4K, M43 lenses, Super 35 sensor - could this be the cam that AF100 and GH owners have been waiting for? (Yes, I know I know it's JVC so I'm not holding my breath either...) http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/2037-jvcs-compact-4k-camera-hands-on-video-from-ibc
Jvc gy-l300
- Thread starter TomLenham
- Start date
I don't understand a M43 mount if you have a Super35 sensor.
Any M43 native lens wouldn't cover the entire chip & you'd have horrible vignetting. Yes you can use adapters to use Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc. lenses to the M43 mount, but not being able to use any native mount lens seems really short sighted to me.
Sony E-Mount (NEX) has about the same flange back distance as M43, but there are ASP-C and Full frame lenses on that lens mount system. The APS-C might be a little small for Super 35, but the C100 has a EF-S setting that you can turn on when using those types of lenses so I think it would be an easy thing for JVC to figure out.
Any M43 native lens wouldn't cover the entire chip & you'd have horrible vignetting. Yes you can use adapters to use Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc. lenses to the M43 mount, but not being able to use any native mount lens seems really short sighted to me.
Sony E-Mount (NEX) has about the same flange back distance as M43, but there are ASP-C and Full frame lenses on that lens mount system. The APS-C might be a little small for Super 35, but the C100 has a EF-S setting that you can turn on when using those types of lenses so I think it would be an easy thing for JVC to figure out.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Yes interesting and yes what everybody expected the AF-200 to be. Maybe there is still time but the JVC is looking a lot more promising than a AF-200 vapor camera.
I suspect that the sensor is the Altasens AL41410C, which can run at up to 72 fps at 4K (and up to 400 fps at 720p) but appears to have little else going for it. Its dynamic range is little better than the CMOSIS CMV12000's native DR, which is a relatively narrow 10 stops maximally. Unlike the CMV12000, it has no HDR modes or global shutter.
demoboy
Well-known member
You're missing the point about lens coverage for whatever protocol tech is being introduced. An M43 sensor is optimized for M43 lenses. For those wishing to use Full Frame lenses on M43 sensors then yes you're going to miss out on a Full Frame lens coverage. This is why adapters such as Metabones try to adapt the coverage solely for those using lenses not optimized for M43 sensor coverage. I own a plethora of M43 lenses from Voigtlander, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sigma. They all work beautifully and the ratio is consistent for whatever focal length I'm after. With the advent of 4K imaging on smaller sensors nowadays is of different territory than the classic Full Frame ''wanting.'' The culture is now even more diversified.
The problem is, the JVC GY-L300 has an s35 sensor but an MFT lens mount. It's not clear whether an MFT lens will fully cover the sensor.
combatentropy
Veteran
It's sheer genius and the future.
- 135. Use a speedbooster and mount any lens that covers 135 ("full frame") and get 135 depth of field.
- S35. Use an adapter to mount a lens that covers S35: Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, PL, etc.
- 4/3. Directly mount a 4/3 lens and shoot in 4/3 crop mode. Since the sensor is 4.5K, this should be about 3.5K.
- S16. Use an adapter to mount a C-mount lens, and shoot in S16 or 16mm crop mode. This should be about 2K.
combatentropy
Veteran
"We using MFT mount. . . . MFT, some people already start thinking about the sensor. This is just the mount. Behind is a Super 35mm sensor."
O ye of little faith. It works.
O ye of little faith. It works.
I'm be shocked if a M43 lens covers S35 as there is such a difference of area between the two. http://i.imgur.com/hnyLURa.jpg
I'm still confused by the choice to use M43, as you're FORCED to use a lens adapter 100% of the time if you want your lens to cover the S35 chip. If you want to use the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 (or any other native M43 lens) you're SOL.
Why not use any of the other short flange back mounts instead? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
If they went E-mount, then you could stick the new Sony 28-135mm f4 servo lens on this camera. JVC already has a relationship with Sony (using XDCam EX on the JVC HM series cameras), so I would think it would be possible to strike an agreement to use the E-mount.
