The £3-£4K Market

[zerocool22]

yeah the 5DIII RAW is awesome(I preferred it to my C300 cause the LCD screen on the C300 sucks, bokeh and colorwise ) but is not 4K and it lacks a bit of detail and sharpness, not the mention the timeabsorbing workflow. 

[Kristoferman]

6 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

If I'm willing to drop my resolution requirements to 2K, which I'm sensing I may indeed have to, then the F3 is the best bang for buck, no question. But I want to exhaust the 4K market first .. 

Whilst the motion cadence on the Bolex is incredibly cinematic, the cameras image isn't that dissimilar to the pocket's, with that 35mm film look; the exact look I'm hoping to move away from with this upgrade. As previously stated, I'm looking for a more softer, cleaner, and smoother looking image, more digital/alike to the Alexa/RED's, than 35mm film .. 

Ha! Yes, essentially .. Something which can challenge the MX's cinematic qualities, but that's far more user friendly. I'll probably opt with an MX if I can find one with low hours on the clock, and then to avoid additional weight, just keep it as stripped down as possible.

The KineMini 4K is an interesting one .. Ticks every single box as stated, but its difficult finding decently graded footage of this thing online - making you question whether that's a user error or the cameras colour science. I assume the former, but I'd like to see the some solid cinematic evidence that thing system is as good as it looks on paper ..  

Still pee'd off about forgetting the C100ii/300 can only output 8-bit. With the F3, it's probably the closest system on the market to delivering the 'image' I'm looking for .. If I hold out until NAB, I can probably look closer to the £6K market, but worth noting I also want to invest up to £2,000 in some new glass, so probably wise I keep looking in the current price-range for a system .. 

So, as of now, it's either the MX or F3, or the GH5, granted it's vastly better in low-light than the GH4, which I sense it may not be. Is there anything else I've missed? Like I say, willing to drop my demands for 4K if needs be, which should open up a few other options? 

I've never thought kinemini footage had bad color.

 

 

[Jimmy]

I wonder if some of your opinions are being formed by the lens in front of the camera?

You like the softened look of the red one.... but that footage is far more likely to have a nice lens on it compared to the footage from cheaper cams

[mat33]

11 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

"Good solid lowlight" was part of his list, and the Digital Bolex is an ISO 800 camera at most. It also isn't 4K. So it only ticks 3 of 5 boxes.

Sure the D16 is not an A7S or C100 in low light, but if its being used for narrative as per the original post with presumably some control over lighting then the D16 is more than capable. I also think that while the BMPCC is also RAW and has a similar sized sensor, the D16 has quite a different mojo. If you want a 'soft, clean, smooth cinematic feel' straight from the sensor then it should be on your list.

 

[Liam]

As long as you're looking at making compromises, a 1dc could be pretty cool

[martinmcgreal]

10 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

Sorry for the delay - here's that 'filmic' FS700 stuff.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-325537.html

A couple that I thought were stand-out were 

- not even done with a recorder, just OOC AVCHD.

And:

Which is raw with an Odyssey.

Nice examples. Neither scream 'cinematic' though. The more FS700 footage I see, the more it looks like a solid documentary camera - just my two cents. 

9 hours ago, Cinegain said:

5DmkIII ML RAW? Not exactly a cinema camera or ticking the boxes. But Andrii's stuff for example I just really like...

It seems to compliment your appreciation for what Canon's doing and that 'soft, clean, smooth cinematic feel to the image' in combination with the bitdepth you're after. Trading in some specs on paper for pleasant results.

It's a contender, and as you say, leans towards the image I'm after, but a move back to a 'photography' camera with a third party workflow doesn't excite me in the slightest. I have the finances to purchase a dedicated cinema camera, so ..

5 hours ago, Kristoferman said:

I've never thought kinemini footage had bad color.

I never said it did have bad colour. I just questioned its colour from the examples I've seen - and both the examples you've posted leave me with the same opinion. The second example especially. More convinced it's user error though ..

3 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I wonder if some of your opinions are being formed by the lens in front of the camera?

