Interesting...

Yes this camera offers a lot of bang for the buck. I'll reserve my judgment until I have one in my hands to test, but just off the top of my head I'd likely pass on the purchase. Reason being? My thoughts are that after the MTF mount version is released it won't be too far off until they come out with the all new and improved cine camera addressing the internal battery issue and offering a S35mm size sensor. As a side, I absolutely hate touch screens for viewing as they get covered with finger oil which must constantly be cleaned.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Philip Bloom has a pretty good video review of the EF mount version of the camera. Great bang for the buck, but it is far from flawless and has a bunch of issues (at least, issues for me). I too will pass for a whole host of reasons not including the RAW workflow.
 
The best thing about this excellent test is that it reiterates the fact that S35 isn't the end all. The BMCC clearly produces an outstanding image at any price. In December an MFT mount version will be available which will obviously attract many in this forum, and maybe even adapters to use various S16 lenses (Aaton, CA-1 mount) will surface. All of this is very good news, and I'm sure Panasonic is watching closely as their customers take their MFT lenses and gravitate toward this upstart company.

But the BMCC is horribly - really horribly - designed ergonomically - it couldn't be worse if they tried, what were they thinking? - it has an internal battery and no XLR inputs - but it does take great pictures and records ProRes. Hmmm, I suppose I could always use the AF100 as an audio recorder until Panasonic has their much anticipated epiphany.
 
I'm worse than bad, I'm totally cynical. While I find it amazing that I can now expect results equaling 35mm negative from an affordable video camera, I still have to ask, what for? Who the hell's ever going to see it?

I've been making documentary films professionally for over 40 years and only three have ever been exhibited in theaters. Realistically, the best most filmmakers can hope for these days is Blu-Ray or HDCAM projection at a film festival, or broadcast on a cable channel. I was exceeding that with my Canon XLH1 five years ago. The show I'm negotiating for national broadcast right now I shot with the HPX500 at 720/24pn, and that has not been an issue (and this is PBS anyway - they still have NTSC 7.5 ire standards) .

Somehow it just seems ludicrous to chase this new Holy Grail so that people can watch films on their IPhones. Oh, I'll do it, but I'll never spend over $6000 on a camera again.
 
If everyone were cynical like you, we would have a nice world :)
I totally agree with you about the tech advances, it's nice but nothing if the subject in front of the camera is poor.
More than that, I usually see "colorists" killing more than 3 stops in modern color grading, washing highlights and crushing blacks.
 
Mac said:
I'm worse than bad, I'm totally cynical. While I find it amazing that I can now expect results equaling 35mm negative from an affordable video camera, I still have to ask, what for? Who the hell's ever going to see it?

I've been making documentary films professionally for over 40 years and only three have ever been exhibited in theaters. Realistically, the best most filmmakers can hope for these days is Blu-Ray or HDCAM projection at a film festival, or broadcast on a cable channel. I was exceeding that with my Canon XLH1 five years ago. The show I'm negotiating for national broadcast right now I shot with the HPX500 at 720/24pn, and that has not been an issue (and this is PBS anyway - they still have NTSC 7.5 ire standards) .

Somehow it just seems ludicrous to chase this new Holy Grail so that people can watch films on their IPhones. Oh, I'll do it, but I'll never spend over $6000 on a camera again.
Click to expand...

That might be my fav post ever on this site. I shoot little horror movies, not docs, but my experience is much the same. A few theatrical showings, but the vast amount of viewings happen on 100" or smaller screens.

Perhaps more to the point, shooting with top of the line cameras certainly isn't a guarantee for artistic and/or financial success - as any one of the beautifully shot box office disasters released this year can attest to. I worry a lot more about what glass I have and how many lights I'll access to then what camera I'm using.
 
I have to qualify my comments above by saying that it is the relentless quest for more resolution that amuses me.. However, the quest for a greater dynamic range is something useful, even for IPhone viewing. And it can help with the choice of lights as well (as I think was nicely demonstrated in this test). So I'm not disparaging the fact that the BNCC is shaking things up among the low price spreads. And I understand that the new GH3 is going to add more range as well ..

Now, if Panasonic Broadcast will just sneak across the hall, purloin that GH3 sensor and stick it in the AF, we can all stop bitching for a while.
 
But... but... but... it's RAW! [/sarcasm]

Insert S35, or 10bit, or a cup holder, or whatever. Until it has Alexa quality in a $2,000 package, there will still be people who are going to complain :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top