The £3-£4K Market

[martinmcgreal]

9 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well with firmware 1.1 it can record 4k both internally and export it also at the same time. But you can't monitor both at the same time, have to pick one or the other to look at on a external monitor.  I am not sure if the internal is 10 bit, I think 8bit?? It can do 4k Raw with the sony Raw recorder. It has 14 stops of DR, so that is pretty good. Rolling shutter is 3.8 so that is not bad. FS5 has the same sensor as the FS7. Firmware 1.1 fixed blocking issues. It is small enough stripped down to use on drones also which is nice. I think the Varaible ND filter is nearly worth it just for that feature. You can keep the same DoF no matter what the lighting.

They have 2.0 firmware out now that the ND filter density can now be adjusted automatically.  Which means automatic iris, that is huge, because it has the variable ND Filter which is magic on it's own. Shooting and recording in RAW mode are now supported. (“CBKZ-FS5RIF”, sold separately, is required)The zebra function has been enhanced, allowing you to select two types of setting. Also, the level settings can now be adjusted in 1% increments. You can now select the audio that is output in the headphones.You can now acquire and record position information when shooting using the GPS function.

I don't really see how you can beat this camera for the money. It really is a bably FS7 now without some of it's better Codecs. Well low light I guess is not it's strongest point. Not sure now with newer firmware updates. The Red MX is pretty terrible in low light. Well hell of all the videos to drag on here LoL. Have to have Vimeo Pro account like I have to see. Bahh!

I'm definitely swaying towards it. 10-bit 4K possible on a Ninja2, or? And would it be possible to have that recording out to the Ninja, whilst having an active SDI feed to say a SmallHD 502?

I currently own the 501, but I love the interface, workflow and features of the 500 series so much that I'm willing to consider the 502 for the SDI feed. Of course, alongside the external recorder and Sony LCD, this would be a 3x monitor set-up (completely overkill), but once you own one of the new SmallHD's, it's hard to ever imagine shooting without one again.

8 hours ago, mat33 said:

I think most of these cameras are capable of achieving your clean digital or a more vintage look with selection of the right glass, filters, lighting and grading to suit a specific project. I would look at each of your options for motion cadence, highlight roll-off, skin tones, DR sweetspot and see what works best for your type of projects. 

I'd completely agree. Alongside size/weight, these ultimately will be the deciding specs of which I'll make a decision from. 

Probably worth noting too, with regards to my want for a 'softer image', that shooting 2x anamorphic will help in producing this, irrespective of the camera. 

48 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Sony F3 is small and light compared to mx

MX is incredibly heavy and cumbersome when rigged. 

And it's size/weight is too big of an issue to ignore; despite how seducing the image is, and the fact some of my favourite films have been shot on the system; though the latter reason probably shouldn't come in to play, given lighting, production design and glass, combined, play a more influential part in producing such results. 

[Jimmy]

I guess it depends on the kind of productions you are running... If you have a decent sized team and already have some heavyweight tripods and gear, then size/weight isn't such an issue. If you are in a small team, it will get frustrating. Also worth remembering things like boot up time, lack of NDs etc

The £4k range is gonna bring comprimises.... The MX probably offers the best image, but you are gonna have to jump through hoops to get it.

F3 and ninja star competes on an image basis, with the exception of 4K (and 120fps, which I find poor anyway)... but is much easier to work with.

I still think the FS700 is the best option though. Maybe try and rent the combo and see how you feel about the look and motion within your own style?

[martinmcgreal]

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I guess it depends on the kind of productions you are running... If you have a decent sized team and already have some heavyweight tripods and gear, then size/weight isn't such an issue. If you are in a small team, it will get frustrating. Also worth remembering things like boot up time, lack of NDs etc

The £4k range is gonna bring comprimises.... The MX probably offers the best image, but you are gonna have to jump through hoops to get it.

F3 and ninja star competes on an image basis, with the exception of 4K (and 120fps, which I find poor anyway)... but is much easier to work with.

I still think the FS700 is the best option though. Maybe try and rent the combo and see how you feel about the look and motion within your own style?

