FS700 vs Ursa Mini

D

Darktide Media

Active member
Looking to move up to a "production or cinema" camera soon. Right now our main system is the Samsung NX1 which we love and is amazing little camera for everything but about time we get a system to own. I have rented RED and love the image but just can see buying into that system really, too much for one camera and we deal in action sports so cameras can break sometimes in where we put them. The NX1 even though its an "DSLR" its an amazing system with great images and fits on our Ronin M and light weight. Just what we need but we also need something that has the chance to shoot raw, high frame rates, high DR, etc

Right now I love the Ursa Mini, amazing from what specs look like but everytime I look at the FS700 i still see an amazing system that doesnt seem to be on its way out still. Looking to buy by years end, what would you do? Reason to go with one over the other?
 
The 700 has a weak image if not used with a recorder.

If you are starting from scratch you should probably be considering the FS7 or the Ursa Mini.

The latter camera looks great on papers, the known let down being lack of ND.

Of course how it will actually perform is still an unknown.

S
 
I've been back and forth between the FS7 and Ursa Mini myself. But I'm leaning FS7 due to the 180fps so I'm still hoping that FS7 pricing will drop to match the Ursa Mini.
 
The killer app on the FS7 is ND filtration, not a few extra FPS

When evaluating the price of the two cameras consider the cost of some really good IRND for the BM camera, and then consider the cost in wasted time on set jinking with a matte box.

Quickly the FS7 becomes the cheaper camera very quickly.

S
 
Also consider how you'll be using them. We have an FS7, it's awesome - but I'm not a huge fan of hauling at around alone. URSA Mini won't be as bad in this respect. If you're always going to be in a team i'd say FS7 hands down.
 
Can the Ursa Mini audio levels be adjusted without having to flip out that side monitor? It looks like they are hidden behind it which makes adjusting on the fly a chore. For some that might matter for others it won't. Depends on your situations and business model.

I've owned an FS7 since Nov and I really do like the Ursa Mini on paper. The 'gotchas' with the FS7 are well documented & the 'gotchas' with the Ursa Mini are unkown but BM has a track record with some large 'gotchas'. All cameras at this price point have 'gotchas' so its a matter of finding what works best for you. If you need a camera now get an FS7 and then wait for Ursa Mini to be released and run through its paces and sell one for the other or keep earning. Either way any depreciation of sale should be well covered by the money generated with the camera during that time.
 
morgan_moore said:
The killer app on the FS7 is ND filtration, not a few extra FPS

When evaluating the price of the two cameras consider the cost of some really good IRND for the BM camera, and then consider the cost in wasted time on set jinking with a matte box.

Quickly the FS7 becomes the cheaper camera very quickly.

S
Click to expand...

I'm running a variable ND now since I shoot SLog2 in daylight anyways. So, having an integrated ND will be a little more convenient, athough not a deal breaker.
Question for the FS7 folks - I read that the Iris control is very, very slow. Is this still the case with the latest firmware? Also, for proper exposure of SLog3, does it still require 2 stops overexposure to kill the noise?
 
morgan_moore said:
The killer app on the FS7 is ND filtration, not a few extra FPS
Click to expand...

Agree with that too! (Looks like I'm becoming your number one fan Sam!)
In terms of size and weight I really wouldn't think there'd be much in it - and if we're now considering an FS7 a big camera to haul around, blimey things really have changed!
Steve
 
@ morgan: weak? Then you defenitly don't know how to use it right.

@ darktide I were you, I'd get the FS 700:

- very good used prices at the moment!!!
- build in ND
- AVCHD codec is very nice to have, if you don't need a lot of post work! Love it for some projects!
- SLOG2
- up to 240 fps
- Direct SDI to Odyssey connection: The FS 7 needs the pricy extra module --> with the odyssey your ending up aroung 15k!
- with the Odyssey: 2k RAW up to 240, 4K RAW up to 120 (not possible with FS 7), ProRes etc..
-

You should be able to finde a FS 700 / O7Q combo for around 7-8k

Cheers
 
I think if you want or need RAW that makes the FS7 a much less obvious choice. I think the draw of the FS7 is a fully functional, compact, inexpensive camera that can produce top-grade images right out of the box.
Steve
 
steve phillipps said:
I think if you want or need RAW that makes the FS7 a much less obvious choice. I think the draw of the FS7 is a fully functional, compact, inexpensive camera that can produce top-grade images right out of the box.
Steve
Click to expand...

Yep and this is exactly why I have one. I have no use for raw workflow or storage.
XAVC-I 10bit is a nice sweet spot of quality and economy for my business which is corporate, commercials and branded content.

If raw is your primary use then the FS7 wasn't designed to be the camera for you. BM is the only thing in that price range that will do it.
 
steve phillipps said:
Or perhaps his target market has different quality requirements than yours?

Steve
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with this. Calling it weak just like that, is a generalized statement. If It'd be "For a high budget commercial shoot, the FS 700 has a too weak picture" - ok fair enough. But for a lot of things you could totally use the intern codec of the FS 700!
 
Fader8 said:
That has nothing to do with this. Calling it weak just like that, is a generalized statement. If It'd be "For a high budget commercial shoot, the FS 700 has a too weak picture" - ok fair enough. But for a lot of things you could totally use the intern codec of the FS 700!
Click to expand...

I have to say, I kind of agree. I would not call the FS700 codec weak by any means. I actually
think the internal codec looks really nice. Is it as good as 16bit Raw? Nope. Is it good enough
for a 'high end' TV spot or big budget film? Maybe not. It's seems plenty good enough for an awful lot
of 'one person production company' stuff though. Of course I live in a different world than most on here,
so maybe it's just me. I've done tens of thousands of dollars worth of work on that camera, and have
never once used anything but the internal codec.
 
the AVCHD at 24mb/s is a weak codec. Nothing to get touchy about this is just a fact. It also doesn't mean that you can't get great results from it but you have very little room for error with an 8bit 420 codec (or is it 422 on FS700?).

I've used AVCHD cams for years to good results but after using XAVC-I 10bit 422 I won't go back.
 
Fader8 said:
That has nothing to do with this....For a high budget commercial shoot, the FS 700 has a too weak picture" - ok fair enough. But for a lot of things you could totally use the intern codec of the FS 700!
Click to expand...

So in other words....it has everything to do with it!

Perhaps Sam over-generalised about the camera - but that's not so bad as you then saying that he doesn't know how to use it!

Steve
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
the AVCHD at 24mb/s is a weak codec. Nothing to get touchy about this is just a fact. It also doesn't mean that you can't get great results from it but you have very little room for error with an 8bit 420 codec (or is it 422 on FS700?).

I've used AVCHD cams for years to good results but after using XAVC-I 10bit 422 I won't go back.
Click to expand...
Weak seems to me to be a 'comparative' term. So just saying it is a 'weak' codec is hard to
quantify. Weak compared to a Red? Yup. But if it just was an overall 'weak'
codec, why was there so many positive reviews on its image quality and surprising
gradability of the codec when it first came out? I wasn't hearing 'weak' codec then, it
was 'great images at small file sizes' and 'you can even grade it better than XDcam footage'.
Compared to a lot of newer cams the codec isn't nearly as good, but it is 100% as good
as it was when I first heard all the good comments about it, it hasn't gotten any worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top