Jump to content

Close
Photo

Blackmagic Cinema Camera production issues resolved

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#21
Bruno

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:06 AM

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts
In my opinion the MFT version is a massive reason to cancel an order. The Canon mount made no sense when the camera was announced, makes even less sense now that an MFT version is coming.

You'd have to rent it straight away, because once the MFT version is out no one will touch the canon mount one and I'm guessing they'll be worth much less used than the MFT version, even though they cost the same.

Also with all these delays it starts making a lot of sense to see what the digital bolex can do before deciding on either camera.
  • andy lee likes this

#22
Andrew Reid

Posted 25 November 2012 - 01:28 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,054 posts
Whilst I welcome the option of MFT mount, my opinion is the opposite.

When you go to the MFT version you lose all support for Canon glass. No aperture control on the EF, EFS and L lenses. This is the most popular range of lenses with DSLR shooters overall. So many people want to use these lenses on the Blackmagic, especially people upgrading from Canon DSLRs such as the 5D Mark II, III and 7D.

I think the EF mount version will sell the most.

Besides, the Canon mount does not mean just Canon glass. It means Nikon, Leica R, M42, Olympus OM, Zeiss ZE, Contax Yashica Zeiss and more.

Also - doing an adapter for Canon EF aperture control on the passive MFT mount is difficult and one likely won't arrive for some years. Passive means no electronic contacts between lens and camera body. Iris control on the body would be impossible unlike on a standard Micro Four Thirds camera so any adapter would have to be especially for the Blackmagic and have a built in aperture control switch.

Of course this passive mount rules out a hell of a lot of nice MFT glass such as the Olympus 12mm F2, 45mm F1.8, Leica Lumix 25mm F1.4. Only one or two truly useful Micro Four Thirds lenses works on the passive mount.

The pros for the MFT mount are...

- C-mount glass, such as the lovely Switar 26mm F1.1 (though most c-mount stuff I have found impractical)
- Leica M mount lenses such as the SLR Magic 50mm T0.95
- Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm and 25mm F0.95 (probably the best reason to get the MFT version)
- Canon FD lenses (more affordable than the newer versions in EF mount, but mostly softer)
- Adapters to OCT 19 and PL mount

Now ask yourself how many people have Canon glass and how many have the more rare stuff in the list above.

I think the Canon mount version will outsell the MFT version actually. Canon mount only restricts those lenses on the list above and not Nikon, M42, etc.

Even though I am an avid user of Micro Four Thirds and a big mirrorless fan I am having a hard time deciding which mount is right for me. It is not a straight forward decision. I'd love to use some of the more unusual glass on the mount, but the lack of electronic contacts and losing aperture control all my Canon EF / L glass is a serious turn off. Most of my Micro Four Thirds glass is electrical.

#23
andy lee

Posted 25 November 2012 - 12:25 PM

andy lee

    ANDY LEE

  • Moderators
  • 1,673 posts
  • LocationUNITED KINGDOM
I just use Canon FD L Series lenses, they are very sharp - I use these alot on GH2 especially the 24-35mm zoom they are fully manual so the aperture works fine
And Carl Zeiss Contax Yashica mount lenses also fully manual are very sharp and also work very well on m4/3 mount
The Vario Sonnar lenses are very useful and stunningly sharp

Also Fujinon HD B4 mount ENG lenses are great (with 2x extender )
the only lens I can do those super long crash zooms with on m4/3

Andy Lee
LTI Films
Tecnoir

'If it looks good , it is good!'


#24
kirk

Posted 25 November 2012 - 01:30 PM

kirk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
I have had very good results with the Konica AR 40/f1.8 and 85/f1.8 lenses, also fully manual.
  • andy lee likes this

#25
Adl

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:02 PM

Adl

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
Based on that the sensor supplier issues are resolved - are there any further informations about the shipping of the MFT-Version?
Do you think, they can keep end of Dez. 2012/Jan. 2013 or will there be a delay too?

#26
Bruno

Posted 25 November 2012 - 05:41 PM

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts
I undertand both versions have down sides as it is, and I blame it on BMD for not thinking it through since the beginning, and only reacting to it too late and with a half ass solution.

I get that they're aiming at canon DSLR users, but it would have made way more sense for them to adopt a more versatile mount (maybe E mount ?) and then provide quality adapters. I doubt it does them any good at all having two versions of the camera in production at the same time.

