John Brawley

Funny how the cost of a camera warps the expectation of the price of accessories.

JB

9 hours ago, Tone1k said:

Hi John, yeah I had similar issues with OLPF flare with the Epic. I get the point, Alexa black sun looks tiny in comparison to BMD's original problem but anyway..... all I wanted to know is if the cameras go through more vigorous testing than the gen 1 cameras BMD produced. 

I understand you can't comment.... 

I can’t comment about the testing process.  But as alluded to here, testing and finding errors doens’t mean they will get fixed before shipping.  No camera is perfect and THAT was my point.

Today, I can make an Alexa show a black sun without too much difficulty and I can make a DXL or current top of the line RED have a strange OLPF flare in similar shooting circumstances.  

I’d classify these as major imaging problems in the way you were characterising issues to do with BMD, and I was only showing you that those cameras got knowingly shipped with similar issues that HAD to have been known about.  

Those that test and find faults aren’t the ones in charge of the building, fixing or shipping or repairing.  It’s not their call on if something is a show stopper or not.  There’s an assumption that faults were somehow missed, that there’s a problem with the voracity of the testing regime and yet, if you’re not allowed to talk about the testing process and what you find...

No camera is perfect.

The question becomes...Is it good enough...can you get away with it.  That’s what every manufacturer has to ask themselves because they ALL have imaging faults.

JB

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Tone1k said:

Thanks for the reply. While I understand that any piece of equipment can have many small bugs, major image issues for a device who's job it is to capture images should not be allowed to make their way into production. 

Here's a Black Sun from an Alexa shoot of mine, and a nice OLPF flare from a DXL / RED Monstro on the latest Mission Impossible trailer.

JB

14 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

So you're only arguing over degrees here, splitting hairs, that BMD where up front "enough" but Kinefinity is not? Seems clear enough to me what Kinefinity is doing. 

But you still didn't answer my question before, is the BMCC MFT a MFT camera or not, and if not, what is it?

The BMCC MFT is a passive or dumb mount MFT camera. 

10 hours ago, Tone1k said:

Hi JB, 

Thanks for your input here on this forum. 

While you say that BM have asked most of the questions asked here already in the devolopment stages, I'm a little more interested in the product testing stages pre release.

While the Ursa Mini line have had a lot less image quality issues than 1st Gen BMD cameras like the Production and Production 4k, image quality issues like sunspots in highlights, high levels of flicker and FPN (in the UrsaMini 4k) seem like obvious  issues that should be picked up on pre release of the camera. Why do issues like this get through if product testing occurs prior to release? Surely a test of the original Production camera would have included shooting a frame with a light source on it and the sun spot show up? 

While I trust that BM have learned from their past mistakes, and I know that a working version of the Pocket 4K has been doing the rounds with viewings in retailers here in Australia to hopefully get feedback pre release, do cameras go through more thorough testing now compared to a few years ago or can we expect the Pocket 4K, with a new sensor (to BMD) to have image quality issues on release and then BMD address them afterwards? 

Cheers. 

I can't talk about the testing processes, and in this thread I think everyones sick of hearing from me now.

I'm taking a break.

 

 

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

That logic makes no sense at all. Are you going to claim the BMCC MFT is not a Micro Four Thirds camera? And if it isn't, what is it?!

 

BMD always said in their marketing materials up front....

"Passive MFT Mount"

That was the headline.

"The new Passive Micro Four Thirds (MFT) gives you compatibility with a wide range of manually operated lenses, while also being easily adapted to other mounts such as PL mount via third party adapters."

So it was clear what the mount was. And that it was "manually" operated lenses.

And they got a lot of crap from people about doing it like that too. Go look at the BMD forum around the launch date.

Kinifinity say "E mount" and it's really only click on the adaptor itself and then once you drill down you find that they define the caveat's...like it's a minor thing.

"Attention: it does not support lenses which need protocol from camera, like SONY G series lenses, though the current E mounting adapter has electronic contacts. There would be trade-in plan with new adapters if new adapters support these electronic lenses in the future."

Many people make the mistake of assuming E mount means E mount.

Even here on this thread we've had arguments about if it does or doesn't do native E Mount. It doesn't . And it should be really obvious.

They should be describing their $500 E mount adaptor (so cheap right ?) as Passive or Dumb E mount. Instead they say "E mount" with a hyperlink to a picture of an adaptor with electronic contacts and some fine print.

http://www.kinefinity.com/shop/k2e/?lang=en

JB

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

It is doubtful that Hasselblad (or any other company) would include a patented, 3rd-party component on a product without a licensing agreement, or without an agreement with a clause regarding licensing.

Sony are the OEM. They built it FOR Hasselblad.  It's not licensed to Hasselblad so that Hasselblad can then go and make the camera under licence in their own factory. 

Sony made the camera with a Hasselblad badge on it.

OEM.  Not Licence. They are very different business arrangements.

 

 

Quote

 

 

I am not so sure about that, for the reasons I stated earlier.

You have not made that case.

 

Quote

 

At any rate, what is the relevance of "native?"  Does the Red or Kinefinity have a "native" lens mount?  Either a camera has an E-mount, or it doesn't.  Kinefinity has an E-mount.

It's not an E mount if you can't use an actual E mount lens.  Isn't that obvious ? Isn't that relevant to the topic ?  You're claiming E mount, you're claiming it's easy to get around and yet, you actually can't use an E mount lens on the Kinifinity despite the fact it has an E Mount option (unless it's some aftermarket E mount lens that doens't have comms)

E mount lenses require electronic comms for iris and power for IS. If you don't supply that then no native E mount lens with work on Kinifinity's E-mount.

The ONLY reason Kinifinity have been able to get away with saying it's an E mount is because it's not an E mount.  It's only mechanically an E mount

 

Quote

 

Clairmont Camera got a lot of business from their various cinema adapters, which they advertised heavily with full page ads in magazines such as "American Cinematographer." These were often big, unwieldy contraptions, but I don't recall anyone complaining about them being "painful" to use (unless someone did something foolish with the squishy lens).

Give me some examples with costs please. By the way you know Clairmount went bust ?

I guarentee you the cost of a squishy lens was many thousands to manufacture. (Clairmount were like Panavision, mostly rental only)

 

Quote

 

I'm not so sure about that.  I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just won't have the electronics.

You should edit this and say...

"I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just can't change exposure or use the IS or record any metadata when using Native E mount lenses."

 

Quote

 

At any rate, Kinefinity already has a "non-native" E-mount, and that's all that matters.

