webrunner5

I don't know ANYONE on here that has one. That is pretty much all you need to know. There is a reason for it. Don't buy one. Some people May have had one but.. In a sense it is the Best and Worse camera BM makes all at the same time. And this why some people think it might be the best. but...

I have that exact cheap ass piece of crap myself. It broke in my trunk. If you think that is the best thing to show up to a shoot with Wow is all I can say! They cost 20 freaking dollars. Top end stuff, yeah right. Buy Good stuff and you can keep it all your life. You drop one camera and you may be out of business. Trouble is almost all mirrorless and DSLR's are nearly impossible to rig for on the shoulder. The LCD, Viewfinder is too low on them. There Is a reason they make Cine cameras the way they do.

Forget about a BMPC. It is a thing of the past. A GH5 is s far more advanced for video work it is not even funny. Other than a Ursa of some kind all the rest of BM cameras are sort of a second, third camera people have to play with once in awhile. Sure they have a great output in the right situations, but they are a total pain in the ass to use and rig compared to any GH5. The GH5 is pretty much the latest and greatest thing out there for under 5 grand. You can make a living with one. Buy a Normal camera and then buy a BMPC to play with later. They are a good leaning tool to have to learn how to grade with. Almost everyone on here has had a BMPCC at one time. They are great, yet but compared to a GH5 for normal daily stuff the GH5 is pretty much unbeatable. And it appears the GH5s is even better other than the lack of IBIS. For the same money, heck even less, you can buy a used Panasonic GH4 which tons of people have made tons of great stuff with. Other than 10 bit, 4k 60p they are not that far behind the GH5. Color science is a bit worse on them, but for someone new starting out they are a buy of a lifetime now used.

Another thought is unless you are a Pro with a lot of money, it is pretty hard to beat the DJI drones with their built in cameras. They have a lot of them now, from cheap to the X7 which is pretty unbelievable. Well so is the price LoL. But the downside is you can't just use the camera on them for normal stuff. Helps to have lots of money for video work.

Oh they are 2x, wow that is pretty crazy. I am used to 1.33. Hmm that does change everything.

I think the 40mm might be the way to go for me. But everyone has different needs. Hell buy all 3 of them, Gulp!!

It has to have something to do with heat or they would do it like @IronFilm said. I mean you have to have a place to put the SSD, and Maybe 2 batteries, hookups on and on. Maybe it is just not possible. So maybe it is a simple matter of not enough space? I hope not. Plus it would make the product I hope less money also. I doubt they can make them thinner because of the heat problem. Just to have room to hook the batteries on without a big hump on the back would necessitate a thicker body. But I think I would take that option for a slimmer body.. Yeah I have said that before about people paying out the ass for a Small HD monitor that has way less nits than a Atomos, and hell you get a free recorder. But doesn't all the Atomos recorders have a shiny ass screen that is hard to see in bright sunlight?

Whole God Damn page full of cheap ass ones. Maybe you ought look on the web, you might find out about reality! https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=isco+ultra+star If you sold them for 500 bucks you screwed the hell out of a lot of people. Rare finding, shit there is 20 of them on there. Now the plus yeah, but he didn't ask about the plus did he. Even the plus are not 500 bucks unless you want to get screwed. The plus doesn't look too rare on there either for under 500 bucks does it. And ebay isn't the only place you can buy them in the world.

Wow a Atlas Orion 65mm, you must have won the Lotto LoL. I would think a 65mm would be a bit too long even using a Speed Booster with the crop factor? Yeah if I had the money I would buy one in a heartbeat. Closest thing to a Cine camera we can afford. I can't believe how many people here on a Video site are thinking of buying a Fuji X-H1 over a GH5s! Your getting the hang of it no doubt. Nice looking LuT.

Nah I think if they would have went with a EF mount they would have sold more of them. JVC has always built good stuff. Years ago they made better stuff than Panasonic. It really wasn't until Panny came out with the P2 concept that they took off. It was too Canon VG 10 ish with the crops like that. I don't know of Anyone on here that even bought one? Maybe talked about buying one when they got down to 1200 bucks LoL. We all know who that might be! Most people relate m4/3 to toy cameras. Like it or not. It is sort of the kiss of death with Pro stuff. As long as Sony can build a FF A7 camera the size of a m4/3 body it ain't changing. That is why people look at a GH body and say WTF. It ought to be the size of a Minox B. Truth be known Panasonic might have made that big just to look more "Pro" than Olympus at the time.

MFT lenses to EF mount.. That is what I meant. And I will still stand by my statement the Panasonic probably looked at the LS300 sales and said, why bother with a m4/3 mount on a EVA1. Looks like only 22 people are interested. It had to be a shot in the butt to say hell nobody really wants a mount we sort of created!

