bjohn

Keeping in mind that I was reporting a sample size of one! It's possible that I got a bad card, but all of my other SD cards (I have lots, mostly SanDisk but also a couple of the Angelbird 128 gig cards that were tested for BMPCC) have worked flawlessly; some of my SanDisk cards are going on six years of use now and have been reformatted dozens of times each. The Kingstons are a great deal for the price and I hope it works out for you in terms of reliability.

That of course depends on how you define "relevant." I think even 1080p will be around for 10-20 years; it's totally watchable.

I don't think that'll be an issue. I've read (likely on the phillipreeve site) that the Minolta Rokkors perform well even on the A7riii and A7riv, both of which have higher-resolution sensors than the A7iv. I use my A7iii for stills only, no video, and would likely do the same if I get an A7iv, but the A7iv is attractive to me for the weather resistance plus the better sensor protection (dust on the sensor is my main complaint with the A7iii; I have to wet-clean it every month and blow it out with a rocket blower with every lens change, but even so I spend a lot of time in post eliminating dust spots. It's frustrating. The A7iv has a feature where you can close the shutter when changing lenses.

That's interesting: I had this same model but the 128 gb version, and it wouldn't record anything above 30fps without dropped frames after a few minutes of shooting. The card also died completely a little more than a year after I bought it. I wonder if these 256gb ones have different specs and are better made? I ended up buying a couple of the Angelbird ones that were tested for BMPCC and BMMCC and those have been flawless, but they are much more expensive than the Kingstons.

Agreed, but you can choose to arrive at that understanding analytically the way you describe, or you can develop it through experience. I take the latter approach: I spend time looking at images shot with different lenses, gravitate to the ones that intrigue or resonate with me, buy those lenses, and then spend a couple of years getting to know them. I enjoy that process even if it's less efficient, and it has worked very well for me so far: I get a good idea for what that partner will be like under different conditions before I buy it, simply by looking at lots of images shot with it. I don't actually care about the specific technical factors that contribute to a lens's overall look. I think either approach is valid, one is more analytical and the other more intuitive, but they're both based on evidence.

It almost seems like they were anticipating such a firmware update because even the manual refers to the setting as ISO/Gain. Right now only gain is shown, but I wouldn't be surprised if they add an option to show ISO in a future update.

It's more that gain is a less consistent measure than ISO. Gain is essentially a volume knob (it's even measured in decibels!): you use it to control how much the camera amplifies the signal before (or in some cameras, after) analog to digital conversion. It doesn't provide any universal benchmark across cameras the way ISO does. So I can see how it would be less optimal for cinematographers who are used to ISO, not that they couldn't adapt to it. As someone who learned to shoot video on a cinema camera, I'm completely lost at first when I try to shoot hybrid cameras that require me to set shutter speed instead of shutter angle and I'd probably be similarly slowed down if I had to use gain controls. I'd learn, but if a more familiar option were available I'd use that instead.

Grant Petty (CEO of Blackmagic Design) said it has been a successful camera and I don't think they would have released a G2 if the first model hadn't sold well to its target market. I know the Cirque du Soleil (which is headquartered near me) has used it for live broadcasts of their shows. See

"Just on the bland side" is the key for me. I get that the Sigma 18-35 provides you with a tabula rasa for whatever look you want to apply in post, but I view a lens more as a partner than a tool: I like lenses that assert their own character (which doesn't necessarily mean aberrations, just some distinction in the rendering and bokeh), and add an element of unpredictability. I don't want to be totally in control, either for stills or video; I like seeing what a lens offers in terms of its own look and learning to work within that universe.

Basically Grant Petty (Blackmagic CEO) said it becomes a 6K camera when you put an EF, PL, or F/G (Nikon) lens on it, and they're delivering it with an EF mount thrown in. He said they got tired of waiting for backordered sensors for the old Ursa Broadcast so took the opportunity to redesign it around a "new" sensor. Since the specs are so close, everyone is assuming this the same sensor as the Pocket 6K, including its not-so-great rolling shutter. I agree that this looks like a really versatile camera for documentary and indie filmmakers although it sounds like there may be a few limitations compared with the BMPCC 6K (e.g., no cinema 4K modes or 2.8k slow motion, plus you have to use gain to set exposure, which is something broadcast people are used to doing but not cinematographers). Still, I find this form factor more compelling and if I ever upgrade from my current cameras this will be near the top of my list of considerations. Grant said existing Ursa accessories would be compatible.

