independent

Give Blackmagic credit. First, they're a relatively tiny manufacturing operation. They deadlifted their chances of success in a tough market. Samsung left, for crying out loud. Digital bolex, done. A few others tried too, and failed. 
Blackmagic brought innovative products at an accessible price point - many of us are direct beneficiaries of that. Years ago, I replaced my red scarlet with the fresh BMCC, which had a better overall image with far less fuss. And the camera was ready to shoot at a cost 1/10th of the price of the red scarlet, which itself was the cheapest real cinema camera at the time.
And even if you don't like their prroducts, you still benefitted indirectly from that. Blackmagic is an industry disrupter. They put a lot of pressure on a lot of companies (Red immediately responded with a failed 4K for 4K campaign) and raised the quality and features of competing products. 
Don't forget the fact that Blackmagic also offered a class grading software free with Davinci resolve (again disrupting the industry) as well as integrating a NLE into it (again disrupting the industry). 
All their moves have helped the independent filmmaker. 
Yes, they've had delays (not nearly as bad as RED) and some minor flaws (that other companies had too), but these are the growing pains of a small company. They don't have the resources that Canon and Sony have for QC and supply chain management. If they raised prices that would obviously help, but they're intentionally pricing their stuff very aggressively.
They're probably operating at a loss or very slim margins to stay in the game. If they go under...that would be a painful loss. Because they are approaching products with an intelligence and practicality that are sorely lacking in the competition. 
The ursa mini 4.6k is not for extreme low-light situations, or autofocus, or drone work, but for traditional filmmaking, there is nothing out there that provides a comparable image at its price point. 
This forum has a lot of dslr/mirrorless users, who complain a ton about their image. What's funny, so many of their complaints are answered....with blackmagic cameras. Color science, simple straightforward menus, no overheating, motion cadence, filmic, thick codecs, etc. It's all right there. 
 

Give Blackmagic credit. First, they're a relatively tiny manufacturing operation. They deadlifted their chances of success in a tough market. Samsung left, for crying out loud. Digital bolex, done. A few others tried too, and failed. 
Blackmagic brought innovative products at an accessible price point - many of us are direct beneficiaries of that. Years ago, I replaced my red scarlet with the fresh BMCC, which had a better overall image with far less fuss. And the camera was ready to shoot at a cost 1/10th of the price of the red scarlet, which itself was the cheapest real cinema camera at the time.
And even if you don't like their prroducts, you still benefitted indirectly from that. Blackmagic is an industry disrupter. They put a lot of pressure on a lot of companies (Red immediately responded with a failed 4K for 4K campaign) and raised the quality and features of competing products. 
Don't forget the fact that Blackmagic also offered a class grading software free with Davinci resolve (again disrupting the industry) as well as integrating a NLE into it (again disrupting the industry). 
All their moves have helped the independent filmmaker. 
Yes, they've had delays (not nearly as bad as RED) and some minor flaws (that other companies had too), but these are the growing pains of a small company. They don't have the resources that Canon and Sony have for QC and supply chain management. If they raised prices that would obviously help, but they're intentionally pricing their stuff very aggressively.
They're probably operating at a loss or very slim margins to stay in the game. If they go under...that would be a painful loss. Because they are approaching products with an intelligence and practicality that are sorely lacking in the competition. 
The ursa mini 4.6k is not for extreme low-light situations, or autofocus, or drone work, but for traditional filmmaking, there is nothing out there that provides a comparable image at its price point. 
This forum has a lot of dslr/mirrorless users, who complain a ton about their image. What's funny, so many of their complaints are answered....with blackmagic cameras. Color science, simple straightforward menus, no overheating, motion cadence, filmic, thick codecs, etc. It's all right there. 
 

