IronFilm

I recommend RJ Lens Turbo, it costs a mere fraction of the Metabones standard 0.7x focal reducer. And yes, it comes in C/Y mount (or you could use a dumb EF, which they sell too). RJ Lens Turbo is what I use myself on my BMPCC (RJ Lens Turbo is really the only good Chinese alternative focal reducer for m4/3. as I'll agree all the others are rubbish! Except for Mitakon if you're looking for one for Sony E mount). 

Otherwise, splurge out and get the dedicated BMPCC Metabones speedbooster, but just remember you won't be able to use it on a GH4 (or GH5...) if you get one of those in the future. 

​It's a storm in a yorkshire teacup!
It goes without saying bullying and fist fighting are unacceptable. You're absolutely right, if the producer had hit Clarkson he would be dead and buried. Career over.
But if the Queen smacks Prince Philip in the mouth if he hasn't cooked he goose properly, you don't throw out the entire royal family.
The producer and Clarkson until last week had had a happy working relationship for a decade.
James May says he can't remember what happened because he was "blind drunk" as a result of that drink in the pub on an empty stomach.
 
In the 70's and 80's we had professional snooker players swigging beer on TV during the world championship. In the modern professional climate, a hellraiser or firebrand is considered someone who pops outside for a cig break occasionally.
The BBC needs its hellraisers like Clarkson. Otherwise blandness will ensue. I'm tempted to say it already has looking at 99% of their presenters.
The BBC are indeed between a rock and a hard place politically on this one, they had to act.
Agree 100% for them to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour now would be political suicide given the current climate.
However you have to give creative license to your hellraisers and some leeway morally, as inevitably they occasionally throw a wobbly or cause a fracas.
He's not the pope. He's not an Ambassador for Good Manners. Clarkson's responsibility to us is to entertain us, not morally reinforce our values.
He should absolutely 100% apologise to his producer, take him out for a lunch and have a hug in front of the cameras on the next episode as well.
It really should be that simple. Otherwise, he will be off to Sky like half the BBC F1 team. Jobs will go. Extreme Facilities supply Top Gear with GH2 / GH4 drones for example and their contract is with the BBC. Sad to kill such a consistently creative and popular show over a bit of bad behaviour.
If Clarkson is not bigger than the show, as the BBC claim, then pulling the show because of Clarkson implies the opposite.
Also I was really looking forward to the Ferrari vs McLaren vs Audi shootout
I'm not even a petrol head. I like the humour. I like the bravado and the journeys. It's a travel adventure and spectacularly filmed in parts.
Of course some of the blog post is speculation, none of us are truly a first party to what went on. We get our info through the papers and the internet. Therefore we have to remember that there's a whole section of the left wing political spectrum out to get Clarkson because he's a buddy of Cameron. Most of the earlier Top Gear controversies were hyped in just the same way, in order to damage Clarkson and Cameron's popularity with the public. In some ways, Clarkson actually doesn't deserve the reputation of oaf. In real life I expect he's a caring dad. He's playing it up for the cameras in the same way an actor would play a character. At this rate we'll be hanging Eastenders characters in the street when they murder someone! Occasionally a flippant remark will be attributed to him rather than to the script. Nobody is going to be pitch perfect over a thousand hours of scripted television especially when it's also improvised on top of that. You are going to have a joke go wrong or cross a line or go creatively wrong and it's simply unreasonable for the BBC to have no tolerance and to pander to every person who might be offended because they claim "Clarkson's a racist dickhead". That isn't a sustainable way to run a broadcaster. They had 150,000 complaints over the way a dog was handled on Crufts! A bloody dog show!! Looking at the numbers, you have to say Crufts is cruel and should be taken off the air. At this rate the BBC will have a lot of empty spaces in their schedules....