I have a 1/8 Hollywood Black Magic on it most of the time and have tried other strengths. Still doesn't do much for me but that does help reduce contrast (which I still have to pull down in post). Don't get me wrong, I find it serviceable and versatile, just not very exciting. And I get that sometimes you just want a lens that gets the job done and stays out of the way. The Tokina I mentioned above is an internal zooming lens, which is another reason I like it. It's from the 1990s so the look is actually fairly modern, not vintage, and it only cost me about $350.

I just find it too sharp and contrasty, too optically perfect and boring. I haven't seen any Sigma lenses that I really like, even the "Bigma" 35/1.2. It's so versatile, though, that I'm keeping it for low-light situations.

I've also settled mainly on zooms, or more precisely one zoom, for my documentary work, since it's so convenient. I'm using the Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.6-2.8, an Angénieux design from the 1990s. I was able to get a follow-focus gear for it and it's fairly close to parfocal (not that I zoom much while shooting). Its size doesn't change while zooming, which is important for a follow focus. Ultimately, since I'm using cameras with Super-16-size sensors (BMMCC and original BMPCC) I'd like to get the old Angénieux 17.5-70 zoom, which really looks gorgeous, but they are getting hard to find. I spotted one on eBay a few months ago that was in near-mint condition and even came with an adapter to MFT but when I placed my order the seller decided to keep it and cancelled the sale. I do have the versatile Sigma 18-35 but I have never warmed to its look. It comes in handy for certain things but I rarely use it.

Here's some footage I shot with the Micro in Brittany a few years ago. Mostly shot with the SLR Magic 10mm; the clip of the church with the sun star was with the Panasonic 12-35/2.8, which was pretty much unusable on the micro due to focus issues (I'd set focus, then hit record, and the lens would immediately shift out of focus; I now use only manual lenses on this camera). The opening clip is terribly graded; I need to redo that one, but I'm pretty happy with the others. I've been slowly working on a documentary that takes place in Brittany, Québec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia; still quite a bit of shooting to do but with luck it'll be done sometime in the next five years.

Agreed that if you shoot CDNG raw or even 3:1 raw (which is what I usually use; I've never experienced any downside to the compression) you rarely need to touch the buttons. I do like having accurate dates and times, so I do go in and set those, and occasionally I will change the shutter angle, especially when shooting stationary objects indoors under less than ideal lighting conditions (I did some of that in Brittany a few years ago, shooting statues in an old church on a rainy day and it worked out very well; I opened the shutter angle angle all the way to 360 degrees and was able to avoid underexposing).

No longer available, although the website will take your money. The person who designed and made these must either be dead or in hiding; I've never had any response and never received my order; I've heard the same from several other people. The best alternative I've found is Dmitry Shijjan's battery module, which will power the Micro for hours. See https://lavky.com/handmade/home-and-hobby/electronics-and-circuitry/18650-battery-enclosure/?product=UW590888 If you prefer NPF, I'd go for the Tilta NPF adapter over the plastic one from SmallRig; I have both and the Tilta is much better made. But mounting it on the micro can be tricky/awkward, which is why I much prefer using Dmitry Shijan's battery module. Congrats on getting your Micro! I have two of them and have no plans to buy anything else for video; the only drawbacks are poor low-light performance (these are cinema cameras, so that's par for the course; they're meant to be used in controlled-lighting situations) and those godawful buttons for navigating the menu. The One Little Remote, no longer made but likely still available on the used market, is a good way to avoid having to use the menu buttons, but you'll still need them to set date/time before every shoot. Note that you can't use the One Little Remote (without internal modifications) if you use Dmitry's battery module as it can't handle the voltage and will shut down your camera randomly while filming. You may still want to use ND filters in any brighter light situations, because you really don't want your aperture to go above 5.6 or 8 at the most; after that you start getting very noticeable diffraction softening. When I first got my Pocket I had been a stills photographer for decades and was used to taking landscape photos at f16 or even f22; I quickly learned that it doesn't work on small-sensor cameras like this, my images got very soft and not in a good way.

