Camera advice. Best image, ignore rest. $3000

[Matthew Robert Mahaffey]

a6300 for under a thousand. BlackMagic cinema Camera 2.5k under $3000 

[sam]

2 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

 Anything from this generation is 95% of the way to the F35.

that you credit the F35 as 5 percent better is interesting....But....the F35'smotion cadence and noise pattern, no jello(sorry Bill), user selectable gamma from linear to cineon based or create your own, up to 12 bit 444 uncompressed files, customization of the F35's image in almost any conceivable way including gamut all pre 14bit ad converter, easy control through a web browser, muliple simultaneous use monitor, viewfinder, and test outputs, cooke and arri lens communication,  storage of endless camera setup files including Nd filter corrections at the press of a button,  is closer to 95 percent better than the other cams. Maybe if you compare video files on youtube, the f35 is only 5 percent better. Watch a bluray  or 4k hdr disc on a 65"+ 10bit 4k oled or better of "Real Steel" or "Once upon a time in anatolia" or "Tron legacy"   back to back with current mainstream Alexa, F65 or Red films.  These F35 is easily on par.  Id love to see something from the cams you mention that compare?   

[Justin Bacle]

13 hours ago, dbp said:

Talking pure image quality, I'd say:

5D Raw

BMCC/BMPCC Raw

Digital Bolex

Nothing else in that range competes with those based on anything I've seen. Ergonomics / usability is a whole different matter. 

I would invert your list as Magic Lantern raw has nowhere near the dynamic range of Black Magic or Digital Bolex's cameras

[zerocool22]

32 minutes ago, Justin Bacle said:

I would invert your list as Magic Lantern raw has nowhere near the dynamic range of Black Magic or Digital Bolex's cameras

I thought so too. But I did a side by side from my 5D III RAW and my bmcc 2.5K and I found that the 5D III preserved more data in its highlights. (the BMCC probably more in its blacks). But after some tests I decided to keep my 5D and sell off the BMCC. Cause I just liked the look more then the look from my bmcc. But thats is just my opinion.

[hyalinejim]

Just chiming in to also stand up for 5Diii RAW. It can be very easy and fast to work with in post, once you master one of many possible workflows which are differently quick / slow and simple / laborious.

I use it professionally every day. 

Image quality downsides: there is very slight aliasing, its 1080p is not as clear as a downsampled 1080p, dynamic range is "only" 11.5 stops.

[Justin Bacle]

4 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I thought so too. But I did a side by side from my 5D III RAW and my bmcc 2.5K and I found that the 5D III preserved more data in its highlights. (the BMCC probably more in its blacks). But after some tests I decided to keep my 5D and sell off the BMCC. Cause I just liked the look more then the look from my bmcc. But thats is just my opinion.

Very interesting. I guess the color you got from the 5dmk3 was just worth it  
Because, DR, Resolution and Workflow seems better with the BMCC. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

3 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Just chiming in to also stand up for 5Diii RAW. It can be very easy and fast to work with in post, once you master one of many possible workflows which are differently quick / slow and simple / laborious.

I use it professionally every day. 

Image quality downsides: there is very slight aliasing, its 1080p is not as clear as a downsampled 1080p, dynamic range is "only" 11.5 stops.

I am using the 50D, which has 11 stops of range (in low ISO). It is "enough" for most applications, but I would gladly have a couple stops more
Did you try the Dual-ISO raw movie mode ? People claim you can get 13 stops of DR on the 5dmk3 with dual-iso.

[hyalinejim]

I've never really been interested in Dual ISO because of the aliasing and moire.

[Dan Wake]

wait more until you can buy used sony fs5

or try blackmagic

if you need t use it on gimbal get one with auto focus tracking. or get a wireless follow focus for focus puller.

 

 

[hmcindie]

16 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

The image is very nice. But the workflow is unacceptable for most professional or serious use.

Oh? I guess I need to stop using it professionally then. What is unacceptable about the workflow?

