tupp

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

Not just Kinefinity and JVC, even the behemoth that is Sony used the FZ Mount which made it a breeze to swap over your main mount during a shoot. (for instance you might use mostly PL lenses, then just for that one shot or two switch over to a DSLR mount so you can get that super macro shot, or that super long 400mm tele shot)

Although sadly it seems Sony has killed off FZ Mount (as I own a fair few FZ adapters :-/ ah well), but still is holding true to the same general principle of including a shallow mount option on their cinema cameras by having a locking E mount in their new VENICE camera. 

 

JVC had smart scaling with their LS300 so you could use native lenses which only covered 4/3"

Plus there are numerous MFT mount lenses which do cover an entire S35 sensor, such as the Sigma MFT primes, Veydra primes, Fujinon MK zooms, etc
 

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.
 
 
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
 

All Kinefinity S35 cameras use a KineMount (and thus can have an E mount). 

And I expect the new Kinefinity MAVO LF will also use KineMount. 

While so few cinema cameras lack a shallow sub mount (like Kinemount or FZ mount) then hopefully we'll see more cinema lens manufacturer's over lenses with swappable mounts. Although often it will be options like PL or EF, still leaving Nikon out in the cold. 

Nikon needs to make a "N100" or "N300" cinema camera (their take on the C100/C300 that is) to keep themselves relevant. 
 

Thanks, imagine if a few companies banded together on a new shallow cinema mount standard such as KineMount. Perhaps if Z Cam, AJA, and BMD had got on board. 

It would be like MFT is with their wide ranging support of manufacturers which helps makes MFT one of the most appealing mirrorless systems to invest into. 
 

That's exactly what happened.
Here's an early post by Jarrend Land who had founded DVXUSER (now also REDUSER and BMCUSER) and who is now running the show at RED.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?40929-RED-CAMERA-Prelim-Specs&p=372657&viewfull=1#post372657
It says "target" specs.  You don't put a target sensor resolution is you've been designing a sensor for years.
He did not found the company in 1999.
RED's own website history gives the timeline.  You're quoting Wikipedia.  I'm quoting RED.
Their first prototype camera was made in 2006. He shipped the RED ONE 2 years later.  That's about the normal development time if you're starting from scratch.
He bought a lot of his technology and IP in through other existing companies or consultants to shorcut the development time. Companies like Cineform are rumoured to be what Redcode is.  He bought the tessive guys, turned that into motion mount.  He bought Accuscene and they became the first EVF.  Trying to remember but he also bought a matte-box company too. 
I was there too when the first announcement came and there was a lot of naysayers on CML.  I seem to remember a bet and someone eating a cake in the shape of a hat.
JB

Why does what the Pocket 4k 'looks like' matter in the slightest? 
If the images are good and it's ergonomically well designed, I couldn't care less what it 'looks like'. 
I just don't get it, sorry. 

I agree that many camera manufacturers also just don't "get it". 

As we've seen with the URSA Mini being only in EF (or PL/B4), but no mirrorless mount option (like BMD was very smart to do so with the BMCC! I'd never buy a BMCC EF, not even for US$500).

And again with Panasonic with the EVA1 in only EF mount, not even using their own MFT mount! wtf

I went back to what I knew the best. A Sony HDW-F900R CineAlta ENG camera. A friend of mine made me a deal on a pair of them I could not resist from his rental stock. Same camera that Shot Star Wars 1. Every rental house in the world bought 10 of them figuring they could rent them till the cows come home, which, well they did. If it was good enough for George Lucas well it was good enough for Bob LoL. By then they were getting long in the tooth and they were cheap in a sense. I think I paid 11 grand for the pair if I remember with total kits thrown. lot of hours on them but they are built to last. He even threw in a Sony Studio monitor. Pretty much turn key. I had tripods and lighting. I had one beat up playback machine for the tapes no one wanted it, it was one of those 50 pound units TV studios used. God I hated that thing moving it. Think I paid like 800 bucks for it. I did my editing at the local TV station. Old friend of mine that worked there would pretend like it was station footage and I got it for free at times! They were still using the format. Hell they still were using Beta SP a bit.
I was only doing local TV ads with it so it worked out fine at 24fps 1080p HD with the extra card in it. Slo Mo was interlaced on it but they was not something I did a lot. It made me some damn good money and looked Pro as hell, which it was. So I used them as A and B cameras at the same time often. That was my main problem was I really needed a matching pair of something for easy editing. Editing was not too hard as it was only 15, 30, 1 minute spots. So you didn't have much footage to edit, but you might have to do 20 takes LoL. Some people sucked ass on at hitting their spots and doing lines, really bad. Jesus LoL. Some of them you could not shut them up! It ain't a 5 minute Ad LoL. It was pretty easy with good repeat customers. Went quick. Fast good money. Setups, tear downs were the main pain in the ass about it though. That got old quick. But I had it down to a science. I never did it at home or in a studio. it was at their locality. It looks a lot more genuine like that.
Really the Red probably would not have worked because of at the time only RED CF, no Red Mags at the start. So no long takes using that then, and I was not really sure what I was gong to use for a B cam. I sure could not afford two whole Red One kits that's for sure. So things worked out I guess.
I sort of gave up the whole video thing a few years later. I bought out a Excavating company and put all my money in that.  I grossed Millions and made thousands LoL. I had 2 million dollars worth of equipment at one time, and I had planned to pay it all off and sell it, and retire with hey, 2 Million bucks cash. Well a Heart Attack at 50 stopped that from happening. 18 hours a day, 7 days a week does that to you. So Plan B. Well plan D by that time. Oh Well such is life.

hahaha!

