FS7: Fujinon announce MK 18-55 T2.9 and MK 50-135 T2.9

JPNola said:
Is it a safe bet that the next high end Sony camera / next iteration of the F55 won't be FZ-mount? I would hope that Sony goes with interchangeable mount, ala the Alexa mini. Would Sony dare go with e-mount for their high-end cameras?
Click to expand...

I doubt Sony will drop the FZ mount for the Cinealta line. The new lockable E-Mount is an improvement over the spring loaded original, but still no where as beefy as the FZ that was designed to take anything from a prime to a big +20 lbs zoom.

Due to the very shallow flange focal distance the FZ mount is pretty much already a universal / interchangeable mount. In some ways it's also more convenient, because you don't have to pull off the whole front of the camera to change mounts.
 
Harry Lime said:
I doubt Sony will drop the FZ mount for the Cinealta line. The new lockable E-Mount is an improvement over the spring loaded original, but still no where as beefy as the FZ that was designed to take anything from a prime to a big +20 lbs zoom.

Due to the very shallow flange focal distance the FZ mount is pretty much already a universal / interchangeable mount. In some ways it's also more convenient, because you don't have to pull off the whole front of the camera to change mounts.
Click to expand...

But doesn't designing for e-mount liberate lens design and makes things possible that are not possible when designing a lens to be PL, EF, & FZ mount compatible?

My understanding is that were the Fuji MK designed to work with anything other than e-mount the lenses would have been larger in size, heavier, and likely not have included macro.

I suppose I am asking- Is the desire for PL-mount camera backwards compatibility holding back lens technology? If the lens makers said "screw everyone with a PL mount camera, that's last century's mount", would they be able to do a lot more in terms of lens design?
 
Its all about space near the sensor.

From what I can see there is a load of space around the FZ mount - it is both close flange and wide and solid mount.. but for every f3/5/55 sold there are 100 FS5/7/A7s sold*. so where do you put your development money?

PL is pretty big diameter and can have the rear element hanging into the mount (see S16 zooms) - so Im not sure it is last century.

The big downer is EF mount, especially if you account for its 'proper' spec which should not interfere with a vistavision sized mirror. (even canon have some new mount everyone has forgotten about for now)

S

Spacious..

Sony_PMW_F55_CineAlta_4K_Digital_1458322524000_8984281.jpg



*this statistic is entirely invented by me
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Its all about space near the sensor.

From what I can see there is a load of space around the FZ mount - it is both close flange and wide and solid mount.. but for every f3/5/55 sold there are 100 FS5/7/A7s sold*. so where do you put your development money?

PL is pretty big diameter and can have the rear element hanging into the mount (see S16 zooms) - so Im not sure it is last century.

The big downer is EF mount, especially if you account for its 'proper' spec which should not interfere with a vistavision sized mirror. (even canon have some new mount everyone has forgotten about for now)

S

Spacious..

View attachment 121664



*this statistic is entirely invented by me
Click to expand...

Currently an F55 on eBay for $14k with a 90 warranty. Very tempting. But I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a call requesting an F55.

I think I'll wait for the day in the most too distant future when an Alexa Mini is available used for $14k. :D
 
I think Sony will use its e-mount in place of FZ on the next gen F55. The FS7 II looks like it can hold anything PL can. But who knows.

It seems a little strange to me that Fuji doesn't release an FZ mount MK lens. The flange difference is .5mm? Maybe F5 and F55 owners aren't a big enough market, or are into different lenses. But considering it'd cost Fuji (relatively) so little, I'm even kind of surprised an MFT version isn't being offered. There are a lot of Blackmagic cameras out there with an MFT mount, and the GH4/GH5, while not perfectly aligned with that lens, does seem to get rigged up quite a bit for all kinds of work.
 
According to Wikipedia, the flange distance of E mount is 18mm and FZ is 19mm. Fuji's own X mount is 17.7mm (and Canon's mirrorless EF-M is 18mm).

I wonder how much it would have "compromised" the design if they had designed it to work up to a 19mm flange depth.

But, paralleling what Barry said, maybe they don't think the F5/55 market would have been lucrative enough, and they figured those shooting the 5/55's are/would be going with more expensive "higher-end" glass anyway.
 
Yep I think this is deliberately made for a set purpose, and with a view to not sabotaging sale of its elder brethren. That said, seen a few 19-90s up for sale this week!
 
