aaa123jc

This thread started with a question - buy a Varicam or use your BMMCC.  @PannySVHS - that one is easy...  just use your BMMCC.
Then you elaborate about all the lovely equipment you have that sits unused, which (I think) negates the original question, and proposes a new one.  By saying you own lots of gear, don't use it, and still want more, you're saying that you attribute some value to simply owning equipment, even if you don't use it.
This means you are also a collector, rather than exclusively a cinematographer.  This is a very different mindset, and it's a different kind of value.  While one person thinks that owning every piece of tableware from some brand is a worthwhile goal, the next person thinks of it as tacky and a waste of time and money.  The value is in the eye of the beholder and only you can answer the Varicam question for yourself.
Your question mixes the two however.  It seems you derive value from buying equipment that performs well, even if you don't use it, so that's also something for you to evaluate.
In terms of my thoughts about camera stuff:
Almost any camera can look great, but the better the camera and the better the cinematographer, the easier it is to get it looking great The worse the camera the less latitude it will give you in the grade...  bad cameras won't have enough latitude in the image to even point them at anything difficult, good cameras will have enough latitude to point them at difficult scenes or to point them at normal scenes and have a bit of wiggle room, and great cameras give you lots of room to move even in difficult situations @TomTheDP was kind enough to share some S1 files with me and I felt like they had more latitude than the GH5 files, but ultimately they felt the same nearing their limits, and in shots that were quite underexposed I felt like I was arguing with strange colour casts and noise and compression problems in the footage in the same way as I would with underexposed GH5 footage, so the flavour is the same. The S1 and GH5 files I've graded feel awkward and deformed in comparison to grading RAW or Prores from the OG BMPCC or BMMCC, which respond exactly the way you'd expect them to.  It's hard to explain but it feels like you've got some setting horribly wrong in Resolve when you work with GH5 or S1 files by comparison.  I haven't dealt with BM footage shot as poorly as the GH5/S1 footage I've worked with, but even when both brands are shot well, the BM ones feel fundamentally better TLDR; understand what you're actually trying to achieve, then work out the best way to get there.

EOS R makes the most sense to me.
The crop in 4K actually works in your favor because the majority of your lenses are EF-S lenses anyways, which are APSC and not full frame. It is much easier to adapter vintage lenses with the RF mount too. So the EOS R is more future proof.
Or you can try out other brands as suggested by other posts. Panasonic and Sony are both great camera brands for videography, for example. 

Hey there

The Canon 650D(Rebel T4i) was my first DSLR and I have really enjoyed using it for the last 8+ years. A couple of years ago I started focusing on my music and posting covers and original songs online. The more I've been filming with the 650D(Rebel T4i) in this more professional setting, the more I have noticed it's holding me back in terms of video quality. I think now the time has come to finally upgrade.

I'm looking for a camera that can shoot in 4k and has good dynamic range. My budget is around 1000-1500 CHF (≈1100-1700 USD).

These are the lenses I have:
- Canon EFS 10-18mm f / 4.5-5.6 IS STM (Wide angle zoom)
- Canon EFS 18-55mm f / 3.5-5.6 IS II (Kit lens)
- Canon EFS 24mm f / 2.8 STM
- Canon EFS 50mm f / 1.8 STM
- Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4-5.6 III (Telephoto zoom)
- SIGMA 150-600mm f / 5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

Apart from filming I do enjoy shooting portraits and wildlife, especially birds – in fact, that's what I bought the Sigma lens for. It's really been awesome.

The two options I've thought about the most are the Canon 90D and the EOS R as they are in a similar price range if you look at the prices for just the body.

Pros for the 90D:
- same mounting system, no adapter required
- great for wildlife photography (APS-C crop, 10 FPS)
- optical viewfinder (which is what I'm used to)
- does 4k without a crop
- better battery life

Cons for the 90D:
- lower dynamic range (doesn't have C-LOG)/poorer lowlight performance compared to the R
- APS-C sensor, maybe less professional look compared to full-frame cameras like the R

Pros for the R:
- Full-frame sensor, more professional look
- better dynamic ranger (C-LOG), better lowlight performance
- fit for the future? (switch from DSLR to mirrorless)

Cons for the R:
- RF mounting system, adapter needed --> will all of my lenses work? RF-lenses are way too expensive for me at the moment
- 4k only with crop
- digital viewfinder (which is a con because I'm not used to it – I know it has its benefits too)
- weaker battery life compared to 90D


Given that I have collected a lot of Canon EFS lenses over the years, I'd definitely want to still being able to use them... I know there's adapters but I'm not sure how that's going to behave in terms of cropping and autofocus... 