Give Blackmagic credit. First, they're a relatively tiny manufacturing operation. They deadlifted their chances of success in a tough market. Samsung left, for crying out loud. Digital bolex, done. A few others tried too, and failed. 
Blackmagic brought innovative products at an accessible price point - many of us are direct beneficiaries of that. Years ago, I replaced my red scarlet with the fresh BMCC, which had a better overall image with far less fuss. And the camera was ready to shoot at a cost 1/10th of the price of the red scarlet, which itself was the cheapest real cinema camera at the time.
And even if you don't like their prroducts, you still benefitted indirectly from that. Blackmagic is an industry disrupter. They put a lot of pressure on a lot of companies (Red immediately responded with a failed 4K for 4K campaign) and raised the quality and features of competing products. 
Don't forget the fact that Blackmagic also offered a class grading software free with Davinci resolve (again disrupting the industry) as well as integrating a NLE into it (again disrupting the industry). 
All their moves have helped the independent filmmaker. 
Yes, they've had delays (not nearly as bad as RED) and some minor flaws (that other companies had too), but these are the growing pains of a small company. They don't have the resources that Canon and Sony have for QC and supply chain management. If they raised prices that would obviously help, but they're intentionally pricing their stuff very aggressively.
They're probably operating at a loss or very slim margins to stay in the game. If they go under...that would be a painful loss. Because they are approaching products with an intelligence and practicality that are sorely lacking in the competition. 
The ursa mini 4.6k is not for extreme low-light situations, or autofocus, or drone work, but for traditional filmmaking, there is nothing out there that provides a comparable image at its price point. 
This forum has a lot of dslr/mirrorless users, who complain a ton about their image. What's funny, so many of their complaints are answered....with blackmagic cameras. Color science, simple straightforward menus, no overheating, motion cadence, filmic, thick codecs, etc. It's all right there. 
 

Give Blackmagic credit. First, they're a relatively tiny manufacturing operation. They deadlifted their chances of success in a tough market. Samsung left, for crying out loud. Digital bolex, done. A few others tried too, and failed. 
Blackmagic brought innovative products at an accessible price point - many of us are direct beneficiaries of that. Years ago, I replaced my red scarlet with the fresh BMCC, which had a better overall image with far less fuss. And the camera was ready to shoot at a cost 1/10th of the price of the red scarlet, which itself was the cheapest real cinema camera at the time.
And even if you don't like their prroducts, you still benefitted indirectly from that. Blackmagic is an industry disrupter. They put a lot of pressure on a lot of companies (Red immediately responded with a failed 4K for 4K campaign) and raised the quality and features of competing products. 
Don't forget the fact that Blackmagic also offered a class grading software free with Davinci resolve (again disrupting the industry) as well as integrating a NLE into it (again disrupting the industry). 
All their moves have helped the independent filmmaker. 
Yes, they've had delays (not nearly as bad as RED) and some minor flaws (that other companies had too), but these are the growing pains of a small company. They don't have the resources that Canon and Sony have for QC and supply chain management. If they raised prices that would obviously help, but they're intentionally pricing their stuff very aggressively.
They're probably operating at a loss or very slim margins to stay in the game. If they go under...that would be a painful loss. Because they are approaching products with an intelligence and practicality that are sorely lacking in the competition. 
The ursa mini 4.6k is not for extreme low-light situations, or autofocus, or drone work, but for traditional filmmaking, there is nothing out there that provides a comparable image at its price point. 
This forum has a lot of dslr/mirrorless users, who complain a ton about their image. What's funny, so many of their complaints are answered....with blackmagic cameras. Color science, simple straightforward menus, no overheating, motion cadence, filmic, thick codecs, etc. It's all right there. 
 

Give Blackmagic credit. First, they're a relatively tiny manufacturing operation. They deadlifted their chances of success in a tough market. Samsung left, for crying out loud. Digital bolex, done. A few others tried too, and failed. 
Blackmagic brought innovative products at an accessible price point - many of us are direct beneficiaries of that. Years ago, I replaced my red scarlet with the fresh BMCC, which had a better overall image with far less fuss. And the camera was ready to shoot at a cost 1/10th of the price of the red scarlet, which itself was the cheapest real cinema camera at the time.
And even if you don't like their prroducts, you still benefitted indirectly from that. Blackmagic is an industry disrupter. They put a lot of pressure on a lot of companies (Red immediately responded with a failed 4K for 4K campaign) and raised the quality and features of competing products. 
Don't forget the fact that Blackmagic also offered a class grading software free with Davinci resolve (again disrupting the industry) as well as integrating a NLE into it (again disrupting the industry). 
All their moves have helped the independent filmmaker. 
Yes, they've had delays (not nearly as bad as RED) and some minor flaws (that other companies had too), but these are the growing pains of a small company. They don't have the resources that Canon and Sony have for QC and supply chain management. If they raised prices that would obviously help, but they're intentionally pricing their stuff very aggressively.
They're probably operating at a loss or very slim margins to stay in the game. If they go under...that would be a painful loss. Because they are approaching products with an intelligence and practicality that are sorely lacking in the competition. 
The ursa mini 4.6k is not for extreme low-light situations, or autofocus, or drone work, but for traditional filmmaking, there is nothing out there that provides a comparable image at its price point. 
This forum has a lot of dslr/mirrorless users, who complain a ton about their image. What's funny, so many of their complaints are answered....with blackmagic cameras. Color science, simple straightforward menus, no overheating, motion cadence, filmic, thick codecs, etc. It's all right there. 
 

