martinmcgreal

Cheers!

Another question - I'm hooking it up to SmallHD 501, however once I do, the A7S screen turns off, and on the 501 I get a squeezed/smaller viewing screen, as apposed to the image filling the full 1920x1080p .. How do I firstly, have both screens visible, and secondly, have the viewing signal fill the fill 1920x1080p on the 501? 

Hi guys,

I’ll keep this short and sweet. Shooting a run and gun type piece on a A7Sii tomorrow - far from familiar with the camera, so I have a few quick fire questions ..

What’s the native ISO, or recommended ISO for this given shoot; I’ll be inside a school, moving through the corridors from room to room, as such, experiencing different lighting scenarios - though nothing blown out, as the majority of the rooms will be either dimly lit, or the blinds will be closed. 

What’s recommended, SLog2, or SLog3? 

Any recommended SLog to Rec709 LUT’s I can feed into my SmallHD501?

Can I hook up my Anker Pro 2nd Gen external battery to the A7Sii via the same cables I use for my pocket cam, or is a special adaptor required? (I assume the latter)

Cheers,

M 

7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think you are giving the audience way to much credit to be able to distinguish motion cadence. I can surely see why you don't like lesser quality, but the cost equipment wise is  pretty steep to benefit you and a handful that might notice it..

I don't consider the Bolex s16 as much of a offering. Now that they don't even make it anymore even more of a negative to me. Glorified BMPCC with less options. Form factor just sucks ass. Sure output nice, but at what price.

Red is your to go only real way for you it seems, but man the add ones for one is just crazy expensive, and low light is bad, as well as storage options. A Red kit is not for mere mortals LoL.Not counting a computer worthy of editing it. Way out of my price range. Maybe you will get a big pay raise this year!!

 

I did say subconsciously .. It's not something they'd distinguish consciously until it was suddenly changed - i.e The Hobbit, which even laymen flagged up immediately. Yes, this was more down to the drastic shift in frame rate, but it stills ties into the whole concept of motion, and viewers noticing the motion feeling different to what their subconsciously accustomed too within cinema. I feel the importance of motion candence only ever comes to the forefront once you shoot with a system that delivers it cinematically. If you never shoot with such systems, you'll likely never miss it, as it can be subtle to the everyday eye, but once you do, and you jump back to a system that delivers more 'video-like' motion, you then realise the importance of it, in delivering images that feel truly cinematic.

It can become a petty debate though, so I'll leave it there. 

20 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I think if you want to do Anamorphic you would be crazy not to do it with say a GH4 as cheap as you can buy one now. 4.3 is so cheap to do compared to other sensor sizes.

As to the Red footage I am surprised Vimeo would not have what you want.

19 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Well now you've bumped the thread in 2017 I'd say the answer is very clear after the GH5's announcement....   get a GH5! :-) 

It's a valid point, but as I've re-iterated throughout the thread, I'm looking for a cinema camera, and more on the high-end, which rules out both the GH4/GH5, given neither system is built specifically for cinema.

If I wasn't so picky about motion candence, such systems would come under consideration, but the fact I am so picky about it, limits me to a handful of cameras in this price-range, if that. It's frustrating - I wish I could look past it, but I've shot with so many CMOS cameras down the years that it's just become too big of a spec to continually skip on. I really would argue it's the key characteristic that defines the 'cinematic' universe viewers are so accustomed too, all be it a subconscious characteristic to everyone but filmmakers of course. Lighting, locations, production design, actors, writing etc. all vary from film to film, to different degrees of quality, but rarely ever does motion vary - it's the most common characteristic that remains the same in cinema, and as such, is the one we associate most within the cinematic universe/images - just most don't realise so. 

Hate to bump this thread this again, but - couple of questions .. 

Is there any free resources online where I can download uncompressed footage from both RED systems (ideally the One/Scarlet MX), and also the D16? Besides shooting with the systems, this is probably the second best route for conclusive judgement. I've tried the Bolex website but the download links keep re-directing me to an ad page .. As for RED, I assume there's a ton on reduser, but I've yet to search that deeply - will do in the coming weeks .. Just asking here in the meantime .. 

Second question - does the D16 shoot 4:3? I can't see it anywhere on the spec sheets, but a quick google search directs me to a thread on this forum discussing 4:3 on the D16, so I'm curious? I assume it doesn't .. It's so difficult finding any anamorphic footage with the D16 too .. There's bits and pieces on Youtube/Vimeo but nothing more serious than quick unconsidered tests that look relatively poor due to user error. 

Following another viewing session of footage from both the D16 and Scarlet X this past week or so, I'm now definitely leaning more towards the latter. I've actually not been overly impressed with what I've seen from the Scarlet X, or more so for a system in such a price-range, though this probably hasn't been helped by mistaking it for Scarlet W footage at first, which is in another league entirely.

