Blackmagic Camera Update Feb 17

[EphraimP]

3 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

The first part is true. And the second part can be. But I've shot plenty of interviews, and a camera op and journist, 1 man job at f2.8 and sometime wider on 35mm sensor. It's absolutely fine. 

The key is to get the subject on a chair that doesn't swivel or have wheel etc. 

Like you say, what applies to one, doesn't apply to all.

There are lots of interview situations that don't call for a chair, or where one isn't even possible. I, for instance, shoot mainly doc-style pieces for environmental nonprofits as a solo shooter, which means 70-85 percent of my works happens outdoors, in the field. Thus, standing interviews are a must almost all the time for me.

And even if you tell someone to stand on a mark and not move their body too much, most of them are going to move in some way or another as you get deep into the interview, especially if you get them comfortable with the camera and really into what they are talking about. And if possible, I'm running two cameras in these interviews, so I can cut between different angles to add interest to the piece and hide cuts that would be obvious I only had one camera angle.

 

22 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

I interview people who are not actors.  So if they moved and talked, they end up doing neither very well.  Trust me, to get these people to sit and say their lines is hard enough.  Add movement to the scene and it would quickly descend into a farce.  

Plus I see on TV interviews with moving subjects and it looks funny. 🤣

If you are trying to get non-pro subjects to say scripted lines, I find you're going to get a pretty wooden delivery most of the time, no matter if your subject is sitting or standing. As a former journalist, in my experience I get much better results if I do a traditional interview and get my subjects really talking about the topic at hand, even if I have some very clear bullet points of information I need them to say. I find getting people comfortable enough with the camera that they forget in the moment that it's rolling is key to getting an good clip. People getting animated and moving around a bit and talking with their hands gives me the most impactful interview material. Basically, if I can film interviews that feel like the subject is just talking to someone (off camera) with all the normal ticks and motions and conversational gestures people expect in a real conversation, the end result is many times better than having someone say scripted lines to the camera.

And there are lots of times in doc work where you want to see your subject moving around while talking. It doesn't have to be an interview necessarily; you might want your subject inspecting a logging site or in a burnt-out forest and talking about what they see, or walking along a river that's the subject of your piece telling a story that is relevant to your video. Or maybe you want your subject talking while driving or riding in a car to an important destination, or through a critical scene. Or you might be recording a protest or town hall meeting or some other live event where you can't direct who is speaking or how they are moving.

In all of these situations, having really good AF-C, especially with face tracking, can be extremely helpful for a single shooter or a small crew without a dedicated focus-puller. And none of them has anything to do with what a pack of self-referential YouTubers recommend or another dreadful blog about someone making coffee or riding a One Wheel around Toronto or LA. They are real-world situations that professional shooters encounter every day. If they are not situations you shoot in, great. But it would be silly to discount them.

Is perfect autofocus a must? No. I do a lot of manual focus in these situations. But solid autofocus is a valuable tool that shooters like me want access to. It definite factors into my camera buying decisions. It's not the only factor I consider, but I'd probably rate it higher than a lot of other features such as RAW shooting or open gate/true anamorphic modes. It just comes down to what each individual shooter prioritizes in their work. In the end, none of the cameras out today are perfect, but it's awesome that we have so many choices and so many key features and jumps in quality are filtering down to sub-$10K and even sub-$5K cameras.

[Paul Jonathan]

 

Seems like there are the first few cameras in the wild as well, in case anyone is interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoL8OZCr9UY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHt0B3kBFB8

Nothing too scientific or comprehensive yet, but in case anyone is interested to take a first look.

[SteveV4D]

19 minutes ago, EphraimP said:

There are lots of interview situations that don't call for a chair, or where one isn't even possible. I, for instance, shoot mainly doc-style pieces for environmental nonprofits as a solo shooter, which means 70-85 percent of my works happens outdoors, in the field. Thus, standing interviews are a must almost all the time for me.