I'm not surprised. Aside from the unreliable promo videos, with questionable grades, I expect the actual quality of the video to be similar to the 1DX II, aside from the difference in crop and frame rates. Then again, the 1DX II is almost double the price of the 5D IV, so it's reasonable to expect some differences.
The 5D IV is at a similar price point to the Sony a7r II, which has its own drawbacks. Color science versus crop factor? Either will be a deal breaker for some, or minor obstacles for many others. 
Still, the 5D IV has the best implementation of video autofocus on the market, quality 4K (despite the crop), good colors out of the box, rugged body and proven reliability, and of course the widest range of available lenses. 
Right now, there are only two small cameras with usable video autofocus that doesn't have some MAJOR operational limitation (a6300): The Sony a7r II and the 5d IV.
Glad to see more tools out there. 

If you're shooting in an apartment, you have control over lighting, movement, blocking, etc. So your priority should be the best image quality. For low budget, I'd say it's the Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6K. It does have a couple issues: don't shoot past f8 to avoid magenta corners (but you control lighting so no big deal) and some reports about noisy audio preamps - but that doesn't matter, because you should be using better audio for a feature anyways. Even a couple hundred bucks will get you better audio than what's in $10K, $20K cameras.  
Just remember, all of these cheaper cameras have drawbacks. But for a feature? The URSA Mini 4.6K will be the easiest to get a filmic and cinematic look for its price range. It does not look like "video" because of its dynamic range, motion cadence, grain structure, thick codec, etc.  
Personally, I think even the Canons DSLR's don't quite look filmic or cinematic. Even the 1DC. It's praised for skin tones among the small cameras, but you should check out how the ursa mini 4.6k captures people's skin. Obviously as human beings, we're tuned to those details more than the whiskers of a cat. And the blackmagic just takes it to another level as far as transparency, detail, tonality - it hangs with the big boys like RED and Alexa. You should get a high quality monitor or the best 4K TV (hey you're in Korea ;)) you can find, and check out the footage. We did, and we were blown away. But it's not the best camera for any situation.
But it comes down to your story, crew, and your own preferences. 
In fact, I would spend a few hundred dollars to rent a couple cameras for even a weekend....Have the DP, camera op, DIT, even editor, and of course the director, to figure out what works the best for you guys.
Go on a date before getting hitched. Could save you a ton of money down the line.

If you're shooting in an apartment, you have control over lighting, movement, blocking, etc. So your priority should be the best image quality. For low budget, I'd say it's the Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6K. It does have a couple issues: don't shoot past f8 to avoid magenta corners (but you control lighting so no big deal) and some reports about noisy audio preamps - but that doesn't matter, because you should be using better audio for a feature anyways. Even a couple hundred bucks will get you better audio than what's in $10K, $20K cameras.  
Just remember, all of these cheaper cameras have drawbacks. But for a feature? The URSA Mini 4.6K will be the easiest to get a filmic and cinematic look for its price range. It does not look like "video" because of its dynamic range, motion cadence, grain structure, thick codec, etc.  
Personally, I think even the Canons DSLR's don't quite look filmic or cinematic. Even the 1DC. It's praised for skin tones among the small cameras, but you should check out how the ursa mini 4.6k captures people's skin. Obviously as human beings, we're tuned to those details more than the whiskers of a cat. And the blackmagic just takes it to another level as far as transparency, detail, tonality - it hangs with the big boys like RED and Alexa. You should get a high quality monitor or the best 4K TV (hey you're in Korea ;)) you can find, and check out the footage. We did, and we were blown away. But it's not the best camera for any situation.
But it comes down to your story, crew, and your own preferences. 
In fact, I would spend a few hundred dollars to rent a couple cameras for even a weekend....Have the DP, camera op, DIT, even editor, and of course the director, to figure out what works the best for you guys.
Go on a date before getting hitched. Could save you a ton of money down the line.

The key difference between this and a monopod is that the monopod is fixed to the ground at point of contact. That's where it gets its stability, which is fine for photography, and for static shots in video, e.g., photo/video journalism.
But for motivated camera movement? Then yes, you would need something like this, or an easy rig, steadicam. The latter especially for heavier loads or long takes. 
It's a clever setup for light loads or short takes, as is the monopod on belt variations, brings back memories of stick-on-my-dick jokes that stopped being funny when you were sporting bruises in your groin.
 
