Camera owning plans 2020

[thebrothersthre3]

15 minutes ago, mercer said:

I'm sure it's great for that weighted, handheld look that is popular now, but I was referring to the lightweight, handheld stability of IBIS.

On a side note... what are your plans for all of these cameras? Originally, I thought you were more of a director that shoots your own films. But it seems you're more interested in cinematography now. So, with your cameras, how do you foresee these tools being used? I assume the Fuji will be your wedding camera and the Ursa and the F3 will be for docs,  music videos and narratives?

I've been watching some videos from the original Ursa Mini and although it has a stop less DR than the 4.6K... there is something very organic and beautiful about the 4K... and the price isn't too bad either.

The original URSA is cool, definitely less dynamic range probably 1.5 stops difference. They are going for really cheap these days too. $1600 for one in good condition with accessories. Global shutter is definitely desirable for me. 

Well work wise I do a lot of stuff gaffing, assistant camera, videography, PA work, really whatever I can get. I used to be more into making my own films but I was just too busy to do it last year. If I can get one film done this year, one of my own, I'd be content. I really am avoiding working on anything I don't think I can execute perfectly. Right now my big project is DP'ing and co-producing a short film that we are shooting in the next couple months. I am also in the writing process for a film of my own that I am hoping to shoot in 3-4 months. 

XT3 will definitely be the wedding camera, though I am doing as few weddings as possible this year. Though the URSA mini could be fine for the less critical parts of weddings, B-roll stuff. XT3 fills the need when I need something small to hang off a C-stand lol, or to put on a gimbal or when I need Auto focus. Its really a very capable camera. Its small things that add up like punch into focus while recording, Panasonic cameras can't do that and it really annoy me haha. 

[thebrothersthre3]

30 minutes ago, mercer said:

So, with your cameras, how do you foresee these tools being used? I assume the Fuji will be your wedding camera and the Ursa and the F3 will be for docs,  music videos and narratives?

 

I'll probably use all three for most things I do, different applications. The F3 would probably be used least TBH. Its nice having three cameras for interviews mainly. 

I probably look crazy with how often I buy and sell cameras but I did put a good deal of thought into the URSA. I've worked with the URSA as well as other blackmagic cameras many times and I always really love the experience. Editing some footage I shot for a client at only 1080p prores LT (DP's choice not mine haha) and seeing how good it looked really sold me. The thing about something like the S1 is the rolling shutter is 3x more than the URSA in 4.6k. Is it noticeable in most situations? No, but for handheld yes. 

I am really on the fence about the Sony F3 now. May just hold off on that 

[Andrew Reid]

52 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The original URSA is cool, definitely less dynamic range probably 1.5 stops difference. They are going for really cheap these days too. $1600 for one in good condition with accessories. Global shutter is definitely desirable for me.

The original URSA with the flip out television screen on the side? Or the later one

That 4K sensor was in the Production Camera and it is ISO 400 max.

Yes it is a nice image if you keep the ISO very low and don't raise the shadows in post (a lot of fixed pattern noise)

But the form factor... Awful.

 

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

The original URSA with the flip out television screen on the side? Or the later one

That 4K sensor was in the Production Camera and it is ISO 400 max.

Yes it is a nice image if you keep the ISO very low and don't raise the shadows in post (a lot of fixed pattern noise)

But the form factor... Awful.

 

I was just reading your article on the Production Camera 4k. I looked at the 2.5k cmos version too, the crop kind of turned me off though. I thought it was S35 at first. 

I was talking about the Ursa Mini 4k, which I believe is global shutter??

 

 

[Geoff CB]

16 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I was just reading your article on the Production Camera 4k. I looked at the 2.5k cmos version too, the crop kind of turned me off though. I thought it was S35 at first. 

I was talking about the Ursa Mini 4k, which I believe is global shutter??

 

 

Global shutter with terrible DR and horrid highlight rolloff. 

[Andrew Reid]

29 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I was just reading your article on the Production Camera 4k. I looked at the 2.5k cmos version too, the crop kind of turned me off though. I thought it was S35 at first. 

I was talking about the Ursa Mini 4k, which I believe is global shutter??

It really is a nice image if you find the light and yes global shutter works well, but I'd consider the BM Prod 4K if I were you, it is probably $600 used now. The original URSA is just massive.

Yes DR and highlight roll off not the best so take that into account, but it can have a lovely film like silky smooth look too, with great colour science.

By the way whilst we're on the subject of old but good cameras... Why aren't you all over the 1D C yet?!

BMPC4K 3840 x 2160 frame grab:

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I am also considering the C300 mk1 at this point. Can't do 10 bit external but the internal Codec isn't bad at all. 