Canon users would pay 200 bucks for a good adapter I'm sure. I'm a Canon 7D user myself, and most my lenses are contax zeiss, so I don't even care about the active mount, but if I spend the money on te camera, I'll want it to support IS lenses if I ever need it to!

Also, having a more universal mount would make it easier on their clients if they ever upgrade the camera. They could release a new version with an APS-C sized sensor and the users wouldn't have to change lenses/adapters/etc, it would be a matter of a straight camera body replacement. This way they're asking for a very specific investment from the users regarding lens choices, not necessarily future proof, and lenses should definitely be a future proof investment.

I think there's quite a few things they need to sort out for v2, after they actually sort out v1 first, like:
-lens mount (as I just mentioned)
-compressed raw workflow (RED is a pro camera and has compressed raw, indie users need it much more, since we'll be dealing with the large amounts of data ourselves and at our own cost)
-global shutter option (if it's in the sensor, they should find a way to give us the option, regardless of any possible drawbacks)
-60fps, same as above
-audio meters and phantom power (and why not xlr)

These are the main issues I have with it at the moment, there's other smaller issues but I'm sure they'll eventually be sorted out through firmware updates.

It's a great camera but I'd like to see it as a filmmaker tool I can rely on for a bunch of differen tasks, and not as something that "will do until there's a new version", and that's why I won't make a decision until I see it compared with a digital bolex.

#27
Andrew Reid

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:58 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,054 posts

I'm a Canon 7D user myself, and most my lenses are contax zeiss, so I don't even care about the active mount, but if I spend the money on te camera, I'll want it to support IS lenses if I ever need it to!


Then why are you so much in favour of the MFT mount version? The EF version supports Contax Zeiss adapters and IS on Canon lenses!!

I don't get this agro towards Blackmagic. They have just buried DSLR video with their first ever camera, and you want MORE? Right now?

#28
Bruno

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:39 PM

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts
The EF mount is far from ideal for the sensor size, regardless of which lenses I own.

This and other things have been pointed out since day one. I'm not ditching the camera as I think it's great to have something like this at last, but BMD did wrong in not listening to what everyone was pointing out

You gotta agree it's not ideal for them to support 2 different versions, it would be much better for them and us if they had full featured replaceable mounts.
Digital Bolex were set on a few ideas that were criticized at first and they've been shaping the camera according to the people's suggestions, it feels like they're trying to make the best camera they can, whereas with BMD it feels like they're giving us something to play with for the moment and keeping possible improvements for future versions, that we will have to pay for again (that's the apple philosophy resemblance I don't like, do you think an iPhone 1 is that valuable these days?).

I hate the idea of buying products that I know straight away I'll want/have to replace in a year or so, more for environmental reasons than economical, I'd rather pay for decent firmware upgrades than have to buy a new camera, but the issues I pointed out with the BMD camera are mostly physical and not easily fixed with firmware updates.

I know it might feel like I'm asking for too much, but i'm not asking for 4k or 120 fps, I'm not complaining about sensor size, i'm asking for better or proper implementation of features the camera already has, mostly reasonable and common sense things, why settle for "this will have to do for now" when you can aim at perfection?

#29
markm

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:16 PM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
Bruno
Black Magic have done a wonderful thing. They bought out an affordable camera that shoots raw. Maybe they should have thought more about the lens mount but when everyone moaned they soon bought out an MFT mount and allowed those that wanted to to make the switch. This is their first go in the camera market and I think its an outstanding one. You should be applauding them. As for the digital Bolex its still vapour ware from what I can see.

#30
Bruno

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:05 PM

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts
The reason the Digital Bolex is still vapour ware is because they didn't go and release the product they first announced ignoring everyone's input, instead they listened and they've been tweaking it according to feedback, and their progress has been documented in detail on their website, with a transparency uncommon to other manufacturers. Besides, the BMDCC is still vapour ware to many people who ordered it months ago too.

Anyway the point was that they're so close to having a really solid product that in my opinion it's worth going the extra mile and thinking it through. If you wanna settle for less, be my guest, I'm sure they'll appreciate it, but will it help changing things for the better?