But I love the DIY approaches. Who cares what you look like, or how goofy it is. Christopher Doyle was running around shooting with a pillow taped to his chest to stabilize his camera.
Jennifer Connolley was strapped with a heavy, ridiculous-looking, crazy-ass rig for her selfie take in Requiem For a Dream. And she had to perform like that. That's the talent looking ridiculous for the film, not the crew that nobody gives a shit about. 
Get the shot. 

It's takes a village to raise a child, but it only takes two idiots to burn down a forum with their verbal diarrhea. 

It's takes a village to raise a child, but it only takes two idiots to burn down a forum with their verbal diarrhea. 

It's takes a village to raise a child, but it only takes two idiots to burn down a forum with their verbal diarrhea. 

It really depends on your needs. A documentary could mean dodging bullets or establishing shots and interviews. A music video and narrative, the same. 
The content should dictate what kind of camera you use. 
Then consider the production costs and needs. Your crew, lighting and sound. Different cameras have different needs. 
Lastly, post production costs and delivery matters. 
All of these should factor into your decision. 
But honestly, your demands are broad enough to NOT buy. There is no magical camera that rules them all. All of them involve compromises. 
It's not a sexy answer, but put your money into talent and crew. A lot of camera ops and sound mixers/boom ops are also available as wet hires. They bring their own gear, and they're skilled at using them. Many of them market themselves with their gear, so you can also vet them based on what cameras they have and use. 
It'll be a lot better than throwing a new camera at some guy and telling him to figure it out, because you read that it was the bees knees on an Internet forum. 
Think about the quirks of all these cameras. Ergonomically, menu-wise, and some things that you have to know only if you understand the full process of capturing and delivering that image. That only comes from experience, so put your money towards experience and skill, and the only thing more important than that is letting the content dictate everything. It'll make you a better storyteller and filmmaker. 
 
 
 

It's a business, they all do this... Apple, Ford... everyone. Bodies are not investments in hardware, they are investments in your talent. If you want a healthy return on that investment you need to produce paying work.

You really need to stabilize this camera. Tightly control its movement, or limit it to slow, deliberate moves. 
Perhaps ironically, I think it's a terrible run and gun camera, despite its small size, for those reasons. I'd put it on sticks, even. I'd focus on framing and composition to help tell the story, like "Ida." 
 

I like RED but I wouldn't automatically think it's an upgrade from Blackmagic. I don't know about the new sensors, but my Scarlet was a lot worse than the BMCC in low light. Not even close - the was much better s/n from the Blackmagic, and the actual noise pattern was very organic on the blackmagic, not the Red. I'm sure you could have cleaned it up a bit in post, but the RED isn't something you can get away with underexposing at all. Again, maybe the new sensors are different, but I bailed out of that RED ecosystem full of expensive propriety support gear. 
I'm not surprised that Blackmagic is having some issues - RED did too. There's actually a much easier way for Blackmagic to exercise better quality control, service, and reliability, etc. It's price. They have been the cheapest (and have been) for their market segments, and the best image quality per price ratio, and in fact have disrupted the industry in some ways because the competition is lowering prices and offering similar products. 
Blackmagic has been trying to offer pro-level gear at consumer prices. Their game is pushing resolve and post-production products, not protecting lines of cameras.  
I'll say this, it's a lot more realistic to expect Blackmagic to fix some of their issues than Sony or Canon to offer cinema features in their consumer cameras. 
 

Viewfinder is helpful outside in bright light, handheld shots are more stable (3 point contact when using viewfinder + handle + mass), Canon Log 2 highlight roll off (much better than even CLog on the 1DC), and most importantly, when using the 'ARRI' config, post grading is super fast and skintones look great with little effort. While this episode was shot in 4K, when 1080p is desired (for faster edits and smaller files), the C300 II's 1080p is much better than the 1DX II's (soft, aliased). For stills, stealth video, and 4K60, the 1DX II is superior.

This looks like a great camera to pick up B-Roll, cramped locations, run/gun, especially when you can't fit/get/get away with a focus puller.
Or even a Director's viewfinder; the sensor size is close enough to all the other close-enough cinema 35mm. Great for DP, scouting locations too. 
Some of you have ridiculous expectations. It's a $1K camera. Obviously it's going to involve compromises. Those drawbacks might not work for your project, but that's on you if you somehow expected a perfect camera for $1K. "How could it not have X, how could it not have Y" ... because these aren't professional cinema cameras. It's a consumer camera that has some pro features. Don't get it backwards. If it isn't your perfect camera out-of-box, and you're not willing to tinker with it or work around it's issues, then get one that does. 
But the 4K quality, low-light and usable video autofocus will give it a place in the market. I certainly am looking to add it to my bag. There are only three other cameras who have all those features: Canon C300 ii ($16K), the upcoming Canon 1DXII ($6K), and the Sony A7Rii ($3K). 
And those cameras have their own issues. It's valuable to talk about the limitations, no question. But the pissing and moaning? Lord. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. 
There will probably be some talented folks who will shoot a feature film with just this, and it'll look great, because they'll know how to work around its limitations. Ever since the Canon 5K Mark II came out, there's been a terrific growth of indie filmmaking, because people are willing to manipulate these non-pro video machines to effectively tell stories.
And big ups to people who actually shot with this...a lot of great, usable footage. Exciting. 
 

