F35 vs BM 4K vs GH4: resolution is not everything

[Kholi]

Sorry guys, but Roman has most of the stuff that you're assuming he doesn't, including filters, the baseplate, etc.

Same here, I own plenty of power, SSDs, and can easily swipe a hyper deck, etc. Tripod and glass are the bigger factors, and half the time I (and Roman) don't even bother with tripods to begin with. REnt one if you need it that bad, like most people do.

You guys are assuming way too much.

Mac DID point out a good reason to not go with a Nikon mount, and that's the durability factor. If it's not very sturdy then that's an issue.

 

[Viddovation]

Then why not get PL glass?

 

[Kholi]

Then why not get PL glass?

Is that a serious question?

Can you name a set of PL lenses that cost less than 10K?

It's not like the camera's going for some insane amount of money right now. ALan Gordons' last camera's 8K on ebay and I'm PRETTY sure you can get them to sell it to you for 7K.

If the Nikon mount's not stable or safe, that's a good reason. If it's completely usable and the only issue's some people don't think you should use anything but PL glass, that's like saying you should only shoot a film ON film.

 

[L1N3ARX]

I agree with SJX. The F35 is a high end digital camera. If you can only barely afford it and all you can put on it is nikon glass (not that nikon glass is bad at all), I don't recommend jumping on that train. Bateries, tripods and support, baseplates, filters... this is not DSLR price level. We're talking high end level here. Get some cheap PL mount lenses at least.

At least for now, I've got the basics covered. Good tripod head and support gear / batteries / filters for an F35. In that regard... I'm good to go. Glass wise I'm fine with using Nikon stuff for now. Not using PL glass won't hurt me one bit... and is certainly not a reason to not invest in the F35. Later down the road, getting a few PL lenses is totally something I'll likely do. I'd never consider getting this camera without having the basics already.

 

[SJX]

At least for now, I've got the basics covered. Good tripod head and support gear / batteries / filters for an F35. In that regard... I'm good to go. Glass wise I'm fine with using Nikon stuff for now. Not using PL glass won't hurt me one bit... and is certainly not a reason to not invest in the F35. Later down the road, getting a few PL lenses is totally something I'll likely do. I'd never consider getting this camera without having the basics already.

Problem is the Nikon conversion is not reversible. You have to destroy the front plate. Then to go back to PL you have to buy a new front plate for the camera from Sony. It's basically a Frankenstein conversion if you look at it.

 

[SJX]

Is that a serious question?

Can you name a set of PL lenses that cost less than 10K?

I think what he meant was if somebody really has it all covered, why cheap out and go still glass?

I don't think anybody is assuming anything. Just saying the F35 is a different ball game from Blackmagic camera or DSLR.

Difference between PL and still glass is not mainly durability. If it was, Cooke and Zeiss would not sell any lens set for $60-100K.

 

[Viddovation]

Is that a serious question?

Can you name a set of PL lenses that cost less than 10K?

It's not like the camera's going for some insane amount of money right now. ALan Gordons' last camera's 8K on ebay and I'm PRETTY sure you can get them to sell it to you for 7K.

If the Nikon mount's not stable or safe, that's a good reason. If it's completely usable and the only issue's some people don't think you should use anything but PL glass, that's like saying you should only shoot a film ON film.

Yes, it's a serious question. You just said that "we assumed too much" and that he has the majority of the support equipment - therefore that won't be an expense.

And indeed - the camera is available for $8k or less, which is very affordable. So it's not like he'll be spending an "insane" amount on the camera body.

Given that he already has the support gear, and is asking about Nikon glass, that leads me to think he either owns Nikon glass, or has a budget in mind to buy some with. I'd estimate that amount at between $5k to $10k. Given that there are good sets of PL available for $20k, you're looking at $10k to $15k extra to go PL - assuming you buy a complete set. Which is again, an assumption. You can buy individual PL lenses off eBay, dvxUser, Reduser, and brokers for $2k and up, depending on the lens. A 3 lens PL set might cost as little as $6k to start, and could always be resold later, with minimal depreciation. The Sony PL lens for the Sony F3 are certainly one option in that price range, and despite feeling plastic, everyone seems to agree they *look* good.

So, yes, it is a serious question to ask "why not spend a little more, to get a lot more in the long run?"

Also:
Red Pro Prime set - $12,900 - http://visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=1736&Cat=8&Cat2=18&Cat3=26
Scneider refits - $11,500 - http://visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=1681&Cat=8&Cat2=18&Cat3=26
GL Optics refits - $10,000 - http://fjsinternational.com/lenses.html (long way down)

 

[Kholi]

Yes, it's a serious question. You just said that "we assumed too much" and that he has the majority of the support equipment - therefore that won't be an expense.