Yes very interesting to see whats doing to happen to the F5/F55 next.. its about 5 years old and its reached the end of its "firmware road" V8.. for prestige if nothing else I think Sony have to keep at least one high end flagship beast.. currently the F65.. which is also a bit long in the tooth now.. but does make lovely images .. but where does that leave the f5/55.. fs7II can handle most doc/corp shoots.. the new mount you can easily whack on a CN7.. or Cab.. seems the F5 is sort of left without a drive home.. if the F55 is still aimed at high end .. but not the big league of the F65.. I think the F5 and 55 become one camera.. keeping the LCD side panel,keeping the Fz/PL combo.. keeping the super wide CFA (same as F65).. might ditch the global shutter.. dont really need it these days sensor refresh rate.. or optional.. and I guess price it higher than the F5 but lower than the 55..
Or they keep the F5.. as slightly posh version of the fs7..or lose it completely .. and combine the F55 and 65.. to make a smaller cheaper ,top of the range camera..with the 6K sensor diagonal photo site thingy.. hope I dont need to put an E mount on my CN7.. or at least I hope its possible !!!
 
The F5 will drop out and there will be a hybrid F55/65 replacement that can be built up or stripped down as needs dictate.

Rumours of a c300 mini at the moment which is stupid, but if in fact it is a C700 mini that would be a best of a camera in the F55 space. Interested to see what happens next, even as I migrate to another camera system entirely.

By the way completely fell in love with the varicam AND the C700 at BVE.
 
JPNola said:
But doesn't designing for e-mount liberate lens design and makes things possible that are not possible when designing a lens to be PL, EF, & FZ mount compatible?

My understanding is that were the Fuji MK designed to work with anything other than e-mount the lenses would have been larger in size, heavier, and likely not have included macro.

I suppose I am asking- Is the desire for PL-mount camera backwards compatibility holding back lens technology? If the lens makers said "screw everyone with a PL mount camera, that's last century's mount", would they be able to do a lot more in terms of lens design?
Click to expand...



I'm not an optical designer, but from what I have read it's more difficult to design lenses that sit closer to the sensor, because you want the rays exit the rear element parallel to each other and perpendicular to the receptor wells. It was less of an issue back in the film days, because film doesn't care at what angle the rays hit its surface. But if you hit a receptor at an angle things get interesting. You can have color shifts, vignetting, chromatics cause by refraction of light hitting the edge of the well etc.

This was the problem with the Leica M series for a long time. Lots of retro focus lenses that sat very close to the film plane with rays exiting the rear element at an angle. It wasn't until Leica was able to obtain a sensor with micro lenses over the receptor wells that refocused the light directly down the well that they were able to make many of their existing lenses work.

Apparently another factor is the diameter of the mount. From what I have read it's easier to design high speed lenses the bigger the mount is relative to the sensor size. That is one advantage that the EF mount has over Nikon-F. Obviously S35 is smaller than FF 135 and the e-Mount is a similar size to the F/Minolta mount, so maybe that's not so much of an issue in this case.

But regardless if you look at the FZ mount it becomes apparent just how strong and overbuilt it is comported to E-Mount. I have a Cooke T3 18-100 that weighs about 15 lbs. and feel very comfortable hanging it off my F3. There have been reports of flex on the FS7 with the spring loaded E-Mount and heavy lenses hanging off a PL adapter (Art Adams etc). The new locking E-Mount should eliminate that problem. But still the FZ mount is in a whole different class and has no problem supporting something like a big Primo zoom etc. It's s true pro mount and as such is overbuilt and without limitations. And Sony has a financial interest in differentiating their more expensive Cinealta line from cameras like the FS7.

So, I don't believe that the improved E-Mount is going to replace FZ.
 
Donny 123 said:
Yes very interesting to see whats doing to happen to the F5/F55 next.. its about 5 years old and its reached the end of its "firmware road" V8.. for prestige if nothing else I think Sony have to keep at least one high end flagship beast.. currently the F65.. which is also a bit long in the tooth now.. but does make lovely images .. but where does that leave the f5/55.. fs7II can handle most doc/corp shoots.. the new mount you can easily whack on a CN7.. or Cab.. seems the F5 is sort of left without a drive home.. if the F55 is still aimed at high end .. but not the big league of the F65.. I think the F5 and 55 become one camera.. keeping the LCD side panel,keeping the Fz/PL combo.. keeping the super wide CFA (same as F65).. might ditch the global shutter.. dont really need it these days sensor refresh rate.. or optional.. and I guess price it higher than the F5 but lower than the 55..
Or they keep the F5.. as slightly posh version of the fs7..or lose it completely .. and combine the F55 and 65.. to make a smaller cheaper ,top of the range camera..with the 6K sensor diagonal photo site thingy.. hope I dont need to put an E mount on my CN7.. or at least I hope its possible !!!
Click to expand...


