tupp

You don't need shallow mount to use a focal reducer.
You just need a mount that provides enough room for the lenses necessary to perform focal reduction.  In the case of the Lucadapter, the lenses are in the tube that is inside the 4.6K EF mount, so you just screw a new one in.
In the case of most speedboosters it's just easier to start with a shorter mount and expand to a longer one, such as EF or PL

Not sure what this statement means, but if  a Barbie Cam is anything like a Pixel Vision camera, I like to shoot a test with it.
 
 
Why?   There are certainly will be differences in the format, and certain color nuances, but what exactly do you think will better or worse in the performance/usability/reliability between the Panavision DXL and the FF Kinefinity Mavo (which has not yet been released)?
 
 
 
Well, the page from the dealer ProAV is a little misleading, but that dealer does list the sensor size in at least two places on the page.
 
In addition, the results are almost identical to using a full frame lens having an FFD of an EF lens or longer.  Plus, you get an extra stop of brightness over using just a full frame lens with a full frame sensor, and you also have the option to use any S35 lens directly and get complete coverage (which is not possible with a non-croppable FF sensor).  Furthermore, you can use FF lenses with a tilt adapter, which works perfectly with an S35 sensor.
 
By the way, Kinefinity will be releasing their FF Mavo sometime soon.
 
 
With a good speedbooster, the results would be almost identical to a FF camera, plus you get that extra stop and the other options mentioned above.
 
 
I am glad you asked that question!  There are a lot of advantages (mentioned above) to using a focal reducer with a S35/APSC sensor over just shooting with a FF camera.
 
On the other hand, a S35/APSC sensor cannot work if one wants to shoot MF inexpensively by using a MF speed booster (such as the Kipon) -- a FF camera with a shallow mount is required.  Additionally, if a FF camera with a shallow mount features a decent S35/APSC crop, then one has the best of both worlds!  Such a camera is extremely versatile!
 
So, there are valid reasons to get a FF camera over shooting equivalent FF with a S35/APSC camera and a focal reducer.
 
Of course, there are also those who want FF who cannot fathom using a focal reducer or any other kind of adapter.
 
 
Well, most of the dumbasses are probably going with Canon -- not Kinefinity.  Canon makes good cameras, but due to the brand popularity it appeals to the "low common denominator."
 
Some might buy the FF Mavo over a camera with smaller sensor because of the reasons I gave directly above.
 
 
The results are virtually identical with a quality focal reducer.
 
 
Yes.  All good cameras.
 
However, you probably won't be able to put any existing speedbooster on the 550D and the 80D, because they don't have a shallow mount.
 
Did I mention that you have to have a shallow mount to use a speedbooster (and most other adapters)?  Not sure I did, because you bring up the 550D and 80D -- both of which have EF mounts (not shallow).  This point seems lost on many, as apparently some of us can repeat several times that a shallow mount it necessary to use a speedbooster and most other adapters (and, hence, most other lenses), and the point doesn't seem to sink in.
 
You do understand that a shallow mount is required to use speedboosters, tilt adapters and adapters for most lenses, don't you?  There is a whole universe of lenses that cannot work with EF nor PL mounts.  These are the reasons why some of us push for cameras to have shallow mounts.
 
One exception to this might be the focal reducer designed for the Angenieux EZ-1 zooms, but they cannot fit on every DSLR, and, of course, they only work with the Angenieux EZ-1 zooms -- they don't work with any other lenses.  Angenieux can considerably lighten one's wallet, as well. 
 
Not sure, but I think that the White Point focal reducer is designed to work only with the White Point medium format lenses, and I think that the only mount for those focal reducers are PL mount.  So, this new White Point setup might be an exception to the MF focal reducer requiring a shallow mount.
 

'EF Full Frame Package' -> 'EF Mounting Adapter with Kine Enhancer' -> 'KineEnhancer turns Kine camera from S35 to Full Frame camera (Very closely) and increase maximum iris to One f-stop when using Full Frame EF lens' -> 'Crop factor to: 1.1 when using on the TERRA 5K/6K, Crop factor to: 1.3 when using on the TERRA 4K'
_____
Didn't pre-order the BMPCC4K. See no point in doing so. Atleast with Panasonic you might get a freebie or something (battery grip, V-LOG L activation). I'll just get one from the first store that has stock. Easy as that. Still quite excited for it, because the results from the original were awesome, it just wasn't very practical to use. This one seems to be... but indeed let's first wait if the results come close to the high expectations the first iteration has set. Sure hope they're able to pull of that thick lushious gradable filmic look with that Blackmagic mojo we've come to love.

im shooting my next film on potato

Do you think you can get a baked in look without mashing the shadows too much?

