Phil A

Press release says it has S-Log including that gamma display assist of the A7sII... but camera has quite obviously no IBIS.

I use Rocky Mountain. It's free, easy and works, I don't ask for more.

Seeing how the sensor has 24 megapixel I wonder if the 20 megapixel 6k read-out with downscaling means additional crop over APS-C? Unfortunately no comment regarding low light in the conference, I wonder if it's up to what the A7rII does in APS-C crop mode. Edit: or is 20 megapixel the 16:9 crop of the 24 megapixel sensor?

Yes. Nikon can be adapted to nearly anything because it's the SLR system with the longest flange distance.

No, you can't mount original Canon EF-S lenses on a FullFrame Canon EOS camera, only 3rd party lenses.

So much to "Shipping in January"

The G7 / G70 also doesn't do HDMI out while recording so you can't use an external monitor, I see that as a major disadvantage compared to the GH4.

You can turn 8bit 4k 4:2:0 into 8bit 2k 4:2:2 with any transcoding app like e.g. RockyMauntainsMovieConverter but it's not turning into 10bit.

Clearly will. Was away over the weekend but have quite some space this week.

Make sure you download the newest version, it was only implemented recently. It's at the bottom of the applications window.

They're of course mostly full frame lenses. DG is full frame, DC is APS-C. I think the 30 1.4 (NOT 35 1.4) is the only APS-C ART prime they make.

I think it's important to keep in mind that you have a cohesive set of lenses, especially when you go for more exotic rendering. I'm sticking with all Sigma at the moment and used to do all Canon L in the past but then it's less an issue for photography than for video. I love the rendering of Voigtländer and if I had a full frame mirrorless I'd probably get the 40 1.4 and 75 1.8 as a compact set to cover my go to focal lengths.

I think ti comes down to the fact that the C100 was awwwwwful on spec sheets (even the C100 II sounds really meh) while the Ursa Mini sounds like a miracle of high tech engineering. But then in actually using the cameras, the C100 just works and with the Ursa Mini you have to put in more work / expertise / care. The Ursa Mini seems totaly "run & gun" but everyone who read up about the BMPC4k knows that it's not flexible. It'll deliver amazing results but you have to stay strictly within the boundaries of where it works. Actual product manufacturing quality is hard to judge, on the internet it's usually the unhappy people complaining because most people who are satisfied don't feel the need to yell it out into the world. But completely hypothetically, I can see how a smaller company like BMD who goes for probably rather close calculated prices has not the same QC capabilities as a huge player. As I said, this is theoretically speaking, but in the past there was quite a few oopsies with the BMD cameras when they came out that were then later fixed (or not).

If you take a ballhead you can swivel it wherever you want, depending on where the monitor has mounting points. The SmallHD 500 series has that "sidefinder" attachment. It's kinda pricey at 300$ for basically a right angle loupe but then you have a EVF in addition to the FullHD 5" screen. I'll probably try to score a used one on eBay or ze interwebs. I think a problem with the Micro is that the cheapo monitors are so-so, the EVF are basically all quite pricey and there's more good 7" monitor/recorder than 5" (which I would then already consider too big) and you don't actually need external recording because it's probably going to be absolutely identical to the internal recording with BMD. I'd clearly get the BMMCC over the BMPCC because of the better battery solution (granted you can have a LP-E6 solution with the BMPCC but then you automatically need a bigger rig), 60fps and the global shutter.

I just looked at the cages which are already available/announced and at least with the SmallHD monitors you'd have the issue that the HDMI port is on the back so you'd need a cable with a 90° plug or it would bump straight into the battery. A possibility (when using a 90! plug) I see and would consider is, that you could put the screen on top and use it like the waist level finder of a MF camera but also then flip it up so it sits on top back of the camera and pointing straight up. I'm at work so I'm slightly limited in creative tooling but I've made this "scientifically absolutely accurate drawing" in Excel to express what I mean. The SmallHD 500 monitors have threads on the bottom, back and top so you have some flexibility. You could also put something on top of the camera cage like a little plate that stands out to the back and then mount the monitor top down, it can automatically flip the image.

