Camera rumors for 2016?

The 4.6K looks great to me. But so does the FS7, and the C300II. Arriving a year late is what killed all the buzz about the 4.6K, if you ask me.
 
The problem with 4.6 - and its ISO 400 max is what several of the latest reviews assert - is that it's a low end camera for a full blown production, where many folks would be able to afford a more dependable, slightly more expensive camera even with some image quality trade-offs. To me, an ideal independent lo/no budget cinema camera would be based on A7S/II but with the auto focus of A7RII/A6300 and the ND filters of FS5. Being able to work with fewer, smaller, lighter equipment is what the independent film making is all about. Oddly enough, Varicam's Dual ISO mode lets pros do this quite well.

PS. Bern, that six-wheeler better have two engines.
 
DLD, look at my last comment. The 4.6K can possibly be used up to 1600.

NorthernFilmMaker said:
I dont think the 4.6k is a failure at all, I actually think the 4.6k is an amazing camera and soon we will start to see it get some good traction now that the new firmware is out...and also now that they've sorted the magenta issues out. I predict that this camera will draw a huge following.
Click to expand...

BM will always have a huge following because the cameras are cheap and good enough for the people interested in them for 99% of their work (including myself).

The new OS is cool, but the camera is hurt. That magenta issue is/was not good. Might be the worst camera issue I've ever seen (besides the horizontal line pattern with the 4K mini that was resolved with firmware earlier this year although it does make an appearance here and there depending on the camera's temperature.)

If you have the camera, I'm sure you know of its other various issues as well. No camera is perfect though.
 
I'm trying to remember when BMD released its first camera. It just seems like they've had a green upstart syndrome for too long. Is there a corporate culture there that doesn't learn?
 
The BMCC was the first in 2012 with most people getting their hands on it in 2013.

But they have been in business way longer than before that.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
If the colors coming out of Blackmagic cameras was perfect then there would be less need to spend a boatload of money on their color control modules.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/738203-REG/Blackmagic_Design_DV_RESOLVE_DaVinci_Resolve.html
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense at all. You do realize that resolve is used by people with footage from almost every camera made right. And why again all the Bm bashing. It has had a terrible delivery yes but what you get for the price is unequaled. FS7? C300? Cost more and deliver in subpar codecs. Want raw for c300 and Fs7? costs even more. Come on. People are analyzing the power draw as if its some kind of fact the the camera sucks. Please.
 
mico said:
That doesn't make any sense at all. You do realize that resolve is used by people with footage from almost every camera made right. And why again all the Bm bashing. It has had a terrible delivery yes but what you get for the price is unequaled. FS7? C300? Cost more and deliver in subpar codecs. Want raw for c300 and Fs7? costs even more. Come on. People are analyzing the power draw as if its some kind of fact the the camera sucks. Please.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was sort of a joke. If taken literally it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So, spelling things out here. People will be more likely to use Resolve if their cameras need more grading. I shoot with Canon cameras and often find to get a rec 709 final product, my footage needs very little grading. Hence, I still use simpler tools like Magic Bullet Colorista for grading, instead of more intense and better tools like DaVinci Resolve. If I shot Sony, Blackmagic, or Red, I'd probably be more likely to have more reason to switch to Resolve.
 
"It has had a terrible delivery yes but what you get for the price is unequaled"
I think the concern has been what you get has been variable.
 
Though I will say that when you get a good unit and have time to shoot in RAW, the cameras are unmatched. Every model has its own look and I don't love all of them, but the flexibility is enormous.
 
Gweilo66 said:
I guess it gets back to their corporate culture. Ship 'em out, deal with problems later.
Click to expand...

Here: Corporations are used throughout the world to operate all kinds of businesses. While its exact legal status varies somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the most important aspect of a corporation is limited liability. This means that shareholders have the right to participate in the profits, through dividends and/or the appreciation of stock, but are not held personally liable for the company's debts.

Black magic is a private company that was founded by Grant Petty. Say what you want but in my world they gave me an affordable resolve and cameras that I was hoping for years ago, and they gave it to me at an amazingly affordable price. They've had they're problems but at every turn they have tried to rectify it so to paint them with the corporate brush, which i am no fan of and which Blackmagic is not, is a mistake.
 
I get the impression the BMPCC has been their most popular camera by far. They should have devoted their resources into improving and coming out with a solid mkii version of it, instead of creating all these other cameras that people don't seem nearly as excited about (with the possible exception of the 4.6). I wonder if their thinking with the BMPCC was, "We'll introduce this cheap camera and get people excited about BM and hope that they step up to more expensive models."
 
mico said:
People are analyzing the power draw as if its some kind of fact the the camera sucks. Please.
Click to expand...

That people would be me. 45-50 watts to run the camera is pretty high in today's world imho. Does it equate to "the camera sucks"? I don't think I said that... A little defensive for some reason?
 
Bassman2003 said:
That people would be me. 45-50 watts to run the camera is pretty high in today's world imho. Does it equate to "the camera sucks"? I don't think I said that... A little defensive for some reason?
Click to expand...

When you post a response asking about being defensive you do know that you look defensive right?. Offering up power consumption like you did as if its some kind of negative to the ursa mini makes you look ridiculous. Cameras with high DR that shoot raw or high end post codec: Alexa plus: 85watts. Alexa mini: 50watts (increases to 70 watts with certain parameters), Red Raven: 50watts, Red Scarlet:50 watts

Cameras with lower DR and record in a delivery format: Canon c300:21watts, Sony FS7: 19watts
 
Last edited:
Ok mico..hapy you're happy with yours.
But your experience still is in line with what I said.
You feel that in the end it's worth it.
I'm glad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top