8 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

I would invert your list as Magic Lantern raw has nowhere near the dynamic range of Black Magic or Digital Bolex's cameras

It is if you take into account lowlight. 5d RAW takes over in dynamic range after going over iso 400.

[dbp]

8 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

I would invert your list as Magic Lantern raw has nowhere near the dynamic range of Black Magic or Digital Bolex's cameras

Didn't intend on it being in a specific order, but I will say that the 5D raw stuff I've seen definitely seems to win for color. 

[hyalinejim]

So much love for the 5D3.

If they ever get the preview fixed for crop mode 10bit (which enables 2.8k 24p continuous recording with a 2x sensor crop), I don't think I'll buy a camera for another 10 years.

Being able to whack out a perfectly sharp 2k DCP from a 444 10bit source with beautiful colour is all I need.

[HockeyFan12]

15 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I don't think they are a pain to work with at all. The D16 fo example is the least painful professional cinema camera I can think of.

The 1DC however was a real pain imo and the 5D was cheaper, easier to work and has imo a better image.

Never had any fpn issues with the bmpc4k.

The Reds only real flaw is the weight. But Im not weak.

The red also has (had) poor color rendering, burned in magenta highlights, very bad noise and color and low light performance under tungsten, 90 second boot time, not just poor weight but poor ergonomics, and was for a while very unreliable. The 720p signal I also found insufficient for pulling focus, but it sounds like they've fixed that. That said, there is a history of great imagery coming from that camera from people who lit well and treated it extensively in post. It does have a pretty "thick" tonality after some noise reduction and when lit aggressively. The Dragon, for instance, has a beautiful image when exposed at 200 ISO and prevented from clipping. 

The 1DC/5D thing is a matter of opinion. I can respect that of course. The 11.5 stops comment is appropriate, the 5D RAW really is in a pretty high echelon in terms of everything and is only limited by DR but still to a figure far surpassing most in its class. Too bad it's a pain in the ass to work with when your client wants playback or you're trying to run multiple video feeds or you only have one take and want to make sure it hasn't screwed something up. Maybe the newer hack is more bulletproof. If time isn't money, it is a good option. But a corrupted file or out of focus file is another very real form of poor image quality.

On the other hand, I have had very bad noise problems with the BMPC4K but different cameras have been different (some worse than others). Either way it has 8-9 stops of DR and is very noisy but otherwise the image is quite good I agree. If you can control your light very carefully it and the digital bolex are good. But the 2.5k seems to have superior DR to others in its class. Just my opinion based on observation, the 2.5k is the only camera I'd put in the same class as the 1DC/5D RAW but with caveats (aliasing, small sensor size, qc issues, ergonomics).

1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

Oh? I guess I need to stop using it professionally then. What is unacceptable about the workflow?

It is if you take into account lowlight. 5d RAW takes over in dynamic range after going over iso 400.

You don't. I shot a promo and portion of a feature for NBC on the 5D RAW and would continue to use it if I kept it. But when your client asks for playback on set or you only have one take of something (such as interviewing a famous actor, etc.) it can be problematic. I also find the post workflow very slow. The A7S, GH4, and 5D RAW have all proved too unreliable for me when time is money but they are excellent when it isn't. The Alexa and CX00 are the only cameras I worked with which haven't gone down under reasonable conditions (though I've seen both go down). Then again, I'm also working with clients that are too big but also too small to demand 4k. (Mostly network tv, ads, etc. Only Netflix can afford 4k.)

Just curious–what kind of content and at what budget level are you working? I wouldn't bring it to a 250k/day set, but I might bring it as a b camera there for non-essential b roll. Personally I wouldn't use it as an a camera on anything but I suppose if you have the workflow to support it more power to you!

It is a bit soft still, but really not bad.

I'm not interested in arguing about what works for you or doesn't, just providing a different opinion on what has worked for me. Hopefully the OP can see what use cases are closest to his own and make an appropriate choice. Obviously if you are happy with what you have then it is the best for you, I wish I had the same experiences but have not. The best option is to rent and run tests of course.