What do you guys think? Are there some other alternatives I should also have a look at?

Suggestions are greatly appreciated 

Thanks for taking the time
Panda

Eos R seems natural in regard of your wish list or a used R6. Or sell your lenses and get a Lumix S5 and some manual focus vintage lenses. Would love to seem some old school Canon Ti videos. People have been doing some amazing stuff with it.

I suggest taking a total-system perspective rather than the assumption you'll keep your lenses.
Work out what you could sell them for, then price up options from all manufacturers buying the complete kit second-hand.
Canon has a lot of pros going for it, but they cripple their video functions quite severely (to get you to buy a cinema camera) so they're potentially not the best manufacturer for your needs. 

I'm inclined to agree. But I have a vested interest both in "vintage" gear and lower res, softer footage. 
Vintage lenses I suspect are now so popular in part because of how sharp digital feels compared with film. Maybe sharp digital projection is a factor here too. I suspect for art design and vfx lower res helps too because the softer image and grain help cover up the artifice. Curious if gaffers light differently for film and for digital. I suspect they do.
I also notice that the Alexa has a softer, grainier image than most other digital cameras do. I prefer the grainy Red Dragon image to newer Red cameras (to some extent), I like the Alexa image enough to wonder if I'll prefer it to the next generation Alexa, and I preferred the C300's image to the C300 Mk 2's and F3 to F5 – at least from what I have seen online.
On the other hand, the Wachowskis did such a fun job embracing the digital/fake look with Speed Racer (in terms of cinematography, vfx, and set design alike) that I want to give Resurrections the benefit of the doubt (Still haven't seen it but really looking forward to it.) But whether the look is intentional or not (I'm fairly sure it is), that doesn't mean it looks good.... Lord of the Rings (and Gemini Man) did not have great receptions for HFR. I suspect the new Avatar movies, if they are HFR, will buck this trend, and am look forward to seeing those, too.

Interesting, but normally cameras from HK have the same firmware and thus have the same recording limit (if there is any). I could be wrong though. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who really enjoys using kit lenses. I have a Canon EFS 18-55mm which I use all the time, both causally and professionally. I've changed camera bodies many times throughout the years, yet this lens still stays on.
Kit lenses are lightweight, sharp and most importantly for me, often have image stablizations (because I don't like IBIS).
Low light is an issue though, but for more serious works I'm going to light the scene anyway, and for less serious works, I can always denoise the footages in post if they are too noisy. I've found the denoising in DaVinci Resolve more than enough to clean up a moderately underexposed image.
Of course, primes and fast zooms are nice to have, but they are much more expensive. The money could be more well spent on other things, such as lighting equipments and production designs.
 
 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who really enjoys using kit lenses. I have a Canon EFS 18-55mm which I use all the time, both causally and professionally. I've changed camera bodies many times throughout the years, yet this lens still stays on.
Kit lenses are lightweight, sharp and most importantly for me, often have image stablizations (because I don't like IBIS).
Low light is an issue though, but for more serious works I'm going to light the scene anyway, and for less serious works, I can always denoise the footages in post if they are too noisy. I've found the denoising in DaVinci Resolve more than enough to clean up a moderately underexposed image.
Of course, primes and fast zooms are nice to have, but they are much more expensive. The money could be more well spent on other things, such as lighting equipments and production designs.
 
 

A good one of us lost his best friend (his father) and I'd appreciate we might drop a bell... how strangers, or not so much, may we all embrace his pain in solidarity with a good and talented artist.
Altogether can be easier to overcome it.
Insignificant but life is made of a very few contributions.
 
I met him @Danilo Del Tufo from dvxuser a decade and half ago and we became good friends and collaborators also in real life for a decade now already -- I am producing right now a feature film from a story written by him... the time really flies!
 
Un abbraccio amico Danilo,
all thoughts and prayers with you,
- EAG
 

Shot mostly on the Zcam S6 with some Panasonic S1 in there too. I feel like the trailer was harder to make than the actual film. 😅

Get any external HD recorder that you like with an SDI input. 

BMD Video Assist and Atomos Samurai Blade are two popular lower priced examples. (I've got the Atomos Samurai Blade)

Depends if you need a two camera setup or not. Keep in mind the F3 really shines with an external recorder. Without you are only getting an 8 bit image. 

You can't really go wrong with any option these days. As long as you aren't insane like me and buy and sell your cameras every 6 months. 

