Leaderboard

The adaptor for the mini XLR isn't really an issue as it locks in place at both ends so just like having one cable really. When I first received my camera, I was horrified at the battery life and how unreliable the battery meter was. For a minute, I thought about selling the camera straight away. Once the included battery was charged and discharged a few times, the battery life started to improve and the accuracy of the meter did too. I bought four Wasabi batteries as I have used Wasabi in my GoPro's and X-T2 and had been happy with them but the LP-E6 versions only gave me 25mins of battery life. Even after a few discharges and charges, they didn't improve at all. I have now switched to Genuine Canon LP-E6's and now getting just over an hour of continuous run time with the screen at 65% brightness so the battery life is not really a concern for me any longer. Also, the meter accuracy is spot on and I get a good warning when the battery is low It was me who reported that the screen was hard to see in bright sun and that was to do with the reflectiveness of it rather than the lack of brightness. I have just fitted an anti glare protector to it. Unfortunately it's night time here, and I can't test it in full sun until tomorrow but even indoors it's obvious that the reflections have been cut substantially without quality loss so hopefully this results in my second major gripe (the battery was my first) with this camera being resolved. The camera really is fun to use without any rigging at all, the only thing I do now miss is a tilting screen but I knew it didn't have one before I bought it. I might get a SmallHD Focus to remedy this. Ultimately, we need to compare Apples to Apples so let's recap your issues below. 90% of the issues you describe here will be issues for many other mirrorless cameras anyway. The screen Issues: I have used the A7 series a lot over the years and while it did have a tilting screen, I hated using it for video as it was just too small and also wasn't great in direct sun (most mirrorless screens suffer the same issues), so it too needed an external screen as do most Mirrorless camera for critical work. Battery Issues: Again, the A7 series battery life sucked, as it does on my own X-T2 (I carry 4 batteries with my X-T2 when I go in holidays!) so apart from the GH series, you need to carry around batteries for any prolonged shooting anyway with most mirrorless cameras. As they are so small, I'm not seeing this as a major problem. The USB-C/ Hard drive issue: You don't have to use the USB-C feature if you don't want to (and no other camera even gives you the option) so can't see that as being a negative. Once the camera gets BRAW, you will have RAW to SD Cards. To do that with any other mirrorless, you need an external recorder (more rigging, more batteries). The Audio XLR adaptor issue: Audio wise, having phantom power is great as is the XLR connection, minijack input and Timecode in. Adding those to a mirrorless camera requires external recorders so more bulk, rigging and batteries. I'll take the XLR- Mini XLR adaptor over a H4N or similar any day. While it's easy to look at all the negatives of the Pocket4K, you need to compare apples to apples and any camera in the ballpark price range (and even thousands $$$$ more) is going to need external accessories to get the same job done as the pocket. The fact is, 90% of of the time, you can easily get away with shooting in a bare bones config on the pocket. I'd only really recommend using an external monitor for shorts where the camera is low to the ground or up above your head. BMD really have given you so many options and ways of using this camera.

So, worst case scenario is that the Pocket 4K is a 'GH5s Cinema Series' camera? Like the GH5s but better colour science, better codecs, internal RAW, Phantom powered XLR, Timecode capability, and includes a full version of Resolve for $1000USD cheaper than Panasonics Vlogger/ stills focussed GH5s that has a flappy screen, Autofocus and takes stills which the latter two functions are features I never use on my video cameras anyway............I'm cool with that! The GH5S is a great little camera.

Wow.. Isn't it just! and this one is lovely too, but makes me think of the caption "Woman miraculously untouched in freak firework accident"....

Funny, I also had my hands on the EOS R at Photokina and could have sworn it felt like a cheap $500 mirrorless camera with poor ergonomics and really dated video mode, but then I don't have 700,000 hungry Canon viewers on my YouTube channel to feed.

I disagree. I just used a Nikon d4 on a pro job and heard not one complaint from my client.

40mm, it's a middle ground I prefer over 50mm.

