4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

BMD can really Make this simple by promoting as follows:

If you own an URSA and can provide a serial number and paper work showing that you are the current owner regardless of whether you bought it new or second hand, we will give you a 2500$ rebate that you can use to purchase the UMP by a certain date. That's it... Simple.

Why all the complications and BS?

Earl, you need to read my follow on post....I know what he said. My point, what he meant is really what I said and understood.

I did read your second post, which only confirmed that you didn't understand what Tim said.

No one is trying to make excuses for Tim. We simply understood him. You didn't, and seem bent on turning your misunderstanding into some kind of scandal.

This is how fake news starts, folks.

Earl, you need to read my follow on post....I know what he said. My point, what he meant is really what I said and understood.

I did read your second post, which only confirmed that you didn't understand what Tim said.

No one is trying to make excuses for Tim. We simply understood him. You didn't, and seem bent on turning your misunderstanding into some kind of scandal.

This is how fake news starts, folks.

Ha..ha... It does not confirm at all. On the contrary, it just validates more that you've bought on their spin. You just don't get it. It's like you don't understand corporate spins. They can say things and you're willing to just take it. I don't because I know better. I have nothing to gain in faking the information. They, on the other hand, do. So if this is fake news, then so is CNN and everyone else who on the contrary does not agree with the individuals who is trying to keep dirt under their rug. Kind of like that, right?

Like...ummm... "I never spoke with the Russians about the campaign but I spoke with them during the campaign in close doors about something you need not have to know." Sounds familiar?

You want real news, tell Grant to put a press release with details why the URSA 4.6K Turret is inferior with supporting and provable design documents. He will never do that. He is smart.

I'm done debating this. We are all morons anyway, as far as these corporations are concern.

Ellory I'm sorry... I just can't take you seriously.

Ellory, having BMD issue a rebate may be simple, but there may be accounting complications for them as BMD doesn't sell cameras, their distribution network has all sales coming from authorized dealers. For all we know, they must continue to use those dealers for sales and rebates. If those rebates impact the dealers' margin, that's why BMD is requiring the original dealer to provide you with the rebate, rather than just any dealer as it may be more punitive to that new dealer if they didn't have the benefit of the original sale.

I'm speculating of course as I have no idea if that's why. For the consumer, your suggestion is golden, but it may not be able to happen due to other financial concerns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rick, appreciate your response. It's sad that the promo does not help those who did not purchase the URSA directly from the reseller. In my instance, the original owner purchased it from a BMD reseller and I bought it from him. I have both the receipt from the original owner and reseller customer including the order number and the invoice/receipt from my payment to him via PayPal. I am now the "current owner." There is paper trail for the reseller to be able to link my purchase to the original sale made at their store as proof of record for the promo. I guess if I really want to, I can contact the original owner and ask him to purchase at the promo price for me and I can pay him. He can ship it to me. Just complicate matters. Also, this actually opens another can of worms. Legally, the owner of the camera is the current owner and not the original owner. However if the original owner wants to (maliciously), what prevents him to buy the UMP at the promo price using the original purchase receipt from the reseller even after selling his URSA months or years before to the current owner - who is now the legal owner of the URSA? Just doesn't feel like the promo program had been thought through. Interesting enough, if the URSA is under warranty and you need it fix, BMD does not care who the original or current owner is. All they care to honor the warranty is by the serial number of the camera. Makes total sense to do that. So they could have done it that way also as long as there is a paper trail from the original owner that it was purchased from a BMD reseller and a sale invoice from the original owner to the current owner. Heck, I have all that as proof. I'm sure everyone in the same boat as I am are utterly disappointed especially with the promise of the turret. I'm sure you can appreciate that too. I know of a few folks who will agree with my logic here. If BMD delivered the turret, this wouldn't be an issue, at least for me and possibly many others, because I/they were only interested in the upgradable turret of the URSA. Hopefully BMD is reading what is being posted on this matter and do the right thing to keep current BM camera users from coming back to buying and using their product. At the end, it really doesn't matter where and to who the camera was bought from because it was a sold item and BMD has profited from the [original] sale. If they thought that the promo will put them at a cost disadvantage, they would have been smart not to initiated a half ass one like this.

