BTM_Pix

No espresso??!!? Looks like you really did fall in love with someone you shouldn't have fallen in love with.

The truly abysmal EVF is a joke though. And the fold out LCD doesn't inspire much confidence. But.... The release of the Ninja V changes things considerably for the LS300 as it is compact enough to address those issues without making it unwieldly like the 7" recorders did whilst adding additional monitoring functionality. Of course it also enables the recording of 4K60p which the LS300 can't do internally and offers a ProRes workflow. If the LS300 drops below £1500 (which it is well on the way to doing) then the two together is quite the package for £2000. I've said it before but if there is one company that I could see working with Atomos to do ProRes RAW over HDMI it would be JVC for the LS300. Considering how much JVC have enhanced its functionality since its release, I wouldn't say one last hurrah like that would be out of the question

I'll certainly bear that in mind.

Thanks. No, unfortunately I am nowhere near bright enough to be of any use to them.

I'm not sure there has been another product that has created a market for someone to make one. RED cameras and BM Video Assist are two products that spring to mind that use mini XLRs but they would generally expect people to be connecting microphones/mixers with XLR outputs on them hence why they are the only ones available. If you want to keep the adapters to a minimum then one option is to buy the BM Video Assist and cut one of the cables and put a 3.5mm socket on it. You can then have it the exact length you need. It would also mean you would still have the other cable of course so you would now have a cable kit to cover both 3.5mm and XLR mics.

If its the mini socket you need (I'm presuming to connect a mic with a 3.5mm jack on it?) then you can get a regular one like this to a full size xlr MagiDeal 3.5mm (Mini) 1/8inch Stereo Female To XLR Male Adapter Cable https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CY2J3DT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_6gKcCbK33Q34Y And then use an XLR to mini XLR adapter . Incidentally for anyone looking for ready made XLR to mini XLR cables, BM themselves do a kit for the video assist that has 2 of them in it for about £30 https://www.scan.co.uk/products/blackmagic-design-mini-xlr-cable-for-video-assist-4k-set-of-2-195?gclid=CjwKCAiA0ajgBRA4EiwA9gFOR_ywjdHoW_RfaATfXT5pS_A-1--6PWuKCVuxWMNT6M0XyjsRsZtFBRoCEUEQAvD_BwE

There is no downside to the PF except for the price and if you want to use it on a non Nikon body. I would definitely urge you to try the original on the Z body though to make sure it feels OK in terms of balance. Bear in mind that my experience of it is using it was on big lumps like the D3s and D4 where the weight wasn't an issue. On a much lighter mirrorless it might be a different story especially as the adapter will be adding to the heaviness in the nose. With regard to using the PF for wildlife then the huge reduction in the weight in the camera pack vs the original will pay big dividends over the course of a day if you are trekking or whatever. What I would say though is that if the 300mm might not have enough reach then whilst it works very well with a TC but you are then at f5.6 (plus more money for the TC) so I might suggest she looks at the 200-500mm f5.6. Its the same aperture with a bit more reach and a lot more flexibility albeit at the expense of a bit of weight. It is a fantastic performer though and would be another compromise option worth considering, especially as it is significantly cheaper. MPB are good guys and I've always had good service and prices. They are only in Brighton so with a following wind they should be able to deliver stuff over the channel to France with a decent catapult. Which will probably be the only way to get goods off the island post Brexit !

Pleased to announce that my Pocket4K app for Android is now complete and is with beta testers so barring any calamties will be available from the Play store on the 21st of December. Here is a screen shot with a quick run through of the features from top to bottom : Across the top we have the controls for Aperture, ISO and shutter angle. Next up we have the colour temperature and tint controls, the preset white balance selectors, the Auto White Balance button and, of course, the Record button. Beneath that we have the 8 snapshot memories which you can use to store and instantly recall 8 different custom settings of ISO, Aperture, Shutter Angle and White Balance. To store the preset you long press on the memory slot that you want to use and to recall it just short press. Haptic feedback is given to indicate that the preset has been written and the currently loaded preset is denoted in orange (M1 in the shot above). Presets are stored in non volatile memory so are always available in any session. Next is the focus controller, which is operated using the slider and/or the fine tune buttons. A long press of the button moves instantly to closest focus and infinity respectively. The AF button in ths row activates the single shot auto focus. To accompany the focus controls, you then have 6 memory slots (A to F) to store focus points and you can switch instantly between them by simply pressing the required one. In addition, next to these are the controls for A-B-A focus transition and the speed control. Again, all focus points are stored in non volatile memory for use in any session. Finally we have the controls for applicable MFT power zoom lenses with the same interface as the focus controls (including long press for instant minimum/maximum zoom) and 4 non volatile memory positions for later recall. There is another function that it can do that I'll let you know about closer to release date and I will put up a little demo video of it in action late next week.