VNDs can be useful when you're shooting video with stills lenses that don't have clickless apertures; they can also be useful if you're in a hurry. I have the SLR Magic 77mm VND and the B+W 77mm VND and haven't noticed any problems with them at low stops; if I'm in a very bright location I'll use single ND filters to avoid any risk of X-vignetting or stronger color casts. I do have a set of single ND filters and those are my first choice, but I still use the VNDs in the situations mentioned above (when I know I won't have time to switch filters or when I'm using stills lenses whose aperture rings haven't been declicked). When shooting stills I use the single NDs exclusively; for some reason I find the VNDs have a more noticeable impact on the image.

The rumour sites (especially SAR) are right about 5% of the time so I wouldn't put much weight on any specs or release schedules. Maybe it'll be released in October, maybe next June; the only people who know aren't saying, and the people who say don't know.

In fact the full 16-minute short is available too. Not a single word of dialogue in the whole film, but lots of scrumptious footage. Still the best stuff I've seen from the Micro.

I'm considering this; I have an A7ii but have never shot video with it because I have better cameras for that job. But it would be nice to have a simple option for the occasional times when I want to/need to use it. My main question/concern is that I want to be sure this won't affect my raw shots in any way. I have heard (though I don't understand why) that applying some of the picture profiles can actually have an effect on raw images (perhaps because it can cause you to misjudge exposure, that's the only thing I can think of logically, but maybe there's more to it than that?). I use my A7iii for stills and always shoot in raw.

I really love the way you set it up; I've done something similar with my original Pocket Cinema Camera when using it on a glidecam and it's a great solution. These updates to the fp really have me seriously considering it as my next camera. I currently use an A7iii for stills but never for video (just not worth it, I can get so much better footage from my old Pocket or Micro Cinema cameras), but for travel I'd like to be able to use just one camera for stills and video. The fp has some drawbacks in the stills department (mainly the e-shutter) but there isn't any other hybrid camera that appeals to me. And since I only use adapted lenses I'd just need to get new L-mount adapters to use all my existing lenses with the fp.

I forgot to mention that the easy workaround for this is to just plug your camera into your computer via USB, which resets the camera's clock. In my case, both of my Micros have baseplates for attaching rails so getting at the USB input is actually quite an undertaking and it's faster to use the menu. But if you don't have a baseplate and the USB input is accessible, this is the fastest way to reset date and time.

ProRes HQ is very flexible in terms of white balance, especially if you shoot right where you have it, 5600k. On the Blackmagic Design cinematography forum Dmitry Shijan has a post somewhere describing his experiments with this, saying that ~5600 appears to be the "native" white balance for this camera. It works up to a point; I don't think it would hold together as well if you had WB set at 5600 but were shooting indoors under tungsten at 3200. The main issue with ProRes is the greenish color cast that shows up sometimes; I've never experienced this with raw (I'm shooting compressed raw, 3:1, as it provides pretty much all the benefits of raw with file sizes only a bit larger than ProRes HQ). I've seen claims that the colors are better overall in raw. That said, I've shot most of the documentary I've been working on for the past 3 years in ProRes HQ, and I've been very happy with the results and have been pleased at the level of flexibility in post. However, since 3:1 raw takes up only a little more space and working with CDNG raw in Resolve 17 using RCM is straightforward, I'm mostly using that now. I do have to access the menus before every shoot because, like every Blackmagic camera, the date and time need to be reset every day. This isn't a bug, it's by design: the internal clock is powered by a supercapacitor that can be charged very quickly and doesn't need to be replaced every few years as a battery would. But the downside of supercapacitors is that they don't hold their charge very long.

Agreed! I have two of these cameras and might eventually get a third. They are perfect for my uses; the only thing I don't like is those tiny buttons but after a few months of practice navigation becomes second nature. I have the One Little Remote (for both of my cameras) but don't use it much anymore as I'm shooting 3:1 raw these days instead of ProRes. I have the Rawlite OLPF on both cameras, highly recommended. No need and no plans to upgrade to other cameras anytime soon or maybe ever.

8K or 10K is not about delivering at those resolutions: it's about shooting at those resolutions and delivering in 4K or even 1080p. It gives you many more options in terms of cropping and framing. This is the big selling point of the Blackmagic Design Ursa Mini 12K, apart from the image quality from its sensor -- nobody is delivering 12K footage.