Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[Trek of Joy]

11 hours ago, jonpais said:

sure, anything's possible.

I'll see your eggs on a motorbike and raise you fridge's on a pedal bike. Love India...

[tyger11]

3 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Not true. He uses most of the time AF, especially when on gimbal.

the case of Brandon is more a proof that AF is amazing for video, than the contrary.

I've seen him comment on a 'making of' video somewhere where he specifically said he doesn't use AF, so I don't know what else to say.

[Emanuel]

4 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

I had a it for a while when I had a GH4. It's definitely crappy. 

I don't know that lens for such gross statement... But, for the goodness sake of it, can you point me any example where you may substantially testify that one?

To each focal length, glass behaves distinctly as usually happens. Different strokes for different folks is more the norm, isn't it? Or no colors in a plain B&W world, is that your shot? You know, I think we should all be eagering to hear from each other. Better facts than mere opinions though ;-)

[Damphousse]

59 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I don't know that lens for such gross statement... But, for the goodness sake of it, can you point me any example where you may substantially testify that one?

To each focal length, glass behaves distinctly as usually happens. Different strokes for different folks is more the norm, isn't it? Or no colors in a plain B&W world, is that your shot? You know, I think we should all be eagering to hear from each other. Better facts than mere opinions though ;-)

Well it is objectively an extremely slow lens.  f/5.6 on the "long" end.  I can't think of any legendary f/3.5-5.6 lenses.  If you are looking for low light or shallow depth of field this isn't the lens for you.  And considering the in camera processing that Panasonic assumes with many of their lenses performance is sure to suffer on a Blackmagic camera that doesn't do that processing.

I have the cheaper longer version of that lens.  I only used it a couple of times before I bought a speedbooster and used my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  I don't know about the version he linked to but reviews I've seen recommend using smaller apertures for consistent sharpness with heaps of praise at f/8 for my version.   So f/8 on m43.  Say bye to low light and shallow DOF.  I've hung onto my so I could theoretically use it as a walk around lens.  I guess I will do some landscape stuff with it with the BMPCC 4k while I figure out my lens strategy.

[John Jay]

On 18/04/2018 at 11:01 PM, jonpais said:

Having reliable AF-C is indispensible for gimbal work.

AF can cause many spoiled gimbal shots, even canon DPAF can mess up your shot at just the crucial moment.

You can pre focus and maintain subject distance and get great shots, even with shallow DOF. 

If you need more leeway, stop down a bit.

 

[Emanuel]

33 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

Well it is objectively an extremely slow lens.  f/5.6 on the "long" end.  I can't think of any legendary f/3.5-5.6 lenses.  If you are looking for low light or shallow depth of field this isn't the lens for you.  And considering the in camera processing that Panasonic assumes with many of their lenses performance is sure to suffer on a Blackmagic camera that doesn't do that processing.

I have the cheaper longer version of that lens.  I only used it a couple of times before I bought a speedbooster and used my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  I don't know about the version he linked to but reviews I've seen recommend using smaller apertures for consistent sharpness with heaps of praise at f/8 for my version.   So f/8 on m43.  Say bye to low light and shallow DOF.  I've hung onto my so I could theoretically use it as a walk around lens.  I guess I will do some landscape stuff with it with the BMPCC 4k while I figure out my lens strategy.

Yes, I also know "the cheaper longer version of that lens" aka usual Panasonic kit lens. No need to be legendary but also far to be crappy, as well : ) Low light and shallow DOF don't necessarily need to be photographic paramount either, even though shallow DOF is possible to achieve following the right instructions. Fast apertures obviously help but, it is not the only way to find it :-)

[mercer]

21 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818962-REG/Panasonic_H_PS14042S_Lumix_G_X_Vario.html

 

This crappy lens would actually be good for incognito shooting without a permit with the Pocket 4K. OIS and wide to telephoto in a pancake. Can be had cheap on ebay. 

This was the OG OIS Pocket lens some people recommended due to its power zoom through LANC. I never owned the lens but I’ve seen some videos of it on a BMPCC and it seemed pretty sharp. 

[TwoScoops]

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

I don't know that lens for such gross statement... But, for the goodness sake of it, can you point me any example where you may substantially testify that one?