I work for a production company, but like most companies, we rent all our gear in, for the higher end stuff anyway, so this purchase is pretty much for personal/external work to the company - though on the smaller shoots, no doubt we'd utilise something like the FS5, if I owned one .. 

While I do want a system that's fairly mobile, I probably too should be make it clear this purchase isn't 'documentary/run and gun' style motivated .. It's more a purchase for narrative work, hence image quality will perhaps be the ultimate determining factor - though I do feel a system such as the MX is a little extreme, for all scenarios, excluding studio/big crew work. 

Back to the FS5, after a little more digging across a few forums, it seems - annoyingly - that it suffers from the same colour science issues as the A7S etc. I've yet to see this in any of the footage I've viewed, but near enough every person when commenting on comparison threads, labels the FS5 colour as one of the major con's .. 

[webrunner5]

Well the problem with the Sony FS5 is it's weak Codec that is for sure, and not so hot low light ability. Like has been stated on here, no camera made yet is perfect. At least not under $10,000.00. And it appears to be the case over it!  For 1080P I don't think you can beat the Sony F3. But it is an older camera, like the Red MX.

The MX is surprisingly still future proof to this day. If as you say you don't do much Run and Gun well I think it still might be your best bet. It has a pretty great past history of really good films made with them. Weight and startup delays are the worse features. I don't mind the weight actually. Not when it adds to durability. I don't see how you can go wrong with it if you can get a full working kit for say $4,500.00 or less.  It probably has the best image quality other than the Canon C500 but it takes a lot of work to get it the way you want it over the Canon. Canon Color Science is hard to beat.

There is really not too many 4k older, cheaper cameras other than the Sony FS700. So I guess your choice is the MX, Canon C500, or the Sony FS700, or Blackmagic Ursa if you want 10bit, 4k.

This is a pretty nice list of camera specs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sensor_interchangeable-lens_video_cameras

[martinmcgreal]

Excluding Blackmagic's, the FS5 has pretty decent codec capabilities compared to it's competitors, given there's a fair few cameras in and around this price range that can only record/output 8-bit, whereas the FS5 at least has the capabilities to output 4K 10-bit, so I hardly buy the 'weak codec' as an argument for it's poor (?) color science. The C100 has weaker codecs, and yet look at the colour that can produce .. 

I'll keep looking into the FS5, as I've yet to see anything to suggest it's color science is poor, or in the same bracket as the A7S etc. - though then again, I've never shot/graded FS5 footage, so who am I to judge .. Anybody here shot/graded FS5 footage? 

The MX is the safe/fall-back option, for sure! 

[mercer]

I am nowhere near this level of skill or budget, but I find this discussion very informative and with my limited knowledge of higher end equipment, it would seem the FS5 ticks most of your boxes, if not all? I have seen some beautiful colors and footage shot with it. I know a few people on the forum own one, so you may want to check the download section to see if there is any FS5 footage on there or put up a request. Good luck. 

[martinmcgreal]

Yeah, this discussion could continue for weeks and weeks in its current form - my next move has to be either renting these cameras and forming a decision from there, or downloading/grading some ungraded footage and having a play around. 

Regardless of colour, there's something about the FS5 footage that's pulling me in - it has a texture to it, or something, that feel's a tad more organic than the clean digital image you'd expect to see out of these cameras .. I mean it isn't grainy, nor noisy, but there's something there, that's pulling me in .. 

[Jimmy]

Has anyone mentioned the Canon 1DC yet? That is around £4k new now.

I know you want 10 bit, but we are talking about compromises here.... I found it to be not as huge a compromise I always imagined, due to the 4:2:2 colour space and the very high bitrate.

The motion is really nice, due to the mjpeg codec and the look and colour is still very unique.

[Liam]

4 hours ago, Jimmy said:

Has anyone mentioned the Canon 1DC yet? That is around £4k new now.

I know you want 10 bit, but we are talking about compromises here.... I found it to be not as huge a compromise I always imagined, due to the 4:2:2 colour space and the very high bitrate.

The motion is really nice, due to the mjpeg codec and the look and colour is still very unique.

