mercer

Yeah, if you didn’t like the first Pocket cam, you probably won’t like the Pocket II. If you’re hoping for 3200 ISO or IBIS, then this camera probably won’t be for you. You also have to remember that storage isn’t that great on these cameras either... on the original Pocket, if my memory serves me, you get about 20 minutes of ProResHQ on a 64GB card. So that will be a deal breaker for a lot of people as well. But it seems like the Pocket II will be more user friendly out of the box compared to the original (even though I used it handheld with an OIS Panny lens)

Yeah I just looked at the post 43rumors and that’s how I read it too. Of course, I would mostly shoot ProRes anyway, so I’d be more than happy with internal ProRes Raw, up to 60p (crossing fingers)

I think it looks kinda rad. Don’t know how I feel about external Raw only... but the price will dictate my feelings on that one. Anything over $1500 and I’ll pass for now. At a grand, I’m in.

After a weird winter of weather, some family health issues and some financial issues, I am finally ready to resume production on my film. The financial issues forced me to sell off the two lenses I was using. After a few months of digging through my closet and testing almost every lens I had, I finally settled on two lenses I didn't have but cost me a fraction of what my original lenses cost. Here are a couple examples from a final lens test I did the other day with my lead actor. The first two are from the Canon EF USM 28mm f/1.8... And the next two are from the Canon 50mm f/1.4... Both are great lenses that cost me a lot less than one of the lenses I was using before.

I think @TheRenaissanceMan and @Zak Forsman have a set of LeicaR. I briefly had the 35-70mm f/3.5 but I kinda liked it too much and couldn’t see myself affording many primes to go along with it. @JordanWright

That’s an amazing deal... I would have pounced on that as well. The C100 I or II are such workhorses, I imagine they pay for themselves rather quickly... much like the GH5, I’d assume. Yeah, I doubt they will either. But I don’t really need it now, 1080p Raw on the 5D3 is more than enough for my needs right now. Sorry to the OP for the OT.

Good point about direction style. Being a writer first, then director, then operator... improv is a dirty word... lol. Yeah, Jon maybe should have titled this thread... Has Canon Killed off Cinema Lenses... but since he shoots with a Panasonic, I get it... and this feature in the GH5 is pretty nifty. Did you get another C100 Mark 1or did you go with the Mark II? Being a run and gun shooter, DPAF is the one feature I look forward to using at some point in the future. My biggest wish is that ML figures out the 5D4... Raw and DPAF would be a game changer for me. I am getting pretty good with tracking focus manually but it does usually require a few takes to nail it.

Can objects in the frame change while you’re setting your points? If so, then I can see how this could be useful for narratives. Most actors and actresses can hit their marks.

True but irrelevant to the original point that I wouldn’t be surprised if the new pocket had an EF Mount.

You can have a Micro 4/3 Mount and a Super 35mm sensor.

Sorry only saw a photo of the top of the camera... are there others? But “time to get real” this is just a speculation thread Jon, no real reason to get offensive, defensive or otherwise.

If it was such a popular professional mount, then why doesn’t the Ursa Pro have a Micro 4/3 Mount?

But I’m sure they’ll go with a m4/3 Mount, just throwing out possibilities.

You don’t need imagination, you just have to look at their product line. The Ursa comes in an EF Mount and ever since they’ve introduced their higher end camera, they’ve been discontinuing their lower end models. For many productions, a similar mount system would be welcomed. Plus I believe there will be more room in the camera, with an EF Mount, if this new guy has internal filters... which would be a smart move for the next gen Pocket as well.

Yeah I would assume that it’s a Micro 4/3 sensor. But I could see them doing an EF Mount instead of m4/3.

Here’s a quick screengrab from an outtake of my film. I don’t really love the shot but it shows what a fast wide angle can do on FF. It was shot on the Canon 28mm 1.8 ... pretty cool little lens.

Maybe it will have a Micro 4/3 sensor. Maybe a swappable mount. I am very excited for this but I doubt it will be in the original price bracket.

Do you have any side by sides to prove it doesn’t exist? You brought up the topic to prove that motion cadence doesn’t exist, so the burden of proof lies on you.

This sounds like a production clusterf%&k just waiting to happen. Imagine a bean counter watching the production and telling a director to get another take or to not get another take because Jim in editing said he could use one of the three previous takes.

Yeah, honestly I don’t even care why. I just notice what I like and what looks better to my eyes. How it gets there... whatevs... lol.

That is a good question I don’t have the answer to but I could tell by looking at them on my computer after using the cameras. I assume just capturing it affects the motion as recorded and anything after that wouldn’t change it?

ProRes Raw sounds awesome... now if FCPX could just import CDNG files, or optimize them at import to this ProRes Raw, I could make FCPX a one stop solution.

Yup, even the 200mbps all-i 1080p in the FZ2500 has a really nice motion cadence to it... way better than the Long GOP 4K files do.

That makes sense. Again I am in no position to buy a C200, so this is just talk on my part, but I don’t see the lack of middle codec as that big of a deal for my uses... but I still find it a mistake not to have it. I think the biggest mistake was not including a 2K or 2.5K RawLite variant.

You guys should just go out and buy an entry level Canon then. Why spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on cameras and native lenses? I mean, it’s all up to the operator, right? Obviously, I was being sarcastic there and obviously all of the points that talent and skill will make any camera look good are valid and probably the most important ingredient to a cinematic image. Now if only Hollywood Line Producers were reading this thread, then every film from this point on could be shot on a (insert consumer camera here)