It's difficult not to fall in love with the D16 image, the more footage you view, and the longer you ponder on it. That CCD sensor .. Yes, it's not 4K, and yes, it's not a low-light camera either, but a fair argument can be made with the latter that such an inconvenience forces you into more considerate lighting, which can only benefit you down the road. It's also worth noting how easy the transition from the pocket camera to a D16 MTF will be, kit wise. Can you record ProRes externally via an Atomos Ninja with the D16? 

I'm by no means set on a decision, and won't be until purchase time, which is a fair few months away yet, but it's interesting just how far I've swayed from my original image appetite, which I guess speaks volumes for the D16. 

In my part of the world, the Mini 4.6K isn't available at any rental houses (as far as I can see), which I find interesting, considering how big the media industry is in the North of England now. I can only speak for commercials, since that's the area I work in, but it's as if it's not even made any sort of noise amongst professional's this side of town. Of course, Arri/RED systems will always be favoured for the bigger budget stuff, but even the more smaller stuff we (the production company I work for) shoot, FS7's w/ A7Sii as C cam's is usually the port of call, with Blackmagic's higher end systems never really entering the equation for consideration. 

Of course, every job demands different systems, and it's never always a case of 'well x camera is better than y camera, so let's use that', but it's interesting that for a camera (the 4.6K) which can produce such stunning results, it's yet to come under serious consideration by the rental houses this side of the country. Not suggesting anything with regards to the quality of the Mini 4.6K btw, with this statement, just merely stating an interesting fact, that if anything, frustrates me. I'm assuming the rental houses reasons aren't related to the quality of the camera, and instead, something else, perhaps logistically/financial, or just the fact the system is still relatively new, and their waiting for it's reputation to build? 

7 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Because the F35 is built like a tank compared to the easily broken Ursa, and has an incredible image without any magenta issues?

and, if I haven't said it enough already - motion candence, motion candence, motion candence .. 

Just because systems appear superior on paper to say the F35 in usability, size, resolution, codecs, dynamic range etc., it doesn't mean for one second it's a superior system. Ultimate judgement should always rest with the image, in which case the F35 wins hands down. This isn't to say I'll be purchasing the F35 however; simply too pricey, and too large. 

23 hours ago, mat33 said:

I think you can get a clean look from the D16 -the D16 really highlights the characteristics of the lens used more than other cameras I've used, and a lot of the stuff shot with the D16 have used vintage C-mount or s16 glass.  I think if you used more modern, sharp & neutral glass like Sigma (or Arri Zeiss master primes), you would get the look you want.

RED is very nice as well-more $$$ but if you want 4K or need higher frame rates then a good way to go.  I don't have any personal experience with RED but it seems they have their own share of downsides as well, and I'm not sure if their colour science is as nice as DB (especially skin tones). But if I found a RED Scarlet-W under the Christmas tree I wouldn't be unhappy :-)

Does the Bolex come with either PL/MTF mounts, or? Would be ideal if I could continue using my pocket's speedbooster and sigma glass .. 

2 hours ago, ade towell said:

Sony F35 if you want to emulate film with super 35 size sensor, not 4k but as sharp a 1080 as you can get and uprez's very nicely

If the F35 was doing the rounds in this price-range, this thread wouldn't exist.

15 hours ago, Liam said:

@martinmcgreal great images! Have you compared the pocket cadence in prores to raw? I heard raw is notably better

I actually haven't, come to think of it. I can't say I've ever heard nor seen evidence to suggest RAW influences motion candence, as such, I've never drawn comparisons myself. 

12 hours ago, mat33 said:

I've had a D16 for about a year, and I have had no crashes or freezes and no dropped frames.  My general impression is the camera is very stable with the latest firmware. 

Digital Bolex has recently stopped making any more D16's but the company the actually made them in Canada and Digital Bolex are still going, so the warranty and servicing is still there.  There are still a few new ones that pop up at retailers now and then, and the occasional used one on eBay, Facebook etc.

The latest firmware was a pretty big upgrade -added a published wide gamut colour space with log transfer function, false colour exposure aid, new iso scheme, new display colour gamuts & gammas, uncompressed 10bit 4:4:4 HDMI output.

The D16 is definitely creeping into my final considerations, alongside the MX and Scarlet. Of course, the RED's are far more versatile systems, which should be my main consideration when spending such money, but it's hard to ignore the image the D16 delivers; it has that magical filmic feel to it that nothing else in this price-range can quite deliver so organically. I still prefer the clean, smooth, digital look, but the D16 is making me fall for the 'film' look again. 

47 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I agree. The grading is just to die for in those shots. That is what we all strive to get, as least I do. Well done!

Thanks for the kind words! 

