BenEricson

$1500 for that same ugly/chunky form factor from the Ninja V, a massive hardware upgrade with an equally massive bezel. Awesome capability, but I'll stick with the regular Ninja V - which occasionally goes on sale for $500, that's when I picked one up.
Chris

Cool that you're getting use out of yours!
I'd imagine that people using it for drone work are also quite satisfied, as that's what it's really designed for.
To each their own 🙂 

I do the same. I know everyone loves the shallow DOF look for interviews, but I'd rather give up a little of that than risk AF. I tend to stick around the F2.8 or F3.5 mark when I'm shooting interviews to give me some wiggle room. My main focus is getting the subject as far away from the background as possible and if that's just not possible then its just not going to be as out of focus.

Thank you Ben. I used this simple "super8" rig style.


It is very easy to  attach and dettach the pistol grip and the viewfinder, so I had it all in a dslr bag.
Totally agree! I thought many times to buy a second hand C300 or C100MkII for the usability (good audio preamps, internals nds, high capacity batteries)...but I knew that I would not like those clipping highlights that reminds me an old Canon DSLR when I had to edit and do the color grading.
Thank you!. I think exactly the same as you. I have a GH4 and I had and an A7s (I also worked many times with A7sii, A7iii, Fs5 and Fs7) and a GH5s, and I had to spend a lot of time reasearching in internet and testing, to get a more filmic texture and good skintones from them. Also, I think that the old blackmagics are the best (cheap) cameras for mixing light (and poor CRI) conditions. Now I am preparing a documentary and I have convinced the director to shoot with the micro and the old pocket for various reasons, one of them is that due to the fear of covid some of the protagonists refuse the make up to avoid a person so close, and I know that blackmagics cameras will help with skintones.
 

My LLC is less than two years old (I registered it last winter, actually) so I don't qualify for Canon's 0% APR deal yet, but B&H has got me covered on that. I agree that is seems like a fair deal. I was thinking I'd like the C200 form factor better, but I've been shooting a lot with my X-T4 in a similar way to how I'd set up the C70 and have been liking the result better than my X-T3 set up mini-cine style with a pre-amp and V-mount battery.
The IBIS has been part of why I like it better, though I do have to deal with IBIS induced wobble/jello on some parts of some shots. I'm thinking that the C70's digital IS should be as helpful for getting usable handheld footage. I plan on using a IS lens for my main doc lens, probably the 24- 70 F4L with the .71x adapter. My only question there is if the 24-70 autofocus motor is as loud other L-series USM motors and if it tends to pulse when autofocusing. 
I do have a Ronin-S and I know you can balance the C70 on it. I tend to like the hand held look for doc videos over a hyper smooth gimbal look.

Very nice.  I find that the footage looks 'right' with little to no work, and it really responds well to grading if you have the time/inclination to try.
It's also very unforgiving.  Sure, lots of your shots are overexposed from a technical point of view, but they don't look overexposed, or at least, look overexposed in a bad way.  Take a Canon camera and do that and watch the image fall apart into digital clipping hell almost immediately....
The texture of the image might be the nicest aspect to it.  It's really a pocketable super 16mm film camera with virtually unlimited film refills and no development costs or delays.  
The Laowa 7.5mm MFT lens isn't that much larger than the 14mm Panny lens, and is 22mm FF equivalent, so is nice and wide.  It's a nice lens too.
I'd suggest staying away from the SLR Magic 8mm F4 - it's too slow for lots of things and the ergonomics are pretty rubbish.

Beautiful. Videos like this are the counterargument to the technical assertion that "every camera is the same, you just need to know how to process the images correctly". Yes, maybe that is technically true, but how much work and how many hours would you need to put into a Sony A7s or a GH5 to get it to have this emotional weight and texture? Something about these old Blackmagic sensors is just magical, it feels like memories. Lovely for you to have captured precious moments like this.

Mission accomplished then! 
The car is there because the garden is right up against the road. I thought it'd be weird to start opening the fence, without having some idea of where the fence is. Without wanting to give too much away, the garden's location and proximity to the city centre play a large roll in the documentary. Perhaps that's something that should be explained more in the full trailer. 
For this teaser, I wanted to focus a little bit on the man, and his ideas. The full trailer will go into what the actual story is. For now though, I've written this little blurb, which hopefully makes things a bit more exciting.
 

