good(ish), affordable zoom for run 'n' gun shooting.

Personally, I don't particularly like the FS700. I was also never a fan of the image out of it - 4k raw may be a different story, but internally it was also pretty 'meh'. Nowhere near the level of an F3 (though we're talking about a camera that was 1/2 the price of an F3).

I was under the impression that in 4k the SDI and HDMI are both 8-bit.. Am I wrong? In HD you get 10-bit..

Love to know where you would get a Scarlet for $4k... Why did you go R1 when you could get a Scarlet for $900 more??? Sorry, not locally - we're not all in the same place As I said - there's no labs here anymore. They closed. There's two 'underground' labs who do very short runs of 16mm or 8mm in the whole country, and as many, or fewer, telecine suites. It's sad - but our entire industry moved away from film very quickly. It's very difficult to get short ends, especially of 35mm. I was in film school when this happened. One semester we were shooting film happily, having it processed and telecine'd locally. The next semester, we had to send our film to Fotokem in the US to get processed, and it was easier for them to do the telecine as well. Film died quickly all over the world. It died even quicker here. I wish film would have enjoyed a slower death. I wish it was still just as viable a shooting option as digital. But alas, locally at least, it's not. It can be done if you really want to, but there are few production companies who would allow you (only the indie ones). All of our bid budget TVCs were shot on film until the Alexa happened and then none were. Don't know about significantly larger if you compare same resolution and framerate. I get about 23 minutes on an Alexa in 2k at ProRes 444, you can get around 30ish minutes at 2k 3:1 redraw. Not to mention that your best IQ on a RED is at 5k-6k (assuming Epic) or 4k-5k (assuming Scarlet). 2k tends to be softer, somewhat noisier, and your sensor is cropped. So, in practical terms - i.e. shooting 4k-6k (camera dependant) to get the best IQ - you're getting smaller file sizers and you're putting significantly less strain on your computer by shooting ProRes. I know very little about Blackmagic CineDNG so can't comment on that one. Anyway, this all digresses from the topic: I think a BMPCC is pretty good for the price of it. Not very good in low-light, but considering how cheap the S16 lenses are these days, it's not a bad one. In the end, I went for the A7s as my 'small' hybrid stills/video over the BMPCC and GH4 (obviously, the BMPCC doesn't take photos). I like the larger sensor a lot more than the GH4.

If only...

Of course - if we're only talking about look. There will always be other factors at play though - not the least of which is turnaround times, and also these days where you get the thing developed and telecine'd. We went from having a number of labs in Australia, to none. If you shoot film you have to send it overseas to be processed. There are a couple of Arri scanners and telecines still around, but they're hard to find, and you need to factor that cost in to your post path. If I could only shoot film, I would - if only we lived in a perfect world On a RED One? At <$3k, there will always be compromise in one form or another. I think the A7sII is one of the most feature-rich cameras at its price point. But of course there are other factors at play. Personally, I think it comes down to what you're shooting and personal preference - for the purposes you outlined in your OP, then literally any one of the cameras discussed here is totally, perfectly fine, and capable of making great images for you. If you want to shoot TVCs, then at least some of those cameras will be perfectly fine, but they all come with their own quirks and compromises. ProRes is much more than just 'good enough' though. Also, ProRes (as well as XAVC, which has it's own compromises) are significantly smaller files than even compressed RedRaw. Easier on your computer, just as gradeable etc. To be perfectly honest, I'm more likely to shoot ProRes4444 (which is almost kinda like raw anyway), but have no qualms or issues with bumping down to 422HQ. And a used F3 is cheaper to boot. Cheapeast local RED One that's on the market is ~$4,500, and that's body only. I bought my F3 for $1500, and it came with a PL mount, Nikon mount and SxS-SD adapters. Practically ready to shoot given that I have some older Nikon primes lying around. Of course, I use my Shogun with it to get the 10-bit etc. but even the combined price is still less than a RED One (and I can still use my Shogun with any other camera). Again, compromises. Can't have it all at that price F3 is nowhere near as big or heavy as either of those cameras. F3 is not all that much bigger than an FS700 and is really light. The only slight annoyance is needing to use a recorder to get full quality out of it, which adds a little bit of weight

I disagree personally. I would rather shoot ProRes if I'm doing the editing - but hey, to each their own. I'd prefer to shoot Alexa at 2k ProRes 422HQ than the RED One's Redcode @ 4k - but hey. I'm not sure how you would leave it on when you need to change a battery..? I'm not sure what you shoot, or how you shoot, but it is annoying/takes some getting used to, to plan your battery changes, and swap out when a battery may still have up to 25%+ left to ensure you won't need to swap between takes, or just before a take. Not to mention it sucks significantly more power than say an Epic. Also, sure you get a picture... but there's a big ugly RED logo on top of it - hardly easy to frame, expose and set focus... Anyway Is the F3 too big as well, or just not interested because 'Sony'? So why not go for one of the many other options? Or still too big? I'm not sure if this is to direct your purchase decision, or just a general discussion... I don't mind the FS700 coupled with a Shogun (though I don't like the image straight out of camera) but overall I'd probably go with the A7sII. Personally have never had an issue with Sony colours.