Yeah the beefier ALL-I codec surely helps.. a bit.. but i think the RF lenses with the optical in cam optimizations and overall tack-sharp performance are probably the bigger assets.. the 50 F1.2 is just really something else, even wide open. Kind of blown away by it tbh. In 4K the detail is insane. And in FHD it is daaamn good too. Does it equate the C100's downsampled from 4K FHD IQ? With EF lenses on both, probably not. But with the RF's.. imo it's a close call. I don't own the camera yet, but i will try and set-up some comparison shots with my C100 since some of you seem interested. I do have an atomos, so it will also be interesting to compare without codecs in the equation.. in any case i'm pretty sure already EOS R will be a great B-cam to a C100/200/300!

I still have and love the original pocket, but does anyone else remember alot of the early footage from it? It was terrible! The good stuff was amazing, but much of it was worse than DSLR offerings at the time, mostly thanks to people being in over their heads with the grading. So I'm reserving my judgement on the pocket 4K for a while. The early stuff looks solidly good, but I think the best is yet to come.

35mm equivalent or in such terms, of course. That is, focal length obviously doesn't change based on the sensor format, the FOV does. So, for the subject matter, take it as you're shooting FF ; ) My first cup of tea is 30-35mm. A bit wide, less than regular perspective, the way humans see the world, but already far enough from reality. More versatile than others IMO once you can use it for portrait but ready for street shooting as you wish. Being a widest my 3rd choice and a telephoto lens for fourth, preferentially a zoom because of several re-framing options I may have. Needless to say the 2nd place. Yours? The most focal lengths you use will dictate the product you output as much as the duration of your shots or the scale, your editing style. If you'd choose one sole prime lens, which one would it be?

Lol at the BMD sub-forum getting renamed.

Sounds to me you Need a Sony A7 mk III.

Yes, I do. The good news is that it isn't that bad on the BMPCC really, although lacking a bit of speed and flexibility. You do the push focus to lock it and in the main it does catch it reasonably quickly and you are helped here by it being a fairly narrow aperture lens even at its widest so its reasonably forgiving. The issue of course is that if you then want to switch focus mid take as it gets a bit messy but, as I say, for what it is which is a very compact and cheap wide angle that is probably going to see most of its use with deep depth of field on a gimbal or for fixed wide shots then that might not be a problem depending on your application. The better news is that if you do want to use it on a BMPCC then if you connect a LANC controller that has focus control then you are actually able to manually focus it using that method. When it comes to using it on the Pocket 4K, its a bit good news/bad news really. The good news is that with the touch to focus option then it will be a lot more usable for focus change on the fly than it is on the original Pocket. The bad news is that the Pocket 4K has dispensed with the LANC port so the manual focus option isn't available. What it does have though is Bluetooth LE and the focus far/near is part of the spec in the developer documents for what can be controlled so it does open up that opportunity again for a 3rd party to create that via an app or a hardware controller. I know someone who is definitely working on the latter......

You do understand that with the FTZ adapter, you have all the modern Nikon lens (the last 10-20 years) which work natively on the z series camera. We are not talking about lens that won't focus, meter etc. but work as good with fast focus etc. This already makes the Z cameras have a big advantage in terms of lens compared to any Sony. Now ad the Sigma's which all work very well on the Z and some Tamron's. I am sure Tamron will be working to make sure all their lens work. Some like the 24-70mm is working. Then you have all the lens that can be adapted, we already saw a lot of adapter coming on. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/09/24/12-novoflex-lens-adapters-for-nikon-z-mirrorless-camera-officially-announced.aspx/

90% of my shots are 28mm on APS-C (42mm on FF). I think I'd use a 24mm more often if I had a good one--my zooms in that range have no character. 28mm is great for wide shots if you've got enough space, but really shines for medium shots and close ups. It's not exactly "flattering," but really makes a face jump out from the background in a way that a longer lens can't. I love the DOF at f4: your eye immediately knows what's in focus, but you can still tell what's behind the blur. It guides your eye, but maintains the scene's context. Some years ago I read this article, and I still agree with it 100%.

