Oliver Daniel

Screw gear Tell your friend to take a trip around the world with that money.

One more suggestion. Canon is doing a 2 year 0% financing (I just took advantage of this). If he was looking to get a C300 or C100 he could put down half up front, and spend the rest on other gear. Pay off the remainder as jobs come in the next couple of years.

I definitely agree with your assessment not to invest in a camera body right now. Maybe a GH4, A7s or NX1 (or a pair of any) for those projects that don't require a $5,000+ cam. Cameras are easy to rent and easy to work into the budget. A grip truck much less so. 
Lenses are a great investment, but the lens you need can vary wildly from project to project. I would recommend getting three great primes at focal lengths he commonly uses and just continue to rent when projects call for something different. OR, he could go with something like a 24-70 and a 70-200. Those lenses have you covered for the corporate stuff and you can rent more specific, cinematic lenses for projects that call for them. 
An Arri (or Mole) lighting kit + good grip equipment will last literally decades. Getting a good LED kit for smaller setups is also a good idea, but the tech is advancing so rapidly at the moment that I probably wouldn't advise spending too much there. I personally love the Westcott Ice light, and they just came out with a new version. Paired with some Lite Panels, you've got a great interview setup going. In fact, he already has the Kinos, so one or two more lights gets him to a good place.
Another interesting option might be to look into an HMI, like a Joker. They're so flexible- you can put them in a chimera, a fresnel, a leek, whatever. The also put out insane amounts of light and don't run too hot. Expensive, but very rentable if he has a good network of fellow filmmakers out there.
What does he do for sound? This is a good opportunity to invest in some great equipment on that front.  $5,000-$7,000 or so on three wireless wavs, a boom + mic, field mixer + recorder, and now he can get hired to do location sound, which puts him into a whole new world of opportunity. Or he can hire crew to do sound for him without having to pay equipment rental costs. That might be too much for your friend, especially if he doesn't do much sound-critical work. If the most he ever does is 1-person interviews, I'd still recommend spending at least $2-$3k on audio equipment. It's the most overlooked aspect of filmmaking and can make the most difference. A good kit will allow him to expand. 
 
He's definitely going to need to upgrade him computer + storage setup, but I won't bother getting into that. 

Calculate the predicted rental charges on 3 years of FS7 or C300 Mark II shooting then deduct it from the predicted depreciation value of the cameras in that same time period. I predict the C300 II would lose $6000, the FS7 $4000.
If the rental costs exceed that in 3 years then it makes more sense to buy them.
Not to mention, buying allows them to be used for your own personal creative work!
Lenses hold their value well.
A7S a good choice too. But in his situation I'd probably get the FS7, a Mac Pro, a 4K display & spend the rest on Canon lenses and LED lights.

My client don't know anything about the cameras. They'll mutter RED, 4k and slo-mo from time to time - but that's about it. They just want high quality images and trust me to deliver. They care more about my ideas and creativity then my tools. I help create the ideas, I shoot, edit then deliver. All in-house. So "burning in" doesn't apply to me. Only tried Slog3. Personally my clients love the FS7 results because of the slo-mo and cinematic look achievable. 
The 10 bit is a big deal. It saved me on a shoot where the main image didn't work out and we ended up making a green screen from pale green rags and green gels to light it. The DIY screen was awful and blotchy but it really pulled off in post! 
My main rental houses have multiple FS7's and they are almost always booked out. One of them said that their Epic isn't going out because people are trying the FS7. So to answer you question... This camera is making major waves! Don't know if the C300 mk II will change that. 
I used the ND outside. Didn't notice anything, I couldn't really say as I've only done most of my shots in controlled lighting. 
You can balance the camera by using lighter lenses and putting a V-lock on the back. Used it this way, seemed fine although it was mostly on sticks that day. 
 

Image-wise, the footage from the 4.6k Ursa that Captain Hook shot looks amazing. Second most organic looking picture to the Alexa IMO. I've owned 2 BM cams in the past are they were just a pain to use. Hopefully the Ursa mini makes for an easier workflow.

