What's a good camera with interchangeable lenses?

I've been looking around for a new camera to buy for quite a while now, and I've found some interesting candidates. However, I wanted to hear you guys' ideas for a good camera.

I'm looking for a video camera of sorts, with interchangeable lenses.
My budget is about > 2500 USD

and umm, that's about it.
Any suggestions?
 
Keep in mind, that you may need to upgrade your editing equipment to use the BMCC. It allows a skilled operator to make Beautiful, high rez images. If you're still on slightly older editing equipment, Canon's DSLRs (Txi series, T2i, T3i, T4i, T5i) are great options. Nikon has good DSLR options as does Panasonic's GH series. The DSLR options would also leave you some cash for lenses.
 
Yes, BMCC, even the cheaper BMPCC pretty much requires a bunch of extra gear to get up an rolling properly.

Given the ~$2500 budget, some form of dSLR is going to likely be your best bet. Probably either canon or the Panasonic GH series knightly mentioned.

The only reason I'd give a bit of an edge to the panasonic over the canon is that the micro 4/3 having such a short distance between the mount and sensor allows you to use lens mount adapters for pretty much any type of lens. It's a much smaller sensor than the canon, but you can still make very pretty pictures with a panasonic GH2 for example..

If you already have a bunch of other gear you'd be reusing. Rails, some kind of external battery pack, follow focus, etc. the BMCC is a great choice. But keep in mind you'll also need to budget for a few SSD drives for storage, and likely will want to get a metabones speedbooster along with the micro 4/3 mount version of the BMCC, which will make the almost super 16mm sensor behave more like a Super35mm sensor. (in other words, you'll get shallower DoF, and much wider shots).. not to mention a nice 1 1/3 boost in speed for you lens :)

At that point though, you're looking at about $2500 for the BMCC and the metabones speed booster, and you'd still need SSDs to record to. As well as a beefy enough computer for editing/post production -- especially if you wanted to utilize the 2.5k resolution RAW that it's able to shoot. That then equates to even more SSDs for recording, and a LOT of storage (fast storage) on your post computer.


Realistically, you're looking at more like $5-6k to have a good useable BMCC setup. Or about $1-2k less for the pocket version.

Conversely, as knightly already mentioned, with a dSLR, you'll likely have money left over for some lenses -- especially if you source some older lenses from ebay, etc.

EDIT:
Also the reason I'd say Canon or Panasonic vs. Nikon is Canon has magic lantern, panasonic has its own firmware hack.. nikon, I'm not sure.. maybe?

But.. canon is able to use nikon lenses with an (inexpensive) adapter -- nikon cannot use canon lenses. Panasonic, having the MFT mount, as already mentioned, can use pretty much any lens with an appropriate adapter, including really nice PL-mount cinema lenses (though those adapters are several hundred dollars).

Another decent option is the Sony NEX. I've got one, and it makes pretty pictures. It's a bit more painful to work with than would be a normal dSLR, but it's mount is similar to a micro 4/3, and so it too can make use of many lens options. They also (at least versions 5n and up) have the same APS-C (not so called "full frame" but super35mm or larger) sensor that the more pro model Sony FS100 uses.


All of that said, my next camera purchase (within the next month or two) is going to be the BMCC, but I've already got a bunch of other gear, and recently built a new machine specifically for handling post production of its output... that system ran me about $1700, and without the great sales that were going on when I bought all the components would have been easily $300 more.
 
Last edited:
save up for a canon C100 it has built in ND, WAAAAYYY better low light than the Black magic, also the images it produces when used with an atoms ninja 2 are much much nicer!! and its ergonomics are superior, its going to be my next purchase plus it has XLR inputs which is a no brainer, for me its simply the best camera at an amateur budget range.

I used the black magic Cinema camera in a recent music video and to be honest I wasn't impressed with the image look or the camera, but i guess its personal preference, but really think about it.. your still going to have to use separate audio for the BMCC or BMPCC (i know you should anyway but if your doing Documentary or on the run gunning then the c100 is super handy) you have built in ND which is incredibly useful especially for outside shooting, the ISO range on the c100 is insane, its got a better crop factor (2.88 BMCC VS 1.5 C100) before anyone says oh just stand further back, no please believe me this is a major pain in the backside in tight spaces, its much more difficult to get the shot you want if your a fan of expressive videography.

also the one major major issue that is incredibly annoying and stupid beyond belief is the batter, its not just a problem its a huge one, we went through 5 batteries every couple of hours just to use the camera? the inbuilt battery is useless, from what iv heard, you could be shooting for 12 hours on just one battery for the c100 before you need to change (could be exaggerated as i received this info from someone who owns one)

that saves you so much money in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the posts and quick responses, they are very much appreciated.

Will, wow, so much great info. I love it.
And I agree with your pointers on buying the BMCC. Though it seems great, and IS cheap, there are a lot of other updates, so to say, that needs to be taken care of, which can make the final cost run up pretty high.