I don't mind that some people like the EOS R. I agree with them it gets a shot and a job done. No argument there. All that matters to me is my own needs and mine are different. I need to switch back and forth between stills and video on one body, so to be thrown off by 1.8x the focal length between 4K and a RAW still is not going to fit the workflow. To drop to 1080p seems poor value for money, and to use a Speed Booster would necessitate a second body or an adapter swap when going from 4K to a RAW still. If you are composing a shot in video mode and hit record, bang - 1.8x crop - your composition is going to be completely different. Different deal breakers for different people!

Yes sure Mattias C100 ii is a workhorse, trusted, familiar and reliable. I am more interested in auteur filmmaking and cinematography, where you'd go to great lengths to bring a Russian LOMO anamorphic into service for the hell of it... Beautiful artistic reasons over efficiency. Slowly crafting something rather than delivering for a client and getting paid. It's different mindset. Here the camera isn't just a gear in the job machine. For same artistic reasons you may want full frame, which rules out C100 II. For same artistic reasons you may not want to shoot 1.8x crop from a $3000 full frame lens and might consider the $3000 better spent on glass for a Nikon Z7. As well as the artistic side, where the EOS R fails to excite me, it fails to excite me equally as much on the technical side. It's just old chips. Old sensor. Not exactly an X-T3 or Z7. I have a blog to write about innovative camera technology. Not much to say about the EOS R on that front but the lenses are good.

It does wonders for faces, makes them much more flattering

No it's not. You can learn so much on there it is scary. Sure there is crap on it, but there is quality stuff also. Tons of it. And I help support 7 people through Patreon on it. Sort of like family. Sure it can be the worse thing and the best thing, But it isn't going away any time soon. i have no clue how they can keep up with server space on that site. It has to be a mind blowing setup. You do realize Google Owns You Tube.

Nah, stick around and you'll realise he's way to grumpy to be a believer in almost anything!! Welcome to the forums.. home of nice people, good advice, and a bit of snark and hip-and-shoulder too Awesome - what lens is that? 12mm and crazy fast? Shallow DoF simulations in VIDEO will come, it's just about processing power. My understanding is that they do it by having two cameras where one of them senses depth (could be wrong here) but basically they take two images and then do math to work out which bits they should blur. With computing power going up steadily it's just a matter of time, and Apple has already demonstrated it's something people want that is worthwhile investing the tech into. It might be something they do in post - if they record both streams and then "develop" it later in non-realtime even. I understand your POV and agree, but also see @webrunner5 perspective too. I look at it from a few perspectives: Image quality - smartphones are getting better so fast that they'll soon be 'good enough' except in difficult lighting conditions (the 2012 Zacuto camera shootout was interesting and we've come a long way since the iPhone 4s which was used in that shootout) Flexibility - more DR and function buttons and all that stuff really matters because it makes it a lot easier to get the results you want - lower DR, a touchscreen and lightening/USB port is a million miles from a C300 and that really matters on set Connectivity - SDI ports, timecode, external power options really matter and phones are basically nowhere on this Convenience - phones are always with you, always on, and don't attract a lot of attention, which means that much more content is available to film, either from the perspective that a dedicated camera would prevent you from getting the shot or that it would just make it more difficult We evaluate phones on image quality and convenience alone because they lack the other practical things that "real" cameras have. It depends on what you shoot and your priorities I think. Arguments start when people have different priorities and don't fully explain themselves. Please everyone be nice - in person most of us would agree and calmly explain ourselves It depends on what you're shooting. If you're in good light, and are looking for a wide angle deep DoF shot and don't need timecode and external monitoring then a phone can be almost as good as an Alexa. I take shots on my phone when I travel quite a bit because that combination is great for scenic landscapes and such, even though I have an XC10 that has decent DR, C-Log, 305Mbps codec, timecode, and ergonomics that most DSLRs can only dream of. I've seen a lovely wedding video shot with an iPhone. It was an experiment, the couple agreed ahead of time, and they probably didn't pay full price, but it worked. Film-making is all about compromises, we don't have cameras that can meet how well we see so capturing things is always choosing which things the human eye can see that we don't capture, and phones are no different, they're just more of a compromise. So, you CAN shoot a wedding, but at least for now you probably SHOULDN'T Every thread is mostly the same conversation - convergence. More specifically the convergence of Hollywood, the movie theatre, broadcast television, cinema cameras, home movie cameras, film-splicing editing machines, recording studios, typewriters and telephones. Fast forward far enough and these will all be included into a tiny device mounted somewhere near our eye. This convergence is difficult for many people to come to terms with because these things never touched. Not even the Bell Labs think tank where they predicted the mobile phone thought that it would include a camera inside it. Everyone is struggling with the fact the tech isn't there yet in terms of what we see in our heads, but we're still interested in it enough to thrash it out in forums because every few iterations take us a meaningful step forwards in being able to achieve that vision. It's too rubbish to be happy with, but is improving too fast to ignore. It's actually the creative drive that powers much of these conversations. I don't want 4K60 10-bit with IBIS because I like letters and numbers and spending money - I want it because 4K 422 allows 1080 4444 (I output in 1080), 60p enables slow-motion which suits the aesthetic of the home videos I shoot because time seems to slow in the magical moments that I want to capture, 10-bit because I shoot outside in high DR with a log profile and I want to have the flexibility in post and get rich colours, and IBIS because shake distracts from the smooth magic I want to create and draws attention to the fact it's a film rather than a memory. Do I need all these things - no, do they support my creative vision - yes

Formatt Hitech Black Supermist 1/2 filter. Standard profile with no adjustments. Love the look and what it does to highlights, but 1/2 is to strong for my taste. Deciding on the 1/8 or 1/4th to get for my Nikon set. Much prefer it to the Promist, which raises the blacks up to much for my taste. Voigtlander 40mm f2 Voigtlander 90mm 3.5

The pocket has a M43 sensor. Why would I need to carry something in my pocket btw? You can do a shallow DOF in post for video? Not easily. I can create dragons flying of my mouth in post to, technically. The whole well rec 709 is only 5 stops argument is kind of silly. With wide dynamic range you can manipulate the image easily in post and decide where you want that dynamic range to go. More power to you if you can deal with poor iso performance, no dof, small sensors and be happy with it. If you don't like these discussions just start your own thread on what you want to talk about. Who is forcing you to talk about camera specs? You are the one going on about how you think cell phones are better then micro four thirds cameras. If you genuinely don't care about specs why argue about it. I do care about specs. I love cameras, playing with cameras, reading about cameras, buying cameras. Its what interests me. Also I do shoot stuff, was up until 2am filming a short film last night. I don't usually post on here because who wants to watch my shorts? Usually no one. Easier for people to read a 10 second comment and reply on their phone while doing something else. Videos require attention.

A lot of it is laughably blatant. Whatever happened to subtly and subliminally pushing your brand at people? Anyway, I'm just going to have this cup of coffee and watch this develop with a keen interest.

That's great Andrew. By the way have you heard of the Canon EOS R? I've been trying it all weekend and it's just fantastic!

Here is a quick shootout of the Fuji X-T3, Canon 1DXMk2, Canon C200 and Panasonic GH5S. Granted FCPX refused to not blowout some of the footage of camera B. It's displayed correctly in some of the head to head comparisons. I think it might have been caused by a software bug in FCPX. In any case all four cameras were filming in base ISO in controlled lighting. Opinions welcomed.

Yeah I just watched the review. Video quality is ultra soft and lacking detail. Just goes to show high bitrate isn't everything...

I’ve shot quite a few paid jobs with a Panasonic LX100. But then I prefer a camera as small as possible to be discreet. I also prefer people not to realise I’m working. My clients pay for my behaviour, not so much megapixels. What type of photography are you shooting paid work for?

Ok i’ll Try that Thanks, Tim Hi Tupp Thanks, those do look good and I canon color a lot. But, I already have the 4/3 to PL lens adaptors which are really nice. Thanks, Tim

Everything I've seen thus far would certainly seem to bear that out.

Well, it's a good guess that Nikon has a slight bias to make the auto-focus of their own lenses to work fairly well with this camera.

@BTM_Pix Thanks for the info ? I am very interested in one of the hardware controllers you mention, please add me to the list.. ?

I think what @DBounce mentioned about colors can be important. While the GH5S colors look nice to me (I do, after all, shoot with Sony cameras), it might be good to plan around how much time you will have for coloring / grading. Neither camera has IBIS. Is that going to be an issue? If I had to go by "gut feeling" alone, then MAYBE the tilty screen of the X-T3 would be easier to use than the flip-out screen of the GH5 when using on a gimbal??? If you are using a small "single hand" gimbal (Crane or something similar), will the motors block the flip out screen??? You can hear some of Jordan Drake's thought on the X-T3 here: https://youtu.be/6situ5QPf6s?t=579 It seems the AF tracking in video is not on par with the Canon (and I would assume Sony as well... not that canon or sony cameras are in the running in your decision at all, just that maybe that is one slightly less advantage in terms of the X-T3). Will you be using lighting??? If not, does 10-bit 4:2:2 hold up any better to color correcting mixed lighting than 10-bit 4:2:0 (I think Jordan says the Fuji is 10-bit 4:2:0 when recorded internally). Do you not want a B cam??? Since you mentioned you own a GH5 already, then having a GH5S as an A cam and your GH5 as a B cam makes a lot of sense. What is the lens budget looking like? The only people I know who say "Fuji lenses are inexpensive" are people who used to shoot Sony...

I got the camera a couple days ago after reading Andrews post. I wanted something to replace my Black Magic pocket camera for these old Zeiss s16s super speeds set I have . To put it bluntly, I’m not getting the results . The first two shots on his video sold me on it. Didn’t even watch the rest. I’m used to shooting with a red dragon so maybe I don’t know what I’m doing . But, I can’t get the stabization to work very well . Thinking of returning it on Monday . Sad, because I really love these lenses and would really like a viable s16 camera. I also have a Zeiss s16 10-120 which is awesome to shoot with . Small, light weight and s35 its a 20 240 f2.0 . I also like the s16 look. I had just watched The Wrestler the night before and that was shot on s16 so, that probably influenced my purchase as well.

GH5 series is something of a standard. I think Panasonic earned this honor. But my goodness, does the X-T3 throw a monkey into the wrench. Either if epic. But I can tell you from owning both, the Fuji is easier to match with Canons. And straight out of camera colors on the Fuji are quite lovely.

I agree that it's a little less quirky than the original, but I don't think by much. Yes, the sound situation is better, but you're still going to need to use an adaptor if you're not going the 3.5mm jack route. The more things change, the more things stay the same. The battery situation here is truly horrific and shouldn't be downplayed. People are reporting 40 minutes or so. Blackmagic are once again shipping a broken design - the camera should take larger batteries or have been engineered in such a way as to save power if it is to be advertised as a 'pocket' camera. Yeah, you can carry around half a dozen batteries with you, but who wants to do that? Or more to the point, who wants to be changing batteries every 45 minutes (of usage, not shooting) in a run and gun situation? The screen is great, but reportedly hard to see in bright sunlight, so depending on your shooting conditions you might need to buy a monitor anyway. The USB-C features are neat, but they require carrying and rigging up a power brick or hard drive. And once you're going to that kind of effort, we get back to what I was saying originally. You still need a lot of accessories and effort to make this thing practical, and that's what's going to stop it from being the kind of film-democratizing modern super 8 type thing for amateur enthusiasts. Needing to rig the thing up is prohibitively intimidating, expensive and slow and gets in the way of the fun of getting out and shooting. For small production companies? Sure, it brings down the cost of professional codecs, particularly raw.

Yep, for years Sony's mirrorless cameras (a7s, A7r MKII's a6XXX series) all had bad battery life and that was without powering a fan to keep them cool. They overheated and became unusable for 5-10 minutes. I know what I'd prefer.

I know your comment is forum banter but i've actually just been using the EOS R.. and i actually like it.. enough to even purchase it! (putting flame suit on) But please don't shame me Andrew, I am not a paid Canon shill !!! ? He had to ship the camera back to canon (also gives further insight into EOS R vs 1DX2): Saying goodbye to the EOS R... For now Maybe i'm being naive but i seriously don't think every youtuber praising the EOS R is necessarily a paid shill or did so because they were sent to Hawaii. Having some hands-on experience with the camera and it's lens system does me give a solid impression, especially as a hybrid / B-cam to a 1DX2/C100/200/300.

I agree with you to an extent. But part of the reason the BMPCC is so nice is because of dynamic range and of course color science and bit depth. I don't think smart phones are known for having remotely any of those traits. I do acknowledge what great choices we have in cameras these days for such low prices, but the new tech is also really helpful.

This dude has no idea what he's doing. Nothing is done correctly for a real test. Not even his WB is even.

Exposure looks different in those shots also. So there is that. Honestly, with a little care they would look pretty dam well indistinguishable.

Absolutely my thoughts. This camera will sort the men from the boys. I've seen footage that could go head to head with ARRI and Ursa as you say, but I've also seen footage that has more of a video look than a 8 year old apsc cannon dslr (way more infact). The correct settings and grading will make all the difference. And obviously the quality of the cinematography also. One thing about a lower price point is that it makes it more accessible to more amateurs, so the lower average quality of craftmanship might make the camera seem worse than it would do otherwise compared to more expensive cameras.

Andrew, I get what you are saying but maybe i had too much bias creep into what I wrote (I've ordered a bmpcc). My point is that between the two the features and price are different enough that each are targeting different audiences. There are plenty of people that think each camera is garbage and amazing. Personally, I didn't even consider the gh5s or gh5 because they are far more expensive. So even given the they have differences, I would have taken a hit on quality and features just for the sake of saving money.

Interesting topic. I remember a little while back a 'new poster' wrote a post about a DJI drone - great drone, really fantastic, you can buy one here. Now when you buy a DJI drone, you register your drone with DJI. And I suspect that 'anyone' who registers with DJI gets approached to be an affiliate. (I certainly did.) And the affiliate plan is reasonably attractive - 4% of any purchase through your affiliate link. Admittedly I cant be bothered but I bet others find the offer potentially attractive (say if you are a student.) So maybe what you are seeing is not 'plants'. Camera companies are just spending their marketing dollars differently. Bribing youtubers with jamborees and early access to new product. And mobilizing their customer base through affiliate links.[

Lifting blacks in filmconvert?

Philip Bloom has received the pocket cam from PROAV TV Looking forward to seeing what he can do with the cam

The salient point was about adapting with AF though.

The lens finally came by, doesnt seems to be parfocal (adapter seems great), but there is a knob behind the aperture ring where you can adjust the glass elements... Tried different positions but it just doesnt seems to work as a parfocal ...

I think like a lot of gentlemen of a certain age, I have an attachment to 50mm as its what we all had as our standard lenses when we got our first SLRs and used them to shoot dinosaurs roaming in the local park. I'm sure Google has a way of generating EXIF from any image so when they tire of snooping on us electronically and invent a way of physically sifting through our cupboards and drawers undetected they'll scan all those negs and slides from latter part of the 20th century and we'll find that about 75% of pictures were taken on a 50mm. I never really bought into the 50mm being closest to what the eye sees - or at least concentrates on for want of a better expression - but its not totally far off. I suspect its probably even less so now though for people who have grown up looking at the world through a 28mm equivalent on their iPhones as they have developed a wider (yet simultaneously narrower ) viewpoint of what is standard. Anyway, a couple more from the 7Artisans 50mm f1.1 at narrower apertures to balance out the previous glowfest examples of shooting it wide open.

Speaking of daft 50mm lenses..... More M mount shenanigans, this time with the 7Artisans 50mm f1.1 Shot wide open on full frame, the depth of field is shallower than an ant's paddling pool.

Let's not forget that the sensor in the GFX50s/r made its debut in 2014 in Phase One and Hasselblad backs. Not to mention there's significantly more money and resources in the development of APS-C and Full Frame sensors, since they sell much much more of them. Formats larger than 35mm has always been a niche market. You buy medium format because you like the look and you're willing to give up a lot of practicality for it. Also, less DoF isn't the reason you have a more three dimensional image -- it's the transition between focus and out of focus. It's the way you can get separation between subject and background but not reduce the background to a big blurry smear.