As to your point regarding the dealers margin, I wouldn't worry about that. The reseller will make their money regardless or they will not be in bed with BMD and participate in the program. BMD picks up the tab for the difference, not the reseller. All the reseller is doing is vetting that the camera was originally purchased from them.

Ellory, I would try contacting the original dealer the camera came from, provide them with your documentation, and ask if they would honor the rebate for you to buy a UMPro? Worth a shot.
Cheers

You have a lot of company as private resales happen often. When I am President, these deals would go through to owner of the equipment (who has registered the serial number) as of February 28, 2017. When you sell your item, you give up all rights and privileges with that product.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OK, Rick, if you say so.
Cheers

Ellory, I would try contacting the original dealer the camera came from, provide them with your documentation, and ask if they would honor the rebate for you to buy a UMPro? Worth a shot.
Cheers

Thanks Denny. I have started that journey. If only I can find someone in B&H who will listen and have the capacity to make the call. So far I am stuck with customer service minions who just have no say.

You have a lot of company as private resales happen often. When I am President, these deals would go through to owner of the equipment (who has registered the serial number) as of February 28, 2017. When you sell your item, you give up all rights and privileges with that product.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ha..ha... You got my vote Rick.

Thanks, Ellory! I figure after the current President leaves after one term and the First Daughter goes the two term distance, I might have a chance to get you that rebate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

While i totally disagree with Ellorys POV on the Ursa Mini being inferior as of Tim statement (i don't know why he misunderstood that one), it does make sense as to why 2. owners can't get the deal..

Only original owners can hold legal claims against BMD. BMD cannot be responible (legally) for 2. hand buyers as they never bought it off BMD.

So by making this "upgrade" BMD will have delivered on it legally eventough they never will come out with the turrets, as you had the oppotunity to "upgrade" as it promised to do.... I'm am not a conspiratist but it would legally make sense for BMD and without loosing to much money in the process (thats why you have to be original owner - if they included everybody, it would be to expensive)..

But while this is very delicate thought out by a legal team, i don't think they ever thought they would get such a ****storm out of it... (neither do i understand it).

So the reason you only have to the 31/3 to take the deal is so that BMD can move on and maybe annonce that the turrets are cancelled.. This no longer being a legal problem as people got the option to "upgrade"...

I wouldn't call the UMP an "upgrade" as it is not in the same lineup.. I would rather call it a move to a different platform. But as i said, calling it an "upgrade" is a good excuse legally.

Of cause i don't know if i'm right.. but it all makes sense.

Have a lovely day everybody!

While i totally disagree with Ellorys POV on the Ursa Mini being inferior as of Tim statement (i don't know why he misunderstood that one), it does make sense as to why 2. owners can't get the deal..

Only original owners can hold legal claims against BMD. BMD cannot be responible (legally) for 2. hand buyers as they never bought it off BMD.

So by making this "upgrade" BMD will have delivered on it legally eventough they never will come out with the turrets, as you had the oppotunity to "upgrade" as it promised to do.... I'm am not a conspiratist but it would legally make sense for BMD and without loosing to much money in the process (thats why you have to be original owner - if they included everybody, it would be to expensive)..

But while this is very delicate thought out by a legal team, i don't think they ever thought they would get such a ****storm out of it... (neither do i understand it).

So the reason you only have to the 31/3 to take the deal is so that BMD can move on and maybe annonce that the turrets are cancelled.. This no longer being a legal problem as people got the option to "upgrade"...

I wouldn't call the UMP an "upgrade" as it is not in the same lineup.. I would rather call it a move to a different platform. But as i said, calling it an "upgrade" is a good excuse legally.

Of cause i don't know if i'm right.. but it all makes sense.

Have a lovely day everybody!

You're not right.