And even if you tell someone to stand on a mark and not move their body too much, most of them are going to move in some way or another as you get deep into the interview, especially if you get them comfortable with the camera and really into what they are talking about. And if possible, I'm running two cameras in these interviews, so I can cut between different angles to add interest to the piece and hide cuts that would be obvious I only had one camera angle.

 

If you are trying to get non-pro subjects to say scripted lines, I find you're going to get a pretty wooden delivery most of the time, no matter if your subject is sitting or standing. As a former journalist, in my experience I get much better results if I do a traditional interview and get my subjects really talking about the topic at hand, even if I have some very clear bullet points of information I need them to say. I find getting people comfortable enough with the camera that they forget in the moment that it's rolling is key to getting an good clip. People getting animated and moving around a bit and talking with their hands gives me the most impactful interview material. Basically, if I can film interviews that feel like the subject is just talking to someone (off camera) with all the normal ticks and motions and conversational gestures people expect in a real conversation, the end result is many times better than having someone say scripted lines to the camera.

And there are lots of times in doc work where you want to see your subject moving around while talking. It doesn't have to be an interview necessarily; you might want your subject inspecting a logging site or in a burnt-out forest and talking about what they see, or walking along a river that's the subject of your piece telling a story that is relevant to your video. Or maybe you want your subject talking while driving or riding in a car to an important destination, or through a critical scene. Or you might be recording a protest or town hall meeting or some other live event where you can't direct who is speaking or how they are moving.

In all of these situations, having really good AF-C, especially with face tracking, can be extremely helpful for a single shooter or a small crew without a dedicated focus-puller. And none of them has anything to do with what a pack of self-referential YouTubers recommend or another dreadful blog about someone making coffee or riding a One Wheel around Toronto or LA. They are real-world situations that professional shooters encounter every day. If they are not situations you shoot in, great. But it would be silly to discount them.

My interviews range from the spontaneous to the scripted.  The former can be easier with coaxing, the latter can be more problematic.  Alas Company Directors often wish to speak, but aren't always good at it.  And oddly being Directors, they don't always welcome direction.

As for your examples.  I'll ignore the driving a car one as a need for good AF. 🤣  I confess I don't move much when I am behind the wheel.  Do yours dance the jig when driving???

Most interviews for me, whether indoors or outdoors hardly needs solid AF.  Even slight movement is easily accommodated and I've filmed interviews with 3 cameras on my own with very shallow depth of field.  Some of your examples are not interviews themselves, but B footage of the subject.  These I've filmed rather well with manual AF. 

Only when we move to things like your protest example and other real World scenarios you allude to that I will concede, and it is the sort of work rather outside what I'd buy and use a Pocket Cinema camera for, even with passable AF.   There are just so many better options for such situations that to criticise the Pocket for not being one of them, whilst ignoring what it can do at the low price it offers feels like missing the point.   

These cameras are not run n gun nor do they have to be.  Let others carry that flag and let these be what they are designed to be.  If your budget can't stretch to such cameras, then this is hardly the fault of Blackmagic.  

So whilst a usable AF is a desire, I'm not surprised or disappointed by its exclusion.  I feel more annoyed by Pansonics failure to reward its loyal customers with something more than the worse AF amongst Fuji, Nikon, Sony and Canon.  

[newfoundmass]

6 hours ago, chadandreo said:

what applies to one person doesn’t apply to everyone. 
for interviews in which the subjects move around, good AF is invaluable, especially if the production decides to shoot with a more shallow aperture than f8. 
 

the way people have responded to cinema cameras adding AF, reminds me of when people thought seatbelts and abs weren’t important. 

That's a really foolish comparison. I am fine with AF, it's great. What I don't like is how people act as though it's a must have, especially in a cine camera. People discredit cameras because of it. It's silly. 

