Anton Sugar
Member
it might be worth investing in a paglight so you've always got a way of projecting *some* light when there isn't enough to expose the image correctly. maybe even like a battery powered camping light. two of those and using whatever light occurring naturally to act as the back light. probably will need some gels to attach to the lights to get rid of that unnatural lighting look though.
if you're mainly dealing in documentary, you can get away with some less than brilliant image quality. some of the best documentaries have visual errors, because ultimately they're not really about how the material is presented, but the material itself.
i'm worried for the same reasons you are, but ultimately all it means is that i need to step my game up a bit and stop relying on the camera's native ISO to do most of the work in terms of exposing correctly. i did that so much with the canon 5d mk3. i got away with it mostly, but i lost a lot of detail to crushed blacks and some scenes were impossible to do much to in post because of how high i had to crank the ISO and how low i had to stop the aperture just to get an acceptable image.
undoubtedly the 4.6k version of the ursa mini will be akin to the second coming for low-medium budget filmmakers. it's definitely going to be worth the upgrade eventually. personally, i need a camera fairly immediately so i'm not willing to wait for the 4.6k to be readily available and all the bugs to be ironed out, so the 4k version will be an acceptable replacement for now. i just need to work a little harder out on shoots.
Agreed. Let me know what you decide on, the Ursa Mini is definitely going to be my next camera, in either form!