Simply look at the VW situation in the US and I hope BM does as well. Selling a product that does not deliver what was promised and those responsibilities follow the current owner in the US. Period. This discussion is simply ridiculous.

Once again, BM, I suggest you do the right thing.

Dennis, you and I would have a lot of fun in court arguing out the merits of both arguments in another life. Thanks for your input here. Law is like statistics, no? Ultimately they can just be damned lies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

While i totally disagree with Ellorys POV on the Ursa Mini being inferior as of Tim statement (i don't know why he misunderstood that one), it does make sense as to why 2. owners can't get the deal..

Only original owners can hold legal claims against BMD. BMD cannot be responible (legally) for 2. hand buyers as they never bought it off BMD.

So by making this "upgrade" BMD will have delivered on it legally eventough they never will come out with the turrets, as you had the oppotunity to "upgrade" as it promised to do.... I'm am not a conspiratist but it would legally make sense for BMD and without loosing to much money in the process (thats why you have to be original owner - if they included everybody, it would be to expensive)..

But while this is very delicate thought out by a legal team, i don't think they ever thought they would get such a ****storm out of it... (neither do i understand it).

So the reason you only have to the 31/3 to take the deal is so that BMD can move on and maybe annonce that the turrets are cancelled.. This no longer being a legal problem as people got the option to "upgrade"...

I wouldn't call the UMP an "upgrade" as it is not in the same lineup.. I would rather call it a move to a different platform. But as i said, calling it an "upgrade" is a good excuse legally.

Of cause i don't know if i'm right.. but it all makes sense.

Have a lovely day everybody!

100% Correct!

100% Correct!

NOT.

I thought I was done with this debate but I couldn't resist the temptation.

So what you are really saying is that as a second hand purchaser, I don't have any claim to ownership because I am not the original owner. So the original owner can actually go and use the original receipt and purchase it if he or she wants to at the discount as if he still is the owner of the product. That my friend is what is very wrong with this whole upgrade program. IT IS BOUND TO HAPPEN FOLKS. Just wait for all the lawsuits from the aftermath. As the current owner, at least in the USA, we have protection laws for transfer of ownership. The word owner is meant for individuals who paid for and last possessed the purchased goods. I recommend you second hand owners out there watch out for original owners buying the UMP at the URSA discount price. You might just bring them to small claims and sue for the money you paid for the URSA.

Good idea! Elroy, if you are really interested in getting the new UM Pro, have you contacted the original owner of your camera, to see if he/she will process a request through B&H, and have the camera shipped directly to you? I did this with a problem I had on a new Small HD SideFinder I bought from the original buyer, but SmallHD and B&W said, the original owner had to return it for replacement. So I sent it back to the seller, he sent it to B&H and B&H shipped me the replacement. Easy as that.
Cheers

Good idea! Elroy, if you are really interested in getting the new UM Pro, have you contacted the original owner of your camera, to see if he/she will process a request through B&H, and have the camera shipped directly to you? I did this with a problem I had on a new Small HD SideFinder I bought from the original buyer, but SmallHD and B&W said, the original owner had to return it for replacement. So I sent it back to the seller, he sent it to B&H and B&H shipped me the replacement. Easy as that.
Cheers

I'm working on this angle (the nice way) before other drastic measures that my lawyer friend suggested (or the highway). LOL with a serious note. The latter really nobody wins.

100% Correct!

NOT.

I thought I was done with this debate but I couldn't resist the temptation.

So what you are really saying is that as a second hand purchaser, I don't have any claim to ownership because I am not the original owner. So the original owner can actually go and use the original receipt and purchase it if he or she wants to at the discount as if he still is the owner of the product. That my friend is what is very wrong with this whole upgrade program. IT IS BOUND TO HAPPEN FOLKS. Just wait for all the lawsuits from the aftermath. As the current owner, at least in the USA, we have protection laws for transfer of ownership. The word owner is meant for individuals who paid for and last possessed the purchased goods. I recommend you second hand owners out there watch out for original owners buying the UMP at the URSA discount price. You might just bring them to small claims and sue for the money you paid for the URSA.