Conpletely agree. Try using a rigged up RED Epic with a tiny crew and tell me it's easy.  
I'd love a C300 Mk II but it's too expensive for me - I'd be better off gunning for the FS7 or URSA Mini and use other funds to get lenses. It's a camera for high calibre freelancers and production companies. Yes, I do have my own production company making stuff week in, week out - but it's small with two directors and a part time accounts lady. 

Ease of use is highly under rated IMO. As much as a critic I am of Canons strategy and prices, its pretty damn nice to just pick up a camera and shoot for hours not worrying about assembly, batteries, rigs, monitors, attachments, etc. 
The new focus assist on C100 and 300 is very tempting.

Yes I would think we are talking about cinema cameras, as the URSA Mini seems specced for that purpose.
Dynamic range is more important to me, but I do find it very useful if my camera can perform well under low light - it helps when you can use lights with less power (more portable, like LEDs) and be able to get a detailed, clean image. It's true that some shoots can be difficult when you have a tiny crew and a load of Arri Fresnels to rig up. 
My point in being is that many enthusiasts want the next best image quality, and will keep on buying camera after camera like they are chasing the dragon. When will the said enthusiast wake up and realise that moulding the light is the key to maximum image performance? An A7S won't do it for you. If I relied on low light capabilities then a lot of my images would be horrible. 
Those who are documentary/run&gun/shot grabbers/spontaneous - this might not apply to you.  

Totally get your drift, but others don't. Some people out there think a low light camera means you don't need lighting, which is a very bizarre way of thinking when shooting. (Excluding the spontaneous and some documentary stuff). 
There are many "tests" on Vimeo where opinions are based on cameras where substantial lighting hasn't been used. How can a cameras image quality be tested when it hasn't been given the ingredients it needs? (Excluding low light tests). The A7S for example, creates by far it's best image under decent lighting at a low ISO. 
I've historically made loads of my projects with very little money to nothing. Lighting never gets thrown aside. Last year I made a zombie music video in a complete blacked out lunatic asylum. I lit the entire thing with just 2 small LED lights and a reflector. Sure, I had the Sony FS700 (decent low light) but if I didn't bother moulding the light then the video would of been a waste of time. 
A lot of us camera nerds are so obsessed with cameras that we spent all our money on cameras and not the juice that feeds the image. Low light is a fantastic feature to get more information and clean images - but knowing how to mould that light, in whichever form or source with decent composition is the key to amazing images. It's what sets you apart. (And your ideas of course!)
So when this brings me back to the URSA Mini and what it's intended for,  it seems perfectly fine. I'll always have some form of light kit, even if it's a bit of foil on a piece of cardboard and a little torch to shine on it.  

​
If low light is such an issue for low budget production - shouldn't more people actually consider buying a decent set of lights before upgrading to yet another camera body? Lights last for over a decade, camera body 2-3 years. I don't find low light much of an issue as I'm covered on all bases. Something a lot of the camera nerdy community forget is that lighting is No.1 for creating images (in aspects of tools). 

Thanks for sharing - cool! 
I've always thought these cameras produce one of the most unique and pleasing images on the market. 
It's going to be difficult for them now the URSA Mini has been announced. On paper the URSA seems the better option, not to mention the solid distribution Blackmagic have worldwide. 
I want these guys to do well, they've done a great job. They need help though - let's hope they can get this image into the hands of more filmmakers. 

