Weight matters, too

[Zerui]

I am getting older, so weight matters more these days.
However, my ambition for quality shows no sign of flagging.
I thought you might be interested in my survey of camera weights.

Here are my still cameras
1. Hasselblad H3D with zoom lens.    4    kg
2. Nikon D3 with zoom lens.             2    kg
3. Leica M 240 with 90mm lens.        1.2  kg
4. Nikon V3 with 70-300 lens.           0.8. kg

I started using the Leica for video, but in June I got a little camcorder, as a learning curve camera, before buying a quality video camera and lenses, probably in 2017. 
Meanwhile, I have lots to learn about editing, processing. Resolve, etc.
I should perhaps mention that I am using a Røde microphone and Neo light with the XC10.

Here is my weight survey for ready-to-go video cameras.
5. Canon XC10 with fixed zoom lens.   1  kg
6. Ursa mini plus prime lens.               4  kg

Conclusion. 
If I want quality video I must reckon on a camera weighing the same as my Hassy.
There seems to be a gap in the market, weight-wise, between the XC10 and the Ursa mini.
There is no 2kg cinema camera that has video quality equivalent to stills from my Leica M.
I am not interested in another jumped-up still camera: been there done that with the Leica.
I want an all-in-one box that does not need to rigged like a oil-field Christmas tree.

Suggestion?
Goff

[Learning curve films from Leica M in 2013-14 and Canon XC10 in 2015 on Vimeo.com/goff]

[fredjeang2]

For high quality motion works,
You need Raw or Prores4444 and
High-end motion lenses.

That has then consequences on your
Workstation that has to be capable
To handle high resolution imagery
With stability,

Then it has consequences on the storage
Requierements and files conservation.

All the chain has to be coherent and that is
A LOT MORE money than still imagery
Hassy-Leica-Phase land.
We are talking about a 10 times + budget or so.
A High-end motion prod-post prod, in the case you
Want the "max" is the cost of a small house for
The low-middle end area.
So you'll probably need to make compromises.
Avoid to stop on a frame and get frustrated because
It's not up at Leica level. It moves so you have to watch it
Moving. Shift one's mind.

There are fortunatly options to keep size small.

- check Arri , they have a mini camera. That would be my choice
If numbers aren't problematics.
https://www.arri.com/alexamini/
2,3kg body weight

- the Ursa mini is not that mini as you pointed.
But BM has a smaller camera that features 4k and
Raw.

- check Kinefinity, they have a mini but very much like the
Ursa size.
old one: http://www.kinefinity.tv/cameras/kineraw-mini/
current one: http://www.kinefinity.tv/cameras/kinemini-4k/
1,5kg body weight but then...plus...plus...you know the story

If you are ready to spend 40000, Arri mini is the choice IMO.
The best you can get but they need extras.

Yes you could keep things
Relatively "small" but you'll need to rig, to frame, batteries etc...
So even a small device will end to be bigger than still only.

Maybe you should start with the Sony everyone talks,
And see later on. But it is a still camera design and you don't want that.
I understand you!

What about me? well, I wanted a really truth mini cinema camera with Little extras.
or that even with extras is keeping small and light.
So I had to sacrifice 4K for 2K and go Blackmagic route because
my Budget did not allowed me the Arri.
But if you can, go for Arri mini.
In between, the Kine Mini is a very appealing option but a bit bigger although lightweight.

if you choose a micro4/3 mount, and want real cine primes high-quality but mini sized, here is
where to look for: http://www.veydra.com/
They also come in Sony mount and C-mount for the Bolexers.
That reduces considerably the weight and frontal thread diameter
Plus size are consistent wich means that one rigg for all.

Ps; I am quite surprised that the russians have not developped
Yet a movie camera. A Konvas new-age. They have the engineering
For it and if they did it would be hugly, unsophistocated but rock solid.
I like Russian designs. 

[bcooter]

There is no 2kg cinema camera that has video quality equivalent to stills from my Leica M.

Suggestion?
Goff

[Learning curve films from Leica M in 2013-14 and Canon XC10 in 2015 on Vimeo.com/goff]

There probably never will be.   To shoot a hefty file produces a lot of heat and battery draw and little cameras just can't do that.

If your shooting professionally, well that's a different animal so the cameras are going to be as heavy as your hasselblad, actually when you make them workable, even heavier.

If you don't like wires, connectors, cages, arms, evfs, lcds,  then your talking video, not digital cinema.

The XC10 shoots pretty good video, but it's limited.

IMO

BC

[Zerui]

Thank you both for helpful comments.

Sadly the Arri is too expensive for me.
Not so enthusiastic about buying Chinese.
Both have 2Kg bodies, but I suspect they will hit 4Kg when ready to go.
So the Ursa mini may be the answer.

