Lintelfilm

XC10 is quite a special camera for its purpose indeed, I don't think it's bad. 
Don't know why BMCC is lower. I was actually planning to get one instead of NX1.
 

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). 
I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this. 

Absolutely not the case. I have a GH4 and BMPCC - 4K 8bit H264 vs  1080p 10bit Prores. I choose the Pocket image 90% of the time.
There are no 4K 8-bit cameras that rival the HD Blackmagic image for me. Possibly the XC10 but that's 422 with a huge bit rate. I'm done with 8 bit and I'm done with high compression. It's junk. The A7SII, GH4  - colours look like junk. NX1 is slightly better but not if you actually want to do anything at all creative with the image. 

Absolutely not the case. I have a GH4 and BMPCC - 4K 8bit H264 vs  1080p 10bit Prores. I choose the Pocket image 90% of the time.
There are no 4K 8-bit cameras that rival the HD Blackmagic image for me. Possibly the XC10 but that's 422 with a huge bit rate. I'm done with 8 bit and I'm done with high compression. It's junk. The A7SII, GH4  - colours look like junk. NX1 is slightly better but not if you actually want to do anything at all creative with the image. 

I wasn't saying that any 4k cam can beat out any HD cam. I was saying that as a company expands into higher-resolution territory, the lower resolutions get upgrades. That's true for Blackmagic as well.

The future is black ... for me anyway. Blackmagic! 
The phrase "quality not quantity" springs to mind. I want colour depth, robust codec, fast readout speed (or global shutter), low light performance.
This news makes me pretty much certain I'll be phasing Panasonic out of my life over the next year or so. In 18 months I may be exclusively Blackmagic - editing in Resolve and shooting on a Micro CC and/or URSA 4K. 
The big question for me is will the MFT mount remain relevant to me. Will Blackmagic continue to use it in the next generation of cameras? Will Panasonic's 8K sensor be MFT?
Sorry but I see this 8K stuff as really bad news for anyone who cares about quality of information over quantity of pixels ...

Maybe it's just the forumite echo chamber, but everyone seems to bring up battery life the moment I mention Blackmagic and conveniently forget about it when they recommend the A7S (II). 

I was on a shoot with a guy the other day, and he said in the cold conditions here in Wisconsin, he has to change the battery on his A7S every 20 minutes. That's outrageous. 
I totally see where you're coming from. Shot in its sweet spot, that 4K sensor produces exquisite results--especially those magical skintones.

https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/12/director-of-photography-blackmagic-4k-ursa-tests-part-1/
https://vimeo.com/139130557 

Re: BMPCC low-light performance, let's break it down this way.

The Pocket's native ISO is 800. Using a Speed Booster, you gain 1 2/3 stops of light, effectively bringing that native ISO up to 2500. 

Since most of the Pocket's DR lies in the shadows, it can easily be pushed 2-3 stops in post with acceptable results. (Ctrl+F "underexposure." https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/06/director-of-photography-blackmagic-cinema-camera/)

Therefore, using the same full frame lenses, you can shoot the Pocket at an effective 10,000-20,000 ISO with acceptable results--the same or better than the A7S in S16 mode, according to Ebrahim--but with the added benefits of 10-bit 4:2:2 and RAW.

I don't claim the Pocket is the best low-light camera out there, but it's much more competitive than sensor size snobs would have you believe.

With fast primes and a Speed Booster, the BMMCC should perform like a champ in most any environment. 

Also this one from Mr CheesyCam (not settings or grade noted):
 
And another random one from Vimeo (again no settings noted):
Can't tell a lot from these two but the image looks "fuller" to my eye than internal footage. The golf course video showed some nasty artefacts in the shadows at times, but by the look of it I'd guess he didn't upload a very big file so hard to say what's causing it.

Cine V with sharpness and contrast all the way down and highlight curve at -5. 
You need mid tones for skin tone contrast so Cine D and V Log are no good. 
If you have a diffusion filter like Tiffen HDVFX or Ultra Contrast use it. Makes faces look much nicer in 4K.