I reckon BMD's approach of offering the user a LOT for very little $$, is indeed a desirable behavior. 
 
 
Any one who pays 100% with the pre order is foolishly taking on the risk. 
So now we've got that out of the way, BMD never promised the Micro would get a Global Shutter once they'd already started shipping the Micro. This seems like a very unreasonable point to bring up against BMD.
 

A shallow mount such as an E-mount allows one to do a few interesting things.  For instance, one can use the Kipon MF focal reducer on the Sony Venice and on the upcoming Kinefinity FF Mavo, and one is essentially shooting MF footage for a lot less than the Arri, Panavision and Red alternatives.
 
 
 
It's no joke.  Using a focal reducer to get the look of a lens designed for a larger format is absolutely valid.  If you think focal reducers are a joke, perhaps you should take up the issue with Metabones, Angenieux and White Point.
 
 
By the way, which camera do you have with an APSC sensor?  Unless you can afford the Angenieux or the newer White Point alternatives, your camera needs to have a shallow mount to take a focal reducer -- that's sort of the point that a few of us have been trying to make in several forum threads.
 

Any off-the-shelf Sony technology that Hasselblad used is likely licensed so that Hasselblad can sell it.
 
On the other hand, neither of us know the language of the clauses in the Sony-Hasselblad agreement, so until somebody produces the contract, it is sort of futile to go back and forth any more on the matter.
 
 
Yes I have ... for the reasons I stated earlier.
 
 
I think that most people would say it's an E-mount, even though the contacts are apparently not active.  When you buy the mechanical portion of the mount, what do you call it?
 
 
I have know idea how much Clairmont spent to make their adapters.  They were a rental house, so they didn't sell them.
 
I heard that Denny Clairmont merely  retired and sold his company to Keslow Camera -- not that Clairmont "went bust."'
 
 
I mentioned Clairmont Camera merely to demonstrate that the use of adapters is not always considered a "pain" nor "amateurish."  Rental cost of the adapters is immaterial.
 
Yes.  Panavision is another company that produces adapters happily used by pros.
 
 
I would agree with your wording, as long as the E-mount lens is an electronic lens -- not a manual lens.
 
 
I am okay with that, as I would probably never need to use such an electronic lens.  I suspect that there are a few others who are likewise okay with it, as it being offered on a couple of cameras.
 
 
I will try another way to explain how making the front end of a camera with a shallower mount costs no more than making the front end with a greater FFD.
 
Lets say that a camera manufacturer wants to make two cameras, each having a removable front lens plate:  one camera has a lens plate that mount at an FFD greater than that of say, a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "X" and camera body "Y";  the other camera has lens plate that mounts 12mm closer to the sensor than FFD of a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "A"  and camera body "B."
 
Lens plates "A" and "X" are identical, except that "A" is 12mm longer than "X."  Camera bodies "B" and "Y" are identical, except that "B" is 12mm shorter than "Y."  The tooling on the respective parts are identical, except for the difference in these single dimensions.
 
Thus, it costs the same to make "A-B" as it does to make "X-Y."  Got it?
 
 
Okay, If Tokina was the one to blame, I am not sure why you brought up the problem.
 
 
 
99% of the EF users will never change anything.  People who want to change mounts will largely be able to do so, and, of course, will have to accept any risks (which are almost nil).
 
 
I wouldn't shim my EF mount (and I hardly ever use it).  However, if I had to shim it on the adapter to which it is mounted, I would have to unscrew it, put the shim(s) in place and screw the mount back on.  Of course, there needs to be enough male and female threads to do so securely and the shim/spacer needs to be positioned so that it comes between the adapter body and the mount material.
 
 
 
I think that I have made it clear that having a shallow mount doesn't preclude the use of a popular mount, and that such a configuration could be designed so that most users would be aware that the popular, fully-functional mount is actually removable.  I have addressed how the design of such a camera would not affect it's "market economics."
 
 
I am saying that it usually is not a problem with cheap adapters, especially if one is using rails and a lens support.  Certainly,one tries to avoid skew, unless it is intentional (which, sometimes, it is).
 
 
That is not what I think, but there are obviously a lot of people using cheap adapters.
 
 
No.  It doesn't actually cost that much, even with precision.  Standard manufacturing/fabrication tolerances often start at +/- 0.003 inch (in the USA).  Of course, optical tolerances can be higher.
 
 
I know one or two things about manufacturing.  The eight additional machining operations are tapping four threads in the camera body and drilling four corresponding holes in the lens mount.  These eight machining operations could be reduced down to two -- as I recall, the Eclair NPR had a turret that was attached with a single threaded knob (tap one thread in the NPR body and one hole in the lens plate).
 