For the time being I shall stick to my little XC10 which is really rather good on a good day.
My plan for 2016 is to upgrade my computing to handle Resolve at 4K.
I'll need that whatever camera I use.  Who knows what 2017 will offer?
Goff

[fredjeang2]

Yeah,
Buying chinese does not give lots of confidence
Because so far they focussed on low quality exports.

But remember Japan post war. They learned, and
They end to reach high quality level.
(except maybe their Honda engine in McLaren...)

And many brands are made in China ..my Zoom H4
For example ...

Are those camera really reliable? Is the customer service
Working well?

That would be nice to have inputs from users.
Because if China starts to do quality at low cost
The game might change.

[Morgan_Moore]

The new sony FS5 will be the king of low mass - this will make nice HD footage.

I don't know how heavy the Ursa Mini is but the Ursa is a joke - like a car battery - probably heavier than Red1

I use an FS7 and it is too heavy once you add mic, handles monitor.. stuff you need to do work.

I think Ursa mini will be heavier than FS7.

A BMC4k or BMC the tiny one can make nice files and are small.. but you need to dress them up.

Remember.. when you see a camera dressed up either it is being used by a poseur.. or more typically the stuff has been added to make the thing work.

Everything I add to a camera I hate adding it.. but needs must.

[fredjeang2]

Goff,

Before you sign the check with Ursa,
Have a look at the new Red camera.
It's called Raven.
It's smaller.
5900 euros

[Zerui]

Thank you, Fred

I looked at the Raven. Certainly on my list of possibles.
But I suspect it too will hit 4Kg when fully rigged.
And then it will be more like a Christmas tree than the Ursa mini.
Sleek is important for me as most of my shooting is in mountains or at sea.
I must have slow motion for water.

With my target of buying in 2017.
Who knows what will be announced.

Interestingly, given the cost of lenses, the camera body is no longer the critical budget item.
But weight does seem to be stuck at about 4Kg.

Goff

[D Fuller]

Thank you, Fred

I looked at the Raven. Certainly on my list of possibles.
But I suspect it too will hit 4Kg when fully rigged.
And then it will be more like a Christmas tree than the Ursa mini.
Sleek is important for me as most of my shooting is in mountains or at sea.
I must have slow motion for water.

With my target of buying in 2017.
Who knows what will be announced.

Interestingly, given the cost of lenses, the camera body is no longer the critical budget item.
But weight does seem to be stuck at about 4Kg.

Goff

Just based on my experience, but I expect you'll find that the Raven makes better pictures than the Ursa or Ursa Mini.

Geoff Boyle at CML recently did some tests on "lower-priced" cameras and had very good things to say about the Canon C300 Mk2:

C300-2 well what can I say, it's in a league of it's own, it shouldn't be compared with other cameras in this price bracket. The charts clip at +3.5 but as the sensitivity is really about 1250 that equates to 4 stops properly exposed and the shadows just keep on going.
I love this camera and just wonder WTF they are going to give us with a C500-2!!

But really, if you're thinking of a 2017 purchase, none of this will be relevant. Don't really start narrowing your field until after NAB 2016. The cameras that are announced/shown there will be available about in time for your planned purchase, and the way things are progressing, I'd expect some good things that we've not heard of yet at all.

[bcooter]

Just based on my experience, but I expect you'll find that the Raven makes better pictures than the Ursa or Ursa Mini.

Geoff Boyle at CML recently did some tests on "lower-priced" cameras and had very good things to say about the Canon C300 Mk2:

But really, if you're thinking of a 2017 purchase, none of this will be relevant. Don't really start narrowing your field until after NAB 2016. The cameras that are announced/shown there will be available about in time for your planned purchase, and the way things are progressing, I'd expect some good things that we've not heard of yet at all.

The c300 weighs in at 20 lbs, hell more than my reds or equal kitted out.

I agree to wait, actually if I was the OP I;d look long and hard at the jvc super 35 that shoots 4k and takes m43 mounts native or larger mount lenses with adapters so you can buy in cheap (I think the body is $3495 and use m43 primes until you decide it's a camera you like, then add larger lenses that are useful later.  It's all in one, with xlrs and sdi.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1096581-REG/jvc_gy_ls300_4kcam_handheld_s35mm.html

It gets good reviews and looks like a good match for the op's style.   Actually he'll be better off learning grading than camera at this point.

IMO

BC

[D Fuller]

The c300 weighs in at 20 lbs, hell more than my reds or equal kitted out.

IMO

BC

Really?! I never imagined that. I've never used one, but looks so plasticy, I gave it 4 pounds or so max. But looking it up, I see that Canon's body specs at 6.5 lb, (more than my Epic body) so you're probably pretty close. 