As long as you're OK with not being able to change exposure, use IS or use metadata with E Mount lenses.

 

Quote

 

 

No.  I disparage manufacturers for being arrogant and ignorant.  They don't want to understand that they can ship a "native" EF mount and still be able to use a shallower mount -- AT NO EXTRA COST!!!  Do you understand that?

How ?  By making a "plate" that magically doesn't cost extra ?  You're being foolish.

 

Quote

 

The Red plate is required on a Red body, regardless of price.  Doing what I suggest doesn't have to add a penny extra to the cost of whichever plate ships default with a Red body.

Right.  It's required. You agree.  It costs 700 bucks.  You want to add 700 bucks to the cost of a 1200 dollar camera for a feature few will use. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

I am not sure if you (nor some manufacturers) grasp this very basic concept.

I am not sure you understand  the implications of native lens control or market economics mean to a camera design.

 

Quote

 

what I propose will not add to that cost, nor does it need to add to the cost of any camera with a removable front.

Of course it does.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

I remember that.  Somebody f***ed up.  If a lot of different lenses can't focus to infinity, I wonder who f***ed up?

 

Yes.  Tokina made a lens that some copies couldn't hit infinity at the standard Canon FFD. 

 

Quote

 

99% percent of the don't have to know anything about shimming if the shims are captive.

Until they change over time or aren't right.Which is what happens when you make something user-changeable.

 

 

Quote

 

By the way, anything is shimmable, as long as there is enough male/female thread.  A shim is just a spacer.

Show me some detail about how you shim your EF mount ?

 

Quote

 

 

Nobody is going to notice 1-2 degrees of skew, unless they are shooting flat art or they are using a very narrow lens wide open (or if they are focusing with lens marks).

You're saying you accept a mechanically induced optical problem. 

Not everyone's going to agree with you.  And that's the point.  You're saying you're happy to accept a lower level of precision with a lesser well built plate or adaptor.

I think you're alone in thinking that everyone will be fine with the compromise that goes with that.

 

Quote

 

 

I am not crazy about EF lenses either, but it is obvious that shipping a camera with a precise, fully capable EF mount, doesn't have to preclude the possibility of a shallower mount on that camera.   Manufacturers have already shown that such an EF mount can be default, while retaining the versatility of shallower mount, with no complaints from the clueless EF users.

Yep.  At substantial cost.  It can be done. I agree.  You just don't want to pay for what it would take to do this.

 

Quote

 

In addition, there is no extra cost to do so in some cases, and in other instances the additional cost would be low (maybe 8 more simple machining operations).

Can you elaborate ? Have you made lens mounts ? Lens adaptors ?  Are you a manufacturer ? can you share some examples of your work ?

 

Quote

 

I agree that when precision is important, it's important!  What I propose can utilize the same amount of precision required for the Red plate system -- you just start out with everything a little further back,  That's all -- no increase in the amount of precision required.

But it's a 700 dollar item. Round and round we go.  You keep saying it won't cost anything extra.

It's 700 bucks ! 

If you buy a theoretical camera with two plates, that's 700 bucks a pop. Or at least and extra 700 bucks for the EF version and you can make some homebrew e mount adaptor for 100 bucks, but it's still added 700 bucks to everyone else's camera for a feature they'll never use.

JB

 

9 hours ago, kye said:

There can be big differences between what people actually want, what they think they want, what they will tell you they want, and what they will actually pay for.

 

Indeed.

I guess I was trying to say, it’s not really what I agree with or want, but I can seperate my personal views about what is pragmatic and practical and understand why a company makes these kinds of choices. Because they also need to be viable as a business as well.

What I want from a camera is not what most of the users of this forum want and is likely to result in a camera that would fail commercially.  So who cares what I want !

I’m not against choice, but I’ve also had the SAME conversations with the people that can make this stuff happen. I’m just paraphrasing the answers to the questions I’ve already asked long ago from those that do the making.

I have to say it’s really disheartening to see people shooting off about trying to work around and defeat IP. Even if you’re philosophically OK with trying to do that, you know that if Sony’s lawyers come knocking I’m pretty sure you’d feel different.  Not to mention the fact that they are an important vendor for someone making a camera.  The make a lot of components from the sensor down.... Would you REALLY want to jeapordise a new product that you’ve invested millions on R&D into only to have the company that potentially make your sensor yank it because you’re trying to circumvent their IP on a lens mount ?

And then seeing engineering challenges claimed that are easy and cheap without any true understanding of what they’re claiming is possible. 

I’ve been a part of these conversations already.  I’ve already asked most of the same questions that then get asked here.  The same things get kicked around by R&D and product managers.  They already have done the numbers on most of these things and I think BMD have shown more than anyone, if they can make something, they will, they have zero fear of market segmentation or protectionism of product class. But it does have to be profitable and enough people that will want it.  

JB

 

8 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

 

Do you know if BM ever considered a camera with that DB sensor at all? That would've been something... 

Part of the many behind the scenes testing I've done involves evaluating sensors.

But once again.

People say they WANT this sensor. Then they don't BUY cameras that have this sensor (Ikonoscope too remember)

JB

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Digital Bolex was $3299 initially for their cheapest model (with another version which cost $4K! And another model positioned between them). 

Price is what made DB16 struggle to succeed in the market against sub $1K (and later only $500!! Is why I bought it) BMPCC. 

 

 

Right.

So price was a barrier.

You weren't prepared to pay the price required for those features. Or you dibdn;t want them enough to pay the extra premium.

Everyone wanted the kodak CCD that did glorious global shutter colour but no one wanted to PAY for it. Hence they went out of business.

I'm sure if they COULD have done it cheaper, they would have done so to stay afloat.  But they couldn't.

So making a camera with a robust enough interchangeable mount system COSTS MORE. As evidence'd by RED's 700 dollar adaptor.

Even the PL mount version of a lot of BMD's cameras COSTS MORE. Because that PL mount is hard to make cheaply to the tolerance required.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

 

AJA Cion failed for the exact same reasons I just mentioned beforehand:
PRICE! 

AJA was asking $9K for the AJA Cion. 
The original BMD URSA 4K was I think $5K?
That is an awfully big difference, nearly half the price!
 

I think Ursa was closer to 6K ?  But not that big of a difference compared to the DB example.

Again, no one wanted to pay the premium for what many thought was the BETTER made camera. Better ergonomics, better profile, much lighter weight.   Everyone laughed at the giant iPad screen of the Ursa.  

