Which would you rather have? 1DC/5Dmkiii/A7sii/Other

[jax_rox]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

How so? Red code can be edited in realtime in any editor on a moddest laptop. 

Besides the Red workflow beeing a bit easier and faster I dont see a big difference. When shooting Red and Blackmagic side by side its equal amount of work.

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...

[Mattias Burling]

11 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

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...

Ive bought/used the BMPCC, BMCC, BMPC4K and Red One MX so Im quite familiar with their respective workflows. That's why I asked, don't find them all that different in terms of workflow.
I don't see how Prores could be considered a positive next to red compression. Same size, same speed, but the redcode is still raw.

The only thing that would slow you down on the red is the boot up, but that's just if you want it to. You can just leave it on.
Plus it doesn't take 2 minutes. It takes about 15 seconds before you have picture on the monitor and by the time you have framed, exposed and set focus its done. Then you leave it on.

F3 is of no interest to me and I couldn't care less about 4K.
Either way this thread for me was about small cameras and the URSA is not a small camera. That's why I pointed out the Red. They are both to big imo to be used Run n Gun anyway. So if its going to be locked down shots only I rather save the cash and use a Red with better lowlight and higher DR for less money. Its the first Blackmagic camera I have no interest in. Ive was more excited  by the URSA major, if its that big, might as well go all in.
But that's just me.

[hmcindie]

9 hours ago, jax_rox said:

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

I edited a red 5k shot commercial on a really shitty laptop while they were shooting it with a real quick turnaround and a bunch of vfx. I'd say that redcode is really quite easy on machines.

[Mattias Burling]

10 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

I edited a red 5k shot commercial on a really shitty laptop while they were shooting it with a real quick turnaround and a bunch of vfx. I'd say that redcode is really quite easy on machines.

I would probably kill for redcode in something like a 5Dmkiii with Magic Lantern. Not gonna happen, but boy would it be sweet.

[jax_rox]

27 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I don't see how Prores could be considered a positive next to red compression. Same size, same speed, but the redcode is still raw.

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.

27 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The only thing that would slow you down on the red is the boot up, but that's just if you want it to. You can just leave it on.
Plus it doesn't take 2 minutes. It takes about 15 seconds before you have picture on the monitor and by the time you have framed, exposed and set focus its done. Then you leave it on.

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'?

27 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Its the first Blackmagic camera I have no interest in.

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.

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

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.

Me to, but if we weren't far enough OT with the Red, we sure are now
Plus, where I live its much cheaper to shoot 35mm film than Alexa, and that would be a no brainer.

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

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.

Just hot swap. Not difficult to set up.
There is one of the best features of the BMCC imo, internal hot swap. 

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

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.

Its a general discussion on small cameras around the $3K mark. Seeing how there is now an endless amount of gear that's affordable to many, I thought it was interesting to see what people would go for.

Here are some quotes from the first post.

"If they all cost more or less the same, give or take $200 which would you rather have?
Were talking around the ever so popular $3000 line."

"I really want a DSLR or equivalent type of camera. This is for home use, youtube, stills and an occasional freelance gig (been using the D750 for that lately, they never ask for Raw, they do however like 4K sometimes when its static shots of machines/products)."

Personally I don't have a problem with Sony colors either and I have made my own LUTs that gets me the skin tones ín one step. Two steps if I want to grade. But I don't want to have to deal with that when their are, imo, better options like Raw, Redcode, BMDFilm, C-log, etc.

[IronFilm]

I think diminishing returns hits in really hard long before that $3k mark for DSLRs. 

You can get two Nikon D750 or two Sony PMW-F3 for that price! Or heck, get a D750 *and* an F3 for $3k!! :-D

Or 3x BMPCC/BMMCC. Or you could get *many* G7 bodies.

Or heck, even Sony FS700 secondhand are dropping under that price. Or near that price for a C300 mk1. Or you could get lucky and maybe find a R1 MX for near that price. 

So at the $3k price point I see the options are:

a) go waaaay cheaper, and get multiple bodies (if that is what you need) and/or invest in other areas which need it (never a shortage of that! Audio/lighting/lenses/etc)

b) go with an older professional cinema camera such as a FS700 or R1 MX or C300 mk1

c) go *BIG* by not spending the money, and instead save up for an FS7/FS5/F5/F35

d) bonus wild card option: a new JVC LS300, or new URSA Mini 4K (or used URSA Major).

Personally I fall most strongly into camp a)
But sometimes sometimes tempted by b) but only specifically by the FS700. But not yet... maybe once it gets under $2K
c) is my hope, one day! I'd love an F5, or an FS7
d) sometimes is a very mildly tempting option to consider..... but I think I'll wait for the LS300 to show up for crazy low prices secondhand first, such as $1k ish, should only take a year or two I suspect! 

[Justin Bacle]

Based on previous comments, what I learn is that no one really wants to spend 3k$ on a light camera and make compromises. 

We can either go cheaper (1-2k for used equipment of very good quality) or spend a bit more and get the full package (JVC LS300 is a very reasonable choice indeed !)

PS : Don't want to mess thing up, but how can ProRes 422 can be "better" than RedRaw ? FIles are a bit smaller but I'd even prefer to shoot AVCHD or H264 if I want small files of good enough quality.

[Mattias Burling]

13 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Personally I fall most strongly into camp a)
But sometimes sometimes tempted by b) but only specifically by the FS700. But not yet... maybe once it gets under $2K
c) is my hope, one day! I'd love an F5, or an FS7
d) sometimes is a very mildly tempting option to consider..... but I think I'll wait for the LS300 to show up for crazy low prices secondhand first, such as $1k ish, should only take a year or two I suspect! 