Some fabricators count tapping threads as a separate operation from drilling the thread  hole.  Nonetheless, it is not that much more expensive than those who group such operations as a single procedure.
 
Before anyone goes on about the extra cost of dealing with a separate piece (lens plate) in comparison with a body that includes the front end as a single piece, there are complications that one has to deal with in regards to larger molded/die-cast items, which can drive the cost higher.
 
 
It's not more expensive, as I have explained in the "A-B/X-Y" example, and it is not much more expensive to go from a one-piece design to a two-piece design as I described directly above.
 

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

Even though in this thread I've often been disagreeing with you (but still greatly enjoying your contributions! I find it interesting your perspective, even if I disagree on the  details), I suspect that maybe we're not that far apart. 

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. 

I can't understand their "logic" they'd go through to arrive at the decision to release an EF mount camera, and I can follow how they'd get to that conclusion. This is the "safe" move, to launch yet another EF mount camera.  It isn't unreasonable, but I disagree with it. 

As I just wish they put a bit more thought into this or were a bit bolder, and offered more. And do what Kinefinity, Sony or JVC are doing. (especially Panasonic after all who are a major backer of the MFT standard! Seems bizarre to me that they abandoned MFT with the Panasonic EVA1. But what I've heard is that internal politics was a factor, with the pro division being jealous of the consumer division's success and thinking it is also due to that division "stealing" from them. Thus not wanting to use Panasonic's own mount). 
 
On this I agree with you as well. High quality adapters are not cheap to make. 

However you can have adapters priced at different levels to meet different market needs. 

For a videographer who is just using EF mount still zooms and pulling his own focus on the fly, then likely a cheap hundred buck adapter will do just perfectly fine for him. 

For another production which is using a Canon CN-E set of primes with a dedicated 1st AC pulling focus wirelessly, then they'd be happy to spend hundreds on an adapter which gives a much greater level of precision. 
The market can meet both their needs / price points. 

 

http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor

Ah, Dragon 6K 16:9 is x1.35 crop. 
Bit bigger than 1.5x indeed, but not massively so?

It isn't a dumb idea if it is the best option out there. 

Like you said, E mount is not an option. (ditto FZ mount)
KineMount isn't ideal for LS300's intended users. (as I imagine many of them like the idea of using MFT lenses for run and gun shoots, as the camera is more targeted at videographers than cinematographers)
Trying to create a new standard is rife with its own problems, so no sense using a new mount here. 

Isn't hard to see that if you wanted an intermediary mount on a camera that then when the JVC LS300 was launched that MFT made the most sense, and still does. 
 
Guess making cameras with permanent EF mount isn't an ideal solution either....

If they'd had a sub mount underneath then this would have been a much easier fix to be able to offer after the problem was discovered. 
 

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.
 
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
Have shorter focus throws, clicked iris, more problems with breathing and zoom tracking.
All over it.
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You mean those ones you were just saying don't have to be expensive ?  Which is it then ?
 
Not for 99 bucks.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
On this forum.  But not many others. 
 
 
I'm sure the market will reward them.
 
 
 
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) 
 
 
Only if you accept the cost of that is 700 bucks my friend.
 
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.
 
No no no.
You're keep claiming this and using RED as example.
You can't have it both ways
 
 
 
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
 

JVC LS300 did a lot of things right, a few better than anyone else (included the variable sensor) and a few quite wrong. The fact is we still use this camera (together with the GH5), and there are a lot of people using it here and some buying it new.
The fact that is the only modern JVC camera that we know the name of, proves that it was a successful one. Limited success, but success nevertheless.

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) 
And the PL mount to FZ always comes with the camera you buy, so in a sense that costs "nothing". 
Exactly! This. 

We need to judge its "success" in the context of the wider JVC line up / brand , and the LS300 (at least on this forum, and most other such filmmaking forums) is the most "successful" camera JVC has made in recent years. 
 
No. I want MFT (or E mount) cameras so that I have greater choice in what lenses I use. 

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!

 

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. 
 

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

And this ability with and love for MFT is exactly why I'm advocating for more use of MFT! :-)
Multi-aspect ratio sensors in MFT are already popular with users (nobody seems to complain about that!), this is just taking the concept a little teeny bit further (from say x1.8 ish crop to x1.6 ish crop). 
 

I'd feel that is a pity if the D850 lost DX mode, but wouldn't be the end of the world. Wouldn't be a major black mark against me buying a D850 if I could only use FX (and not DX), I'd merely be stuck in the same situation as Canon uses are with their FF DSLRs with EF-S lenses locked out from being used  :-/ 
 
Anyway, I think you meant it the other way round. 

