puredrifting
Major Contributor
Not verified this but is it true that the batteries on the Pocket 4K are projected to real world last about 15 minutes? I read this in two different posts, is there any truth to that? Because that would drive me crazy.
Canon's Pocket Cinema Camera ?
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
Not verified this but is it true that the batteries on the Pocket 4K are projected to real world last about 15 minutes? I read this in two different posts, is there any truth to that? Because that would drive me crazy.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
^ Nobody outside BM really knows how much they will last. But the original pocket ate batteries like crazy, and this one has bigger batteries but also a bigger screen so people think it will be just as bad.
IIRC, the original pocket was rated at 40 minutes, and I could get 20 minutes of footage plus 40 minutes of standby (and it did *feel* like I was changing the batteries every 15 minutes). The pocket 4k is rated at 60 minutes, so I expect 30 minutes of footage plus 60 minutes of playback. Which is about the same as my RX100IV, which which I'm still very happy. I don't shoot documentaries, though.
We'll know, soon enough.
IIRC, the original pocket was rated at 40 minutes, and I could get 20 minutes of footage plus 40 minutes of standby (and it did *feel* like I was changing the batteries every 15 minutes). The pocket 4k is rated at 60 minutes, so I expect 30 minutes of footage plus 60 minutes of playback. Which is about the same as my RX100IV, which which I'm still very happy. I don't shoot documentaries, though.
We'll know, soon enough.
No one knows exact batt time yet. And theres 3 options the camera has to help keep your sanity. Charging the batt with portable power pack through usb-c while shooting or lp-e6 in camera or lemo connector to as big a battery as you need. All bases covered and incredibly cheap compared to other cameras.
BM has put the effort in here and have really given the user a variety of cheap or expensive options in recording types and powering that they should be applauded.
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
They made more than one of them. Thought ever cross your mind that I have more than one?
Bern Caughey
Veteran
A non-articulating LCD is of little use to me, so hoping it be can shut off to preserve battery life, & have it’s overlays displayed on an external monitor. With it’s backlight turned off my 502 Bright sips batteries compared to BlackMagic’s 5” Video Assist, even when the BMVA isn’t recording ProRes.
cpreston
Veteran
There is a bizarre amount of disdain for the XC cameras. First off, the XC15 was a significant upgrade over the XC10 if the intention was to use it as a b or c cam when shooting with a C300 II. The production cam profile allowed it to intercut seamlessly with the C300 II under the same settings, the audio input became useable, and the addition of a WFM monitor made it easier to judge exposure. I primarily use mine on a one handed gimbal and it is near perfect for that use although I wish the lens had a constant f/2.8 aperture as the f/5.6 at the long end can cause problems when using it indoors.
don't get me wrong- I love the form factor. Looks very cool and very functional at the same time which is rare. I'm sure however that the image has typical pitfalls: sensitivity, bit depth, limited band width recording, lens focusing, lens speed, limited frame rates, etc... Don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that Canon will not want it to cannibalize the c series camera sales- their bread and butter. I think we are rather in a what if mode here....
dustylense
Veteran
^^^obviously never shot with the camera^^^^. Is it the greatest camera ever made? Tell us which is. Are there "typical pitfalls"? What camera doesn't have them?
I'm not sure I understand. Maybe the punctuation marks are wrong...If the specs call a slow lens, low s/n ratio, low sensitivity, low band width, etc the outcome is pretty clear. There are no miracles here, it is a technical device and the specs define how clear, true the image will be. If you under expose it it will look noisy. If you over expose it the highlights will blow out. If you shoot a scene with a lot of movement the picture will look blurry and you will see blocky artifacts caused by highly compressed frames. No number of adjectives like "organic", "visceral", "analog" is going to change that. These terms are defined by numbers in specs. Of course I'm talking about electronic imaging exclusively...
TubEfingers
Well-known member
Theres always so much more to a camera's image than the paper specs though.....
dustylense
Veteran
SMH...So you admit you've never shot with the camera. But judge it by "numbers in the specs"? Alrighty then....
Well I've been on the tech side of motion picture for over 30 years. I'm rarely wrong these days haha....
I also understand you are trying to sell your camera and making sure it is presented in the best possible manner. I don't have a horse in this race so no pressure really...:beer:
I also understand you are trying to sell your camera and making sure it is presented in the best possible manner. I don't have a horse in this race so no pressure really...:beer:
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
Motion picture! WOWWWWWWWWW! Ya know, there is this WHOLE world out there called video production. Not everything revolves around motion pictures. People make money making videos for big and small companies. They film documentary, concerts, weddings, testimonials, nature, architecture, sports, stock, b-roll. The list is endless. But, some dude from the MOTION PICTURE buis says so, it must be! LOL. SMH again.
By motion picture I meant "moving images" . The aesthetics are very similar, especially these days when everyone wants their corporate interview to look like a Hollywood blockbuster haha. And they are not wrong IMO...
cpreston
Veteran
Sometimes you just need to capture something that is happening at the moment it is happening. The XC15 is pretty good at that. You can even hand it to somebody who has only ever shot video on their phone and have them get some useable b-roll for you. It also costs less than most of my lenses and lights, so it is pretty easy to justify having it available to use.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Opiteck - most posters here get what the xc cameras are for and why they are good..
Nice handle
Oddly fat codec
Some sort of zoom
Some sort of Nd
You can be finished your shoot with them before mr a7 or Mrs bmc pocket or mr
Gh4 has finished building his cage and finding his Nd.
Yep most of us own "cinema" cameras too but understand why the xc is nice.
Thank you that's right. I'm also NOT saying they are bad, they are probably closest to the optimal ergonomics IMO. I wish the C series cameras were this form factor- that's all....
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Maybe not in those words, but that's how your opinion comes across. You use more relative terms like "slow" and "low", but compared to what?
I actually quite like absolute positioning where stuff gets compared to a theoretic ideal—regardless of price, but most discussions around cheaper products tend to have most of their footing in reality comparing performance to price.
The thing that stands out to me about your posts here and in the BMDPCC 4K thread on Reduser: you don't seem interested in either camera, and you haven't tried them... yet you seem adamant about curbing any enthusiasm or wishful thinking around these products by people who are comfortable with their potential shortcomings.
What's up with that?
The frustrated engineer in me I guess... If we combined the form factor of the XC10/15 with some additions like a removable handle, removable VF and a focus wheel AF override, combine that with the BMPCC4K sensor with the RAW and low light option, the MFT mount, that would make a really good camera that may take the industry to the next level...
How is that for wishful thinking? ;-)