Tomda

Actually it does have 60p. Actually I got confused too !!! I wrongly assumed at first the micro 4k had an internal SD recording like its cheaper brother... I don't understand what BM did there, what's the point of making such a compact camera if you can't use it in its smallest form ? I almost made a mistake here ! So final choice is the BMPCC4k

So here's the final episode of the show, I hope this one won't be too much disappointing. I got all the answers about the Z Cam E2c. The last firmware (0.86) actually enables a S16 crop. So it looked very promising, but it didn't felt (to me at least) like a reasonable choice since, from what I've read, the Z Cam still seems to have some bugs in its actual state, and tbh the overall build quality seemed too crappy. I didn't like either to have to plug a SSD via USB-C to record prores 422. Moreover, as I stated earlier, no one is renting it in France (not even the E2 version), so I can't try it to at least get an idea. I hesitated to take the BMPCC4K which has a similar sensor size. But in the end I went for the BMMS4K. Even if it's only S16 sized, I'm more comfortable having SDI for my pro work than only HDMI for monitoring (I really hate HDMI cables). Plus, even if as I said I'm not a big fan of the "box" design, I still prefer it over a still camera one, as it is much easier to rig up as something more ergonomic.

I see there's a kind of cliffhanger here I'm not decided yet, I've just ask on the Z cam forum about the possible feature and waiting for an answer. But the cam doesn't seem to be available for sale yet, it seems it still is in a beta phase... If I have a clear view on its features and release date, it may be my final choice. If I don't, I may go for a BM Micro Studio. I think all things considered, I may prefer the flexibility and lightness offered by a smaller format. With my Angenieux T1.8/9.5-57 I can almost do almost anything with a single, rather small and lightweight lens. When I shot actual 16mm film it's my weapon of choice. But wether I go BM or Z cam, I'm pretty annoyed by the ergonomics we have in this price range. It would be so cool to have at least a more elongated form to fit in a palm, I mean the dirtiest cheapest camcorders are better designed than those things, I'm sure it wouldn't cost much more...

I'm going to investigate this, I really do hope so, it seems to me to be the best compromise I've seen so far given my budget. I admit I never heard of this brand before, at least here in France no renting company has them. I have to admit when I first saw the pictures I was a little worried by the build quality, but I know I may be asking too much Anyway a big thanks to you all for this suggestion !

Thanks KnightsFan ! It's a little over budget but it's definitely worth considering, I knew there could be more cams with such feature Sadly, I can't use the speed booster as my s35 lenses are old style Arriflex cine lenses, with rear lenses going quite close to sensor. But m4/3 is not much smaller than s35, I could work around... webrunner5 I think I was maybe not clear enough sorry, I happen to have some cine lenses designed for s35, and some other for the 16mm movie format. I like to use them for different projects, using prime s35 lenses for clips or fiction where I can spend some time working on my cinematography, and using lightweight and more versatile 16mm zoom lenses for a more "documentary" style of project where I have to frame and focus more quickly. Those last zooms cover effectively a very small area (as 16mm films were rather narrow). But it happens that having a 2x "clear zoom" on some APS-C/S35 digital sensors lets you record just the area these lenses can cover. I've done it with a Sony FS5 for a short, letting me use a Zeiss 10-100 vario Sonnar. Without the "clear zoom" option, You'd only get a small image circle on your frame. So yes, "clear zoom" let you use 16mm glass on a s35 sized sensor. A lot of people used 24x36 or s35 lenses on their BM because most people don't know much about vintage 16mm lenses. But some were far better suited to the camera than anything made for still photography. Another problem is that BM cams have a Super16 sized sensors, slightly bigger than standard 16, but big enough for some zoom to vignette, especially wide open and wide angle. The Sony FS5 at least cropped ideally. But this is a problem I could live with, as they do 4k there's way enough place for cropping in post. The Sony a7 indeed has a "clear zoom", but it has 24x36 sized sensor and the clear zoom only crops to APS-C, so way too big for 16mm I hope this is all much clearer to you ?

Hi all ! First, a little presentation... I'm a longtime reader of this website, from back in the days the 5d mkII came out, and always enjoyed a lot the info. I always found some of the most precise answers here for my cinematography. But now comes the time to ask for some precise info I can't clearly find. I want to upgrade my gear and I kind of wonder if I folks could help me figure out what would be better suited. My main wish is to find a camera that could both use either 35mm or 16mm glass. I happen to have a small collection of both formats, and I would love to have a camera that lets me use 35mm prime lenses when I want shallow depth of fields and high quality or a 16mm zoom lens when I want a more "run and gun" set up. And more importantly I'd like to be able to output in both formats 1080 4:2:2 10 bit for my pro work. Now from what I've been able to find, only a very few cameras allows this. The Sony FS5-7 or the Blackmagic URSA would be perfect but are out of my budget. Much more in my price range, only the Sony 6400 seem to have a 2x "clear image zoom" function that would in theory allow the use of Super 16 lenses (has anyone here tried it ?). But its major drawback is that it can only record 4:2:0 8 bit internally, so I'd need an external recorder for more pro stuff. In my price range too the Fujifilm X-T3 would be absolutely perfect except it doesn't seem to have a 2x "clear image" zoom like Sony... Can anyone confirm this ? Why such a simple feature is absent... If someone has Fuji's hears... Then at last, on a much cheaper level, I've heard about the Canon EOS M raw capabilities with magic Lantern. But as I understand it (tell me if I'm wrong, but I tend to often get mixed up with ML stuff), I don't think you can shoot with it on a 16mm frame with a near FullHD resolution. Then there's the M50 but I see ML progress on it is at a too early stage, and it seems only 4k resolution is available at a crop (and of course without any 4:2:2 sampling). So what do you all think ? What option would be better suited ? Am I missing something ? I wonder if I should take a Blackmagic pocket or micro and only use 16mm glass but I would so much like to use my vintage 35mm cine lenses too !