Some guy sold his Ursa Mini Pro to buy an FS7

[Robin R Probyn]

 

You can do lots of looks in the Sony Menus, once you spend the time in advance of the shoot either learning or setting them up, rather than on the set.

 

DITs used to do this all the time on Sony cameras and store the settings on memory sticks. It's probably not done so much these days because it's now commonly done in post, rather than the camera. Experienced DITs could also do it on the set if something new was required for a scene. They were rather more than data wranglers and many were experienced DPs.

 

 

Yes sort of bit of a contradiction re Tylers dislike of the Sony.. it has a lot of menu items for changing the most tiny increments of in camera looks.. you can change just about everything... but now you can also burn in a 3D LUT you have designed yourself .. which is far more subtle than even the myriad in camera settings.. if you rent the camera for a day.. set up some charts etc.. you can get a look ,or looks you want.. save it to an SD card.. and just load it in when you use that camera.. or User LUTs you have made in Resolve etc.. if anything there are too many choices .. thats why a lot of people just shoot Cine EI.. you don't have to worry about all that stuff.. and then just throw on a LUT if you want it quick and dirty..

[Phil Rhodes]

I do think that the Sony menus are rather overcomplicated. I mean seriously, who's going to start screwing around with matrixing in the field, especially these days?

 

I've always been very cautious about people looking at a chart on a vectorscope and saying "I know better." That sort of thinking has to be taken with extreme caution.

 

P

[Robin R Probyn]

I do think that the Sony menus are rather overcomplicated. I mean seriously, who's going to start screwing around with matrixing in the field, especially these days?

 

I've always been very cautious about people looking at a chart on a vectorscope and saying "I know better." That sort of thinking has to be taken with extreme caution.

 

P

 

 

Yes thats the point really.. no one should be messing around with matrix in the field.. unless its a DIT who really knows what he/she is doing.. but if you do,do it pre shoot.. you can get a look you like.. or 100 of them.. and put them on an SD card and have that set up in seconds.. but yes you don't want to be doing it straight after taking the camera out of the bag morning of the shoot.. who is doing that..? or make up your own LUT.. what could be more precise than that..

 

But yes as Stuart says .. I think most people are shooting LOG and leaving all that to post.. BUT if you do want a very particular look in camera.. like Tyler does..the Sony's are your friend .. as you say.. very full matrix set ups.... not when your shoot day.... thats like packing your parachute after you have jumped out of the plane..

[Tyler Purcell]

It's not necessarily about a "particular" look, more like getting a look that doesn't require reworking in post.

 

I just want one button access to 100% adjustable Kelvin, Shutter speed/angle, Frame Rate and ISO.

 

I also want VU meters on the display, I want zebra's, histogram and focus peaking.

 

See, I don't base my life on what the monitor looks like. So I could care less about what LUT the camera is using during monitoring. Heck, I'd be happy with a B&W monitor, that would work far better for me because it's less distracting. To be honest, during the SD ENG days, I rarely colored my work. Today when I shoot film, I do one light transfers and they're perfect. Can't digital do the same thing? When I shoot with the Dragon, Alexa, Blackmagic cameras, I don't have these issues or restrictions.

[David Hessel]

You cannot get usable images out of a Sony.

 

Do you realize that saying "You cannot get usable iamges out of a Sony" what you are really saying is "I cannot get usable images out of a Sony". There are plenty of examples out their that prove many others are more than capable of getting great images out of a Sony.

[Samuel Berger]

The FS7 image and tools seem pretty useful for a lot of things - but the main question always is "what is its cinematic potential?"

 

To me - almost none.

 

I've been through Sonys and I do not find the image to be "cinematic" at all.

Sure, you could put some lenses you can't afford on it, and slap a lot of filters on it, but you can do that to any camera. Seeing how much the FS7 costs, I don't think it's anything special.

[Samuel Berger]

5 reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7

1. The URSA Mini comes from people with Australian accents. I think Australian accents are really freakin’ cool. The Sony FS7 comes from people WITHOUT Australian accents. That’s like seriously nowhere near as cool. Like, what were they thinking? Even the GPS Mapper on my iPhone has an Australian accent. Lame.

2. The URSA Mini has a symmetrical shape to it. The FS7 has like, weird curved out parts at the back that aren’t even the same on both sides. How am I supposed to look at that without getting all weirded out? It’s like “don’t they even know how to make a square where they come from?”