And yet, though it failed, it was still more successful than the Cion.

So here's a camera company that has a track record of making cheaper priced cameras.  They know exactly the advantages of what's being asked.  But they've made a COMMERCIAL decision about what features to bring to market. 

JB

 

 

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

As I too can empathise with manufacturs' thinking to take the easy path out and use EF mount primarily, like for instance Panasonic EVA1 has done. 
 

It's not the easy path. They're not being lazy.   But it has to be viable.  Sustainable.

Digital Bolex made a camera that EVERYONE loved.  Everyone loved it's design ideals.  The Kodak made CCD, the global shutter, the super 16 format. 

It was announced before Blackmagic announced their pocket cinema camera, which kind of did similar things.  Super 16 sensor and fairly unique look. At about 1/3rd the price.

There was a lot of love for the DB camera and it's visuals.  But they went out of business.

Even though in many ways they made a DEMONSTRABLY better camera in terms of IQ, it had less utility for most users who didn't want to put up with their RAW only model, the way the media had to be offloaded.

So even though they made a better camera in many ways, gave us image purists what we asked for, they couldn't make it fly as a business model because WE DIDN"T SUPPORT IT.

AJA made a camera that EVERYONE said was a better camera than Ursa. Cion was the camera that would show Blackmagic how it was done. It addressed all the complaints of Ursa, with supposed better ergonomics and a better build from a company that seemingly had a better reputation.

It was stillborn. No one liked the pictures from it.   Ursa wasn't a great success either, but considering it used the same sensor, it at least delivered a camera that for some made great pictures, had an EVF and could do everything on-board.  Ursa was a failure too, but they sure as heck sold a lot more cameras than the AJA Cion.

Ursa is very interesting to look at because it had not only an interchangeable mount, but an interchangeable sensor assembly.  It TRIED to do what is being discussed here. Something modular, and interchangeable.

Read between the lines here.  I can't say a lot, but it's a LOT LOT harder to make something like this work than you think it is.  I'm sure the engineering problems could be solved, but the COST of doing so at some point means it's not worth the energy expended, especially when sales of the camera overall weren't that great.

JB

1 hour ago, tupp said:

It certainly IS Hasselblad doing a native E-mount camera  Hasselblad did not just suddenly decide to buy a bunch of NEX 7s and put wooden handles on them.  They had to have a licensing agreement with Sony on the hardware.

 

At any rate, because Sony has already licensed the E-mount and for the other reasons I mentioned earlier, I think it's possible that we will see the E-mount appearing on more cameras in the near future.

That SONY MADE camera was released in 2012.

That's not licensing.  That's OEM

No one has ever made THEIR OWN camera with a native E mount.

Like I said.

Never going to happen.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

So, it's okay (and not amateurish) to use adapters?  ... even with all the futzing?

I have plenty of adaptors for PL mft and a lovely collection of lenses including Contax, Leica R, leica M and of course PL.

That's how I know that in the end it's futzing. It's not really good for primetime.

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

Rather than condemn the variance in look as annoying inconsistencies, it might be beneficial to think of such subtle differences between lenses as characteristics that can be employed for expression,

See above.

See my many blog posts about using vintage lenses.

I know the point you think I'm not getting.

It's still painful TO DO.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

 

Certainly, it is generally nice to work with cine housings, but sometimes that is not possible.  In addition, the original housings on still lenses are usually lighter and more compact than their rehoused counterparts.

Have shorter focus throws, clicked iris, more problems with breathing and zoom tracking.

All over it.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

Somebody must be buying the LS300, as there is footage on the internet.

But i never hear it being talked about as a camera except in this exact context. Not because of the pictures it makes,  But because it has a native MFT mount with a larger than MFT sensor behind it.

If this is the design ideal, as a proof of concept, it's hardly been stellar.  I look at a camera like the Digital Bolex as a camera with similarly noble ideals that had a lot more directed visual impact.

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

I never said that using an M4/3 mount with a S35 sensor is a "great" idea, but I do think that it is a good idea, as is having self-cropping sensor (as long as it can also be manually controlled).

It's a fine idea.

But why limit it to a native mount that's always smaller than the full sensor resolution that you have to use an adapted lens with.

Play along with me and accept that Sony will never licence E mount.

You want another lens mount is all.  I'm not against what you're pitching, I just think it's dumb to do it with MFT or a mount you'll never see on camera not made by Sony.

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

The point is:  if you start out designing your camera with a shallow enough mount (be it M4/3, E-mount, EF-M, a bolted plate... whatever), then the users can do anything with the camera's front end.  On the other hand, if you start out with a mount that is too far forward, then you create unnecessary limitations.

No.

You disparaged manufactures for making cameras in a mount that's incredibly prevalent and means they can stay in business and instead advocate a native mount that would force any user to use another adaptor to get the full sensor resolution out of and realistically few people want.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

O

I would also like to add that auto-sizing is much more novel and patentable than a bayonet lens mount (which likely has prior art going back over a century).  It is likely that the claims of the Sony patent(s) for the E-mount are generic, over-reaching and easy to get around.

I don't think you get it.

Kinifinity made an E mount.  But they can't put an E mount lens on there.  Because the lens protocol is what's protected.  You can't talk to an E mount lens without that.

Thus...

No native E mount from Kinifinity.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

A universal mount is not required, but that would be nice.   Such a mount doesn't have to be any more expensive than a M4/3 mount, a KineMount, an FZ mount or a Red plate (the actual cost of the Red plate -- not list price).

It's the only thing that can be done because it's DUMB to use MFT as an intermediary mount.

What are you talking about "the cost" of the RED plate ?  It sells for 700 bucks.  Go check the price of the Titanium one.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

I've never had a precision problem with cheap adapters and prime lenses.  In regards to parfocal zooms, usually adapters with higher tolerances are required, sometimes with captive shims.

99% of people that buy this camera aren't going to want to know about shimming anything.  Most people don't even understand how to do it correctly.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

However, all that is required is that the manufacturer ships the camera with the default mount precisely calibrated, and the shallow mount doesn't necessarily have to be field switchable.

Gee like Blackmagic did with their first EF mount cameras that were the EXACT FFD for EF mount ?  Ask all those Tokina owners how they feel about their lenses not hitting infinity.

 

And that's EACTLY the kind of things that start happening when you start introducing mount adaptors or interchangeable mounts.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

It's been done:  Kinefinity; Sony (FZ); Sony (E-mount); M4/3; Canon (EF-M); Red (plate).  All of these mounts are precise and allow electronic connections.

