Jump to content

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My dear erstwhile member can you please stop attacking John Brawley now. I have long since given up on camera forum arguments so might not be completely up on who is right and who is wrong-evil /

I like the pictures. A lot.  This camera will probably replace the micro cinema camera for me as it’s not much bigger and is much easier to work with.  I didn’t feel as strongly about the 4K

What a shame. Who are these "deep state" BMD insiders that are here pushing an agenda ? Myself and Hook.  Who else ?  What do you guys think, there's a plot and conspiracy ?  You guys don't wat t

Posted Images

50 minutes ago, John Brawley said:

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

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). 

 

50 minutes ago, John Brawley said:

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


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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn it, you guys really got it going here :)

 

I have worked on many comercials and series in the past 6 years and the only time I used an adaped lens was from canon to sony, and the only reason for it was because it was my personal backup cam(fs7). Othervise it is 90% pl mount(arri, red, blackmagic) but I did work with a red dragon on monday and tuesday which had an Ef mount(with an pl ring) and we used canon cine lenses. But that is a larger than s35 sensor and most pl lenses would not work.

I love love adapting lenses but I only use them on my personal projects. And most pro cams are pl mount around here so...yes it is definetly the standard.

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

In life, conversations evolve... why can’t discussions on forums do the same?

While I mostly agree, I see forums such as these as reference points for the future. Think in 3 years time, someone wants some information about this camera and they have to sift through @John Brawley's great, but off topic discussions. Similarly, if in 3 years I wanted to know the information he's shared here, I wouldn't think to look in a thread about a specific camera. 

14 hours ago, mercer said:

Well... since it is fairly likely that JB will be providing some of the long awaited footage for the P4K, I think it probably makes sense that people get to know his background and thoughts on filmmaking and gear. 

Agreed, but it's got to a point where it's much more than that, and having it's own thread would make that information a lot easier to find and would give it more weight. He's not just some guy contributing to a discussion, but he has his own thread dedicated to sharing his insights! In fact, a separate thread about which lenses might be good for this camera was created. That has more connection to the original discussion here, so why not make a new one for John too? It makes much more sense (to me at least)

14 hours ago, mercer said:

Would you rather we discuss the pointless desire for AF in the P4K? Or if only the P4K would add IBIS to the specs? Or maybe we can keep wondering if we’ll need IR filtration (or ignoring that we probably will) Or I guess we can add some ad hominem questions regarding what cards we can use with the P4K or which is the best M4/3 lens to use with it...

Or, just an idea, we could just let this thread lie dormant until more information comes up. Most threads sink to the bottom when there's nothing more to contribute, let this do the same until there is footage or whatever. It doesn't HAVE to stay at the top of the first page until the camera is released and beyond.

When I come on here and see this thread at the top, I expect to see something interesting about the P4K, like how it works with a gimbal, or that the release date has been pushed etc. The last thing I think I'll be reading is a discussion about why the LS300 has sold less units than any other camera, and that the mount/sensor choice did or didn't make sense at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

While I mostly agree, I see forums such as these as reference points for the future. Think in 3 years time, someone wants some information about this camera and they have to sift through @John Brawley's great, but off topic discussions. Similarly, if in 3 years I wanted to know the information he's shared here, I wouldn't think to look in a thread about a specific camera. 

Agreed, but it's got to a point where it's much more than that, and having it's own thread would make that information a lot easier to find and would give it more weight. He's not just some guy contributing to a discussion, but he has his own thread dedicated to sharing his insights! In fact, a separate thread about which lenses might be good for this camera was created. That has more connection to the original discussion here, so why not make a new one for John too? It makes much more sense (to me at least)

Or, just an idea, we could just let this thread lie dormant until more information comes up. Most threads sink to the bottom when there's nothing more to contribute, let this do the same until there is footage or whatever. It doesn't HAVE to stay at the top of the first page until the camera is released and beyond.

When I come on here and see this thread at the top, I expect to see something interesting about the P4K, like how it works with a gimbal, or that the release date has been pushed etc. The last thing I think I'll be reading is a discussion about why the LS300 has sold less units than any other camera, and that the mount/sensor choice did or didn't make sense at the time.

This topic will be the last place I will be looking for information on the pocket 4K at this point, Its got 130 pages of speculation, requests, wishes, complaints. But no actual user feedback or footage. So I am stunned that people are all of sudden complaining that it got a bit off topic, while John's insight is probably the most valuable information you can find in those 130 pages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

This topic will be the last place I will be looking for information on the pocket 4K at this point, Its got 130 pages of speculation, requests, wishes, complaints. But no actual user feedback or footage. So I am stunned that people are all of sudden complaining that it got a bit off topic, while John's insight is probably the most valuable information you can find in those 130 pages. 

Again, agreed. But what if you're looking for John's info? Would you look here? 

You're focusing in the wrong part of my post. Those were  just some basic examples of what forum threads mean to me. 

I don't think it's 'all of a sudden' either. You can't 'complain' about it before it happens.

Anyway, those were just my thoughts, take it or leave it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

 Think in 3 years time, someone wants some information about this camera

I suspect that this person might just start yet another “Blackmagic Pocket 4k Cinema Camera” thread and ask the question there?

Or, somewhere embedded within the “New Blackmagic 24k Pocket Cinema Camera” thread there’ll be some old-timer reminiscing about the lack of footage from the legendary 4k version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anaconda_ said:

 Or, just an idea, we could just let this thread lie dormant until more information comes up.