Anyway, fun fact: I believe even Kinefinity's earliest cameras used the KineMount
For this have to applaud Sony for getting it right and making in making their new VENICE with an E mount built in! :-o

(even though a small part of me is sad as this signals the end has come for FZ Mount :-/ )
I guess "technically" you're wrong. 

But a sub mount like KineMount or FZ mount actually is a better/faster design to use in the field. 
 
Nope, native Sony lenses won't work:

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

Rather it is designed for use with the massive wide range of adapters for E mount and the many tasty manual lenses for E mount, such as Veydra primes or Fujifilm zooms:

 

Awesomely it is a locking E mount like on the FS7mk2 and VENICE!

Imagine how great it would be if only more manufacturers did this, how would you like to use an URSA Mini Pro or Panasonic EVA1 with Fujifilm MK18-55, MK50-135 zooms or Veydra primes? 


You get a sense of how truly tiny the Terra body is when you see it next to the already small Fujinon zoom, the lens looks pretty big in comparison!

Yeah, because that's what happened. 
He started the actual conversation in 2005 - discussing the concept of the first camera.
The timeline is what it is. Like Jim, I reserved the url 6 years ago for a new firm that's launching this summer.
It's pretty common for enetrpreneurs to have an idea/goal/concept and come up with the name, "Red" in this case, and then reserve that name years before actually doing anything with it.
That's all Jim did before 2005 - buy an $8 url.
 

I believe that is precisely the point that @Savannah_Miller (and others) were trying to make, to counter your suggestion that Red has had versatility in regards to mounts before others.
 
 
No.  Kinefinity  has one more option with the native mounts  (with focal-reducers for both a Nikon and EF, but no native Leica-M) than Red, and especially with any adapter/focal-reducer that can attach to a Sony E-mount (which also includes anything that can attach to M4/3, such as a tilt/swing PL mount!).
 
Not sure if most shooters (nor even many camera manufacturers) understand the significant advantage of having such a shallow mount.
 
 
I wouldn't say that Blackmagic consistently builds cameras that " match the sensor."  BMD tried to get "cute" with the ID on their first few cameras to the detriment of functionality/usability.  This malady is a common to manufacturers trying to make an impact when starting out in an industry.
 
Unlike Kinefinity, BMD is definitely ignorant of the advantages of having shallow mount capabilities, and they don't seem to understand that a camera with a shallow mount does not preclude electronic capability in EF lenses.
 
I have talked to them about shallow mounts at every NAB since the Ursa Mini first appeared.  At that time, I even made a US$10,000 bet with one of their condescending show reps that an S35 sensor can be used with a M4/3 mount (the Ursa Mini appeared the same year as the JVC LS300).  Unfortunately, it seems that the same camera manufacturer hubris that (according to BMD) pushed them in to making their own models is now thoroughly entrenched within Blackmagic Design.  Like most other camera makers, they are more interested moving boxes than they are in creating versatile cameras.
 
In regards to the aesthetic design of the 4K Pocket camera, BMD definitely was not trying to be "cute" at NAB -- that prototype is possibly the most butt-ugly camera that I have ever seen.  I almost recoiled in horror when I first saw it.
 
 
Too bad BMD doesn't offer M4/3 mount or Sony E mount or Canon M mount (or just a simple shallow mount plate) on their S35 cameras.
 
 
As I recall, Red first appeared at the 2005-2006 NAB saying that they were coming out with a 4K camera.  It was vaporware for a long time after that.  The story that I heard about Red's beginning was that Jannard was having problems with some Sony camera from 2004-2005, which gave him the notion that he could make his own camera.
 
 
Keep in mind that Dalsa started showing their 4k, raw cinema camera at NAB around 2003.  After that, miniaturization and continually diminishing cost is just a natural progression -- not innovation.
 
 
I am no huge fan of Kinefinity, but I think that they have a better idea than Red and BMD  on how to make a camera with advantageous versatility.
 
I would not say that Kinefinity is a "spinoff" of Red.  The only thing that those two brands have in common is a boxy design of no particular novelty and the use of common lens mount plates (which are configured much more advantageously on the Kinefinity models).
 
 

The blackmagic is not THAT ugly, and likely when you hold it, all your opinions will change.  The Pocket 4K feels good in your hands.

Umm.
Shipping for more like 10 years (just) and not much longer than that as a company.
JB
 

The Red Raven is a micro 4/3 camera in 16x9 mode so it would be so much easier if it was a true Micro 4/3 mount, but that's likely not possible because the sensor is too far into the body.  Sticking with the DSMC2 design limits them with certain features they can/cannot add as well as cooling.  Blackmagic is much more flexible in building cameras that match the sensors.
RED probably gave the full 4.5K due to competition from the ursa mini 4.6K.