As far as your scenario, I've shot close to 100 interviews and have always used manual focus. Most productions I've worked on manually focused, too. Everyone is different, but I wouldn't depend on it. 

[tupp]

13 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Since I have EF lenses, I am delighted it has an EF mount.  All these other mounts is why I struggle to upgrade to fullframe.

Why?  Do you actually have EF-S lenses?

 

 

13 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

It means choosing between RF, L or E or any others.

Your EF lenses should basically work on all of those shallow mounts with adapters.  If your lenses are electronically controlled, the most important thing is that the electronic aperture can be set.

 

 

14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

I prefer to avoid adaptors if I can.

Why?  Have you actually had a problem with an adapter?

 

If not, please get over the notion that adapters are "bad."

 

 

13 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Having so much invested in MFT only for Panasonic to cut their MFT almost dead in favour of FF makes me reluctant to invest totally too much in 1 system.

That is why it is important that cameras such as the BMP6K have a shallow mount -- it makes it possible to use your M4/3 lenses on the BMP6K (especially in the crop modes).

 

 

 

14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Didn't Canon have a M series of lenses too. 

Yes.  I mentioned the shallow EF-M mount in my posts above.  I believe that Canon is currently on the eleventh version of the M camera.

 

By the way, the EF-M mount is large enough to handle a full frame sensor.

 

 

14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

At least with EF lenses, there is plenty of them and at good 2nd hand prices too.

The main problem with many EF lenses is that they rely on electronics.  Such lenses are useless on many cameras and special effect adapters.

 

Furthermore, because the electronics have to be incorporated, it takes longer for EF adapters and EF speedboosters to appear for new shallow lens mounts.  Nikkor F to EF-M focal reducers and tilt-shift adapters appeared a couple of years prior to the EF versions.

 

Of course, Nikkor F lenses can be adapted to EF cameras and adapters, but not vice versa.  So, lenses with the Nikkor F mount are more versatile than the those with an EF mount.

 

Additionally, one must occasionally contend with the problem of Canon's wonky "stopping flange" that prevents EF-S lenses from being mounted on EF cameras and EF adapters.  One generally has to modify the rear of an EF-S lens to get around the problem.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Even the C70 has an adaptor to use them.

It appears that you have already gotten over your aversion to adapters in the span of a single paragraph.  That was quick!

 

 

 

14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

The future should be cameras with interchangeable mounts, so you're not limited to just one system.  

I mostly agree, although adapters on cameras with shallow mounts mostly accomplish this same goal.

[tupp]

7 hours ago, independent said:

Well, you didn't click on the link that I posted, which would take you exactly to the iso tests. So that tells me you're lazy, and I did all that work for nothing. Pay me!

Ha, ha!  I actually did click on the link to the long CVP video, but on my YouTube viewer the link didn't parse correctly to the point that I now see that you cued.

 

Although that video is not actually a comparison between the C70 and the A7S III, I noticed that a few seconds after your cued point, your CVP boy states:

Quote

"Looking at the C70, up to 3200 iso is very clean, and at 6400 it starts getting a little bit noisy. but I would say up to 12800 it's 'usable.'  At 25600 [and] up, it starts getting unusable."

"Usable" is not the same thing as "clean."  The A7S III is "clean" at 12800, while the C70 is "usable" at that same iso.

 

Again, please link examples of heavy artifacts that appear above 12800 iso in the A7S III, as you maintain, and please link the CineD comparison that you mentioned.

[independent]

What is it, laziness or incompetence? 

Watch the GU videos of the c70 and Fx6, which he compares with the a7s3. The cineD article can also be googled: "c300 iii dynamic range." Anything beyond that, you'll have to compensate me for my efforts. PM me, I'm affordable

 

[tupp]

20 minutes ago, independent said:

What is it, laziness or incompetence?