19 minutes ago, mercer said:

I had the Micro last summer but didn't enjoy rigging it up for the run and gun shooting I like to do, but the image with old Kern c-mounts was amazing. I sold it, then eventually bought a Pocket but I think it was defective because the camera got so hot that it felt like it may melt, so I returned it. A few weeks back I was messing with the footage and it just looked so much better than anything I had shot. I've been practicing my color correcting/grading skills because I was tired of using LUTS and you have to do more to the image, but the latitude is insane... you really have to try really hard to get those files to fall apart.

LUT's are great, if you treat them as just a small part of the grading process, and not expect drag and drop results, which most do. Of course, it helps massively if you're shooting with an external monitor that can import 3D LUT's, so you can then finesse your look all the way from principal photography to post - a process I myself followed for the stills on the previous page. I appreciate such monitors are viewed as both a luxury, and incredibly expensive, but I can't emphasise enough just how useful they become, even more so on cameras like the pocket which don't shoot Rec709, since the 'video' mode is still relatively dull/flat. 

You're always fighting a limited battle on set lighting/exposing/white-balancing to a LOG image, hence why I'd always encourage people - especially for narrative work - to purchase an external monitor with importable LUT's. 

39 minutes ago, mercer said:

Nice work, are you a director/dp? Was that footage Raw or ProRes?Gotta love the Pocket, just such a cinematic image... everytime I see something shot with it I wonder why I even bother with other cameras at this price point... even poorly shot footage looks pretty damn good. 

I did both roles for that particular piece, but I'm a dp mainly. It was all shot in ProResHQ.

It's daylight robbery how cheap the camera retails for, given it's superior to systems five or six times the price. I'd always encourage even amateur shooters to make the pocket camera their first ever camera purchase. Yes, shooting/grading LOG images can be tricky/daunting at first, but you'd rather learn the hard way early on, than later. The menu system is perhaps the easiest/cleanest interface I've ever seen too, compared to say an A7S. 

32 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I really think buying a used Red now that they are 5k or less, maybe the real way to go and sort of have a camera that will work, no excuses, for 3,4,5 or more years. They can flat out get the job done, other than really low light.

And output in Raw with some killer footage to boot. Not making them work is the camera operators fault, not the cameras fault. Probably the best camera anyone can afford if you are sort of serious about making it happen for years to come. They are a workhorse, built to last camera. And you have no one to blame but yourself if it does not work. No need to upgrade etc.. They are that good, even the original Red One. MX is the way to go, but...

Yeah but they have a passive lens mount which sort of sucks compared to the Pocket, internal battery also. But the 2k part of them is very tempting. You are right, they are a bargin for what they can output.

I agree, and this exactly why it's perhaps worth me waiting even longer, to pull together the funds for say a Scarlet. I could make a purchase as early as next month, for a system that may last me a year or two, but for the sake of waiting an extra few months, I could purchase a system that would last me the best part of five years. It's a no brainer, when written like that. 

45 minutes ago, Liam said:

do you mean 16mm? - just confused, but if that's what you meant, you can speedboost it to help that (as well as low light)

 

also, a few things

your top requirements are now the most subjective (cadence, good color, softishness)

I was pretty sure the pocket was supposed to have some of the best cadence. you can add the 1dc to the best cadence list for sure by the way.

the f3 was the camera Ed used on his film Five Star. all handheld style filming, great test of cadence. maybe "not perfect", but "better than some" could even be an understatement

maybe make sure you're comparing to the kings in the cadence arena too (f65, alexa, film) and that you're not just now discovering a problem with your display or noticing 24fps as a problem or something, because of suuuper intense pixel peeping

I'm confused how you like graded 8-bit c-log you're seeing, but you're concerned about how well it holds up to grading (your looks may be more intense I suppose, or just in case there's a problem shooting you can correct it - but 1dc/c300 footage doesn't look too thin or artifact filled at all).

also, I assume you have experience with the anamorphic lenses in question, but that glass has potential to both make sharp 4k more cinematic (especially opposed to online tests using L-series lenses or god knows what) - and not be a problem for good 1080p to cover.

probably all of your options and more have been suggested though. it's okay to have opinions and be picky here, it's a big purchase. but maybe the only thing you can do now is mull on it. remember the audience could be amazed by just about any of those suggested and/or not notice the difference (not that you shouldn't fall in love with the camera, but if you hate all of them.. that's too far the other way)

The pocket's candence, and blackmagic cameras in general, is far better than other systems within their price-range, but still not to the degree in which it feels truly cinematic, to my eye at least - though for the price, you can't really expect this either. I was on a shoot the other week in which shot w/ 2 x Amira's and a pocket as a C cam. I actually pulled the footage into post to compare candence between the two, amongst other characteristics. The pocket holds up really, really well to the Amira, as we've come to expect, but the difference in motion was there, and noticeable. 