Totally get your drift, but others don't. Some people out there think a low light camera means you don't need lighting, which is a very bizarre way of thinking when shooting. (Excluding the spontaneous and some documentary stuff). 
There are many "tests" on Vimeo where opinions are based on cameras where substantial lighting hasn't been used. How can a cameras image quality be tested when it hasn't been given the ingredients it needs? (Excluding low light tests). The A7S for example, creates by far it's best image under decent lighting at a low ISO. 
I've historically made loads of my projects with very little money to nothing. Lighting never gets thrown aside. Last year I made a zombie music video in a complete blacked out lunatic asylum. I lit the entire thing with just 2 small LED lights and a reflector. Sure, I had the Sony FS700 (decent low light) but if I didn't bother moulding the light then the video would of been a waste of time. 
A lot of us camera nerds are so obsessed with cameras that we spent all our money on cameras and not the juice that feeds the image. Low light is a fantastic feature to get more information and clean images - but knowing how to mould that light, in whichever form or source with decent composition is the key to amazing images. It's what sets you apart. (And your ideas of course!)
So when this brings me back to the URSA Mini and what it's intended for,  it seems perfectly fine. I'll always have some form of light kit, even if it's a bit of foil on a piece of cardboard and a little torch to shine on it.  

​
If low light is such an issue for low budget production - shouldn't more people actually consider buying a decent set of lights before upgrading to yet another camera body? Lights last for over a decade, camera body 2-3 years. I don't find low light much of an issue as I'm covered on all bases. Something a lot of the camera nerdy community forget is that lighting is No.1 for creating images (in aspects of tools). 

​
If low light is such an issue for low budget production - shouldn't more people actually consider buying a decent set of lights before upgrading to yet another camera body? Lights last for over a decade, camera body 2-3 years. I don't find low light much of an issue as I'm covered on all bases. Something a lot of the camera nerdy community forget is that lighting is No.1 for creating images (in aspects of tools). 

I honestly think the previous "sensor in a box" cameras from Blackmagic are history - now replaced with the URSA and the URSA Mini. 
I still think another Pocket camera could be on the cards for next NAB 2016 though. 

​Just have to wait until people actually have their hands on it so we can find those fun BM 'quirks' that always seem to pop up. Though I will say I haven't heard too much negativity about the URSA beyond the sheer size of it. I suppose the low-light limitations still exist, so let's hope the new sensor kicks it up a few notches.

Please can we stop all these reposts.  It's getting tiresome now and is dragging Andrews superb forum down.  It's not a soap opera, it's a cinematography forum.

and then you got obsessed and failed to recognise that there are two sides to every story, a worrying trait for a filmmaker.

It's probably going to do really nice 1080p video.
4k is almost bloody useless if the colours are crap and the dynamic range is poor. 

I need a small monitor for my gimbal, been shooting on it almost blind for a while! 
Liked the SmallHD, didn't like the price. 
This looks much better - sold. 4k one next year then. 
I can also see someone coming up with an inventive way to rig it up with the Micro Camera - not that weird way demonstrated in the marketing photo with a magic arm. 

I've always liked Kinefinity because the images from the camera have that much needed soul and tangibility. The BMCC has some of it, the Alexa has a lot of it, the D16 has a ton of it. Th emotional touch is worth so much!
I'll be keeping an eye on this thing and future products. 
With the news that the Blackmagic Water Tank Microwave 10" iPad URSA Bomb Disposal Camera has 150fps coming up, I hope this also means that the original BMCC will be replaced and that competition for products with soul gets very fierce!!

I've always liked Kinefinity because the images from the camera have that much needed soul and tangibility. The BMCC has some of it, the Alexa has a lot of it, the D16 has a ton of it. Th emotional touch is worth so much!
I'll be keeping an eye on this thing and future products. 
With the news that the Blackmagic Water Tank Microwave 10" iPad URSA Bomb Disposal Camera has 150fps coming up, I hope this also means that the original BMCC will be replaced and that competition for products with soul gets very fierce!!

I don't usually judge cameras before using them but considering the competition, this camera seems like the flop of the decade. 
Who do Canon go to for design feedback? Design should be influenced by demand, or spontaneous innovation. Don't see it here. 

​I used Slog3, but at 1080 180fps. Maybe the DR is way better at 24p, or 4k?
The conditions were very contrasted. Black/White backgrounds with 1K Arri and KinoFlo fill.
I rented it so I didn't have much time with it but I'd love to shoot again under more 'colorful' conditions. I loved everything about it except the frickin menus, and having to restart it constantly.