David Coughlan

The first wave of a product is dicey, and with Blackmagic it's extra dicey. But at the same time, the camera is so cheap, and from what I've seen BM is pretty good about fixing/replacing things if they need replacing. For the price, I think that's an okay tradeoff. And who knows, maybe they'll get it right straight out the gate. The Ursa mini is pretty great, but again the reliability issue rears its head. Google variations on "Ursa Mini Sensor problems" etc. and you see tons of results. Google similar things with something like the C200 and nada. Personally I think it's too much money to drop on something that's likely to have an issue with it. You can adapt your glass with a Metabones adapter. They're pretty popular. Obviously not as ideal as native, but plenty of people use them. As far as Magic Lantern goes, I think it's gotten safer and easier to install/work with over the years. I imagine 4k 10 bit RAW would offer a nice step up from whatever the T5 offers but perhaps not.

This is why I asked about the still shooting. If you don't care about stills, cine cameras should definitely be in the mix. Very hard to argue against the BMPCC4K (outside of the caveats already mentioned) for your needs, if you can wait. In the meantime, have you looked into Magic Lantern for squeezing some life out of your T5? There's some risk of bricking the cam, so don't attempt if you can't afford to lose it, but if you follow instructions should be pretty smooth sailing. edit: this guy has some of the shakiest cam hands I've ever seen, but you should be able to handle noise/artifacting a bit better with RAW

Do you want a DSLR because you also want to take pictures, or because you're going for affordability? And what do you want to shoot? As far as bang for buck goes, the BMPCC4K is certainly "exciting" when you consider pricepoint and features ($1300 and includes Resolve Studio). It's scheduled for release in September. Unfortunately Blackmagic has some history of missing launch dates and delivering buggy first-gen devices, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it took until January or February 2019 before it was worth buying. Or they could release it early and it could be flawless/amazing. Hard to say. Also on the vaporware front is the Sony A7SIII. Unclear whether Sony will push 4k/10bit/60p into the cam as that would require a processor update and potentially threaten the 4k60p-less FS5 MKII, which they've been loathe to do. But the company recently did an about face on color science and have been pushing their revised look into new cams, so maybe times are a changing and they're going to try to compete on specs. No speculated release date. The rumor mill says an announcement was supposed to take place this week but the recent success of the A7III (sold out everywhere) caused a delay. Worst case scenario probably announced at Photokina in September and available shortly after. Finally, Canon is rumored to have a mirrorless video something or other that's actually out in the field and being tested, but no indication as to whether that will even be released this year. But if things like 4k / 10 bit / 60p / RAW / AF don't matter that much to you or you really want to buy something today, there may be better options than waiting, just depends on your needs and priorities.

Oh boy. YOU brought up "economic sensibility", I try to explain how most rational people determine that, and now you say comparing costs between two cameras in the same class is "random" ... Ok. Between this and your initial post I'm pretty sure you're just out for drama at this point. Good luck with finding a camera.

So? You said (and I quoted): "The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits." I gave what I consider a standard economic justification to try to explain where Sony thinks it fits, since from your comment it seemed like you may not have done this cost analysis before dismissing the camera outright. Everyone places value on different things (which I also said), so it's possible that you see things differently from most buyers. Expecting camera manufacturers to price things based on how you value them and not a general market may not be a winning strategy for calculating economic sensibility, though.

I think it competes favorably with both the C100mkII and C200/EVA1. Arguably a better value than the C200 depending on how much people prioritize internal RAW and DPAF. 4.7k base + 1.3k for Inferno + 500 for 1TB SSD for inferno = $6,350 C200: Stripped down with the 6k base + 500 for 512 CFAST + 500 for 5" external monitor = 7,000, but missing EVF / really needs another $500 in rigging to be comparable 7.5k base + 500 for cheap 512 CFAST = 8,000

Hm. I disagree. The image reminds me of a cross between an EVA1 and a C200, and it's priced where the C200/EVA1 should be. Great value in comparison. Really like the colors in that clip, too, which is not something I usually say where Sony is concerned.

Any reason you're saying this or just speculation? The C200 is designed to compete with the EVA1/FS7/UMP4k and priced in the same neighborhood, so it probably doesn't make too much sense to slash based on the BMPCC4K (I think those overlapping markets are miniscule), but Canon has a history of semi random price cuts/new announcements (C400 anybody?!) with the C bodies so it's always a possibility. I could see the BMPCC4K having an influence on the price of a C100mkIII, though. That is if it's even still in the roadmap...

http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?forums/training.14/ -- lots of resources there.