Spoilt by the ursa mini 4.6k , what to b cam with it?

[Jpr]

I recently picked up the ursa mini 4.6k and have been blown away by it over the last few weeks. The image is gorgeous and I haven't had any of the problems that have plagued the launch of this camera so far (touch wood ..).

The only downside is that it is really showing up my fs5. 8 bit 4K is so bland to grade compared to raw 4:1 or pro res 4444 files and with cheap ssds I've found the ursa workflow pretty good even for our first wedding with it. 

So I have a few options if you wouldn't mind hearing me about .

1) Do I keep the fs5 and keep practicing my colour grading to try and match the two up? Sony skin tones aside the images from it can look good but always feel stretched? Noise is reasonable compared to the UM 4.6k with 3200 being useable, 6400 at a push, NDs are amazing obviously.

2) Sell the fs5 for another b cam, another UM 4.6k? Feels a bit overkill but colour matching would be easier and high quality images. My concern with this is having both cameras locked at 1600 iso (which is relatively noisey as well) would mean using more lights etc which isn't always practical .

Is there anything that can match in the UM 4.6k or come close in the £3-5k price range? 

Maybe sell the fs5 and see what else comes along in the next few months? With the price increase the fs5 still has some good resale value. 

Thanks

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

1 dx mark 2, maybe? or just buy another ursa mini

[Don Kotlos]

If color grading is your only issue with FS5, then you can try the RAW upgrade.

That is if you don't mind the bulkiness of an external recorder, but at least it will get you much closer to the Raw files of BM. 

[ozmorphasis]

If you need it to be wedding gig friendly, I'm not sure what will match.  If you need a B-cam that doesn't need to be so camcorder-ish, then any of the cheaper BM cameras will match better than the Sony.  Even a bmpcc will look better (more like the 4.6 than the sony in terms of DR and color science).  However, they come with their own headaches if you've become spoiled with FS5 and Ursa handling.

 

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

BMCC? You can pop the BMPCC speed booster on it for a 1.38x crop and an effective native ISO of 3200, which should be enough for most low-light situations; you'll get 2.5k, which will give you some of the wiggle room you're used to with the 4.6K; and the menus, color science, lens mount, and workflow will be identical between it and your UM46.

Otherwise, maybe a used F3. Nice low light performance, S35, internal NDs, 10-bit 444 output, decent color, beautiful highlight roll-off, great DR, and iirc it even takes the same batteries as your FS5. The biggest downside is that it's "only" 1080p, but other than that? Not much downside.

[Geoff CB]

Nothing is going to match the Ursa Mini 4.6K unless you step up to the FS7. I think at that point you would rather have another URSA. Also, the 2.5K does NOT match the URSA, even in RAW let alone ProRes mode, and the handling is an absolute joke. 

Keep pushing the FS5 if you can. You can probably get it close. I made this for my A7R 2 to get close to "Film" mode on URSA, see if it works for you maybe on th FS5?

GFILM

Black Level: 0
Gamma: Slog2
Black Gamma
- Range: Middle
- Level: 0
Knee: Manual  (It blows my mind this is left on Auto by default, it controls how the highlights behave)
- point: 77.5%
- slope: +3
Color Mode: Pro
Saturation: +3
Color Phase: -4
Color Depth: (Wish they would let this be adjusted for highlights/midtones/blacks independently)
- R: +4
- G: -3
- B: +3
- C: +2
- M: -2
- Y: +2
Detail: -7
- Mode: Manual
- V/H Balance: 0
- B&W Balance: Type5
- Limit: 3
- Crispening: 3
- Hi-Light Detail: 0
 

Make sure to overexpose by at least a stop when using this.

[Jpr]

Thanks, I'll try the fs5 again, perhaps shooting in 10 bit hd will help. 

I would like like another ursa but the low light performance isn't good enough I think and I'd be worried if some clients prefer natural ambient light (aka fuck all light). If the fs5 doesn't match I'll try another ursa.