Having owned both the D5300 and GH4 for an equal amount of time (overlapping briefly before I sold the D5300), I'm certain that the GH4 is not superior to the D5300. In 4K I would say it's about equal all things considered. The GH4 really lives up to its reputation as an awful low light performer. In 4K at 1600 the noise makes detail look like 720p, and colour goes out of the window. The D5300 I was a little happier taking to 1600 but compression artefacts are much worse and the noise is ugly, so I'd call it a draw personally.
True the BMPCC only goes up to 1600, but even in ProRes HQ you can lift by about one stop footage that has been unavoidably exposed far to the right and get pretty decent results. The codec means that neat video works wonders too. The other thing I don't see talked about much is the importance of dynamic range for a lot of low light situations. I'm going to be shooting a light festival on Thursday night and when I first took the job on, I was really panicking about the cameras I have and was seriously considering renting a C100 or A7S. But after tests I'm actually glad I have a BMPCC. Because if there are lights in the shot (as there very often are in low light situations), good dynamic range, strong codec and highlight rolloff is vital. With the GH4, such scenes are split into crushed areas and/or blown areas, whereas the Pocket can reveal detail in the shadows (yes it's noisy but the grain is fine and detail is in there) and highlights of a night scene. Also if you know how to extract it you can get bold colours from low light scenes with the BMPCC.
This. This is what I've been thinking all along and it relates to what I said above. 
So yeah the D5300/5500 or alternatively a Panny G7. If you watch The Camera Store's video review of the G7, they show plain as day that it's noticeably superior to the GH4 in low light (making it definitely equal to the D5300 IMO). 4K means your friend can both crop in if lens options are limited, and apply noise reduction if necessary. My lens suggestion would be a Chinese (Turbo or whatever) speed booster and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Mark I (the non-VC version). Though autofocus is obviously off the table with that. The Leica 25mm f/1.4 (which I got for about $300 new on eBay) could be a good choice considering the crop of 4K and the ability to zoom in post. That would give autofocus too. Go to HD for a "normal" 50mm equiv. field of view. In fact the more I think about it the better I think G7 + Leica 25mm 1.4 would work.
 

Having owned both the D5300 and GH4 for an equal amount of time (overlapping briefly before I sold the D5300), I'm certain that the GH4 is not superior to the D5300. In 4K I would say it's about equal all things considered. The GH4 really lives up to its reputation as an awful low light performer. In 4K at 1600 the noise makes detail look like 720p, and colour goes out of the window. The D5300 I was a little happier taking to 1600 but compression artefacts are much worse and the noise is ugly, so I'd call it a draw personally.
True the BMPCC only goes up to 1600, but even in ProRes HQ you can lift by about one stop footage that has been unavoidably exposed far to the right and get pretty decent results. The codec means that neat video works wonders too. The other thing I don't see talked about much is the importance of dynamic range for a lot of low light situations. I'm going to be shooting a light festival on Thursday night and when I first took the job on, I was really panicking about the cameras I have and was seriously considering renting a C100 or A7S. But after tests I'm actually glad I have a BMPCC. Because if there are lights in the shot (as there very often are in low light situations), good dynamic range, strong codec and highlight rolloff is vital. With the GH4, such scenes are split into crushed areas and/or blown areas, whereas the Pocket can reveal detail in the shadows (yes it's noisy but the grain is fine and detail is in there) and highlights of a night scene. Also if you know how to extract it you can get bold colours from low light scenes with the BMPCC.
This. This is what I've been thinking all along and it relates to what I said above. 
So yeah the D5300/5500 or alternatively a Panny G7. If you watch The Camera Store's video review of the G7, they show plain as day that it's noticeably superior to the GH4 in low light (making it definitely equal to the D5300 IMO). 4K means your friend can both crop in if lens options are limited, and apply noise reduction if necessary. My lens suggestion would be a Chinese (Turbo or whatever) speed booster and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Mark I (the non-VC version). Though autofocus is obviously off the table with that. The Leica 25mm f/1.4 (which I got for about $300 new on eBay) could be a good choice considering the crop of 4K and the ability to zoom in post. That would give autofocus too. Go to HD for a "normal" 50mm equiv. field of view. In fact the more I think about it the better I think G7 + Leica 25mm 1.4 would work.
 

Are we talking about "normal" concerts where normal means that the stage is lighted? Because if it is, i would say the LX100 is a good go, here are some screencaps (4k -> 1080p, fully zoomed f2.8) - at least for me. And if you are lucky, you will find a used one for less than 500 euros, nice stealthy package.

