Damphousse

"Sensible" is the key word. After dealing with ML on a T3i, raw on a 50D, and finally breaking down and ordering a BMPCC I can honestly say if I was using something for regular paying gigs it would a C100 or similar. Hacks and quirky cameras are fine for hobbyists but I couldn't take the aggrivation at work.

Lol. You b@st@rd! My order is in as well. Should get it this week... I think. I bashed the living daylights out of this thing when it first came out. It's amazing what a $500 price cut will do!

I haven't spent "thousands" on gear and I don't think shaving $500-$1,000 off the price of a desktop equates to not "spending a penny." I refused to buy a $1,000 bmpcc. But I did order it for $500. Does that make me a bad person? The thing is someone may want to spend iMac money but also want to have plenty of hard drive bays. Those people shouldn't be forced to buy a mac pro... which has issues of its own. I think the hardware guide is useful at tony mac. I don't like a lot of their automated tools though. Some are good. A couple more good resources are as follows: http://lifehacker.com/the-always-up-to-date-guide-to-building-a-hackintosh-o-5841604 http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/ Insanelymac is a very good forum. Asking about hackintoshes there will yield better answers than asking here. They are very antiTonymax though so don't ask abou those tools over there or you will be modded. You've been warned. I made a hackintosh out of a big box store desktop. If you do a custom build from the ground up you will meet with more success. The key is to buy compatible components. If you do that by following guides and other people's experiences you will have an easier time with more success. I don't know what the state of the art is these days but a good USB audio solution is something you should consider for your hackintosh. Onboard audio can be finiky and USB is cleaner anyway.

This was true when you posted this comment but now that you can get a BMPCC for $495 (4-6 weeks till delivery) I think the BMPCC becomes a strong contender as far as resale value. Even if you have to sell it you are only risking at most a $150 loss... if that. I don't see the BMPCC going on ebay for $300 any time soon.

Sorry I didn't understand your posts. The basic thinking on this site has been 4k is an alternative way to get superior video for less capable cameras. The Alexa doesn't fall into this category so it has no need for 4k at this time. That has no relevance to the cameras most of us on this site are buying. As far as the BMPCC... BMPCC≠Alexa. I think you will get a fair amount of argument if you are claiming the BMPCC captures more detail than the GH4 or has better low light capability than the Sony a7s. The BMPCC is no slouch. I just ordered one, so I am not here to bash. I just think all these lower end cameras are compromises. TV networks moving slowly to implement 4k has no influence on my buying habits. For $495 the BMPCC is the bag of trade offs that I think works for me. To be honest with you I was actually waiting to see if a Lumix lx8 would be in the offing in a few weeks... but then this sale came along. I can see networks slowing down their network strategy regarding 4k affecting high end camera. I just don't think in the under $1,000 category that is much of a driver. Anyway here in the US Netflix has taken off like a moon shot and they are already "broadcasting" in 4k. http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/17/netflix-largest-internet-traffic/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-4k-ultra-hd-queue-adds-breaking-bad-smurfs-2-ghostbusters-1201221824/ For what it is worth. Still no effect on my camera buying strategy as a hobbyist. But I wouldn't necessarily look at cable and satellite for innovative leadership in this area.

People on this forum are shooting 4k to downsample to gorgeous 1080p. It's been covered numerous times in multiple threads. There will be a ton of these things on ebay in a few months. You would be a fool to pay $995 for this in September. The price on ebay has already dropped by hundreds of dollars and many people haven't even received their cameras from B&H, et al yet. If true there will be a lid on prices. Everyone that wants one is buying one now. And with this price cut a lot of weak hands picked this camera up. When those weak hands get frustrated with it or jump to the next toy the bmpcc will end up on ebay. I don't know how many have been purchased and how many of those orders are going to be honored but if it is as you say then I see the used market being depressed. Just my humble opinion.

I'm a "dinosaur" (ie someone who shoots film and DSLRs). The author is not just a dinosaur. Even a dinosaur like me is aware of the GH4 and knows that cameras like it will never disappear or at least not in favor of DSLRs. My concern is a matter of compitence. Subscribing to and reading something like the Economist is supposed to keep me a couple of steps ahead of the general population. I am supposed to find out about trends all over the world early. We are already two generations away from the hacked G2. Everybody and their brother who works in or covers the consumer camera scene should know about the incredible work Panasonic is doing, the developments at Sony, and the disruption Blackmagic is causing. Even if Panasonic went out of business someone would scoop up their technology. And the fact of the matter is a company can do a fraction of the business of Canon+Nikon and still remain a profitable going concern for years. You don't have to supplant DSLRs. Just carve out a small niche and do what you do well.