Im with you. You could also get 2 x A7s or 1 x D750, 1 x 5Dmkiii and a BMPCC.

Im getting the LS300 for three weeks starting today

[Justin Bacle]

3 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Im getting the LS300 for three weeks starting today

Can't wait for your review  I hope it's not that good, as I just bought an AF100 :o

[IronFilm]

20 minutes ago, Justin Bacle said:

Can't wait for your review  I hope it's not that good, as I just bought an AF100 :o

I think the JVC LS300 is the AF200 everybody has been waiting for ages and ages and ages. (hey, if the D400 dreamers can have their dreams come true....  then maybe Panasonic will finally release the AF200! But until then, there is the LS300)

3 hours ago, jax_rox said:

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...

Preach it brother! I shot a fair few days with the R1 MX as the DoP on a feature film, which lead to my conclusion to get a Sony F3 :-D A far more versatile camera overall as as an all round camera. Yes the R1 MX does win if you go head to head specifically comparing just its strengths against the F3 (raw / 4K / slow motion). But the R1 MX loses on practically every other count! 

So yes, I can understand and even agree with people who wish to claim the R1 MX is a "better" camera. But I can look at the bigger picture and prefer the F3 overall However.. if anybody wishes to offer me a free R1 MX then I wouldn't turn it down! ;-) 

[Mattias Burling]

19 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

So yes, I can understand and even agree with people who wish to claim the R1 MX is a "better" camera. But I can look at the bigger picture and prefer the F3 overall However.. if anybody wishes to offer me a free R1 MX then I wouldn't turn it down! ;-) 

I agree, its just that imo the F3 is just as impractical. I want small or big. And if it's big, it can be big. The nr1 reason I never gotten an F3 is that I might as well lug an R1 or URSA.

[hmcindie]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

a) go waaaay cheaper, and get multiple bodies (if that is what you need) and/or invest in other areas which need it (never a shortage of that! Audio/lighting/lenses/etc)

But you have to get someone to use those multiple bodies. I have three bodies now and for my own free projects it's a drag to even get one person to operate them. And even when someone operates them I usually end up with bad b-roll.

[Mattias Burling]

Just got a call from the delivery firm. The LS300 is delayed untill tomorrow. Suspect its because what the a-holes in Brussels did.

If only that had been the worst consequence of such an act. 

[jax_rox]

15 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Plus, where I live its much cheaper to shoot 35mm film than Alexa, and that would be a no brainer.

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

15 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Just hot swap. Not difficult to set up.

On a RED One?

15 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Personally I don't have a problem with Sony colors either and I have made my own LUTs that gets me the skin tones ín one step. Two steps if I want to grade. But I don't want to have to deal with that when their are, imo, better options like Raw, Redcode, BMDFilm, C-log, etc.

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.

14 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

PS : Don't want to mess thing up, but how can ProRes 422 can be "better" than RedRaw ? FIles are a bit smaller but I'd even prefer to shoot AVCHD or H264 if I want small files of good enough quality.

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.

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Preach it brother! I shot a fair few days with the R1 MX as the DoP on a feature film, which lead to my conclusion to get a Sony F3 :-D A far more versatile camera overall as as an all round camera. Yes the R1 MX does win if you go head to head specifically comparing just its strengths against the F3 (raw / 4K / slow motion). But the R1 MX loses on practically every other count! 

So yes, I can understand and even agree with people who wish to claim the R1 MX is a "better" camera. But I can look at the bigger picture and prefer the F3 overall However.. if anybody wishes to offer me a free R1 MX then I wouldn't turn it down! ;-) 

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  

14 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I agree, its just that imo the F3 is just as impractical. I want small or big. And if it's big, it can be big. The nr1 reason I never gotten an F3 is that I might as well lug an R1 or URSA.

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

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

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.

I meant with processing and scan included. Scanners are all over, I have a list of atleast 20 places for my 16mm and at least a handfull does s35mm.

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

If I could only shoot film, I would - if only we lived in a perfect world

Agreed.

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

On a RED One?

On any camera that uses external power.

[jax_rox]

1 minute ago, Mattias Burling said:

I meant with processing and scan included. Scanners are all over, I have a list of atleast 20 places for my 16mm and at least a handfull does s35mm.

If only...

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

Cheapeast local RED One that's on the market is ~$4,500, and that's body only.

You get a fully kitted Scarlet for $4000.

My R1 was $3100 with 2 PL mounts, 1 Nikon mount, 2 base plates, 2 battery plates, 2 drives, 4 CF cards, Full shoulder rig, Monitor, EVF and lots more.

And they go even cheaper now.

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

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

To big to fall in the "small" segment for me. And then it can be bigger for all I care.

5 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

If only...

Google is your friend.

[QuickHitRecord]

My friend dropped by this afternoon with his new a7Rii, so we did a quick test against my 5Diii (Magic Lantern Raw) which seems relevant to this discussion:

PW: shootout

Just as when the a7S came out, I am still happy with the image (and pleasing skintones) that I can get from my 5D3.

For those of you who take issue with my methodology, please feel free to post your own tests.

[cpc]

5 hours ago, jax_rox said:

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.

ProRes4444 is significantly larger than Red raw 3:1 for the same resolution and framerate.

In fact, ProRes4444 is larger than pretty much any lossy compressed raw codec out there, and this includes Red raw, BM lossy CinemaDNG raw, Cineform raw, etc.