FS7: I hate to bring this up but.... why does not everyone go for the URSA MINI PRO?

Amadou said:
Everybody says how the Ursa Mini Pro has such stunning cinematic images unlike the other camerras in its pricerance. So this begs the question. I hate to bring this up but.... why does not everyone go for the URSA MINI PRO?
Click to expand...

I had a UMP for 12 months, used it for some 40 episodes of a 30min local TV lifestyle program. Traveled all over the state with it, day, night, int ext, etc. Lovely images. Ergonomics were almost there, but things like switching the windowing mode to get into +60 FPS shooting was a pain.

In the one year of owning it I sent it back to BM three times. Once it had a sensor anomaly (red horizontal lines in the image started showing up). They replaced the whole camera. Then right towards the end of the warranty the screen started flaking out and the ISO switch was jumping through settings. I sent the new camera in and this time they just replaced the screen and sent it back but didn't fix the ISO switch, so I had to send it out again and have them fix that. So out of 12 months of usage I spent $175 shipping it back to BM and was without it for a total of 1 month.

While the UMP was out the last time I picked up a Sony FS5, and sold the UMP when they got it back to me. I haven't looked back. If I was on a feature might stick with the UMP, it's image is really that nice internally. But for a daily one man band workhorse, it just wasn't reliable. I would imagine going FS5 -> raw -> Inferno would get a lot closer to the UMP in terms of captured information, and the SLOG workflows have really come a long way, I just haven't gotten an Inferno yet to try out raw yet. I notice the image quality difference when editing the newer FS5 footage vs the UMP footage, but no-one else has, and I think it has to do with the codec. I haven't done any pixel peeping, and I haven't done much LOG shooting on either camera, so it's purely a 709 comparison. I'm sure LOG to LOG and higher bitrate codecs would put them closer, and strapping on an Inferno would put them at about the same weight.

The FS5 lets me strip it down and put it on a Ronin M, the little Sony lenses with OSS (even the focus by wire works ok on those) are great for quick run and gun and on the gimbal, the Auto ND is killer when you need it, and I just got a Metabones speedbooster so I'm looking forward to playing with the "full frame" look.

People marvel at the UMP menu's and complain about Sony's, but I think BM have backed themselves into a corner with their menu design, there's only so much screen real estate and I found the UMP's touch screen sensitivity pretty random. There's only two programmable buttons on the UMP body, and it has auto iris and push to focus buttons on the handle that I have literally never used and can't reprogram.

TLDR - UMP had a great image, but clunky and unreliable. FS5 image doesn't look as good out of the gate, but much superior usability, and can be tweaked image wise (LOG) or add an Inferno.
 
I used to own a couple of BMPCCs. The specs and image quality was a tease at the time. Looked good on paper but was not a good practical camera to use without working around a bunch of different issue. It was a very frustrating experience. Until I see a camera that people have no complaints about from BM, I won't be going down that road again.
 
Amadou said:
Everybody says how the Ursa Mini Pro has such stunning cinematic images unlike the other camerras in its pricerance. So this begs the question. I hate to bring this up but.... why does not everyone go for the URSA MINI PRO?
Click to expand...

This is I beleive a good question. For a lit, controlled production there is a chance I would pick the BMU.

1) We bought our FS7 before the UMP was launched
2) Data rates are heavy - if you want to do longer shoots or quick delivery then all that data hurts
3) High ISO performance of the FS7 is better maybe
4) People hire people who own FS7s because they rest of thier production is FS7
5) FS7 has a great reputation for actually working
6) Many people have a bunch of BPU batteries because they owned EX1 and other cameras

As Ive said before, if you are shooting a feature the FS7 has features that are relevant to some, but maybe not to you.

I dont know if the BMU offers this..
-Cache record is 'sort of' available for the FS7
-FS7 can put one mic into two channels at two levels
-Cards removed/hot swapped (maybe BM does this)
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
This is I beleive a good question. For a lit, controlled production there is a chance I would pick the BMU.

