Searcher
Well-known member
Judging from the videos and what John Brawley said (that the rolling shutter was close to the performance of the GH2) I am not worried about the rolling shutter performance.
Other: Pros and Cons ONLY on the BMC?
- Thread starter JoeJITSU
- Start date
Judging from the videos and what John Brawley said (that the rolling shutter was close to the performance of the GH2) I am not worried about the rolling shutter performance.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Pros:
-Its awesome
-4:4:4 color for keying for $3000.00. 4:2:2 who? Ultimate VFX cam as long as you can deal with rolling shutter.
-Easy to get glass. Yes I would love M4/3 since thats what I have but if it was PL then it would be out of reach of a lot of people. EF is easy to get and easy to find used not to mention everybody and their brother has EF glass, except me.
-No more compression, ever. Lets all leave compression where it should be. On a DVD and on the internet.
-Thunderbolt means a future proof connection. Any other port could have been considered outdated in two years. Gives the bandwidth needed plus unlimited control in the future.
-included software is half the experience of what the camera will allow people to create.
-Blackmagic is about as solid of a company as you could ever want to do this. A small startup is too unstable for such a niche product. If you invest in a camera you want to make sure you can get support for it a year later.
-I actually think low light could be very good. Other DSLR's cram a lot of pixels onto their sensors which means every pixel is very tiny in terms of gathering light. The best way to boost low light is not to keep adding pixels but to make each pixel as large as possible. The sensor may be small but it is also limited to its native shooting mode which each point that gathers light is large compared to M4/3 cameras or even some Canon cameras.
-Real audio for once. XLR only matters for long cable runs. The fact that we have a somewhat form factor DSLR finally with real audio makes the camera worth $3000.00 on its own. Many would pay that for a GH3 with full audio control.
-kiss electronic sharpening goodbye. I do hope we can control this for ProRes recording.
cons:
-lack of 60p. This is a very minor thing for me since I never shoot slowmo. I do sometimes however shoot 60p for broadcast. Would have loved a 720p 60p mode for this. To be honest however it has been a few years since I have shot that way.
-wide will be a bit of a pricey chore. Not a huge deal for me either since I'm used to shooting M4/3 and mostly shoot 24mm or 20mm. For me that just means getting a 17mm or 20mm EF lens to compensate for the same FOV I'm used to. The sigma 20mm is very nice but I'm not too crazy about the sub 20mm options currently. Even though I do see a few options for how I typically shoot they are very expensive and I cannot use them on my M4/3 camera easily. Others who need to shoot ultra wide will have a harder time with a higher cost.
-The over flooding of the industry with every Tom, Dick and Harry who think they are cinematographers and colorists. All of a sudden everybody who shoots 2 minutes of raw and plays with Resolve for 30 minutes will call themselves a colorist.
-Haters who trash the camera and who insist the camera cannot be used for production even though cameras that could be considered a children's toy are used every day.
-the actual real cost of getting this camera for some people. Just like with Red the base price doesn't just stop there. You will need new lenses unless you are a EF user, external power source such as AB batteries, new loupes and who knows what else. In the end for a total shooting package we may be looking at closer to $6,000.00 to really deck the camera out.
-Its awesome
-4:4:4 color for keying for $3000.00. 4:2:2 who? Ultimate VFX cam as long as you can deal with rolling shutter.
-Easy to get glass. Yes I would love M4/3 since thats what I have but if it was PL then it would be out of reach of a lot of people. EF is easy to get and easy to find used not to mention everybody and their brother has EF glass, except me.
-No more compression, ever. Lets all leave compression where it should be. On a DVD and on the internet.
-Thunderbolt means a future proof connection. Any other port could have been considered outdated in two years. Gives the bandwidth needed plus unlimited control in the future.
-included software is half the experience of what the camera will allow people to create.
-Blackmagic is about as solid of a company as you could ever want to do this. A small startup is too unstable for such a niche product. If you invest in a camera you want to make sure you can get support for it a year later.
-I actually think low light could be very good. Other DSLR's cram a lot of pixels onto their sensors which means every pixel is very tiny in terms of gathering light. The best way to boost low light is not to keep adding pixels but to make each pixel as large as possible. The sensor may be small but it is also limited to its native shooting mode which each point that gathers light is large compared to M4/3 cameras or even some Canon cameras.
-Real audio for once. XLR only matters for long cable runs. The fact that we have a somewhat form factor DSLR finally with real audio makes the camera worth $3000.00 on its own. Many would pay that for a GH3 with full audio control.
-kiss electronic sharpening goodbye. I do hope we can control this for ProRes recording.
cons:
-lack of 60p. This is a very minor thing for me since I never shoot slowmo. I do sometimes however shoot 60p for broadcast. Would have loved a 720p 60p mode for this. To be honest however it has been a few years since I have shot that way.