You like the softened look of the red one.... but that footage is far more likely to have a nice lens on it compared to the footage from cheaper cams

I hear you. I said in an earlier post I appreciate this 'look' I'm after is partly influenced through choice of glass too .. I've actually rooted extensively for RED footage shot on cheaper glass, for a balanced perspective, and the perspective of what I'd find myself in, if I were to opt with one .. And yes, the results are still impressive from what I've seen, and fitting to my taste .. I hear you though - there's more finer examples of the MX around because its more often than not in the hands of a professional in a professional environment .. 

2 hours ago, mat33 said:

Sure the D16 is not an A7S or C100 in low light, but if its being used for narrative as per the original post with presumably some control over lighting then the D16 is more than capable. I also think that while the BMPCC is also RAW and has a similar sized sensor, the D16 has quite a different mojo. If you want a 'soft, clean, smooth cinematic feel' straight from the sensor then it should be on your list.

 

The example you posted is delicious. But I'd still argue it looks more like 35mm film, than soft, clean smooth digital .. Regardless, it looks beautiful - just not my cup of tea sadly ..

2 hours ago, Liam said:

As long as you're looking at making compromises, a 1dc could be pretty cool

Sure, but compromising on 10-bit colour is perhaps the hardest compromise of all ..

-

I apologise for the direction this thread is heading - in that I just seem to be batting away every suggestion that's thrown at me .. If it wasn't already apparent, it's more so now, that there's probably nothing in this price-range that both ticks every box in my original post, and delivers this 'image' I'm after .. Indeed, if one wants an image similar to that of the Alexa/RED, then one probably needs to shoot on such systems. 

The MX is the safe option, but I do worry once the honeymoon period is over, it will just sit on a shelve for months un-used due to its drawbacks. I was all set on the C100ii yesterday evening, until I suddenly remembered it doesn't output 10-bit colour - such a deal-breaker, given the image really is right on the money for what I want - i.e https://vimeo.com/121686580

It's been years since I graded 8-bit colour .. Does it really fall apart as much as I remember? If anybody could shoot me over some ungraded ProRes from the C100ii/Ninja, I'd love to have a play around, to really form a fresh opinion .. (Setting myself up for disappointment here, I sense) 

Cheers

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

An example of clean, sharp, smooth footage with nice colors, and a test between the F3, C300, and Epic. Even with a generation newer sensor than the MX, you can see that the RED can't compete with the F3 for exposure latitude; in fact, the F3 is the only camera in the test that holds up at +3 overexposure. The Canon and Sony both do fairly well with underexposure, although the F3 comes out with a less noise and softness once corrected. The Epic, on the other hand, goes crazy with blue channel noise and loses color information very quickly.

The MX can't touch the F3's low light performance, and falls far short of its 13.5 stops of dynamic range. With an external recorder, you get 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes, which is a robust codec that flows like butter in the edit. The Sony is also less power hungry, lighter, and much faster to operate. Sony even makes their own SxS -> SD card adapters, making media costs a non-issue.

For almost a third the price of an MX, the Sony would be my pick every time. Hands down.

EDIT: I almost forgot to mention: that Convergence video was the launch film for the F3, and came out before the camera got the S-LOG upgrade, meaning you'll get even more DR than what you see in the film. Pretty impressive!

[gatopardo]

JVC LS300

[webrunner5]

14 hours ago, gatopardo said:

JVC LS300

JVC LS300 is 8bit output also.  Wouldn't a used Sony FS5 with the latest firmware tick all the boxes also?  You can strip it down and use it on a Gimbal, use it shoulder mounted, a lot more versatility. And with FilmConvert you can make it look like any camera you want.

Also the Red MX or Sony F3. Red is far from a run and gun camera for sure. Not that the F3 is a lot better. It is just the Sony F3 is so damn cheap for what you get. Unless you buy a Whole Red MX kit form someone I think I would pass. Bits and pieces for them are crazy expensive to add on.

But the 4k on the Red is sort of future proofing itself more so than the F3. If had 6k I guess I would have to go with the Red MX or Sony FS5.