I mentioned it (not to be like "I already mentioned it, Jimmy! "), but yeah, same reasoning

[martinmcgreal]

The only true conclusion I've been able to make so far from this discussion is that the pocket camera really is a phenomenal piece of kit for the price. I'm searching in a market for systems five or six times the price of the pocket, yet have failed to find anything that is a substantial improvement upon it, with regards to either specs or usability. Essentially, all I want is a system with the pocket's specs, 4K, a more softer digital looking image (one could argue this can be achieved through choice of glass), and something that isn't ridiculous huge. Yet for an extra few thousands of pounds, this can't be found .. Extremely disappointing, as it is frustrating .. Do appreciate all the comments so far though - great that so many of you guys are contributing, despite the lack of progress in terms of a conclusion .. We'll get there! 

Regarding the 1DC - I love the image as much as I do the C100ii, but spending thousands of pounds for an image that falls apart under any substantial grading is a deal-breaker .. It hurts me to say that, since I do love the depth/colour to Canon's image, but I can't suger-coat 8-bit when there's thousands of pounds at stake .. I agree though, I have to make a compromise somewhere - I'd just father it be a spec less influential than colour bit .. 

What I do have on my side is time .. I'm in no rush to make a purchase, and who knows, come March/April when I do make the decision, there could be a system that ticks all my boxes, or a price-drop for a system that currently does. If the GH5 has impressive low-light, I'll probably just settle with that, and invest everything else in some beautiful glass .. What's the verdict on Panasonic's colour science? 

[mat33]

If only the alexa mini was £4000.....

[Laurier]

You should reconsider the ursa mini you can get a second hand one for cheaper , get faster glass or some extra light with the money saved.

A red mx won t be better in low light, and other than a F55/F65, sony colors....sucks period , panasonic is barely better outside of the varicam range.

Personally I  find external recorders to be a pain to use . More battery to carry , more potential issues , ect....

A ursa mini will be all in one .

[webrunner5]

On 12/13/2016 at 3:18 PM, martinmcgreal said:

The only true conclusion I've been able to make so far from this discussion is that the pocket camera really is a phenomenal piece of kit for the price. I'm searching in a market for systems five or six times the price of the pocket, yet have failed to find anything that is a substantial improvement upon it, with regards to either specs or usability. Essentially, all I want is a system with the pocket's specs, 4K, a more softer digital looking image (one could argue this can be achieved through choice of glass), and something that isn't ridiculous huge. Yet for an extra few thousands of pounds, this can't be found .. Extremely disappointing, as it is frustrating .. Do appreciate all the comments so far though - great that so many of you guys are contributing, despite the lack of progress in terms of a conclusion .. We'll get there! 

Regarding the 1DC - I love the image as much as I do the C100ii, but spending thousands of pounds for an image that falls apart under any substantial grading is a deal-breaker .. It hurts me to say that, since I do love the depth/colour to Canon's image, but I can't suger-coat 8-bit when there's thousands of pounds at stake .. I agree though, I have to make a compromise somewhere - I'd just father it be a spec less influential than colour bit .. 

What I do have on my side is time .. I'm in no rush to make a purchase, and who knows, come March/April when I do make the decision, there could be a system that ticks all my boxes, or a price-drop for a system that currently does. If the GH5 has impressive low-light, I'll probably just settle with that, and invest everything else in some beautiful glass .. What's the verdict on Panasonic's colour science? 

Shoot the pocket camera through a B4 ENG 1/2, 2/3 lens and it knocks down the digital look big time. And they are cheap as hell to buy also for impressive glass stats and original costs.

[martinmcgreal]

19 hours ago, Laurier said:

You should reconsider the ursa mini you can get a second hand one for cheaper , get faster glass or some extra light with the money saved.

A red mx won t be better in low light, and other than a F55/F65, sony colors....sucks period , panasonic is barely better outside of the varicam range.

Personally I  find external recorders to be a pain to use . More battery to carry , more potential issues , ect....

A ursa mini will be all in one .