Will, you mention you have a Sony NEX camera. I myself have been eyeballing their vg30 camera quite a bit, so I'd love to know which camera you have, and how its dynamic range is, or maybe rather; if it is possible to change the contrast to -3 (or something), if I shoot in standart or portrait mode. Also, if you just so happen to know if this is possible to do with a vg30.

I am so far probably going to go with a sony vg30, or a Panasonic GH3, as they both look quite attractive.

Also would you, or anybody really, be able to tell me what the crop factor is on a sony vg30 and on a panasonic gh3? :)



8salacious9
I don't have that kind of money, also to me, it is not worth it at all. Shooting in low light is a nice thing to be able to do, but not at all something I am going to need to do. For me, it's like buying an airplane if I want a train. The airplane may be faster and cooler, but it's way more expensive, and I really don't need it.
Thanks anyway though, I'm glad to hear about different options :)
 
I wouldn't overlook Blackmagic so quickly. You can get the pocket camera for $1000 and the image quality is leagues better than any DSLR, and you'd still have $1,500 left over.

What are the the extra purchases you might ask? A battery and SD card, same as any DSLR. Then get yourself the nicest lens you can afford and you're good to go.

Also, Knightly: What did you mean by older editing software? It has the option of shooting straight to ProRes which means you can import straight into FCP and never have to convert footage or even render as you edit. So easy.

EDIT: I just read Will's post, but I disagree. If OPs budget is $2,500 then he/she shouldn't be considering the BMC or any high end DSLRs, so why bother mentioning it? The BMPCC , however, it right for the budget. It doesn't take SSDs, just regular SD cards, which like I said is the same thing you'd need to buy if you're shooting DSLR anyway. And the speed booster is an amazing tool if you can afford it, but not necessary. Also, you listed the ability to shoot RAW as a negative since you need computer space. That is ridiculous. Nobody is forcing you to use RAW, and it's a hell of a lot better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
 
Last edited:
Actually the NEX I have is the 5n, which is roughly the same size and form factor as the black magic pocket camera.. so small, and not terribly friendly to work with.

In the right circumstances it can produce gorgeous footage, for example: http://vimeo.com/31064478

To be honest I haven't done a whole lot with it since I bought it. Mostly I've only used it for stills.

As for the VG series, I can't really speak to those, as I've got no direct experience with them. They appear to have the same APS-C sensor as their bigger brother FS series cameras though, so I'd imagine similar, though software crippled, features to those.

I'm sure the VG's are nice cameras, but for about the same price you could get into a Canon dSLR, or the panasonic GH2 or GH3. All of which have alternate firmware options to get high bit rate recordings, etc. Sony does NOT have hacked firmware available.. It's been a work in progress for several years -- not much progress in the past year or so either.

For my money, I'd probably go with the Panasonic GH2 or GH3 at your budget level. Simply because of it's flexibility in compatible lenses (with adapters, etc).

Unless you already have a lot of Canon glass, in which case a Canon is a more logical choice.

True, the micro 4/3 has a quite large crop factor. There are options to overcome that though. Metabones Speed Booster adapters are available for micro 4/3 to several different mounts that not only boost the speed of the lens (giving you 1 full stop), but they also decrease the crop factor from 2.x to 1.42x.. In other words, your tiny micro 4/3 sensor will see the same sized image as a piece of super35mm film. (give or take a tiny amount)

The 'full frame' argument people love to throw around is really pretty bunk, in my opinion, when it comes to filmmaking. It's comparing apples to oranges.

Full frame 35mm is rather huge for a still camera because the film stock runs through the gate horizontally. Whereas with a 35mm motion picture camera, the film runs vertically. As such it's nowhere near as tall or wide as the film plane in a still camera. Thus anything beyond super35mm size is bigger than what's captured by a motion picture film camera -- unless you go up to something like a 70mm imax camera. :D

The bottom line, I think, is when you're buying a camera you want something that will give you the functionality you need right now. With the flexibility to grow with you for a couple of years. Given all the available options, and your budget, unless you have a bunch of canon lenses already I really think your best option right now, today would be a GH2 or a GH3. Because it's the most flexible mount system, so you could get adapters for virtually any kind of lens mount, and buy up old lenses from pawn shops, ebay, etc.. and if/when the time comes you need to to go wider and give you shallower depth of field, spend the $400-500 on a metabones adapter for your lens mount of choice.

If you already have a bunch of canon glass, get a T#i (2, 3, 4, 5..) because it has the bigger sensor, and you'll be able to use all of your existing canon lenses.

In either case, canon or panasonic -- plan on getting several fast SD cards.. don't splurge on a couple of big 64GB cards, get several smaller 16 or 32GB cards. And install the appropriate firmware hack or magic lantern, shoot in the best quality you can manage in post, and whenever possible properly light your shots, and plan them...you'll end up with beautiful footage.
 