You mean those ones you were just saying don't have to be expensive ?  Which is it then ?

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

Now, if you don't need the electronic connection, there are numerous more examples, including those found on a lot of precise film cameras (some of which had removable lens turrets).

Not for 99 bucks.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

However, are you suggesting that the default front shipped with the Ursas are problematic in regards to their precision?  Are EF or PL users having problems with precision?  Remember, such typical users need never remove the mount -- they can just get a whole new camera every time they need a different native mount!

Except with a camera that has a universal mount they're MORE LIKELY to have problems even if they don't use that feature. 

Right now EF mount's aren't generally shimmable (except for a couple of higher end C seriesd Canon cameras and a few RED's)

There's no real mechanism to do it easily (user).

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

In addition, Red seems to be using bolt-on front ends without problems.  What I advocate requires nothing more complex nor more expensive than that system.

You mean those 700 dollar ones you keep saying don't have to be expensive ?

You want your cake don't you.

You can't argue it's not problem when the ones you keep pointing to prove my point.  To do anything as PRECISE as a lens mount needs to be it has to be done with great care and precision with the added complication of the electronic side of things.  It's fine if you're used to still lenses that NEVER have accurate witness marks in the first place and usually overshoot infinity JUST BECAUSE the tolerances are far less.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

Again, I only used the LS300 as an example of what is possible in regards to shallow mounts and a S35 sensor.  The number of people who want the LS300 is irrelevant to the feasibility of using a shallower mount, bolt-on or otherwise.

It's feasible, but it won't cost 99 bucks for an adaptor.  Every mount will cost many hundreds if you want it done well and reliably. To argue otherwise says you're just an armchair engineer.

I've had these conversations with people that do this kind of work. It's grossly insulting to say it can be done reliably for the cost of an 50 dollar ebay adaptor.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

On the other hand, the number of LS300s sold has to be decent, and there has been no shortage of discussion about that camera on this forum.

On this forum.  But not many others. 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

 

Actually, the milestone of having a raw, M4/3 4k camera is not innovation -- it's just progress.  The smaller Kinefinity is making faster progress than the larger BMD.

 

 

I'm sure the market will reward them.

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

At any rate, my point was that what is most popular in a market is often not the best option.  You have professed your dislike of EF lenses described their shortcomings, yet there are 130 million EF lenses.  Are EF lenses the best option because they are the most popular?  There is no shortage of other such examples.

 

I think youre confusing things.

I hate EF leneses.

I hate EF mount.

But I can understand why a manufacturer would prefer to make a camera for a lens mount that has . amuch larger installed user base.

Now I don't agree with that.,  But I can empathise with that thinking.  It's so hard to make a camera and make money.  Ask, Dalsa, Aaton, AJA, Digital Bolex, Ikonoscope, Panavison (two shelved cameras) 

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

Tell that to Jannard and all of the Red fans using lens mount plates.
 

Only if you accept the cost of that is 700 bucks my friend.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

I have never had any skew nor sharpness problem with a fixed adapter and a prime lens, even with the cheap, wobbly adapters.  Also, I've shot with a few view cameras and I own a tilt/swing adapter, and a few degrees of skew is very difficult to perceive, unless you are shooting flat art with a wide aperture.

I think you said it earlier.  It's about degrees of precision.  A bit out for you might be acceptable for for other sit most certainly won't be.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

No.  It's easy to do. and having shallow mounts on cameras can cost the same as not having them.

No no no.

You're keep claiming this and using RED as example.

You can't have it both ways

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

With the Red example, having a shallower mount is merely a difference of proportion.  It is possible that only two dimensions need to be changed in the existing working drawings (the length of the lens tube and the length of the camera body in front of the sensor).

 

It doesn't have to cost any more to have a shallow mount.

 

This getting tiring.  

Nope.

RED is your example.

They  charge 700 bucks for their CHEAP version.

The titanium version is 2000 dollars.  More than the cost of the camera we're discussing here.

Why do you think they even have those two options ? Why do you think they're charging that much if it can really be done so easily and cheaply like you claim ?

JB

 

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The reason they're so expensive is that anything for the higher cinema market is going to be very crazy expensive by that nature, then on top of that FZ mount is was a very small niche mount (just the three cameras for it, and only one native lens ever made) which will mean anything for it will be even more expensive due to poor economies of scale. (even so, I managed to buy each of my FZ mount adapters for only around US$100ish each) 

It's expensive to make a PL mount with electronic connections with precision. The fact that even the after market units are still hundreds of dollars says this.

Making even a universal mount camera means adapters that would cost a similar amount. I bet your FZ mount adaptors have no electronics ?

The RED one costs a similar amount too

http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc-canon-lens-mount

 

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

Who is to say APS-C is "wrong" for MFT?
It works so thus it works!

Just like it is not "wrong" to use APS-C cameras with E mount which fits full frame sensors and lenses. 

Neither is it "wrong" of me to use a Nikon DX DSLR just because there are also Nikon FX DSLRs which use the same mount. 

Neither is the Pentax 645Z or the other digital medium format cameras "wrong" just because they have a mount which uses film 645 lenses which are for a larger sensor area. 
 

I've never said that it's wrong to adapt lenses. It's not always what I'd do, but it's great to be able to do it.

I think you're not understanding what my issues is here.

It's not wrong of you to use a Nikon D series DSLR at all, but would you feel the same if the only NATIVE mount lenses the Nikon D850 could accept were DX (not FX) lenses? Everything else had to be adapted.

Would you feel the same if your Pentax 645D could only accept NATIVE K mount lenses ?

Would you feel the same if the only NATIVE mount lenses the 5D MK3 could accept were EF-S lenses ?  

That's what you're asking for when you ask for a much larger than MFT sensor in a MFT native mount body.

If you think any of the above scenarios are perfectly acceptable for a camera manufacturer to build then I'll let this one go. At the moment JVC seem to be the only one to have done this ever.

 

Quote

 

Sometimes a native lens will be right (such as on a gimbal, or for run and gun) and other times an adapted lens will be right. It is better to have that choice, than to not have it at all!

 

You can do that already with MFT. It's the reason I love MFT.  I'm not against that at all.

JB

 

19 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Plenty of native MFT lenses which cover S35:
Sigma, SLR Magic, Veydra, Fujinon, Rokinon, etc

And it isn't about forcing people to use adapters, but about giving people greater choice of options (you can go native, or not, simple adapters or focal reducers). 