8-bit C-log is indeed nice, but as you point out yourself, best to have 10-bit plus and be covered, for either a more intense look, or encase anything goes wrong in-camera. 

Your last paragraph sums up my current thoughts nicely. The plan is to spend the next few months mulling over a decision, especially with all this feedback now behind me. 

21 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Any chance to see some of your work ?

Sure - here's a selection of stills from the last narrative piece I shot w/ the pocket back in March, and here's my Instagram for further examples (though I don't update this as regularly as I perhaps should) https://www.instagram.com/martinmcgreal/

17 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I agree. The audience doesn't know if it was shot on a 8mm film camera or a Arri Alexa. And I doubt they would care if they knew. The story is king not the camera in a short or movie. And it has only been lately that there even has been 10bit cameras to buy that any normal person can afford.

I know no one wants to make a crappy movie looks wise, but in this day there are so many LuTs, editing programs, that I think you can make any camera look like any camera if you really want to. And if you expose right to start with there is plenty of meat even with 8bit to edit with.

I find to me I am in a crazy period right now anyways. When I look at 1080p it looks like crap to me now, and the 4k stuff looks too good, to digital, too sterile. So here I go paying big bucks for a 4k camera to make it look like shit so it feels better to view LoL. I don't know what the answer is other than find another business, hobby! A cheap one at that!

I could never debate that camera is more important than story, but if it wasn't important, we'd be out the job. Anyway, a debate for another day this, shall we say .. 

6 hours ago, mat33 said:

Personally I would stick with a RAW capable camera, having gotten used to RAW it is hard to imagine going back to a thinner image.  

IMO at this price point, I think the D16 has the most 'cinematic' image, both colour and especially motion cadence.  The D16 just nails skin tones, and handheld looks so nice with the global shutter.  It is also very versatile -can use it 'barebones' with the handle and an evf for run & gun or rig it up for more organised shoots.  Its not a low light monster (and there is no in-camera noise reduction) but the noise pattern is very nice -if I have to I usually lightly remove any chroma noise and leave the luminance noise in neat video. With speedbooster or fast glass its more than capable in low light.  Its also a very complete package -versatile m4/3 mount (PL available), can use BMPCC speed booster, good pre-amps, XLRs and no expensive media.  It biggest weakness is that it doesn't look like the other 'serious' cinema cameras -if it was a black box, had skulls on it and was called the D16 raptor, then it would be way more popular :-)

I would also carefully consider the 5D mark iii with ML as the RAW on this is also quite beautiful in a small package.

This was shot at a narrow shutter angle with no NDs, early firmware version, has a nice global shutter whip pan:

This was vintage c-mount lenses and natural light:

 

Whilst the 35mm look isn't really my taste anymore, it's hard not to fall in love with the D16's image. It's the type of camera that your more than happy to make comprises for, in terms of say low-light and resolution, for that colour and motion. It's definitely under my consideration, that's for sure. Just a shame it's so difficult to come across in the current market (?) What's the issue with these things crashing etc. too? I've never looked deeply into the D16's flaws, but you see people flag it up every-time these are topics of discussion. 

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well martinmcgreal here is your answer right here, buy the damn thing Now. Hurry! Need to get it for  little less, but I bet you can.  https://www.facebook.com/groups/35666868707/permalink/10154835915523708/?sale_post_id=10154835915523708

Cheers. I can't access the link however until my request to join the group is accepted, and worth noting too, I don't actually have the funds to make a purchase as of now. More March/February.

4 hours ago, Laurier said:

My overall personal experience after having a Bmpcc , GH4, a7s + recorder and some production with them are that ... I m done with dslr style camera .

Either the codec or the battery or the colors are issues (or rolling shutter ect)...

 

So I decided to move to something more professional and also considered a red one , a kinefinity terra and a Ursa mini

( I m doing creative work so I need a bit of slow mo, so no canon)

 

At the end of the day I went with the ursa mini 4.6k .

The red one is just too heavy, won t have warranty and the accessories are not transferable with the more modern red cameras,  it s fine if you have small crew around you , but as the solo operator it s too hard to manage IMO ( and no 4k 60fps ) But the image is great and the workflow too.

I actually pre ordered the terra 5k, but canceled it after so many delays, also one of my a7s died on shooting and made me realize how important it is to be able to send your camera for repair easily, with Kinefinity you have to send your camera back to china ...so also a no go.

Red mx brains (either scarlet or epic ) prices are dropping but the accessories are still quite expensive .
 

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Yeah prices are dropping fast on the MX camera's. If you got time, I reckon you can get a used epic mx kit for 5-k in 6 months as tech is changing fast, as more ravens and scarlet-w's have hit the market. Im sticking to my A7S II for another 6 months, then I shall see what way I will go. GH5 might be a cheap option though, but Ill have to wait and see.