 
I'm going to take this the other approach to try and figure out where our differences are:

Clearly you do not think the JVC LS300 should have been a MFT S35 camera. 

So that gives two main options you consider it should have been instead:
1) a S35 EF camera
2) a 4/3" MFT camera

Which of these two do you believe the LS300 should have been instead and why?

From my perspective if it had been a S35 EF camera I doubt we'd be talking about it much, would be just yet another EF camera. 

If it had been a MFT 4/3" I expect the talk about it wouldn't be so much either, and what would JVC gain? Maybe maybe shave a couple of hundred bucks off its price from using a smaller sensor. Maybe, maybe. The price difference would have been small indeed. 

Thus my view is for a relatively small price increase (if any?) the S35 sensor made the LS300 a more versatile and interesting camera for filmmaking than if it had been a 4/3" sensor only. 

I suppose I'm seeing the LS300 as a 4/3" MFT camera "PLUS BONUS"
While  you see the LS300 as a EF S35 camera "MINUS MOUNT"

Thus I see the LS300 MFT S35 as a step forward from its starting point (4/3" MFT) while you see it as a step back from your starting point? (a EF S35 camera) 

Arguably JVC could have marketed this better, perhaps done more bundle deals with an adapter, and even better have done a locking MFT mount like Sony has done with the E mount on the FS7mk2 and VENICE. But maybe that is something for the LS300mk2? One can hope. 

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). And who doesn't like more freedom of choices in their life? ? 

 
I've tried to explain this before, but I'll go again, because we seem to be seeing this from two completely different perspectives:

1) people talk a lot about this camera because it has a MFT mount
2) people don't buy it because it is a JVC brand (which has almost no brand recognition whatsoever in the filmmakers world in this day and age)

That makes logical sense to me as why the LS300 wasn't a massive success. (but having a MFT mount did in my eyes surely help with its sales a little, not having a MFT mount likely would have lead to ever worse sales than it already had)

You seem to think it is the other way round?
1) people talk a lot about this camera because it is a JVC camera
2) people don't buy it because it is a MFT mount camera

That to me makes no sense at all. 

Thus I prefer believing the first explanation than the second way round. 
 

There is a famous book in software engineering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
https://www.amazon.com/Mythical-Man-Month-Software-Engineering-Anniversary/dp/0201835959

Keep in mind also that productions often have target deadlines to meet. 
But was that the fault of sensor/mount matching?
Or the fault of the brand name it was released under? (JVC)

None of us here would disagree that the JVC LS300 saw only limited success. 

But the question is did it see more or less success because of its mount/sensor combo?

I'd say clearly it saw more success due to its mount. Often the only reason we talk about it is because of its MFT mount!! The LS300 would never ever have such a prominence n our minds if it had been just yet another EF mount camera wannabe. 
 
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. 
Often slow motion for instance is a crop of the sensor. 

Or look at the a7Rmk2 which offers a S35 4K crop as a way to get better quality sampled 4K video from the a7Rmk2

Or the fact that all Nikon FX DSLRs offer a DX mode as well. 

Plenty of examples of other cameras offering a cropped mode to give the user extra functionality!
Sony FZ mount. 
 
The JVC LS300 wasn't only made to be used with adapted lenses, in fact I think in all the promotional material I saw for it from JVC it was always pictured with native mount lenses?

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.  
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
 
It's just not very practical is it...
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
Hats off to them. Innovation should be rewarded.  If it's what people want.
 
 
It's a lot more expensive and complicated to make and produce a camera than it is to produce a song.
 
But no one buys them.
 
Adaptors introduce a point of failure in maintaining the flatness of the field and FFD.
 
Easy to say.  Harder to do.
 
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
 
 

Here is a screen grab from test footage that shot a few years ago with an EOSM and a tilt/swing adapter, and, as I recall, a Nikkor 50mm, f1.4 (don't know the exact aperture setting, but it was almost wide open).  Note how the bokeh has a "gradient" from left to right.

 
I went a little over the top, as I wanted to push it to the extreme.  Such adapters can give a more subtle bokeh gradient, with the right touch.

I'm not so sure about that.

The Hasselblad Lunar had a fully capable E-mount.  Also, the physical E-mount has already appeared with at least two other camera systems, and that physical mount has been offered separately online for some time.
 
