Jump to content

Ursa mini...is this the end of blackmagic?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Neither RED nor ARRI make their own sensors. They have them outsourced and made to their specifications. Just like BM do with their 4.6k sensor.  BM make their own circuit boards.  They don't out

RED do face online attacks when something goes wrong. There are plenty of professionals who use forums. Let's try to see the positive side of this rather public relationship Blackmagic and R

Display units in stores are always broken and man handled in my experience. No matter what brand. No, I think they will stay on for a while still. On the still side its another story. Sony,

Posted Images

You're listing being able to adapt C mount lenses as an advantage for a mount we can't actually use ?

C mount lenses generally have an image circle for standard 16 (and that's not super 16) AND MUCH SMALLER.  These are I can't imagine at all that's a huge number of users. It's basically lenses from the 50s and security camera lenses we're talking about that don't even cover 16x9 2k on the sensor.

Youre listing a disadvantage of being able to use lenses that have 16mm and smaller image circles on a mount that typically is 135 format sensors for really old lenses or security camera / toy lenses that don't cover 16x9 on a mount no one but Sony can use.

Aren't we getting a teeeeny bit obscure ?

jb 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Brawley said:

You're listing being able to adapt C mount lenses as an advantage for a mount we can't actually use ?

C mount lenses generally have an image circle for standard 16 (and that's not super 16) AND MUCH SMALLER.  These are I can't imagine at all that's a huge number of users. It's basically lenses from the 50s and security camera lenses we're talking about that don't even cover 16x9 2k on the sensor.

Youre listing a disadvantage of being able to use lenses that have 16mm and smaller image circles on a mount that typically is 135 format sensors for really old lenses or security camera / toy lenses that don't cover 16x9 on a mount no one but Sony can use.

Aren't we getting a teeeeny bit obscure ?

jb 

 

Well that same logic also applies to more easily fit various adapters and speed boosters etc... I thought that would be pretty obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tweak said:

Well that same logic also applies to more easily fit various adapters and speed boosters etc... I thought that would be pretty obvious.

With no notable benefit over the existing MFT, that *is* open and available (unlike E mount, which is *NOT*).

It really is that simple. Is stupendous you keep on hammering on about E mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

With no notable benefit over the existing MFT, that *is* open and available (unlike E mount, which is *NOT*).

It really is that simple. Is stupendous you keep on hammering on about E mount.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here so your "hammering" verb is fairly relevant in this case :grin:... I don't actually want an E-mount or M43 on the Ursa, I meerly used it as an example of how a mount could technically be better than using a stock m43 mount. I don't expect that BM will do it and I understand it requires a lot of work, it was just a suggestion (which I know some people here would also like to see), if no one can understand this properly I don't really know what to say. 

Good day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a camera that works seems like a luck of the draw, and then to have this company admit you got a lemon seems like you need both time and persistence even when these issues are well known and even recognized by them.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?18438-4-0-Public-Beta-2

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?18444-URSA-Mini-4-6k-FPN

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

With no notable benefit over the existing MFT, that *is* open and available (unlike E mount, which is *NOT*).

It really is that simple. Is stupendous you keep on hammering on about E mount.

Well, E mount does seem the best supported for aftermarket active adapters, nice short flange distance - who says E mount is not available? EF was, so why not E.. do you know that Sony won't license the mount?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Brawley said:

You're listing being able to adapt C mount lenses as an advantage for a mount we can't actually use ?

C mount lenses generally have an image circle for standard 16 (and that's not super 16) AND MUCH SMALLER.  These are I can't imagine at all that's a huge number of users. It's basically lenses from the 50s and security camera lenses we're talking about that don't even cover 16x9 2k on the sensor.

Youre listing a disadvantage of being able to use lenses that have 16mm and smaller image circles on a mount that typically is 135 format sensors for really old lenses or security camera / toy lenses that don't cover 16x9 on a mount no one but Sony can use.

Aren't we getting a teeeeny bit obscure ?

jb 

 

Idk, when I was using my Micro, the most fun I had with the camera was using c-mount lenses. Fujinon TV lenses are often compared to Super Speeds for pennies on the dollar... I mean those suckers are sharp lenses. I have an old set of Cosmicar lenses that added just the right character. The Bell + Howell Angenieux lenses are gorgeous and pair beautifully with the Pocket and Micro, as do the Kern Paillards.