This video was shot entirely with the pocket and the panny 14mm 2.5...the exposure and the color grading sometimes is really bad, but overall I really like the organic texture it has, like old indie feature films. And as you says, despite of being a 14mm, with the 2.88x crop turns out to be a very good close up lens for people, I don´t see any distortion on human faces when they are close to the camera.
 
pass: vacaciones

Visually really cool. The subject is super interesting. Wasn't even thinking about the gear.
I would love to see more shots with a deeper DOF to see detail around the garden. I guess more wide shots in general and less contrast. I also thought the bright red modern car felt a little out of place, but maybe the juxtaposition is interesting. The piece has such a nice timeless feel and place without it.
Look forward to seeing the full length doc!

The F250 with the V8 7.3L Powerstroke is a hell of a truck. Extra cab, not the crew, full-sized bed.

I picked up a very inexpensive BMMCC last year and I am finally getting around to rigging it up. I bought a SmallHD Focus, but I need a new HDMI cable for it. So in the meantime, I used my TV as a monitor to test the Metabones Speedbooster with it and the weirdest thing occurred... everything worked fine but when I hit record, the screen went black... when I hit record again, the image returned. The shots were recorded but obviously I was flying blind. Any ideas why this is happening?
With that said, I forgot how much I like the image from the Micro. With just a LUT and a couple exposure adjustments, I came up with this...

I was recommended the Colour Correction Handbook - Second Edition by Alexis Van Hurkman so I ordered it.  It just arrived today, and I am having trouble remembering a time when I was so excited about a book.
I wasn't excited when it arrived, I only got excited when I started reading through the contents page, and flicking through some of the chapters.  It's like every heading is a thing I've been wondering and struggling with.  At first glance it looks like a good mix of technical stuff, techniques, and creative applications.
and the best part?  It's over 600 pages!

Yeah, those Rec709 grades with like 7 or 8 stops of dynamic range look so rich and vibrant. Film print style. Even 35mm film shot right now has a lot less punch than it used to. 
I always though the baked in profiles on the C300 Mkii or maybe the 1DC or 1DX look really really nice. Yes, you have to be more intentional with your exposing but the results are really nice.
Not all log footage is the same though. Flat film scans are incredibly easy to grade. You don't need any LUTs, just a standard correction will look really good and natural. 

+1
I don't trust everything DXOMark publishes, their measurements indicate better color depth over time...
Whereas to my eye the color from my Digital Rebel XT is better than the color from my S1. Anyway it doesn't matter if they're right if I can't see it or make it work. But there are thinner bayer filter dyes apparently and I think it is leading to a "change" in color.
Oddly though I felt C300 Mk II was a step down for color from C300 Mk 1, F5 was a step down from F3, etc. but C300 Mk III looks like an improvement and Venice color is excellent, FX6 looks promising too but yet to work with it. So we might be heading back in the right direction.

Yeah, those Rec709 grades with like 7 or 8 stops of dynamic range look so rich and vibrant. Film print style. Even 35mm film shot right now has a lot less punch than it used to. 
I always though the baked in profiles on the C300 Mkii or maybe the 1DC or 1DX look really really nice. Yes, you have to be more intentional with your exposing but the results are really nice.
Not all log footage is the same though. Flat film scans are incredibly easy to grade. You don't need any LUTs, just a standard correction will look really good and natural. 

Yeah I'm really conflicted about log profiles on consumer cameras. I honestly don't like the way most footage is graded these days, and the popular style of 'cinematic grading' which to me usually looks flat and weird when done by amateurs. The worst casualty has been skin tones, with rich vibrant alive tones replaced by green grey yellow orange stylised skin in 90% of videos on Youtube. 
Whether that's to do with Sony sensors or just Log profiles is a difficult question. I do know however that I have rarely seen skin tones out of any Sony camera below the FX9 that I've liked.
One of the things I'm struck by when I watch old movies shot on film - from the 70s through to the 90s - is how natural and beautiful everything looks, before every shadow had to be dark blue and every skin tone had to be sunburnt orange or desaturated grey.

Nah, it's pretty bad. Do a search for even Canon C70 footage. Nothing you can find will look this good. There's tons of flat looking footage, but almost nothing with a standard balanced REC709 grade. The C300 Mkii looked good to me as well. One of the easiest cameras to get beautiful skin tone out of.