I sometimes think Samsung did what they did just to prove a point they that they could do it. It's not like Samsung didn't have the money to ride out sagging sales. They have to have known they were not going to sell millions of cameras in a short period. Sony faced the same problem when they bought out Minolta. And honestly Samsung had a better product in the start than Sony ever did.

That might have been for the Focus puller to use, or even the Client to view, the director. There is lots of reasons for a large monitor on a shoot. When I am uptown where I live I get lots of people that just want to look at what I see when I am shooting. Most people have Never seen a Pro looking outfit, let alone seen what a screen looks like with all the icons on them, Waveform, Zebras, etc. I think it is interesting to educate people. It can be distracting, but hey I have list of people that want to be in my "Film" LoL. Well maybe not when some of them Sober Up LoL.

Yeah but Canon threw everyone under the bus that had FD lens mount and lived to tell about it. Like I mentioned, I think Nikon has waited too long. I still think Nikon and Pentax will not survive in the long run. They have both made too many mistakes. There is not going to be room for 10 camera manufactures in the future.

I just playing with you @markr041 I agree even a no screen one for people that shoot like you, and I do at times, would be a benefit. I just don't see why BM and Atomos doesn't have one that will do 4k at all. Why? Speed and small don't come to mind to me for top notch video. There is a reason nearly all Cine cameras are big as hell on average. I know it is changing, but you need certain things for decent output, like it or not. You want the look like footage from old 8mm film well that is not hard to do. It is easy to half ass anything, trying to get the best you can, well that is hard and time consuming. But I have the time to try to do it better, maybe you don't. Running around like you are being shot at is not my idea of a fun shoot LoL. But you are probably younger than I am.

Until just recently you could not get Nikon lenses to work on a Sony A7 camera to save your ass AF wise. Sure MF, but that is why 98% of the people, me included, use Canon Lenses on a A7. Nikon I think is going to have to change mounts sometime. It has been Long overdue. It is probably too late anyways. Somehow Nikon will screw up their FF Mirrorless. It is in the cards as of late. Actually the Nikon 1 system was damn good for birding. They had a few damn nice lenses for it. I never owned one, but they were damn tempting for the money.

Yeah if all you did was have a small lens on say a Sony A6300 and that is all I can see it. But most people on here have a camera rig from hell. You might as well have a Arri Alexa. And then be on a tripod, and hell why not a 7" screen. Unless you are on vacation with your wife you really Need all that crap for a rig to get good results. Philip Bloom seems to do ok using a tripod. I have Never seen him hand hold anything. Slow down, smell the Roses.

Yeah I agree give me, well I will buy one, a 5", with a damn screen, a Atomos Flame actually. Why is so many people in a hurry to shoot video LoL. You have a police warrant out on you?

I never said I didn't want a 5" screen, I told you that in the RXO thread. You said you don't want ANY damn screen. Oh it saves the battery. Cheap ass, buy more batteries LoL. "if the screen is sharp enough". Please tell us what 3.2 in screen is sharp enough on any camera we can afford. Only a few Canon one comes to mind. Plus everyone that is over 18 years old or wears glasses can't see a LCD. I don't give a crap if you are 10 years old if you wear glasses you can't see shit anytime other than when you first clean them, even then I doubt it.. Philip Bloom, hell if I shot as slow as he does I would fall asleep on my feet. He probably can't see either that is why he takes so long.

Well when using Manual focus lenses on a video camera a bigger LCD is almost a necessity in my view, pun intended LoL. I know I am old school on here but I still don't trust AF for shit on a Video camera for anything serious. I see a Need for a good LCD screen. And I know I will hear well I need AF for Run n Gun. And you know what Run n Gun on average looks like, pretty poor quality wise. Now if you want that look like you are having a Epileptic Seizure well have at it..

A screen is a Must on most crappy DSLR, Mirroless cameras with the LCD they use.. You are not checking focus with a 3" screen outdoors that is 300 Nits tops..

No F ing screen, Get real LoL. Why the hell bother. You pretty much buy one of those to check focus more than anything. No screen, still in the dark on that point. Literally.

That looks like banding. But hell it could be from the lighting source, etc. etc.

Well I have stated on here before I think you have to have at Least a 3x higher rate in Intra than in Long just to be even. So I am not surprised about his findings. But it is a good video. I have always like this quote. "Lots of folks have compared 24 Mbit/second AVCHD on the FS cameras against 220Mbit/sec ProRes (an all-I codec), and concluded that they are pretty close in terms of quality -- despite the ProRes using 9x as much data."

Ahh then I am the one that is confused. That new C-Raw files are for Photos not Video! Yikes, sorry about that. I guess since we are in a video forum I was centered on video Lol. My Bad. And the 120 Mbps for 4K 23.98 is really not too bad for a entry level camera at 23.98.