3. The URSA Mini has a flip-out screen on the side where normal people can look at it. The FS7 screen is at the top and in all the Sony promo shots there’s a guy looking down on it from above. So what – this camera is only supposed to be for really tall people? That’s totally discriminatory. Why is Sony trying to appeal to heightists? That’s like really not cool Sony. So you’re telling me I’m too short? Is that it? Like shorter people don’t have rights to use a video camera too? Not cool.

4. The URSA Mini can shoot in ProRes. The FS7 uses one of those dumb compressed codecs called XAVC. As if making it sound tough by putting an X in front of the regular old AVC thing is going to make us forget it’s just a compressed codec – nothing at all like ProRes. ProRes RULES.

5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!


I had eleven more reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7 but I figured I could keep it just to the really important ones because… well, because they speak for themselves obviously.

[Stuart Brereton]

I When I shoot with the Dragon, Alexa, Blackmagic cameras, I don't have these issues or restrictions.

Those cameras were all designed from the ground up as digital cinema cameras, Sonys weren't. Originally they were broadcast cameras, and the complicated menus and deep level of control that they offer is part of that legacy. It's not for everyone, and if you don't feel the need to use them, that's fine. We are at a stage now with digital cinema that all the professional cameras are pretty damn good, and there's a camera for every situation. It's perfectly fine to have preferences for the equipment that you use, but when people make ridiculous statements like the one that prompted this Version 2.0 of the Sony discussion "You cannot get usable images out of a Sony", it is of course going to prompt others to disagree.

[Brian Drysdale]

5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!

 

 

This is nonsense since the FS7 was announced in 2014 and the URSA Mini about the same time. The handle was a key design feature of the FS7 at the time and it wasn't an after thought, if anything it had it's roots in the Aaton. .

[Tristan Noelle]

5 reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7

1. The URSA Mini comes from people with Australian accents. I think Australian accents are really freakin’ cool. The Sony FS7 comes from people WITHOUT Australian accents. That’s like seriously nowhere near as cool. Like, what were they thinking? Even the GPS Mapper on my iPhone has an Australian accent. Lame.

2. The URSA Mini has a symmetrical shape to it. The FS7 has like, weird curved out parts at the back that aren’t even the same on both sides. How am I supposed to look at that without getting all weirded out? It’s like “don’t they even know how to make a square where they come from?”

3. The URSA Mini has a flip-out screen on the side where normal people can look at it. The FS7 screen is at the top and in all the Sony promo shots there’s a guy looking down on it from above. So what – this camera is only supposed to be for really tall people? That’s totally discriminatory. Why is Sony trying to appeal to heightists? That’s like really not cool Sony. So you’re telling me I’m too short? Is that it? Like shorter people don’t have rights to use a video camera too? Not cool.

4. The URSA Mini can shoot in ProRes. The FS7 uses one of those dumb compressed codecs called XAVC. As if making it sound tough by putting an X in front of the regular old AVC thing is going to make us forget it’s just a compressed codec – nothing at all like ProRes. ProRes RULES.

5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!

I had eleven more reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7 but I figured I could keep it just to the really important ones because… well, because they speak for themselves obviously.

One reason the FS7 is better than the URSA Mini.

 

1. The client/producer wants to use the FS7.

 

I've been on sets with the FS7 more times than I can count this year. It is the go to camera for basic, work-a-day content. Interviews, docu-style/reality, event coverage, promo videos, web shows, comedy sketches, industrials and educationals, etc. At this point it's what producers know and trust and often own, despite it's quirks.

 

Is the URSA mini pro a better camera? Probably. Do I bother spending my time convincing a client it is when they've used the FS7 before and know the workflow and results? Nope. Do I refuse to use the FS7 if they provide it for the shoot? Again, nope. You just figure out how to make it work for you and shoot it, unless you can afford not to work, of course.

 

That's why it makes sense to me this fellow would trade down to an FS7 from an Ursa Mini if they want to be a WORKING operator or DP.

 

I've had issues with the FS7; it's not perfect. I shot a feature on one last year. It was the director's camera. Our previous feature was on a 5DMk3 so this was a step up. I shot SLog3 and, despite my research, misjudged the waveform and underexposed some key scenes. My reference monitor was too small to judge noise. It was an early firmware before Sony added internal noise reduction. I did some post NR and managed to salvage the scenes and the director was happy with the image in the end. I learned a valuable lesson. My recent work on the FS7 has been great.

[Stuart Brereton]

 

This is nonsense since the FS7 was announced in 2014 and the URSA Mini about the same time. The handle was a key design feature of the FS7 at the time and it wasn't an after thought, if anything it had it's roots in the Aaton. .