Hello all,

I was fortunate to get my hands on a 1dx mark II a few weeks ago, along with an underwater housing for it.  Did a last minute trip to the Philippines to test this out.

It is a short video, and I did a mix of macro and wide angle.  I used the 100mm F2.8L and some shots with a +10 diopter on it.  For wide angle I used the 16-35mm F4L.  Make sure to choose 4k on the playback options.
I severely underestimated what the move to 4k was going to bring.  The amount of resources both from a speed and storage standpoint is massive.  After 40 dives, I came back with about 3.5TB worth of data.  Almost all of these shots were shot 4k and 60p, played back at 30p.

Let me know what you think!
Enjoy,

Dustin
 
Or Vimeo


 

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-review-real-world-video-samples-first-impressions/
 
https://vimeo.com/169228425

Oh the crazy Japanese. Oh wait, Apple does it too. Oh wait, so does any consumer electronics company. It's called economics in the 21st century, with mass production, globalization, etc. 
Ah, the days when you had two sets of clothes, one pair of shoes, and it cost you 6 months salary to buy that "television?"
You're demanding a perfect camera so you won't have to buy another camera again for the rest of your life. If you want that bargain, then you'd have to make it profitable enough for that company. Buy that Alexa.
No? Then you have to deal with compromises and shop at h&m like the rest of the masses and follow the seasonal trends.
Look, even apple is struggling because the 5s is good enough for too many people. Ironically, their phones became too good, satisfying consumers as well as pushing their competitors. So Apple now has pressure because consumers are spending less money than expected. That's the power you as a consumer wield.
These are consumer electronics companies, and you are the consumer market. There's really only one way to clearly communicate to the company. Buy or don't buy. 
That's why blackmagic is a welcome addition. Competition lowers prices and drives innovation. 
There will never be that "perfect" camera if you have the purchasing power of a consumer. Technological advances and expectations will always keep you wanting.
 

The lack of C-log on the 1dx ii is a pretty clear indication that they are committed to protecting the c-line of cameras. 
 
 

That's exactly the problem, which you're contributing to. Some jobs are incredibly hard - if not impossible - if you underestimate the difficulty of focusing unrehearsed movement. 
Speaking of newcomers, it would be a disservice to any novices to claim that you can "pull focus on the run" with "just practice." Because you can read minds and anticipate whichever way your subject will go? 
Amazing. So all this time, filmmakers have been using tape measures, focus marks, blocking, assistant cameramen, specific monitors for confirming focus....
When all they needed was practice? 
Trust me, you're being the dick here, because here in New York City we'd tell you straight up you're full of shit. Even the best dedicated focus pullers in the industry miss some shots for live events and documentary work because it's spontaneous movement, you can be shooting at a wide spot under practical lighting, etc. And they're amazing at a tough job, and they earn their keep.
It's a lot more respectful to recognize that these cameras are all tools, many of which have their limitations, but to know them and make informed decisions. 
 
 
 

This is the worst argument and everyone who tries to defend it sounds foolish. Maybe we're not talking about the same type of shooting, but documentary shooting/run and gun is extremely difficult, and anything to aid in that is huge. We're not talking about shooting static shots of grass in the wind or even film where you could use focus markers. We're talking about run and gun doc work where you need to get as much coverage as you can in a very short amount of time. I'm not saying pulling focus is impossible, but the "thousands of people," comment is ridiculous. 
This is why a black magic pocket camera and a bag full of step rings and some ND filters does not cut it for a lot of work. People think auto focus = amateur, not the case with these cameras… 

I appreciate the test. But it is somewhat exhibiting the lowest common denominator. They would all seem close if that's what you're aiming to do. 
What would be neat is another test of the three cameras showing their strengths in challenging conditions. High contrast scene testing max dynamic range, low-light testing noise, a moving subject to test autofocus, etc. 
But, appreciate the test nonetheless.