E mount is a major advantage though, as that opens up a wealth of options. (for instance any of the zillions of E mount adapters, or many manual E mount lenses such as the Veydra cinema lenses!)

 
RED Raven's "low" price + a MFT mount might have made it a too compelling option for RED buyers to instead get!

Red has been building cameras for going on almost 20 years now. I know, I had the original Red One on order for over a year. It is easy to look back and say, Oh they should have done that, they should have done this. The Red One was a groundbreaking camera that has bought about a lot more groundbreaking cameras that we can actually afford to buy. Your beloved Kinefinity is one of the spinoffs thanks to Red. Kinefinity has been making cameras for 5 years, 2013, and they have made great strides no doubt in that time.
I am not a big fan of Any camera manufacturer anymore. My days of buying, renting, using high end stuff for a living, hobby are over. I am retired so probably this new 4K BMPCC is as high price as I can really justify to go with the money I make now. But I don't think even though it doesn't cost too much is detracting from it's ability to probably hold it's own cameras 5 times it's price. So why pay more for what I do and need. Probably true for lot more people than me. ☺️
 

Just to be clear, the E mount option on Kinefininty is a DUMB mount as far as I know. No Iris control etc. 
You can't actually use native E mount lenses on there, but it's an intermediate mount for adapting to many others. 
Just like the MFT version of the BMCC that BMD did. DUMB MFT mount as a way to adapting to other mounts.
MFT offers the same "open" flexibility of a short FFD too and adapts to pretty much anything that E can adapt to. And on this camera it's a native MFT mount too with all the options ?
JB

No.  The sensors in red cameras are sunk too far into the bodies for certain mounts (e-mount being one of them.)  And because of the distance the sensor is from the body opening, it's very hard to build a speedbooster.  The currently developed abt speedbooster for the RED cameras is ridiculously expensive because every speedbooster is built by hand from one of red's mounts (which are already expensive.)  And on top of that, the ABT speedbooster is not a huge sensor size increase like Metabones is, it's much smaller.  Imagine a speedbooster on the Raven, which is basically a micro 4/3 EF mount camera.  Not possible.
 
RED has promised to stick with the DSMC2 body design for another few years so that will also limit what they can do with their cameras.

And Sony (and I'm sure others) did it even earlier than RED. 

What's interesting is Kinefinity fixed a lot of issues that RED has with their cameras.  From the beginning they always designed a shallow sensor so that you can mount many different lens options.  On top of that, their sensors can be speedboosted easily.
 
I'm 100% for a collaboration with Olympus to build a model with IBIS and Autofocus.  They are ahead of the game in those areas for micro 4/3.
If blackmagic built a camera with a sony sensor (like mavo 6k, DJI, etc.), shrunk the size down,  kept the same color science, and added autofocus, it would be a slam dunk against cameras like the c200 because of no market segmentation and professional features like prores.  I mention a sony sensor because it will have higher iso performance and lesser cooling requirements, leading to a smaller camera.
Blackmagic is the only brand building cameras without market segmentation and including every feature they can.  If they just add a few things to their cameras and shrink the size a bit, they can cause a huge shift in the industry as a lot of other camera manufacturers will lose sales.

I think that they tapped into the signal coming out of the A-to-D converter.  Doing so is a little tricky as one must:
find the part of the circuit to tap; bring that raw digital signal up to line level/voltage for a recorder; work with extremely miniaturized components.  
Over the last year, I have considered trying such a hardware hack with my EOSM, but the skills required for steps #1 and #3 are beyond me.  Here are two videos showing the EOSM innards:
         
         
Don't know if it would be feasible to start a business making such hardware mods on EOSMs, as I can only guess at the demand/quantities involved.
 
However, such a hardware hack could work just as easily on the EOSM-5, EOSM-6 and EOSM-50 as it would on the original EOSM, which could transform these more recent models into raw, mirrorless monsters.

Detecting the Start button is hit again before the timer expires is an easy logic to include in the script which would restart the process and do a remote delete of the camera file.
Changing frame rate could be a toggle switch between two file formats but that would mean the camera would have to be wifi controlled as well as the card so would need a small router which is no big issue really.
File can be auto uploaded to a website and the URL presented as a QR code on the display screen when the clip has been replayed so they can retrieve it.
Simpler to implement then letting them enter an address and clears the booth faster for the next visitor.
File would need to be transcoded though to keep space requirements down but can be script driven into ffmpeg or similar
Thats probably a hack too far for me and the Pi  

I just had a look at these camera, there are no price tags but they are looking like industrial cameras which are quite costly I suppose?
To the Sonys and Panasonics I have access already and since it's only a small project, the investment probably won't be worth-it, at least not in the first stage.
If the idea works out well it might be possible to change the system but for the beginning it would be the best to go with the GH5 I think.
Yes, that's exactly the plan.
Interesting though that you experienced something like that already hehe