Apparently Samuel's entire post was tongue in cheek, including his original comment about Sonys being useless, which is why he's making amusing posts like his 5 reasons why Ursa is better than FS7.

 

Hopefully, the rest of the discussion has been valuable.

[Tyler Purcell]

5 reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7

 

1. The URSA Mini comes from people with Australian accents. I think Australian accents are really freakin’ cool. The Sony FS7 comes from people WITHOUT Australian accents. That’s like seriously nowhere near as cool. Like, what were they thinking? Even the GPS Mapper on my iPhone has an Australian accent. Lame.

"Put another prawn on the barby"

 

Don't forget, Blackmagic sources many of their components from Asia. They do however design and assemble in Australia, which is pretty damn kickass and part of the reason I support them. I'm sick and tired of being forced to own Asian products because they can't be made in other places, it's infurating.

 

2. The URSA Mini has a symmetrical shape to it. The FS7 has like, weird curved out parts at the back that aren’t even the same on both sides. How am I supposed to look at that without getting all weirded out? It’s like “don’t they even know how to make a square where they come from?”

The URSA Mini's shape is similar to the Alexa and F5/F55. The FS5/FS7 is a strange thing, with a battery that slides into the camera, with a super poor over-all design. The fan even pushes air right into the imager area, so it gets dusty and you can't clean it due to the brainiac's over at Sony making the imager compartment "sealed". I can't tell you how many FS7's we've had with dust on the imager you can't get off. The F5/F55 does fix almost all of those issues though.

 

I must mention the URSA Mini's battery solution is far better and is a costly upgrade for the FS5/FS7.

 

3. The URSA Mini has a flip-out screen on the side where normal people can look at it. The FS7 screen is at the top and in all the Sony promo shots there’s a guy looking down on it from above. So what – this camera is only supposed to be for really tall people? That’s totally discriminatory. Why is Sony trying to appeal to heightists? That’s like really not cool Sony. So you’re telling me I’m too short? Is that it? Like shorter people don’t have rights to use a video camera too? Not cool.

LOL well... :cough: the problem with the display is that it's garbage. First off, the eye loop breaks off when you rub it against your leg or something whilst carrying. Second the display quality isn't very good, it's "ok" but not great. The display is also hanging off a flimsy rail that is egging to break off at any time. Forget about the propritary cable which is pretty delicate.

 

The URSA display is about the same size, but it's much crisper and has good, rich blacks. It's also a touch screen, so all your settings can be adjusted without going into any "menu" system with scroll wheels like most cameras. Furthremore, the OLED viewfinder which is a "must" own for the URSA uses a standard connector onto the camera body, nothing propritary and it's very good quality. They thought out so many of the functions from having direct viewfinder control access with programmble on/off switches which is super nice. Yes the Sony's have some of those features, but to access changes to the display, you are gobbling up another one of your preset buttons on the body, rather then the display itself.

 

4. The URSA Mini can shoot in ProRes. The FS7 uses one of those dumb compressed codecs called XAVC. As if making it sound tough by putting an X in front of the regular old AVC thing is going to make us forget it’s just a compressed codec – nothing at all like ProRes. ProRes RULES.

Pro Res does rule, it's a far better codec in every way then XAVC. For me however, the fact the URSA does all the flavors of Pro Res AND RAW is far more important. There are NO options with the XAVC cameras. You either shoot LONG GOP or straight 10 bit 4:2:2 XAVC. Where are the 8 bit 4:2:2 low bit rate i frame codecs for those interviews you still need 4:2:2 for, but want iframe for easier editing? It's called Pro Res lite... built into all the blackmagic cameras. Where is the 444 12 bit codec for the Sony cameras? Eh... for several thousand dollars you can get RAW, but what if you don't want to shoot raw? What if you want 12 bit 444 so you can play the damn thing back in an editing program in real time? Sony RAW is also a joke, all prioritary, requiring their own software to play it back. Where Red Code and Cinema DNG is native to Premiere, Final Cut X, DaVinci and even Avid 8.

 

What humors me about XAVC is that it's not optimized for playback. Somehow, the designers of the codec, totally forgot about developing driver optimization. So if you've got a super powerful enterprise level workstation, that doesn't have an "i" processor from Intel, XAVC simply won't playback properly. This is because there is specific optimization on the processor that doesn't exist in any other processor (I bet AMD has this too in their lightweight procs) My machines all use enterprise grade processors that don't have that optimazation, so this is why XAVC doesn't work on my bays very well. XAVC playsback fine on i series processors.

