Camera rumors for 2016?

hgf4 said:
I get the impression the BMPCC has been their most popular camera by far.
Click to expand...

I think it was...it appealed to a lot of different people for many reasons, including the price.

You would think their cheapest, entry level camera would have lots of problems, but ironically it received the most updates and fixes (including the black sun spot, which never came to the BMCC or BMPC).

The micro cinema is considered V2 for some although it was built for a different purpose.

Many hope a true 2.5K or 4K BMPCC Version 2 is released...I would love one...with a better screen!

The greatest thing about the company is they will not disappoint with specs. They are very exciting and we need someone like that.
 
mico said:
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 alone 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
Click to expand...

Whatever. Just clarifying for you. Yes, compared to Alexa it is normal power draw, but I guess I was not thinking of comparing it to Alexa. I was looking at it from a different usage point of view which your rightly pointed out. It is relative and I was wrong. BM has marketing images suggesting the camera is sort of hand holdable. I did not want to go back to using bricks to power a camera so it did not fit for me.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've been looking for words to describe what I think of the 4.6K, that's a good way to put it. It's too expensive for many no budget filmmakers, but once you get in this price range you're entering RED territory. A more established cinema camera company. Me personally I'd jump to a RED because I trust the image more. A lot of big budget filmmakers using it. Or you're looking for something more flexible to do client work as well (C100/300 FS5/7). Something with built in ND filters and an H.264 codec so you don't spend terabytes of data for a day of client shoots. But also can be used for indie film if need be.
That leaves the 4.6K in a weird position in my opinion. It either needed to be more flexible or less expensive.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Whatever. Just clarifying for you. Yes, compared to Alexa it is normal power draw, but I guess I was not thinking of comparing it to Alexa. I was looking at it from a different usage point of view which your rightly pointed out. It is relative and I was wrong. BM has marketing images suggesting the camera is sort of hand holdable. I did not want to go back to using bricks to power a camera so it did not fit for me.
Click to expand...

All is good Bassman. I am no fanboy of any camera but it just seems aside from the delivery and magenta issues Blackmagic is getting a lot of unnecessary or misinformed shade thrown their way when I think their giving us what this forum was clamoring for years ago and trying to rectify the problems as quickly as they can.. And I also would love it if it used all theses L series batteries that I have sitting around. Its just not possible yet if we want a high DR camera that shoots raw.

Regarding batteries and just for comparison a sony L series F-970 weighs 350grams and a 73wh IDX v lock battery weighs only 590 grams. So if you want to hand hold I don't think that an extra 240 grams (1/2 lb.) makes it unworkable.
 
Last edited:
Cool. I am a fan of BM and wanted to make the Ursa fit but I think Roxics nailed it. It is a little too tied to crew based production for widespread adoption at its price point. I guess I would be hoping for BM's C300 killer instead of the Red competition.
 
roxics said:
I've been looking for words to describe what I think of the 4.6K, that's a good way to put it. It's too expensive for many no budget filmmakers, but once you get in this price range you're entering RED territory. A more established cinema camera company. Me personally I'd jump to a RED because I trust the image more. A lot of big budget filmmakers using it. Or you're looking for something more flexible to do client work as well (C100/300 FS5/7). Something with built in ND filters and an H.264 codec so you don't spend terabytes of data for a day of client shoots. But also can be used for indie film if need be.
That leaves the 4.6K in a weird position in my opinion. It either needed to be more flexible or less expensive.
Click to expand...
I am not going to judge the final statement as right or wrong, only to point out the absurdity to which we have now arrived in the latter half of 2016. A 4.6K camera with a S-35 sensor that can record in either RAW or ProRes and is priced between $5K-$10K depending on variations and kitting -- and the resulting evaluation is that it needed to either be more flexible or less expensive.

Wow.

Now you know why the company I work for is so happy to have NOT gone into making cameras. What a cutthroat business.

