nvldk

hey @svenn,
 
i don't think your budget is unrealistic, as long as you're willing to compromise with a few things.
ready-made rigs are usually very expensive (most are overpriced, in my opinion).
 
i'm a documentary cinematographer - which means i have to be extremely dynamic with my equipment (both video and audio) - and therefore do not use tripod's either.
since everyone has different tastes for equipment, i'm just going to share with you my current set-up as well as the one that is in pre-order in B&H. maybe it can give you a few ideas.
 
- GH3 (BMPCC in pre-order);
- Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 (Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 ordered to achieve the same 50mm equiv. field of view and still a good amount of shallow depth of field);
- Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 in pre-order + Metabones Speed Booster for Nikon F/G Mount, which will give the BMPCC an equiv. 37-72mm field of view and an f/1.3 [and T1.3!] aperture);
- 7 Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-I 32GB cards (7 Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-I 64GB cards ordered to cope with the BMPCC ProRes files - I don't plan on using the RAW ability very often);
- 3 Pany GH3 batteries (4 Nikon EN-EL20 batteries to cope with the BMPCC greater hunger for power);
- Rode VideoMic Pro + Rycote Deadcat (way better than the tiny hole on the BMPCC);
- (ViewFactor's Contineo BMPC Cage with the Wood Front Grip - for protecting the BMPCC and having more mounting holes);
- Zacuto Z-Finder Pro 3.0X for 3.2" Screens (this is the only item I'm still unsure will work well - 1st because the BMPCC's screen is 3.5" and 2nd because maybe the mounting plate won't fit the BMPCC too well [and that's partially why I'm getting the cage] - the viewfinder/magnifier makes all the difference though, especially in regards to being able to focus with precision, blocking sunlight, and creating one more point of contact with your body for stabilization purposes);
- Manfrotto 701HDV head + Joby Gorillapod Focus (this is where there's most room for creativity - not saying that this is the ideal rig for everyone, but it certainly suit us pretty well - it's inexpensive, extremely flexible and dynamic, robust and durable, relatively light, and QUITE comfortable when you adjust it properly) - (in case it isn't obvious already, what we do is use two of the Gorillapod's legs for support on each shoulder and the third leg we stretch it parallel to the lens and bend the tip perpendicular to the lens so it serves as a grip - the Focus is pretty sturdy with it's metal parts, won't bend while holding the system, and in conjunction with the viewfinder creates a pretty stable system [as long as you're not going for more than 120mm or so]).
 
so, this system works quite well for our GH3 setup's and I'm pretty sure it will work even better for the BMPCC. like I said - it isn't ideal for everyone - but if you add all the components up you can get it for a bit more than your budget (in order, all new, estimated prices in USD: 1000 + 1150 + 800 + 450 + 120*7 + 38*4 (+ 35 for an extra charger) + 280 + 140 + 370 + 160 + 100 = 5500.
 
of course you can go with only one set of lenses (ditch the Voigtlander and your whole cost gost down to 4300), and I'm sure you can find some nice deals of used stuff or you might have some accessories yourself already.
 
hope this helps!
Oli
 
PS: if you want to add a followfocus, the Viewfactor cage will add, for 150 USD more, a bottom riser block and a couple of 15mm rods, and there are a bunch of ff's in B&H and Ebay for good prices (150 - 400 USD I would say).