I think it is a combination of a biased interpretation of one's own link, plus poor comprehension of another somewhat misleading source.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, independent said:

Watch the GU videos of the c70 and Fx6, which he compares with the a7s3

I already addressed the Gerald Undone video that you linked.  I disagree with the conclusions to which he jumps in regards to dynamic range.  He sets up arbitrary conditions (the size of the C70's sensor and the lack of NR options on the A7S III) for which the C70's dynamic range is "better" in his mind than the A7S III.

 

However, at 09:52 in the video, he additionally states that the low light performance of the A7S III is far superior to that of the C70:

Quote

"If you like to shoot at iso's 12800 and above, the two options from Sony [A7S III & FX6] will drastically outperform this camera [C70].  It's not that the noise performance is bad on the C70 (in fact it's quite good and it even rivals full frame sensors like the A73) -- it just can't really compete with the cameras specifically designed for low light, like the A7S III or the FX6."

While he makes this statement, we see a side-by-side comparison of the performance of the C70 and the A7S III starting at iso 12800 and 25600, which reveals that the A7S III is exceptionally cleaner than the noisy C70.

 

So much for the CVP and "GU" links.  The C70 is not "clean" at 12,800 iso, unlike the A7S III.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, independent said:

Anything beyond that, you'll have to compensate me for my efforts. PM me, I'm affordable

I see.  Well, once again, I would have to take your word on that, but after seeing the discrepancy between your statements and your links, I don't think that I will.

[SteveV4D]

7 hours ago, tupp said:

Why?  Do you actually have EF-S lenses?

 

 

Your EF lenses should basically work on all of those shallow mounts with adapters.  If your lenses are electronically controlled, the most important thing is that the electronic aperture can be set.

 

 

Why?  Have you actually had a problem with an adapter?

 

If not, please get over the notion that adapters are "bad."

 

 

That is why it is important that cameras such as the BMP6K have a shallow mount -- it makes it possible to use your M4/3 lenses on the BMP6K (especially in the crop modes).

 

 

 

Yes.  I mentioned the shallow EF-M mount in my posts above.  I believe that Canon is currently on the eleventh version of the M camera.

 

By the way, the EF-M mount is large enough to handle a full frame sensor.

 

 

The main problem with many EF lenses is that they rely on electronics.  Such lenses are useless on many cameras and special effect adapters.

 

Furthermore, because the electronics have to be incorporated, it takes longer for EF adapters and EF speedboosters to appear for new shallow lens mounts.  Nikkor F to EF-M focal reducers and tilt-shift adapters appeared a couple of years prior to the EF versions.

 

Of course, Nikkor F lenses can be adapted to EF cameras and adapters, but not vice versa.  So, lenses with the Nikkor F mount are more versatile than the those with an EF mount.

 

Additionally, one must occasionally contend with the problem of Canon's wonky "stopping flange" that prevents EF-S lenses from being mounted on EF cameras and EF adapters.  One generally has to modify the rear of an EF-S lens to get around the problem.

 

 

 

It appears that you have already gotten over your aversion to adapters in the span of a single paragraph.  That was quick!

 

 

 

I mostly agree, although adapters on cameras with shallow mounts mostly accomplish this same goal.

Wow so many assumptions and false conclusions in 1 post.  

Most of my lenses are EF-S

I have had issues with adaptors.  Loss of aperture at key moments.  Loss of IS at key moments.  This is from 3 adaptors I own for MFT mount.   Not a promising start.

Noting the C70 has an EF adaptor isn't endorsement of adaptors.  Merely an observation.  I'm not buying the C70 or its adaptor.

Using MFT lenses on a S35 sensor is not something I would ever consider.  Selling them maybe.  

Personally I still prefer S35 to fullframe.  I prefer not to use adaptors if I can.  My own personal preference.   Sorry if this offends you.

[tupp]

20 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Wow so many assumptions and false conclusions in 1 post.

Please point out where there are assumptions or false conclusions.

 

 

21 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Most of my lenses are EF-S

Okay.  I asked if your lenses were EF-S -- there was no assumption (although I suspected as much, which is why I asked).

