Opinion Blacmagic pocket 6K, Gh5s, Sony A7sIII

 Hi.

I have to change equipment to film two documentaries.
I've been thinking about it and comparing equipment for several weeks. 
Sony A7s III, Zcam fs6, Gh5s and Blackmagic pocket 6K. 
For now the one that convinces me the most is the Blackmagic since 6K 
and being able to take advantage of my canon lenses is an advantage, 
also not needing an extra monitor. The lens I have is a canon 16-35 and a canon 100 macro.
 What do you do? Has anyone tried the Blackmagic pocket 6k?
Thanks for your opinions.
I have to be careful when spending the money!

11 hours ago, Azul said:

 

 Hi.

I have to change equipment to film two documentaries.
I've been thinking about it and comparing equipment for several weeks. 
Sony A7s III, Zcam fs6, Gh5s and Blackmagic pocket 6K. 
For now the one that convinces me the most is the Blackmagic since 6K 
and being able to take advantage of my canon lenses is an advantage, 
also not needing an extra monitor. The lens I have is a canon 16-35 and a canon 100 macro.
 What do you do? Has anyone tried the Blackmagic pocket 6k?
Thanks for your opinions.
I have to be careful when spending the money!

There is a guy in Indonesia that shoots the BMPCC6K and he is not overly impressed by the ergonomics. 16 for APSC is not that wide and will require a dome

I can't recall his name right now when it comes back to me I will repost

Zcam FS6 for sure. Especially with the water contact optics. True, its expensive, but if the doco is worth your time and effort it may be worth the money for the setup?

On 2/5/2021 at 10:09 PM, Interceptor121 said:

There is a guy in Indonesia that shoots the BMPCC6K and he is not overly impressed by the ergonomics. 16 for APSC is not that wide and will require a dome

I can't recall his name right now when it comes back to me I will repost

 

Thanks interceptor!
I think the partner you mention is Alex Ribeiro. He uses the BMPC 6K and although 
he is happy with the camera, he is not so happy with the Nauticam, since the lack 
of controls makes it difficult to use.
For the Blackmagic he recommends that I look at the Easydive Leo3 Magic underwater 
housing, but I have not found opinions of this model, only that of the manufacturers 
themselves.
He recommends that I don't use the Canon 16-35 lens and instead use the Canon 8-15 lens.
What would be your choice between the Sony A7sIII, Gh5s and the BLackmagic 6K?
And in optics? Canon 100 or 60mm macro?
Canon 16-35mm or 8-15mm? or some other suggestion.
The land part in these documentaries will be shot with Epic Dragon and we want 
the underwater part not to be out of place in quality.
Thanks for your help.

Yes Alex Ribeiro I remember now
I have the canon 8-15 myself is a great lens and its fisheye
There are adapters for any of the cameras you mentioned
As focal for macro on crop 60mm is enough you will need some form of stabiliser
In terms of ergonomics the zcam needs a monitor but records ProRes raw I think also the new sony but I hate Sony ergonomics and would not recommend it
Perhaps check what you prefer as output if you use resolve the bmpcc has a 12 bits codec too which is plentiful
I would not discount the Panasonic GH5s the 8-15 works very well as fisheye zoom and is cost effective and portable as you can record on card while the other options require power and ssd drives
In my experience underwater cropped format do better and those are all crop so it boils down to personal preference. I am surprised about issues with nauticam so perhaps look at the other two options and good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

11 hours ago, John Doe II said:

Zcam FS6 for sure. Especially with the water contact optics. True, its expensive, but if the doco is worth your time and effort it may be worth the money for the setup?

Hi. I have looked at the Zcam and there are several aspects that do not convince me:
I would need an external monitor, I could only record on cards and not on internal ssd disks
in the nauticam. (with the Blacmagic if it is possible in the nauticam)
and finally when it comes to processing the material it only works with your decoding
program and it is not possible with Mac, it only seems that it can be done with PC.

Hi. I have looked at the Zcam and there are several aspects that do not convince me:
I would need an external monitor, I could only record on cards and not on internal ssd disks
in the nauticam. (with the Blacmagic if it is possible in the nauticam)
and finally when it comes to processing the material it only works with your decoding
program and it is not possible with Mac, it only seems that it can be done with PC.

Hello again friends!
I have already decided that the chosen system will be the Blacmagic pocket 6K in nauticam housing.
Now my query is the optics and dome port part.
I have a canon 16-35 F2 that I could use. But I would like to have your opinion of different settings
 that allow me to shoot wide angle and macro.
Canon 16-35 and what dome port? or another more appropriate lens?
100 or 60 macro? and with what dome port?
Any setup with wet lenses? I discard the WACP for the moment, since its price is high.
Thank you very much to all.

3 hours ago, Azul said:

Hello again friends!
I have already decided that the chosen system will be the Blacmagic pocket 6K in nauticam housing.
Now my query is the optics and dome port part.
I have a canon 16-35 F2 that I could use. But I would like to have your opinion of different settings
 that allow me to shoot wide angle and macro.
Canon 16-35 and what dome port? or another more appropriate lens?
100 or 60 macro? and with what dome port?
Any setup with wet lenses? I discard the WACP for the moment, since its price is high.
Thank you very much to all.

16mm rectilinear lenses need big domes to get good corners at least on full frame.  The answer probably depends on what you are shooting.  Big animals in the blue, the corners are water without any detail.  Coral reef you probably need sharper corners - video is possibly less demanding than stills as you are looking at the action rather than poring over a single frame looking for details.   Being APS_C does help of course as the corners are cropped out

The 16mm lens is not that wide on APS-C though, it's equivalent to a 28mm lens which is not very wide, means you are further back from your subject and further away from your video lights if you are using them.