-wide will be a bit of a pricey chore. Not a huge deal for me either since I'm used to shooting M4/3 and mostly shoot 24mm or 20mm. For me that just means getting a 17mm or 20mm EF lens to compensate for the same FOV I'm used to. The sigma 20mm is very nice but I'm not too crazy about the sub 20mm options currently. Even though I do see a few options for how I typically shoot they are very expensive and I cannot use them on my M4/3 camera easily. Others who need to shoot ultra wide will have a harder time with a higher cost.
-The over flooding of the industry with every Tom, Dick and Harry who think they are cinematographers and colorists. All of a sudden everybody who shoots 2 minutes of raw and plays with Resolve for 30 minutes will call themselves a colorist.
-Haters who trash the camera and who insist the camera cannot be used for production even though cameras that could be considered a children's toy are used every day.
-the actual real cost of getting this camera for some people. Just like with Red the base price doesn't just stop there. You will need new lenses unless you are a EF user, external power source such as AB batteries, new loupes and who knows what else. In the end for a total shooting package we may be looking at closer to $6,000.00 to really deck the camera out.
Last edited:
I get ya, but let's also try to not invite the fanboyism early. Believe it or not, posts like these bring others out of the woodwork.
Let's just keep it all in its own bubble and everything shall be peaceful.
Unfortunately I see more cons than pros.
Pro's: clean output, cheap, small, handheld, smaller sensor uses the premium lens area.
Cons: the sensor is a big compromise in terms of lens choice. ef lenses now have a bigger than 2x crop! so a 50mm lens becomes more than 100mm! a 28mm is now 56mm. good luck finding a 2.5k ready 28mm f1.8 for less than £1500. For what we are used to shooting with a 50mm at f4, you will need a 25mm f2, wide open and it will be too soft to cover 2.5k. So users of this camera will have plenty of telephoto options, but just like the GH1/2 they will never get a good quality wide angle. lens compromises wont allow it. the sensor is too big to accept most lenses for 16mm film so these are null and void too.
lack of durability.
file sizes are large, and in my opinion not worth the extra hassle over compressed based on the fact that the sensor is such a limitation.
the price will indeed have been brought down by making sacrifices that have yet to be unveiled.
just some practical limitations I see being a problem and a reason I will be keeping my money for the fs700
Pro's: clean output, cheap, small, handheld, smaller sensor uses the premium lens area.
Cons: the sensor is a big compromise in terms of lens choice. ef lenses now have a bigger than 2x crop! so a 50mm lens becomes more than 100mm! a 28mm is now 56mm. good luck finding a 2.5k ready 28mm f1.8 for less than £1500. For what we are used to shooting with a 50mm at f4, you will need a 25mm f2, wide open and it will be too soft to cover 2.5k. So users of this camera will have plenty of telephoto options, but just like the GH1/2 they will never get a good quality wide angle. lens compromises wont allow it. the sensor is too big to accept most lenses for 16mm film so these are null and void too.
lack of durability.
file sizes are large, and in my opinion not worth the extra hassle over compressed based on the fact that the sensor is such a limitation.
the price will indeed have been brought down by making sacrifices that have yet to be unveiled.
just some practical limitations I see being a problem and a reason I will be keeping my money for the fs700
Searcher
Well-known member
???
There are perfectly good wide lenses for the GH2 like the Panasonic 7-14 or Olympus 12mm.
As for the BMDCC the Tokina 11-16 will do just fine for me. At 11mm that becomes a pretty standard wide of around 25mm in FF terms.
Maybe you're talking about "ultra wide"?
Twice the price to have it running. Man.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
How about the Sigma 20mm f1.8 for $699? How about the Vivitar 13mm f2.8 for $399? What about the Bower and Rokinon 14mm f2.8 for $419.00 and $399.00?
In terms of file size that is actually what many consider to be a pro. For those that want that level of quality this camera offers it. You can always add compression or extra storage but you cannot turn compressed footage magically into uncompressed raw.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Of course thats true of any DSLR type camera. Even with the GH2 you still had to buy a collection of lenses and a loupe, extra batteries and other gear to have a certain workflow. None of us have just the cost of the camera invested in what we do.
You have choices. Twice the price is a ridiculous figure though.
This is why I didn't want his thread in existence. It's all personal preference and speculation to a degree. People should just look at specs and decide how to spend their own money. One set of someones cons is another persons pros for what they shoot.