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

I have had issues with adaptors.

Okay.

 

 

25 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Loss of aperture at key moments.

Never experienced that.  Are you shooting manual exposure or is the aperture automatically controlled?

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Loss of IS at key moments.

Never experienced that either, but I would tend not to use IS on a cinematography camera such as the P6K.

 

On the other hand, do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the P6K just as well as they perform on Canon EF-S cameras?

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Noting the C70 has an EF adaptor isn't endorsement of adaptors.  Merely an observation.  I'm not buying the C70 or its adaptor.

Do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the C70 with a Canon EF-to-RF adapter just as well as they perform on a Canon EF-S camera?

 

 

36 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Using MFT lenses on a S35 sensor is not something I would ever consider.

No doubt.

 

Do you realize that most M4/3 lenses can be used on Cameras such as the C70 and the P6K with no vignetting?

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

Personally I still prefer S35 to fullframe.  I prefer not to use adaptors if I can.  My own personal preference.   Sorry if this offends you.

It doesn't offend, but I truly hope that your preference is informed.

[SteveV4D]

45 minutes ago, tupp said:

 

Never experienced that.  Are you shooting manual exposure or is the aperture automatically controlled?

Never experienced that either, but I would tend not to use IS on a cinematography camera such as the P6K.

On the other hand, do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the P6K just as well as they perform on Canon EF-S cameras?

Do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the C70 with a Canon EF-to-RF adapter just as well as they perform on a Canon EF-S camera?

Do you realize that most M4/3 lenses can be used on Cameras such as the C70 and the P6K with no vignetting?

It doesn't offend, but I truly hope that your preference is informed.

Aperture is controlled manually.  You can lose the aperture control in some cases and not get a readout of the aperture on the camera screen.

Why not use IS on the Cinema cameras?  Is it a rule?   Did I miss the no IS on Cinema cameras instruction in the manual.  I have one IS lens which I use when I wish to handheld the camera for more travel video use on my Pocket 4K.  Shooting 105mm on non IS lens isn't advised.  Having paid for the camera, I feel I can use it as I like. 🤣🤣🤣

As I don't yet own the P6K Pro or a Canon camera, I can't comment on your point there.  Only on my situation where I have had issues with 3 adaptors.  No doubt I shall see how they perform when I get the P6K Pro and then be able to clarify if the issue is with the adaptors or not.  Don't worry, I will consume humble pie if they are not found to be at fault.

Maybe an adaptor would work well with the C70.  I'm not ruling out adaptors in the future if required.  However having had no issues with my MFT lenses and several issues with my EF lenses via the adaptors, I am biased towards non adaptors.  Maybe once I've enjoyed using a S35 camera for the first time in 10 years with my S35 lenses, I will look to something like the C70 and try again with adaptors.  For now, they're pissing me off too much to give it thought.  Assuming they are the problem.  If I'm wrong, I'll quickly tell once my P6K Pro arrives, and I'll happily concede the adaptors aren't at fault.  

Yes I was aware MFT lenses can be used, though rarely seen as encouraged by others.  Again I'm keen to take a step away from adaptors for now.  And also to invest in fullframe lenses to compliment my S35 ones for future proof.  Unless the GH6 comes out soon, I don't see much future for MFT.  Though I prefer S35 now certainly, fullframe may well be my future if video pushes that way.  MFT won't be much use then.  I don't need to use MFT lenses as I have enough EF lenses to cover my needs. 

My preference is informed but as always subject to new information and experiences.  

[IronFilm]

On 2/18/2021 at 11:29 PM, kye said:

I'm happy to drop the subject and not hijack the thread, but it's kind of equivalent to Apple calling the latest iPhone a 'cinema' camera and then forums like this being full of random Apple fanboys who fill up every thread discussing cinema cameras arguing with people about why the iPhone should be on their shortlists, because "it's a cinema camera too"!