How much are you willing to spend on your legal pursuit? Is it really worth your time and money? I'm not disputing your rights to ownership, I am however disputing the fact you're not the original owner, which can in fact make you ineligible for the upgrade...

Please provide me feedback on my next question:

Adorama, B&H or any individual for that matter who may have high volume second hand URSA units decide to cash in on this and replace their obsolete URSAs with URSA mini Pro and then resell them at full price, do you consider this to be morally or ethically right? Because I tend to believe the second hand purchaser belongs in this category...

So the original owner can actually go and use the original receipt and purchase it if he or she wants to at the discount as if he still is the owner of the product.

I believe it was stated that apart from the original receipt, a photo of the serial number on the camera is required as well.

So the original owner can actually go and use the original receipt and purchase it if he or she wants to at the discount as if he still is the owner of the product.

I believe it was stated that apart from the original receipt, a photo of the serial number on the camera is required as well.

Where did you read that? Here is the condition (posted by Tony Rivera of BMD)...

As Grant stated in the video, the resellers will be able to provide you information on the upgrade path. You will need to show proof of purchase from authorized resellers and you will also be able to keep the URSA you currently have. So to list it out as Rob did:

· Must be original owner/ customer
· Promo price $3495
· ONLY on original full size URSA EF & PL
· You keep the URSA
· Need original receipt with serial number
· Purchase upgrade from reseller that sold the original camera

No requirement for a photo of the serial number. This could all go away if they just change the first line to "Must be current owner of the URSA camera with original receipt and/or repurchase invoice" and keep the rest of the bullet. They could even add another line that said "Photo of serial number from camera". The latter does not do anything because the current owner can always take the photo of the serial number from the camera and send it to the original owner to order in his/her behalf. This is just not right at all. BMD should do what's right, bite the bullet, and next time don't promote to fix an unfulfilled promise. The have made every URSA owner waited for years for the URSA 4.6K Turret and dangled the carrot by not being forthright early on when they discovered they cannot deliver the turret, keeping quiet all these time as loyal BMD URSA owners waited for it. That is not right. It is not fair to ALL URSA owners - original and current.

Several customers that have spoken to their retailers says they need a photo. Here's one

Got my order fixed at the same place I bought my Ursa in Sweden.
They wanted the photo, gave me a good price on the dollar, no problem.

Jerry

So, "not many customers are interested for the turret upgrade." These words are smelling bad news. I think URSA is dead and no upgrade is coming.
I believe they want to tell us, forget any promise to upgrade your filmmaking camera and get an ENG camera.
I say No, thank you.
Design a new URSA and then offer me the upgrade.
This is fair!

That may be happening, B&H has a listing for a "new" USA 4.6 with Global shutter... listed, as a "new item coming soon..."

Please provide me feedback on my next question:

Adorama, B&H or any individual for that matter who may have high volume second hand URSA units decide to cash in on this and replace their obsolete URSAs with URSA mini Pro and then resell them at full price, do you consider this to be morally or ethically right? Because I tend to believe the second hand purchaser belongs in this category...

So can the original owner. Once they sold their URSA, they no longer are the original owner. They are the original purchaser. The person who bought it last is the current owner. That is my dispute with this. I'm not worried about the Adorama and B&H of the world. They profit from the promotion alone because they are authorize resellers and they're are bound to agreement clauses between distributors and resellers to keep this kind of activity culpable. I am more concern of the individuals who bought a number of URSAs as original owners and do what you said above. I agree that is not ethical... but there is no such thing as ethical and moral when it comes to money and business. But I digress.

The issue I have here too is that there was a promise of the URSA Turret and this promo is really to compensate for that. I really don't want another camera but I badly wanted the 4.6K turret. If the 4.6K turret was available, I could care less for a UM Pro. I still want my turret. So how do we fix this problem and be fair to those who bought the URSA - original or secondary purchaser? I'm asking for only one thing:

1. Allow current customers who legitimately bought an URSA directly or indirectly to be able to avail of the promo. If they are concern about the fraud that could happen, well limit the promo to 1 per customer or something like that. This respects true ownership because the real owner is the current owner.