And indeed - the camera is available for $8k or less, which is very affordable. So it's not like he'll be spending an "insane" amount on the camera body.

Given that he already has the support gear, and is asking about Nikon glass, that leads me to think he either owns Nikon glass, or has a budget in mind to buy some with. I'd estimate that amount at between $5k to $10k. Given that there are good sets of PL available for $20k, you're looking at $10k to $15k extra to go PL - assuming you buy a complete set. Which is again, an assumption. You can buy individual PL lenses off eBay, dvxUser, Reduser, and brokers for $2k and up, depending on the lens. A 3 lens PL set might cost as little as $6k to start, and could always be resold later, with minimal depreciation. The Sony PL lens for the Sony F3 are certainly one option in that price range, and despite feeling plastic, everyone seems to agree they *look* good.

So, yes, it is a serious question to ask "why not spend a little more, to get a lot more in the long run?"

Also:
Red Pro Prime set - $12,900 - http://visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=1736&Cat=8&Cat2=18&Cat3=26
Scneider refits - $11,500 - http://visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=1681&Cat=8&Cat2=18&Cat3=26
GL Optics refits - $10,000 - http://fjsinternational.com/lenses.html (long way down)

It's a wonderful thing to consider a 1,000 dollar mod versus 10K+ on glass "a little more".

That's why I didn't think your question was serious at all.

Also, 5K to 10K for still glass? Maybe if you're buying Zeiss.2's in a full blown set.

I think what he meant was if somebody really has it all covered, why cheap out and go still glass?

I don't think anybody is assuming anything. Just saying the F35 is a different ball game from Blackmagic camera or DSLR.

Difference between PL and still glass is not mainly durability. If it was, Cooke and Zeiss would not sell any lens set for $60-100K.

I know the differences between this camera and a blackmagic camera, I'm surely not the one asking how people deal with sound on an F35.

I am suggesting that your suggestion is strange, for sure. And further conflating ownership of simple accessories like batteries, matteboxes, filters etc. and owning a GOOD set of PL primes is...well that's strange too.

 

[Mattoid]

So is the order of the screen grabs in the order of the title? F35 (obviously), BM4k, GH4 from top to bottom? Or is it supposed to be a secret. Clearly the middle one has poor dynamic range and the bottom one has ok dynamic range but bad colour. It would just be good to know exactly what type of bad the BM4k and GH4 are.

 

[Jusgorilla]

My front plate Pl was converted by a skilled lens technician and he went to great lengths to keep the abilty to go back to PL if I ever wanted to. The process was by no means a butcher. My Nikon mount conversion can be restored to PL in a few hours.

i agree the f35 is more suited to a 19mm world, but I have a 15mm setup and it works great. I shoot solo run n gun without any assists, as well as assisted full setups.

the whole idea that us indie guys can now grab a super brain that was once only affordable to the rental companies and wealthy, and with limited resources shoot glorious images is the whole point.
the beauty is that if u wanna go 19mm big boy and afford Pl lenses then you good, but if u wanna go lean and 15mm and have still glass and 15mm support u good too.

The comparison of car mods is not a fair comparison. The brain and body is still the same and not pretending to be something it's not.
Going the stills lens mount route only changes the glass, not the brain. It's still resolving true detail, rich Colors, global shutter and film like.

 

[Kholi]

So is the order of the screen grabs in the order of the title? F35 (obviously), BM4k, GH4 from top to bottom? Or is it supposed to be a secret. Clearly the middle one has poor dynamic range and the bottom one has ok dynamic range but bad colour. It would just be good to know exactly what type of bad the BM4k and GH4 are.

Middle = 4K Blackmagic
Last = GH4

Neither one of them, in their current state, get anywhere near F35 IQ. When they're on their own, they seem okay, you compare them to an F35 and it's really not a contest.

 

[L1N3ARX]

Don't underestimate nikon glass! If you've never used the 24-70, you'd know you can get a fantastic cinematic look from Nikon. Oliver Wood used some re-housed Nikon lenses on the Bourne films. Anyways, Nikon glass is definitely not a bottleneck. PL glass is certainly superior for many reasons, but the flexibility good quality stills glass will give you is not to be understated. There's a list of reasons why I want to move to the F35. Being worried about the difference between great and even greater glass isn't much of an issue for me)

 

[SJX]

I know the differences between this camera and a blackmagic camera, I'm surely not the one asking how people deal with sound on an F35.

Really now? I asked if the F35 had audio monitors etc. Didn't ask how to deal with sound. Been around the industry long enough to know. Asked how people have been doing to gauge the options. Totally different. Did we rough your feathers because of the blackmagic comments or what? You coming strong at an issue which is a non issue.