[bcooter]

Really?! I never imagined that. I've never used one, but looks so plasticy, I gave it 4 pounds or so max. But looking it up, I see that Canon's body specs at 6.5 lb, (more than my Epic body) so you're probably pretty close.

Everybody lists it at a different weight, but probably with that top viewfinder thing and xlr inputs i'm probably wrong, probably about 12 pounds with a small dslr lens.

Still, the way I rig my red ones, especially if I use onboard or outboard v lock, I can get it to around the same with a zeiss f2 lens.   The difference is when I held the c300 II it feels like a big vertical dslr, where my RED is more like a lead pipe.

The Scarlet is more hand holdable, but we all know the RED ergonomics are pretty rough, though I do love their cameras.

Still, I think Canon is out of their mind asking the price they do considering everything, especially what Sony is offering, though I'd probably buy a canon over a Sony, but that's just me.

IMO

BC

[fredjeang2]

This new Red...how was it called...Raven?
Looks really the perfect size.
It reminds me the Contax size.

I think with a wooden handgrip Arri rosette....
Ouuutchhhh....Red rosettes and Arri aren't
Compatible, of course!
So with a dedicated Red handgrip on the right
Side and the lens on the left hand, like
In the good old days, you get a sort of Contax
For cine...

I see it.

Well, I hope Red has provided the rosette on the cam body...
I'm sure they didn't.

Ps James and Dave: it doesn't seem that the Raven lights your fire that much
Or am I wrong? It looks that size and weight are perfect
And price is sweet being Red. Still not cheap for a B cam but as a A cam
Considerably cheaper than previous Reds.

The big plus I see is that it's R3D with Red science so you know
The workflow and it would keep consistency with other
Red footage, wich is also a big hassles saver.

[D Fuller]

This new Red...how was it called...Raven?
Looks really the perfect size.
It reminds me the Contax size.

I think with a wooden handgrip Arri rosette....
Ouuutchhhh....Red rosettes and Arri aren't
Compatible, of course!
So with a dedicated Red handgrip on the right
Side and the lens on the left hand, like
In the good old days, you get a sort of Contax
For cine...

I see it.

That's a lot like my favorite hand-holding setup for the Epic. I don't love the POV you get from shoulder mounting so much, so I most often run it in front of my chest with a handle on both sides. it works a lot like a Contax. Only a lot heavier. I'll post a picture sometime for you.

Well, I hope Red has provided the rosette on the cam body...
I'm sure they didn't.

Ps James and Dave: it doesn't seem that the Raven lights your fire that much
Or am I wrong? It looks that size and weight are perfect
And price is sweet being Red. Still not cheap for a B cam but as a A cam
Considerably cheaper than previous Reds.

The big plus I see is that it's R3D with Red science so you know
The workflow and it would keep consistency with other
Red footage, wich is also a big hassles saver.

I think the Red Raven looks like a great idea. Good feature set, good price -- if you are in the Canon lens camp. I'm not. All my lenses are PL or Nikon mount, so the Raven is kind of a non-starter unless I want to adapt everything, which I don't. But also, it doesn't offer anything I care about that my Epic doesn't already do. But if I did need a B-cam, I'd look hard at it.

[fredjeang2]

I always wonder why so many people
Doing motion are using  Nikon glasses.

It's weired but there must be a reason I
Can't see.

What's the benefit of using Nikon lenses over Canon?

[bcooter]

I always wonder why so many people
Doing motion are using  Nikon glasses.

It's weired but there must be a reason I
Can't see.

What's the benefit of using Nikon lenses over Canon?

Because everyone has used nikon or PL mounts from the start and Nikon lenses have manual F stops and the older lenses, mechanical focus.

A canon or any servo focus lens is a bitch for film.

The Zeiss F2 nikon mount lenses, still and the cp2 primes are excellent, well priced and the still lens versions are very solid and lightweight and really sharp.

IMO

BC

[bcooter]

That's a lot like my favorite hand-holding setup for the Epic. I don't love the POV you get from shoulder mounting so much, so I most often run it in front of my chest with a handle on both sides. it works a lot like a Contax. Only a lot heavier. I'll post a picture sometime for you.

I think the Red Raven looks like a great idea. Good feature set, good price -- if you are in the Canon lens camp. I'm not. All my lenses are PL or Nikon mount, so the Raven is kind of a non-starter unless I want to adapt everything, which I don't. But also, it doesn't offer anything I care about that my Epic doesn't already do. But if I did need a B-cam, I'd look hard at it.

Red has an established place in the market, so I can't say they're over priced, though really they kind of are over priced.

The Raven doesn't interest me because the sensor is just slightly larger in width than 4/3 rather than super 35mm.   

