Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:20 PM
While I think that an active-MFT version is inevitable (provided, of course, that any model of the camera ever ships in quantity), I'm highly suspicious of the 43 Rumors article's FT4 classification ("61-80% chance the rumor is correct"). The author says he received "multiple mails from different sources" but never describes those sources as reliable, and he concludes that the "rumor based on 'non-facts.'" Yet it has received the second highest reliability rating.
Logic dictates that the timing of the alleged new model's release -- "early 2013" -- is strange. It was more than a month ago that BMD announced a tentative December release of the passive-MFT version. But the original EF version is months behind schedule, and BMD has said those orders would be filled first. That will likely push release of the MFT model into at least early 2013. Why bother even releasing a passive-mount version when the active-mount one is right on its heels? Wouldn't that piss off a lot of buyers, especially if it also had "phantom XLR, larger capacity battery and an external battery mount, . . . an improved RAW coded [sic] and a slightly different design"? Even if it cost somewhat more (e.g., $3,500-$4,000), buyers of the first two models would be justifiably angry. And although it's possible BMD could announce in early 2013 and release later that year, I assume that by now they've learned their lesson. Most likely they wouldn't announce a new camera until they were just about ready to ship.
The only way this would make sense would be if BMD bagged the passive-MFT version and went straight to the active mount. They'll have additional development time, given how far behind schedule the EF model is.