Some guy sold his Ursa Mini Pro to buy an FS7

[Robin R Probyn]

Interestingly, what started this thread was my buying dirt cheap accessories for my Ursa Mini 4K from a guy who sold his Pro to buy an FS7. Now I'm having to sell my Mini 4K because the PL mount makes it so I can't afford any lenses for it. What I need is an EF mount.

 

 

EF mount.. yesterdays news.. what you need is an fs7 II.. C mount is the thing these days.. even the Venice is native C mount..!.. I predicted this on another forum and got laughed out of the room..

[Samuel Berger]

 

 

EF mount.. yesterdays news.. what you need is an fs7 II.. C mount is the thing these days.. even the Venice is native C mount..!.. I predicted this on another forum and got laughed out of the room..

 

I looked at the FS7 II after reading your post and it's E mount not C. Also I noticed that it's from Sony so it would be impossible to get any usable images from it. Pretty sneaky of them to add a "II" at the end of FS7 to make the average consumer think it wasn't a Sony.

[Robin R Probyn]

 

I looked at the FS7 II after reading your post and it's E mount not C. Also I noticed that it's from Sony so it would be impossible to get any usable images from it. Pretty sneaky of them to add a "II" at the end of FS7 to make the average consumer think it wasn't a Sony.

 

 

Ah yes sorry E mount .. ! the II has a PL "like" mount and stronger front Chassis for heavier lenses.. but yes as you point out.. the pictures are unusable .. but that aside you should get one.. and throw that old wind up steam powered camera in the bin..

[Samuel Berger]

 

 

Ah yes sorry E mount .. ! the II has a PL "like" mount and stronger front Chassis for heavier lenses.. but yes as you point out.. the pictures are unusable .. but that aside you should get one.. and throw that old wind up steam powered camera in the bin..

 

The Ursa Mini's steam doesn't bother me and gives me an excuse to wear a top hat and goggles.

[Tyler Purcell]

The Ursa Mini's steam doesn't bother me and gives me an excuse to wear a top hat and goggles.

I think he was talking about your film cameras. :P

[Tyler Purcell]

If they play it right is the big big toss up. I personally don't see BM getting much real traction. Hopefully I'm wrong, but honestly, with low-end and "out to pasture" Red cameras being as cheap as they are, with the marketing clout and "pedigree," though i shudder to use that word, it's just a tough market to compete in.

Same with the F55 and F5 moving "downward" with the arrival of the new Venice.

As I said above, it will take a big time filmmaker to use and market it. The problem is, most big time filmmakers have the budget to rent gear and the difference in rental price between an URSA Pro and lets say an FS7 is nominal.

 

It's a nearly impossible market to compete in because there are more and more Dragons and Alexa Classic's sitting around rental houses these days and they're willing to discount them heavily. So for "rental" sake, why would you ever shoot with an URSA Pro if for a few bux more you can get a Dragon... assuming you're doing separate audio narrative filmmaking.

 

The URSA Pro fit's one category; camera owners. People like myself, who do everything themselves and need an inexpensive package to do it with, those are the URSA Pro "users" and it's the reason why the camera will never gain traction on the rental side.

[Samuel Berger]

I think he was talking about your film cameras. :P

 

FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!

 

Them rich dandies with their fancy Sonys, always tryin' a take away our film camera rights!

[Robin R Probyn]

Although I must say the Eclair did improve when they started to add chocolate ..those French .. genius !

[Tyler Purcell]

FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!

 

Them rich dandies with their fancy Sonys, always tryin' a take away our film camera rights!

Damn skippy! The best thing is... in 20 years, they'll all be looking back at the dozen or so cameras they've owned from the beginning of digital to that point in time, yet we'll still be using our trusty old 90's or (or earlier) vintage cameras to create BETTER imagry! lol :P

[Samuel Berger]

Damn skippy! The best thing is... in 20 years, they'll all be looking back at the dozen or so cameras they've owned from the beginning of digital to that point in time, yet we'll still be using our trusty old 90's or (or earlier) vintage cameras to create BETTER imagery! lol :P

 

We will only be so lucky if Kodak is still around. They lost 46 million and laid off 425 people. But they are bringing back Ektrachrome so that's a move in the right direction. As long as they remember their name means FILM.

[Tyler Purcell]

We will only be so lucky if Kodak is still around. They lost 46 million and laid off 425 people. But they are bringing back Ektrachrome so that's a move in the right direction. As long as they remember their name means FILM.

For the record, the motion picture division is such a small portion of their business, it doesn't matter.

 

Kodak invested a ton of money making a new phone and it was friggen stupid and I bet they canceled the project... that's just my guess.

[Brian Drysdale]

Kodak were involved in sensor development, until they sold that division off.

 

http://optics.org/news/5/4/11

[Robin R Probyn]

Ironically they also made the Cineon gamma curve too..

[Tyler Purcell]

Kodak were involved in sensor development, until they sold that division off.

 

http://optics.org/news/5/4/11

Well yea, they invented the CCD imager.