I am suggesting that your suggestion is strange, for sure. And further conflating ownership of simple accessories like batteries, matteboxes, filters etc. and owning a GOOD set of PL primes is...well that's strange too.

My suggestion that buying a high end digital cinema camera with a PL mount to butcher it and put a half arsed nikon mount on is strange? I would say doing that is what is strange.

Simple accessories for a DSLR or even the blackmagic are not the same as a F35. Do you need 19mm rods and baseplate fo every camera out there? How about v-mount, a beefy tripod head and jib head? What about your steadicam, will it handle a F35? This is what was being said. Don't know what got you worked up.

 

[Mattoid]

Thanks for the confirmation. I'm wondering if a different white balance setting on the GH4 might have given it a better chance in terms of colour. Another question I have for macgregor: The second post says the pana is set to cinestyle. Do you mean Cinelike D or is it an actual custom cinestlye profile like on canons?

 

[Viddovation]

It's a wonderful thing to consider a 1,000 dollar mod versus 10K+ on glass "a little more".

That's why I didn't think your question was serious at all.

Also, 5K to 10K for still glass? Maybe if you're buying Zeiss.2's in a full blown set.

Well, the question was actually a *question* - not meant to be facetious - I was hoping he might explain what market he worked in, and why it didn't make sense to make an investment. I wasn't challenging the choice, so much as genuinely wondering what thought had gone into the choice.

Also, I'm not just counting a $1k mod against $10k+ in glass. I'm also assuming that if he stays PL, then the Nikon glass could be sold, and the value from that sale could be applied to the PL investment. Since you don't like my $5k to $10k figure, let's assume $3k in Nikon glass. That plus $1k for the mod is $4k. That makes the GL Optics a $6k further investment ($10k-$4k), or a set of three Sony PL lenses (from the F3) only $2k extra, or less.

Of course, maybe you're going to reply and say he bought all of his Nikon lenses at the flea market for $600 total. In which case, I would still ask - does his business model support the investment in PL, or not? If not, that's fine. But I do think it's a fair question for conversation. Most of us do this as a business, not a charity or hobby, afterall.

 

[SJX]

Don't underestimate nikon glass! If you've never used the 24-70, you'd know you can get a fantastic cinematic look from Nikon. Oliver Wood used some re-housed Nikon lenses on the Bourne films. Anyways, Nikon glass is definitely not a bottleneck. PL glass is certainly superior for many reasons, but the flexibility good quality stills glass will give you is not to be understated. There's a list of reasons why I want to move to the F35. Being worried about the difference between great and even greater glass isn't much of an issue for me)

Problem is not glass itself. ZF and CP.2 use same glass. But shooting with them is an entirely different experience.

But the main problem is more of buying a camera to butcher it to make it worse. If it was to make it better then well. But what's the difference between doing that and buying a Mercedes to put in a Lexus engine?

But it's your money of course. So buy it, butcher it and use it as you may like. All I was questioning is the sense in that. But it's your money, your trouble.

 

[Kholi]

Well, the question was actually a *question* - not meant to be facetious - I was hoping he might explain what market he worked in, and why it didn't make sense to make an investment. I wasn't challenging the choice, so much as genuinely wondering what thought had gone into the choice.

Also, I'm not just counting a $1k mod against $10k+ in glass. I'm also assuming that if he stays PL, then the Nikon glass could be sold, and the value from that sale could be applied to the PL investment. Since you don't like my $5k to $10k figure, let's assume $3k in Nikon glass. That plus $1k for the mod is $4k. That makes the GL Optics a $6k further investment ($10k-$4k), or a set of three Sony PL lenses (from the F3) only $2k extra, or less.

Of course, maybe you're going to reply and say he bought all of his Nikon lenses at the flea market for $600 total. In which case, I would still ask - does his business model support the investment in PL, or not? If not, that's fine. But I do think it's a fair question for conversation. Most of us do this as a business, not a charity or hobby, afterall.

I see where you were coming from now, weirdly it definitely seemed facetious. Good PL glass is expensive. PL Glass that you can actually sell to a client's pretty expensive. The GL optics Zeiss Contax set you linked, those aren't worth 10K IMO, and you wouldn't be reselling those at 10K either. You're also likely to not use them on the kind of jobs that pay for PL glass, because those jobs want you to use serious glass, anyway. That seems like a very shoddy investment decision, to me, just to have PL glass. At that point you'd might as well just get a three set of Zeiss CP.2s, at least someone'll pay you 150.00 to rent those on smaller jobs.

But, that's just a three lens set.