​> use only ProRes-flavors
> use only Menu >Recording >Dynamic Range >Film
> use only Menu >Display >Dynamic Range >Video
> use exclusively ISO 800, no matter what
> use 180° degree shutter in standard situations (for 24p with 60 Hz power frequency, for PAL countries then 172,5°)
> use bigger shutter angles in lowlight for slow moving motifs, up to 360° (doubles exposure w/o more noise or worse DR through ISO 1600)
> use smaller shutter angles for slomos (down to 11,25°). Twixtor and the like don't handle motion blur well
> roughly guess the right color temperature, i.e. 3200 for Tungsten, 5600 for daylight. You have to grade anyway
> buy the Zacuto loupe if you want to see anything
> buy a camera grip with remote, like this, not a big cage, rods, mattebox and these gadgets
> if you need s.th. like an external monitor, beware! Not all will show an image. Lilliput has a compatibility table (1080p through HDMI)
> during recording, leave focus peaking on always (since latest FW update, it stays on after power off-on)
> rely on 95% zebra ("ETTR"). It gives better results than trying to get a wide range in the histogram, in my experience
> if there is no zebra, it means you don't 'fill the well' because the location is lit too poorly. This ain't the A7s!
> therefore: search the sun! or light the scene! High contrasts, backlight: that's where the Pocket's DR shines
> use an IR-cut filter
> use externally recorded audio (built-in audio only to sychronize it). Or this (resp. it's successor)
> use an app that allows to load LUTs (i.e. the free Resolve lite). Try Captain Hooks LUTs, here (download), from this site (starting point for your grade)
> don't grade too flat. One gets used to flat looking images very quickly. But others don't.
> To quote Stu Maschwitz: plan your shoot, then shoot your plan! Follow the suggestions above, then make a small doc, no cats, no flowers, no landscapes
 

​Besides 12 bit RAW and 10-bit prores with 13 stops of dynamic range, better rolling shutter, and WAY nicer color?

My earlier essay on this topic.

We live in strange age. We are being overloaded by images of different kinds every minute or even seconds. We live in a world which is being mediated or put in Baudrillard term - the world is being simulated. The capitalist' democracy made all gear (cameras, recorders, cellphones with cameras) available to the great number of people. It might sound like a dream for all those artist they struggled to get their gear only a dacade ago. Thus, it is not suprising at all that so many people try their hand at film-making these days. But this great number of people engaging in moving images can be in some ways counter-productive as well.
The recent digital revolution changed the film industry on all levels. You do not need to buy a filmstock and pay for its developement anymore! You just buy a memorycard and you can record as long as your memorycard is capable of. You do not have to be worried about unaccurate exposition and unprecise framing. You can easily fix it during editing or simply reshoot the scene again and again until you are satisfied with it. You can change the sensitivity of your "film" by pressing a button. You have immediate preview of your footage. And so on. It is clear that all these new improvements help film-makers to cut down a budget of their film. The same regards the distribution circles. That means film-makers today do not have to fight for their place on silver screen at cinema. In the age of internet we can easily distribute our films on-line and share them with friends and new audiencies. We can say that since digital revolution to produce and distribute a movie has never been easier and cheaper. And one would expect that these new conditions will have wholesome influence on young amateur cinema. But unfortunately instead of more progression on the field of moving images we can encounter doldrums and seal off form of young cinema.
These problems are not new and unknown to filmmakers' community. In 1959 Jonas Mekas complained about young cinema of his age. He argued that those films are made with money, cameras and splicers instead of with enthusiasm, passion, and imagination. Even though film cameras and splicers are not being used anymore as they have been replaced by digital cameras and computing video editors, the lack of creativity and enthusiasm is still(!) striking. As in 1959 we can encounter that young aspiring film-makers are only preoccupied with gear instead of with a creativity and search for new ways of expression. I do not dismiss the importance of technique and its aesthetical influence and importance on film’s image. But the shorts of today’s young film-makers could be described as over-technical and over-professionalized. One of the cause of this problem is wrong inspiration. All these young film-makers try to imitate the “big” cinema. This imitation of hollywoodian aesthetic is wrong because it blends two absolutely different approaches to cinema. The most powerful weapon which amateur film-maker posses is its freedom because he is outside of traditional circles of production and distribution. Unfortunately most of them do not realize this fact and try to break in or imitate these circles. And so they are raping theirs own film roots and independency. This whole approach is not only wrong but idiotic as well. In a case of “big” cinema the following words of Guy Debord are relevant more than for any other human activity: "The spectacle is capital to such a degree of accumulation that it becomes an image.” Put it in another words the capital is the main source of hollywood aesthetic and intersection of the whole process of making a movie. Money is primary concern of Hollywood, not the creativity and search for new ways of expression. It is well known that Hollywood has traditionally been mediocre in its form. While so-called Off-Hollywood cinema, avant-gard, independent and amateur film-makers were experimenting with film forms. One of the reason is "because we can” and they do not give in the dictate of capital and public acceptance. Freedom and need to create must be the primary motivation of independent film-makers. But all the camera panning, over-stable shots, sliding, flawlessly pure image and seamless editing which are being used so often by young film-makers create polish and slick films and this aesthetics has nothing to do with freedom. It is based on false and artificial aesthetic of Hollywood cinema. Such a form adopted by young independent filmmaker is imprisioning him in corrupt world. It is smoothing the edges of his very unique way of seeing a life. From a free and independent film-maker he has become just a worker of cinema who is not fulfilling his true inner vision but the expectation. One does not have to be Stan Brakhage or be in pursuit of destruction of every possible convention to call himself an author. This approach would not be good either. The most important attribute of film-maker is to be aware and genuine. Thus it is crucial to avoid “making”. The only right way is to film.
Jonas Mekas was calling for new generation of film-makers, and I’m calling the new generation to stop “making" and begin to film. To pursue their inner and sublet feelings and visions.