 

In contrast, Pro Res is optimized for playback using a multi-threaded software driver that disperses the playback engine across all your cores. This makes it super efficient and doesn't gobble up unnecessary resources. Cinema DNG and Red Code are both heavy GPU intensive codec's, which rely more on power from your graphics card then CPU. This is why a decent machine with a decent graphics card, can play those back no problem.

 

5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!

I think the FS7 came out way before the URSA Mini... so umm... but still, that handle is garbage. Utter trash that most FS owners buy aftermarket, which is unfortunate.

[Tyler Purcell]

One reason the FS7 is better than the URSA Mini.

 

1. The client/producer wants to use the FS7.

That can be said about any camera. If you offered them an Alexa or Dragon, they'd use it too.

 

The FS7 is just another "word" tossed around the industry like HD and DV in years prior.

 

If I stuck an Ursa Mini Pro on set and put Sony stickers all over it, the client wouldn't know the difference. This ain't film vs digital.

[Brian Drysdale]

In practice, as a working freelance,, you're more likely to be using any camera other than the URSA Mini. The Sony FS7 or F5/55, Canon C300, Panasonic, Red or Alexa are all cameras I see regularly, but I've never seen a URSA Mini out in the wild. That's nothing against that camera, but I guess it has to build a reputation for being bullet proof, with crews and that takes time. Good images are only one factor in the equation.

 

I know one cameraman who used to put a home made black rain cover over a Sony M7 camera and not remove it when shooting Betacam SP for the BBC, He was very successful with it, although the build quality didn't hold up when in the rain; the viewfinder failed when I was standing in for him. Later, he replaced it with a Sony BVW600.

[Phil Rhodes]

I have no comment on the suitability of a particular camera for any job, but I have to say that talk of flimsiness and reliability issues seem very unfair when directed at the Ursa range.

 

FS7 is largely plastic-finished, encrusted in plastic buttons and plastic knobs, and when mated to the optional ProRes module (which in my view is essential for balance as well as ProRes) and other key accessories it becomes a rather chaotic assemblage of parts in the very worst tradition of modern camera rigging. Moreover, the viewfinder mount is hilariously inadequate, as is the viewfinder itself and particularly the clip-on loupe. The shoulder mount is made of thin, flimsy punched metal and held on with tiny screws.

 

By comparison, the Ursa Mini is made out of huge chunks of cast metal. It uses proper, full-sized camera batteries by default. The shoulder kit and viewfinder are both massively engineered with cast dovetails and big screws holding everything together. The Ursa Mini 4.6K, with which I personally have most experience, could stand being a bit more encrusted with buttons, given the design glitch with the obscured power switch, but that's what Ursa Mini Pro is for. Overall they're actually so heavily built it's slightly overdone. Even Ursa Mini is better described as Ursa Normal.

 

It really is almost as if Blackmagic decided they didn't want there to be any real question over build quality, so they went with the big-slabs-of-metal approach. Pictures aside, the build of the thing is almost beyond reproach. I am not blind to the realities of freelance accepatability, but from a technological and mechanical perspective I do not see any issue with using Ursa Mini for anything an FS7 could be used for. I would rather take the Blackmagic on a long, arduous travel documentary, or something like that.

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of front heavy large sensor cameras and the Ursa Mini has come out well in tests. I suspect there is a tendency these days to go for lighter weight on many cameras because of the reaction against the older cameras and people working as single person crews.

 

 

Sony seem to have a strange desire for loads of buttons on the side. I rather liked the JVC GY-HM100, which had a more stripped down approach, although the viewfinder could have been better, but the coloured peaking was a good feature (not sure if it was the first camera with it, but it seems to have been an early one).

 

I guess people need to use the URSA MINI to see how they hold up, although the Lightweight Sony cameras do seem to hold up.

[Robin R Probyn]

I think it comes down to two things .. if you shoot your own stuff.. edit etc.. then you can use any camera you want.. if you are a traditional freelancer.. you have to buy what is the current "must have camera".. or you just won't get any work.. I know people with Pana Varicams LT,s. who have a lot of trouble getting any work for it.. its Canon C300II. .. or Fs7/f5/55.. 90% of the time..or more Iam talking about everything put high end drama/commercials.. which is a very rarefied market and usually all rental..

 

If I sold my f5 and bought any BM camera.. I,ld be living in the street within a year .. as would any other freelancer.. just the way it is..

[Phil Rhodes]

Nobody's arguing.