For me it is the way the pocket or the micro handles saturation on the top end. The example above is going to pure white in the highlights. The sun is golden at sunset.
Here is a shot I took on the pocket a few years back, the second photo is Kodak 250d from a project I did last year. The 16mm film really has no clipping point in the highlights, so of course it looks better, but that characteristic of being able to easily push saturation in the highlights is there in the pocket as well. The version with contrast was graded by a colorist. Images are subject, but I would rather let the light fall naturally than create some sort of HDR looking image.
This is why A/B comparisons are pointless and often tailored to fit the narrative. If you do something in the real world like shoot directly into the sun, this is what you get. 

Interesting, the film still looks so nice in the highlights though I am sure the Pocket could as well with different grading. I am gonna take a photo with the S1 to see how it does today, I'll throw it up here. That is if we get any sun here lol. 

That's a cool little rig. I think I like the image I see from the pocket more, although I have always loved the files from any ML Canon camera. The ease of ProRes HQ is definitely easier from a work flow perspective.

For me it is the way the pocket or the micro handles saturation on the top end. The example above is going to pure white in the highlights. The sun is golden at sunset.
Here is a shot I took on the pocket a few years back, the second photo is Kodak 250d from a project I did last year. The 16mm film really has no clipping point in the highlights, so of course it looks better, but that characteristic of being able to easily push saturation in the highlights is there in the pocket as well. The version with contrast was graded by a colorist. Images are subject, but I would rather let the light fall naturally than create some sort of HDR looking image.
This is why A/B comparisons are pointless and often tailored to fit the narrative. If you do something in the real world like shoot directly into the sun, this is what you get. 

Very cool!
 
Your rig reminds me of @ZEEK's EOSM Super 16 setup.  It shoots 2.5K, 10-bit continuously or 2.8K, 10-bit continuously with ML at around 16mm and Super 16 frame sizes.

I almost sold my micro the other day with prices so high but I just can't do it. Every time I shoot with outside I am blown away with the IQ. I love my Siii but there is something so nice about the micro. 

We've certainly talked about resolution, and other Yedlin videos have been linked in this forum.
 
I merely scanned the videos (that second video is over an hour in length), so I don't know all the points that he covered.
 
Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing.  There is a contrast element to sharpness, and it involves different levels (macro contrast micro contrast, etc.).  One can see the effects of different levels of contrast when doing frequency separation work in images.  Not sure if Yedlin specifically covers contrast's relation to sharpness in these videos.  By the way, here is a recent demonstration of when micro features and macro features don't match.
 
Also, I am not sure that his resolution demo is valid, as he seems to be showing different resolutions on the same monitor.  I noticed in one passage that he was zoomed in to see individual pixels, and, when switching between resolutions, the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image.  Something is wrong with that comparison.
 
To properly demonstrate resolution differences in regards to discernible detail, one really must show a 6K-captured image on a 6K monitor, a 4K-captured image on a 4K monitor and an HD/2K captured image on an HD/2K monitor, etc. -- and all monitors must be the same size and and same distance from the viewer.
 
The only other demonstration that I have seen by Yedlin also had significant flaws.
 
Furthermore, there are other considerations, such as how resolution influences color depth and how higher resolution can help transcend conversion/algorithmic losses and how higher resolution allows for cropping, etc.
 
 
There are problems with the few Yedlin videos that I have seen.  Also, one of his videos linked above is lengthy and somewhat ponderous.
 
 
I would put the Panavision Genesis (and it's little brother, the Sony F35) up against an Alexa any day, and the Genesis has lower resolution and less dynamic range than the Alexa.  However, the Genesis has a lush, striped, RGB, CCD with true HD -- 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups.
 
Similarly, I recall that the Dalsa Origin demos showed a thick image (it shot 16-bit, 4K), and the Thompson Viper HD CCD camera yielded great footage.
 
 
I certainly agree that there is a threshold beyond which higher resolution generally is not necessary in most cases, and I think that that such a threshold has been mentioned a few times in this forum.  On the other hand, I don't think that such a threshold is absolute, as so much of imaging is subjective and a lot of SD productions are still very compelling today.
 
 
I have shot a fair amount of film, but I would not say that the image quality of film is "better."  It's easier (and more forgiving) to shoot film in some ways, but video is easier in many other ways and it can give a great image.
 
 
Exactly.