CTRT

http://images.apple.com/media/us/iphone-6s/2015/dhs3b549_75f9_422a_9470_4a09e709b350/camera/4k-download/iPhone6s_4K_Sample.mov

Well, just beware, prices of those could get out of hand quickly for a good one in nice condition... That's why a brand new mirrorless minded one for a fair price might be a decent start.

Seems @Julian had a nice topic on C mounts (actually via http://bmcc.tv/the-vintage-lens-hunt/ ; 'Ebay is clearly the best place to look for lenses': agreed!):

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/2513-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-c-mount-lens-compatibility-list/

I think I'm going to ask these guys at the New-world store over at AliExpress about these APS-C covering ones: http://www.aliexpress.com/store/group/CCTV-LENS/736134_260465049.html . Unlike the previous ones (that I have), these are actually supposed to be optimized for mirrorless cameras, without vignetting on APS-C/M43. The blades on the aperture of the 35mm doesn't even look too bad. Hum...

Just a little something like this for example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/FOTGA-C-Mount-Lens-to-M4-3-Adapter-for-E-P1-DF1-G1-G10-GH3-GH2-GH1-GF6-/181626377484 . Some lenses to try can be had on eBay as well, e.g. http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/m.html?_armrs=1&_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=cctv+lens&_ssn=roxsen&LH_PrefLoc=2&_sop=15 . Actually the first time I see those with 'APS-C' tag and reworked lenses. Bit more expensive as well. Sounds interesting.

I mean, that's fair. All these letters and numbers are a lot to keep straight for non-obsessives. Hahaha

It's so funny to hear what you decided, because I was just about to post that the GH4 was more of a compliment to the BMPCC than a replacement for it and that within the next month, I'll be buying a GH4 and 12-35 to go with my BMPCC and primes. Being able to share lenses between the two sold me as well.

Congrats on the purchase, and keep us up to date with your experiences!

Aren't we all?

Grats on that and getting the name right for the first time.  Enjoy the new camera!

Just out of curiosity, would you not consider getting another Nikon D7200, since that's the camera you've used and the camera you know? I only ask because if it's a job, you want to remove as much of the unknowns as possible, and if you're getting steady work with the gear that you had, then you don't have to worry about having to learn all the new gear and work out a new workflow and all that stuff.

For what it's worth I shoot a GH4, and I think that's the best value all-rounder package on the market right now. The 4K footage looks great, and being able to shoot 4K without the humungous file sizes is a revelation. It has really useful functions for video like peaking and zebras, the LCD works well in daylight and the EVF is really nice as well so you can operate without a monitor, the battery life is astonishing (I've shot whole days on just 3 batteries). For everything else it does ok compared with the other cameras it competes with.  So it's not as good as an A7s in low light, but it's perfectly usable (assuming you expose correctly). The colour isn't as nice as a Canon, especially anything that shoots C-Log, but with the right settings on the camera and the right post-production process, you can get good colour from it. I've been using Andrew's GH4 Log Converter, and it's made getting great colour out of the GH4 a snap. Here's something I shot recently with the log converter:

https://vimeo.com/137681905

V-Log is going to improve things dramatically on this front -- I had a look at the V-Log footage Nick Driftwood released and put Panasonic's V-Log to Rec709 LUT on it and it looks brilliant! If you expose well when you're shooting your post-production is going to be super-simple once V-Log is available.

That little film was shot with the GH4 and the Lumix 12-35 f2.8, which is a nice combo that would work for lots of different circumstances. I also have a Voightlander 17.5mm f0.95 which is my go to lens for night time shooting, and a Metabones Speedbooster which lets me use all my Nikon lenses when I need to.

Most of what I do is hand held, or I need to be fast and lightweight, so the GH4 is perfect for me. I think if I did a lot more video work (I'm primarily a stills photographer) I would look more seriously at something like a C300. But then again, maybe not -- you can buy a whole lot of lighting with the difference in cost between a C300 and a GH4. 

