A Sony guy's question...

the FS7 is a good choice, but for the price of a new one you might be able to snag a used F5 for only a bit more.

The reason I recommend the F5 is because it has more codec options (SR Codec, ProRes and DNxHD) and if you rent/buy the R5 RAW module you can access RAW in 16-bit. The FS7 RAW stream is flawed, 12-bit, and unlikely Sony will fix it. The F5 also has an FZ mount and includes a PL to FZ mount so you can mount almost any lens from Canon, Nikon, etc.. that you might want. Also have a look at the body in person, oddly enough the FS7 is not alot smaller than the F5/F55 bodies and some people prefer the VF system from the F5/F55 over the FS7 of course you can add anything you want to any camera.

Again check out my comparison of Sony models on the previous page and there was a thread here on DVX as well http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?341008-paper-differences-summarized-between-F55-F5-FS7-FS5

cheers,
 
Im not up on the BMC 4.6 specs but if it does 4k 50p then surely that is the camera for you.

Apparently very nice images (not suprising given the data rates)

Cheap (er than the FS7?) and working at a slow pace the lack of ND and inability to speedboost (?) and the like will not become a major issue.

The codec is pretty heavy (scary to some clients and annoying to DIT on location) but in retirement you have time to transcode to something lighter if required.

---

The F5 is quite heavy and the Time Code in and lens mount only really pay dividends on PL or multicamera shooting. The F5 is not the camera for you.

S
 
Last edited:
There are so many advantages to a CineAlta camera that only a small incremental cost it should not be quickly dismissed.

One reason alone is the continued development and future firmware updates while the non-CineAlta's will fall by the way side or not be powerful enough to handle anything new.

The body size is near identical within 2" inches of one another so I don't get any argument about ergo. Even the weights are 10% off from each other.

4 SDI outs, probably a better CFA, and even the ND filters are rumored to be better quality. The path to 16-bit RAW, RAW without a tether, RAW that works, path to full 4k 120fps via new R7 recorder that is not cropped... this comparison needs it's own thread alone.
 
Last edited:
Your points are fair, but I feel someone considering a DVX200 will probably not have the budget to be going for a fully built (raw) F5.. which also adds additional mass.

S
 
Well that's true.

At least the RAW can be rented instead of bought.

I actually miss my HPX170 which I sold before upgrading to the F3. At least Panasonic was doing the right things with cards instead of silly mini DV tapes.
 
moldcad said:
... And all the other things people suggest here (Z150, XC10, BM) are out of question because of their ergonomics and lack of 50p QFHD/4K codec. I hope nobody gets offended by me dismissing their suggestions like that :)

Piotr
Click to expand...
Had I still been duking it out in the ring under my old "Andrzej Gołota" moniker, I'd consider this a low blow.

starcentral said:
the FS7 is a good choice, but for the price of a new one you might be able to snag a used F5 for only a bit more...
Click to expand...
IMO, a used camera market requires a certain number of buyers and sellers, which may not be the case in parts of the world.
 
50p or no, I'm just saying that the DVX200 vs the FS7 is not a fair fight, they're not in the same league or for the same purpose. If you decide to go for the DVX and you're expecting images to rival the FS7, you won't get it! Trust me, I bought this camera while at the same time editing a short shot on the FS7. Not gonna happen.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I set the lens to full wide in 1080p then changed the camera to 4k and you pretty much lose 1/3 of the frame due to the sensor crop.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you're exaggerating in your "1/3 frame" assessment, or the official Panasonic specs are too optimistic - quote:

35mm film equivalent. Varies depending on the video
recording format. FHD: 28mm, 4K/24p: 29.5mm, UHD/30p:
30.6mm, UHD/60p: 37.2mm


This is still quite wide when compared to the FS7K kit lens (SELP28135), which in 35mm terms starts at 42mm...
 
Jonny Gross said:
50p or no, I'm just saying that the DVX200 vs the FS7 is not a fair fight, they're not in the same league or for the same purpose. If you decide to go for the DVX and you're expecting images to rival the FS7, you won't get it! Trust me, I bought this camera while at the same time editing a short shot on the FS7. Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Believe me - I'm not expecting the PQ of DVX-200 to rival the FS7K; just trying to learn from you guys on this forum whether the DVX-200 image quality is still good enough for my retirement hobby purposes, and if the difference is worth the 100% price increase...
 
Considering DVX200 ergonomics and in the light of what I wrote about inability to hand-hold a camera with this form factor in bare hands in front of me for prolonged time - please take a look at what I've been using with my EX1, and tell me whether DVX200 would fit such a shoulder mount, too. I reckon it would - my only doubt is about monitoring: DVX LCD monitor is high-gloss, so unusable in full daylight; also I'm becoming more and more far-sighted so I need a loupe with diopter adjustment, as the naked LCD would just be too close to my eyes. With the EX1, I've used the Hoodman loupe - does a similar device for the larger DVX200 LCD exist? Even if it does - is it possible to give up the touch-screen functionality and use menu, or preferably user buttons programmed for the most important functions?

Of course - without the matte-box, the rig would be much less front-heavy; also on the right grip handle I would attach some Varizoom controller. What do you think?

Piotr
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0455.jpg
    IMG_0455.jpg
    94 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Why is the BMC4.6 not on you map? This price seems much closer to the DVX (although you will need to buy some ND)
Click to expand...