It's interesting you mention this .. The Mini 4K crossed my mind yesterday when I began to look at systems again based solely on specs/usability, and price too of course, and the Mini 4K just about ticks all my boxes, well, more so than anything else in this price-range, excluding perhaps the MX .. However, after viewing images out of the Mini, I quickly remembered why I was so quick to pass upon it when during my original considerations .. The image just doesn't excite me in the slightest, and it has that 'Blackmagic' look to the image that I've grown so tired of with the pocket .. It's absolutely appalling in low-light too .. I could probably just about accept my dislike for the image if the low-light was good, since image can be influenced heavily through glass anyway, but meh, the low-light .. 

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Shoot the pocket camera through a B4 ENG 1/2, 2/3 lens and it knocks down the digital look big time. And they are cheap as hell to buy also for impressive glass stats and original costs.

It's certainly an interesting look, but I'm absolutely set on shooting anamorphic, which rules out ENG glass as a taking lens, for obvious reasons ..  

Just came across a new commercial (more so the first thirty seconds) that absolutely nails the image characteristics I'm looking to for with this next upgrade .. That soft, milky, smooth image with anamorphic characteristics https://vimeo.com/190149937

Yes, this was probably shot w/ an Alexa/RED, on some beautifully expensive glass, and lit/graded professionally - this isn't my point, I'm not talking about what makes the image cinematic .. I'm referencing the technical characteristics of the image, which render through regardless of lighting/production design (well, you know what I mean) .. 

What in this price-range can deliver these technical characteristics? Well, I stumbled across this a few moments after viewing that commercial https://vimeo.com/195660425

The answers obvious, if it wasn't already .. The MX can deliver this, effortlessly .. I'm just not sure that's still enough to convince me to purchase such an old/enormous piece of kit .. 

[mercer]

Idk, I think you could obtain that look with a 5D mk iii and ML Raw.

[webrunner5]

3 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

The answers obvious, if it wasn't already .. The MX can deliver this, effortlessly .. I'm just not sure that's still enough to convince me to purchase such an old/enormous piece of kit .. 

That Red MX, "old/enormous piece of kit" has made a lot of people some serious money, and some a lot of fame using it!

Well for the money you have to spend You are limited to just a few products that fit your criteria, and when you think about it even you had 20k there are really not too many more to add to it in reality. There really is only Canon, Red, or Sony that come close money wise, So I still think it is Sony FS5, Red MX, Canon C500 in my mind I would buy if I had YOUR money.

For what I do, I am mostly a tripod, prime lens guy. I would go with the Red MX. Probably the cheapest overall way to go if you get a good deal on a complete kit.

No one can say that Canon does not has the Color Science pretty much down. Red has probably a better cine look to it, and Raw is it's Big plus. And the Sony size and weight, and being the newest camera has a edge there also.

I am sure with say Filmconvert or Resolve you can work the Color Science into it. Although I sort of like the Red look OOC. Not going to take the weight of it away, so no Gimbal, Drone, even shoulder work will be hard to do on it.

I think it comes down to the Red slow and greater result, the Sony FS5 weaker, but a lot more agile and able to run and gun if needed. Not a lot of difference cost wise. The Canon C500 easiest to Grade especially if you do closeups of women a lot or have a lot of landscapes involved in it..

[IronFilm]

Options:

1) FS700 + Odyssey recorder

Yeah, that is kinda just it...  *BUT* keep an eye out for:

2) Kinefinity Terra 5K  (the Terra 6K is shipping already!)

3) Panasonic GH5

Or, you could consider compromising on one or more of your requirements?

Such as if you give up the need for 4K:

4) Sony PMW-F3

Or give up the need for decent low light ability:

5) URSA Mini 4K

[TheRenaissanceMan]

You could always get an F3 and an A6500. It'll still cost you less than any of these other options.

[webrunner5]

I agree, no way you can beat a Sony F3 if you don't need 4k. Although not as good of Codec, the Canon C100 now, with its sub 2k cost is sort of tempting also especially with the DP AF upgrade in one. Great run and Gun camera also. 8bit out but..

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

You could always get an F3 and an A6500. It'll still cost you less than any of these other options.

You could get TWO of *both* and still probably manage to squeak in under budget!