I paid 400 for the optitek or whatever it is. (Since then I have sold the whole setup.) 
That’s kind of a lot if you’re paying 900 for the body. It’s just nice to have image stabilized lenses as an option. Not sure what they go for these days

I’ve used both the Fs700 and the F3 quite a bit. The F3 is in a different class with color and skin tone. The image itself is also quite a bit cleaner. I remember having to over expose by two stops constantly with the FS700.
The high frame rate features on the FS700 are amazing, but if you’re shooting primarily 24 and 60p, the F3 is great.
Keep in the mind, the F3 uses a different mount. They do make an adapter for EF, which can be found for a reasonable price on eBay. Also, to get the most out of it, you’ll want an external recorder. The black magic video assist is cheap and works well.
I do agree, a smaller DSLR is so nice to have for a gimbal, plus the lowlight from an A7S would likely come in handy.

Yeah, I'm not deny an F3 will be a "prettier looking" camera than an OG a7S
But from a practical aspect, I'd prefer to pair an a7S as a B Cam with a FS700R, as when you need to travel your kit will be more compact, and opens up more doors for when needing to do gimbal etc shots. 

US$500? Yeah that's roughly what I'd gut guess an a7S mk1 would be. 
Shoot in 4K to deliver in high quality HD.

A7S is quite good even in 2021. I'd say the F3 definitely has more pleasing color. A lot of people say the Sony F3 has more F35 like color than its successors the F55, FS5, and A7 cameras. 

It has the original Slog no SLOG2 or 3. It should be more similar than using a completely different brand camera though. 

Different color science. Could replace the FS700 if you don't need 4k. An external recorder is really essential to get the best image out of this camera. Its probably not going to hold its value well but if it works for you an generates money that's all that matters. 

The view finder is often broken or faulty on used models so I assume it's a problematic part. Not essential to the function of the camera though. I like the ergonomics on the F3, though the menus suck hard but you already have an FS700 so you know that. 

Damn, that's a GREAT PRICE! Even prior to Caleb's video putting the price spike on FS700 bodies. 

Is it the 4K raw version?
 
With the price spike of the F3 (again, thanks to Caleb....) I'd pass on the F3 for now. 

Maybe get an OG a7S mk1 as a dirt cheap B Cam to your FS700? At least you can easily put that on a gimbal if you need to (or whatever else you want a small camera for, like a lightweight slider, or jib, or car rig), unlike the FS700/F3. Plus the same 4K recorder you use with the FS700, you can use to get 4K out of the a7S mk1 as well.
  
Mine was removed from my F3  before I even bought it. As it just got in the way of the user, and there was no use for it. 

Recently I've been playing around with modifying a sub-$100 action camera, and have been having more fun than I have in a long time.
What is the most fun piece of equipment or rig that you have had, or used?  Why?  What made it fun?
Post some pictures!
Here's my "cinematic beast" with a few M12 lenses in front of the GH5 for scale:

and here's the most recent video I shot with it:
Shooting with this thing is so much fun because no-one takes a camera the size of a box of matches seriously, and assumes that the lens is really wide (it's about a 60mm equivalent FOV so it's really not that wide) and the only controls you get are on/off, record/stop, and where you aim it.
What has put a smile on your face?

Currently in the honeymoon phase with my FS5. I bought mine mid summer last year and it took a couple of months to get the images I wanted from it. Here's a mix of games I shot a few weeks ago.
10 bit 422 240fps in 1080p with no crop has been amazing. 
Variable ND filter is a game changer as well. 
FS7 dropping in price is tempting ngl, but the FS5 is so much smaller and easier to travel with. 
FX9 inside of an FS5 body (which is definitly possible) is my dream camera.
Great DR, class leading cine cam autofocus, class leading cine cam lowlight performance with dual native iso, variable ND, great mic preamps, and a rugged body. 😵

Hello, I wanted to share with you a vid we filmed over a day a few weeks ago about Alzheimer's. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
 

Go stand outside a cinema and as the people leave, poll them with the questions: "did you see the rolling shutter?" & "did you find it objectionable / deal breaker?"

The answer will be "No" & "No"
(or even more likely: "what the hell are you talking about?")

Not a single person watching a film in your average cinema theatre gives a damn if the camera used has a global shutter or not. 