Or you could say it like this...

 ...you can go native (but most likely not ever be able to use the full advertised sensor resolution with the majority of native MFT lenses), or (be forced) to use simple adapters or focal reducers if you actually do want the full sensor resolution.

It’s not about more choice if you HAVE to use something that isn’t the native lens mount of the camera to use the full sensor resolution. 

Some MFT lenses may cover but most will not. 

Thats what’s silly about this.

You want MFT or E mount just so you can use other legacy mount lenses.

Im against a camera with a native lens mount that doesn’t have a sensor optimised for the lens mount it’s working with. You’re commiting to being windowed in its native mount. If you were to design an OLPF for example, which format would you optimise it for ? 135 format lenses or the lens mount that’s fitted to it ? 

What you really want is a new universal mount with a short FFD that allows lens power, control and metadata where appropriate.

JB

What killed film wasn’t digital per se, it was the migration of film PRINTS in exhibition to digital projection.  

Of course digital projection at first has obvious advantages. Dust, scratches, stability and of course, they won’t change the 4th reel for one printed on a different release stock from a different lab.

However, like film, most cinemas let their plant run down. With digital this sucks.

I see many many cinemas with poor digital projection.  Tired and shitty 2k projectors, dull whites, no contrast, soft setups, milky milky blacks make me crazy. 

Look at black masking / surround drapes next time you’re in a cinema and compare it to “black” from a projector in the image. 

Digital projected black is more like 18% grey.  There’s no contrast in the image like with a film print, no dynamic range.

Some new systems are fixing this (dolby and the new giant OLED cinema screens being trialled in CA)

...and for the love of god, showing a 2D on a 3D screen is a major crime that few notice. I complain and usually get blank stares.  They don’t even know what aim talking about.

When you see an “answer print” on a properly setup screen it’s something to behold. Truly breathtaking.  I’d forgotten how magical it really really is. 

We even have the technology to make prints at first generation (answer print) pretty much in real time instead of the two stage duplications of release print but it’s too late. Doesn’t matter now. 

Most of Kodak’s business was in making print stock, not camera negative.  That’s what killed them.  Well actually, the motion picture imaging division has always been profitable.  Just not profitable enough to continue to prop up their moronic decision to make consumer printers (but not supply the ink).

JB

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

 

Not at all. You could override it manually if you wanted to capture more. (maybe say if you plan to do a wider crop in post than 16:9, or if you want the extra vignette as part of the look)

Plus it is very very very common that cameras can crop in. So there is nothing "backwards" about offering the extra functionality of using a variable amount of the sensor. 

 

If Blackmagic made a native MFT version of the 4.6K camera you realise that you could NEVER shoot at published maximum resolution of 4.6K unless you DON'T use an MFT mount lens ?

The other examples you make all go the other way.  You're windowing down for video from a stills camera.

This is a cinema camera that can never shoot the full 4.6K sensor UNLESS you DON'T use a native lens. That means you HAVE to adapt it to get the full sensor.

Which is what the JVC did as well.

The very fact it's so often brought up AND YET never seemingly used on anything of note is the point I make.

You bring up a great point with yet another closed proprietary Sony only mount... the FZ mount.  Let's look at the price of of some FZ adaptors that keep the electronic connections so we can use lens metadata, or power IS and iris control.

(FZ by the way is Son'y cinema version of E mount)

Here's the one that Sony make to go to PL.  I presume this is the most robust mechanically and reliable.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1053116-REG/sony_lafzpl12p_pl_to_sony_fz_mount.html

And some other after market ones...EF mount

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1173012-REG/optitek_cpli_fz3_prolock_i_electronic_lens.html?ap=y&gclid=CjwKCAjw4PHZBRA-EiwAAas4Zo9CR_3OYgnWusLKLjNus5ImW7Nvf11fa1DTtfhWUCpiEhCiMKQKeRoCK7wQAvD_BwE&smp=y

https://www.adorama.com/kaelafzeos.html

What we want is to adapt any lens to a camera.

What we need is a mount that allows this with a short enough FFD and that's mechanically stable enough to be used reliably for anyone that can afford a $1200 camera.

Sony E / FZ and MFT are just a way to get to that want because we can do it through adaptors.

The fundamental problem is that it's EXPENSIVE to make this kind of functionality in what is a consumer priced product that 99% of those consumers don't want or need or even know about and might also potentially screw their camera up if it wasn't done well enough and failed at doing it's core job.  

JB

 

 

 

7 hours ago, tupp said:

I'm not so sure about that.

I'm very sure.

Sony have yet to do it even once.

A physical E mount isn't the same as a native mount.  

Hasselblad OEM'd a Sony NEX 7, added some wooden handles to it and some designer styling and sold them for five times the price.  They literally re-skinned a Sony camera, put a Hassy badge on it to take advantage of dentists who buy limited edition's of cameras like this because they think they will appreciate in value.

That's NOT Hasselblad doing a native E mount camera

The lunar was a Sony camera that Hasselblad put their name on and jacked up the price.  Part of the failed strategy that nearly sent them under before DJI bought Hasselblad.  

 

Quote

 

 

So, if I want to get serious, I should ditch my set of M-mount Summicrons and get a set of PL Tokinas?

Not at all.

You can use them on the camera used in the title of this thread just fine.  

I've got a nice M-->MFT mount adaptor that works great with my M mount leicas but the lens to lens inconsistency puts me off, almost as much as the poor MFD and short focus throw.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Does that include the PL rehousings of FF (and MF still) glass, especially those that are being used with the recent large format cinema cameras?

No because in re-housing them, generally makes them more useable.

Leaving them in their original state means they're incredibly painful to work with.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Or, is it just using an adapter with a stock still lens that is amateurish?

It's just not very practical is it...

 

Quote

 

Huh?  If you are referring to my earlier mention of the JVC LS300, I brought it up because it merely proves that an M4/3 mount works fine with a S35 sensor.  I would not know a show shot with that camera nor with most any other camera.

My point is that it's not been embraced by anyone.

No one wants this great idea.  

It's not even doing anything clever really. If it picks up a native MFT mount lenses it auto windows the sensor size ? 

You can never use the full sensor size with lenses made for it's native mount.  That seems pretty backwards to me.

 

 

Quote

 

I'm sorry, but I have to disparage some camera manufacturers for their arrogance and short-sightedness (who are possibly unlike the two manufacturers that you disparage).