Buy whatever cage, put SmallHD 502 / BMD VideoAssist / ... on top, done. What exactly would you expect to be specific about the cage for the BMMCC?

I don't want to derail this thread... but I see I'm anyway too late for that ;-) If we ignore the price constraints of the original question, I'm really curious how the cameras stack up in reality. When you come from the photography world it's usually quite easy, at the same level of technology a 35mm sensor is rougly 1EV better at High ISO than the corresponding APS-C sensor. But obviously with video a lot more mojo (and in-camera processing) goes into the final result. Andrew said the D5500 has the same High ISO result as the D750. We all know that the BMPCC is usable at ISO1600, so if we add the BMPCC specific Speedbooster to that equation which brings 1.75 EV of 'brightening', how does it stack up with the same lens used on both systems? For a comparable exposure to the BMPCC at 1600 you'd have to push the Nikon to ISO4000. 10Bit ProRes 422 HQ is probably then also more bendable in post than the 8Bit H.264. Am I dumb or is the BMPCC with Speedbooster actually the safer choice if you have no possibility to light your scene? Also using a 35mm f/1.4 on a D750 vs a 24 1.4 on the BMPCC + Speedbooster would give more usable DoF thanks to the smaler sensor. Only the A7r II in APS-C + Speedbooster or a A7s/A7sII would be better low light choices.

The Pix-e5h has only HDMI, you'd need to Pix-e5 for SDI connection. But the Pix-e5 only does 4k via HDMI, not SDI, according to the B&H Q&A for the product. Personally I think it's kinda annoying how much "web research" is necessary to find a fitting combo of camera + recorder/monitor. I'd never have expected so many incompatibilities and hickups. Obviously there's less standardization regarding HDMI / SDI data protocolls than I thought.

Not sure if VideoDevices firmware-updated that in the time between but as far as I know the Pix-e5 doesn't do RAW recording from the FS700. You clearly might want to research that before buying.

I'd eat grass if it was 10bit and Sony not telling it to everyone and his mom whenever they can. They don't seem like the company to pass that oportunity up. Good High ISO vs. 10bit vs. 4k vs. sensor size vs. high framerates still is a total tradeoff. Pick your poison, there's no camera to do it all.

Correct as far as I know.

Not really surprised, if I understand right we're looking at the results of stills. Obviously the A7sII won't have the same advantage regarding noise as the A7rII who can enormously downscale the picture to increase quality. I think the A7s II is better when it comes to dynamic range in high ISO though (but then quality of light is also often so-so when shooting in low light). In video recording that will obviously be a different result.

The Sigma ART lenses are top notch from the quality, I wouldn't be concerned about any plastics vs metal discussions. I clearly wouldn't want them to be any heavier for sure, which brings me to the point: did you consider how big the Sigmas are? They're surely quite a bit bigger than your Nikkors or FDs so consider that. When you compare the Sigma 50 1.4 vs the Canon EF 50 1.4 USM you get way better quality at the price of a way bigger & heavier lens. For some applications I'm not sure which is the better compromise.

I'd love if they could do a clean 1080p picture now. But to be honest if it would be on a competitive level I think they would have marketed it in a more aggressive way. Still will have an eye on possible tests.

Perhaps really better wait a bit and get a 32" TV instead of a 27" monitor. Seeing how all that new stuff with 10Bit color comes out just now, prices will probably adjust downwards rapidly in 2016-2017. I've considered getting another screen via Decklink card for Davinci Resolve (because their multi screen functionality is bad for "home users") but seeing how all the new Samsung SUHD and what the new TVs with 10bit panels, HDR functions, etc. are called are just only coming out I've decided to probably postpone by a year. I'm using a 27" Dell U2711 Ultrasharp as my GUI monitor (2560x1440 pixel IPS-panel, wide gamut, calibrated) and have to agree, if the resolution would be 4k I'd want probably more than 27".