This is one of my options too - as in, waiting even longer to make a purchase, say until the summer, for a much pricier yet superior system. As ever though, once you've fell out of love with a camera, and have your eyes peeled on an upgrade, it's hard to wait much longer. 

I have to make a compromise with one or two specs, that goes without saying when rooting in such a price-range .. I just refuse to compromise on the following; motion cadence, colour science, and decent low-light. I'd add resolution (4K), since I want to shoot 2x anamorphic w/ a 2.66 delivery, but I'll happily drop to 1.5x anamorphic if a 2K image warrants it .. 

I've probably not flagged up motion candence enough as an essential spec, but for me, it's exactly that. Issue here however, is it's the one spec that can squeeze an option list of say ten cameras, down to one or two at a push. I mean, how many cameras in this price-range have what you'd deem as truly cinematic motion? The MX, D16, anything else? It's why I'm struggling to warm to the F3 as an option .. It delivers in absolutely every category except motion, in my opinion .. You'll disagree, but I've spent the past couple of weeks viewing hundreds of clips from this camera, and side by side with being blown away by the image, it still has a hint of video to it's motion, which is the deal-breaker for me .. 

It's the kind of spec that rarely makes it into a spec priority list (even I can account for this with my opening post), however it's one you soon realise is absolutely essential. You can spend thousands of pounds on systems in this price-range, accompany it with beautiful glass, a fantastic script, cinematic lighting etc., and yet once you sat there in the edit suite watching back the rushes, your scratching your head thinking 'the image still just doesn't feel right, or truly cinematic', and you soon realise why .. It's the reason I'm passing on my pocket camera, amongst other reasons. I'm not saying cinematic images can't be produced without cinematic motion, as good lighting can achieve this alone, but at least for me, to be truly lost into the cinematic world we're so familiar with, the motion candence of a camera has to be cinematic too. 

If anyone would like to provide additional examples to the MX/D16 of cinematic motion in this price-range, please please do, as that might just sway me towards a conclusion on which system to opt with. I assume the higher end Blackmagic's may pop up here, given global shutter and all that .. 

19 hours ago, Laurier said:

You should reconsider the ursa mini you can get a second hand one for cheaper , get faster glass or some extra light with the money saved.

A red mx won t be better in low light, and other than a F55/F65, sony colors....sucks period , panasonic is barely better outside of the varicam range.

Personally I  find external recorders to be a pain to use . More battery to carry , more potential issues , ect....

A ursa mini will be all in one .

It's interesting you mention this .. The Mini 4K crossed my mind yesterday when I began to look at systems again based solely on specs/usability, and price too of course, and the Mini 4K just about ticks all my boxes, well, more so than anything else in this price-range, excluding perhaps the MX .. However, after viewing images out of the Mini, I quickly remembered why I was so quick to pass upon it when during my original considerations .. The image just doesn't excite me in the slightest, and it has that 'Blackmagic' look to the image that I've grown so tired of with the pocket .. It's absolutely appalling in low-light too .. I could probably just about accept my dislike for the image if the low-light was good, since image can be influenced heavily through glass anyway, but meh, the low-light .. 

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Shoot the pocket camera through a B4 ENG 1/2, 2/3 lens and it knocks down the digital look big time. And they are cheap as hell to buy also for impressive glass stats and original costs.

It's certainly an interesting look, but I'm absolutely set on shooting anamorphic, which rules out ENG glass as a taking lens, for obvious reasons ..  

Just came across a new commercial (more so the first thirty seconds) that absolutely nails the image characteristics I'm looking to for with this next upgrade .. That soft, milky, smooth image with anamorphic characteristics https://vimeo.com/190149937

Yes, this was probably shot w/ an Alexa/RED, on some beautifully expensive glass, and lit/graded professionally - this isn't my point, I'm not talking about what makes the image cinematic .. I'm referencing the technical characteristics of the image, which render through regardless of lighting/production design (well, you know what I mean) .. 

What in this price-range can deliver these technical characteristics? Well, I stumbled across this a few moments after viewing that commercial https://vimeo.com/195660425

The answers obvious, if it wasn't already .. The MX can deliver this, effortlessly .. I'm just not sure that's still enough to convince me to purchase such an old/enormous piece of kit .. 

The only true conclusion I've been able to make so far from this discussion is that the pocket camera really is a phenomenal piece of kit for the price. I'm searching in a market for systems five or six times the price of the pocket, yet have failed to find anything that is a substantial improvement upon it, with regards to either specs or usability. Essentially, all I want is a system with the pocket's specs, 4K, a more softer digital looking image (one could argue this can be achieved through choice of glass), and something that isn't ridiculous huge. Yet for an extra few thousands of pounds, this can't be found .. Extremely disappointing, as it is frustrating .. Do appreciate all the comments so far though - great that so many of you guys are contributing, despite the lack of progress in terms of a conclusion .. We'll get there! 