So the BMPCC has a 2.88x crop factor compared to full frame. What this means is that you'll have a wider depth of field than you would on APS-C or FF sensors, as well as a narrower field of view when using FF/APS-C glass. This means you have two main options when it comes to your lenses: 
1. You can use a normal/generic speed booster to reduce that crop factor to 2x, which makes FF doable if you're not a huge on focal lengths wider than 40mm, or a BMPCC-specific speedbooster, which reduces the crop factor to 1.67, which makes the sensor effectively just smaller than APS-C. The advantages of this option are that you have a wider assortment of vintage and modern lenses to choose from, get a stop more light (or 1 2/3 with the BMPCC-specific booster), and can give you the look of a larger sensor (which some prefer). The disadvantages are large lenses (which can be unwieldy on the BMPCC), expense (powered speed boosters and BMPCC-specific models are pricey), and no IS/AF on non-electronic lenses (which may or may not matter to you). 

2. Buy native Micro Four Thirds mount lenses. Because they're made with a 2x crop in mind, they offer much wider focal lengths that murder you way less on the crop factor. You can get a Panasonic 12-35 (35-100 FF equiv.) f/2.8 IS and have an amazing all-rounder for only $550 used, or the amazing SLR Magic 10mm t/2.1 for a 29mm FF equiv. that's built like a tank, completely manual, and razor sharp from max aperture. The advantages of this option are IS/AF on Panasonic/Olympus/Sigma lenses, much smaller lenses, cheaper lenses (depending what you buy), and better performance (again, depending--there are exceptions). The downsides are that they won't affect the sensor size/look or give you extra light and can't be used on larger formats if you ever decide to switch.

I lean toward option 2, because I like the option to keep my package small (heh heh), because I can use the same lenses on my Panasonic/Olympus MFT cameras for video and stills, and because there's some incredible glass in the MFT stable that I couldn't bear to part with. 

It's usable. Not great, but usable. I ordered a sun hood for the LCD (like the one recommended on DrewNetwork), which is the cheapest option to improve visibility, but you could also pick up a low-end LCD loupe or external monitor if you're having trouble. Definitely give it a try before you buy any of that stuff though--I've shot a music video and a short doc without any of it and done just fine. 
 

Definitely give it a whirl for editing. I started on Premiere and planned to just color correct in Resolve, but I'm finding the Resolve 12 Beta to be more than enough NLE for me. It's a personal preference thing; you won't know unless you try. 
In terms of color tools, Resolve is the most comprehensive option available. It can look a little intimidating at first, but the tools are deceptively simple. I've had good luck just watching some simple Youtube tutorials and playing around with footage. You'll get the hang of it in no time.

Man, you should see the crap I do to pay the bills that I never show anyone. 

Besides, I look at stuff like what Ed David does and think...why am I even pretending.  

I came to terms with the fact that there's always going to be people out there so much better at this than me.  That's okay and as it should be.

 You can always build up small camera with a cheap eBay rig and matte box if you want it to look more "serious." 

Also, I'm typing on my phone right now, so I'll keep this brief: the BMPCC is a very, very easy to use and grade. DaVinci Resolve 12 is free, and can handle RAW and ProRes without a sweat. Worst case, if you want a usable starting point, all you have to do is right click each clip and apply the BMD Film to Rec709 LUT, and boom--usable footage. I actually have a much easier time lighting, exposing, and grading BM footage compared to other cameras because of their huge DR and super robust codecs.

The camera also requires a lot less accessories than people pretend. Realistically, you need a couple big SD cards ($100-200), a pile of batteries or external solution ($60-$120), and a lens. That's it. The other stuff can be nice, but it's by no means necessary.

I'm a beginner as well (film school), and I'm finding the Blackmagic to be a powerful and straightforward tool to work and learn with. If you want more information, I highly  recommend checking out Mattias Burling's and Drew Network's YouTube series. Both are extremely informative and do a lot to reduce the camera's intimidation factor. You can also feel free to message me. I'd be happy to answer any questions and even run tests, if I can find time.

