Recommended lenses

B.J. Adams · July 11th, 2016, 01:35 PM

Ursa Mini has a viewfinder... the rest is just as you said especially batteries and media!

Noa Put · July 11th, 2016, 01:50 PM

Are you sure? from what I can read on the specification list it says the viewfinder is optional. Philip bloom also had no viewfinder, if it's optional it probably will be a expensive option.

B.J. Adams · July 11th, 2016, 01:54 PM

you are right! it comes with the extra kit!

Noa Put · July 11th, 2016, 02:20 PM

I see now it's 1500 dollar for the viewfinder and the shouldermount kit is another 400 dollar, that would make it about twice the price of the ls300 (taken the b&h offer with the lens included into consideration)

Stein Onshus · August 25th, 2016, 06:38 AM

I have a Pana 20mm f1.7, which is supposed to have continuous autofocus during video and push focus for photo.

B&H: "Supports the Contrast AF system for highly precise autofocus. Continuous Auto Focus (AFC) does not work for still image capture but is usable when recording video"

On my Gx80/85 push focus works fine, but the video autofocus does not, nor on my Ls300.

Anything I can do or is the B&H statement wrong?

Steve Rosen · August 29th, 2016, 04:54 PM

I pre-ordered the BM Mini Ursa 4K, (as well as the FS5) but when it became obvious that it was going to be a long time coming, opted for the LS300 as an interim solution. It was essentially only $2500 (it came bundled with a $500 Metabones EF adapter for 3 grand total).

I recently had the opportunity to work with the BM 4.6K Mini Ursa and wasn't as happy with it as I am with my two little Pocket Cameras.

I have been so pleased with the LS300, and it's ability to intercut with the Pockets, that I've given up thinking about other cameras. That's a good thing.

As for lenses, I will restate that my main lens is the Olympus 12-40, augmented by the Lumix 35-100. They're both very sharp, work at the 4K setting (if you're doing that) and cover most focal length needs -

But please get over depending on auto focus, it might work better with the contrastier cinema gamma (I haven't tried) , but my experience with J-Log is that it's chancy at best (and of course auto-exposure doesn't work at all with J-Log). If that is a deal breaker the new version of the C100 might be a better choice.

B.J. Adams · August 30th, 2016, 12:07 AM

@steve rosen, i am very surprised that you did not like the BM 4.6K. I had the opportunity to work with one on 2 different shoots and it looks fantastic. unfortunately the price was a bit too pricey for my budget

Steve Rosen · August 30th, 2016, 12:23 PM

B.J - I'm a documentary filmmaker and handhold most of the time - that combined with my lack of fascination for EF lenses (I have two from my C100) left me unimpressed.

The Mini Ursa looks well designed in photos, but the thought of working with one handheld all day harkened back to my years with the Eclair NPR - That was a great camera for the time, but with the front motor was very front-heavy. The Mini Ursa needs some help there. If I did buy one, I wouldn't use their EVF - it's just not forward enough - I'd mount my Gratical about 2-3 inches further over the lens - Unfortunately that leaves being stuck with those damn EF lenses.

One of the great things about the LS300 is I can use those EFs if I want, but can also use the pile of MFT lenses I have accumulated for my Pockets.

So, it's personal - But also, and others have said this as well, the image from the 4.6 just doesn't look as nice as the Pocket Camera. And the Pocket intercuts well with the JVC...

If the LS300 was 10 bit it would be a no-brainer, with no need for any rationalization.

B.J. Adams · August 30th, 2016, 12:30 PM

I have to agree, the LS300 needs a better quality format than the 150mb/s compression we have now. And 10bit is always welcome, however I am not sure this is achievable through software

The BM is also available with PL mount ;)

Steve Rosen · August 30th, 2016, 02:22 PM

No, not software - and unfortunately I seriously doubt that JVC will update the LS given it's apparently lackluster sales,,,

And, yeah, PL would be nice if I had even one PL lens, but my legacy lenses are all S16 CA-1 or Aaton mount, which don't cover the Ursa sensor anyway, and my modern lenses are all MFT - even the Rokinon and Nokton primes I bought with the hope that MFT would stick round for a while (I don't like using adapters if I don't have to)... Oh well.

I forgot to add that this concern I had about the end of MFT led me to buy - two days before the announcement of end of production - a Digital Bolex with an MFT mount. I realy wanted to love that camera, but the one I received had lots of problems, not the least of which it wouldn't recognize or format the new CF cards I bought with it. So I had to return it.. that was the last pro MFT option short of a GH4.

Alex Humphrey · August 31st, 2016, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.J. Adams

I have a similar problem.... price difference between LS300 and Ursa Mini 4K is only $100
Why should I get the LS300?

I had the same question. For me it was the cost per hour to record as well as battery system. (not included with Ursa Mini). Philip Bloom made a comment about how heavy it was when loaded to operate and that most of the time due to the high cost of media, he shot 10 bit instead of raw anyway.