Regarding the 1DC - I love the image as much as I do the C100ii, but spending thousands of pounds for an image that falls apart under any substantial grading is a deal-breaker .. It hurts me to say that, since I do love the depth/colour to Canon's image, but I can't suger-coat 8-bit when there's thousands of pounds at stake .. I agree though, I have to make a compromise somewhere - I'd just father it be a spec less influential than colour bit .. 

What I do have on my side is time .. I'm in no rush to make a purchase, and who knows, come March/April when I do make the decision, there could be a system that ticks all my boxes, or a price-drop for a system that currently does. If the GH5 has impressive low-light, I'll probably just settle with that, and invest everything else in some beautiful glass .. What's the verdict on Panasonic's colour science? 

Yeah, this discussion could continue for weeks and weeks in its current form - my next move has to be either renting these cameras and forming a decision from there, or downloading/grading some ungraded footage and having a play around. 

Regardless of colour, there's something about the FS5 footage that's pulling me in - it has a texture to it, or something, that feel's a tad more organic than the clean digital image you'd expect to see out of these cameras .. I mean it isn't grainy, nor noisy, but there's something there, that's pulling me in .. 

Excluding Blackmagic's, the FS5 has pretty decent codec capabilities compared to it's competitors, given there's a fair few cameras in and around this price range that can only record/output 8-bit, whereas the FS5 at least has the capabilities to output 4K 10-bit, so I hardly buy the 'weak codec' as an argument for it's poor (?) color science. The C100 has weaker codecs, and yet look at the colour that can produce .. 

I'll keep looking into the FS5, as I've yet to see anything to suggest it's color science is poor, or in the same bracket as the A7S etc. - though then again, I've never shot/graded FS5 footage, so who am I to judge .. Anybody here shot/graded FS5 footage? 

The MX is the safe/fall-back option, for sure! 

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I guess it depends on the kind of productions you are running... If you have a decent sized team and already have some heavyweight tripods and gear, then size/weight isn't such an issue. If you are in a small team, it will get frustrating. Also worth remembering things like boot up time, lack of NDs etc

The £4k range is gonna bring comprimises.... The MX probably offers the best image, but you are gonna have to jump through hoops to get it.

F3 and ninja star competes on an image basis, with the exception of 4K (and 120fps, which I find poor anyway)... but is much easier to work with.

I still think the FS700 is the best option though. Maybe try and rent the combo and see how you feel about the look and motion within your own style?

I work for a production company, but like most companies, we rent all our gear in, for the higher end stuff anyway, so this purchase is pretty much for personal/external work to the company - though on the smaller shoots, no doubt we'd utilise something like the FS5, if I owned one .. 

While I do want a system that's fairly mobile, I probably too should be make it clear this purchase isn't 'documentary/run and gun' style motivated .. It's more a purchase for narrative work, hence image quality will perhaps be the ultimate determining factor - though I do feel a system such as the MX is a little extreme, for all scenarios, excluding studio/big crew work. 

Back to the FS5, after a little more digging across a few forums, it seems - annoyingly - that it suffers from the same colour science issues as the A7S etc. I've yet to see this in any of the footage I've viewed, but near enough every person when commenting on comparison threads, labels the FS5 colour as one of the major con's .. 

9 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well with firmware 1.1 it can record 4k both internally and export it also at the same time. But you can't monitor both at the same time, have to pick one or the other to look at on a external monitor.  I am not sure if the internal is 10 bit, I think 8bit?? It can do 4k Raw with the sony Raw recorder. It has 14 stops of DR, so that is pretty good. Rolling shutter is 3.8 so that is not bad. FS5 has the same sensor as the FS7. Firmware 1.1 fixed blocking issues. It is small enough stripped down to use on drones also which is nice. I think the Varaible ND filter is nearly worth it just for that feature. You can keep the same DoF no matter what the lighting.

They have 2.0 firmware out now that the ND filter density can now be adjusted automatically.  Which means automatic iris, that is huge, because it has the variable ND Filter which is magic on it's own. Shooting and recording in RAW mode are now supported. (“CBKZ-FS5RIF”, sold separately, is required)The zebra function has been enhanced, allowing you to select two types of setting. Also, the level settings can now be adjusted in 1% increments. You can now select the audio that is output in the headphones.You can now acquire and record position information when shooting using the GPS function.

I don't really see how you can beat this camera for the money. It really is a bably FS7 now without some of it's better Codecs. Well low light I guess is not it's strongest point. Not sure now with newer firmware updates. The Red MX is pretty terrible in low light. Well hell of all the videos to drag on here LoL. Have to have Vimeo Pro account like I have to see. Bahh!

I'm definitely swaying towards it. 10-bit 4K possible on a Ninja2, or? And would it be possible to have that recording out to the Ninja, whilst having an active SDI feed to say a SmallHD 502?