Isn't that pretty simple. To your question about how far I am willing to go and spend to legally dispute and fight this? Well that depends but this is not the first rodeo and doing this for corporate takeovers and acquisition as a day job, I've had plenty of successes and a bunch of lawyer friends who are always willing to give guidance. In fact here is one idea shared by a lawyer over a water cooler chat that every current URSA owners can do to prevent the original owners from taking advantage of the promo and resellers no being able to sell it to them.

Current owners can write/email a letter to the reseller notifying them that the URSA with the serial number, with provided proof of purchase (furnishing both original customer purchase receipt and used sale receipt from current owner - this is the transfer of ownership), cannot honor the promotional price to the original customer in the event the original customer request for the promotion. So the reseller cannot sell the camera at the promotional price. If they do, they are in violation of the transfer of ownership between the parties as an instrument of fraud. That basically warns reseller to cease any transactions on your acquired URSA with said serial number. That does not cost money or time to do and you should do it now. If they do disregard your notice, you can sue the reseller for violating your rights of ownership of the URSA. No one wins in this case but current URSA owners can feel comfortable that they have not loose the fight, and make resellers and manufacturers think through better ways of promoting respecting laws of ownership. Think about this folks. It is legally your right to do so.

Ellory, I think that current promo is very fair - it's aimed at the loyal customers who were there first and waited the longest for the upgrades etc. I suppose that you got a big discount already by buying second hand. Sometimes we should put jealousy aside and just move on . After all, you still have a fantastic camera to work with that paid for itself many, many times!
Cheers

Sounds like a plan to me.

The simplest fix is a transfer of ownership the same as RED do. I did a practice scenario last night on Ebay and I was able to get the original place of purchase and a photo of the serial number from the URSA seller. Now that's not fair on potential buyers or the original purchaser if I went out and ordered the URSA mini Pro behind their backs.

Without a legitimate transfer of ownership protocol, the original purchaser is technically, on paper; the current owner.

That may be happening, B&H has a listing for a "new" USA 4.6 with Global shutter... listed, as a "new item coming soon..."

I think that has been up there for awhile...

The simplest fix is a transfer of ownership the same as RED do. I did a practice scenario last night on Ebay and I was able to get the original place of purchase and a photo of the serial number from the URSA seller. Now that's not fair on potential buyers or the original purchaser if I went out and ordered the URSA mini Pro behind their backs.

Without a legitimate transfer of ownership protocol, the original purchaser is technically, on paper; the current owner.

So I am trying to understand what you are saying here but if it what I think it is, then I think we are coming on agreement for a fix. So let me get this straight with this scenario... And this is a real scenario.

1. Original owner "A" bought the URSA from B&H.
2. ”A" sold camera to current owner "B". This was not an Ebay sale but a direct sale made between "A" and "B".
3. As part of the sale "A" gave "B" the original invoice with the serial number that "A" got from B&H. "B" has the paid invoice/sales receipt showing "A" sold the URSA to "B". A notarized NOTICE OF TRANSFER letter that has the serial number of the URSA states that "A" transfer full ownership of the URSA to "B" and releases any claims.
4. "B" has the URSA and can prove possession by showing picture of the physical serial number of the URSA.

Now tell me, why shouldn't "B" have full rights of ownership? Should B&H honor the evidence and grant "B" the promotion?

In that scenario"B" has right to ownership without question, BMD has confirmed this with me too, so you have nothing to worry about. I'm just offering an objective POV. I just believe there should be a legitimate protocol for transfer of ownership implemented to avoid situations like we've mentioned in this post.