1) We bought our FS7 before the UMP was launched
2) Data rates are heavy - if you want to do longer shoots or quick delivery then all that data hurts
3) High ISO performance of the FS7 is better maybe
4) People hire people who own FS7s because they rest of thier production is FS7
5) FS7 has a great reputation for actually working
6) Many people have a bunch of BPU batteries because they owned EX1 and other cameras

As Ive said before, if you are shooting a feature the FS7 has features that are relevant to some, but maybe not to you.

I dont know if the BMU offers this..
-Cache record is 'sort of' available for the FS7


-FS7 can put one mic into two channels at two levels
-Cards removed/hot swapped (maybe BM does this)
Click to expand...

Most people need a jack of all trades , camera. Ursa looks great but
I will consider bmd as soon as they get high iso in a reliable box, my C100 has never failed me!
 
I still see footage with pattern noise in the shadows of normally exposed images on the UMP. I can denoise it, but I feel it is a camera that has a sweet spot which is very narrowly defined. I think they need greater flexibility when it comes to shifting beyond the base iso. This is proably why they refer to it as a "cinema camera". It's fine if you have controlled environments. We will see if the next iteration offers more flexibility. If however you are working in unpredictable conditions, I think the FS7 is a safer bet. Just my opinion as a colorist...
 
Last edited:
I'm glad u have brought this up... I have been torn on who will get my money. I have been torn between all these newer lower priced cameras and have yet to see one camera with the imaging and motion as the ursa mini pro. I have tried to justify the gh5s but the morion and glossy look does not have a thick and robust look like the ursa. It's as though all the lowe grade prosumer cameras look thin and like aesthetics. I'm looking to shoot cinema and music videos so think I will have to bite the bullet...

I went to vimeo and searched ursa mini pro, and even the mis handled footage is looking better than a lot of well shot a7/gh/ and other cameras in that price range. It even had me choose it over the alexa in a couple of blind test. Now if only they could work out their quality control, they could potentially upset the cinema market.
 
"Could" is the magic word. If you just hold this camera in your hands and compare it to a Sony, Panasonic, or Canon Cam, you will experience a certain toy feeling. It's just not really professional ... just my 2 cents.
 
reem12 said:
I went to vimeo and searched ursa mini pro, and even the mis handled footage is looking better than a lot of well shot a7/gh/ and other cameras in that price range. It even had me choose it over the alexa in a couple of blind test.
Click to expand...

Links?
 
I ultimately chose not to invest in Ursa Mini Pro due to general issues with Blackmagic Design quality control across their product lines. I simply can’t afford to invest $12000 in what could highly possibly be a lemon. Sony’s reputation is far better in that regard; they’ve just been around longer and know the camera trade better. Sony makes their own sensors! BMD is a young company barely getting into the camera trade circa ~2013. Some more points:

• The FS7 just works.
• I don’t need a screwdriver to adapt various lenses as the E mount is extremely versatile. The locking-lever E mount on my FS7M2 is doubly versatile.
• XAVC-I is a robust format.
• The electronic variable ND on the M2 is worth the upgrade price alone.
• With a tiny bit of work, the FS7 “palette” can look just as good as an Alexa. Really, it depends on lighting and lens choice.
• FS7 winds up being less expensive, plus everything but a lens and a card comes in the box. With UMP you need to buy three different items to get what FS7 has in the one box.
• UMP is designed to only take brick batteries. FS7 can take camcorder batteries but with an option for bricks later.
• I don’t need raw, but if I did I could upgrade later or rent.
• There’s only so far you can go with UMP menus. FS7 menus are not as nice looking but they give access to tons of options and can expand naturally as new functions are implemented.
• The FS7 forums are less crowded with bickering self-entitled amateurs. :D

I like what Blackmagic is doing. I own many of their products including the original BM Cinema Camera 2.5K EF. Ursa Mini Pro is a huge step in the right direction for them, but those waters are still murky. As an owner/operator with shallow pockets and not a lot of time or whimsy, I have to invest in a sure thing.

FS7M2 is the best camera system I have ever owned.