What you're saying sounds like if you put raw in a cheap camera you can ignore everything else, and that's not true. Everyone complained about the audio capabilities on the DSLRs and the BMDCC is not any better in that regard. I'd definitely rent one if I need it, but as an indie filmmaker I can't be buying cameras incrementally, when so many little things clearly need to be addressed even before the camera comes out.
  • jeffdeponte likes this

#31
galenb

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:25 PM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

I think there's quite a few things they need to sort out for v2, after they actually sort out v1 first, like:
-lens mount (as I just mentioned)
-compressed raw workflow (RED is a pro camera and has compressed raw, indie users need it much more, since we'll be dealing with the large amounts of data ourselves and at our own cost)
-global shutter option (if it's in the sensor, they should find a way to give us the option, regardless of any possible drawbacks)
-60fps, same as above
-audio meters and phantom power (and why not xlr)


I agree that all of these things would make the camera even better but just as far as thinking in terms of what is actually feasable to change in a reasonable timeframe, I would narrow the list down to:

- Cineform RAW could come in a firmware update.
- 60p in ProRes only mode (has been discussed) could come in a firmware update.
- Audio meters could come in a firmware update.

I'd also love to see 2.5k in ProRes, File/Disk management in the menus and a better one touch on menu overlays similar to how the GH1,2,3 has the quick menu overlay along the top and bottom of the screen. I think all of these things might come in later firmware updates and that's when I'll buy one.


The EF mount is far from ideal for the sensor size, regardless of which lenses I own.

Okay that's fine. That may be true for you and many others but not for everyone.

This and other things have been pointed out since day one. I'm not ditching the camera as I think it's great to have something like this at last, but BMD did wrong in not listening to what everyone was pointing out


Okay I don't understand this. How did they do wrong by not listening to what to what everyone was pointing out? Are you expecting them to stop production on the camera and reengineer it to support everyones needs before anyone actually had it in their hands? This isn't the way companies work.

You gotta agree it's not ideal for them to support 2 different versions, it would be much better for them and us if they had full featured replaceable mounts.


Yes, I agree with this. A universal mount of some kind would have been great. I really hope some engineer guys will find a way to remove the current lens mount and make it interchangeable.

Digital Bolex were set on a few ideas that were criticized at first and they've been shaping the camera according to the people's suggestions, it feels like they're trying to make the best camera they can, whereas with BMD it feels like they're giving us something to play with for the moment and keeping possible improvements for future versions, that we will have to pay for again (that's the apple philosophy resemblance I don't like, do you think an iPhone 1 is that valuable these days?).


Well, I think you are making an unfair comparison. Digital Bolex is a crowd funded, work in progress and stand alone in the industry for the most part. This is very different from BlackMagic Design who are a corporation with very different focus and working methodology. I don't think this is necessarily better but it is what it is. And I don't think you can expect BlackMagic to just stop what they are doing and start listening to every little criticism while trying to make it all perfect. They are simply not that agile. And, I really think they did what they did because it was a matter of cost. They started out the project with a fantasy of making this cinema camera that shoots RAW for only $3000 that would shake up the industry. In order to do that they had to keep costs down and that usually means they leave things out. Things like APS-C, XLR inputs, removable battery, articulated screen, etc. would have made it perfect but it also would have driven the cost up much higher. Basically, you get what you pay for. I think they have delivered what they set out to make (I use the term "Delivered" loosely). No it's not perfect but it shoots RAW for $3000 and it looks amazing! No other camera on the market can make that claim.

I hate the idea of buying products that I know straight away I'll want/have to replace in a year or so, more for environmental reasons than economical, I'd rather pay for decent firmware upgrades than have to buy a new camera, but the issues I pointed out with the BMD camera are mostly physical and not easily fixed with firmware updates.


Well, then I think you have just justified your argument for canceling your pre-order. Seriously though, maybe this camera is just not the right fit for you? I feel like everyone knows what the limitations of the camera are. There are work a round to just about all of them and some people are fine with that while other are not. I can totally understand why someone would not want to buy this camera. I myself have not bought one for some of these same reasons. But no one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes and I hope no one is under any delusions that this camera is perfect.

I know it might feel like I'm asking for too much, but i'm not asking for 4k or 120 fps, I'm not complaining about sensor size, i'm asking for better or proper implementation of features the camera already has, mostly reasonable and common sense things, why settle for "this will have to do for now" when you can aim at perfection?