Having owned both the D5300 and GH4 for an equal amount of time (overlapping briefly before I sold the D5300), I'm certain that the GH4 is not superior to the D5300. In 4K I would say it's about equal all things considered. The GH4 really lives up to its reputation as an awful low light performer. In 4K at 1600 the noise makes detail look like 720p, and colour goes out of the window. The D5300 I was a little happier taking to 1600 but compression artefacts are much worse and the noise is ugly, so I'd call it a draw personally.
True the BMPCC only goes up to 1600, but even in ProRes HQ you can lift by about one stop footage that has been unavoidably exposed far to the right and get pretty decent results. The codec means that neat video works wonders too. The other thing I don't see talked about much is the importance of dynamic range for a lot of low light situations. I'm going to be shooting a light festival on Thursday night and when I first took the job on, I was really panicking about the cameras I have and was seriously considering renting a C100 or A7S. But after tests I'm actually glad I have a BMPCC. Because if there are lights in the shot (as there very often are in low light situations), good dynamic range, strong codec and highlight rolloff is vital. With the GH4, such scenes are split into crushed areas and/or blown areas, whereas the Pocket can reveal detail in the shadows (yes it's noisy but the grain is fine and detail is in there) and highlights of a night scene. Also if you know how to extract it you can get bold colours from low light scenes with the BMPCC.
This. This is what I've been thinking all along and it relates to what I said above. 
So yeah the D5300/5500 or alternatively a Panny G7. If you watch The Camera Store's video review of the G7, they show plain as day that it's noticeably superior to the GH4 in low light (making it definitely equal to the D5300 IMO). 4K means your friend can both crop in if lens options are limited, and apply noise reduction if necessary. My lens suggestion would be a Chinese (Turbo or whatever) speed booster and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Mark I (the non-VC version). Though autofocus is obviously off the table with that. The Leica 25mm f/1.4 (which I got for about $300 new on eBay) could be a good choice considering the crop of 4K and the ability to zoom in post. That would give autofocus too. Go to HD for a "normal" 50mm equiv. field of view. In fact the more I think about it the better I think G7 + Leica 25mm 1.4 would work.
 

Perhaps I should point out the very obvious fact that "concerts, theatre, ballet etc..." all have stage lighting, to varying degrees obviously, but its still there & sometimes it can be very powerful.
I've found that I'm stopping down the lens or turning down the ISO more often than not at concerts etc... So it does beg the question of how much of a low light performer do you really need?

800€ for the body?? If 800€ is for everything, you could probably do well with a Panasonic LX100. It's not A7s, but open at f1.7 it's not bad at all!

I agree with you but these damn hot pixels of BMPCC in high ISOs are a pain to remove... 

BMPCC - definitively better than D5300 (I've done a low light side by side and the Pocket trounced the Nikon). A speed booster and fast lens helps too of course. Also if you shoot RAW you can lift the shadows a few ISO and clean up very dark footage.
It all depends if your friend wants an easy life or not though ...

BMPCC - definitively better than D5300 (I've done a low light side by side and the Pocket trounced the Nikon). A speed booster and fast lens helps too of course. Also if you shoot RAW you can lift the shadows a few ISO and clean up very dark footage.
It all depends if your friend wants an easy life or not though ...

BMPCC - definitively better than D5300 (I've done a low light side by side and the Pocket trounced the Nikon). A speed booster and fast lens helps too of course. Also if you shoot RAW you can lift the shadows a few ISO and clean up very dark footage.
It all depends if your friend wants an easy life or not though ...

Im sure I sent you them a couple months ago?
Theres not much to say about it really. It is what you expect.  A cconvenient camera for a one man band. The sharpness of a Panasonic with the colour/tonality of a Canon and the usability of a camcorder. And some ludicrous low light ability.  