My problem is that IMO direction of thread more and more looks likes as that mr Brawley - based on his reputation and fear of some members that he could restrict his attention to the forum - started to moderate thread with his private opinions and memories and photos-from-location that are not just slightly or more out of topic, or just in one or two interesting cases - as. for example, revelation about it who was one of the first to embrace HDTV in Australia. So, for me it is contrary to evolving of discussion - my reaction is against evolving of someone's teaching free-meandering monologue that maybe better deserves its own guru-thread for interested crowd.

It looks to me as if, for the some bizarre reason, thread about this camera has to be pumping for the suspension, to the level that it IMO looks as tasteless pastiche.

We have here also other masters of the movie making, but I never saw that anybody behave with the same manner of usage of so apodictic approach in intonation and never-this-or-that sense in the words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jagnje said:

but I did work with a red dragon on monday and tuesday which had an Ef mount(with an pl ring) and we used canon cine lenses. But that is a larger than s35 sensor and most pl lenses would not work.

Was this 8K?

As RED Dragon 6K is basically APS-C

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

I suspect that this person might just start yet another “Blackmagic Pocket 4k Cinema Camera” thread and ask the question there?

Probably the 123rd thread about the BMPCC4K started in this forum in the future!

54 minutes ago, anonim said:

revelation about it who was one of the first to embrace HDTV in Australia.

And a Zaxcom Deva! :-o 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with the way this discussion has evolved. It has naturally evolved to what it is based on the lack of new info on the Pocket. Let's not be so militant that natural conversation be stifled for needing to start new threads for each and every little tangent that a conversation might go on. I see JB as a BMD ambassador so his input is highly valued here. 

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

Was this 8K?

As RED Dragon 6K is basically APS-C

Probably the 123rd thread about the BMPCC4K started in this forum in the future!

And a Zaxcom Deva! ?

It was 6k, dunno about the exact size, but it was a bit of an adjustment curve from super35, definetly bigger.

https://www.google.si/search?q=red+dragon+6k+sensor+size&client=ms-android-huawei&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs6ZbTt4jcAhULLlAKHYuaCMQQ_AUIESgB#imgrc=08LeNXgXYEEUoM:

 

Judging by this chart it is definetly much wider. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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.

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:
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...

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

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

... but the lens to lens inconsistency puts me off, almost as much as the poor MFD and short focus throw.

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,

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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...

Well, I guess that different folks have differing thresholds of what is considered "painful" or practical.

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

My point is that it's not been embraced by anyone.  No one wants this great idea.  

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

 

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).

 

I don't think that anyone here made declarations that the LS300 is a "great" camera.  Again, I mentioned it merely to prove that an M4/3 mount works with a S35 sensor.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

It's not even doing anything clever really.

Yes.  That is my point.  What I am advocating is just dumb-simple common sense.

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

If it picks up a native MFT mount lenses it auto windows the sensor size ?  

That is my understanding of how the LS300 works.  I think one can manually override the auto-sizing.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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

Actually, that is not true, as there are native M4/3 lenses that cover the full LS300 sensor.

 

I suspect that our concept of what is "backwards" (and "forwards") might differ a little.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

I guess the (lack of) LS300 success is my counterpoint to you disparaging short sighted manufacturers.

Our concept of what constitutes "success" probably differs a little, as well.  To me, if JVC has made a profit from the LS300, it is a success.

 

Furthermore, we all know that the best ideas are often usurped by sub par alternatives, especially in this age of consolidation, monopolies and mediocrity.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

If there really was a genuine WANT from this we'd see more camera manufacturers doing it.

That notion brings us back to the proprietary leanings you expressed earlier:  JVC owns that auto-sizing.  No other camera other than one made by JVC will have auto-sizing (until they license it or until the patent runs out).

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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.

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).

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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.

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.

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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

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.

 

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).

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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

It's not difficult.  It is extremely simple and it has been done a many times over with precision on previous cameras -- even on two BMD cameras (the Ursa and the Wooden Production Camera).

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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.

The Ursa bolt-on is actually more complicated than it needs to be, and, of course, it is not shallow enough.

 

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!

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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

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.

 

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 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:
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.

I'm not sure, but I believe that BMD might be reaching one of those milestones later this year.

 

So, hats off to BMD. Innovation should be rewarded.  If it's what people want.

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:
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. 

Ha!  I would bet that there were cameras which appeared in the late 1960s that cost less to develop and make than the cost of producing "Good Vibrations."

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:
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.

Not true.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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

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

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:
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.

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

 

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.

 

 

On 7/4/2018 at 6:32 AM, John Brawley said:

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.  

I don't think that the image circle required for a S35 sensor is larger than the throat diameter of an M4/3 mount.

 

 

21 hours ago, John Brawley said:

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.

Actually, you could probably bolt an enclosure with EF mount over the M4/3 mount, and none of the EF users would notice the difference.

 

Or, just use the simpler shallow lens plate system that defaults to EF for all of those users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jagnje said:

It was 6k, dunno about the exact size, but it was a bit of an adjustment curve from super35, definetly bigger.

https://www.google.si/search?q=red+dragon+6k+sensor+size&client=ms-android-huawei&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs6ZbTt4jcAhULLlAKHYuaCMQQ_AUIESgB#imgrc=08LeNXgXYEEUoM:

 

Judging by this chart it is definetly much wider. 

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?

8 hours ago, John Brawley said:

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


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. 

 

8 hours ago, John Brawley said:

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.

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. 

 

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

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. 

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). 

 

8 hours ago, John Brawley said:

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 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. 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...