 

 

Did you design this lens? You seem to be so upset by someone calling it crappy. Maybe go for a walk. 

[Axel]

On the lens debate - 'crappy', 'different strokes for different folks', 'opinion vs facts':

There are a lot of optically superb native M43 lenses. For example the Olympus 12mm f2.0 (Zuiko Digital or so). Had better reviews than SLRM 12mm f1.6 (less distortion, sharper at wide open, less lens flare). 

But was not a manual lens. And (my opinion) you should prefer a lens with a good and big focus ring. A 12mm was a 35mm equivalent on the old Pocket, the 'reporter wide'. Now a 16mm (Sigma 16mm f1.4) would be a 30mm. 420 €. Easy choice.

I own the 18-35mm Sigma (once for Nikon, now Canon, swore to never sell it again). Had it with the Pocket MB speedbooster then, made it a 30-58 @ f1.0 (!!!). Practically never changed the lens from then on.

Speed booster Viltrox is just 160 €, will make it effectively a 24-47 @ f1.3:

Easy choice.

Don't need to go wider, but obviously need a longer lens. Adapter without speedbooster? Didn't look into that, but why not? 

 

Opinion on adapted vintage lenses: good, but you need to become an expert. Don't expect good old lenses to be bargains anymore. People became smart.

Opinion on slow lenses: no. Anything below 2.8 should be considered 'crap' for this kind of camera. This is no Sony.

[jonpais]

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, I also know "the cheaper longer version of that lens" aka usual Panasonic kit lens. No need to be legendary but also far to be crappy, as well : ) Low light and shallow DOF don't necessarily need to be photographic paramount either, even though shallow DOF is possible to achieve following the right instructions. Fast apertures obviously help but, it is not the only way to find it :-)

Shallow depth of field and working in low light are paramount for me. And f/5.6 at the long end just isn't going to cut it. Pleasing bokeh is not something this lens is going to excel at. You've only got one stop to work with here - stop down any further and the effects of diffraction are already setting in. This is a point-and-shoot lens for pocket cameras, not a serious filmmaking tool. It is restricted to situations where there is a lot of light. I could not have used this lens on any of my shoots without bumping up the the ISO to astronomical levels. 

Quote

shallow DOF is possible to achieve following the right instructions.

Hardly.

[Samin]

2 hours ago, Axel said:

On the lens debate - 'crappy', 'different strokes for different folks', 'opinion vs facts':

There are a lot of optically superb native M43 lenses. For example the Olympus 12mm f2.0 (Zuiko Digital or so). Had better reviews than SLRM 12mm f1.6 (less distortion, sharper at wide open, less lens flare). 

But was not a manual lens. And (my opinion) you should prefer a lens with a good and big focus ring. A 12mm was a 35mm equivalent on the old Pocket, the 'reporter wide'. Now a 16mm (Sigma 16mm f1.4) would be a 30mm. 420 €. Easy choice.

I own the 18-35mm Sigma (once for Nikon, now Canon, swore to never sell it again). Had it with the Pocket MB speedbooster then, made it a 30-58 @ f1.0 (!!!). Practically never changed the lens from then on.

Speed booster Viltrox is just 160 €, will make it effectively a 24-47 @ f1.3:

Easy choice.

Don't need to go wider, but obviously need a longer lens. Adapter without speedbooster? Didn't look into that, but why not? 

 

Opinion on adapted vintage lenses: good, but you need to become an expert. Don't expect good old lenses to be bargains anymore. People became smart.

Opinion on slow lenses: no. Anything below 2.8 should be considered 'crap' for this kind of camera. This is no Sony.

2

I wonder if this Viltrox Speed booster would work on BMPCC4K as well. Or we should wait for different version!

[Anaconda_]

36 minutes ago, Samin said:

I wonder if this Viltrox Speed booster would work on BMPCC4K as well. Or we should wait for different version!

I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember one of the BM reps at NAB said the 0.71x Metabones will work on the P4K. Which leads me to believe the Viltrox will as well, since in theory at least, it will give you the same result as the Metabones one. (Quality may differ, but effect on field of view etc. lens should be the same)

I'll try and find that video of the rep if I can.

[Axel]

What works with GH5S probably also works with P4k.