Not sure if you've ever used a RED One, but it is one of, if not the most, frustrating camera (that was) around :P. Seriously - waiting up to two minutes for a camera to boot up every single time is... frustrating to say the least. On paper, it looks like a pretty viable option, but in reality.... Plus, at least the URSA can shoot to ProRes. I don't personally think the RED One is worth it in today's camera environment. URSA's at least relatively current technology - and current model, so there's more support. You'd be better off with a Sony F3 IMO unless you desperately need raw or 4k...

Significantly worse workflow. Not that I particularly like the URSA either.

That's exactly what a waveform tells you, except that it tells you exactly where the exposure is sitting, with much more detail and accuracy than a 3 or 5 step False Colour. I will say I tend to use False Colour more as a quick reference/check, but Waveform is important and I use it a lot in digital (obviously neither are of any use in film). My recommendation would be to at least buy a light meter, and then use at least one of either False Colour or Waveform - preferably both. The hard part about using neither is you have to put a lot of faith in what your monitor is telling you and unless you've calibrated it yourself, you can't really do that. Also, using a combination of the above three (false colour, waveform, light meter) you have an exact idea of where your exposure is sitting. Without that, you won't know. You might be able to get some kind of idea of where your skin is sitting if you set your zebras correctly, but it's far from ideal.

Eh, you know what I mean. I guess more accurately: I'm sad that film died as quickly as it did. It's now possible but very difficult to shoot film. Would've been nice if it continued as an equally viable medium to digital at least for a while.

Waveform is incredibly important with digital, IMO. Vectorscope, not so much for acquisition, but can be handy. I'd take Waveform over False Colour if I had to - however I tend to use False Colour more often (though I rely a lot more on the waveform).

Don't forget - the FS700 cost the same as the FS7 when it was released, and the firmware upgrade was paid as well. The FS5 is $3k cheaper than an FS700 at release + paid raw upgrade. In addition, Sony aren't going to give you F5 quality in a $5k camera + raw/recorder. Their plan with the FS700 was to get people to buy their off-board raw unit and that didn't work out so well. I think that's also why the form factor is the way it is. It's a C100 competitor at its core. 4k is a bonus. Not only that, Sony has 4k TVs they want to sell, and by bolstering their entire camera range with 4k, it gives an extra incentive for people to buy 4k TVs. If you want proper 4k acquisition, Sony want you to buy an FS7, F5 or F55

Spoke to Panasonic reps this week about the Varicam LT. Mentioned the GH5. Was told 'if there is a GH5, the Japanese engineers are very tight lipped about it - as far as we know, there is no GH5 yet. That being said, if there was an announcement, it would be much more likely to be at a Photokina than NAB'.

You may, however, get colour shift given that there's a piece of glass there. I've used Tiffen NDs that are more expensive per stop than the entirety of that adapter on Alexas and REDs and still had colour shifts. You can't trust the optical quality of a $200 adapter. Even a $400 single stop ND can cause a shift towards the green channel. It's not an issue exclusive to Tiffen either. Personally, I've found no particular issues with Slog on any Sony cameras (A7s, F3, F5, FS5). Sure, it's no Log-C, but it's perfectly fine. I tend to shoot 4:2:2 to my Atomos from the A7s for anything critical, and to my eye that does help a bit with the colours. I'll also add that I watched some ISO5000 Varicam LT footage projected on a 4k screen the other night. The night shots were impressive, noise-wise, but overall the image wasn't totally dissimilar to what you can get out of an A7s. There was lots of talk on the night about how the skin tones aren't particularly rich, or overly orange. But they're easy to get there if you want it. The skin tones are much more 'true to life'. I caught myself thinking 'the skin tones are not dissimilar to what I see from my Sony cameras' I wonder if maybe those on here are so used to shooting Canon, and their over-saturated, pushed to the red channel skin tones that anything that's more true to life is seen as 'not good enough'. I also wonder how much of it is due to other reasons. I've set up LED lights, or put in filters and wondered for a minute at why my skin tones are looking a bit green. Slide the ND up, or put some minus green gel on the light, and you'll see exactly why.

Back in the days of film, you would over-expose by a third of a stop or more, and you would still get amazing amounts of latitude, all the while decreasing the amount of grain. I still prefer the colour, look, and dynamic range of film. I sat in a cinema on Wednesday night and watched a whole lot of footage from the new Varicam LT, and just wished it had some sort of film grain, some sort of organic-ness... Instead, as impressive as the footage was - it was just missing... something. It's sad that film hasn't enjoyed a slightly longer life..

Canon just run differently to Sony because they are the dominant incumbent. Sony have to do things very differently if they intend to gain any sort of coverage or market share. If the A7s was still the 'top of the line' of the Sony alpha lineup, it would be starting to dwindle down. As it is, there's plenty of talk about the A7sII, and when they release the A7III there'll be even more talk about that. If you're going to be the insurgent company, you need to do things differently if you're going to make a dent or a difference. Canon should take a leaf out of Sony's book really, IMO, when it comes to their prosumer video line-up.