:-)
 
Mitch Gross said:
I am not going to judge the final statement as right or wrong, only to point out the absurdity to which we have now arrived in the latter half of 2016. A 4.6K camera with a S-35 sensor that can record in either RAW or ProRes and is priced between $5K-$10K depending on variations and kitting -- and the resulting evaluation is that it needed to either be more flexible or less expensive.

Wow.

Now you know why the company I work for is so happy to have NOT gone into making cameras. What a cutthroat business.

:-)
Click to expand...

Oh how I so much agree.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I am not going to judge the final statement as right or wrong, only to point out the absurdity to which we have now arrived in the latter half of 2016. A 4.6K camera with a S-35 sensor that can record in either RAW or ProRes and is priced between $5K-$10K depending on variations and kitting -- and the resulting evaluation is that it needed to either be more flexible or less expensive.

Wow.

Now you know why the company I work for is so happy to have NOT gone into making cameras. What a cutthroat business.

:-)
Click to expand...

Here is the thing Mitch, I don't disagree with you either. It does sound crazy to say. But it's the state of things right now. 10 years ago, heck 5 years ago this thing would be a nuclear bomb on the industry. Today it has to compete with the RED Scarlet/Raven for film production or the FS5/7 C100/300 for video production (and some indie film). So it sits in this weird spot where it has the raw shooting ability we all desire for higher end work (including any kind of indie film work) but it's not RED level yet. So if you're shooting and indie film and you have the budget for this level of camera you can probably swing a little more for a RED and feel a little easier about it. RED also makes cameras for Ridley Scott and David Fincher and Peter Jackson. So you're like "ok, I want that too."
On the flip side if you're some guy like me who can only afford a $5k-$8K camera because he's doing client work with it, I'm looking at how much data it's going to cost me to shoot ProRes for every shoot day. I'm looking at weight, ergonomics, battery life, media price, built in ND filters. I can get away with H.264 off a good sensor/processor for that kind of work and if I happen to also decide to shoot an indie film with some friends, I can get way with it then too. Won't be as nice as Raw/ProRes but it's worked for others, it can work for me if I'm careful.
 
NorBro said:
If they took the fixed lens off the XC10/15, I would buy it immediately.
Click to expand...
But what lens (or lens mount) options would Canon have for such a camera with its 1-inch type sensor? C-mount is basically out of the question because it would do away with any electronic control (focus, iris, IS), and MFT is also out of the question unless they decided on a major change of direction to join the MFT consortium(?). And even MFT is a bit too big for the 1-inch. I'm afraid that the 1-inch territory is going to stay firmly in fixed lens land. They could just provide a much better fixed lens, like Sony offers for their 1-inch cameras. Or even the Panasonic lenses for theirs.
 
I have some hope for improvement in that the camera is not called the XC10 MKii. Perhaps it is an upscale version, not just an attempt to escape the XC10 stigma.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking MFT...but Canon would never do it.

A better fixed lens is most logical, but the speed would have to be fast and constant (at least f/2.8...preferably f/1.8), and that probably would never happen either.
 
Something more narrative shot on an XC10.


I like that he steals someone's cane in the process of trying to retrieve a stolen purse. lol
 
constant 1.8 zoom. wow..tall order...
How about generally faster lens..fully articulating screen?
 
Last edited:
lol, it's 2016...I can't be bothered with f/2.8-4...can't even imagine anything above that :happy:
 
Shenan said:
But what lens (or lens mount) options would Canon have for such a camera with its 1-inch type sensor? C-mount is basically out of the question because it would do away with any electronic control (focus, iris, IS), and MFT is also out of the question unless they decided on a major change of direction to join the MFT consortium(?). And even MFT is a bit too big for the 1-inch.
Click to expand...

The Blackmagic Pocket uses a Micro Four Thirds mount with a sensor that's slightly smaller than 1 inch, and the Digital Bolex offered the mount on its sensor, which is a touch smaller. JVC uses a Micro Four Thirds mount with an S35 sensor. The mount might even work with 135. There is an old mount for 135 that had about the same throat size. The point is, there is no technical reason that the mount could not be used with a wide variety of sensor sizes. I'm not saying what any camera company will do, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top