Optically, it is at least as good as the PF. It is also not far off being a third of the price used against a new PF. Another plus is that it has a physical aperture control so is more flexible in terms of being used on a different camera type whereas with the PF using Nikon's new electronic control you are limited to only being able to control the aperture with a Nikon body. So it performs as well as the new one, is much cheaper and also more versatile. Against that, of course, is that it is twice the weight, about a third bigger and doesn't have VR. Until the Z series came along, it would be that final aspect that would be a deal breaker for a lot of people but IBIS should address that. I'm saying should as I've never tested that so I can't comment with any authority over it but anecdotaly it does seem to work well. Which leaves us with the size and weight issue. My use for the original version was for events where a long lens wouldn't be the primary lens I'd be shooting on but wanted the ability to have that extra reach if I needed without having to haul a 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8 with me. So things such as press conferences or close action positional stuff like boxing or track cycling etc. It worked very well in that capacity and the weight and bulk saving was a godsend versus the f2.8 But then the PF version appeared and moved all of that to another level, particularly with the addition of VR, so it was an instant buy for me! As I say, the Z series will take care of the VR part but the original lens is still quite a lump which may be a drawback or at least less desirable, for your intended use. It certainly was for mine. If you were looking for a compromise solution then for somewhere roughly in the middle price wise you could maybe look at a used 70-200mm f2.8 with a 1.4TC. In terms of size, it isn't far off the same as the original 300mm f4 and it would give you near enough the same on the long end with the TC with the added versatility of being a zoom but also taking the TC off and getting the extra stop back. The bottom line for me is that if the PF didn't exist then I would still happily be using the original and if I was buying from scratch then provided I didn't need the lens to be stabilised I wouldn't have a particular problem getting it again at that significant saving. For my needs though, the size and weight is a significant enough advantage that it is worth stretching for but your needs may be different. I would definitely recommend you going and trying one first with your own camera though to make sure it works as a combo for you. But just make sure that you aren't tempted to try the PF version out while you are there

Aren't BM themselves part of that 'Panasonic etc' group though as the original Pocket camera works in that way too? I do understand that there isn't actually a 'fault' here as such (aside from the odd glitch when fast scrolling or the occasional mismatch on the iOS app) as its expected behaviour because of the way the values are being interpreted but there is an argument to be made regarding the difference between expected behaviour and desired behaviour. Obviously, I might well possibly be in a small minority of one over this not being desired behaviour as it doesn't seem to unduly concern other owners that they have these anomalies. However, the question would be if it will remain this way in the Pocket4K or be changed to the way in which it works with other manufacturers including yourselves with the original Pocket?

Yes, for stills you can select the two slots to be used for the RAW/JPEG splitting, backup or in sequential mode but for video it is sequential only. The sequential process can be set so that stills will go to one card and video to the other though, which is a worthwhile function for a hybrid. So, yes, for video there is no backup option unless you have an external recorder and use the internal SD with simultaneous output to HDMI setting.

Its a difficult question to answer because it will depend on the gimbal you are using in terms of what restrictions it may have with regard to where you can mount the camera itself, which in turn may have implications with regard to the restrictions for where you can mount anything else to it. The Pocket 4K seems to be presenting some challenges with regard to gimbals so I would recommend asking in the gimbal thread what people are doing with specific gimbals regarding mounting external power and SSDs. Of course, with both external power and the SSD being on cables, it would also be possible to mount them off the camera and on the gimbal handle itself or a side mount to it so there should always be an option even if mounting it to the camera proves impractical/impossible due to physical restrictions or balance complications. As I say, have a look in the gimbal thread at what people are doing as if you are committed to using it on a gimbal then their experiences will give you the right steer not only about power and SSD mounting options but also, due to the Pocket 4K being a bit of a challenge with regard to gimbals, probably about which actual gimbal to get for it in the first place.