I have created a new set of LUTs for Panasonic cameras. Having spent the last year and a half reviewing footage from my camera (the GX7) and various others, I have become quite familiar with its colour characteristics. In general I do find them very pleasing but in some respects they are quite flawed. And I wish to have pleasing colours without resorting to film emulation.
My new LUTs do the following:
Fixes the shift of reds to orange Gives greens and blues a subtly deeper and more satisfying colour. Stops the abrupt shifts of orange to yellow (which is generally what causes the poor skin tone rendition) Stops yellow from becoming overpowering. Allows film emulation LUTs to be applied without certain colours going mad  
The set includes two types of LUTs. One is called “Pleasing” and it gives a Canon-like rendition. The other is called “Neutralising” and gives a RAW photo look (ie. very neutral). Within each type, there are several alternatives. “A” is the main one to use, whilst “B” and “C” are offshoots with slight differences.
Each LUT is actually quite subtle in how it changes the image, but its the subtle differences that can change how natural an image looks. The LUTs will also make it easier to apply film emulation LUTs without certain hues going out of control (eg. yellows becoming nuclear).
Download now: Inazumas_Panny_LUTs
A note on camera settings:
Having done a lot of testing of camera profiles, I do believe Standard is the best. Some people recommend Natural but it shifts a lot of colours towards orange, which looks good for grass but is a bit unnatural. It also makes people look orange. Contrast at -5 is good but saturation at -5 is a bad idea if you plan to increase saturation in post anyway. This is because when you increase saturation in post of the 8bit footage, you will get loads of colour noise in the footage.
I also have iDynamic on Low and highlights at -5. I use preset whitebalances with the adjustment dot set to M5 (5 points below the centre).
I don’t have a GH4 so I can’t say how well it will work for CineD footage.
Some images:
Without LUT:

With LUT:

Without LUT:

With LUT:

Without LUT:

With LUT:

Original post here

I think it's partly because it took so long for Panasonic to get it out, and then the mess-up with the "free" workaround, and then the complete silliness of having to buy a code in a box to activate something that is already in the camera (and the fact that as far as I can figure out it's still not possible to buy it here in the UK - I'm still rockin the freebie), and then the realisation by users that if used with internal recording it's not really that great - I think these things just deflated all the anticipation. There was way more buzz about it before it was released than there has been since.
I shoot with Cine-V most of the time, and also like Natural - both with the Highlight curve at -5. I find that you can lift the blacks quite a bit in post, which I do rather than in camera to preserve midtone contrast.
I'm waiting for the Blackmagic video assist to arrive (I don't need 4K). I really hope Aaron is right and the prores files are significantly better. I'm currently shooting a job with my GH4 (Cine-V) and BMPCC and I'm just so much more in love with the Pocket's image. I did a multicam for the interview and for this quick teaser/appeal spot I only used one GH4 shot (at 0:33 sec) - all the others are BMPCC. Bear in mind it's just a rushed job so grading etc isn't great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doyiaX4ebQY
Having said that, I've been enjoying shooting 1080p 100mbps IPB (50p and 60fps) on the GH4 recently. Obviously it's "softer" but I don't really mind unless I'm shooting wide. Rolling shutter is noticeably better than 4k and the high bitrate makes for a very robust HD image - these things combined with the wider FOV (2X crop) and high frame rate means it's a great option for shooting handheld. 

I've written another article for DesktopDocumentaries.com (as has young Master Ebrahim Saadawi recently - a great breakdown for beginners of what technical features make a camera's video image "good": http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/10-elements-of-a-high-quality-image.html). Mine is an appraisal of the current line-up of "affordable" video cameras on offer, looking specifically in the $2500 region this time (as requested by the site owner) and narrowing it down to a personal choice of the GH4 and XC10: http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/best-documentary-video-camera-2500.html 
It's a long one. Would love to hear your thoughts on any of it ...
Note: A certain member didn't like it when I posted a link to my last article for DD.com. As a previously active member of this forum I'm here to get feedback from my peers and betters - out of personal interest only. No ulterior motives. Please go ahead and tear my article apart as you wish - I expect and even invite that. I will however not respond to personal attacks or comments made by anyone who has clearly not bothered to actually read the article. It's easy enough to ignore this thread if you don't like it so please do so. Thank you.

I've written another article for DesktopDocumentaries.com (as has young Master Ebrahim Saadawi recently - a great breakdown for beginners of what technical features make a camera's video image "good": http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/10-elements-of-a-high-quality-image.html). Mine is an appraisal of the current line-up of "affordable" video cameras on offer, looking specifically in the $2500 region this time (as requested by the site owner) and narrowing it down to a personal choice of the GH4 and XC10: http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/best-documentary-video-camera-2500.html 
It's a long one. Would love to hear your thoughts on any of it ...
Note: A certain member didn't like it when I posted a link to my last article for DD.com. As a previously active member of this forum I'm here to get feedback from my peers and betters - out of personal interest only. No ulterior motives. Please go ahead and tear my article apart as you wish - I expect and even invite that. I will however not respond to personal attacks or comments made by anyone who has clearly not bothered to actually read the article. It's easy enough to ignore this thread if you don't like it so please do so. Thank you.