Am I the only one that would like to know if the BMDCC is able to be used for 'synced' 3D??? (Hopefully we can sync with Thunderbolt...) I can dream...

@alcomposer Quality in audio won't be good until we get away from PCM audio. DSD is an example of something that could have been great by sony controlled it too much. PCM has been used for way way too long now. It first popularized in 1979. I'd love to see audio with 100 times the density of 24bit, 48k being used; at least in acquisition and editing stages.

Current digital audio capabilities are so, so far beyond similar camera capabilities. Dynamic range, workflow, compatibility, converters, processing, etc. Even at comic low entry price points.

I just got home. I had the opportunity to spend several hours at NAB with the BMD players. It's a serious camera, with very smart thinking. And exciting future products to be built beyond this initial entry. They pulled from the best and smartest inside the different devisions of their own company, as well as top partners. It's definitely the biggest news in cameras in the last five years. Sometimes you just need an outsider to come in and slap the competition. BMD is a smart and passionate group. They don't make many mistakes. Congrats!

If you look at KineRAW S8 it really reminds me of super8, but then sharper (still not sharp!). If you compare that with audio, it's like recording to tape. UA has some great tape emulation plugins, but i still prefer the real deal, because emulations are cool but still only emulations. I think your analysis on audio gear is spot on.

The 5D Mark II was an accident 3years ago, BMCC is an intentional accident to put the power back in to creative hands...

Something like it.
But I think that as idea, BMCC is the move in wrong direction.
HDSLRs started right movement that is about sinergy. And this is right approach I think.

@vitaliy_Kiselev @modernhuman This is a very deep topic.

As a very very basic explanation, you can say that sonic information that is inaudible has a dramatic impact on what is perceived. The most perceptible differences that a person would experience because of PCM would be a lack of spacial or directional information, but these are not the most important aspects of sound that PCM destroys. The more important part of this argument relates to the physical and emotional impact that PCM is unable to translate.

The argument can be made from several technical perspectives using discussions of harmonics, converter technologies, reproduction technologies, and characteristics of PCM in general.

@liquidify, I agree that spacial and directional information, as well as frequencies that are perceived but not necessarily heard, are definitely things that could be hindered by current technology standards... and that future tech could make for a better listening experience. But music and, to a large degree, film and television sound are typically played back on speakers that cost a few bucks. Until people value quality playback, there just isn't any need to go beyond what currently is available.

I've been mixing sound / music for nearly a decade and my monitoring system is over $4k, but I don't believe that even on my setup, one could really perceive the kind of subtle differences you're talking about. Maybe on a $50k-100k monitoring system these kinds of things would become apparent. But there's a certain point where standards of technology and $$$ limit what's truly possible, and it just becomes a game of diminishing return.

I don't think video and RAW workflows have reached that point yet. But once the footage is RAW and we get around 4-8k, how much better are we really going to get... unless we're splitting hairs. I mean film hit a benchmark 50 years ago, that digital is still trying to catch in some areas.

I'm in no way saying that in 50 years there won't be some superior visual and sound systems, but we're nearing the 'splitting of hairs', certainly been there with audio for a few. Look at photography, the 5D MkI ( is nearly every bit as good as the 5d2 and 5d3, as far as RAW workflow and image quality at lower ISO. How much have the stills really improved at lower ISOs in the last 8 years? Compare that to the original D30 (released in 2000) and most people would be able to tell the difference. Photo image quality is nearing a brick wall, unless you factor in ISO / sensitivity, which is getting a bit better. But we have the tools now, with photography and audio, that anybody with talent could create something as good as anything. Video will follow suit...

Thinking about lenses .. I definetely can't afford CP or L Glass. My Minoltas become difficult to mount inspite of being able to cover the sensor.

I do love primes .. but .. to get functionality quickly I am considering cheaper lenses to use with this camera.

These spring to mind.

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554035-REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXC_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html

Tokina 16-28 f2.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735451-REG/Tokina_ATX168PROFXC_AT_X_16_28mm_F2_8_Pro.html

To get wider I was thinking the Pelang 8mm

What do others think?

@Vitally .. good thought .. initially .. I have Canon Kit lenses to play with .. which will get me a little wider than normal at 18mm.

Do we have a definitive answer on what the crop factor is?

@Aria

The BMCC IMO is addressing a niche that is at the heart of the DSLR Revolution

I think you are wrong here.
BMCC target exactly same market and people that had been target for FS100 and AF100.
FF DSLRs had been ahead just by strange accident.
True value are cameras accessible by people who are not pros, and had been shooting stills in their normal life.
And this are Canon APS-C cameras and Panasonic GH series.
So, it is always good to remember that for every 100 such cameras sold, they sell no more than 10 FF cameras, and no more than 1-2 entry pro cameras.

@Vitaliy

"BMCC target exactly same market and people that had been target for FS100 and AF100. FF DSLRs had been ahead just by strange accident. True value are cameras accessible by people who are not pros, and had been shooting stills in their normal life. And this are Canon APS-C cameras and Panasonic GH series. So, it is always good to remember that for every 100 such cameras sold, they sell no more than 10 FF cameras, and no more than 1-2 entry pro cameras."

Exactly how I look at it also.

Some treat the BMCC as a Dslr killer but it not even the target market. I have a friend who usually shoots gigs and takes photos (as a hobby) with Dslrs and got a bit too over excited about the BMCC it took a little explaining why it wouldn't suit his needs (not to mention overkill!).

@Vitaliy_Kiselev, Black Magic Deign may have been targeting the fs100 & af100 niche but that niche was in large part a response to the complaints of users about the limitations of DSLRS and as such those cams were more expensive answers to the DSLR and that niche. I don't believe I'm wrong at all. Those low budget film makers Were the target and this camera hits the mark much better in achieving the filmic look in particular giving users the ability to edit and grade without worrying about the files breaking up and looking bad.

I know it may have started with photo guys taking advantage of the newly added video features of DSLRs but it quickly spread to video guys looking for better solutions at lower cost. I wasn't a photographer looking to get into video. Most of the guys I know here in the U.S. that have gotten into the DSLR thing are coming from the video side. Guys were using adapters on video cameras to try and get some shallow DOF and a flatter film look was always the dream. The BMCC seems like the answer to some of those dreams minus bogus limitations of what the big cam companies have given in DSLRs or the more expensive Pro division cameras.

I do think BMCC is a nice product, but think about pricing when the "revolution" began. 5D Mark II could be had for well under $2000. That's cheap. 5D Mark II was very accessible, to photographers and videographers. That's why 5D Mark II got noticed: people experimented with it and were surprised what they could achieve. And you could just ingest footage into your NLE without a sweat. And we have Panasonic coming with GH1 and GH2 with price class $1000 and less. So accessible to a very broad category of people who shoot photo and video. Then Canon noticed that they attracted a category of video enthusiasts and even professionals, and tries to capitalize on that (raising price of 5D Mark III). But there is still that broad market for under $2000 category.

I think there is a difference between the shooter of DSLR in general, and the "pro" shooter that goes for the FS100, AF100, and the BMCC. I think Panasonic could be the company to still capture this broader market. They may split GH series and create higher end (IntraFrame) camera, but stay well below $2000. For me that's still more interesting for a broader market than BMCC. Don't get me wrong, I love what it is. I still think the revolution began with the idea of having a cinematic tool for such a low price. And below $2000 is still a magic number, whatever the features it might have.