[Amook]

What about a sony f3 with external recorder? I've been experimenting with mine a lot lately and the image is really nice, great color and dynamic range. The 10bit pro res files are very easy to work with. It also has good audio and internal ND filters. 

[HockeyFan12]

2 minutes ago, Amook said:

What about a sony f3 with external recorder? I've been experimenting with mine a lot lately and the image is really nice, great color and dynamic range. The 10bit pro res files are very easy to work with. It also has good audio and internal ND filters. 

I found it to be superior technically to the Epic MX when shooting both side by side with the same lenses. Better DR and less low light noise, truer color, no magenta highlights, same resolution once downscaled to 1080p and not too far apart in the first place (4k with heavy anti-aliasing vs 2.8k or something). However, the Epic has a "thicker" quality to it that is more cinematic when treated appropriately.

It and the FS100 are really solid for the money. A lot of crews shooting network promos are using these I believe. 

[Amook]

Just now, HockeyFan12 said:

I found it to be superior technically to the Epic MX when shooting both side by side with the same lenses. Better DR and less low light noise, truer color, no magenta highlights. However, the Epic has a "thicker" quality to it that is more cinematic when treated appropriately.

It and the FS100 are really solid for the money. A lot of crews shooting network promos are using these I believe. 

How much does a used Epic MX sell for though?  Still around 10k? Some day I'd like to try one out. 

[HockeyFan12]

I thought they were down to a lot less now. I think you'd be surprised how much the MX has aged. It was good for its time and put Red on the map (the original sensor was too slow/noisy to be useable and was unusable with tungsten light using the old processing) but the DR is no better than your F3 and you need substantially more light to get a clean image. Alexas are down to around $17k for a kit and are in another league entirely from any Red. You can rent Epics here for a couple hundred bucks a day so I'd just do that rather than buying one but it depends on your market. Depending on what you're after you might love it but also might not. With some work it can produce an awesome image. 

[Amook]

The original Red One MX's are cheap, kits for the 3k to 5k range but Epic MX's are still out of the 3k range. 

[hijodeibn]

20 minutes ago, Amook said:

The original Red One MX's are cheap, kits for the 3k to 5k range but Epic MX's are still out of the 3k range. 

Red One Mx is a great camera and very cheap these days, the main issue is that it is too bulky, so it will depend on your needs, if you are just planing to use it in a tripod could be a good alternative, and in your price range, if you also wanted it for run & gun, forget it…..and go for something else.

[fuzzynormal]

10 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Just chiming in to also stand up for 5Diii RAW. It can be very easy and fast to work with in post, once you master one of many possible workflows which are differently quick / slow and simple / laborious.

I use it professionally every day. 

Image quality downsides: there is very slight aliasing, its 1080p is not as clear as a downsampled 1080p, dynamic range is "only" 11.5 stops.

I'd love a URL link to a video outlining useful workflows so I could get a better handle on it.  Maybe the path I'm on is the wrong one. 

Also, perhaps it's because I'm shooting docs, that dissuades my embrace of the RAW workflow.  When the shooting ratios of the footage to final cut are so high, the process of manually "touching" every single clip to get them into the project is just too impractical.

Based on how I've been understanding it, the "quick" RAW workflow doesn't deliver a big advantage IQ wise, and the "slow and simple" / "laborious" option are out for reasons stated.

But, please, if anyone has an example of a RAW solution that would jibe with doc shooting, my goodness, I'd love to see a video.  Thanks! 

[Ed_David]

I owned a f3, red one, f35 - 

don't own any of them now.

F3 = lacking in resolution

f35 = a lot of noise, in essence, a 400 ASA camera.  Having a 800 ASA camera is great

Red One - nice 800 asa image - 2 minute boot up time really kills trying to get a shot

Digital Bolex - I rate this guy at 200 ASA - even harder to get a good image

BMPCC - I like this little guy

Canon 1DC - looks cool to me, never used

BMCC - nice camera