I can believe it... and more.  I am not a professional.  The only thing I've sold from my hobby are some stock video clips, but even I've seen some amazing things.  A friend of mine who apparently has no aesthetic sensibilities made some videos for their company in house.  From what I can tell the videos were shot with some kind of old STANDARD DEFINITION pocket video camera with internal mic for sound.  No lighting, no external sound, and most of the shots were framed terribly.  I can't fly out of state right now to help them with their videos so I haven't said anything.  I don't want to tell them it is all dog poop and not be able to help them fix the problem.

The strange thing is they could use an iphone and an external iphone compatible mic and that alone would make the videos a million times better.  Toss in 2-3 hundred dollars worth of lights and you are off to the races.  Sad but true.

If you are good with editing, lights, sound, and framing shots you can pay the bills with a G7.

My concern is what exactly was your workflow before?  If you shot a lot of handheld with autofocus and IS then that is what you should shoot for.  If you shot with manual lenses and a shoulder rig than you have more choices.  I use IS a lot.  Plenty of people that are better videographers than me use shoulder rigs and monopods and never touch IS.  You have to do what works for you.  I have a BMPCC and most of the time I use one Canon IS zoom lens with a speedbooster and no shoulder rig.  I haven't used any of my vintage lenses yet.  I inherited the lenses.  Honestly for people who owned the lenses already or got them before they shot up in price they can make sense.  But after doing tons of reading and looking at all the prices and pitfalls I decided a speedbooster and a top rated canon zoom would be more versatile and cheaper.  Minty copies of nice vintage lenses can cost hundreds of dollars per a focal length.

yeah, they can give a good image, and some people are coming around to it, but still kind of a bad stigma sometimes. and you're using external audio and lights and a tripod? if that stuff looks professional, it'll draw the eye

yeah, I would've recommended the lx100 sooner if it didn't look like it does.. but still, if they're comfortable with someone on a dslr already...

besides, in that aspect, the bmpcc is almost worse

C-mount just takes a small and cheap adapter. There's nothing to it really. Works with any M43 camera, just a little better with the BMPCC, because it has a larger crop factor: it crops in more on the image circle, making it less sensitive to the outer edge vignetting. Then again, you can cut 1080p out of a 4K image that the GH4 shoots and cut around the vignetting as well. They might give some fun effects and character, but overall, I haven't been in love with my cheapo copies (I have a 25mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.7 and 50mm f/1.4). Wouldn't base a purchase on it unless you'd have some vintage C-mounts lying around or something. If you're thinking about cheap vintage glass, rather look at some M42's, Pentax, Minolta's and FD's for example. Work great with the M43 sensor, have great character, usually built like a tank and optics are solid. Check out the sticky lens thread.

About the 12-35mm f/2.8, it's a lot of people's go-to lens. Since M43 is a 2x crop sensor and shooting 4K gives a 2.3x crop compared to the 35mm reference, the 12-35mm gives a practical range for normal shooting scenarios. The lens has a f/2.8 sensitivity throughout which is pretty great. You could consider a Sigma ART series 18-35mm f/1.8 lens and use an adapter with optics inside to compensate for the crop a little and win a bit of light in the process, which is a great combination, with great optical performance and character, but the Sigma faces the same problem as a Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens would have on a Panasonic body... these lenses have no image stabilization built-in an Panasonic cameras don't do video sensor stabilization (as Olympus cameras do, see fuzzy's point). As the Panasonic 12-35mm has built-in optical image stabilization, it will do a decent job of filtering out some of the shakiness. Also, a third party lens with simple adapter (not electronic, with or without optics) does not allow for in-camera settings to take effect. You'll be left with full manual operation. The native mount 12-35mm doesn't have this issue (should it be one to you;personally I don't mind fully manual operation). I figure lots of people just have one, because it's just so darn convenient.

The Nebula 4000 I would forget... Some topics around here (like: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/3293-3-axis-camera-stabilizing-systems-–-overview/?do=findComment&comment=99388 ) that kinda go into that... the recent developments seem to kinda make a bit more sense already, but personally don't think it's there/mature enough yet still. Anyways, I'd say: worry about that kinda of stuff later.