Yeah, the Tamron is a little bit short on the long end compared to the Sigma. Having said that though, you can make up for some of the restriction of the Tamron that by having a non-speedboosted EF>MFT adapter in your bag and still have the speed advantage of it being f2.8. I suppose it depends on what MFT it is going on as well as you have ETC mode on the Panasonic and of course the fully variable mode on an LS300. I'm not holding my breath on BM doing it but a switchable 1.1 or 1.2x crop mode on the Pocket4K would be a welcome addition to give a bit more flexibility but also to deal with some of the sketchy edge performance on some native lenses and vignetting on speed boosted APS-C lenses. The 18-135mm USM is interesting as well because of the power zoom adapter that they do for it. The combo can be picked up used for under £400 which is an interesting proposition if someone is looking for something comparable to the flexibility of the Olympus 12-100 f4 at a significant saving.

For the money (£150-200) a used Tamron SP AF17-50mm f2.8 zoom on a speed booster has a lot going for it as a constant aperture stabilised 24-70mm equivalent. Not exactly the quietest lens in the world but I can't think of anything that gets you that performance at anywhere near that price. Its quite light in the bag as well as on the pocket too.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0087BV56W/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_iyOaCb5Z3CMHJ The battery locks into the holder so is secure. The camera end is on a locking connector so is secure that end. You could lock the barrel at the battery plate end quite easily. Its worth bearing in mind that the external battery is also simultaneously charging the internal battery so you do also have a backup from that point of view. You could fabricate a simple barn type roof to cover it if you wanted to with regard to keeping the elements out. Although I have to say that if you are operating the camera in those sort of conditions then the camera is going to be more of a problem than the battery. Again though, I would repeat that if you want to make something from scratch, then you would also need to have some circuitry in there so you are going to have to factor someone in to design that aspect as well.

What is it exactly that you want to put in the box? The battery plate I'm using is £10 from Amazon. Printing something from scratch and including the circuit to deliver the right voltage for the camera is likely to cost more in materials let alone effort ?

Don't worry, it will be quite an easy multiple choice one like this. Q. Assuming an ISO value of 800 and a shutter speed of 1/48th of a second, what is the correct aperture setting for the scene below ? f10 The other f10

The official cable pack finally showed up. The barrel connector adapter works fine with the cheap SmallRig Sony battery adapter that many people may have from the original Pocket and BMCC days. There are a myriad ways to mount the adapter to any sort of rig you have or even directly onto the 1/4" 20 mount on the top of the camera as I've done here. Tested the Dtap with a V mount battery and that is fine too for anyone looking for that type of solution. The only thing I would say is that I'm probably going to put some heat shrink on the cables as on my ones at least the cables aren't a particularly snug fit into the connector and I'm not sure how they would get on long term with repeated insertion and removal.

I'll give you an example of each of the three main MFT manufacturer's native lenses and three speed boosted ones from different manufacturers, listing the apertures at which they have repeats. NATIVE LENSES Panasonic 14mm f2.5 f11 f14 f16 f21 Sigma 30mm f1.4 f1.4 f1.7 f10 f11 f14 f15 Olympus 45mm f1.8 f10 f11 f14 f15 f16 f21 ADAPTED LENSES (using Metabones T Ultra 0.71x) Canon 50mm f1.8 f1.3 f1.7 f10 f11 f14 f15 Sigma 18-35mm ART f1.8 f1.3 f1.4 f1.7 f10 f11 Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8 f10 f11 f14 f15 f16 The Metabones has the latest firmware and from the responses by the other two users in the thread, the same behaviour is also happening with Viltrox adapters. Obviously, none of these native lenses or adapted lens combinations shows the same issues when tested on either a "regular" MFT hybrid camera (Panasonic G7 and GX80) or my other MFT mount camera the JVC LS300. With regard to the steps to reproduce, just turn the aperture wheel one step at a time (or you can do it on the app as its the same behaviour) and you will see the points at which the indicated value does not change and these points will remain consistent in either direction. As f10 and f11 are two of the common points of repetition across all lenses, you should also these two byte arrays for each version of f10 and f11 being returned from UUID: B864E140-76A0-416A-BF30-5876504537D9 in any logs you capture in nRF Connect whilst doing this. f10 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-26-35 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-40-36 f11 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-59-37 (0x) FF-06-00-00-00-02-80-02-5A-38 This shows that the parameter value itself is not a repetition (0x3526 and 0x3640 for f10 / 0x3759 and 385A for f11) but the interpretation of it is. So if you write those arrays to UUID: 5DD3465F-1AEE-4299-8493-D2ECA2F8E1BB you will see that you will also get two versions of f10 and f11 respectively.