[Stuart Brereton]

With the patents that Kodak owned and the right management, they could have been a giant in the digital cinema world, just as they had virtually dominated the film world. Sadly, they had a CEO who was more interested in selling printer ink.

[Phil Rhodes]

The short-termism of our leadership class - in business or politics - is one of the most serious problems currently facing civilisation.

 

I am not joking.

[Tyler Purcell]

With the patents that Kodak owned and the right management, they could have been a giant in the digital cinema world, just as they had virtually dominated the film world. Sadly, they had a CEO who was more interested in selling printer ink.

They didn't want to kill film, which when they developed the CCD was far more important.

[Stuart Brereton]

They didn't want to kill film, which when they developed the CCD was far more important.

No, but when the digital camera revolution happened anyway, they totally failed to leverage the thousands of patents that they held, instead concentrating of selling printers and ink. Then they realized that wasn't going to save them, so they had a fire sale to offload millions of dollars of IP.

 

Kodak were better positioned to take advantage of digital camera technology than just about any other company, and they blew it.

[tom lombard]

Would have to dig it out of my closet to see if this is the exact model that I have but it's close. I recall it being able to take about 20 shots and I'd hook it up to my Mac Powerbook (maybe running OS 8) with a SCSI cable. Still have those in the closet too.

 

[Samuel Berger]

I guess it's okay to say it, it was this guy: https://www.ebay.com/itm/blackmagic-design-ursa-viewfinder/112629483518

 

He had some items going for cheap but his Ursa viewfinder is overpriced.

 

It's ungainly and slippery that the Ursa Mini's viewfinder has to be bought separately. If I were to buy it new I'd be paying more for it than I did for the used camera.

[Carl Nenzen Loven]

I know I am late to this party. And I usually agree with the OP of the thread.

BUT.

I have shoot on the FS5, F5, F55, and F65.

And I would say they are not what you make them out to be. Yes I do not like their menus, or do like the lower end ones. I would however take one any day over the instability of the RED. And with a good grader you can make footage look amazing.

Granted I think it was a mistake to shoot "Cafe Society" on the F65/55 because it just doesn't look right to do a period piece that clean.

But Sonys are great, even the rental houses agree on it. Just a different way of shooting.

C

[Samuel Berger]

You know, I don't remember WHY I posted that, and it wasn't really a very serious post even though I do dislike Sony. Some days I get bored at work and spend more time than I should, posting stuff in forums.
I think that at the time, I had in mind the fact that people who shot video were always having to upgrade/sidegrade their equipment and it seemed bothersome to me, considering how many years a good film camera package lasts.

[Robin R Probyn]

But actually sir .. this has also changed.. yes it used to be you bought a $50,000 digibeta and a $25,000 zoom.. and used the camera for 15 years or so.. with high maintenance bills..but now the camera cost half that and you get firmware up grades.. for free mostly .. I bought my f5 Version 3. something.. it was an HD camera with limited capabilities . but still more than the average ⅔ inch CCD ENG camera.. now on version 9.. and its a 4K internal Rec ($1,000) a bit of a story behind that one.. I have all the LUT,s .. high speed.. slow speed..quick menus etc ..the camera can do almost anything.. and except for the internal 4K Rec .. its all been free.. very easy to up grade.. if I can do it anyone can.. its really a big relief not to have to buy a whole new camera every time.. as it used to be with ENG camera,s.. or was with Aatons .. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

I would however take one any day over the instability of the RED. And with a good grader you can make footage look amazing.

The Dragon is a pretty stable camera when rented from a rental house and taken care of. I don't own one, so I don't know what it's like as an "owner" to deal with. However, I've shot a bunch of projects with it and it always worked flawlessly.

 

No matter how much work you put into the grading of stuff shot with Sony cameras, there are always little signs of Sony that peek through. This is the same with pretty much every camera though.

 

But Sonys are great, even the rental houses agree on it. Just a different way of shooting.

The rental houses aren't renting them here in Los Angeles. They sit on shelves... outside of the F65. I think the Venice will be a marketable difference for the rental houses AND Sony. They seem to have made a "proper" cinema camera finally.

 

Ohh and yes, Sony is a "different way of shooting" and most importantly, a different way of post.

[Stuart Brereton]

 

 

The rental houses aren't renting them here in Los Angeles. They sit on shelves... outside of the F65. I think the Venice will be a marketable difference for the rental houses AND Sony. They seem to have made a "proper" cinema camera finally.

 

Ohh and yes, Sony is a "different way of shooting" and most importantly, a different way of post.

The F55 rents for roughly the same as an Alexa, and they are just as busy. F5s and Fs7s tend to be owner/operator cameras so there are less of them in rental houses.

 

Sony is not a 'different way of shooting' at all. If you take the time to research your camera, which you should do with ANY system, it is simple to understand. It's not a different system of post either. There are plenty of edit systems which natively handle XAVC, and for those that don't, you can transcode to Pro-Res, which is almost identical to working with RED Raw, or any other flavor of raw. Please stop trying to make out that Sony has some weird post production pipeline, when it's clearly only you that has problems with it.