I am not too big fan of the Sony FS700,  Now if you need Slo Mo it IS the camera to buy. But it does tick all the boxes you want. Probably the best one trick pony available for the price. Not much it can't shoot. I have seen the 4k model for 4k lately. That is a bargain for what they can do.

And to add a Canon EOS C500 4K Cinema Camera. They pop up at 5k once in awhile. B&H has them for 7k new. Older science but wow what a great look.

http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-red-epic-vs-canon-c500/

Wow no easy choices.

[webrunner5]

One more link to talk you into the C500 LoL. http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-canon-c500-vs-film-camera-test/

[Jimmy]

Wildcard.... what about the Sony f35? not sure if they have reached £4k levels yet. 

What an image though!

[martinmcgreal]

On 12/10/2016 at 1:55 AM, TheRenaissanceMan said:

An example of clean, sharp, smooth footage with nice colors, and a test between the F3, C300, and Epic. Even with a generation newer sensor than the MX, you can see that the RED can't compete with the F3 for exposure latitude; in fact, the F3 is the only camera in the test that holds up at +3 overexposure. The Canon and Sony both do fairly well with underexposure, although the F3 comes out with a less noise and softness once corrected. The Epic, on the other hand, goes crazy with blue channel noise and loses color information very quickly.

The MX can't touch the F3's low light performance, and falls far short of its 13.5 stops of dynamic range. With an external recorder, you get 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes, which is a robust codec that flows like butter in the edit. The Sony is also less power hungry, lighter, and much faster to operate. Sony even makes their own SxS -> SD card adapters, making media costs a non-issue.

For almost a third the price of an MX, the Sony would be my pick every time. Hands down.

EDIT: I almost forgot to mention: that Convergence video was the launch film for the F3, and came out before the camera got the S-LOG upgrade, meaning you'll get even more DR than what you see in the film. Pretty impressive!

I've spent the past few weeks doing a fair bit of digging for F3 footage, and it is an incredible camera, even more so now given with the price-drop.

It's a tricky situation however, since I'm looking at this way - If I'm going to invest in a 5+ year old system, that isn't exactly small nor light, then I may aswell just opt with the MX, given it's future proof with 4K. The more F3 footage I see however, the more I remember the price, and the harder it becomes to ignore such a deal .. 

16 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

JVC LS300 is 8bit output also.  Wouldn't a used Sony FS5 with the latest firmware tick all the boxes also?  You can strip it down and use it on a Gimbal, use it shoulder mounted, a lot more versatility. And with FilmConvert you can make it look like any camera you want.

Also the Red MX or Sony F3. Red is far from a run and gun camera for sure. Not that the F3 is a lot better. It is just the Sony F3 is so damn cheap for what you get. Unless you buy a Whole Red MX kit form someone I think I would pass. Bits and pieces for them are crazy expensive to add on.

But the 4k on the Red is sort of future proofing itself more so than the F3. If had 6k I guess I would have to go with the Red MX or Sony FS5.

I am not too big fan of the Sony FS700,  Now if you need Slo Mo it IS the camera to buy. But it does tick all the boxes you want. Probably the best one trick pony available for the price. Not much it can't shoot. I have seen the 4k model for 4k lately. That is a bargain for what they can do.

And to add a Canon EOS C500 4K Cinema Camera. They pop up at 5k once in awhile. B&H has them for 7k new. Older science but wow what a great look.

http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-red-epic-vs-canon-c500/

Wow no easy choices.

How much does a 'used' FS5 sell for, roughly, with the basic kit requirements, excluding glass?

12 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Wildcard.... what about the Sony f35? not sure if they have reached £4k levels yet. 

What an image though!

Yeah, sadly they haven't .. No brainer, otherwise! 

[webrunner5]

Well it seems you can buy a new one cheaper than used after a Quick search. B&H have them for $5749.00 US new. I have seen them used in the high 4,000.00 US Dollar range with a few accessories like extra batteries, top cheese plate etc.. They are a pretty great camera. 4k internal etc. And they are amazingly small stripped down. Fit in the palm of your hand, but are a powerhouse in reality.