It was something like this that led me to getting a D16 last week. Just started thinking what camera do "I" really want. No focus on which is "best" or at least concidered best nor the latest and greatest.
I thought to hell with 4k, 14 stops, super slowo. Instead How do I want my memories to look. When I picture the dog I had before the one in my avatar,  what does the memory look like? Is it crisp,  saturated, orange teal 4K? Or is it more like an old film? What look would I like my first feature to have and do on.
Basically ignoring everything and just look to my self and what I like, not clients or the Internet. 
One thing lead to another and I now have a used Bolex. Ever since it came out I have re watched Blooms review as well as others footage atleast once a month. Ive always loved it but thought about price, built in ND, lowlight, 4k, slowmotion and so on. Not this time. 
I have atleast one paid gig where it will be used together with my other camera ahead. But for narative, more personal videos and story telling it will definitely be the A-Cam,. Despite not having the latest specs and party tricks. 

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

As Jimmy said, it's a camera that won't make you want to sell it in like 1 or 2 years, because of the great image. You can get it for 470€ now here: http://syntex.sk/p/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera/c/cameras-digital-cinematography?lang=EN#3

As Jimmy said, it's a camera that won't make you want to sell it in like 1 or 2 years, because of the great image. You can get it for 470€ now here: http://syntex.sk/p/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera/c/cameras-digital-cinematography?lang=EN#3

There are usually plenty on eBay... I love mine... It is the only camera I haven't sold or exchanged over the last few years. My jaw always drops when I get the raw footage into After Effects. It is packed in my bag, ready for a trip to Portugal on Friday, along with the A7s.

Don't just totally steal someone else's video though right? Be original SOMEHOW. I wouldn't be upset at a film that has tons going for it and then uses some slomo. These are all obviously tools, but people seriously use it as the only tool. If you upload something that's more than just a test video with the intention of "hehe, now people will know how talented.. my camera is," maybe you did something wrong

​The problem with vimeo and youtube is that there're way too many "test". And the "real" stuff is buried under the tons of visual garbage. People don't use their gear to create but to "test"...unfortunately.

​The problem with vimeo and youtube is that there're way too many "test". And the "real" stuff is buried under the tons of visual garbage. People don't use their gear to create but to "test"...unfortunately.

I think one quite important reason of slomo on those small test shots on vimeo and youtube is to stabilize the panning. It is much easier to do a fluid handhold panning when you move a bit faster and then slow it down later in post. Also agree with DigitalEd, people getting their nice new cams and lenses (with stabilization in lens or body) and they shoot a flower without panning or a cup of tea with as shallow depth of field as possible...kind of pointless.... I say go out and swing that cam around....in whatever difficult lighting there is. Dont be afraid it does not look nice...thats kind of the point to see where its strong points are and where not.
 