[Emanuel]

7 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

 

Did you design this lens? You seem to be so upset by someone calling it crappy. Maybe go for a walk. 

No Chris, not my craft. I am not upset as I could tell you answering your friendly PM. As written, no worries. I also think I can disclose a bit the content of your message which clearly hints you've actually recommended that same lens, so not exactly a divergence unites us on that one : ) My point is to clear up the topic, no other : ) I am usually one of the jokers over here so why shouldn't I be second your mood there, isn't it? : D We come to these boards for making friends among the members not to fight on topics, no matter we may diverge or not (E :-)

[DBounce]

After watching some video from this camera I wonder if any of the promised features will be dropped? 

That video looked mighty jerky. Granted, it was off the prototype model, and we do not know the data rate of the card that was used. But I would not be surprised to learn that some features will be cut.

BMD didn’t want to go on the record about quite a bit when I was there. Which actually concerned me, as most everyone else I spoke to was willing to.

[TwoScoops]

2 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

No Chris, not my craft. I am not upset as I could tell you answering your PM. As written, no worries. I also think I can disclose a bit the content of your message which clearly hints you've actually recommended that same lens, so not exactly a divergence unites us on that one : ) My point is to clear up the topic, no other : ) I am usually one of the jokers over here so why shouldn't I be second your mood there, isn't it? : D We come to these boards for making friends among the members not to fight on topics, no matter we may diverge or not (E :-)

Like we said, sometimes the wires get crossed in text communication. 

The crappy comment was actually mainly in reference to the servo zoom/focus. 

[Emanuel]

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

Shallow depth of field and working in low light are paramount for me. And f/5.6 at the long end just isn't going to cut it. Pleasing bokeh is not something this lens is going to excel at. You've only got one stop to work with here - stop down any further and the effects of diffraction are already setting in. This is a point-and-shoot lens for pocket cameras, not a serious filmmaking tool. It is restricted to situations where there is a lot of light. I could not have used this lens on any of my shoots without bumping up the the ISO to astronomical levels. 

Hardly.

Yes, it is hardly a serious filmmaking tool. But you know something, Jon? I love to experiment. And I've actually defied that piece of glass ("the cheaper longer version of that lens") on challenging occasions which have lead me to nice surprises over there : ) Shallow DOF included. It is actually my 1st tip of introductory glass on 4/3" for novices. I must confess to digital I see this format as the 16mm to film; moreover, with a focal reducer adapter you're within S35 realm -- that's really a milestone (E :-)

2 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

Like we said, sometimes the wires get crossed in text communication. 

The crappy comment was actually mainly in reference to the servo zoom/focus. 

:-)

Indeed. My reference to these small Panasonic lenses is the quality of the glass. Amazing for the price!

[Stanley]

47 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

 

Indeed. My reference to these small Panasonic lenses is the quality of the glass. Amazing for the price!

The longer, older 14-42 lens was great for playing around on the old flycam type gymbals.  F.8-11 put nearly everything in focus. I still use it on my gh2 outside in the light. Noisy little sucker in low light. The focal length on MFT is an excellent range. I also keep reminding myself that it's a photo lens firstly, and critical focus is in mm's not cm's.

[Emanuel]

15 minutes ago, Stanley said:

The longer, older 14-42 lens was great for playing around on the old flycam type gymbals.  F.8-11 put nearly everything in focus. I still use it on my gh2 outside in the light. Noisy little sucker in low light. The focal length on MFT is an excellent range.

Very true :-)

[Anaconda_]

2 hours ago, DBounce said:

After watching some video from this camera I wonder if any of the promised features will be dropped? 

That video looked mighty jerky. Granted, it was off the prototype model, and we do not know the data rate of the card that was used. But I would not be surprised to learn that some features will be cut.

BMD didn’t want to go on the record about quite a bit when I was there. Which actually concerned me, as most everyone else I spoke to was willing to.

I'm pretty sure anything mentioned on their website, is what the camera will be able to do. 

Anything not on their website is a rumour anyway.

Grant Pettyd noted that the camera is ready, they just need to secure a manufacturer for the body and shipping it out.

It needs UHSii cards, and whoever filmed the clip had to do it on the sly. That alone opens up lots of possibilities and reasons quality of for the footage that's now online.