I have no idea where I'm going to end up next year, but if Arri ever does update the Alexa there will be a lot of used cameras hitting the market at greatly reduced prices for people who don't need 4k.
 
Yep I think you're right on both counts.

You're going to see used Alexa Minis going for under £15,000 inside 2 years I reckon once the ALEV IV sensor cameras hit the street.

If they could make a Sony Version of the Red motion mount global shutter option and ally it to their new ND solution you have a winner there I think. However much Red with their excellent Canon mount, Sony with the revised tougher E Mount and Metabones with their Cine range are pushing what can be achieved with consumer lens mounts- none of them are a replacement for PL mount and you can't have a higher end camera that won't 'natively' accept PL lenses.
 
Harry.. It is more difficult and more easy.. Yes there is the angle of incidence to the sensor issue and there are also the 'basic physics' of having space to work.. with a close flange you are not forced to put the element close to the chip.. but can if you want to.

And this is where one needs to study Hasselblad who were leader in wrestling high end digital capture and the inherent problems like the angle the light hit the chip making thier 'old' glass problematic. They very controversially with the Hassy H2, in 2007, or so decided that the ultimate image quality would come through a marriage of analogue and electronic technologies - leading to the infamous 'lock out' of users of Phase One digital backs (I was one!)

Simply they realised that their new 28mm lens (very wide on 645) was simpler and better if they left it as a mild analogue fisheye and took account of and corrected, that distortion, using lens metadata, in their proprietary raw 'Phocus' software

(http://www.hasselblad.com/software/phocus).
Hasselblad’s modern lens design has been optimised for digital perfection, including full automatic correction of colour aberration, distortion and light fall off. Phocus makes use of its detailed knowledge of the lens design and calculates the optical corrections for every shot at the given distance and aperture setting, providing perfect images, and an ideal basis for optimal image rendering and further processing. Hasselblad digital lens correction technology works automatically with all Hasselblad H System lenses, even with tilt/shift movements and it works with all the Carl Zeiss lenses from the classic V System, using manual settings.

One can therefore surmise that moving forward the highest performing systems may be 'closed loop' and rely on software correcting known analogue 'errors'. In fact this is entirely the case in some Sony camera/lens combos today - one can additionally surmise that Sony bought this tech from 'Blad, possibly in exchange for Hasselblad using the guts from Sony cameras in their horror story range of gentlemen's compact cameras.

All the more reason to consider, carefully, large outlays on dumb cine lenses or off brand electronic lenses.

Ps I love the FZ mount.. it is 'proper' :)
 
Last edited:
To be honest we live in a world where a set of good condition Zeiss Superspeeds will now cost you $60,000+

Where The Master was shot on rehoused Zeiss Jena glass and Cinematography oscar-nominated The Arrival was shot on Superspeeds and old Kowa glass.

Big dumb cine glass is going to be around for a very long time.
 
Ben I dont know if you have worked on a small crew (commercial) feature.. but I can tell you cine lenses are a double edge sword in that environment

Fantastic if you have enough prep time and proper crew but when they arrive uncollimated by courier after you were supposed to turn over.. well.. and of course the 'set' started at 20 or something so we were alway wedged in a corner. Not to mention the coffin sized pelicase that we had to drag for a month.

And of course.. what does the B cam shoot on - it should be a matched set or at least 2 35-50-80 s for cross shooting chatter.

Cine lenses completely have their place, but there are many many productions where that place is not. Where two matched sets of more affordable glass pays dividends.
 
Last edited:
What are you calling small crew?

Not really sure you can blame cine lenses for you not having the correct kit and checking it in advance of turning over.

If your 'small crew feature' was you as a one-man band with no ACs I can see how that might influence shooting decisions and why you might go smaller/lighter/zoomy but that is a reflection on your production, not on cine lenses.

My last short with a budget I did, I shot on cinevised Leica R primes sans mattebox but going FS7 raw to pro res (never again) and sacked off the guy with an attitude who was supposed to be my AC after the first day.

Time before that I had an AC and nobody else and we had a ton of rented gear including cine lenses. Well, CP2s so only just barely!

And then I've worked on countless other projects with varying levels of kit and crew. Nobody who ever came up through filmmaking channels and had an opportunity to work with them ever questioned the worth or importance of cine lenses.

Conversely I see a lot of people used to shooting on L Glass and a Helios 44m-2 for 'art shots' telling me all the reasons why cine lenses are a waste of money. This isn't aimed at you by the way :)
 
Yep - a proper film (allegedly) , even a wage.. - I was one of the people not the DOP.

And thats the thing about being 'commercial' every corner cut on prep days or whatever is 'saving the production money' its a different environment!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top