We've already got a certain degree of that problem....  and Apple doesn't even call their own iPhone a "cinema" camera! Simply because people will point at feature films that got shot on an iPhone. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

We've already got a certain degree of that problem....  and Apple doesn't even call their own iPhone a "cinema" camera! Simply because people will point at feature films that got shot on an iPhone. 

Yeah, imagine if they did..  

Meanwhile, I'm trying to actually unpack what it is that makes an image great, rather than which camera has the highest numbers.  No wonder I'm confused and having a hard time about it.  Those that don't know, talk, and those that do know, don't.  

It's easier to swim downstream I guess.

[newfoundmass]

This talk of a great image makes me nostalgic for the OG Pocket Cinema Camera. Nothing I've owned since has come close to it. 

I don't miss having to rig it up though! 

[D4cl00]

23 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

AF isn't really important, it's just people now write off anything that doesn't have good AF because of YouTube and YouTubers thinking everything, including cine cameras, should be marketed and catered to them. So it's become "important" in a marketing sense, but a cine camera really doesn't need AF and most people probably shouldn't rely on it when using a cine camera. 

I would have agreed with you early 2000s, but not in 2021. You are assuming cinema shooting is still done the same way. It’s not just a marketing trick, and also with AFC, it would sell much better to that “YouTube audience” (which if you like it or not, has become the ‘standard’). “Cinema” is not a static definition.

Even Blackmagic positions this as a camera for a wide range of uses including interviews and documentaries, for which continuous AF is terrific, especially when the subject and camera is moving, and the crew is very small.  
 

[SteveV4D]

8Nothing wrong in wishing for AF.  Nothing wrong in wishing to win a million pounds in a lottery.  And Blackmagic giving us brilliant AF is as likely on my opinion.  I'd rather they focus their efforts in improving quality control first before attempting things like AF, which Panasonic still has failed to deliver on after a decade of hybrid cameras.  Is there anything to suggest if Blackmagic had attempted AF, it would be any better than Panasonic.

Poor AF can be worse than no AF.  The GH5 has some AF and I would find myself lazily relying on it because 8 or 9 times out of 10, it would work for me.  The problem is that time when it didn't and the image would shift badly out of focus.  Often at the worst moment.  

Not having AF has meant I must rely on manual focus and whilst this can lead to issues with missed focus, it's less obvious than a total out of focus moment that catches you off guard.  Also I find my manual focus skills improve from practise and thanks to Blackmagics large screen and punch in focus, manual focus is a lot better than the GH5.  

Yes, an AF as good as Canon and Sony would be lovely.  But is it possible?  Can Blackmagic borrow PDAF from Canon and impliment it just as well?   If not, then its a dream wish no different than one winning the lottery. 

At the end of the day, if you need reliable AF buy Canon or Sony.  

[TomTheDP]

I've been let down by auto focus enough on different systems to the point where I've given up on it. But that's just me I know for certain applications it can be great. 

In regards to the C70 there is a lot of speculation going on here from people who don't own the camera. I watched a lot of reviews and ISO 12,800 isn't pretty on it, in fact I've seen people who say they wouldn't shoot past 3200 iso with it. But its all opinion and comes down to your tolerance for noise etc.... 

I've been using a RED scarlet MX and find 2000 iso is perfectly usable so go figure. 

The dynamic range on the C70 looks great though CineD rated both the C500 and A7S3 as having more dynamic range. I personally don't care about CineD's testings though. The C70 definitely has way better shadow recovery than the A7S3, which is quite poor in the shadows despite being a 12mp sensor.   

Another issue with the C70 is the auto focus is lacking compared to the 1DXMK3 or the R5. It has an issue with losing focus on darker skin tones, even in normal lighting conditions. Kind of a turn off for me considering AF is a big sell on the camera. Still a great sensor none the less. 