I think the Ursa Mini is probably better in most regards, but will cost at least 2x as much to make it operate between CF2 cards and V mount or AB Batteries and charger (unless you have some laying around from your old gear)

I think the cost is more comparable to the now out of production Digital Bolex that came with 512g internal enterprise SSD and 4 hour battery for $3,000. with a Super 16mm and shot raw 1080p and cinema 2K at 12 bit 444 I believe. I nearly bought one till they stopped making cameras. (image quality over resolution debate)

B.J. Adams · August 31st, 2016, 09:44 AM

@Alex, I have bought a whole load of gear, as I am starting afresh, so I came to your same conclusions.

I am selling my old 8 year old mics & gear, little by little, and buying batteries & sd cards!

Steve Rosen · August 31st, 2016, 06:22 PM

I would say, and not attempting to start an argument (because I do own BM cameras), that the LS 300 is as good a camera as the Mini Ursa unless your requirements demand 10 bit. I do a lot of work for broadcast regionally and nationally, and the banding issue with 8 bit pops up more than I'd like - especially after the film is remastered for close-captopning...

The thing is, hardly anyone else ever notices it, not even my partner, and we've been making films together since 1984.

If you're doing narrative and have a hope of a major release, or doing a lot of effects or green screen, it may not be for you - but the LS300 produces a picture that will stand up next to almost everything out there... maybe even the "almost" qualification isn't needed. It's a great but much neglected and maligned product (and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford any camera I want, but why not be practical?)

Today I shot a lot of B roll at an historic California mission. I used my Pocket Cameras, which I really like. But when I got home and compared the footage to my last trip with the LS300, I preferred the LS footage.

Again, not intending to start a debate, just saying that it really can be a personal thing.

Christopher Young · September 2nd, 2016, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Ferrell

If I get the camera I will have to try an HD broadcast lens.

George. If you want a brief look at some footage of a 300 with a B4 lens using the MTF B4 adapter I squeezed off some shots some 12 months back. This camera had it's original firmware. Later firmware has improved the camera's performance somewhat so bear that in mind if you download the clip. The clip has all the lens / settings, details info at its head. Can be downloaded here:

www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/wwej5r

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Alex Humphrey · September 3rd, 2016, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Rosen

I would say, and not attempting to start an argument (because I do own BM cameras), that the LS 300 is as good a camera as the Mini Ursa unless your requirements demand 10 bit. I do a lot of work for broadcast regionally and nationally, and the banding issue with 8 bit pops up more than I'd like - especially after the film is remastered for close-captopning...

The thing is, hardly anyone else ever notices it, not even my partner, and we've been making films together since 1984.

If you're doing narrative and have a hope of a major release, or doing a lot of effects or green screen, it may not be for you - but the LS300 produces a picture that will stand up next to almost everything out there... maybe even the "almost" qualification isn't needed. It's a great but much neglected and maligned product (and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford any camera I want, but why not be practical?)

Today I shot a lot of B roll at an historic California mission. I used my Pocket Cameras, which I really like. But when I got home and compared the footage to my last trip with the LS300, I preferred the LS footage.

Again, not intending to start a debate, just saying that it really can be a personal thing.

@ Steve,

thank you for your insight. That was my assumption from looking at downloaded footage from JVC to edit with. Luckily I have a friend with a Red Scarlet if any scenes really need 12 bit raw. But so expensive to shoot per hour because of the proprietary HDD's. Having only a few hours of experimentation with my new LS300 I think it's pretty good and for my needs for the next year or two, good enough. Some post work latitude unlike the old HDV or Nikon DSLR (D5200) that has practically no wiggle room in post. So far the only issue I see for myself for how I plan on working for the next 12 - 24 months is JLog with the flat fields in moderately shadowed that look electronic and pixelated noise when the JLOG LUT is applied in post. (or grade manually and try to avoid it). I wonder if anyone has tried the Ninja Flame or Black Magic Video Assist 4K and record 10 bit on the external unit. It will still be 8bit color of course, but I wonder how much of the noise is post compression. Wish there was a 10bit uncompressed out the SDI or HDMI, but oh well. maybe in a year there will be a LS330 or something :)

July 11th, 2016, 01:35 PM	#16
B.J. Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Malta Posts: 111	Re: Recommended lenses Ursa Mini has a viewfinder... the rest is just as you said especially batteries and media!

July 11th, 2016, 01:50 PM	#17
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	Re: Recommended lenses Are you sure? from what I can read on the specification list it says the viewfinder is optional. Philip bloom also had no viewfinder, if it's optional it probably will be a expensive option.

July 11th, 2016, 01:54 PM	#18
B.J. Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Malta Posts: 111	Re: Recommended lenses you are right! it comes with the extra kit!

July 11th, 2016, 02:20 PM	#19
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	Re: Recommended lenses I see now it's 1500 dollar for the viewfinder and the shouldermount kit is another 400 dollar, that would make it about twice the price of the ls300 (taken the b&h offer with the lens included into consideration)

August 25th, 2016, 06:38 AM	#20
Stein Onshus Regular Crew Join Date: May 2016 Location: Norge Posts: 26	Re: Recommended lenses I have a Pana 20mm f1.7, which is supposed to have continuous autofocus during video and push focus for photo. B&H: "Supports the Contrast AF system for highly precise autofocus. Continuous Auto Focus (AFC) does not work for still image capture but is usable when recording video" On my Gx80/85 push focus works fine, but the video autofocus does not, nor on my Ls300. Anything I can do or is the B&H statement wrong?