While the publication is call The Economist I'm not sure an economist wrote that article. Actually I'm not sure who wrote it at all. I couldn't locate an author's name. I hate it when they do that. The problem as I see it is with journalists regardless of what their degrees are in. Even a high brow publication like The Economist can be very superficial. If I am reading that magazine to help me with my investments I would just right off Panasonic and move on. Even if I don't think Panasonic is a good investment there are tons of companies doing all kinds of innovative things catering to the cameras Panasonic and Blackmagic are releasing. It may not be the multibillion dollar business that Canon and Nikon are doing but anyone that looks at what is going on with the GH4 and Blackmagic cameras and assumes there is even a chance mirrorless will be gone in 5 years is delusional. I still shoot my Rollei medium format film camera. It produces the hands down best images. I don't have to emulate any film looks. I just shoot film! I hven't done it in a few months but believe it or not I can get my 120 rolls of C-41 and E-6 developed at Walmart through their send out service. I'm looking at a receipt right now. 88 cents to develop a roll of 220 Portra.

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21603182-photography-mirrorless-digital-camera-aimed-people-who-want-take-more I am a dinosaur. In addition to owning cameras with mirrors in them I also subscribe to print magazines! I was working my way through my backlog of Economist issues and stumbled on an article about mirrorless cameras. I just posted an excerpt from the article. There is a link you can follow. I can't really say I learned anything from the article. It did seem to paint a bleaker picture for Panasonic and Olympus. Absolutely no mention of video nor the GH4 nor BMPCC. If they are leaving stuff like that out of their mirrorless articles it makes you wonder what they are leaving out of their articles on fixed income securities in Botswana. In fairness I've always felt video is a niche product compared to the large stills market but it is a puzzling oversight... I think.

Blackmagic pocket cinema camera is $500 off at the moment. Out the door price is $495. http://www.adorama.com/BMCCP.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964117-REG/blackmagic_design_blackmagic_pocket_cinema_camera.html

Lol. Sorry I was confused. I see what you are saying. I don't know. Seems like a stock clearance to me before they announce the BMPCC II. I could be wrong.

Software?! I think what this means new hardware this fall.

What you described is what we in the United States refer to as illegal. Yeah. Maybe it will go back up to full price but they won't have any more in stock. People are going crazy buying these things.

Damn! I was trying to warn you to buy it. But too late.

Well pull the trigger and see what happens. They may have changed it since you put it in your cart. Whatever you do don't empty your cart or wait too long.

I am not seeing that. Here is what my cart shows BMPCC $495 + NEW Metabones Canon EF Lens to BMPCC Speed Booster =$1154-$100=$1,054.00

Lol. So glad I didn't buy this camera. A lot of people got burned. If you aren't making money with your gear it's better just to wait. Some people bidding on ebay haven't heard the news... Unfortunate. I was actually looking at the BMCC a few weeks ago because the prices on the used BMPCC were just way too high. Looks like my instincts were right. So now Blackmagic has gone and made it interesting.

Maybe. But that still doesn't explain the 5D MK III's allegedly robust sales at the higher price and the D800s depreciation. I don't claim to know what exactly is going on but when I see a relationship like that it gives me pause. Doesn't mean the D800 isn't a fine tool or better than the 5D MK III in certain respects. I just thought the assessment was a bit over the top. What was being posted didn't reconcile with something I've seen since launch. The 5D MK III can't be junk compared to the D800.

That doesn't mean I don't have an internet connection and common sense. Point is I have my doubts about the D800 being the end all be all of photography for everyone. I'm not telling anyone which camera to buy.

Yeah I mean where are the drones, MÅVIs, super narrow shutter angles, heavy grading, etc? If you had modern tech and remade all those movies with the same cast, crew, directors, etc they would be substantially better. I love, LOVE The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but man if that thing was shot with a proper budget and with modern tech it would have been even better. A movie is about creating an illusion. Shallow depth of field creates that illusion. No one looks at a movie and remarks on the shallow depth of field. They just know a movie doens't look like a video. They don't know why. It's like pornography. They can't give you an all encompassing detailed definition... but they know it when they see it. Use whatever you can to make a movie look "filmic." It doesn't matter whether some director used the same technique 30 years ago. I'm sure the directors of all the movies you mentioned would look at you like you were crazy if you said you were going to use the same tech as them to make a movie in 2014.