Not to mention the camera isn't even shipping yet so noone knows much beyond what papers and John Brawley allows us.
pros:
the camera + resolve + the ability to connect the camera to ultrascope on a macbook pro using the thunderbolt out(they said that in a video), it's a steal(depending on SSD drive prices, SSD for 10bit 4:4:4(<- as a reference) is quite pricey and you need at least 2-4 of those 256-512GB in the setup).
cons:
1 - rolling shutter seemed on the heavy side in the one video i have seen. i don't think it will be the same as the 120fps and 960fps cameras coming out.
the problem with the sensor size and the mount, it's easy and cheap to get a
50mm f1.2-1.4 sharp at 2.8-11 with little to no artifacts.(medium)
and it's also easy to find a 85,100, 135, or 200mm, that won't break the bank.(tele)
and its not so difficult to find a 24 or 35mm.(wide)
you can also get macro, super wide,super tele, t/s, ...etc.
so most of the lens(scenes/shots) won't have any artifacts or distortions, and will be sharp for s35 and full frame sensors.
ef mount on BMC crop is a totally different matter, you can't get the same DOF, and you can't get good still or rent pl lens. and if you don't have the option of M4/3, you're stuck with heavy distortions, soft lens that are not a good investment in the near future. and no super wide.
and with the same sensor technology, a small sensor does not gather the same amount of light, and that sensor does not seem cleaner to a dslr or sony sensor, and it won't perform the same in low light as well. so it's across the board less light sensitive and more potentially more noisy.
the camera + resolve + the ability to connect the camera to ultrascope on a macbook pro using the thunderbolt out(they said that in a video), it's a steal(depending on SSD drive prices, SSD for 10bit 4:4:4(<- as a reference) is quite pricey and you need at least 2-4 of those 256-512GB in the setup).
cons:
1 - rolling shutter seemed on the heavy side in the one video i have seen. i don't think it will be the same as the 120fps and 960fps cameras coming out.
the problem with the sensor size and the mount, it's easy and cheap to get a
50mm f1.2-1.4 sharp at 2.8-11 with little to no artifacts.(medium)
and it's also easy to find a 85,100, 135, or 200mm, that won't break the bank.(tele)
and its not so difficult to find a 24 or 35mm.(wide)
you can also get macro, super wide,super tele, t/s, ...etc.
so most of the lens(scenes/shots) won't have any artifacts or distortions, and will be sharp for s35 and full frame sensors.
ef mount on BMC crop is a totally different matter, you can't get the same DOF, and you can't get good still or rent pl lens. and if you don't have the option of M4/3, you're stuck with heavy distortions, soft lens that are not a good investment in the near future. and no super wide.
and with the same sensor technology, a small sensor does not gather the same amount of light, and that sensor does not seem cleaner to a dslr or sony sensor, and it won't perform the same in low light as well. so it's across the board less light sensitive and more potentially more noisy.
Grug
Veteran
Well actually, given that you'll be using only the centre portion of most lenses, you'll probably get better results (proportionally) with fast lenses on the BMCC, than you will on a larger sensor.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Not true at all. Sensor size is only one of the factors. Pixel density is also a factor. That is why a SD camera at 1/3" is a lot more sensitive then a HD camera at 1/3" or even a 2/3" HD camera. Each point on the sensor is larger and can gather more light. If the BM sensor was 4k then yes it would be much worse in low light but the fact that it only uses 2.5k means it has larger pixels. DSLRs may only record 1920x1080 but their sensors have a lot more pixels crammed in there which means a smaller area to gather light. In theory the BM camera could be more sensitive then most DSLR cameras.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
And the same size as the 5D. I didn't even realize it could be that good until I read your post and calculated it myself as well. The 5D and BM have pixels almost exactly the same size. So this camera is going to be better or equal to any DSLR out there in terms of sensitivity in theory. In comparison the GH2 has pixels about 1/2 the size.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
In mean that each little pixel on the sensor that gathers light is the exact same physical size as the 1D and 5D. The size determines how much light it can gather which determines how sensitive they are. The GH2 has pixels half the size so it gathers 1/2 the amount of light. So you can expect the BM camera to be about as sensitive as a Canon 5D. Of course this is in theory and all sensor designs have slight differences but it should be equal or pretty darn close. It will for sure be more sensitive then the GH2 and 7D unless BM really screws up the sensor which I think would be impossible.
no, the sweet spot argument only works on aps-h and dx or aps-c and only at lens that open past f2.8. with the BMC crop you would have much less resolution from the lens, and the image would be soft.
i said with the same technology, the small sensor will not (never) gather more light than a sensor more than 4x the size, no way. and that specific sensor from BMC does not seem to be better or equal or on par, or close enough to the modern dslr sensors when it comes to light sensitivity, and all the noise reductions and circuity technology and R&D put in the higher end dslrs.
i said with the same technology, the small sensor will not (never) gather more light than a sensor more than 4x the size, no way. and that specific sensor from BMC does not seem to be better or equal or on par, or close enough to the modern dslr sensors when it comes to light sensitivity, and all the noise reductions and circuity technology and R&D put in the higher end dslrs.