Personally, my thoughts are that the FS5 is a good HD camera, with acceptable 4k. It's not designed as a 4k camera - it's just got it there as a bonus, and because at its price point it would be hard to sell an HD only camera in the current marketplace. It's a great documentary and drone/gimbal camera, and the HD is quite nice. Slowmo is great too. The 4k will not be significantly better than an A7sII, and at the moment the 4k SDI out of the FS5 is limited to 8-bit (which is what you get out of an A7s(II)). Depends what you want/need. Of course, the potential FS-raw release may change things

The F5 is surprisingly affordable, even brand new at the moment. I think the advent of the Varicam LT, as well as whatever NAB will bring will probably put a bit of pressure on the F5. The F5 is a truly awesome camera - I think it's almost the perfect mid-range owner/operator camera when you consider it's wealth of features, image, 4k ability, ISO performance, lens mount adaptability etc. etc. Will be interesting to see how the LT goes in the market though.

I bought one for $1500 and it was a great investment. I use the 10-bit 422 out with my Shogun. Great image, great camera. For the price - pretty impressive. Considering the FS5 is 3-4x the price, the F3 image is on-par, if not better, and easier to use. Of course, the FS5 has 4k, but not super great 4k. The PL mount is great, thought there's not a lot of affordable PL glass out there (unless you count $5k/lens as affordable), but I have Nikon and EF adapters. I use Nikon mostly with AI glass - but I think the F3 particularly shines with a set of CP2s or Ultra Primes on it (see if you can get a budget to hire them ;))

Except the 5D isn't a better choice - the A7s is far superior in almost every aspect, regardless of what your own personal opinion of how the colour holds up. Stills is a totally different story, but we're not talking stills here. I can tell you that where I may have seens 5Ds and 7Ds as B-cams to cameras like C(x)00s or similar-tier cameras in the past few years, I'm now seeing A7s' as B (or C) cameras. I have a DP friend who sold his BM cameras he was using as B and C cams for his F55 and replaced them with A7s'. The C100 was/is a $6500 camera. The RX10ii is a <$2000 camera. If the C100 didn't look better, then that would be a pretty awful impeachment against Canon. The fact that it does get so close should be troubling for Canon. Do you say the same thing about Blackmagic? What a terrible camera it must be that the RED or Alexa still look better than it. I'm also going to go ahead and say that a client who you're shooting their gear on an A7s or RX10ii as an A cam is likely not in a position to demand better (x) because they don't have the money to be able to. I'm not using my A7s as an A cam on anything but the lowest of budget shoots, but I'm happy to use it on those lower budget shoots (much happier than using a 5d or similar) and extremely happy to use it as a B or C cam. If you can't be bothered spending the time to get it looking right (as you need to with any camera, not just a Sony), then shoot with PP off. Funny thing about Sony is you can shoot with PP off and get extremely good results. On a 5D, you get pretty mediocre results on Natural, and marginally better when shooting with some kind of flat picture profile. Did you lift this from Canon marketing material...? Seriously, why does this forum have to be a 'man, the camera brand that I like is just so much better than any other, let me tell you all the incredibly subjective reasons, that I will pretend are objective reasons, why' Can't we celebrate all the great things of all the great cameras out there? Some people can't get good colour out of Sony. Many, many people who use them for professional work all the time, can. If you're one of the ones who struggle to get good colour out of a Sony, then it probably isn't for you. But that doesn't mean that someone else can't get an incredible image out of it. By the same token, the fact that you like Canon better is totally fine. But it doesn't mean that for every other person out there that Canon is an objectively better looking camera. Go and watch TED 2. I watched it quite recently, and throughout the movie I kept thinking 'man, that colour looks very similar to what I can get out of an F5, or even the A7s'. Do you think that movie looks awful? You may think the F65 et al. look vastly different from the rest of the range, but it really doesn't. There are, of course, some major differences, but the overall look is not all that dissimilar. I've seen some movies in which I hated the colour that were shot on the Panavision Genesis or F35. I've seen some awful stuff shot with BM, Canon, RED, Alexa, and almost every camera out there. I've also seen some amazing stuff. I've also shot with many of these cameras, because I like to use each ones different look to my advantage and to further the cinematic storytelling. The Alexa may look better than the RED, but for a clean, cold, sci-fi I'm shooting, I might prefer the look of the RED. Or the BM. Or an FS7. Does that make it the wrong choice? Certainly not.

The CION has no drawcard. It's much more expensive than offerings from BM, and the only real difference is the form factor. The image is okay, but not 'blow me out of the water, especially at this price' good. The Blackmagic image is not 'blow me out of the water' good either, but at the price, it's pretty damn good.

I mean an 'in-between' camera that sits between the FS7 and the F5. F5's a great camera, but it was also initially more expensive than the F3 and much higher specced. I wonder if there's room in Sony's line-up for an 'in-between' camera body that sits around $12-14k. Maybe a camera/recorder/lens package that sits around $16-17k (body price of the F5).