Heres another one for you: What if the original purchaser sells the URSA due to no current turret upgrade option, with the intention of buying the UM4.6K. Suddenly the UM4.6K PRO is released at a great price in a promotional deal. How do you think they feel, somebody who bought their camera at probably half the original cost can buy the UM4.6K PRO for nearly half the price. They would be pretty pissed...

And that's exactly where I am having bought an ursa mini 4.6k a few months ago due to the ever decreasing possibility of the upgrade coming out. To think I could have saved almost two grand and got a better one just a few months later is a pretty tough pill to swallow

After a long hard think I'm not going to participate in the upgrade program - now I have the ursa mini there's no need for yet another camera, even at a really good price.

Just want the turret as advertised please

They will sell a turrent to pretty much EVERY ursa buyer out there... sooner or later. They should NOT go by the pre-order numbers. Everybody URSA buyer wants it and needs it!

In that scenario"B" has right to ownership without question, BMD has confirmed this with me too, so you have nothing to worry about. I'm just offering an objective POV. I just believe there should be a legitimate protocol for transfer of ownership implemented to avoid situations like we've mentioned in this post.

I'm that person in scenario "B" and that's why I have been standing my ground that I have the right to ownership. I'm glad we finally have such agreement. But this does not solve the problem because BMD does not specify it as such. I don't know how you confirmed with BMD on this. Is there an amended condition from them? If so, can you share it?

Heres another one for you: What if the original purchaser sells the URSA due to no current turret upgrade option, with the intention of buying the UM4.6K. Suddenly the UM4.6K PRO is released at a great price in a promotional deal. How do you think they feel, somebody who bought their camera at probably half the original cost can buy the UM4.6K PRO for nearly half the price. They would be pretty pissed...

I feel bad for them too. But that is not the fault of the person who bought the URSA from them. It is a decision that the original purchaser made to sell their URSA even with the possibility that the turret may be released. They could hold on to their URSA and keep hoping like many of us did. IMO, if BMD released the URSA turret and the UM4.6K Pro now and gave the same upgrade promo to URSA owners I will still just bought the URSA turret and not a new camera. I like the URSA form factor, the multi-station display, etc, plus I don't need another camera that has ENG features. If I want an ENG camera, I will buy a Canon or Sony.

Now, as to buying a UM4.6K just before the UM4.6K PRO was announced, that has nothing to do with the promotion because the discount was specifically for URSA owners waiting for the turret. Surely I feel for the individuaL and I would be pissed too... but I'll be pissed for a different reason. RED has an upgradability plan for such scenario. BMD does not offer upgrades. That's kind of where things are. I think BMD should have an upgrade program for buyers who bought products within the same line when a newer model is introduced within say 3 or 6 months of purchase. My 2 cents.

In that scenario"B" has right to ownership without question, BMD has confirmed this with me too, so you have nothing to worry about. I'm just offering an objective POV. I just believe there should be a legitimate protocol for transfer of ownership implemented to avoid situations like we've mentioned in this post.

I'm that person in scenario "B" and that's why I have been standing my ground that I have the right to ownership. I'm glad we finally have such agreement. But this does not solve the problem because BMD does not specify it as such. I don't know how you confirmed with BMD on this. Is there an amended condition from them? If so, can you share it?

Heres another one for you: What if the original purchaser sells the URSA due to no current turret upgrade option, with the intention of buying the UM4.6K. Suddenly the UM4.6K PRO is released at a great price in a promotional deal. How do you think they feel, somebody who bought their camera at probably half the original cost can buy the UM4.6K PRO for nearly half the price. They would be pretty pissed...

I feel bad for them too. But that is not the fault of the person who bought the URSA from them. It is a decision that the original purchaser made to sell their URSA even with the possibility that the turret may be released. They could hold on to their URSA and keep hoping like many of us did. IMO, if BMD released the URSA turret and the UM4.6K Pro now and gave the same upgrade promo to URSA owners I will still just bought the URSA turret and not a new camera. I like the URSA form factor, the multi-station display, etc, plus I don't need another camera that has ENG features. If I want an ENG camera, I will buy a Canon or Sony.

