Damphousse

I have it because it's the best 1080p image in a sensible easy-to-use camera body, at a good price.

 

Stick a Ninja 2 on it and it beats C300...

"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.

Yup. I bought a Pocket myself after the price cut!  ;)

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 still wonder at filmmakers who are wiling to spend thousands on gear, but when it comes to desktop computers and storage, they don't want to spend a penny.

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 got my build from http://www.tonymacx86.com/section/295-customac.html and the people on the forum even helped me through the build.

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.

The other thing in favour of the 5D is it will keep its value for ages, so you can sell it and move on to something different if you want to. The Pocket will loose a lot of value as soon as Black Magic or anyone else bring out a similar camera with better functionality.

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.

Really?!

I'd never have guessed that's what people would do - downscale you say?!

Come on kid, stop trying to be such a smart arse, of course i know that!

 

The White Paper i read talked about improving 1080p & yes, downscaling from 4K is an option.

However, in terms of the Pocket it does all shades of ProRes in 1080p - so you've got all the resolution & DR you need right out of the box.

I'll start talking about 4K when Arri update the Alexa to shoot 4K, not when Panasonic or Sony say so.

 

There is a long way to go on the 4K journey & there's no point claiming that those 2 new cameras are the best thing out there.

Anyways, we'll find out what BM are planning very 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.

 

Netflix Now The Largest Single Source of Internet Traffic In North America

http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/17/netflix-largest-internet-traffic/

 

But Netflix sees an opportunity to take a leadership position in Ultra HD. The strategy makes Netflix a more valuable partner for consumer-electronics manufacturers like Samsung, Sony and LG, which need 4K content to sell pricier Ultra HD TVs. Moreover, cable and satellite TV operators aren’t equipped to deliver 4K video over their existing infrastructure.

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.

It was funny that BM dropped their price of the Pocket about the same time that a TV Report came out talking about dropping 4K Broadcast TV & concentrating more on improving the quality (DR etc...) of the current HD 1080p.

So basically you won't need a 4K TV anytime soon, but what people will need is a small camera that does stunning 1080p on a budget!

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.

The writer is a dinosaur. While I do subscribe to the economist, maybe technology is one of the areas on which they shouldn't write.

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.

Economists only know about things that already happened, and most of the times not even that.

 

Mirrors will be history in a few years.

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.

innovation? i just shot a wedding in film, an old rolleiflex and a leica, saw some of the photos and in terms of quality and beauty there is nothing that will ever overshadow film photography.

mirrorless photography is a step back in photo-quality. dslrs are not that good, m43 are mediocre to say the least.

i think we have forgotten what quality in photography actually is.

check this guys film wedding photography, 

http://www.parispetridis.com/photo.php?m=b&id=p5&p=p5p2

no amount of filters and photoshop will ever reach the feeling of film, digital photography will always hit a ceiling, as it lacks the organic.

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.

 

Snapped in the middle

That has left mirrorless cameras squeezed between increasingly sophisticated smartphones that cost much less, and entry-level DSLRs that cost not all that much more. Lacking robust sales, the worry is that mirrorless cameras could be starved of research and development funds. If that happens, the innovation they have brought to photography could falter.

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.

My budget is $500. I'm trying to stay as compact as possible.

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

I was talking about the second firmware upgrade in 3 weeks...

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.

That's great news!
Looks like they're trying to clean up their image and get back on track.
Or maybe they finally sorted most of the hardware issues and are now finally focusing on the software side. Either way, it's great to see these cameras unleashing their full potential.

Software?!

I think what this means new hardware this fall.

Could these be the problematic cameras that people have been returning over the past year and BM is trying to rid of them? Where I live people only give a 50% discount on things which a) nobody wants or B) are defective or c) are nearing expiration date.

What you described is what we in the United States refer to as illegal.

Nice!

 

Completely weird though to have a summer discount for _half the price_ and hike it up back to 995 after the summer.

 

Stock clearance, to release a new model (full price) in september would make sense. But who the hell is going to buy this for the full price in september?

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.

I refresh the page and you are right... They changed the discount from 300 to 100 :(

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

weird....

 

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.

 

 

BMPCC $495 + NEW Metabones Canon EF Lens to BMPCC Speed Booster $659 = $1154 - $300 = $854!!!!!

 

 

 

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.

The reason I focused more on the BMCC is it has less of a crop and it has an ef mount that allows IS.  Also it uses SSDs vs SD cards.  I also found the used pricing to be interesting.  I might actually be able to get a BMCC with full Resolve for $1500ish.  That's a $500 discount (25%).  You can't get a BMPCC for 25% off.  Once you take into account the price of Resolve the price difference between a BMPCC and a BMCC on the used market is not that much.

So now Blackmagic has gone and made it interesting.

 

the body was allways cheaper as the canon; I think it's a mixed calculation - they hope to sell some lenses as well... :-)

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.

" I haven't owned or used either camera "

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.

 But then I actually watched movies. Where is this shallow DOF? I don't really see it. I mean, pick a movie that really looks like a movie, Jaws, The Godfather, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Shawshank Redemption, or any other movie for that matter. There is very little shallow DOF, if any. I mean, I'm shooting at like F8 or F11 to get the cinema look.

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. 

It seems like what I'm hearing is that it boils down to DOF and bokeh (yes I know those are different). Again, I'll go back to my point that if you are interested in making movies that look like movies (which I am and I realize not everyone is), then those two things aren't really that important.

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.

 

Marketing is supposed to be like this, and I find it rather disappointing the author can't see past it. We all know press releases always stretch the truth don't we? The 5DMkIII press release surely didn't tell you about the soft video output. Yet do we blame canon as being deceptive? When sony released the A7R with the alleged 36MP sensor which didn't quite achieve the same still qualities of the D800, in particular in its inability to deliver true 14bit quality, were they lying? Where was the eoshd's article then?

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.

Unlike the Author stills comes first to me so something like the sony A7s is immediately a non starter. I suspect that is where the Author's other camera's come in? but yet none of these really match the D800, or presumably the D810s, even if as the author puts it "it is the same old camera". Well the same old camera still better than all of those image quality wise. We've all seen the specs. Base 64ISO on top of the already legendary DR and color depth, and the removal of the AA filter should deliver quite simply the best stills seen in a full frame camera in the world. THIS is what Nikon is selling today while the other guys are still trying to catch up to them with sony being close but ultimately dropping the ball with the strangely crippled A7r sensor.

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.

You keep going back to "most people".  I'm not talking about "most people".  I'm talking about pros and prosumers.  A Canon Rebel is not in that category.

 

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.

 

 

As long as there is a debayer, there will be a need for high MP sensors.  The 12MP sensor in the Sony is a stopgap measure.  That's the best they can do right now, and hit their ISO targets.  That sensor only has 6MP of green, and 3MP of blue and 3MP of red.  I guarantee in 10 years, the replacement model will have far more than 12MP.

 

Michael

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.

I'm really not following where you are coming from at this point.  It sounds like you believe higher megapixels=worse quality.

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?

 

Higher megapixels are moving bodies in the pro and prosumer video world.  Look at the sales of the GH4.

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.

Most consumers are content with stills and video they are getting out of their smart phones, and look at what they shoot at best on a computer screen.  I thought the discussion on this forum was at a level higher than that of "a great many consumers" (you would think so, anyway, just based on the price of the equipment discussed).

 

Michael

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 else in this thread may be wrong, but I find this answer just a wee bit confusing :| Can't we just say that to avoid diffraction issues, avoid the smallest lens apertures or wait for the light to change?

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.