Since it's less money and shoots proRes and raw and a smaller form factor I assume it's for gimbals, drones and to go after a little of Black Magic's lower entry price business.

Really ApsH, Super 35mm is the professional format size at this time, until somebody designs a FF 35mm Global shutter 8k monster, then I guess it might change (don't think that will happen anytime soon.)

The 6k weapon with proRes seems to be trying to reclaim some episodic TV territory from Arri and might do it, though 6k boggles the mind, and so does a base price of $60,000, which isn't that far from Arri territory.

Also I'm not overly wild about proRes and flat files because your still going to have to transcode with some kind of lut or settings and shooting those flat logs for me is difficult.

Raw gives us much faster setup because as long as I get the compression right, and WB close, matching multicam mx sensors from our R!'s and Scarlet, using  Cinex makes a fine first light proxy for edit and Resolve's color for finish with RED files excellent and fairly easy.

Most of what I've seen shows the Dragon sensor to have equal or more medium to high (1000) ASA noise as the MX sensor, so other than higher frame rates (in some instances) slightly more range I don't see the real point, when you can get EPIC MX that will be more than useable for a long time.

Actually, I don't think anyone other than the Japanese, (Sony and Canon) make a decent high iso camera and Canon's higher iso like the C300 has a much different look than the RED files.  The Canon files look like still dslr files with a lot of noise reduction happening in camera, sometimes good, sometimes no so good.   

Under low light I can go 1200 asa on my R1s a little more on the scarlet and it looks good, though we use our R1's 10x more than the Scarlet.

This is a screen grab compare of a R1 file next to a still camera Leica S2 (the first ccd version).



The RED gets pretty close but doesn't have as much singular color reception as a still camera but still cameras are way different than motion cameras.

I do know in other testing setting the R1's shutter to 125th and 30fps produces a more detailed and cleaner result and the R1's at higher shutter speed don't get as frenetic as some cameras.

They look smooth at those shutters and allow more defined post work.


IMO

BC

[fredjeang2]

Got it for Nikon glasses. Thanks James.

Is it me or the R1 looks smoother?
I better like how the tones grade in theR1.
It looks that the Red has more latitude.

[D Fuller]

Because everyone has used nikon or PL mounts from the start and Nikon lenses have manual F stops and the older lenses, mechanical focus.

A canon or any servo focus lens is a bitch for film.

The Zeiss F2 nikon mount lenses, still and the cp2 primes are excellent, well priced and the still lens versions are very solid and lightweight and really sharp.

IMO

BC

All this is exactly right. And I've been using Nikon glass for longer than I care to say, so I have a lot of investment in it.

Also, not everything in the choice of lenses is about sharpness. I think zeiss makes some of the cleanest, sharpest lenses in the world, and their rendering is beautiful. That's why I've resurrected my Contax for still work, and am loving that. Also, the ZF 35mm f2.0 is one of my all-time favorites. It just draws a scene beautifully.

But I'm also a real fan of lenses that are designed to take advantage of spherical aberrations to render truly beautiful transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus, and some Nikkors are at the top of my list for that. The Nikkor 85mm f1.4 ais manual focus lens makes truly beautiful pictures. The 50mm f1.2 ais as well. It's not just shallow DOF, it's the way things are rendered out of focus that I love. Another gem is the Nikkor DX 17-55mm f2.8 zoom. I think of different lenses like the difference between oil paint and acrylic.  You can paint the same scene with the same colors, but it will have a different feel in each medium.

And just to confirm my insanity, I also have a complete set of Cooke Speed Panchros in Arri Standard mount that I use with my Epic on occasion. I love the way those lenses render, but they're ridiculously quirky to use, and I don't have $20k lying around to handle them rehoused. Still, they make an image that is beautiful, but in a very different way than the Zeiss aesthetic.

[fredjeang2]

Dave, that's just insane ideed!
You're worse than CB with lenses...lol

In finearts we had to work with film.
So I found a Contax but later on I put
My hands on a Nikon called FE2, it was the
Electronic version of the FM2.
I loved this Nikon and absolutly hated the F4,
Too heavy and unbalanced in hands.
I used the Nikkor 105 f2.5 and the 85.
Very beautifull.
But I ignore at that time that people were using
Them on motion cameras also.
After that I've never touched again Nikon gear.
There is somethong in Nikon I can't explain
That I don't like at all. The shutter noise of their cams
Is one. But it's not rational.
Or maybe Nikon was associated with big bellies old
Foxes purists shooters? You know, those who clean
Their gear with a loupe and silk fabric. Or maybe the brand logo?
I like Ferraris design and engine noise but not Lamborghinis
Because it's boring and vulgar, perfectly suited for new rich
Russian mafia exhibitionists. Explain that...
Yeah...got it! Nikon is boring: It works as it should.