Now, as to buying a UM4.6K just before the UM4.6K PRO was announced, that has nothing to do with the promotion because the discount was specifically for URSA owners waiting for the turret. Surely I feel for the individuaL and I would be pissed too... but I'll be pissed for a different reason. RED has an upgradability plan for such scenario. BMD does not offer upgrades. That's kind of where things are. I think BMD should have an upgrade program for buyers who bought products within the same line when a newer model is introduced within say 3 or 6 months of purchase. My 2 cents.

Is that the same as saying "well it's not the original URSA owner's fault that you bought the camera from them and therefore may be ineligible?

Question: If you don't wish to purchase the UM4.6K PRO would you give away your serial number and receipt? Instead of wasting the opportunity?

Question 2: would you pay BMD 1-2k for a transfer of ownership? I've owned RED cameras I'm very familiar with their protocol.

They will sell a turrent to pretty much EVERY ursa buyer out there... sooner or later. They should NOT go by the pre-order numbers. Everybody URSA buyer wants it and needs it!

+1


Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Is that the same as saying "well it's not the original URSA owner's fault that you bought the camera from them and therefore may be ineligible?

Question: If you don't wish to purchase the UM4.6K PRO would you give away your serial number and receipt? Instead of wasting the opportunity?

Question 2: would you pay BMD 1-2k for a transfer of ownership? I've owned RED cameras I'm very familiar with their protocol.

Now you are trolling with stupid and moronic questions. I done with your nonsense.

They will sell a turrent to pretty much EVERY ursa buyer out there... sooner or later. They should NOT go by the pre-order numbers. Everybody URSA buyer wants it and needs it!

+1


Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

+1 here. I am done with that UM46K pro. It’s not as professional as the big URSA.

Is that the same as saying "well it's not the original URSA owner's fault that you bought the camera from them and therefore may be ineligible?

Question: If you don't wish to purchase the UM4.6K PRO would you give away your serial number and receipt? Instead of wasting the opportunity?

Question 2: would you pay BMD 1-2k for a transfer of ownership? I've owned RED cameras I'm very familiar with their protocol.

Now you are trolling with stupid and moronic questions. I done with your nonsense.

They were legitimate questions, generally the type of person that complains about all of the issues mentioned above, is the same type of person that expects the world for nothing.

Now you've been on your high horse for the last page of this post complaining about your rights of ownership and your entitlement in regards to the UM4.6K PRO upgrade, then you turn around and state that you're not even interested in getting the PRO... Why bother posting in the first place?? You call me a troll with moronic questions...

I honestly believe that even if they did offer you an upgrade path that required payment you would still complain and it expect it for nothing!

You call me a troll with moronic questions...

I honestly believe that even if they did offer you an upgrade path that required payment you would still complain and it expect it for nothing!

You might as well give up. He's obviously throwing a tantrum because he's not getting what he wants.

Simply put, Blackmagic is under no obligation to make the UMPro offer to URSA owners. They're doing so as a goodwill gesture because of the delays with the turret. And whether some people like it or not, BMD can set whatever terms they want for this offer, again, because there is no legal obligation to offer it.

Even if one presumes BMD is doing this to avoid possible litigation, there is still no need to do so because the turret hasn't been cancelled, it just continues to be delayed.

*(I realize you, Aaron, probably already understand this. I'm just putting it on the page for anyone dismissing us that might stumble upon reading it.)

I just received a little info on the upgrade process. I purchased my original Ursa and mini pro upgrade through B&H. Yesterday they sent me an email saying they'd sent my order to the distributor for fulfillment. Today I received a call from the distributor, 1 source video, saying they needed some additional info.

-a copy of the original invoice with my name and serial number
-photos of the serial number on the camera
-a copy of the invoice for the upgrade order

The rep said they send everything to BM for approval. So you must have the camera currently or had the foresight to take a photo of the serial number in order to get the upgrade. I'm sure someone will try and succeed at beating the system but they're doing the best they can to prevent that from happening.