There is one other thing to consider with the black magic (cinema or pocket cinema) that nobody, including myself, has mentioned yet.. it comes with what would otherwise cost you $1700 of software. Full blown version of Davinci Resolve 10, and Ultrascope. $999 and $650 respectively.

So that's certainly something to consider as well. But really, whatever camera you go with, you'll want good lenses, and ideally other accessories to go along with it. Both on and around the camera itself, as well as the set.

There's really no point in spending several thousand dollars on camera gear to either have to limit your shooting to outside during the day, or trying to shoot in the dark (and winding up with crap noisy footage).

I don't care what anyone says about low light sensitivity. When you get right down to it, your camera is collecting photons that hit its sensor and generating a digital representation of that. If there aren't photons there to collect, the result is digital noise. Therefore, the more photons available to the camera, the better the image quality.

Can you pull out your camera on in a dark alley at night and get a picture? Sure.. probably.. is it the quality of picture most people would want to pay $10 to look at for a couple of hours on a big screen? Probably not.

Your camera eats light... and it's hungry. Feed it.
 
There is one other thing to consider with the black magic (cinema or pocket cinema) that nobody, including myself, has mentioned yet.. it comes with what would otherwise cost you $1700 of software. Full blown version of Davinci Resolve 10, and Ultrascope. $999 and $650 respectively.

This is a good point. My Macbook Pro isn't compatible with Resolve so I ended up buying the BMC and selling my Da Vinci software for about $600. Probably could have gotten a lot more if I held out longer. Not a bad deal though in my opinion.
 
From what I have been reading, it doesn't matter if its a $500 DSLR or the BIG RED. Shooting at night generally creates noise so unless you have a BIG budget to artificially light the night scene to assist your camera, you are more likely to get noise then not, no matter what camera you use. This is why for clean shots, many people choose to film at day, adjusting their camera settings as well as being careful in post, to make the day shot look like a night shot.

The BEST camera, is the one you can afford with money left over for lenses etc. I am with that simply parroting what I have been told by more experienced members here, but it makes sense. There is no point buying the best camera in the world if you don't have the coin for extra batteries, software, grunty editing machines etc...and parroting again...money for good sound gear also. Great footage with bad sound equals me the viewer turning the film off within 5 minutes.
 
Also, Knightly: What did you mean by older editing software? It has the option of shooting straight to ProRes which means you can import straight into FCP and never have to convert footage or even render as you edit. So easy.

Not so much the software as the hardware (Editing Equipment) to deal with the higher resolutions the BMCC shoots.
 
You may want to wait until March for the Panasonic GH4. According the 4/3 rumors, the price in Europe is going to be €1500.

If you want the highest resolution you can get, or you're aiming for projection or theatrical release, it is the only DCI 4096x2160 camera below $4000.

I'd get the US model with the 3.5 hour recording limit, though - EU models will have a 30 minute continuous recording limit.
 
As for the VG series, I can't really speak to those, as I've got no direct experience with them. They appear to have the same APS-C sensor as their bigger brother FS series cameras though, so I'd imagine similar, though software crippled, features to those.

I'm sure the VG's are nice cameras, but for about the same price you could get into a Canon dSLR, or the panasonic GH2 or GH3. All of which have alternate firmware options to get high bit rate recordings, etc. Sony does NOT have hacked firmware available.. It's been a work in progress for several years -- not much progress in the past year or so either.

I have the oldest of the VGs. If you want to see what image quality is like, just look here: https://vimeo.com/paulrwalker/review/81056456/69df2b8874

The advantage of the VGs are numerous because it is designed as a camcorder which can shoot stills. A 5D, for example, is a camera which can shoot video.
 
I agree that VG cameras are much better ergonomically than a DSLR, but I've shot with the VG20 and time has passed these cameras by - 8 bit 4:2:0 codec, moire, only two color profiles and limited ability to control color in-camera. Unless you can find a really inexpensive one used, not a very good investment in my view.
 
Resolution isn't everything. There's still no word on what the GH4's codec will be, or the bitrate, etc..

Just because a camera has a sensor big enough and allows recording to a file with the dimensions 4096x2160 doesn't magically mean it'll be awesome. There's probably reasons it'll be significantly cheaper than other options. Reasons other than just "to sell more."

And here again, would be the concern of the extra hardware, etc necessary to handle the post workflow of 4K footage, which truly is pretty unnecessary for most things, unless you're doing a bunch of CG work. Are you making the next transformers movie in your backyard? Probably not. :)
 
Resolution isn't everything. There's still no word on what the GH4's codec will be, or the bitrate, etc..

Here's a chart with the codecs and bit rates: http://nofilmschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Panasonic-GH4-4K-Frame-Rate-List.jpg


Compiled from official Panasonic specs: http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consume...pact-system-cameras-dslm/dmc-gh4eb.specs.html

Since it's Quicktime .MOV, the files will be sizeable, but the workflow shouldn't be too much of a challenge :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top