 

I just find it disappointing that good engineering and capable devices are overlooked on the basis of fashion. It's one reason I don't really pursue shooting anymore.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I don't think it's so much fashion as it is the devils you know. Most of the time, producers want to use cameras from which they're gotten acceptable results from before and with which their post people, from PAs to AEs to Colorists are familiar with and have a work-flo in place for. For them, even "dealing" with the slight color difference between two camera/lens combinations along that path costs them a bit more money (in time) as opposed to their current "apply the same LUT we've used for the last show" approach.

This isn't as bad in narrative work, which is a very small subset of the larger film/video market which is generally there to deliver acceptable or broadcast-able images in the easiest and most familiar way.

 

I have used an Ursa major, exactly once, and an Ursa Mini exactly once. As for the Ursa major, it was an industrial, the company bought it, used it for one shoot, and promptly sold it because it was "more expensive" than their other cameras (2.5K Black Magics) in both the need for larger lights (400iso -v- 800) and in, at the time, the need to invest in CFast cards, and new editing, to take advantage of 4K.

 

The other time was covering for an owner-op who owned a black magic mini, used it for 1080p internal corporate videos, and that was it. He made good money at it; but in truth, the client would've been find with a 7D.

 

Conversely, not a day goes by where I don't see a shoot requesting a C300 (though I HATE that camera) or an FS7, Red, or Alexa. There really isn't a need, 90% of the time to use a Red or an Alexa for a given type shoot, aside from that's what they're comfortable with, and have a base expectation from borne out from having used it before.

 

The situation BM finds itself in is not so much so different form what Red found themselves in early on with the M. When it came out, it had some issues, but it worked, though it wasn't immediately to be the go-to camera for the vast majority of shoots because it hadn't yet been used enough for people to acclimate to it. I think the main way is actually got into the market wasn't so much so cost as it was getting major narratives to use the thing, and getting influential film-makers to endorse it (really good marketing). As a new-comer camera company, it needed this to make it "desirable" to shoot in a way Arri or Sony haven't really needed in DECADES. With BM, then, It's much LESS about capabilities as it is about getting some good Marketing and a few MAJOR narrative projects RELEASED and WRITTEN UP ABOUT using it as an A Camera, which will then trickle down, over YEARS, through the rest of the industry. This is, of course, something I don't see them doing any more than I see JVC trying for this approach (one could be forgiven, almost for forgetting JVC is Still around, even, though they do have a good establishment, I would assume in News? I've never in my career ever touched one, but I have seen them at some press conferences).

[Tyler Purcell]

RED had the upper hand slightly, as there wasn't a camera like it when the original Red One came out.

 

Blackmagic as a much harder road ahead of them, thanks to several other cameras on the market AND them making fools of themselves early on. Had Blackmagic started with the URSA Mini 4 years ago, today they'd be someone to reckon with the big guys. They **(obscenity removed)**ed up big time, they made so-so cameras for 3 years and even the Mini Pro is missing the optical low pass/IR filter (aftermarket upgrade), which is a prerequisite in my opinion. So even today, they're not quite ready to compete with Sony in my opinion... if just for that reason alone.

 

So lets say the URSA Pro is the "first" real camera they made. It's gonna take 2 years before people really start using it for bigger shows and proving it's quality. It will take a young professional filmmaker who makes thearical bound content, to risk using the URSA Mini Pro on a real shoot, before people will start clammoring for it. The problem is that, most people don't care about trying the lower-end cameras because they rent. It'll almost require like a Danny Boyle, or someone like that, who takes big risks, to make something and spark some intrigue. Until then, it's just a toy for reviewers and people who can't afford better cameras... most of whom aren't creating theatrically bound product.

[Stuart Brereton]

There's a least one rental house in LA that is pushing the Mini Pros as part of a 'budget package', teaming them up with cheaper accessories, and older lenses like Super Speeds (although they seem to be back in demand these days). The push for 4k acquisition has meant that a lot of the old low budget workhorses like the F3 have been put out to pasture. I can see BM making a nice niche for themselves if they play it right.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

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.

[Robin R Probyn]

But the Venice is pretty much just a new f65.. although Sony of course deny it.. Im not sure it will impact the f55.. unless its a very cheap rental.. and for sure not the f5 market.. :).. I have an f5 ,which by now would probably be a door stop.. except for the 4K hack and that the fs7 has become the new C300.. just a lucky break really.. its much nicer to use than an fs7 and fortunately the files are the same.. but without these two things happening it wouldn't have been a good choice at all.. us f5 owners got lucky really..

Edited November 19, 2017 by Robin R Probyn

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I honestly think; as it's "newer/better" Sony, it has a good chance to knock down those other two cameras in rental rate. But; who knows. If i was a great prognosticator i'd by own own a car made in the last decade .

[Samuel Berger]

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.