There's lots of other choices for lenses that are actually wide - the Canon N120 port chart is here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GlFHw-WGfgABx0TOvDcmAXsPciYeYmbO/view

You don't say what type of subjects you will shoot, this probably makes a difference.  a 16-35 equivalent lens if probably good for a lot of big animals you can't get close to.  A fisheye I imagine could be problematic with action scenes as you could end up with a diver or shark or whatever in the corner where it is really distorted - easy enough to deal with in stills, maybe not so easy for video footage?  Plus it may be a little lacking in reach for your subjects.  on APS-C  the 10-22 lens has the same field of view as the 16-35 does on full frame.  Nauticam still recommends the 230mm dome, but you might get away with the 180mm dome, particularly if you use a Sea&Sea correction lens with it.

You ask about wet lenses - in theory the WWL-1 should work with something like a Canon 18-55mm  kit lens.  In practice you would be experimenting as Nauticam have not done any testing so you would need to find a flat port that fits  and hope it works. - they only provide options for using the WACP. 

14 hours ago, Azul said:

Hello again friends!
I have already decided that the chosen system will be the Blacmagic pocket 6K in nauticam housing.
Now my query is the optics and dome port part.
I have a canon 16-35 F2 that I could use. But I would like to have your opinion of different settings
 that allow me to shoot wide angle and macro.
Canon 16-35 and what dome port? or another more appropriate lens?
100 or 60 macro? and with what dome port?
Any setup with wet lenses? I discard the WACP for the moment, since its price is high.
Thank you very much to all.

If you use the lens as is 16-35is equivalent to 24-50. This is inadequate for underwater use. I would consider a Sigma 17-70mm it covers most reef shots and a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom for wide work

You need a minidome for the Tokina but the Sigma 17-70mm will require a large acrylic dome

For macro canon 60mm or sigma 70mm

As the camera is super35 you need to look for APSC crop lenses they are more suited to wide angle work and lighter

55 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

If you use the lens as is 16-35is equivalent to 24-50. This is inadequate for underwater use. I would consider a Sigma 17-70mm it covers most reef shots and a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom for wide work

You need a minidome for the Tokina but the Sigma 17-70mm will require a large acrylic dome

For macro canon 60mm or sigma 70mm

As the camera is super35 you need to look for APSC crop lenses they are more suited to wide angle work and lighter

Thanks for the info!
The Blackmagic and the Zcam are super 35.
In your opinion these settings would be fine?:
Macro: Canon 60mm?
Sigma 17-70mm with 180 optical glass? or 230mm optical glass optical glass?
Canon 8 -15mm in 180 optical glass? or 230 optical glass?

1 hour ago, Azul said:

Thanks for the info!
The Blackmagic and the Zcam are super 35.
In your opinion these settings would be fine?:
Macro: Canon 60mm?
Sigma 17-70mm with 180 optical glass? or 230mm optical glass optical glass?
Canon 8 -15mm in 180 optical glass? or 230 optical glass?

The sigma 17-70 is on the port chart with the 8.5 acrylic port not sure why it would need checking for the extensions. The 180mm dome will work fine as the lens is narrow and is the same radius of others

Canon 8-15mm works fine with the 140mm no need for bigger. 180 does not work. 

230 is huge try all you can to avoid it

On 2/11/2021 at 12:20 AM, ChrisRoss said:

16mm rectilinear lenses need big domes to get good corners at least on full frame.  The answer probably depends on what you are shooting.  Big animals in the blue, the corners are water without any detail.  Coral reef you probably need sharper corners - video is possibly less demanding than stills as you are looking at the action rather than poring over a single frame looking for details.   Being APS_C does help of course as the corners are cropped out

The 16mm lens is not that wide on APS-C though, it's equivalent to a 28mm lens which is not very wide, means you are further back from your subject and further away from your video lights if you are using them.

There's lots of other choices for lenses that are actually wide - the Canon N120 port chart is here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GlFHw-WGfgABx0TOvDcmAXsPciYeYmbO/view

You don't say what type of subjects you will shoot, this probably makes a difference.  a 16-35 equivalent lens if probably good for a lot of big animals you can't get close to.  A fisheye I imagine could be problematic with action scenes as you could end up with a diver or shark or whatever in the corner where it is really distorted - easy enough to deal with in stills, maybe not so easy for video footage?  Plus it may be a little lacking in reach for your subjects.  on APS-C  the 10-22 lens has the same field of view as the 16-35 does on full frame.  Nauticam still recommends the 230mm dome, but you might get away with the 180mm dome, particularly if you use a Sea&Sea correction lens with it.

You ask about wet lenses - in theory the WWL-1 should work with something like a Canon 18-55mm  kit lens.  In practice you would be experimenting as Nauticam have not done any testing so you would need to find a flat port that fits  and hope it works. - they only provide options for using the WACP. 

 

Thank you very much for your comment.
It is not easy to decide on a new underwater filming equipment considering 
that it is a considerable expense and that it has to be amortized in a few years.

On 11/2/2021 at 13:45, Interceptor121 said:

El sigma 17-70 está en la tabla de puertos con el puerto de acrílico 8.5 y no estoy seguro de por qué necesitaría verificar las extensiones. La cúpula de 180 mm funcionará bien ya que la lente es estrecha y tiene el mismo radio que otras

Canon 8-15 mm funciona bien con 140 mm sin necesidad de mayor. 180 no funciona. 

230 es enorme, intenta todo lo que puedas para evitarlo

 

Thanks very much buddy.
As soon as I have decided on the equipment and optics, I will let you know 
to know your final opinion. I hope to have everything clear in a couple of 
weeks as I have to start filming my next documentary.
Greetings and again thank you very much for your comments and help.