​There's a big difference between the narrow definition of something and the affects the manifestation of that thinking has upon society.
I see it as beginning to mimic what George Orwell wrote about in 1984 regarding acceptable and unacceptable language with what he called 'Newspeak'. Certain words were deemed unacceptable so as to limit freedom of thought. In a similar way today certain 'memes' are considered unacceptable by the 'politically correct' middle classes in their attempts to not offend anybody. To talk of some of the 'memes' is pretty much social and political suicide. For instance mentioning a meme regarding 'victim mentality' and race will get you labelled a 'racist'. Mentioning the meme 'doubting the validity of Anthropogenic Climate Change' will have you labelled a 'denier'. Being identified with anything like that is political suicide for a politician and so they naturally fall in line with what's 'politically correct' because after all they need to be seen as reasonable, fair and caring individuals to win our votes. Thus you have the crazy situation of spending all that money on changing our flag, not for the benefit of the indigenous minority that supposedly this is about, but actually to satisfy the political correctness of the guilt-ridden white majority in order to win votes. If you were to ask Maori I'm sure most would want that money better spent by feeding their children.
I hope that makes things a little clearer.
Regarding Andrew, how can you say that when he states things such as:
"In an effort to be transparent and impartial the BBC and other companies have opened their doors to any life-form on earth who happens to be offended by any-thing.
This is creating a culture in the TV and film industry which is anti-creativity and anti-risk but most damagingly it’s anti-personality."
and
"Giving people something to laugh at and bringing some fun onto the screen is where Top Gear’s remit should end, but management everywhere now have ideas way beyond their station.
Apparently, if you’re making a magazine show about high performance cars, you have to cure global warming too. If you run a sport called Formula One for 40 years, suddenly you need to put eco friendly engines in the cars. If you produce a long-running comedy panel show or quiz, now you need to equally balance the number of male and female guests in every episode to reflect society itself. If you produce a program about politics you need to give as much air time to racist skinhead candidates as you do to the prime minster. It’s all for the sake of ‘balance’ and ‘impartiality’ and ‘curing society of all its ills’. Strangely, I thought it was just entertainment.
It seems middle-management pursue a moral crusade and a message in every single piece of content in our homes.
I am sick of it." 

I'll make a specific post regarding the Top Gear incident.
Like others I can understand the need to suspend Clarkson if he's actually punched a Producer. Having said this though I can find no news report stating a punch up, they state a fracas which may have been just verbal.
What I do not understand though are the incidents leading up to this sad state of affairs - the bad comments, racial slurs etc. In these circumstances one must surely question the good taste and competency of the Producer and Director involved because these shows are highly scripted and set up with multiple takes. If Clarkson said something offensive why didn't the Producer or Director call him up on this in the field and do another take leaving out the offensive words. Even if this wasn't picked up in the field, why was it left in the edit that was broadcast - one can always cut around such things and as a last resort even completely remove the offending piece. Clarkson himself stated with the 'eeny meeny miny moe' piece there were other takes without the 'n' word and he emailed the Producer asking them to swap it out.
This all sounds to me like a bit of a stitch up with a Producer trying to make an edgy controversial show. Perhaps some of the source of friction between Clarkson and him?

​But god forbid you show a (female) nipple.

​
‘Political correctness’ can be very bad especially if it flies in the face of common sense. 
 
To give you an example, I live in New Zealand which like many western nations is suffering from ‘nanny state’ malaise. I recently read an article about a Northland school that decided to ignore the ‘politically correct’ compliance laws regarding child playground safety because they simply couldn’t afford it anymore. This became an interesting social experiment. The children were allowed to play in the type of school playground that used to exist when I was at school, without extreme safety padding and measures, and without constant adult supervision. They were allowed to explore and make mistakes, challenge one another and sort out their own social hierarchy. Sure it produced a few more scraped knees and bruises but what was interesting was that bullying became almost nonexistent (before they had a very high incidence of bullying). What is more, vandalism at the school dramatically dropped, students became far more engaged and academic achievement skyrocketed! 
 
Having said all this, I’ve been amazed by many of the children in Indonesia while on film shoots there. They are like 'mini-me' adults. They do chores, wield knives, hunt, haggle, take responsibility and enter conversations with adults much like an equal (many of the things we wouldn’t allow our children to do in the west because we’d consider them incapable and some of the tasks too dangerous). They do all this because it’s expected of them since they could walk. No wrapping in cotton wool like many of our children, yet they grow up to be socially well adjusted adults.
 
Also in the name of political correctness my country will be spending billions to change our flag (removing the Union Jack so as not to acknowledge our colonial past) and changing all the mapping so that the North and South Islands are named by both their English and their Maori names - the North Island being ‘Te Ika-a-Māui’ and the South Island being ‘Te Waipounamu’. This is at a time when the aforementioned school has between 60-70% of primary kids being sent to school without breakfast and the school having to provide food for hungry children. This is what I mean by political correctness flying in the face of common sense. In the case of the renaming, while they are lovely names, they are expected to be in common use and used interchangeably with the English. What a source of confusion! How many of you overseas people would understand if you asked me where I was from and I told you “I’m from Te Waipounamu, in Aoteoroa”? Imagine the potential confusion in the postal service, especially with letters or parcels from the US! We’ve already had Americans arrive in Auckland from LA thinking they were on a domestic flight to Oakland! “Goddamn, I never realised it was such a long flight to Oakland! And haven’t our domestic airlines really gone to the dogs, employing so many illegal immigrants with such goddamn strange accents!”