I guess the (lack of) LS300 success is my counterpoint to you disparaging short sighted manufacturers.  If there really was a genuine WANT from this we'd see more camera manufacturers doing it.

 

Quote

 

 

There are several inexpensive ways to make such a versatile front end, of which EF users would be completely clueless to the fact that the EF front is removable for those who need a shallower mount.

I agree that one COULD make a universal mount that does what E mount doesn't without being E mount but I disagree that it's going to be inexpensive.

I've actually been down this path before. Interchangeable mounts and mount adaptors ultimately are a gamble. It's incredibly difficult to make something that precise that is field switchable that is consistent enough over time to always maintain the right FFD and electrical connections for those lenses that do meta data, IS and need Iris control.

If it really really was that simple someone would have done it.  The closet we've seen is Kinifinity.

 

 

Quote

 

The simplest example that I can give is to merely imagine a Red camera, but with its lens mount plate set further back to accommodate a shallow mount (such as the E-mount,  M4/3, EF-M, Fuji X,... whatever).  If such a camera is shipped with a smart EF lens plate already bolted on, the clueless EF users won't notice any difference, and such hidden versatility won't affect sales figures at all.

But the "bolting on" part is what's difficult.  See above comment.

I speak from experience.  There is a BMD camera that ships right now that has interchangeable mounts.  Once upon a time there was some thought given to these goals.  But it's turns out it's a lot harder to do than you writing "inexpensive" and "bolt on" is.

And in the end, as per the LS300, not that many people want it.

 

Quote

 

In regards to your mention of Kinefinity, a typical shooter might consider them marginal.  However, Kinefinity has already beat the larger "non-marginal" BMD (and several others) to a few important milestones, including offering a raw, M4/3 4k camera and offering a raw, FF camera.

Hats off to them. Innovation should be rewarded.  If it's what people want.

 

 

Quote

 

Well, the market has also said that it prefers Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber over the Beatles.

It's a lot more expensive and complicated to make and produce a camera than it is to produce a song.

 

Quote

 

Furthermore, the notion that a S35 sensor is "LARGER" than an M4/3 mount is completely arbitrary -- especially since the LS300 (and other camera/adapter combos) proves that such a configuration works.

But no one buys them.

 

Quote

 

 

Actually, it doesn't (not that I find anything wrong with using adapters).

Adaptors introduce a point of failure in maintaining the flatness of the field and FFD.

 

Quote

 

 

I have heard that excuse before, but if the front end is properly designed, there is no problem.

Easy to say.  Harder to do.

 

Quote

 

Also, even if such a camera only has an M4/3 mount, a prominent qualifier in all literature and on all pertinent web pages should prevent most such problems.

 

I'm an advocate of m4/3. Unlike the closed Sony ecosystem it's a genuinely open consortium that any manufacturer can join. Aside from E mount lenses, I can't think of any adapted lens that you can adapt to Sony that you can't also adapt to m4/3.

But it's insane to make a camera that has a larger image circle than the native lens mount it has JUST so you can adapt it to other lenses. 

JB

 

 

46 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Thanks for your insight! But what is the definition of a setup? Is it when you change location, change one light, change tripod height/angle/placement, change camera settings? As making 35 light setups a day seems brutal and 35 tripod changes seems very doable. + then we even have not discussed the amount of takes that actors require to land a good performance. (or at least in my experience it takes several takes per shot, but I have not worked with any greatly talented actors either, but I do have seen David Fincher grind 35 takes on hollywood actors as well  )

 

A setup is anytime the script supervisor changes the ID on the slate ?

That's a lens change or a substantial change in storytelling shot construction.  On take 1 of a setup, if there's something blocking and screwing up the shot and you have to move the A camera six feet to get around it, then the shot is considered the same shot, you go to take 2 and its the same setup because the intention is the same.  Kind of the same if the lens change is from a 27mm to a 24mm because you're not quite fitting everything in.  

Sometimes though on take 3, the B camera has gotten what they need and you give them a different shot to do so that would generate a new setup and a new ID on the slate. (don't get me started on the differences between US and AU slate ID's.

The lighting is always being tweaked to each CAMERA (not shot) so that's constantly updating in small ways.  I tend to have some go-to ways to light for cross shooting and it's established often on the first setup and then tweaked to each subsequent setup.

Kubrick seems to have the reputation of most number of takes.  

"For The Shining I spent two weeks on the set in Elstree. My scene with Jack Nicholson lasted about eight minutes. We shot it 50 or 60 times, I should think - always in one take. Then Jack Nicholson, Stanley and I would sit down and look at each take on a video. Jack would say, 'That was pretty good, wasn't it, Stanley?' And Stanley would say, 'Yes it was. Now let's do it again'."

 

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

OH!
WOW!

I had no idea you had one of the first Deva recorders! What a pioneer.

After you gave that RAMPS link I looked around and read a few more:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.movies.production.sound/IFhNAzhv73k/KfWPgfOTAsYJ

 

That is incredible, I had no idea you used to specialize in being a sound mixer instead, how did you find yourself transitioning from that to now becoming a successful DoP?

Am quite curious as I entered film school with the desire to be a "DoP" (and prior to film my interest had been in photography as a hobby) and in the earliest years I was focused on just the camera department, but a few years ago I decided I'm better off doing more sound work and it has got to the point I now almost exclusively work in the sound department. (maybe only once a month I'll "play at being a DoP' and do a little short film with friends, or film a music artist, or a few episodes of a web series, but that now is the limit of my camera work usually)

I always wanted to be in the camera department.

My first job was working for a camera rental house but the owner was a working DP.  He shot a lot of documentary work and TV promos. I was his full time assistant for nearly 5 years. It was really like going to DP school for 5 years.  But being his assistant meant you had to record sound.  So I learnt to record sound ?

He was by far the biggest single influence on my working style  He taught me the importance of a bedside manner on set, he taught me to pull my own focus when shooting (when necessary) he taught me how to test, how to be hungry, to learn.  He was a technology innovator and a true pioneer. One of the first to embrace HDTV in Australia.  One of the first to buy RED cameras and advocate them.   I wrote about his passing here. https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-passing-of-john-bowring-acs/

It's never too late to change ?

10 hours ago, kye said:

Thanks John, informative post.

A couple of questions:

1) If you don't mind me asking, how often does The Pattern you describe finish an episode?  I'm keen to understand shooting ratios etc.  I understand if this info is a bit too sensitive to share, and I understand it's talking about people other than yourself, so no worries if you decline.