Neon, the first casualty of an internet debate is nuance. It's not a matter of did they lie or not. It is a matter of degree. I have no recollection of Canon putting out an ad like the Nikon ad in question. I mean they have an entire Cinema line of cameras. They have no need to hype the 5D mk III into the stratosphere. Sure they probably left some stuff out and fudged on some things but not to the same degree. Also Andrew was writing about a Nikon ad. If you read the blog you know he has been equally hard on Canon. I don't think anyone here thinks he is biased against Nikon. At least not biased against them in favor of Canon. So why do you think the D800 sells for less than the Canon 5d mk III? The market doesn't seem to think it is worth more. Plenty of posts on photo forums of people complaining about the steep depreciation of the camera after only a short time on the market. I haven't owned or used either camera but unless there is a mass psychosis going on I have to imagine that your post is not the final word on the D800. I know on the internet 36 MP >>>>> 22 MP but... in actual use individual experience may vary.

Yes "most people." Another name for "the market." A Canon 5D MK III isn't a rebel and doesn't have 36 megapixels. I'm pretty sure plenty of what you consider "pros" and "prosumers" use it. I have plenty of photographic tools. And certain tools are great for certain jobs. But it is painfully obvious with Nikon's moire/aliasing problems with their 36 megapixel sensors that they are just not optimally suited for video. It is not about "hitting ISO targets." Its the fact its much easier to do a full sensor readout from a lower megapixel sensor. If you use a 36 megapixel sensor you are stuck with line skipping or pixel binning and thus increase moire/aliasing. A Nikon 810 looks like a wonderful tool to shoot landscapes for garganutun prints, but it falls flat when compared to cheaper lower megapixel video options. Not sure how this can be made any clearer. And it is perfectly fine if Nikon wants to go for the 36 megapixel lanscape shooter market. But don't tell us it's a video centric camera. It's not. It's all about trade offs. No one is saying 36 megapixels is useless. It's just if you also want to have a video shooter the compromises particularly for the price are unacceptable to some people. I would not be on a photo forum knocking the D810, but by the same token don't come on a video forum and tell us it is ideal or even close to ideal when cheaper lower megapixel cameras are blowing it out of the water.

No that is what you are hearing. That is not what I am saying. I am saying the Sony a7s is 12.2 megapixels for a reason. This is a video forum. Understand? And Canon Rebels outsell it. What is your point? This thread is about Nikon. And my comment was 36 megapixels is a niche product. The average DSLR consumer doesn't need it and videographers are doing much better with lower megapixel cameras. Again, see the Sony a7s. Comparing an 18 megapixel Canon rebel of today with a 5 megapixel camera from yesteryear is totally ignoring the law of diminishing returns. Again Canon has proved with their sales numbers year after year that 18 megapixels is plenty for most people. If you can't make the cover of a magazine or newspaper with 18 megapixels the problem is not with the camera.

The discussion I was having was about reality. You can insult people with their iphones but the fact of the matter is you don't become the number one camera company in the world by selling $3,000 36 megapixel cameras to pros in 2014. The megapixel race was in full swing in the 5 megapixels days and Canon ruled the roost with its 16 megapixel full frame Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II and bumping up the megapixel count every year in its consumer lines. But times have changed. You simply can't move bodies nowadays by simply increasing the megapixel count. Yes there are landscape photographers out there that can't get enough of the megapixels but as this site has shown other things are occupying the thoughts of consumers and pros. I certainly would take a more restrained megapixel count in exchange for better video. I think a lot of people on this forum would.

Everyone in this thread is most certianly not wrong. I 100% agree with the conclusions reached by most people posting. I just wanted to give anyone stumbling on this thread a reason for why these things are an issue and the tools to figure your their needs on their own instead of turning this into a faith based initiative. What I wrote was verbose and lacked a degree of clarity. That is a valid complaint. I have found the Exposure Computer invaluvable because it doesn't involve any gear and it doesn't involved traveling anywhere. You can sit at your desk and figure out exactly what you need. No one has to tell you. If you know the basics of photography or videography a lot of questions are answered before you even ask them.