Jump to content

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K


Yurolov
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

Ok  they did announce global shutter on both 4.6K and Micro cameras and I don't now the logistics of why they never added those.  I don't think it's easy to do as Kinefinity cancelled their Terra 5K model as well that had switchable rolling and global shutter.

No one on earth has a switchable rolling/global shutter camera in mass production. 

And I think the only popular current cinema camera with a global shutter is the Sony PMW-F55
 

2 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

I wonder how far off they were from making that feature work?  I wonder what the real issues were?  Maybe the images looked bad and had enough artifacting during the GS mode that they didn't feel like enabling it.

Or the reverse might be true, if they had global shutter option then it impaired the rolling shutter mode so badly there was no point in having it. 
And most of us would rather have a rolling shutter camera without global shutter mode than having a global shutter camera poor in low light and with less dynamic range (which seems to be the common trade off). 

Of course if you can have a rolling shutter mode which works 100% fine and then the bonus of sometimes switching to global shutter for a few shots (even with an ISO / DR hit) then we'd all like that!

 

 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

This thread is 136 pages because this camera is a near historic announcement for the indie filmmaker. The problem is that too many people want this camera to be something it won’t and others want it to fail.

It boggles the mind why people would want it to fail, and yet they exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

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.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

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

You have not made that case.

Yes I have ... for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

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

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

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?

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

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."'

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

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.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

You should edit this and say...

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

I would agree with your wording, as long as the E-mount lens is an electronic lens -- not a manual lens.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

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

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

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.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

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

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

Of course it does.

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?

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

Okay, If Tokina was the one to blame, I am not sure why you brought up the problem.

 

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

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

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

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).

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

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.

 

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

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."

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

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

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

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).

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

That is not what I think, but there are obviously a lot of people using cheap adapters.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

Manufacturers have already shown that such an EF mount can be default, while retaining the versatility of shallower mount, with no complaints from the clueless EF users.

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

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.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

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

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

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.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

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

It's 700 bucks ! 

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

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2018 at 8:01 AM, webrunner5 said:

It Holds a F ing Sony E Mount lens, can you use the god damn thing, F No.

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.

 

 

 

On 7/9/2018 at 8:38 AM, webrunner5 said:

EF Full Frame Package'  Fake News. What a misleading joke. Gee my APSC camera REALLY is a FF camera. Man did I get off cheap.

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

37 minutes ago, tupp said:

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.

 

And I can run out and buy a Barbie Cam and say I have a video camera. Comparing a Kinefinity FF Mavo to a Panavision is well, laughable.

 

 

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.

 

It is advertised as a FF camera. It is NOT a FF camera. I can take a A6000 and add a SB and it is NOT a FF camera. It is a APSC camera that pretends to be a FF camera.

Why in the hell would anyone Ever pay the extra money for a FF camera if all you had to do was buy a new 500 dollar cheap ass APSC camera and add a SB? Why would any dumbass ever buy the Kinefinity FF Mavo when all they have to do is slap a SB on the cheap Kinefinity? Cause it Ain't the same thing.

 

 

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.

 

Ever heard of a Canon 550D, a 80D, Sony A6000?

 

I can see some of your points. But you are not going to talk me into believing all of it LoL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The global shutter feature is built into the sensor.  I wonder if that effects the noise and sensitivity of the sensor to have that feature?  It would essentially be wasted design because it's not implemented anyway.

 

The only camera that I know of that also promised to have switchable rolling and global shutter was the Terra 5K and they completely scrapped that camera.

And Blackmagic does give a lot for a very little.  If you look at cameras under $10K, outside of the Ursa Mini Pro, how many of those could you comfortably use on a major Union television production with no compromise?  

EVA-1 has crappy codecs, and no TV show is going to let you shoot raw.  Same story with FS7, FS5, etc.  C200 is the same story and lacks any sort of timecode which makes it pretty useless as well.

Maybe you could use Kinefinity, but their cameras are priced in a clear bracket above what Blackmagic offers and their images don't seem as nice.

Blackmagic just gives you a no-fuss professional camera with every logical professional feature they can while still making the camera desirable for a large market says a lot about what people will think about the camera.  Blackmagic tries their best to not make compromises and give the users everything they want.  Look how many Ursa Mini Pros they will likely not sell because for a lot of people and their needs, the $1295 pocket is a better camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

Justified criticism and/or skepticism is not hatred. I don’t believe a single person in this thread feels hatred toward BMD. 

And this has not to be believed - it is simply so and truth... But it  is challenge to participate in thread that permanently bring/threat you with fear that, in final, it would be seen as "hate" or "crying" or uncompetent or ungrateful to one DP - that still has no anything new to say about topic after hundred of often personal posts (!) - any single attempt to react against endless uncritical  ode to camera that is several months already in the showcase and preorder, without any single provided shot.

And after all these simple crying and hating facts - still again is born argument that such behavior is yet desired because BM gives so much for the money....There's no problem for me with BM to sell (not to give) anything comparative with chosen strategy... but with atmosphere in which any Consumer's voice of pure contra-reminding about failed or significantly prolonged promises has to be welcomed with a wave of intolerance, complicate advocating, quasiprofessional turnings of the topic or quasibalancing political correctness.