C300mk1:
Top heavy instead of being long like the F3
Somewhat better internal 8bit codec, but no 10bit 444 external
Priced much higher (as in two or three times more) than an F3
No way whatsoever to do 60fps slow motion like the F3 (even if only external)
Optional single center point DPF for the C300
No ability to change lens mount, not like the FZ base mount on the F3

I dunno, when you compare the pros/cons of the F3 vs C300mk1 it doesn't seem worth it to me personally. 

  

6 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

You've never shot it to an external recorder, creamy smooth insane highlight recovery in S-LOG. It's a whole different camera. 

Also for me nowadays resolution is secondary to color and handling. I wouldn't go for a FS700 for this reason over it, or the origional Ursa 4.6K. The F3 has those ND's, XLR's and a solid body. I also far prefer SDI to HDMI when using an external monitor.  

I think it took a lot of work to understand and overcome the "modern Sony look" in the FS700 / FS7 / etc, and that didn't happen until long after the FS700 had fallen out of favor (as for a while the FS700 was extremely popular, not quite as much so as the C300mk1, but very popular none the less as the king of "low budget slow motion"). 

I've seen beautiful work from the FS700 4K raw, and I won't deny the slow motion of the FS700 tempts me. Thus why I'd get a FS700 if it was only a couple of hundred bucks more than a F3, especially if Atomos got us a "Samurai V" to pair with it. 

  

5 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I agree the XT30 has a really nice image. The body is just too small and fragile. I tried attaching an atomos to it to get around the stupid 15 minute record limit and it was just janky. 

I can get by not rigging up my XT3. Its got a 30min record limit which is decent. Plus the battery grip gives you good battery life performance unlike the XT30 which doesn't have that option. 

I am looking at a C100 at this point too lol. Though I am not paying over $1000 for a C100 or c300. Honestly I don't want to pay over $800. At $1000 I could get a pocket 4k, though after rigging its more like $1500 and then I'd be close to just getting an S1 or another old used Ursa. 

I may just sell the XT30 and not get a 3rd camera. The XT3 and Ursa Mini 4.6k isn't a bad combo. 

In the F3's defense I think with an external recorder its one of the nicest images out there in a "pro body". The FS5 has got that modern Sony look. Canon's offerings in the lower price point are all 8 bit compressed HD. 

Yes, having a big / small combo of cameras to pick and choose which is the right fit for a project is a good idea. 

Although I think a combo such as EVA1/GH5 or UMP/BMPCC4K etc might make more sense if you'll be using them A/B Cam alongside each other a lot. 

This is why Fuji really needs to bring out a Cinema Body of their X-T4, to complement their mirrrorless line up. 

Stick NDs in it, add TC I/O, both a full size HDMI and SDI outputs, XLR inputs, and they're more than half way there. 

[mercer]

2 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Editing some footage I shot for a client at only 1080p prores LT (DP's choice not mine haha) and seeing how good it looked really sold me.

After seeing the trailer for that movie Cosmos and reading that it was shot on the original Pocket in ProResLT, I was very interested to shoot ProRes on the Micro. I bought another one (second one I had) but it truly broke my heart to rig that tiny camera up. So I ended up selling it to a member of this forum. However, I love the image from the original Ursa Micro 4K and when it gets below $1200, I may give it a go to shoot some ProRes. For me, it would be for a project mostly on sticks, with static shots, pans and dolly/slider moves.... so very controlled. At 12 stops of DR, it's plenty for a controlled set up.

[mercer]

Here's the trailer to Cosmos in case anyone is interested. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, mercer said:

To this day, the Alexa is the only camera that comes even remotely close. And even that is a stretch. You can look to The Walking Dead as proof. The original show has always been shot on S16 film. The spinoff, Fear the Walking Dead, is shot on an Alexa. And although I love the look, the original S16 is a better image.

I haven't watched "Fear the Walking Dead", and has been ages since I watch "The Walking Dead" (even then, only watched a season I think?), but does it look "worse" due to changing from S16 to Alexa or does the main reason it "looks worse" is because the per episode budget has been slashed?? 
 

[thebrothersthre3]

 

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It really is a nice image if you find the light and yes global shutter works well, but I'd consider the BM Prod 4K if I were you, it is probably $600 used now. The original URSA is just massive.

Yes DR and highlight roll off not the best so take that into account, but it can have a lovely film like silky smooth look too, with great colour science.

By the way whilst we're on the subject of old but good cameras... Why aren't you all over the 1D C yet?!

BMPC4K 3840 x 2160 frame grab:

 

I know everyone loves Canon so I am actually curious to try one out at this point. Its the one camera system I haven't really used at all. 1D C is still out of my budget right now. If I had the cash I might shell out for a C200, yeah it doesn't have 10 bit recording but Canon's 8 bit isn't shabby at all. Just saw someone selling a kit for $4500. If I could have any camera I'd probably get the FX9. 