​By minorities Andrew isn't meaning racial minorities, he's talking about minority opinions - at least that's the way I took it.

​Because as I said in my first post, I have worked with him. When I worked with him, he was pleasant. He was hard working. These are things I know. I also know that the character he plays on top gear is fictional, he is not that person, he is acting, in the same way that Brad Pit is not Tyler Durden.

​You can get the Mir 24n and Helios 44 in nikon mount, or you can do an exchange them online with someone willing to switch mount types. 

Ditto on the h265 from adobe. I've been hounding them on twitter and they conveniently ignore me every time

I'd love to see 4K, s35 BMPCC, with 1080/60p
Maybe slightly bigger body to allow for a small SSD and better battery.
 
Also hope Adobe allow H265, they usually do a good upgrade around NAB time.

​Me too! I'd be happy, and would promise not to contribute to wishlists ever again, okay, well at LEAST for 12 months. But seriously, I'm very tempted by the C100 Mark 2 as an all-in-one 1080p machine for the next 3 years, but I'm loath to buy into the Canon system due to their "just enough" approach. Come on Panasonic, you can do it. I'm hoping it's just slightly more compact than the AF100, and looks less like a shoebox with a toilet roll coming out the back.
​I agree, if they nail the ergonomics and it delivers beautiful images out of the box then they will have a winner on their hands. If designed right and priced right it could cover the C100 and C300 market segments like the FS7.

​I second this.  I snagged mine used on amazon for about $300+ as well, and IQ wise, it's the best money on a camera body I have probably spend if thinking in practical terms.  Great codec, great picture, workable low-light an dynamic range. Couple that with the speedbooster I placed on the mount, and you have a near-full-frame camera that's an excellent B-cam for the a7s (if not a worthy A-cam on it's own).

Instead of "exploring" a 4K competitor, why doesn't Canon just go ahead and make one. For a company that started the DSLR video movement, they're now even behind Nikon who at least offers a flat profile and zebra in their higher end FX and DX cameras. However, the mirrorless manufacturers are way ahead of Nikon so Canon needs to act now. Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence in them based on their latest camera showings with regards to video.

I just think NAB is overblown.... what actually got announced, last year, for the indie guy?
Cion? Ursa?
That's about it, and way above this guy's pricetag. The BMPCC is the only camera that ever launched at NAB at this guy's price range and took a year to come to market. A BMPCC mk II is possible, but would you really recommended waiting for a Blackmagic camera?
 
Anyway, my view is to ALWAYS get out their and shoot, especially if you only have a small budget. Sitting on $1k is pointless when there are now so many amazing options at that price point. Buy 2nd hand now and you wont lose much.

If you need high frame rates maybe wait and see what the nx500 is gonna offer. There's a post on here about the nx1 possibly being able to do 240fps via a firmware update. That would be insane and incredibly useful for skateboard vids. Maybe wait and see how much of the NX1 vid capability gets passed down to the NX500. They already announced a firmware update for the NX500 and it's not even out yet. So maybe they'll keep improving it.

If the rumours are even close to true, I will buy 2 and never think about camera tech again.
Just having NDs and 4K with a good 10bit internal codec would be great, in such a smaller body (assuming a similar size to the AF100).

The main issue is that m43 lenses are all electronic, so there's no point in adapting them to E mount, hence I haven't seen any adapters for that purpose.
The most versatile mount to get is the Nikon F mount version. Just in case Nikon makes something you want.

Well said. I can understand Jeremy thinking about leaving with the BBC acting the way they do. Political correctness kills creativity and also intrudes into essentially private spats.
Don't agree with the UKIP comment (it contradicts the not freedom from offense argument) but everything else you're right on.

