Glass: Lets talk about glass

robmneilson said:
Since they said that M 4/3 and PL were in the road map, I wonder what the possibility is that it will be available among the first units shipping in July? I'm sure the EF mount will sell the most since everyone has L glass....but I really need PL or M 4/3. With M 4/3 I can save a whole bunch of money and just use a cieco adapter for my OCT-19 mount glass. And if I HAVE to I'll finally pay to get them converted to PL...but I would love to put that off as long as possible.
Click to expand...
Man, I'd really, really like to know the answer to that before I plunk down a pre-order on the Canon version. An m43 version would be soooooo perfect. Then I could use my hyper-wide m43 7-14 zoom, plus it would support adapters to all other popular mounts (including, of course, PL).

I would really doubt that they're going to have an m43 version too early on. They really seem to be focused on volume and getting this thing shipping, and so maybe a PL or m43 version would be coming in the future but I don't expect it to be too soon. Then again, who can expect anything that BMD would do, seeing as how they blindsided us with this thing?
 
Barry what do you think about the 2.5K image cropped to 1080? Some of those smaller image circle lenses might cover that right? it's just finding a mount that works.
 
I wonder if you can use the Linos mevis-c - series lenses on them - compact lenses you can use on the SI-2K. They are c mount though.
 
eddavid said:
I wonder if you can use the Linos mevis-c - series lenses on them - compact lenses you can use on the SI-2K. They are c mount though.
Click to expand...
It is basically impossible to use any c-mount lens on a Canon mount. You would have to physically mount the lens well over an inch inside the lens mount tube.
 
I could smell a change in the wind before NAB and I've just about moved out all of my Canon FD lenses and replaced everything with Nikon F mounts, I really have a hard time parting with my Canon 50mm f1.4 FL II (shot an interview with it this morning) but unless the BMCC shows up with a m43 mount in July its the end of the road.

I'm trying to decide between a Zeiss Contax 50mm f1.4 or the current ZF version. My only reluctance on the Zeiss Contax is the overall length, I find that small OAL lenses are a PITA to set up with the matte box and FF. Has anyone been using the Zeiss Contax 50 f1.4 in a full rig like this?
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Well there are two issues with the DSLRs, one is that the lenses are too deep and they impact the mirror, but the other (as you mentioned) is the diameter of the lens. The tube (the "throat") of the Canon mount is simply too small for the majority of PL lenses to fit into. So if you're looking for a PL adapter, you're probably going to be limited to a few zooms, no primes.

As for S16 glass, you can largely forget about that, because of the mounting problem and the image circle issues. Super16 is a 12.4mm wide sensor, and the BMCC has a 15.6mm(?) wide sensor. It's not likely that you'll find too many S16 lenses below about 25mm that will cover that size sensor, and 25mm is quite a bit telephoto. S16 wide-angle lenses will most definitely not cover the sensor, nor will 16mm lenses.

I think folks will probably make themselves happiest if they focus their lens research on Canon EF and Nikon F lenses. There's no question about those, they'll all work. Yes it'll be tough to get a wide angle field of view with them, but in cinema 35mm film we normally use about an 18 as the widest general-purpose prime, and on the BMCC that'd equate to about 12.5mm on the BMCC. That's do-able if you use the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16. No, it's not gonna be wide, but it's a reasonable focal length common in cinema shooting.

Don't waste your time chasing after Canon FD or S16 or PL or c-mount lenses to get wide angles, they're simply not going to fit onto the BMCC. Nikon and Canon will. One other option would be older M42 glass, like the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses or the Super Takumars, those are really nice inexpensive vintage glass, and you can find the Peleng 8mm in M42 or Nikon mount. The Peleng will probably be a bit of a fisheye on the BMCC, or at least show some barrel distortion, but it would be pretty wide, about equivalent to a 19mm on a full-frame camera.
Click to expand...


Yeah, just compared a bored out 5D with a regular EF mount, absolutely right.

Looks like Canon EOS Cinema Zooms and Primes, along with Zeiss EF mount Cinema Primes etc, will rule the PL selection for this camera. Aside from interesting old zooms.
 
Barry_Green said:
Man, I'd really, really like to know the answer to that before I plunk down a pre-order on the Canon version. An m43 version would be soooooo perfect. Then I could use my hyper-wide m43 7-14 zoom, plus it would support adapters to all other popular mounts (including, of course, PL).

QUOTE]

What they said to me PRE NAB is that they would LOOK at m4/3 and PL later. LOOK. That doens't put it on the roadmap really.

NAB might have made them realise how important m4/3 will be to giving the camera more flexability. If they hear enough people say it. The thing is, BMD are responsive. They make all this gear themselves and they love to be fast to react.

If they Do PL and m4/3, then it would be a different model and NOT an interchangeable mount camera.

BTW, it was the first thing I asked for when asked for feedback.......

jb
Click to expand...
 
John Brawley said:
AF is planned to be working at some point, hopefully by shipping. IS too.

This camera doesn't have cropping. It scales. And beautifully too.
Click to expand...

supreme approval !!

tumblr_ll00nelP691qb1ezk.gif
 
ROCKMORE said:
If the Chinese can make a c-mount to Canon EF then there will surely be one in the future. And before I finished the post they made one.
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Lens-Mount-Adapter-C-Mount/dp/B003EAY5S6
Click to expand...
Hey, anyone can make anything they want, that doesn't mean it will WORK. There is no possible way that thing you linked to will actually work. You could maybe use it as an ultra-hyper macro adapter, but that's it, there's not a prayer in this world or the next that you could get infinity focus with something like that.

What they could possibly do is make an adapter with an optical element in it to try to compensate for the massive difference in flange depth, but that would a) be more expensive, and b) reduce quality. It's basically the same issue with trying to use FD's on an EF body.
 
I asked this in the large thread and didn't really get a good answer: Will the crop amplify CA and softness?

I know EOS lenses are made for 10-20mp stills and that the 2.5k image is far less, but its also taking a 2.4x crop of that lens. Wouldn't that be sort of like taking a 10mp FF picture and cropping it to ~1/4 the image, and isnt that what they do for lens tests?

I guess my real concern is that it seams like we may be settling for WA glass (EOS) that is not fantastic even at APS-C or FF sizes and then zooming in 2.4 times.
 
Last edited:
Ryan-Guy said:
Will the crop amplify CA and softness?
Click to expand...

Often the CA and softness of a lens gets worse towards the edge of a frame. Since the BMD camera is only using the center of the possible image area you are getting the best that the lens can offer.
 
I've actually experienced worse CA on the GH2 in ETC mode, but with certain lenses only. The only way to know is to check. A good measure may be to grab a GH2 and do some tests in both ETC and non-ETC to gauge what you're gonna get.

Will probably do some with all of my glass just to double check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top