The production 4k looks nice though, a 1.7 crop factor isn't bad at all. Having to stick to 400 iso for a clean image is a little limiting though. Its one of those cameras where people say its capable of performing way outside its cost if you have enough light. 

 

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Here's the trailer to Cosmos in case anyone is interested. 

That does look really nice imo. One huge thing keeping me from the BMMCC is the crop factor. I honestly liked the pocket camera a lot but the crop factor was really annoying. If it was a 2x crop I'd have not minded but 2.8x is really pushing it. 

 

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

C300mk1:
Top heavy instead of being long like the F3
Somewhat better internal 8bit codec, but no 10bit 444 external
Priced much higher (as in two or three times more) than an F3
No way whatsoever to do 60fps slow motion like the F3 (even if only external)
Optional single center point DPF for the C300
No ability to change lens mount, not like the FZ base mount on the F3

I dunno, when you compare the pros/cons of the F3 vs C300mk1 it doesn't seem worth it to me personally. 

 

I mean I definitely agree though for my 3rd cam I don't really need anything beyond 24fps. I saw a C300 mk1 for about $800 a few months back, that would have been worth it for me. I am not paying $1500 or $2000 for one though. 

 

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yes, having a big / small combo of cameras to pick and choose which is the right fit for a project is a good idea. 

Although I think a combo such as EVA1/GH5 or UMP/BMPCC4K etc might make more sense if you'll be using them A/B Cam alongside each other a lot. 

This is why Fuji really needs to bring out a Cinema Body of their X-T4, to complement their mirrrorless line up. 

I agree though I like my Fuji XT3 better than the Pocket 4k/6k. The option of having a battery grip, tilt screen, and auto focus is big for me. Pocket 4k rigs get weird quickly. 

This looks pretty retarded not going to lie. Of course this is an extreme example but you get my meaning. 

[IronFilm]

5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If I could have any camera I'd probably get the FX9. 

If I could have "any camera" I'd have a Sony VENICE, or perhaps an ARRI Mini LF. 

And if dreams were free....

 

5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

That does look really nice imo. One huge thing keeping me from the BMMCC is the crop factor. I honestly liked the pocket camera a lot but the crop factor was really annoying. If it was a 2x crop I'd have not minded but 2.8x is really pushing it. 

Do you have a regular need for greater than 14mm S35 FoV??

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1337244-REG/venus_optics_ve7520mftstblk_laowa_7_5mm_f_2_mft.html

 

  

5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I agree though I like my Fuji XT3 better than the Pocket 4k/6k. The option of having a battery grip, tilt screen, and auto focus is big for me. Pocket 4k rigs get weird quickly. 

This looks pretty retarded not going to lie. Of course this is an extreme example but you get my meaning. 

I've seen more clunky ARRI Alexa Mini rigs

[thebrothersthre3]

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

If I could have "any camera" I'd have a Sony VENICE, or perhaps an ARRI Mini LF. 

And if dreams were free....

Yes but practically the FX9, its got Sony's awesome electronic ND's, dual native ISO, good color science, good codec, amazing auto focus, what else do you need? Only downside is the size, its kind of big for no apparent reason. Seems like it could have been more the size of the FS5 tbh but what do I know. 

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I don't like it but clients certainly factor in to why I do things. 

The F3 just works price wise. I also like it better than anything else I could remotely afford with internal ND's( next option would be the JVC LS300). A DP I know pretty much got an Alexa because its demanded by the people who hire him. I can't afford that yet but one day. 

 

Heard of a lucky bugger who got an ARRI Alexa Classic for US$3.5K!!! :-o 

But usually they go for around US$7K ish, give or take a grand or so. 

 

 

https://www.eoshd.com/news/sample-sony-f3-footage-and-first-impressions/

Quote

Add to that the fact there is no RAW, no 4K and image processing which isn’t exactly anything to write home about and my excitement drops even further.

I also believe that it just cannot compete with RED in the same price league for image quality. We’re talking $23k with lenses here. This is a camera which makes a RED ONE look like a comparative bargain even after you’ve added all the bits. It isn’t a cheap camera, yet from the way it handled the above scene, it is not a great deal different to a $1k Lumix.

 

That's what Andrew said way way back then. 

He compared it to:
GH2: the F3 is far far better, especially if you don't care about miniature size
RED ONE: I was seriously considering the R1 as being an option for me to buy, but after shooting with and working with the R1 a few times, I went instead with the F3. As not only was it massively cheaper, I found it was a much much better camera for me personally. Especially as I didn't care about 4K way back then (not necessarily of #1 importance in 2020 either?). 

[IronFilm]

35 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Yes but practically the FX9, its got Sony's awesome electronic ND's, dual native ISO, good color science, good codec, amazing auto focus, what else do you need? Only downside is the size, its kind of big for no apparent reason. Seems like it could have been more the size of the FS5 tbh but what do I know. 