August 29th, 2016, 04:54 PM	#21
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: Recommended lenses I pre-ordered the BM Mini Ursa 4K, (as well as the FS5) but when it became obvious that it was going to be a long time coming, opted for the LS300 as an interim solution. It was essentially only $2500 (it came bundled with a $500 Metabones EF adapter for 3 grand total). I recently had the opportunity to work with the BM 4.6K Mini Ursa and wasn't as happy with it as I am with my two little Pocket Cameras. I have been so pleased with the LS300, and it's ability to intercut with the Pockets, that I've given up thinking about other cameras. That's a good thing. As for lenses, I will restate that my main lens is the Olympus 12-40, augmented by the Lumix 35-100. They're both very sharp, work at the 4K setting (if you're doing that) and cover most focal length needs - But please get over depending on auto focus, it might work better with the contrastier cinema gamma (I haven't tried) , but my experience with J-Log is that it's chancy at best (and of course auto-exposure doesn't work at all with J-Log). If that is a deal breaker the new version of the C100 might be a better choice.

August 30th, 2016, 12:07 AM	#22
B.J. Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Malta Posts: 111	Re: Recommended lenses @steve rosen, i am very surprised that you did not like the BM 4.6K. I had the opportunity to work with one on 2 different shoots and it looks fantastic. unfortunately the price was a bit too pricey for my budget

August 30th, 2016, 12:23 PM	#23
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: Recommended lenses B.J - I'm a documentary filmmaker and handhold most of the time - that combined with my lack of fascination for EF lenses (I have two from my C100) left me unimpressed. The Mini Ursa looks well designed in photos, but the thought of working with one handheld all day harkened back to my years with the Eclair NPR - That was a great camera for the time, but with the front motor was very front-heavy. The Mini Ursa needs some help there. If I did buy one, I wouldn't use their EVF - it's just not forward enough - I'd mount my Gratical about 2-3 inches further over the lens - Unfortunately that leaves being stuck with those damn EF lenses. One of the great things about the LS300 is I can use those EFs if I want, but can also use the pile of MFT lenses I have accumulated for my Pockets. So, it's personal - But also, and others have said this as well, the image from the 4.6 just doesn't look as nice as the Pocket Camera. And the Pocket intercuts well with the JVC... If the LS300 was 10 bit it would be a no-brainer, with no need for any rationalization.

August 30th, 2016, 12:30 PM	#24
B.J. Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Malta Posts: 111	Re: Recommended lenses I have to agree, the LS300 needs a better quality format than the 150mb/s compression we have now. And 10bit is always welcome, however I am not sure this is achievable through software The BM is also available with PL mount ;)

August 30th, 2016, 02:22 PM	#25
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: Recommended lenses No, not software - and unfortunately I seriously doubt that JVC will update the LS given it's apparently lackluster sales,,, And, yeah, PL would be nice if I had even one PL lens, but my legacy lenses are all S16 CA-1 or Aaton mount, which don't cover the Ursa sensor anyway, and my modern lenses are all MFT - even the Rokinon and Nokton primes I bought with the hope that MFT would stick round for a while (I don't like using adapters if I don't have to)... Oh well. I forgot to add that this concern I had about the end of MFT led me to buy - two days before the announcement of end of production - a Digital Bolex with an MFT mount. I realy wanted to love that camera, but the one I received had lots of problems, not the least of which it wouldn't recognize or format the new CF cards I bought with it. So I had to return it.. that was the last pro MFT option short of a GH4.

August 31st, 2016, 09:44 AM	#27
B.J. Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Malta Posts: 111	Re: Recommended lenses @Alex, I have bought a whole load of gear, as I am starting afresh, so I came to your same conclusions. I am selling my old 8 year old mics & gear, little by little, and buying batteries & sd cards!

August 31st, 2016, 06:22 PM	#28
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: Recommended lenses I would say, and not attempting to start an argument (because I do own BM cameras), that the LS 300 is as good a camera as the Mini Ursa unless your requirements demand 10 bit. I do a lot of work for broadcast regionally and nationally, and the banding issue with 8 bit pops up more than I'd like - especially after the film is remastered for close-captopning... The thing is, hardly anyone else ever notices it, not even my partner, and we've been making films together since 1984. If you're doing narrative and have a hope of a major release, or doing a lot of effects or green screen, it may not be for you - but the LS300 produces a picture that will stand up next to almost everything out there... maybe even the "almost" qualification isn't needed. It's a great but much neglected and maligned product (and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford any camera I want, but why not be practical?) Today I shot a lot of B roll at an historic California mission. I used my Pocket Cameras, which I really like. But when I got home and compared the footage to my last trip with the LS300, I preferred the LS footage. Again, not intending to start a debate, just saying that it really can be a personal thing.