Actually, I think that I much tighter and mutually happier cooperate with BM in this case - at the moment it turns out that I'm exclusively user of m43 standard... the same one that for many participators in this thread is at other places not-enough-professional and against-rule-of-physics to compete with FF or S35 cameras... So BM mission with new Pocket is for me even broader... lets imagine why not to further rehousing it in truly smaller m43 camcorder body with integrated all necessary connections... or even (someone else with combining know/how) with IBIS as advantage of (till the yesterday) "small" unprofessional sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

And I can run out and buy a Barbie Cam and say I have a video camera.

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.

 

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Comparing a Kinefinity FF Mavo to a Panavision is well, laughable.

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)?

 

 

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

It is advertised as a FF camera. It is NOT a FF camera.

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.

 

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I can take a A6000 and add a SB and it is NOT a FF camera. It is a APSC camera that pretends to be a FF camera. 

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.

 

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Why in the hell would anyone Ever pay the extra money for a FF camera if all you had to do was buy a new 500 dollar cheap ass APSC camera and add a SB?

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.

 

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Why would any dumbass ever buy the Kinefinity FF Mavo when all they have to do is slap a SB on the cheap Kinefinity?

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.

 

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Cause it Ain't the same thing. 

The results are virtually identical with a quality focal reducer.

 

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:
5 hours ago, tupp said:

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. 

Ever heard of a Canon 550D, a 80D, Sony A6000?

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@tupp But is a shallow mount necessary to use a focal reducer? ?

Yes, with apparently the only current exceptions being:  the Angenieux EZ-1 focal reducer (only works with EZ-1 zooms on PL and some EF mount cameras); the White Point focal reducer for medium format lenses (PL mount?); and @lucabutera's clever NX-1 speedbooster (semi-shallow NX-1 mount).

 

I think @lucabutera also made a focal reducer that that can be installed permanently inside a BMD camera.  Perhaps he or someone else who knows about this can chime in.

 

... ah, you got me!  It's late here.  Going to bed now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m actually tired of adapters and the ones I do use are either thin adapters for adapting to EF or permanent Leitax adapters, which turn the lens into an EF Mount.

With Micro 4/3, I have zero interest in using a speedbooster or big clunky adapters required for most still lenses... so with the 2x crop of the P4K, I am left with native lenses... the smaller Rokinon Cine lenses are decent, as are some Olympus lenses. My original thought of using only c-mount lenses leaves me with no wide or wide normal options since BM decided to go with a traditional M4/3 sensor and the only c-mount lenses that will work are 25mm focal lengths or higher.

Since I decided to invest in Canon glass, this leaves the P4K in a weird spot for me. On one hand... it is very cheap, on the other... I’ll have to invest in lenses I don’t foresee myself using beyond this camera.

Also, my main interest in the camera is for the 1080p ProRes up to 120p... so as cheap as the camera is, for some slow motion... it becomes a pretty hefty investment when you add lenses, IR filtration, and perhaps an OLPF filter.

I think I’ll probably wait for an open box model to pop up somewhere and get the camera even cheaper than the release price. Or even better... since I am already invested in Canon glass and I am happy as hell with ML Raw... I may just stow the money I would put towards the P4K and save up for a C200... by this time next year, they will probably start going on sale for a reasonable price. 

Or maybe if I feel like putzing around with a camera in between shooting days, I’ll pick up an M50 for my C-Mounts or an OG C100.

Either way I decide to go, there is absolutely no doubt that the P4K will be an awesome camera eventually... the XLR input alone is worth its weight in gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mercer said:

I’m actually tired of adapters and the ones I do use are either thin adapters for adapting to EF or permanent Leitax adapters, which turn the lens into an EF Mount.

With Micro 4/3, I have zero interest in using a speedbooster or big clunky adapters required for most still lenses... so with the 2x crop of the P4K, I am left with native lenses... the smaller Rokinon Cine lenses are decent, as are some Olympus lenses. My original thought of using only c-mount lenses leaves me with no wide or wide normal options since BM decided to go with a traditional M4/3 sensor and the only c-mount lenses that will work are 25mm focal lengths or higher.

Since I decided to invest in Canon glass, this leaves the P4K in a weird spot for me. On one hand... it is very cheap, on the other... I’ll have to invest in lenses I don’t foresee myself using beyond this camera.

Also, my main interest in the camera is for the 1080p ProRes up to 120p... so as cheap as the camera is, for some slow motion... it becomes a pretty hefty investment when you add lenses, IR filtration, and perhaps an OLPF filter.

I think I’ll probably wait for an open box model to pop up somewhere and get the camera even cheaper than the release price. Or even better... since I am already invested in Canon glass and I am happy as hell with ML Raw... I may just stow the money I would put towards the P4K and save up for a C200... by this time next year, they will probably start going on sale for a reasonable price. 