I'm talking about a hypothetical dream world where a fairy god mother waves her magic wand and you can have "any camera that exists already in the world".

Would be a tough call between VENICE or an ARRI Alexa Mini LF

(or maaaaaaaybe a Phantom VEO 4K? Only if it comes with an infinite supply of CFast cards)

[sgreszcz]

On 1/29/2020 at 6:08 PM, fuzzynormal said:

For what I do, I'm thinking the em10iii from Olympus might be the best bet. 

Recording outboard audio makes things a little more difficult, but all the other good stuff kind of outweighs that. 

Small, affordable, IBIS, good color, 4K...not bad at all for micro budget documentary production. Can get two used bodies for under $600?  Hard to resist. 

I really like shooting "light" when in the field, so I'm tempted.

figute I can sell the gh5 and it'll pay for the switcheroo 

Would have considered the Em5iii, but without headphone jack might as well go with the cheaper camera. 

Sorry Olympus. You had a chance to take my money with the em5iii.

I am selling my GH5+PL12-60, it is actually a little large/heavy and probably too much camera for my needs. 

I bought an Em5iii when it came out, (it is much better value after the price just dropped to $999).  I just shot some outdoor activities in the pouring UK rain and mud with the Em5iii an Rode videomicro.  The interviews were done with two little waterproof Instamics.  The IBIS with the Olympus 12-100/4 dual-IS is incredible.  You can do much larger movements and walk with smoother results than with the GH5+PL12-60 dual-IS combo.  With the x2 teleconverter I can get stabilised 4k from 24-400/f4 FF equivalent.  I don't really need my Osmo Pocket anymore, except if I want to do boom-type shots with a selfie stick.  The PDAF autofocus works great, especially with the face detect in interview situations.  I'm getting a little lazy relying on it as it also works great for reveal "slider" shots and touch rack-focusing.  The C-AF was the only reason I got the Em5iii over the Em10iii, but I could have got two for less than the price of the Em5iii!

I like the Oly image, but still tweaking a bit to get the best out-of-camera colours (just using natural, -2 sharpening) and exposure without having to do much grading in post.  No zebras, so relying on the histogram which is much nicer than on the Panasonics (stretches across the bottom).  The EVF isn't as good as the GH5, and the mic input gets in the way of the flippy screen.  The GH5 4k 10-bit picture looks better, but youtube and social media where I do my local/community event films have crappy quality, so it doesn't really matter.  I do wish the Em5iii had the constant face-detection box during recording like with the newer Em1iii - just to give 100% confidence that the C-AF is doing it's thing.

The only missing thing to make the Olympus the perfect camera for me would be built-in NDs.  F4 and ISO 200 and no ND at 1/48 shutter is OK in the UK winter, but I use fixed NDs for the sunny weather (tired of fixing vari-ND colour messes in post).  I carry the camera around much more than I did with the GH5 so have more opportunity to shoot stuff.

I'm also really downsizing my overall kit as I only do small local events and documentary paid jobs on the side.  My Voightlander 17mm and 42mm are going too to raise some cash.  I'm keeping my GX80s for time-lapse cameras as they aren't worth much on the used market (working on a long-term time-lapse waterproof setup).

When I see stuff like this, I know it's me lacking as a filmmaker, and not the camera that I'm using: 

 

[mercer]

16 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I haven't watched "Fear the Walking Dead", and has been ages since I watch "The Walking Dead" (even then, only watched a season I think?), but does it look "worse" due to changing from S16 to Alexa or does the main reason it "looks worse" is because the per episode budget has been slashed?? 
 

By looks worse, I mean the image from the S16 film looks better with dynamic range, color tonality, texture, highlight and shadow detail, etc...

Since the majority of both shows are exterior daylight scenes, I don't think the budget necessarily would effect the IQ as much as you're suggesting. I doubt they're skimping on reflectors or fill light on Fear the Walking Dead.

[thebrothersthre3]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

By looks worse, I mean the image from the S16 film looks better with dynamic range, color tonality, texture, highlight and shadow detail, etc...

Since the majority of both shows are exterior daylight scenes, I don't think the budget necessarily would effect the IQ as much as you're suggesting. I doubt they're skimping on reflectors or fill light on Fear the Walking Dead.

Could just be a stylistic thing. Film forces you into a certain look pretty much, where as digital you have a lot more freedom to ruin the image lol. I believe that a very talented colorist could match digital to film and you'd not know the difference. 

[Andrew Reid]

19 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

This looks pretty retarded not going to lie. Of course this is an extreme example but you get my meaning. 

Small penis compensation rig.

[independent]

The pocket in a cage just makes it a box. From there, the retardedness is on you.