In the end it’s not about the camera, it’s about the person using it. With the proper lightning equipment, I can make my FS7 produce images just like any of those linked above. Those images don’t look good just because of the camera.
 
reem12 said:
Sure the Ursa mini may very well feel like a toy, but its image is what I'm after and it's on par with $50,000 cameras. I will take the toy. Please give me any links to samples of the fs7 or any camera around that price point that gives an image close to the ursa mini Pro. I've tried hard to talk myself out of the ursa but
https://vimeo.com/246633162
https://vimeo.com/239895648
https://vimeo.com/232626685
https://vimeo.com/233553550
Click to expand...

Ok but where is footage that looks better than Alexa?
 
JRJphoto said:
FS7M2 is the best camera system I have ever owned.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you went with the FS7 II. Not surprised because it's not worthy, but because you soundred pretty convinced on the UMP and/or the EVA1 at some point.

Nevertheless, it seems like you narrowed it down to what's best for you/your business at this time.
 
SJX please read post carefully before responding lol, and smh. I said on par. note better. So please go back and read my post again. On par. Now with that being said, if you read descriptions carefully you will see that in one of the vimeo links there is a comparison video of Alexa and ursa mini displayed in sequence. Ok so hope this clarifies things some for you.

Now Choose your poison between these two, and then ask yourself again with all the light in the world, do u think the fs7 will ever look like this?
https://vimeo.com/246633162
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say that you could get exactly the Alexa look... but when we start throwing up these examples where we state "do you think X will ever look like Y?!" without having both x and y in the same light, same lens in the same setting, it seems pretty silly....... I'd love to make a test, but I'm not gonna spend 500 dollars for the sake of getting the Alexa in for a test. But I will say, that the FS7 has amazed me as to what it is able to do for what it is.

Handheld underexposed after sunset at T2.9, manual focus. As opposed to your example with a camera on a tripod under controlled conditions.

View attachment 131696

Colorspace Transform in Resolve will give you a nice starting point to grade from on the FS72. All grabs from Resolve on the FS72, shot with Fujinon MK zooms. Kitchen shot was HMi and daylight mix, the girl up close was a single 2k open face through diffusion.

View attachment 131699

View attachment 131700

View attachment 131701
 
Last edited:
reem12 said:
SJX please read post carefully before responding lol, and smh. I said on par. note better. So please go back and read my post again. On par. Now with that being said, if you read descriptions carefully you will see that in one of the vimeo links there is a comparison video of Alexa and ursa mini displayed in sequence. Ok so hope this clarifies things some for you.

Now Choose your poison between these two, and then ask yourself again with all the light in the world, do u think the fs7 will ever look like this?
https://vimeo.com/246633162
Click to expand...

OK then show the links of ursa footages on pair with alexa. I didn't see any in links you gave. Sorry I don't think that is on par with alexa. I think only the last video looks good (https://vimeo.com/233553550). The others look very saturated but not necessarily good. I agree with you about FS7. I have never seen footages from it which doesn't look like video. I know people hate to hear. I'm actually liking FS700 4k more. I never saw any FS5, FS7, Ursa or canon videos looking good like this:

https://vimeo.com/253920524
https://vimeo.com/227037497
https://vimeo.com/210430078

No. Not on par with alexa but best I ever saw from sony cameras besides F35 and venice. Better than any ursa, panasonic or canon video I ever saw too. This has good skin and tonality.
 
Last edited:
SJX said:
No. Not on par with alexa
Click to expand...

I ask a question in response that is somewhat rhetorical, and at the risk of digitial image-making blasphemy...

Why does it matter?

When and why does it matter that one image has better skin-tone reproduction than another?

[ I'm interested in the psychology of wanting better image reproduction. And at the same time challenging the necessity of it. ]
 
JPNola said:
I ask a question in response that is somewhat rhetorical, and at the risk of digitial image-making blasphemy...

Why does it matter?

When and why does it matter that one image has better skin-tone reproduction than another?

[ I'm interested in the psychology of wanting better image reproduction. And at the same time challenging the necessity of it. ]
Click to expand...

Why does it matter? Well it doesn't ! If all you shoot is commercials of autonomous cars. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top