Simply because I don't believe a non-camera company to stand by their product the way Sony or Panasonic do...

Oh, and regarding the lack of ND - no thanks. I went trough that with my FS100 (now sold) - the BMC looks very nice and tidy on the shoulder as is, but start adding filters and it will demand a mattebox, rails etc. Yeah I know variND filters exist (I used Heliopan), but even this is not an ideal solution if I want a camera as simple as it gets...
 
Last edited:
Personally (ive shot a feature on BMC4k the old one - it worked really well) I think BMC are solid cameras, as long as one understands the limitations in ISO or whatever.

FYI we shot said film without a matte box, just step rings on the glass to 77mm and two ND filters .3 and .6 and a frech flag which could be needed on any camera.

Unlike the FS100 (which I owned) the lower base ISO of the BMC cameras makes ND less of an issue. The deep ND required to control the FS100 was a nightmare inducing colours shifts and multiple workarouds that had me pulling my hair out :)

I just think the image quality at reasonable ISO (if you care) is probably in a different class from the DVX.

The choice is of course yours. You may consider going to a dealer and doing a side by side of the cameras and taking some files home to play with.

S
 
Dear Morgan,
If anything, I like the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K EF very much; 4.6K - as well as PL version - is more expensive. But even with that, you need to add the price of the EVF, shouldermount rig, and of course the lenses. Now each of them would need different ND filter size... Also, the media is not cheap, either. I'm afraid it would all be closer to the FS7, than DVX200, price... Also, 12G SDI but no HDMI 2.0 scares me a bit (even though it's much more "pro").

Added what I said about my preference to stay in the mainstream, I'm afraid I'd prefer the FS7...But then, maybe I'm wrong?
 
I own an FS7 and would not swap it for the BM4.6k for my work, The FS7 delivers ND, convenient lens mount, data rates that do not scare clients.

Should I retire I would swap in an instant because I guess my pace would drop and my data management become more lesurly.

I think the 4.6k has a better picture than the FS7 certainly up to 800ISO but of course that is going on scant information. With an 880MBS (at 25p!) codec one would hope for a better picture than a 2-300 mbs codec

As for ND my glass is 77mm or less. A step up ring from 52 to 77 cost $5. So no need to have many filter sizes.

If you are not having a matte box and dont need rods then the cost of the rig goes away. Get a $30 flag on an arm to beat massive flare.

Im not too up on the DVX 200 but AKFAIK it is 8bit4.2.0 at a low data rate.. I doubt it hits (to my personal standard) the medal of 'making pretty pictures'
The FS7 is 10bit and 200 odd MBS.. this seems to be just about hitting the level of 'making pretty pictures'
Im pretty sure that in good light the BMC4.6 'makes pretty pictures'

Personally I feel any 4.2.0 camera is a DLSR with a microphone input.

And that is a problem of staying 'mainstream'.. the makers have a cultural hat that means their budget options (aka not the varicamLT in pannies case) are all aimed at wedding guys who need to record hours on $500 or less of media which leads to horror compression that does not deliver pretty pictures.

Panny even admit it.. http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/dvx4k/pdf/ag-dvx200_tech_brief_vol4_en.pdf


S
 
Last edited:
EF mount has a deep flange depth and will not take a speed booster in any shape or form with any lens from any maker.

I think EF is a ludicrous mount and cannot see why the varicam or the BM cameras use it.

But surely a retired guy has time to swap out a couple of primes?

If you need to tool up with an affordable runabout zoom then E-mount or MFT mount works well.

---

BTW I think the DVX200 is a tragedy (I see they have just put out a new firmware designed to make prettier pictures.. showing they know the weakness)

An MFT camera with built in zoom and a chunky codec would be my dream camera panny could do it so easily.

S
 
moldcad said:
Dear Morgan,
If anything, I like the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K EF very much; 4.6K - as well as PL version - is more expensive. But even with that, you need to add the price of the EVF, shouldermount rig, and of course the lenses. Now each of them would need different ND filter size... Also, the media is not cheap, either. I'm afraid it would all be closer to the FS7, than DVX200, price... Also, 12G SDI but no HDMI 2.0 scares me a bit (even though it's much more "pro").

Added what I said about my preference to stay in the mainstream, I'm afraid I'd prefer the FS7...But then, maybe I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

I agree with Morgan 100%.

And this discussion is taking place as we speak. After page 7 is where the thread actually turns serious.

FS7 vs 4.6k is discussed in a bit more detail which may interest you :

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-URSA-Mini-is-better-than-the-Sony-FS7/page11
 
moldcad said:
Considering DVX200 ergonomics and in the light of what I wrote about inability to hand-hold a camera with this form factor in bare hands in front of me for prolonged time - please take a look at what I've been using with my EX1, and tell me whether DVX200 would fit such a shoulder mount, too. I reckon it would - my only doubt is about monitoring: DVX LCD monitor is high-gloss, so unusable in full daylight; also I'm becoming more and more far-sighted so I need a loupe with diopter adjustment, as the naked LCD would just be too close to my eyes. With the EX1, I've used the Hoodman loupe - does a similar device for the larger DVX200 LCD exist? Even if it does - is it possible to give up the touch-screen functionality and use menu, or preferably user buttons programmed for the most important functions?

Of course - without the matte-box, the rig would be much less front-heavy; also on the right grip handle I would attach some Varizoom controller. What do you think?

Piotr
Click to expand...

Anyone will answer my question, please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top