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
No choice is perfect. I think that S35 and MFT is the best balance of pros and cons.
I have no particular reason to want to cover an S35 area specifically. Even so, I'm not sure why using a lens adapter is a bad thing. But I'm new at this.
Besides, that isn't true. These lenses cover S35, and even full frame, and come in the MFT mount: Zeiss CP.2 primes, Zeiss CZ.2 zooms, Rokinon, and SLR Magic. And Schneider and Duclos might do it too if this thing catches on, since they already make lenses with interchangeable mounts (EF, F, and PL, so far).
You can certainly use any native M43 lens, and basically have a 3.5K, Four Thirds format camera.
Yes, you're right about that. It is a failing of this design. But for me I would still vote for this design because:
- in general I prefer open standards to privately owned ones
- I'm particularly fed up with the array of lens mounts, which Sony recently added to with the aforesaid E mount
- I myself don't want a zoom lens and recommend others try to do without --- although I know that's a wicked turn in how a lot of people work
- there's no technical reason why a lens like that might not one day come for the MFT mount
I have no particular reason to want to cover an S35 area specifically. Even so, I'm not sure why using a lens adapter is a bad thing. But I'm new at this.
Besides, that isn't true. These lenses cover S35, and even full frame, and come in the MFT mount: Zeiss CP.2 primes, Zeiss CZ.2 zooms, Rokinon, and SLR Magic. And Schneider and Duclos might do it too if this thing catches on, since they already make lenses with interchangeable mounts (EF, F, and PL, so far).
You can certainly use any native M43 lens, and basically have a 3.5K, Four Thirds format camera.
Yes, you're right about that. It is a failing of this design. But for me I would still vote for this design because:
- in general I prefer open standards to privately owned ones
- I'm particularly fed up with the array of lens mounts, which Sony recently added to with the aforesaid E mount
- I myself don't want a zoom lens and recommend others try to do without --- although I know that's a wicked turn in how a lot of people work
- there's no technical reason why a lens like that might not one day come for the MFT mount
Last edited:
Good point about how there are 3rd party lenses (Zeiss, Rokinon) that are made in MFT & other mounts that would cover S35. If this camera is successful, then maybe there will be more M43 mount lenses that can cover larger chips.
Has anyone from JVC said that the camera can do a ETC (crop) mode? If so, then you can use native M43 lenses & it makes the camera that much more useful.
I feel that M43 is nice because it is a standard that isn't owned by a single company, but I look at things like Metabones was able to make a EF to E mount adapter a lot faster & cheaper than EF to M43 adapter. Which really makes me wonder if the M43 group isn't that helpful to 3rd party accessory makers.
Has anyone from JVC said that the camera can do a ETC (crop) mode? If so, then you can use native M43 lenses & it makes the camera that much more useful.
I feel that M43 is nice because it is a standard that isn't owned by a single company, but I look at things like Metabones was able to make a EF to E mount adapter a lot faster & cheaper than EF to M43 adapter. Which really makes me wonder if the M43 group isn't that helpful to 3rd party accessory makers.
demoboy
Well-known member
I agree with most of your ideas. The truth is JVC is playing with the market for S35mm sensor coverage. Ideally the advent of promoting an S35mm sensor with respect to filmmaking was to mimic S35mm cinema lenses, not 35mm Full Frame lenses. People shouldn't be doubting JVC's S35mm sensor coverage as it's no different than Canon C-x line. There are many users that went along and used all of Canon's lenses for those series regardless of following technical coverage rule.
So therefore I agree with your idea on how the sensor will be used on the L300. The sensor size is not so much important but rather so how the cropping factor will work the way Nikon could flip from APS-C to Full Frame video coverage at consumer ease.
I truly hope JVC could sacrifice most of the bells and whistles if they provided a promo deal introducing some sort of Fujinon lens exclusively for the L300 with amazing mechanical ability its non for. For example buyers would save about 2000 bucks if they got the combo. 24-270mm constant F4 would be a blessing combo
I want to avoid using adapters if I can. Not a fan of MFT. Love the built in ND.
Last edited: