Oliver Daniel

The Canon's are going nowhere anytime soon. Some of the stuff you hear about Canon on this forum is far from reality.
I wrapped a shoot yesterday as part of a big team of camera operators, all of which were hired for a project for a big major football team and their sponsor. We prepped all the gear - and there were 5 C300's, 6 5D Mk. III's and a ton of EF lenses. (there were also 20 GoPro's). I setup a bunch of C300's but was tasked to operate a 5D Mk. III. Every single camera operator knew exactly what to do with these cameras, no questions asked. 
A few of us brought our own cameras as backups. The A7S and RX10 II popped up, but nobody would use them because they were like some kind of foreign objects. When I said to someone I could operate the Sony's, one of the camera assistants looked at me like I was insane. 
Because of the Canon's, the process was smooth and reliable as everyone knew the brand and know they work well. Canon have a major presence in big commercial work. People who say they are "toast" because of Sony's spec sheet monster products don't know what they are talking about. Canon know this, and if they didn't, we'd be seeing 4k and 120fps in all their DSLR's very, very soon. (won't happen). 
In credit to Sony - there was an FS7 on set capturing behind the scenes footage. It was the most talked about gadget on set. They've done a great job of that camera.
 

The Canon's are going nowhere anytime soon. Some of the stuff you hear about Canon on this forum is far from reality.
I wrapped a shoot yesterday as part of a big team of camera operators, all of which were hired for a project for a big major football team and their sponsor. We prepped all the gear - and there were 5 C300's, 6 5D Mk. III's and a ton of EF lenses. (there were also 20 GoPro's). I setup a bunch of C300's but was tasked to operate a 5D Mk. III. Every single camera operator knew exactly what to do with these cameras, no questions asked. 
A few of us brought our own cameras as backups. The A7S and RX10 II popped up, but nobody would use them because they were like some kind of foreign objects. When I said to someone I could operate the Sony's, one of the camera assistants looked at me like I was insane. 
Because of the Canon's, the process was smooth and reliable as everyone knew the brand and know they work well. Canon have a major presence in big commercial work. People who say they are "toast" because of Sony's spec sheet monster products don't know what they are talking about. Canon know this, and if they didn't, we'd be seeing 4k and 120fps in all their DSLR's very, very soon. (won't happen). 
In credit to Sony - there was an FS7 on set capturing behind the scenes footage. It was the most talked about gadget on set. They've done a great job of that camera.
 

I'm not a fan of the first A7S. Sure the low light is "cool", but the colour at those high ISO's is bloody terrible. 
 

I'm not a fan of the first A7S. Sure the low light is "cool", but the colour at those high ISO's is bloody terrible. 
 

I've been tempted to use the NX1 ever since it's release. I'd like to rent it but I can't find a vendor in the UK.
I think the colours are lovely and the resolution is absolutely ridiculous. 
What's the "better" type of skilled footage you have come across? Albert Fast does a good job with his little short films. 

I've never liked Sony's image even though I've used their cams a gazillion times. (F55 is better though!).
It's cool that the A7S has great low light, however it comes with a HUGE side effect, and that's poor colour. I feel anything beyond 6400ISO on the A7S looks very sickly. That's why I haven't got an A7S. 

I've actually been thinking the same thing, sort of. 
I pre-ordered the URSA Mini 4.6k just to get in the queue, with the intention of purchasing if early reviews and a rental test were up to scratch. 
There's quite a shift in my business at the moment towards commercial & corporate work due to the diminishing funds in music, where music video budgets are in great decline. 
The URSA Mini 4.6k is going to have an amazing, cinematic image - but there are many benefits to the FS5 that can't be ignored (ND's, 240fps slow motion, reliability, size). I've got a bunch of DSLR sized gear here (sliders, gimbal tripod) that I couldn't use with the URSA Mini 4.6k. The FS5 would fit all of it. 
Now the Sony image.... I've been shooting on Sony much more than any other brand because of the HFR. Music videos need it. However, I've never loved any of the images. I used a C300 at the weekend on a viral and it speaks volumes how much better the colour rendition on the Canon is compared to Sony. It's softer sure! But overall much more pleasing. Much much more. 
So for me, I'd have to work much harder with FS5 images and make them sing. It would probably be the better camera to buy that adapts my business model. I'd have to swallow my zest for beautiful Blackmagic images and stick with Sony. But that's not what I want to do. It's sort of personal. The BM image is a massive deal. Massive. 
As for the A7S II - I'd use this as an A-cam on a very low budget shoot and as a B-cam on others. 
From all the cameras here - the FS5 is the best option to fit all purposes. But it's not the sexiest. 

I used WideDR. 
The client requested "good sound connections" and "fresh faced" people. Even though I'm far more experienced with the FS7, I chose the C300 because of the "living" skintones. 
Peaking on the C300 is awesome, far better than Sony! 
I've flirted with the idea of getting an FS5, but I know the image very well in XAVC-L and it's not great really. I expect the BM Ursa 4.6k to have outstanding colour. This is a massive advantage over other cameras in it's price range. My gut feeling is they have a big, big winner on their hands here. 

Cool. 
I've not updated the firmware yet but I can definitely say that focus peaking is inaccurate on current firmware. 
You really need a focus aid with this camera, especially at the 200mm end. I'm disappointed with the peaking. 
I've gone from editing C300 footage to RX10 II footage in a few days... it's a weird experience. When people say Sony colour is weird, I wouldn't argue that. 

I used a Canon C300 on a shoot the other day, and now I'm back with the Sony's. It's evident how "empty" Sony colour science feels (in comparison). I think i'm getting bored of using Sony now, but er.. they have HFR. 
BMPCC has one of the best images I've worked with - what a little gem that thing is!
Still in the pre-order list for this URSA Mini 4.6k... I hope this means we get to see some footage soon!

Got another shoot tomorrow and this time it's on the DJI Ronin M! 
Also found that PP2 has less noise than the other profiles, but I can't remember if I modified it or not. 
I'm a "character" man, so that's maybe my weird issue with the camera. The combination of fixed lens/sensor has zero character! Something you will get with an A7S II by the bucketload (and some wonky vintage primes!) 

I've been using the RX10 II now for 2 months and I've used it on about 4 low budget music videos exclusively. (none of these have been released so I can't share yet). 
Generally i've had a pretty good time using the camera - you can get pretty good colour if you modify the Slog2 preset, although I would never use the factory Slog2 as it looks like a pile of sick. 
There are a lot of good things about the camera, it's a lot of fun - but these are the issues I'm coming across: 
Under challenging lighting conditions, the image from this camera is exceptionally noisy - even under ISO800. This site reported in the RX10 II review it's usable at up to ISO6400. I don't find that to be true under any type of lighting whatsoever. Especially in Slog2 - noise is absolutely insane. This camera needs a lot of light, and I'd only go up to ISO800 in those conditions too. Focus peaking is slightly inaccurate. At the telephoto end, this makes it tricky to focus.  120fps in HD looks very close in quality to 4k. Great for 1080p, but what does that say about the 4k? Hmmm... Does anybody have any RX10 II experiences to share? Any decent picture profiles? Good results concerning noise? 
 

Got another shoot tomorrow and this time it's on the DJI Ronin M! 
Also found that PP2 has less noise than the other profiles, but I can't remember if I modified it or not. 
I'm a "character" man, so that's maybe my weird issue with the camera. The combination of fixed lens/sensor has zero character! Something you will get with an A7S II by the bucketload (and some wonky vintage primes!) 

REDUser threads are cringeworthy: 
1st page then stopped....
"Ursa just got URSED!" 
It's like some of them are in an army - "our country is better than yours" kinda vibes. It fits with the product naming scheme I guess. 
That said, RED cameras are awesome. 

REDUser threads are cringeworthy: 
1st page then stopped....
"Ursa just got URSED!" 
It's like some of them are in an army - "our country is better than yours" kinda vibes. It fits with the product naming scheme I guess. 
That said, RED cameras are awesome. 

Completed another shoot exclusively on the RX10 II yesterday. 
I don't know what it is, but I feel really strange when I use the camera. I just don't feel right in myself, even though the results are fine. 
My next personal assessment is that I find the sensor size hard to get used to - and the fixed lens offers great range but nothing else. Maybe that's it. Artistically, I'm not connecting with the footage because it's more creatively limiting on this sensor and the fixed lens. Probably. 
As for picture profiles, I don't have any on hand but I know I've used popular user created A7S Slog2 profiles and tweaked a bit. Seems to suffer a lot with purple noise. 
Also, I share your feelings with the whole not so good colour/great HFR conundrum. I only use Sony for that. If Canon had great HFR, I'd be Canon all over. 
 

REDUser threads are cringeworthy: 
1st page then stopped....
"Ursa just got URSED!" 
It's like some of them are in an army - "our country is better than yours" kinda vibes. It fits with the product naming scheme I guess. 
That said, RED cameras are awesome. 

REDUser threads are cringeworthy: 
1st page then stopped....
"Ursa just got URSED!" 
It's like some of them are in an army - "our country is better than yours" kinda vibes. It fits with the product naming scheme I guess. 
That said, RED cameras are awesome. 

I've been using the RX10 II now for 2 months and I've used it on about 4 low budget music videos exclusively. (none of these have been released so I can't share yet). 
Generally i've had a pretty good time using the camera - you can get pretty good colour if you modify the Slog2 preset, although I would never use the factory Slog2 as it looks like a pile of sick. 
There are a lot of good things about the camera, it's a lot of fun - but these are the issues I'm coming across: 
Under challenging lighting conditions, the image from this camera is exceptionally noisy - even under ISO800. This site reported in the RX10 II review it's usable at up to ISO6400. I don't find that to be true under any type of lighting whatsoever. Especially in Slog2 - noise is absolutely insane. This camera needs a lot of light, and I'd only go up to ISO800 in those conditions too. Focus peaking is slightly inaccurate. At the telephoto end, this makes it tricky to focus.  120fps in HD looks very close in quality to 4k. Great for 1080p, but what does that say about the 4k? Hmmm... Does anybody have any RX10 II experiences to share? Any decent picture profiles? Good results concerning noise? 
 

I've actually been thinking the same thing, sort of. 
I pre-ordered the URSA Mini 4.6k just to get in the queue, with the intention of purchasing if early reviews and a rental test were up to scratch. 
There's quite a shift in my business at the moment towards commercial & corporate work due to the diminishing funds in music, where music video budgets are in great decline. 
The URSA Mini 4.6k is going to have an amazing, cinematic image - but there are many benefits to the FS5 that can't be ignored (ND's, 240fps slow motion, reliability, size). I've got a bunch of DSLR sized gear here (sliders, gimbal tripod) that I couldn't use with the URSA Mini 4.6k. The FS5 would fit all of it. 
Now the Sony image.... I've been shooting on Sony much more than any other brand because of the HFR. Music videos need it. However, I've never loved any of the images. I used a C300 at the weekend on a viral and it speaks volumes how much better the colour rendition on the Canon is compared to Sony. It's softer sure! But overall much more pleasing. Much much more. 
So for me, I'd have to work much harder with FS5 images and make them sing. It would probably be the better camera to buy that adapts my business model. I'd have to swallow my zest for beautiful Blackmagic images and stick with Sony. But that's not what I want to do. It's sort of personal. The BM image is a massive deal. Massive. 
As for the A7S II - I'd use this as an A-cam on a very low budget shoot and as a B-cam on others. 
From all the cameras here - the FS5 is the best option to fit all purposes. But it's not the sexiest. 

I've actually been thinking the same thing, sort of. 
I pre-ordered the URSA Mini 4.6k just to get in the queue, with the intention of purchasing if early reviews and a rental test were up to scratch. 
There's quite a shift in my business at the moment towards commercial & corporate work due to the diminishing funds in music, where music video budgets are in great decline. 
The URSA Mini 4.6k is going to have an amazing, cinematic image - but there are many benefits to the FS5 that can't be ignored (ND's, 240fps slow motion, reliability, size). I've got a bunch of DSLR sized gear here (sliders, gimbal tripod) that I couldn't use with the URSA Mini 4.6k. The FS5 would fit all of it. 
Now the Sony image.... I've been shooting on Sony much more than any other brand because of the HFR. Music videos need it. However, I've never loved any of the images. I used a C300 at the weekend on a viral and it speaks volumes how much better the colour rendition on the Canon is compared to Sony. It's softer sure! But overall much more pleasing. Much much more. 
So for me, I'd have to work much harder with FS5 images and make them sing. It would probably be the better camera to buy that adapts my business model. I'd have to swallow my zest for beautiful Blackmagic images and stick with Sony. But that's not what I want to do. It's sort of personal. The BM image is a massive deal. Massive. 
As for the A7S II - I'd use this as an A-cam on a very low budget shoot and as a B-cam on others. 
From all the cameras here - the FS5 is the best option to fit all purposes. But it's not the sexiest. 

I've actually been thinking the same thing, sort of. 
I pre-ordered the URSA Mini 4.6k just to get in the queue, with the intention of purchasing if early reviews and a rental test were up to scratch. 
There's quite a shift in my business at the moment towards commercial & corporate work due to the diminishing funds in music, where music video budgets are in great decline. 
The URSA Mini 4.6k is going to have an amazing, cinematic image - but there are many benefits to the FS5 that can't be ignored (ND's, 240fps slow motion, reliability, size). I've got a bunch of DSLR sized gear here (sliders, gimbal tripod) that I couldn't use with the URSA Mini 4.6k. The FS5 would fit all of it. 
Now the Sony image.... I've been shooting on Sony much more than any other brand because of the HFR. Music videos need it. However, I've never loved any of the images. I used a C300 at the weekend on a viral and it speaks volumes how much better the colour rendition on the Canon is compared to Sony. It's softer sure! But overall much more pleasing. Much much more. 
So for me, I'd have to work much harder with FS5 images and make them sing. It would probably be the better camera to buy that adapts my business model. I'd have to swallow my zest for beautiful Blackmagic images and stick with Sony. But that's not what I want to do. It's sort of personal. The BM image is a massive deal. Massive. 
As for the A7S II - I'd use this as an A-cam on a very low budget shoot and as a B-cam on others. 
From all the cameras here - the FS5 is the best option to fit all purposes. But it's not the sexiest. 

I've always wanted a Blackmagic camera (because the image is simply amazing), but I never got one due to the lack of HFR (which I need) and also the terrible ergonomics making them hard to use. (BMPCC was the best). 
Now the URSA Mini 4.6k ticks a lot of boxes where the other cameras didn't.
I have to say I'm most concerned about the cropped 120fps mode, I'm really hoping it's not a load of crap. HFR is an absolute must in my camera purchases, hence why I have an RX10 II (just finished a low budget band shoot today shot on this!)
It's not only the HFR that brought some attention to the FS5. I love how light and versatile this camera is. I can use all my small camera grip stuff with it too. I do find Slog2 & 3 a bit of a pain though, and I don't really like the colours. I've only shot a lot of Sony FS700/FS7/F55/RX10 II stuff because they are the only main camera maker that provides decent HFR - never been over the moon with the images though!
Then it all comes back to that damn Blackmagic image - it's simply absolutely hands down superior than the Sony offerings and will very likely be more than worth the money. 

For a future version, it would be really cool to have the MFT camera built into the pistol grip with wireless focus controls (like Aputure) on one side of the grip and pan/tilt on the other. 
Then this would be one of the most crazy gadgets ever for cinematic work!

I'm in two minds whether to actually change my URSA Mini 4.6k pre-order to a Sony FS5. They are much different cameras, but I think I'm getting bit of sense when thinking about this for business terms. 
For these reasons: 
Smaller, much lighter body. (constant shoulder cam on a long shoot really starts to hurt! Health matters). Can use the Sony FS5 with my lightweight grip gear - DJI Ronin M, Edelkrone Slider, Libec Tripod. (too small for URSA Mini).  Internal electronic ND means I don't need 100 step up/step rings/combos to put on a vari-ND on each lens.  240fps at 10bit - massive for music videos. (URSA is a worrying, windowed 3.4x 120fps. HFR is a MUST).  Much smaller file sizes (decent hard drives + backups cost a lot of money).  Much more reliable brand. Less likely to have weird issues on footage where money matters.  Very familiar with Sony video products and Slog2/3.  Much cheaper media.  Can record external RAW in future update. (might be a great way to "upgrade" the camera).  Put on a Speedbooster and also adapt all sorts of lenses. URSA Mini advantages:
Be able to produce much more spectacular images.  Much better colour science.  Rolling/Global Switchable - nice to have the option.  Larger screen and better EVF.  I'm wondering whether the benefits of the URSA Mini 4.6k are enough. The filmmaker says yes, the business person says no.