2) a bit OT, but the pace of such a schedule reminds me of the you tubers who create daily content (vlogs normally).  Casey Neistat is the oft cited example but many more are similar.  Casey created a 5-15 minute upload every day for something like 500 days straight, including doing everything himself from story design, shooting, editing, colour and export and upload, and the episodes were competently edited with structure, music, B-roll and sometimes FX.  He mentioned it involved editing for 4-9 hours a day.  

Your comments frequently align with these creators, they shoot 1080 for ease of editing, they get colour right in-camera, they have multiple setups, etc, and prioritise story-telling and throughput over other concerns.

My question is - have you seen any impacts to the industry from this segment of high-productivity film-makers?  I'm assuming that before vlogging was a thing very few people even attempted to maintain a pace similar to a professional shooting schedule.

Thanks!

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask "finish an episode".  It NEVER goes longer than the number of days.  It's scheduled within an inch of it's life and if the schedule isn't make-able then it's re-written ?

TV drama and Docos are where I've trained in.  The pace is not new.  What's gotten better is the production standards generally.  We've gone from using 2/3" video cameras to S35 sized sensors and cinema style framing and editorial style.  

Streaming services and VOD has lead to a new era of "elevated" TV drama.  It's shot like a movie, it's got MOVIE actors and directors working on it and it's visually told in "movie" style choices.

Except we have to still shoot it as fast. Yeah I know time is always the enemy.

Typically a movie, even a low budget one, aims for 2-3 mins of screen time a day.  TV drama is typically 6-8 mins on location and 7-12 mins in a studio.  I like shooting with more cameras (three full time) because it gets me more shots from the same number of setups.  More shots = more coverage. Simple maths.

Some shows are different.  A show like stranger things shoots an episode every 14 days. They shoot it "one camera" style and this takes longer.  I know some crew on that and they tell me that they never make their days and that the directors on that can pretty much do whatever they want and Netflix don't care much about the show's budget.  But that kind of "auteur" perspective in a TV show is pretty rare and unusual and is only permitted because of the show's great success. Arguably this could be why it's successful too.   Most directors would be fired or never re-hired again if they didn't deliver an ep in their allowed days.

When I look up directors I'm about to work with, I look at how many episodes they've done on a show.  If they've only done one and never gone back, it's a pretty good sign they're going to be....difficult.

I know a great director who started doing TV drama. He loved big architectural wide shots.  We shot a few scenes without ANY close coverage.  I begged him to shoot close up passes "just in case" and he was adamant.  Nope.  If we shoot those shots they'll use them !

He got reamed in the edit when the producers screening happened.  They asked for closeups on his edit and he said he didd't have any.

He's never been employed again by one of Australia's most prolific producers.  If any other producers call him to ask for a reference guess what he's going to tell them.

TV truly is a "producers" medium and these days, most of the producers are really writers.

JB

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Has been for a while now I believe, as the old KineMAX had ProRes. 

Their newest Kinefinity cameras are going to get ProRes Raw as well (Z Cam E2 is going to get ProRes Raw as well). 

Once you set up the Terra (or MAVO) with the KineGrip then I reckon it is quite similar in operation to say a BMPCC/GH5/etc and comfy to be fondled by human hands. (certainly not as bad as a BMD Micro is at first)

 

Careful. They’re very different cameras. 

A micro is very very small with a native MFT lens. Fits within the palm of my hand.

Thats very different to a box that has to have a monitor fitted (ursa doesn’t) and isn’t there still a few frames lag on the monitor output ?

Were getting into highly subjective personal taste things here. 

The bigger issue really is that it hasn’t really impressed on the very nice pictures front. Not for me anyway.

JB

5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Although yes, I imagine ProRes is a big draw for the UMP (although Kinefinity also does ProRes as well). 

 

Only pretty recently I think.

JB

 

 

 

 

51 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Ouch. I weep for sound!

Are there two boom ops on the show, or just one? (plus of course there would be a mixer. Does he have a sound utility too?)
 

That is impressively quick! Especially for the quality you put out. 

 

What do you mean by "11-1"? (did you mean "11-16"? The Tokina)

What made you go for SLR Magic for the Micro rather than other manual MFT lenses such as Voigtlander or Veydra? 
 

JB, have you seriously considered Kinefinity as one of the cameras you use? 

The Kinefinity Terra 4K is very compact and has been doing well, plus there is coming soon the new Kinefinity MAVO S35 and MAVO LF. 

The FS7/FS5 (because of their shallow E mount, and their FS7mk2 version has a locking E mount too), EVA1 (thanks to Wooden Camera) and C200 (as an option from Canon) all can use PL lenses, which JB has access to.  So I'd guess JB has at least giving a small amount of thought to possibly using them on a show? But the UMP won out. 

 

 

Don't weep. I'm very kind to sound.

I used to be on the other side of that fence.  I had Zaxcom Deva serial number 4 which was lighter than the PD2 I started with. I went to the Zaxcom factory a few times and knew Glenn quite well.  Back in the day I used to hang with the likes of Glen Trew and John Coffee at trade shows and I cursed the day MS stereo was invented for all the BBC shows I worked on.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.movies.production.sound/_pL641Crbhg/mJPF4mlnDNkJ

So I get it. I used to be that guy that no one talks too. (sound joke)

I don't shoot wide and tight.  I tend to shoot a lot of coverage first. I almost always cross shoot.  So matching frames and frame sizes.  Common head room mostly.  Three cameras, but the same head room means there's a pretty good chance to get in. I don't light them out of the set either.

AND, once i've been working with them for a while, they know that when I do a football pass, it's ONE camera, and it's in super close and they can get juicy good sound when I do that which usually covers any holes.

And sound always can look at me and say it can't be done and I'm fine with that.

In the US they seem to be all about lavs anyway, there's always 12 of them going.  But there's always at least one boom, sometimes two when there's a big spread.

It's mixer, utility and boom.  But utility is pretty busy with the lavs, and second booms about 50% of the time.

The 11-1 is the legendary Panavision 24-275.  275 divided by 24 equals 11.45 so we just call it the 11-1 (for it's ratio).  The Angenieux 24-290 is a 12-1. The zoom ratio is a common cinema naming convention.

I own the Veydras and some voightlanders too (and pretty much any m4/3 lens you care to name) but I keep coming back to the SLR Magic's because they're "interesting".

On the micro I use the 10mm T 2.1  Not many other lenses in m4/3 match those numbers and have cinema style gears and clickless aperture. And they're a great looking lens.