But if you really "must" (perhaps you shoot tonnes of flash photography, or you're the world's biggest fan of whip pans) then buy yourself  Sony PMW-F55 and be happy. (they're becoming quite affordable ish now on eBay)

Q: When will digital catch up to film?
A: When you learn to colour grade properly.
With a few notable exceptions (you know who you are), the colour grading skill level of the average film-maker talking about this topic online is terrible.  Worse still, is that people don't even know enough to know that they don't know how little they actually know.
I have been studying colour grading for years at this point, and I will be the first to admit that I know so little about colour grading that I have barely scratched the surface.  
Here's another question - Do you want your footage to look like a Super-8 home video from the 60s?  
I suspect not.  That's not what people are actually looking for.  Most people who want digital to look like film actually don't.  Sure, there are a few people on a few projects where they want to shoot digital and have the results look like it was shot on film in order to emulate old footage, but mostly the question is a proxy for wanting nice images.  Mostly they want to get results like Hollywood does.
Hollywood gets its high production value from spending money on production design.
Production design is about location choice, set design, costume / hair / makeup, lighting design, blocking, haze, camera movement, and other things like that.  If you point a film camera at a crappy looking scene then you will get a crappy looking scene.  There's a reason that student films are mostly so cringe and so cheap-looking.  They spent no money on production design because they had no money. 
Do you think that big budget films would spend so much money if it didn't contribute to the final images?
I suggest this:
Think about how much money you'd be willing to spend on a camera that created gorgeous images for you, and how much you'd spend on re-buying all your lenses, cages, monitors, and all the kit you would need to buy Think about how much time you would be willing to invest on doing all the research to work out what camera that was, how much time you would spend selling your existing equipment, how much time you would spend working out what to buy for the new setup, how much time you would spend learning how to use it, how much time you would spend learning to process the footage Take that money and spend half of it on training courses and take the other half and put it into shooting some test projects that you can learn from, so you can level-up your abilities Take that time you would have spent and do those courses and film those projects People love camera tests, but it's mostly a waste of time.  Stop thinking about camera tests and start thinking about production value tests.  Take a room in your house, get one or two actors, hire them if you have to (you have a budget for this remember) and get them to do a simple scene, perhaps only 3-6 lines of dialog per actor.  It should be super-short because you're going to dissect it dozens of times, maybe hundreds.  Now experiment with lighting design and haze.  Play with set design and set dressing.  Do blocking and camera movement tests.  Do focal length tests (not lens tests).  Now do costume design, hair and makeup tests.  
Take this progression into post and line them up and compare.  See which elements of the above added the most production value.  But you're not done yet - you've created a great looking scene but it is probably still dull.
Now you have to play with the relationship between things like focal length / blocking / camera movement and the dramatic content of the scene.  Most people know that we go closer to show important details, and when the drama is highest, but what about in those moments between those peaks?  Film the whole scene from every angle, every angle you can even think of, essentially getting 100% coverage. 
Now your journey into editing begins.  Start with continuity editing (if you don't know what that is then start by looking it up).  You now have the ability to work with shot selection and you should be using it to emphasise the dramatic content of the scene.  Create at least a dozen edits, trying to make each one as different as possible.  You can play with shot length, everything from the whole scene as one wide shot to a cut every 1s.  You can cut between close-ups for the whole scene, or go between wides and close-ups.  Go from wide to mid to close and go straight from wide to close without the mid shots in between.  What did you learn about the feel of these choices? 
What about choosing between the person talking and the person listening?  What does an edit look like where you only see the person talking, or just the person looking?  Which lines land better when you see the reaction-shot?  Play with L and J cuts.
Now we play with time.  You have every angle, so you can add reverse-angles to extend moments (like reality TV does), you can do L and J cuts and play with cutting to the reaction shot from some other line.  What about changing the sequence of the dialogue?  Can you tell a different story with your existing footage?  How many stories can you tell?  Try and make a film with the least dialogue possible - how much of the dialogue can you remove?  What about no dialogue at all - can you tell a story with just reaction shots?  Can you make a silent film that still tells a story - showing people talking but without being able to hear them?  Play with dialogue screens like the old silent films - now you can have the actors "say" whatever you like - what stories can you tell with your footage?
Then sound design....
Then coaching of actors....
Now you've learned how to shoot a scene.  What about combining two scenes?  Think of how many combinations are now available - you can now combine scenes together where there are different locations, actors, times of day, seasons, scenarios, etc.  Now three scenes.  
Now acts and story structure....
Great, now you're a good film-maker.  You haven't gotten paid yet, so career development, navigating the industry, business decisions and commercial acumen.  Do you know what films are saleable and which aren't?  Have you worked out why Michael Bay is successful despite most film-makers being very critical of him and his film-making approach and style?
There's a saying about continuity - "people only notice continuity errors if you film is crap".  Does it matter?  Sure, but it's not the main critical success factor.  Camera choice is the same.