I currently own the 501, but I love the interface, workflow and features of the 500 series so much that I'm willing to consider the 502 for the SDI feed. Of course, alongside the external recorder and Sony LCD, this would be a 3x monitor set-up (completely overkill), but once you own one of the new SmallHD's, it's hard to ever imagine shooting without one again.

8 hours ago, mat33 said:

I think most of these cameras are capable of achieving your clean digital or a more vintage look with selection of the right glass, filters, lighting and grading to suit a specific project. I would look at each of your options for motion cadence, highlight roll-off, skin tones, DR sweetspot and see what works best for your type of projects. 

I'd completely agree. Alongside size/weight, these ultimately will be the deciding specs of which I'll make a decision from. 

Probably worth noting too, with regards to my want for a 'softer image', that shooting 2x anamorphic will help in producing this, irrespective of the camera. 

48 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Sony F3 is small and light compared to mx

MX is incredibly heavy and cumbersome when rigged. 

And it's size/weight is too big of an issue to ignore; despite how seducing the image is, and the fact some of my favourite films have been shot on the system; though the latter reason probably shouldn't come in to play, given lighting, production design and glass, combined, play a more influential part in producing such results. 

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well it seems you can buy a new one cheaper than used after a Quick search. B&H have them for $5749.00 US new. I have seen them used in the high 4,000.00 US Dollar range with a few accessories like extra batteries, top cheese plate etc.. They are a pretty great camera. 4k internal etc. And they are amazingly small stripped down. Fit in the palm of your hand, but are a powerhouse in reality.

A Sony FS5, FS7 right now I think are the best thing going for the money. Canon C300 mkII is nice but close to 9 grand. Both out of my range. FS7 out of yours. I don't know what to tell you. There is the Black Magic Mini Ursa 4.6k in that range also. Not a real workhorse yet, but a few firmware updates and I think it might be hard to beat for the money. Poor mans Red for sure.

The new Canon C100 mkII is very hard to beat, but it has 8 bit only which you don't like. But color science wise, focus wise, small size wise I think it is hard to resist. And it is fairly cheap. If the Canon C500 had DP auto focus oh my God. But they have NO autofocus at all.   

I don't know if you Really don't Need 4k, but if not I would go with the Sony F3 and buy some damn good cine lenses for it. You can always use the lenses on another camera down the road. They are more future proof than any camera and add more to the look of a film than most people believe. They are expensive for a reason. F3's aren't called a mini Arri for no reason. Even the ones with the RGB 444 can be bought for 2,000 bucks on ebay US dollar. I have seen them for 1,400 lately at times. Crazy cheap for a camera that was $16,000.00 4 to 5 years ago new. Now not as bad of drop in price as you can buy a Sony F65 now a days. They were a 1/4 million dollars new. 10 grand can buy one now.

I'm really liking the look of the FS5 from both it's specs/accessibility, and of course, footage too .. No internal 4K 10-bit though .. Quite possibly a deal-breaker, given I want to stick to my SmallHD 501 as the external monitor ..

How's it compare to the MX in terms of dynamic range, low-light, motion etc.?

On 12/10/2016 at 1:55 AM, TheRenaissanceMan said:

An example of clean, sharp, smooth footage with nice colors, and a test between the F3, C300, and Epic. Even with a generation newer sensor than the MX, you can see that the RED can't compete with the F3 for exposure latitude; in fact, the F3 is the only camera in the test that holds up at +3 overexposure. The Canon and Sony both do fairly well with underexposure, although the F3 comes out with a less noise and softness once corrected. The Epic, on the other hand, goes crazy with blue channel noise and loses color information very quickly.

The MX can't touch the F3's low light performance, and falls far short of its 13.5 stops of dynamic range. With an external recorder, you get 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes, which is a robust codec that flows like butter in the edit. The Sony is also less power hungry, lighter, and much faster to operate. Sony even makes their own SxS -> SD card adapters, making media costs a non-issue.

For almost a third the price of an MX, the Sony would be my pick every time. Hands down.

EDIT: I almost forgot to mention: that Convergence video was the launch film for the F3, and came out before the camera got the S-LOG upgrade, meaning you'll get even more DR than what you see in the film. Pretty impressive!

I've spent the past few weeks doing a fair bit of digging for F3 footage, and it is an incredible camera, even more so now given with the price-drop.

It's a tricky situation however, since I'm looking at this way - If I'm going to invest in a 5+ year old system, that isn't exactly small nor light, then I may aswell just opt with the MX, given it's future proof with 4K. The more F3 footage I see however, the more I remember the price, and the harder it becomes to ignore such a deal .. 