No doubt, it has occurred to Sony's camera division that they could sell more lenses if the E-mount were widely adopted.  In light of the Sony CEO's recent declaration that the company is moving away from manufacturing "gadgets" (apparently including digital cameras), it certainly is conceivable that their camera division might consider selling more lenses, in deference to their scrutinized bottom line.
 
 
I did not know that there are that many EF lenses.  That's incredible.
 
The EF scourge is even more prevalent than I realized!
 
 
So, if I want to get serious, I should ditch my set of M-mount Summicrons and get a set of PL Tokinas?
 
 
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?
 
Or, is it just using an adapter with a stock still lens that is amateurish?
 
 
Well, I suppose some folks are more "adaptable" than others.  I have done okay changing between different mounts and adapters in fairly rapid shoots.  With a couple of ACs, usually one of them knows how mount a speed booster, so it makes things much easier.
 

It seems to me that "futzing" is sometimes a part of filmmaking, especially if one is trying something completely new.  Furthermore, if a little futzing adds some distinctiveness that sets my work apart from the run-of-the-mill, I will gladly futz.
 
 
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.

On the other hand, I have seen some good footage from the LS300, including clips shot by our own @Mattias_Burling
 
 
I would guess that we differ slightly in regards to the notion of what constitutes "amazing creative work" (not that one notion is better than the other).
 
I am not familiar enough with most of the existing footage from the LS300, but I think that it's special capabilities shine if one shoots with a set of lenses made for different formats or if one uses focal reducers or tilt adapters with a S35 sensor.
 
 
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).
 
Outfits like BMD, Red and Canon, etc. are not interested in the fact that what I advocate does not preclude the use of EF lenses to their full capability, nor are they interested in the fact that what I propose requires ABSOLUTELY NO FUTZING for EF users.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
Well, the market has also said that it prefers Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber over the Beatles.
 
 
Those two scenarios are not exactly what I am advocating, but I would certainly be fine with either.
 
Again, with the right front end design, most would never know that a camera has (or can have) a shallower mount, and the camera manufacturer would not even need to supply an E-mount -- it would not be "commercial suicide."

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.
 
 
Actually, it doesn't (not that I find anything wrong with using adapters).
 
 
I have heard that excuse before, but if the front end is properly designed, there is no problem.
 
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 not so sure about that.

The Hasselblad Lunar had a fully capable E-mount.  Also, the physical E-mount has already appeared with at least two other camera systems, and that physical mount has been offered separately online for some time.
 
No doubt, it has occurred to Sony's camera division that they could sell more lenses if the E-mount were widely adopted.  In light of the Sony CEO's recent declaration that the company is moving away from manufacturing "gadgets" (apparently including digital cameras), it certainly is conceivable that their camera division might consider selling more lenses, in deference to their scrutinized bottom line.
 
 
I did not know that there are that many EF lenses.  That's incredible.
 
The EF scourge is even more prevalent than I realized!
 
 
So, if I want to get serious, I should ditch my set of M-mount Summicrons and get a set of PL Tokinas?
 
 
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?
 
Or, is it just using an adapter with a stock still lens that is amateurish?
 
 
Well, I suppose some folks are more "adaptable" than others.  I have done okay changing between different mounts and adapters in fairly rapid shoots.  With a couple of ACs, usually one of them knows how mount a speed booster, so it makes things much easier.
 

It seems to me that "futzing" is sometimes a part of filmmaking, especially if one is trying something completely new.  Furthermore, if a little futzing adds some distinctiveness that sets my work apart from the run-of-the-mill, I will gladly futz.
 
 
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.

On the other hand, I have seen some good footage from the LS300, including clips shot by our own @Mattias_Burling
 
 
I would guess that we differ slightly in regards to the notion of what constitutes "amazing creative work" (not that one notion is better than the other).
 
I am not familiar enough with most of the existing footage from the LS300, but I think that it's special capabilities shine if one shoots with a set of lenses made for different formats or if one uses focal reducers or tilt adapters with a S35 sensor.
 
 
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).
 
Outfits like BMD, Red and Canon, etc. are not interested in the fact that what I advocate does not preclude the use of EF lenses to their full capability, nor are they interested in the fact that what I propose requires ABSOLUTELY NO FUTZING for EF users.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
Well, the market has also said that it prefers Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber over the Beatles.
 
 
Those two scenarios are not exactly what I am advocating, but I would certainly be fine with either.
 
Again, with the right front end design, most would never know that a camera has (or can have) a shallower mount, and the camera manufacturer would not even need to supply an E-mount -- it would not be "commercial suicide."

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.
 
 
Actually, it doesn't (not that I find anything wrong with using adapters).
 
 
I have heard that excuse before, but if the front end is properly designed, there is no problem.
 
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.
 

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