For all the reasons I have listed above. ;-)

#32
Bruno

Posted 26 November 2012 - 02:01 AM

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts

[/font][/color]
How did they do wrong by not listening to what to what everyone was pointing out? Are you expecting them to stop production on the camera and reengineer it to support everyones needs before anyone actually had it in their hands?


The camera wasn't in production when they first presented it and got all the feedback.

[/font][/color]
Digital Bolex is a crowd funded, work in progress and stand alone in the industry for the most part. This is very different from BlackMagic Design who are a corporation with very different focus and working methodology.


You're right, BMD had way more resources to address any possible tweaks than Digital Bolex. Digital Bolex raised money to build 100 cameras and that's it, they didn't have an established running company and all those resources at hand.

[/font][/color]
Things like APS-C, XLR inputs, removable battery, articulated screen, etc. would have made it perfect but it also would have driven the cost up much higher.


That's what a lot of people has been complaining about, not me. I mentioned XLR ports, because it's an industry standard, and definitely needed for serious audio work (with phantom power).
The rest of those things I'm not complaining about. Sensor size doesn't bother me, the mount does. It would be handy to have an articulated screen, but you can get any monitor you like. Replaceable batteries could be good, but you can plug any batteries to it. However, no add on will bring you 60fps or the global shutter mode that reportedly that sensor comes with, or a replaceable lens mount.

[/font][/color]
Well, then I think you have just justified your argument for canceling your pre-order.


I never had a pre-order, never said so. Would I buy this camera as an indie filmmaker as it is? No. Would I rent it if I needed it for a project? Yes. Would I buy it if they sorted some of the issues I pointed out? Definitely!

#33
galenb

Posted 26 November 2012 - 02:36 AM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon
Pre-order: By bad, I got you and Kingswell mixed up.

60p has been talked about by Blackmagic design as something that could possibly be added in a firmware update. I'll see if I can find a link to that quote but I think it might have even been grant himself.

#34
Bruno

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:36 AM

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts

Then why are you so much in favour of the MFT mount version? The EF version supports Contax Zeiss adapters and IS on Canon lenses!!


I also have a 16mm film camera with some good lenses that could be put to good use with this sensor.
Also, even if I had no lenses at all, 16mm c-mount quality cine lenses can be bought at great prices these days, the same is not true for super 35 cine lenses, and it would be neat to use cine lenses on a cine camera in my opinion :)

#35
Andrew Reid

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:44 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,054 posts
Most 16mm lenses won't work. Sensor is too big!

#36
galenb

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:09 AM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Most 16mm lenses won't work. Sensor is too big!

Unless you want vignetting of course. ;-)

#37
markm

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:53 AM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
Well I have a set of 16mm mark one arri zeiss superspeeds which I think will be a perfect combo for the BMC.

#38
markm

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:08 AM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

What you're saying sounds like if you put raw in a cheap camera you can ignore everything else, and that's not true. Everyone complained about the audio capabilities on the DSLRs and the BMDCC is not any better in that regard. I'd definitely rent one if I need it, but as an indie filmmaker I can't be buying cameras incrementally, when so many little things clearly need to be addressed even before the camera comes out.


If your making a proper a film you'd be recording audio seperately and the camera sound used as a marker. As for the rest the only problem I may have is with the the CFA and that's probably pretty standard up to £15000 anyway. The BMC has a fine sensor and tests have gleaned nothing but praise over the picture quality. Prores is a brilliant addition. The only thing missing is the ability to compress footage to a smaller file or create a proxy in camera at the same time.
BUT what do you expect for this price??? The fact you can make professional images at a nothing price is amazing. As for making small improvements year on year at this price WHO CARES. You will probably get 3 BMC's for the price of a digital bolex anyway. Of course if the bolex should come out before the BMC MFT version I will look at it. Waiting for the bolex to implement every bell and whistle for so long means time wasted.

#39
cameraboy

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:28 AM

cameraboy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts
looks ike that people from kineraw work on their s16 camera with same KODAK sensor as IKONOSKOP ...

#40
Bruno

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:32 PM

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 posts

You will probably get 3 BMC's for the price of a digital bolex anyway.


What makes you say that? First batch was sold at $2500, final price will probably be $3000.

Most 16mm lenses won't work. Sensor is too big!


BMD shoots 2.5k, so if you really like your lenses, you could crop it to 2k and get rid of some vignetting, not ideal, but a workaround.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users