Yeah, I'm thinking the GH4 with the V-LOG option would be a good match for your needs. The BMPCC is pretty great if you need to just about torture your footage in grading, but the GH4 is more flexible and friendlier to work with. If only for ergonomics, vari-angle touchscreen and great battery life.

if budget and lenses are still a slight concern with the gh4, the g7, or lx100 even, have been proven to have really great images. might feel restricted slightly on the telephoto end with the lx100, but the focal lengths you have, it would appear (and according to Andrew Reid), are like having a set of primes.

you definitely don't have to get obsessed with videography, but having a camera of your own to fiddle with and googling/asking when you're confused, you'll be fine. especially if you're already getting a lot of good feedback and people wanting you.

also, if you ever want to make films, liking films really is good enough to go on.

I love the LX100, it's a little gem, but I wouldn't really dare show up with it to a paid gig. They'd probably get the idea that instead of hiring you, they should've bought the camera you're shooting with and do it themselves. Or you really gotta know how to sell and present yourself on a shoot. I agree, they should get you for your vision, creativity, knowledge and skills, but those values might not matter if you show up with a premium compact... guess it's along the lines of stripping down in front of a woman and then telling her 'erm, you know it's not about size, but what you do with it, right?'.

For IQ, it's not competitive.  The GH4 shoots a very clean video that is 4x the resolution of the EM5II.  The Gh4 does look really good.

But here's the thing about that:  I've edited together projects that were shot with both cameras simultaneously and the client never noticed or cared.  So, you have to decide why you want a particular camera.  Are you aiming for the best IQ?  Then go for it.  Consider 4K.

For me, I required something that I could use with quick ease and have it look really smooth and elegant handheld.  Resolution wasn't the biggest thing I was concerned about.  With the EM5II, easy smooth handheld shooting was possible more so than the GH4.  If you're interested why, just look at some of my past postings on the subject.

Here's my take on all of this:  If you buy a camera for around 1-1.5K you're gonna have something pretty great to work with.  If you buy a 4K camera for $600, it's gonna be great to work with.  If you buy a 1080 camera for $700 with 5-axis stabilization, it's gonna be great to work with.  If you buy a 1080 Lumix camera from 2013 that's been discontinued and only costs $350, it's gonna be great to work with.

There are not too many wrong answers anymore when it comes to mirrorless camera bodies.  Except for Fuji.  The video from their cameras is pretty bad.

Now, when you want to talk about lenses...then it get's pretty interesting...

Sorry I wasn't clear.  Resolve Lite is free.  It does everything I need except noise reduction.  Resolve 12 is still a beta product.  Resolve Lite 11 is available on the same page.  You just have to search around a little for it.  Honestly if you aren't into grading at all I would steer clear of any Blackmagic camera for now.  Going back and reading the thread it sounds like you are receiving jobs as we speak.  You don't want to be learning too much at once on paid gigs!

I would follow other people's advice and go for something like a GH4.  Maybe research the differences between a GH4 and a G7.  Grey market G7s with no lens are going for $650 on everyone's favorite auction site.  The G7 will probably never have a log option, but if you aren't into grading that doesn't matter.  Frankly on a lot of these cameras other than Blackmagic cameras log seems to be getting people into a lot of trouble unless they really know what they are doing.

Someone is selling a used G7 with no lens for $580.  It's up to you whether you think that is a good deal or not.

It really sounds to me like you need a very user friendly and affordable camera that can get you decent results straight out of the camera.

Adorama has the NX30 listed as a closeout. Might mean the replacement is around the corner. It should be a lot like the NX1 in terms of video, except cheaper, and might even be able to do a few things the NX1 can't do.

Whatever works!  There's no right or wrong answers.  

You'll read mostly technical stuff on this particular blog, but as you've noticed, making money at this sort of thing on the lower end has almost bupkis to do with that --and more to do with relationships. 

Ive been using an EM5ii for half a year. Many people don't like the camera because it's not the ultimate in image quality. But, it does the job for me in a way that streamlines a good chunk of my production. That sort of thing is valuable to me, so I've been recommending that camera for consideration to folks on a similar level.

ctrt, i agree with the folks who think youd love a gh4. its a great camera

Based on what I'm reading, I'd recommend refining your technique and craft before investing in a camera.  