A Sony FS5, FS7 right now I think are the best thing going for the money. Canon C300 mkII is nice but close to 9 grand. Both out of my range. FS7 out of yours. I don't know what to tell you. There is the Black Magic Mini Ursa 4.6k in that range also. Not a real workhorse yet, but a few firmware updates and I think it might be hard to beat for the money. Poor mans Red for sure.

The new Canon C100 mkII is very hard to beat, but it has 8 bit only which you don't like. But color science wise, focus wise, small size wise I think it is hard to resist. And it is fairly cheap. If the Canon C500 had DP auto focus oh my God. But they have NO autofocus at all.   

I don't know if you Really don't Need 4k, but if not I would go with the Sony F3 and buy some damn good cine lenses for it. You can always use the lenses on another camera down the road. They are more future proof than any camera and add more to the look of a film than most people believe. They are expensive for a reason. F3's aren't called a mini Arri for no reason. Even the ones with the RGB 444 can be bought for 2,000 bucks on ebay US dollar. I have seen them for 1,400 lately at times. Crazy cheap for a camera that was $16,000.00 4 to 5 years ago new. Now not as bad of drop in price as you can buy a Sony F65 now a days. They were a 1/4 million dollars new. 10 grand can buy one now.

[martinmcgreal]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well it seems you can buy a new one cheaper than used after a Quick search. B&H have them for $5749.00 US new. I have seen them used in the high 4,000.00 US Dollar range with a few accessories like extra batteries, top cheese plate etc.. They are a pretty great camera. 4k internal etc. And they are amazingly small stripped down. Fit in the palm of your hand, but are a powerhouse in reality.

A Sony FS5, FS7 right now I think are the best thing going for the money. Canon C300 mkII is nice but close to 9 grand. Both out of my range. FS7 out of yours. I don't know what to tell you. There is the Black Magic Mini Ursa 4.6k in that range also. Not a real workhorse yet, but a few firmware updates and I think it might be hard to beat for the money. Poor mans Red for sure.

The new Canon C100 mkII is very hard to beat, but it has 8 bit only which you don't like. But color science wise, focus wise, small size wise I think it is hard to resist. And it is fairly cheap. If the Canon C500 had DP auto focus oh my God. But they have NO autofocus at all.   

I don't know if you Really don't Need 4k, but if not I would go with the Sony F3 and buy some damn good cine lenses for it. You can always use the lenses on another camera down the road. They are more future proof than any camera and add more to the look of a film than most people believe. They are expensive for a reason. F3's aren't called a mini Arri for no reason. Even the ones with the RGB 444 can be bought for 2,000 bucks on ebay US dollar. I have seen them for 1,400 lately at times. Crazy cheap for a camera that was $16,000.00 4 to 5 years ago new. Now not as bad of drop in price as you can buy a Sony F65 now a days. They were a 1/4 million dollars new. 10 grand can buy one now.

I'm really liking the look of the FS5 from both it's specs/accessibility, and of course, footage too .. No internal 4K 10-bit though .. Quite possibly a deal-breaker, given I want to stick to my SmallHD 501 as the external monitor ..

How's it compare to the MX in terms of dynamic range, low-light, motion etc.?

[webrunner5]

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!

 

 

[mat33]

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. 

  

[webrunner5]

5 minutes 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. 

  

What camera is that shot on??

[mat33]

2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

What camera is that shot on??

Digital Bolex D16

[webrunner5]

3 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

I'm really liking the look of the FS5 from both it's specs/accessibility, and of course, footage too .. No internal 4K 10-bit though .. Quite possibly a deal-breaker, given I want to stick to my SmallHD 501 as the external monitor ..

How's it compare to the MX in terms of dynamic range, low-light, motion etc.?

I see Adorama has a used Sony FS7 for $6,799.00. They do 4k 10bit internal. Pretty much same DR and Rolling Shutter as FS5, but do not have the Variable ND thingy. The new FS7 mkII does have it. And are damn good in low light. I am trying to spend your money LoL. 

[Jimmy]

12 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

If I'm going to invest in a 5+ year old system, that isn't exactly small nor light, then I may aswell just opt with the MX, given it's future proof with 4K.

Sony F3 is small and light compared to mx

MX is incredibly heavy and cumbersome when rigged.