I would test a kinefinity if I could get my hands on one.  Seems like that's impossible to do.  I'm not interested in buying a camera to try it out.  I don't really want to own cameras.

I can usually test a camera by asking for one to try out.  I haven't done so with Kinifinity, but I'm pretty sure i wouldn't get a response.

I haven't been driven to really look because, frankly, I've not really seen anything that's compelling out of them in terms of footage.  Maybe that will change.  So far the DR looks pretty limited from what I've seen, the codecs have been a bit of a mess and they've never quite seemed to actually ship what they announce before they're announcing the next thing.

I had a good play with them at Cinegear, but I don't see much advantage. I'm very happy with PL mount and native MFT for smaller sensor cameras.  Unless the camera can do something I can't do with what I'm currently using there not much hunger for me to look.

I'm sure this is heretical, but I also hate the "sensor in a box" model that RED champion and that is aped by Kinifinity. Modular is crap when you're trying to balance something on your shoulder.  Give me a camera designed to be operated, fondled and used by human hands,  not a modular lego / mechano set with adaptors, brackets, machismo styling and nato rail.

JB

 

3 minutes ago, mercer said:

Hmm, if I had to guess, I would have thought you shot the barebones of footage for TV. How many days do you get to shoot an episode? And how many set ups/pages do you shoot in a day on The Resident? Sorry for all the questions, but how often do we get a professional cinematographer around here willing to answer... it’s very appreciated!

This is known as “the pattern”

Resident eps are are shot in 8 working days plus one day of second unit. The second unit happens concurrently with the first day of the second episode shoot. 

6 days are shot in studio and 2 day are out on location.

We average about 35 setups or “slates” per day. Have done as high as 60 on Resident. 

Many setups are three cameras. So that’s about 70-90 “shots” per day. 

Each camera shoots about 60-90 mins of footage per day but it’s not unusual to have 2 hours per camera (for action or slow motion heavy days)

i day we have three cameras but I really mean we have theee camera operators.

We have many more cameras that are pre-build for different roles. A, B and C are Alexa Mini. D camera is a full time Steadicam camera (Alexa XT for weight and mass).  It goes on down to letter q or something silly. 

There are three sets of Primo Primes and each camera has its own 11-1 as well. We also have a couple of other specialty lenses like a CP 50 macro, and I also use a lot of SLR Magic primes on the micro and APO Hyper primes on the Ursa Mini.

We shoot about 6-10 script pages per day.

I always say you can’t really go much faster than a setup every 15 mins.  That’s 4 per hour.  On a 12 hour workday it means we theoretically can do 48 setups.  It’s very hard to maintain that kind of pace in a day (and have it look good)

Sometimes you can get the shot turnover down by leapfrogging cameras. Have the A cameras do the first shot, prep the B camera to come right in after that setup is finished and the A camera pulls out.

There are 12 in the camera department not including me.  Ops, firsts and seconds x 3 plus two utilities and a loader.

Time is the thing we all struggle most with. Time to light, time to shoot, time to tweak.  

The pace of TV has a way of “honing” your choices and teaching you to react and trust your instincts. 

JB

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Right, that makes sense... especially considering the conversation. I guess I was curious about your thoughts of the FS5/7, EVA1, and C200 but I assume with the lens mount conversation, EF would be out of the question for you. 

Mostly it’s about the codec and matching to another camera. Main camera is generally 12bit ProRes. To have secondary cameras that also shoot ProRes saves a lot of grief from post, and it’s very easy to make them almost indistinguishable from an Alexa. That’s harder with the other cameras you’ve listed. Especially with how much footage we shoot in long form TV drama.

JB

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

Thanks for the quote/link.  So, it appears that Kinefinity is considering electronic capability in future versions.

It's never going to happen.

Sony won't allow it.  They will never allow it.

Kinefinity can say "future adaptors" all they like.  Sony run a closed eco-system.  This is their MO.

Sony own the mount.  No other camera other than one made by Sony will have a native E mount.

 

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

 

 

This EF-centric mentality is a scourge.

Did you know that this year they went past 130 million lenses made ?

130 million EF mount lenses have been made !

Think of it like this....that's 130 million potential customers.

Canon make the worlds most popular and numerously made lens mount.

I personally hate them.  They should NEVER be on a cinema camera and they suck the WORST for any kind of motion work.

EF is an idiotic lens mount for motion work and shouldn't ever be used in my view.

But there's a zillion of them out there and for the vast majority of those that are moving into a cinema camera eco system from a DSLR setup, chances are it's EF mount lenses they have.

So they make a camera that uses that mount.

Once you get serious about cinema glass, then you go to PL.

Adapted 135 format glass...is amateurish. I hate to sound like a snob but it's really really hard to make them fly on real jobs.  In the end it's often very difficult to make it work on set. Yeah I know you CAN do it,  yeah go post your vanity projects and your music clip that looks great but i'm saying generally, it's a pain in the arse and no one aside from hobby-ist and indie shooters can be bothered futzing around with these jigs.

Look at how successful that JVC was. Name a show shot with them. Show me someone who did some amazing creative work on that camera because it existed and did something no other camera could do.

They're like anamorphic adaptors.  Almost no-one uses them on paid shoots.  They're just too punk and couture for anyone to put up with.  You go get real anamorphic lenses. (and hey I've done it, I used a LA7200 on an Si2K and zeiss supers before anyone knew what an Si2K even was)

I'm a lover of obscure lenses, but the obsession with adapting and speed boosting lenses...  I say this with love of anything that isn't conventional, but to disparage camera manufactures for making a mount that services BY FAR the vast majority of the existing stills DSLR market for doing just that but holding up very marginal cameras like the JVC and Kinefinity as a beacon of success doesn't fly for me.  Because the market has already spoken.

We lens nerdists here on mostly THIS forum re the market. It's tiny. Making a camera that has a sensor that is LARGER than it's native lens mount (MFT) which FORCES you to always use and adaptor or advocating a mount that is proprietary (E mount) is commercial suicide.  It forces the user to have an adaptor. Imagine all the idiots who go buy an MFT native lenses and post about the lens not covering their sensor.

I'm a fan of MFT.  But I'm a fan of NATIVE MFT lenses on an MFT sized sensor.

JB

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Thanks for info... really invaluable!!! 

Out of curiosity, if the Ursa didn’t exist, is there another camera on the market you would use in its place?

I used to use RED a bit as you can strip them down to almost nothing.  There are better cameras though these days.