Lack of RAW is a becoming a big deal to me. I've been surprised how much RAW makes difference in terms of color rendition when comparing my old ass RED Scarlet MX to my Panasonic S1. 

Still the RF mount, ND filters, great high frame rates, canon color, and image are big draws on the C70. 

The Sony does smoke it with AF performance, you also get better dynamic range past 60fps as the C70 loses its dual gain after that. The Sony is also better in low light. Of course the NR and sharpening ruin the image for me. But at the C70's price point you could get a Sony FX6, which is probably where I'd go especially considering the rolling shutter difference. 

Also 12 bit RAW from an Atomos is available on Sony cameras. I wonder how the latency is on using an Atomos with the FX6. I've been hearing really bad things about latency which makes external recording useless for a lot of applications. 



Regardless the P6K pro is an amazing option at $2500 imo. I do wish they would have went with an MFT mount, but I guess that is too niche for most of the market. People still don't get that MFT mount doesn't equal MFT sensor. 

[independent]

I had a scarlet too when it came out- can't argue with the image when properly exposed. But I compared it with the original BM 2.5K, which completely crushed the scarlet in low light. At least a couple stops. I see the same trade off with the Komodo. But when properly exposed, Red is hard to beat.

The c70 does seem to have an issue w/ AF on darker skin tones; Brandon Washington and Griffin Conway demonstrated this issue. Might be able to be fixed w/ a firmware update, but it's pretty disappointing regardless. That being said, the fx6 has its own autofocus issues w/ a lack of touch af tracking. I do think the c70 and fx6 are the two best affordable pro cameras out there, but they're definitely not perfect.

The Blackmagic P6K Pro is just a pure cinema camera. Manual focus, s35, pro monitoring tools, etc. Slap on an Sirui anamorphic and shoot your movie the old fashioned way.

 

[andrgl]

lol @ the "pro" moniker, BMD slipping, they're letting their media people name shit:

• No SDI, only unreliable HMDI
• No wifi video, no 3rd party/1st party module for wireless video
• No locking lens mount
• No interchangeable lens mounts
• No recorder slot for SSD/nvme media, only unreliable USB-C

Very cool. Photo body (fuck ergonomic ENG/camcorder designs) with a tilt screen and shitty NDs. I'm glad we're getting these iterative changes, moar products pls! I love when BMD stretches their staff thin, so we get less firmware fixes and improvements.

And more products means more parts to house. So when your camera dies like a year after warranty, Blackmagic will tell you SOoL, we no repair.

[TomTheDP]

9 minutes ago, independent said:

I had a scarlet too when it came out- can't argue with the image when properly exposed. But I compared it with the original BM 2.5K, which completely crushed the scarlet in low light. At least a couple stops. I see the same trade off with the Komodo. But when properly exposed, Red is hard to beat.

The c70 does seem to have an issue w/ AF on darker skin tones; Brandon Washington and Griffin Conway demonstrated this issue. Might be able to be fixed w/ a firmware update, but it's pretty disappointing regardless. That being said, the fx6 has its own autofocus issues w/ a lack of touch af tracking. I do think the c70 and fx6 are the two best affordable pro cameras out there, but they're definitely not perfect.

The Blackmagic P6K Pro is just a pure cinema camera. Manual focus, s35, pro monitoring tools, etc. Slap on an Sirui anamorphic and shoot your movie the old fashioned way.

 

Did the old 2.5k struggle with the fixed noise pattern issue? That was always a killer on the URSA. 

I am really shocked how much richer the REDcode is compared against the Panasonic S1's 10 bit. I really didn't think it would be noticeable unless grading really heavily. I'll have to compare it to one of my friend's Blackmagic cameras next. 

The Lumix is still unbeatable for many applications of course. Clean 4000 iso is amazing to have.

Internal ND's and the bigger brighter screen on the Pocket Pro definitely make me consider it, but I am going to stick with what I got this year. No more camera purchases.