As per the orginal post it is happening with native (both Panasonic and Sigma that I've tested) as well as adapted lenses. I'll be back from this job later this evening so I can have a look at an Olympus lens for completeness but I'm not expecting it to be any different. If you connect to the camera with something like nRF Connect and register for a callback on UUID: B864E140-76A0-416A-BF30-5876504537D9 and turn the aperture wheel (or use the app) you will see the values for parameter 2 of group 0 change on every increment and should then see the instances where the value has changed but the indicated f stop hasn't.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there aren't many topics on here about anything to do with RED because not many people on here own them. Oddly enough, I do though and have had an EPIC X for seven years and I'm not sure I follow when you say its got the same problem ? It reports those same Canon lenses just fine on its adapter and reflects the actual aperture values (rather than the 64 'send it and we'll let the lens work it out' routine) correctly for the same lenses, with no repeats. It also reports the aperture back correctly from the suitably equipped PL lenses I've got as well so its not an issue I have come across or can reproduce. The design of the product has an MFT mount integral to it though so it was obvious that they would use a selection of those lenses. What they shouldn't have done is say that those lenses are fully compatible because they patently aren't. That's got nothing to do with it being 'dirt cheap' or who they are selling it to. Anyhoo, for what it's worth, my Android remote app fixes the problem so that it will only send the values that each particular lens has a valid matching aperture for. So if a low rent whining prick like me can resolve it then hopefully the $400M corporation can do the same at some point.

What do you mean 'update every camera lens out there' ? They just have to profile them to make sure they go to where they should go to. Tell you what, how about they compromise and just profile the ones (80% of which it will affect) they use in their advertising for the camera ? I'm not being funny but if any other camera company had an issue where they had inaccurate aperture control like this (which isn't just a cosmetic issue either) there would be an absolute shitstorm on here but weirdly, as with a few other issues, BM somehow seem to get a pass. Anyway, thanks for those with the cameras that have chimed in to confirm it on their lenses and I suppose just view it as an FYI for everyone who hasn't yet got one.

Thanks for checking. I suppose its at the wide end of the aperture that its going to have to be borne in mind as there may be a bit more there that people won't discover - as with the nifty fifty - unless they go one step further than what it is reporting as the maximum aperture. So the rule of thumb is that when you think you've reached the maximum, turn it one more step. It a bit of a reverse Nigel Tufnel from Spinal Tap really as these go to -1 rather than 11.

Thanks These are the histograms from my "two" f1.3 settings on the nifty fifty and I can definitely see from the shift that they are two distinct settings on mine at least. I know what you mean but I'm not sure its ideal that depending on which direction you approach some particular f stops will decide whether you get the "real" setting or the one that doesn't do anything, particularly if you are exposing via an external light meter? And that even that inconsistency is in itself inconsistent depending on which lens you are using. In the case of my lens above, I had a little bit extra in hand when I went down to the "second" f1.3 that I wouldn't have been aware of if I'd not gone past the first one. It also has implications for anyone trying to match more than one camera as well in that you'd have to agree that both were on the same version of the f stop. It also causes sync issues with their own app where to add to the fun you can have one setting displayed on the app and another on the camera, which again has implications for anyone such as a gimbal manufacturer making a viable remote control for it. The root of the problem is that the camera doesn't profile the lens so the interpretation by the lens of the value that they use for the aperture ends up being a bit of a crap shoot depending on whether the lens actually has a physical setting that matches it.

I'm finding what might be described as "interesting" behaviour when changing aperture values. Aside from the unusually high degree of granularity (there are 66 different positions between f1.3 and f22 for example), I'm finding that there are a number of repeats within these positions. For example, there are two f1.3s, so when you have it on f1.3 then step up to the next value it is also f1.3. This is repeated at several other positions and is the same, for me at least, on both native MFT and adapted lenses. At some positions, there is no difference in exposure (so if you move from the "first" f11 to the "second" f11 it appears the same) but worryingly that is not always the case. On a Canon nifty fifty on a speedbooster for example there is a very clear exposure difference between the two f1.3 settings. The quirkiness of it having that many steps and some repeats is something I can live with if it was consistent between lenses and was only an indication foible in terms of the repeats but its neither of those things unfortunately. I have an understanding of why it is happening based on the BM protocol and messages I'm reading back from the camera over bluetooth but I have a limited range of lenses so obviously, it would be appreciated if any of you could check behaviour of a couple of lenses and see what happens with yours and I'd be particularly interested if anyone can try it with lenses with a wider aperture than f1.3 to see if there is a similar issue there.