Or maybe if I feel like putzing around with a camera in between shooting days, I’ll pick up an M50 for my C-Mounts or an OG C100.

Either way I decide to go, there is absolutely no doubt that the P4K will be an awesome camera eventually... the XLR input alone is worth its weight in gold.

Well I also invested deeply into EF lenses. (shooting with UMP EF), so I will get a metabones speedbooster instead. As EF lenses are still the best still lenses mount choice. Not because I like the EF mount, but because you can mount EF lenses to about any camera and not vica versa.  I shoot manual anyway so I dont care for the autofocus problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

And Blackmagic does give a lot for a very little.  If you look at cameras under $10K, outside of the Ursa Mini Pro, how many of those could you comfortably use on a major Union television production with no compromise?  

Well the Sony PMW-F55 (and F65!) and Arri Alexa Classic are sub $10K on eBay now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, anonim said:

So BM mission with new Pocket is for me even broader... lets imagine why not to further rehousing it in truly smaller m43 camcorder body with integrated all necessary connections... or even (someone else with combining know/how) with IBIS as advantage of (till the yesterday) "small" unprofessional sensor.

I'm love to see an "URSA Micro" with the BMPCC4K sensor in it.

 

Just now, zerocool22 said:

Yeah only problem with that is what if something breaks, the cost of the repairs will probably exceed the price of a ursa mini pro.

Nah, just buy another one! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zerocool22 said:

Well I also invested deeply into EF lenses. (shooting with UMP EF), so I will get a metabones speedbooster instead. As EF lenses are still the best still lenses mount choice. Not because I like the EF mount, but because you can mount EF lenses to about any camera and not vica versa.  I shoot manual anyway so I dont care for the autofocus problems. 

Are you going to sell your UMP or use the P4K as a B-Cam? Well, either way, a speedbooster makes sense for you, especially if you’re using EF-S lenses. Since I’m shooting FF, there aren’t many wide angle options that even a speedbooster would solve.

I actually like the EF Mount, there are more than enough good Canon lenses at reasonable prices... some of which have excellent image stabilization and then there are plenty of options to adapt Nikkor, Contax Zeiss, Pentax, etc...lenses to EF Mount.

There are also some options to have FD lenses modified to EF and also a couple Minolta lenses as well... which I am in the process of doing. If you prefer Cinema lenses you don’t have as many options but there are a few... in fact, I believe there are some PL mount lenses that will work with EF.

So yeah, not as many options as a shallow mount, but a lot of those options are lenses that I either can’t afford or don’t really need for my filmmaking goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mercer said:

Since I decided to invest in Canon glass, this leaves the P4K in a weird spot for me. On one hand... it is very cheap, on the other... I’ll have to invest in lenses I don’t foresee myself using beyond this camera.

Also, my main interest in the camera is for the 1080p ProRes up to 120p... so as cheap as the camera is, for some slow motion... it becomes a pretty hefty investment when you add lenses, IR filtration, and perhaps an OLPF filter.

I think I’ll probably wait for an open box model to pop up somewhere and get the camera even cheaper than the release price. Or even better... since I am already invested in Canon glass and I am happy as hell with ML Raw... I may just stow the money I would put towards the P4K and save up for a C200... by this time next year, they will probably start going on sale for a reasonable price. 

Or maybe if I feel like putzing around with a camera in between shooting days, I’ll pick up an M50 for my C-Mounts or an OG C100.

Either way I decide to go, there is absolutely no doubt that the P4K will be an awesome camera eventually... the XLR input alone is worth its weight in gold.

Ahh I think you Have to go with a Speedbooster in the long run on the P4K. Just for helping with the crop factor alone. You are talking over a s35 size on some aspect ratios used. And the ability to use your EF Glass, or some of the cheaper Cine lenses would be a bonus to use also. And t help with low light is a bonus to boot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tupp said:

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.

 

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.

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.

 

 

Never have owned one, but hell it might get the job done who knows?  The price is sure good. ?

https://www.amazon.com/BE-278-Barbie-Wireless-Video-Camera/dp/B00006666K

 

Yeah my Sony A7s has that APSC crop thingy and it is a Great feature no doubt. Helps with Rolling Shutter, and it gives your lens a boost focal length wise. With it and Clear Zoom it is like having 4 different lenses in one.

I don't have a SP for my Sony. But I know it does help if you use it to get back up to FF on them, to help with the RS problem the A7s has. They are pretty terrible for RS. One of the worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Never have owned one, but hell it might get the job done who knows?  The price is sure good. ?

https://www.amazon.com/BE-278-Barbie-Wireless-Video-Camera/dp/B00006666K

Thanks for the link.  The only footage from the camera that I found is evidently included in a commercial for the camera.

 

I was hoping that it would have an interesting character, like the Pixel Vision camera.

 

 

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Well the Sony PMW-F55 (and F65!) and Arri Alexa Classic are sub $10K on eBay now....

That's amazing!  The Codex drives for the Alexa have been discontinued.  I wonder if there is a way to rebuild the ones that died.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...