Pretty sure indianajones was being sarcastic... I mean, surely he must be!
Thankyou for this post! I know the british public have to pay for the BBC, but surely that doesn't give them the right to have this level of transparency? I enjoy Top Gear very much and surely it is obvious that they are playing characters, I mean, these people who believe that Top Gear is a factual program don't believe that The only way is essex is real, and they say far more offensive stuff than that. I've worked with Jeremy Clarkson, and he was a genuinely decent chap, nothing like the caricature he presents of himself on the show. What's nice is that he cares about the production so much, he wants the product to be quality and works hard to help however he can. Whatever the truth of this situation, I can say without any qualms that it must have been an extraordinary situation, and I can't imagine he wouldn't have made right however he could at a later time. We all know how it feels to have worked hard and then faced disappointment, we've all made huge mistakes when stressed and we've all done things we regret, probably more frequently that we care to admit. Only difference with us is that our laundry isn't thrust into the public eye for every idiot to judge us on.
And I agree with so much else that you wrote - I'm all for better representation of women, ethnic backgrounds et al, bring it on, but instead of shoehorning it into entertainment made for a different audience, make quality content that the demographic you wish to represent would like to watch. I'm sorry, my wife still isn't going to watch QI just because you force a woman onto every show. Make something she actually wants to watch, you'll actually solve the problem like that, rather than ticking the "diversity" box in your "have we avoided criticism" checklist.

i'm a wedding photographer/videographer! Simon's "entry level" comment has a lot of truth in it. All you need to do to start weddings is borrow your friend's handicam. Or borrow a DSLR and call yourself a "cinematographer".
But I think it's worth noting -- at the high end, ie guys who are charging $20k+ a wedding, they're often still using 5DMk3s, though they might own C100s, C300s and Red cameras.
In terms of DSLR vs proper video camera, well, there's a number of advantages DSLRs give you -- low-light, discreet, full frame and shallow depth, requires easier gear (lower end steadicams, lighter tripods) and gives you the ability to buy nine of them if you have to for multicam coverage on a ceremony (though, usually, people won't use more than 3-5).
In terms of which DSLR, Canon vs the rest, well some companies actually do use one or more 1DC cameras... For the rest of us, a7s is probably the best DSLR, but one huge advantage of a Mk3 is that the ML hack lets you record past 30 minutes, which is a surprisingly big deal. Otherwise, if you have a lot of cameras to mind, you find yourself running around pressing record over and over, instead of shooting.

Value for money wise and besides the small size of this camera why will someone spend $7999 on this camera instead of the $7999 on a Sony Fs7 if video is primarily what you shoot?

​Wow Ebrahim, that sounds pretty radical! Isnt it a good idea to wait and see whats coming in the next days/weeks??
For me no matter how good the image is and how low the price is lack of flipscreen/touchscreen, peaking, live histogram and IBIS would make me think twice, not that I need all of them but for the high price I think the 1DC still leaves quite a lot of boxes unticked.

Any thoughts on doing a shoot out... 1DC (Log) v NX1 (DR Gamma)?

Why the hate for people who shoot weddings? As if you can't be an artist and also make money (a lot, in fact) with a not-necessarily-as-artistic job that just so happens to sharpen your skills as a shooter. Shooting weddings has allowed me to quit my shitty, irrelevant part-time day jobs and focus way more on my art since I can make the same amount of money in 1/5 of the time. So yeah, shooting a wedding might not stimulate my creative side quite as much as, say, an abstract non-narrative documentary, but at least I'm getting some damn good shoulder rig and glidecam practice during those 8-10 hours. Does that strip me of the title of cinematographer or artist? Or do those terms only apply when I'm actually working on an 'actual' film?
mtheory - you mentioned working on a commercial as an accepted use of the word 'cinematographer.' Where's the cinema in that? Sure, I'll admit that there's definitely more creative leeway, but you're still just selling something. A wedding and a commercial can both be infused with some strong creativity. They can just as easily be flat and boring, like the days when 'wedding video' meant shooting to VHS with lots of slow zooms and awful dissolves on every cut. By the way, if you can figure out a way to think creatively during a boring wedding, then you're probably going to fare well when you actually have some interesting content on your plate.
Ok, so maybe you don't actually have a disdain for those who film weddings (though I know plenty of people who do), maybe it's just the term 'wedding cinematographer.' But is it really so offensive for someone to use such words to market themselves to brides who probably don't know the first thing about video? They don't care that a wedding video is not technically 'cinema.' They want to know that you understand how important their wedding is and that you can capture it in an immensely beautiful and artistic way (at least to them). If someone calling themself a wedding cinematogropher helps them get hired, then so be it. If they happen to also be a crappy videographer, then so be it. I'm more worried about the over-saturation of the market than the degradation of the word 'cinema.' And honestly, the word has already been degraded in my mind by douchey film school kids who can't frame a shot but love to spew pseudo-philosophical garbage about 'pure cinema.' Nothing against film school, but man, I can't stand some of the people who come out with no experience, thinking they've already 'made it.' 
 
So there's my rant. I hope I'm not missing the point.