The added "what's the point" by the OP seems a bit troll-ish to me...
I bought a killer super-8 camera for music videos - I've yet to find someone who wants to pay the added costs though. But man, pushing tungsten reversal film about three stops - magic, gorgeous.
But as a still shooter - I only do digital for work and have restored my wet darkroom. There are things film and paper can do that photoshop simply can't even approach. And every time I get a beautiful process dialed in, seems like one of the elements needed for it gets discontinued and I want to go have a good cry. So you go, Kodak.

I shot on film for 15 years mainly Kodak Vision Stocks - but some Fuji too - Ive shot on digital for the past 10 years - do I miss it .....errr Not Really
but it does have a look you cant quite get with digital - plus its an archival devise too -
I have loads of cans of film stored from all my jobs in the 1990s .......You can hold it upto the light and look at what you did.......
god knows what will happen when all our hard drives pack up.....we will wish we all had a good archival system then........
 
 
ps did I mention shooting on film COSTS A FORTUNE.....I dont miss all that ....negative insurance...remember that hidden cost on every joib...
2225

I've never specifically worked with film or done comparisons to digital, but here's the impression I get from reading posts by those who have.
Digital has certainly caught up in terms of resolution. It appears to be caught up, or at least very close, in terms of dynamic range. A long time Achilles heel of video.
Where I think digital might still fall behind is the richness of color and the color science itself. The "mojo", if you will.
Which is why specs and charts never tell the whole story. 
Not saying I agree with it because I don't really know, but I do wonder if film is still king in this regard? Anyone who worked with it want to chime in?

The only person being elitist is you, by thinking the medium they are choosing to use isn't good enough.

You should just delete this post because you aren't making any sense. You've been pushing the organic feel of images for years now with anamorphic lenses and praising cameras/lenses that aren't too clinical because they have a "film-like" look, and now you're telling them to stop promoting film stocks for good? What's wrong with giving filmmakers the option of using their preference of image acquisition, digital isn't going anywhere so this news will have ZERO effect on what you're doing. Also, you don't see the benefits of meticulously planning and visualizing a scene when working with film's limitations? Movies these days are shot so haphazardly and sloppy because people have an infinite amount of recording time and a ridiculous amount of flexibility in post to fix their mistakes later. I personally work better under limitations, shooting raw on the BMPCC with 20 mins per card kinda' reminds of film so it makes me work more carefully. Anyway, it feels like you're making a stand against film just to have an excuse to write something.

Your argument seems to be that there is no difference.... in which case, why care if something is shot on film or digital?
It's not your money or time.

There are alot of valid reasons that most films are shot digitally.... But if a crafted film maker wants to use film and knows what they are doing, how is that a bad thing? It is like wanting to stop making pianos because it takes longer to tune, is heavier to carry and a digital piano can now recreate the sound (debatable).
To me, The Dark Night was, visually, one of the most stunning films of a generation.... Maybe it would look just as good in digital (if a 65mm digital cam even existed then). Why take away the choice though or be unhappy that the choice is now going to be available?

​You answered your own question... The magic of having a film camera on set is the image quality and the feel.

A couple of years ago, you were championing shooting 1 second 4K raw with a Nikon v1 and said it was a good way to get focused on the art.... Now 12 minutes of film is too restrictive and cold?
I'm happy that film is going to be available. The more options the better....... In the right hands, it is still the most visually appealing image in the world, with a certain magic that I have yet to see with digital. I only had the pleasure to shoot 16mm at college, but it was and still is special.

Just talk tech on your forum.  Got it.  It is what it is.  No problem.

​
It's incredible how many people ignore the importance of lighting when making "filmic" images, or any images for that matter. Lighting is more important than the camera, it can make the image of a "sub-standard" camera look much better than "the best camera ever" that was used without additional lighting.  Obviously. 
Sony A7S is the best choice IMO (for your needs). Regardless of its's high sensitivity, don't ignore a set of lights either