They really give you the ability to use fast lenses without a speedbooster/lens combo monstrosity on BM's smaller cams.

I'm selling my Micro and hoping to eventually pick up a Pocket and I will only view the camera as the S16 cam it is... So only native M43 lenses with OIS (when I want to go handheld) and S16 glass/TV lenses for everything else... probably in c-mount.

Sorry, I know this wasn't exactly the discussion you were having, but I don't think c-mounts are that obscure an option for a lot of BM users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
1 hour ago, Michael Coffee said:

Well, E mount does seem the best supported for aftermarket active adapters, nice short flange distance - who says E mount is not available? EF was, so why not E.. do you know that Sony won't license the mount?

As of today they dont do it. There is no such license. You can apply for approval by Sony to make lenses for it. No one can see into the future but it doesn't look to bright if you want to make an E-mount camera :)

Mft on the other hand is good to go. The third party mft lenses that are also made for M-mount and E-mount cover APSC/s35 with no vignette on m4/3 APS-C.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mercer said:

Idk, when I was using my Micro, the most fun I had with the camera was using c-mount lenses.

I think with the smaller sensor sizes I totally agree with you.

But again, MFT is an open standard. E mount is not.  Pointless discussion.

If BM made a universal mount, it's likely that it would be harder to do the electronic stuff on a camera as small as a micro and keep it reliable and good and also be able to scale up to the larger sensors.

JB

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Coffee said:

Is this a Sony thing? Canon have done it, so why would Sony never do this.. do they have some tradition of not licensing anything?

Sony have always done this. 

Look up Betamax Vs VHS.

They always design proprietary media for the same reasons.  Notice all Sony cameras use proprietary media.

Canon don't allow their mount to be used.  But the patent for EF mount rannout around the time you started seeing other cameras in EF mount...2012 :-)

You'll notice BM don't say that they support EF-S because that's technically still protected.   

Canon still don't share EF protocols which is why you see issues with support for iris and IS on some lenses. 

JB

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Some kind of crosshatching issue no one seems to know why it's happening including bmd.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?18452-Cross-hatch-screen-door

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936

People experiencing varying amounts of fpn on different cameras from 'massive amounts at 1600' to even noticeable at 800-400.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?18556-Fixed-Pattern-Noise-(Clarification-Needed)

Magenta corner issue still not officially addressed.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?16812-4-6k-Ursa-Mini-magenta-issues/page93

Vertical lines that won't completely disappear.

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52078

What's funny and sad about all these threads is someone points out an issue they have on their cameras and then all these other forum members dismiss them as amateurs and dilettantes who don't know how to properly use their cameras but then as the thread grows it becomes clear that these issues are real and that even bmd has no idea how to address them in any sense.

Maybe this type of customer experience is about right for the low price of $5000 for a raw video camera?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
1 hour ago, Hanriverprod said:

Maybe this type of customer experience is about right for the low price of $5000 for a raw video camera?

At least its not as bad as when some of us calls out the broken products Sony released. Lately its gotten better but there still are many protectors. Same with the NX1, even though they are very few.

Its refreshing to see that Canikon doesn't have many broken products and when they do the users aren't hiding in the sand about it. Just look in the xc10 thread.

But the phenomenon as a whole is always there. In smartphones (currently Samsung), what music to listen to, soccer team to route for or why not Trump vs Hillary. It was probably the same thing when they discussed pottery in ancient Egypt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and we still don't know how many people are "a lot"(or someone really has reliably numbers of the percentage of broken units?). The voice of those complaining about a supposedly broken product will always be much louder than those who are outside actually working with their product of choice. Then we always seem to have so many people joining the discussion without even owning the camera. Plus beginners like me who suddenly got a professional camera, but have no idea yet how to work with it. All this gives a really fishy picture when it comes to info's and reviews on certain products or manufacturers. I say grab a camera go out and shoot...if not happy sell it and buy another one until you are happy with it. Then post about this camera and why it's great. That might actually help others to make a choice. Because what are we looking for after all? A great camera or a broken camera? Of course we can also do what everyone else is doing...only complain and highlight everything we think is broken?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...