I think it's safe enough to assume that if he's asking about a Nikon plate, he's looked into PL glass and found that on top of purchasing the camera body and necessary accessories, it would be more economical to move forward with a Nikon mount modification like some others here have done. My response/reaction comes from the idea that it's "cheaping out". That isn't a good reason to not do something. A hard answer like "You risk breaking the mount or damaging the camera" is a good answer. That and assuming that he didn't have the necessary accessories to support the camera.

Also, I know it wasn't your answer, your response was pretty logical.

Personally, I own modern glass that I find to be very good (Sigma ART, GL Optics Rehoused the 18-35, it's just a solid lens in general) and I haven't spent more than 3,500.00 after the 50/1.4(A)'s delivered. That's also buying glass over time. It's still a big jump from 3,500 to 10,000. AT least to me it is.

 

[Viddovation]

Kholi, thanks.

I would say, if you're going to slam me for making assumptions, then it's not fair to make me assume he did fully explore PL glass. If one assumption isn't permitted, why is the other?

"Cheaping out" is a valid concern to the extent that the buyer may regret the decision later, or is just putting off an expense that might not make sense to wait on, financially. But it really depends on who your clients are, what their demands are, and what their budget is. There's no point to buy Ultra Primes even if you have cash in hand, if your clients will never pay the fee for them, afterall.

I personally did spend retail on Ultra Primes. I had looked at CP.2 glass and Illumina S35 lenses - even the Red Pro Primes. Ultimately, in my market I decided the Ultra Primes were the most marketable, and would provide the best ROI in the long term - and that if I bought the cheaper glass, I would end up moving up later anyway. So I bit the bullet. But everyone's situation is different. And the Zeiss ZF lenses I sold to make that move were excellent glass for the money. Also, the $20k Sony lenses were not on the market when I made my Ultra Prime choice - they would have been very interesting.

Out of the list of lenses I provided, I'd be most likely to consider the Red Pros, because the set looks undervalued at $13k, definitely a better choice than $10k on the GL's from where I'm sitting.

But, if the Nikon mount is right for you and your clients, don't let those of us with PL glass get you down.

 

[True North]

Wow, just stumbled across this thread. It's undeniable that the F35 image (top image) is light years ahead of the other two. I just picked up my pre-ordered GH4 today.....it's color rendering is positively hideous in that example. I am hoping that it can improved with some tweaking.

 

[Kholi]

Kholi, thanks.

I would say, if you're going to slam me for making assumptions, then it's not fair to make me assume he did fully explore PL glass. If one assumption isn't permitted, why is the other?

Fair enough. It's likely that I've known Roman for a while, and know that he does his research and understands the costs of owning gear.

I personally did spend retail on Ultra Primes. I had looked at CP.2 glass and Illumina S35 lenses - even the Red Pro Primes. Ultimately, in my market I decided the Ultra Primes were the most marketable, and would provide the best ROI in the long term - and that if I bought the cheaper glass, I would end up moving up later anyway. So I bit the bullet. But everyone's situation is different. And the Zeiss ZF lenses I sold to make that move were excellent glass for the money. Also, the $20k Sony lenses were not on the market when I made my Ultra Prime choice - they would have been very interesting.

This sums up exactly what I'm saying. This is a smart investment. No matter where you go with a set of Ultra Primes you're going to be okay. I would, in a heartbeat, go into debt for a 66K set of Ultra PRimes versus "just buying" a set of GL Otpics Contax Zeiss because they're cheap. One of those you're going to lose a lot of money on, the Ultra Primes aren't it. =P

Out of the list of lenses I provided, I'd be most likely to consider the Red Pros, because the set looks undervalued at $13k, definitely a better choice than $10k on the GL's from where I'm sitting.

AGreed, one hundred percent. You can still pass off RPPs to someone in rentals or resell them for about the same that you paid for them.

But, if the Nikon mount is right for you and your clients, don't let those of us with PL glass get you down.

Ideally you'd do what Jusgorilla mentioned and flop back and forth if it were possible. And, of course, if you are only using a Nikon mount to shoot paid gigs, the camera's LIKELY not the one you should have gotten anyway. Believe it or not, I want to switch over to an F35 (and thinking I will) to shoot comedy sketches and shorts with. I highly doubt many people here in Los Angeles will rent the F35 often, and any time I'm actually paid to shoot these days it's either some small gig that a BMD camera can handle, or one that's already got an Epic scheduled.

As a personal camera that's producing that kind of image, it's completely fine to own it just to shoot your personal work on. There's nothing wrong with that. Especially given how affordable it really is.

The idea of holding onto a lens on accident when adjusting the camera on the shoulder, and snapping the Nikon mount, however... does not sound awesome.