16 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

JVC LS300 is 8bit output also.  Wouldn't a used Sony FS5 with the latest firmware tick all the boxes also?  You can strip it down and use it on a Gimbal, use it shoulder mounted, a lot more versatility. And with FilmConvert you can make it look like any camera you want.

Also the Red MX or Sony F3. Red is far from a run and gun camera for sure. Not that the F3 is a lot better. It is just the Sony F3 is so damn cheap for what you get. Unless you buy a Whole Red MX kit form someone I think I would pass. Bits and pieces for them are crazy expensive to add on.

But the 4k on the Red is sort of future proofing itself more so than the F3. If had 6k I guess I would have to go with the Red MX or Sony FS5.

I am not too big fan of the Sony FS700,  Now if you need Slo Mo it IS the camera to buy. But it does tick all the boxes you want. Probably the best one trick pony available for the price. Not much it can't shoot. I have seen the 4k model for 4k lately. That is a bargain for what they can do.

And to add a Canon EOS C500 4K Cinema Camera. They pop up at 5k once in awhile. B&H has them for 7k new. Older science but wow what a great look.

http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-red-epic-vs-canon-c500/

Wow no easy choices.

How much does a 'used' FS5 sell for, roughly, with the basic kit requirements, excluding glass?

12 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Wildcard.... what about the Sony f35? not sure if they have reached £4k levels yet. 

What an image though!

Yeah, sadly they haven't .. No brainer, otherwise! 

10 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

Sorry for the delay - here's that 'filmic' FS700 stuff.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-325537.html

A couple that I thought were stand-out were 

- not even done with a recorder, just OOC AVCHD.

And:

Which is raw with an Odyssey.

Nice examples. Neither scream 'cinematic' though. The more FS700 footage I see, the more it looks like a solid documentary camera - just my two cents. 

9 hours ago, Cinegain said:

5DmkIII ML RAW? Not exactly a cinema camera or ticking the boxes. But Andrii's stuff for example I just really like...

It seems to compliment your appreciation for what Canon's doing and that 'soft, clean, smooth cinematic feel to the image' in combination with the bitdepth you're after. Trading in some specs on paper for pleasant results.

It's a contender, and as you say, leans towards the image I'm after, but a move back to a 'photography' camera with a third party workflow doesn't excite me in the slightest. I have the finances to purchase a dedicated cinema camera, so ..

5 hours ago, Kristoferman said:

I've never thought kinemini footage had bad color.

I never said it did have bad colour. I just questioned its colour from the examples I've seen - and both the examples you've posted leave me with the same opinion. The second example especially. More convinced it's user error though ..

3 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I wonder if some of your opinions are being formed by the lens in front of the camera?

You like the softened look of the red one.... but that footage is far more likely to have a nice lens on it compared to the footage from cheaper cams

I hear you. I said in an earlier post I appreciate this 'look' I'm after is partly influenced through choice of glass too .. I've actually rooted extensively for RED footage shot on cheaper glass, for a balanced perspective, and the perspective of what I'd find myself in, if I were to opt with one .. And yes, the results are still impressive from what I've seen, and fitting to my taste .. I hear you though - there's more finer examples of the MX around because its more often than not in the hands of a professional in a professional environment .. 

2 hours ago, mat33 said:

Sure the D16 is not an A7S or C100 in low light, but if its being used for narrative as per the original post with presumably some control over lighting then the D16 is more than capable. I also think that while the BMPCC is also RAW and has a similar sized sensor, the D16 has quite a different mojo. If you want a 'soft, clean, smooth cinematic feel' straight from the sensor then it should be on your list.

 

The example you posted is delicious. But I'd still argue it looks more like 35mm film, than soft, clean smooth digital .. Regardless, it looks beautiful - just not my cup of tea sadly ..

2 hours ago, Liam said:

As long as you're looking at making compromises, a 1dc could be pretty cool

Sure, but compromising on 10-bit colour is perhaps the hardest compromise of all ..

-

I apologise for the direction this thread is heading - in that I just seem to be batting away every suggestion that's thrown at me .. If it wasn't already apparent, it's more so now, that there's probably nothing in this price-range that both ticks every box in my original post, and delivers this 'image' I'm after .. Indeed, if one wants an image similar to that of the Alexa/RED, then one probably needs to shoot on such systems. 

The MX is the safe option, but I do worry once the honeymoon period is over, it will just sit on a shelve for months un-used due to its drawbacks. I was all set on the C100ii yesterday evening, until I suddenly remembered it doesn't output 10-bit colour - such a deal-breaker, given the image really is right on the money for what I want - i.e https://vimeo.com/121686580

It's been years since I graded 8-bit colour .. Does it really fall apart as much as I remember? If anybody could shoot me over some ungraded ProRes from the C100ii/Ninja, I'd love to have a play around, to really form a fresh opinion .. (Setting myself up for disappointment here, I sense) 

Cheers