Unfortunately I put heavy duty velcro on the bottom of my camera over the serial number sticker. When I took of the velcro the sticker came with it. Is there another place on the camera the serial number is located? I sent in a photo of the camera and the serial on the original box but I don't know that it will suffice.

I just received a little info on the upgrade process. I purchased my original Ursa and mini pro upgrade through B&H. Yesterday they sent me an email saying they'd sent my order to the distributor for fulfillment. Today I received a call from the distributor, 1 source video, saying they needed some additional info.

-a copy of the original invoice with my name and serial number
-photos of the serial number on the camera
-a copy of the invoice for the upgrade order

The rep said they send everything to BM for approval. So you must have the camera currently or had the foresight to take a photo of the serial number in order to get the upgrade. I'm sure someone will try and succeed at beating the system but they're doing the best they can to prevent that from happening.

Unfortunately I put heavy duty velcro on the bottom of my camera over the serial number sticker. When I took of the velcro the sticker came with it. Is there another place on the camera the serial number is located? I sent in a photo of the camera and the serial on the original box but I don't know that it will suffice.

Don't worry my friend my serial number was erased off the bottom of my camera the main thing is the order reciept and the serial on the box. They ok'd mine yesterday. Without the serial being visible enough on the bottom of the camera.

IMG_0102.JPG (437.05 KiB) Viewed 17036 times

Nice! That's a relief. Thanks Donnell!

BMD can learn a lot from RED regarding Transfer of Ownership... that also goes to all those who ask stupid and moronic questions.

https://support.red.com/hc/en-us/articl ... nership#q1

BMD can learn a lot from RED regarding Transfer of Ownership... that also goes to all those who ask stupid and moronic questions.

https://support.red.com/hc/en-us/articl ... nership#q1

Ellory I doubt you've even owned a RED camera or dealt directly with RED regarding upgrades or transfer of ownership for that matter... Go back to the water cooler and consult your buddies in preparation for your next pointless rant!

BMD can learn a lot from RED regarding Transfer of Ownership... that also goes to all those who ask stupid and moronic questions.

https://support.red.com/hc/en-us/articl ... nership#q1

Ellory I doubt you've even owned a RED camera or dealt directly with RED regarding upgrades or transfer of ownership for that matter... Go back to the water cooler and consult your buddies in preparation for your next pointless rant!

Ha... He apparently does know who he is. Just suckered out the troll.

I'm near exhaustion having read the entire thread . . .

Ellory, you've earned full ownership of this thread by way of denigrating BlackMagic, B&H's "minions" and other contributors to this thread.

While you are capable of making numerous arguments that hold appeal for some you conveniently overlook one salient fact which is, Blackmagic's responsibility for a turret or "upgrade" does not extend beyond the original purchaser (from which THEY likely realized profit). You might wish it be otherwise but it's clear to pretty much everyone else that it does not. Plain & simple, you're a second hand buyer with no direct relationship to the manufacturer.

Your only path to an accommodation from BlackMagic would be through the original owner (good luck with that), otherwise you're just an individual trolling for something that you are not entitled to and your ability to garner support from a couple of folks here or your ridiculous suggestion for legal action doesn't alter the fact.

I am also tired of this thread having little to do with the actual TURRET (instead, focusing on this Mini Pro / Upgrade path BS) - BMD: I bought the URSA (4K v2) explicitly to upgrade the turret when available (4.6k, 5k, 8k, etc.???) when it is becoming clear that you DON'T have your **** together ("not many people wanted the upgrade" as stated in the presser, which is quite FALSE.)

Didnt come here to rant though, just to add my 2 cents so BMD doesnt think "nobody wants the upgrade turret"....when in fact it is the Mini Pro that is not wanted....atleast for ME. No turret? No URSA MIni Pro -just a class action lawsuit and a new Red Camera for me. Sucks too (as I invested heavily in BMD instead of Red, when I was advised against that move.... )

Get the turret right for us URSA people ASAP PLEASE......(there, I said please.)