However, I do know that doing both in tandem is possible and often a strong motivator to get better.  I admit to doing this just to shake myself up a little and rejuvenate my process.

Without question, however, if you want to be accomplished at this sort of thing, it's not enough to just do it, you have to try to understand everything that's going on and then do it well.

In my market there's hundreds, if not thousands, of people that claim to make videos, but only a handful that can do the one-man-band sort of thing with any notable craftsmanship.

Of course, it depends on your angle in relation to the work.  Being a good salesman is more important for the commerce often times than having a flashy reel.

it's probably easier to get a deeper depth of field on a large sensor than it is to get a shallow depth of field on a small sensor, sometimes. if it's you're only camera, go for some middle ground sensor size (micro four thirds, aps-c) to have (sort of) the best of both. focal length could be all you need to change to get either result you mentioned with the hypothetical interview.

could you handle raw or a higher end codec if you got a blackmagic? no offense, obviously we're all learning, but you sound a little new to all of this (which you can stop apologizing about btw ). gh4 is a great image, not too expensive, and some slowmo ability if you ever want it. g7 might be a better option - cheaper, pretty identical image, still some slowmo ability, though you'll never get log. might want to keep this next camera you get as cheap as possible, with a workflow and ergonomics you know you can handle, while still having an acceptable image and somewhat large sensor, if this is one you'll be learning a lot on. and then if you decide you need something later, you can upgrade no harm done. used to be the t2i everyone would recommend here (still what I use), but the g7 is a big jump in image quality and not a big jump in price. kit lens and a fast, vintage prime, you'll be learning a lot and have very few restrictions.

Not quite. In this context, we're talking about achieving the opposite of keeping many things in focus.

In the example mentioned, the subject would be in focus and the background would be blurry. 

Therefore the image would be more pleasing because the subject would be the focused visual interest while the background would not be --on account of it being out of focus and not revealing distracting details. 

And the author of the post mentioned that the space needed to accomplish such a look would be smaller...because larger sensors with wide-open f-stops can make that look happen in shorter distances. 

Its all about the math of how light moves through your lenses and how much area you're trying to focus that light onto. 

You don't really need to know the ACTUAL math, but understanding the concepts allows you to make good decisions on how to shoot things. 

I don't know what their consumer strategy is.  They don't seem to discontinue any cameras.  They just seem to add more.  They just added the 1080p global shutter micro camera (with no LCD screen), but they've kept the 1080p rolling shutter BMPCC.  Obviously the Micro is targeted more towards cinema as you indicated.

4k would be nice.  It would help with the moire/aliasing.  Really if I had a 4k BMPCC I would stop looking at cameras.  What blackmagic has done is interesting.  There are now a flood of affordabe 4k cameras out there but only Blackmagic is giving us raw and Prores HQ 4:2:2 for less than $1,000... and their colors are great in my opinion.

I look at all these other videos and see blown highlights, compression artifacts, and bad color.  But they all trounce the BMPCC when it comes to moire/aliasing.  Honestly don't know what I am going to do going forward.  There are times I just want to downsize to an LX100  but then I see one of my nice BMPCC and decide to just keep it.

That is ancient history.  I like Dave a lot but he is an amateur.  Well I like him because he is an amateur.  It's nice to learn along with him and he is not arrogant.  He doesn't have an attitude.  But he is not an experienced colorist.

Also you have to realize since that video was produced the world has been flooded with tons of LUTs for the BMPCC.  The scene that he presented as particularly problematic for grading isn't an issue now.  Well at least not an issue the way he describes it.  For sunsets all you have to do is set the BMPCC at 5600K.  Then in Resolve use something like Captain Hook's free LUT.  Boost... or reduce saturation to taste and then tweak the color.  It is nowhere near as bad as Dave makes it out to be in that video.  But remember that video is a historical artifact.  So many niggles he brought up in that video were fixed through firmware updates that are still being produced.  Great video at the time and I agreed with him 100% but a slew of LUTs, firmware updates and a $500 price drop and I became a believer.

I still would like a camera that produced solid video straight out of the camera but the BMPCC has come a long way.