The Panasonic EVA-1 is shown at Cine Gear
- Thread starter Vardalos
- Start date
My thoughts too. Clearly, the EVA-1 is not being marketed at current or former AF100 users, or Panasonic is Not paying attention to how they are/were using the AF100 (and BM Ursa Mini Pro shooters) camera with PL and B4 lenses.
They are also ignoring the fact their GH users have a sizable invenstment in MFT lenses, and are not going to want to "convert" to the very few useable EF lenses. Looks like they are trying to woo former Canon DSLR video shooters over to the Panny side, while ignoring their own GH and AF100 users. Too bad, they are not giving their own customers an upgrade path from the GH and AF100 line.
Panasonic is also not oayong attention to the fact, many of the upcoming professional users have outgrown using still camera lenses, like the Canon EF lenses, due to their limitations, auto focus/exposure is only used on some gimbal or boom rigs, and many if these are still manually (by remote) controlled. These shooters are demanding a more professional lens and lens mount, hinge the upcoming affordable PL Cine lenses that have come out in the last year or so.
The only real lens options for this camera, are the Canon EF "Pro" Cine zooms (starting at $26K)and a few less expensive, slow (T/4) Prosummer Cine style zooms starting at $6K, and six prime Cine lenses starting at $4K.
In the interview, Panasonic mentioned supporting "Run and Gun" documentary shooting, but the EF mount leaves you with only one affordable lens option here is a $26K Canon 17-120mm T/2.9 servo zoom. The other servo Cine type zoom is a $70K T/5.9 long zoom designed more for sports coverage where you have the light, and will be shooting stopped down for the DOF. You are left with three $24-60K manual Cine zooms for narrative work -- not much of a choice, and you can not select lenses that give the creative "look" required for a given scene.
To use this camera as a documentary (or wedding) camera, yiumaremgoing to need to soend an additional $2-6K on a good EVF, and $26k for the one useable servo zoom lens, then will need a shoulder mount rig for most handheld shooting, another $500-1500. Panasonic is relying on their party manufacturers (like they did with the AF100 to some extent) to provide the missing bits. Having a EVF choice is nice, even if your choice will be limited to two or three expensive sources, for a high resolution EVF. You are still gong to need an external recorder for Raw (camera no longer compact) or using ProRes/DNx codecs, to get the camera to fit normal Pro postproduction work flow.
How well the EavA-1 is going to actually work with its yet to be disclosed internal recording capabilities (going to be compressed or limited with only SD XC cards as the recording media) is going to be the next question to answer?
Cheers
They are also ignoring the fact their GH users have a sizable invenstment in MFT lenses, and are not going to want to "convert" to the very few useable EF lenses. Looks like they are trying to woo former Canon DSLR video shooters over to the Panny side, while ignoring their own GH and AF100 users. Too bad, they are not giving their own customers an upgrade path from the GH and AF100 line.
Panasonic is also not oayong attention to the fact, many of the upcoming professional users have outgrown using still camera lenses, like the Canon EF lenses, due to their limitations, auto focus/exposure is only used on some gimbal or boom rigs, and many if these are still manually (by remote) controlled. These shooters are demanding a more professional lens and lens mount, hinge the upcoming affordable PL Cine lenses that have come out in the last year or so.
The only real lens options for this camera, are the Canon EF "Pro" Cine zooms (starting at $26K)and a few less expensive, slow (T/4) Prosummer Cine style zooms starting at $6K, and six prime Cine lenses starting at $4K.
In the interview, Panasonic mentioned supporting "Run and Gun" documentary shooting, but the EF mount leaves you with only one affordable lens option here is a $26K Canon 17-120mm T/2.9 servo zoom. The other servo Cine type zoom is a $70K T/5.9 long zoom designed more for sports coverage where you have the light, and will be shooting stopped down for the DOF. You are left with three $24-60K manual Cine zooms for narrative work -- not much of a choice, and you can not select lenses that give the creative "look" required for a given scene.
To use this camera as a documentary (or wedding) camera, yiumaremgoing to need to soend an additional $2-6K on a good EVF, and $26k for the one useable servo zoom lens, then will need a shoulder mount rig for most handheld shooting, another $500-1500. Panasonic is relying on their party manufacturers (like they did with the AF100 to some extent) to provide the missing bits. Having a EVF choice is nice, even if your choice will be limited to two or three expensive sources, for a high resolution EVF. You are still gong to need an external recorder for Raw (camera no longer compact) or using ProRes/DNx codecs, to get the camera to fit normal Pro postproduction work flow.
How well the EavA-1 is going to actually work with its yet to be disclosed internal recording capabilities (going to be compressed or limited with only SD XC cards as the recording media) is going to be the next question to answer?
Cheers
Last edited:
Just thinking, something we all need to do before jumping on board with something we really don’t need.
Thanks to Panasonic and their “Like GH4 Scene File” we have a DVX200 and a perfectly matched GH4 for 8bit internal recording. We also have a PIX-E5 for 10bit external recording with either camera. This suggests a question, do we really need a new interchangeable lens video camera or does our existing technology meet or exceed our needs?
Thanks to Panasonic and their “Like GH4 Scene File” we have a DVX200 and a perfectly matched GH4 for 8bit internal recording. We also have a PIX-E5 for 10bit external recording with either camera. This suggests a question, do we really need a new interchangeable lens video camera or does our existing technology meet or exceed our needs?
Last edited:
fboonzaier
Well-known member
In my case leaving out an optional M4/3 locking mount leaves this camera on store shelves...maybe Panasonic will add this option over the next few months, as they have some time to address this....I suspect they will come to realize that, but maybe not...the EF mount on the Varicam is a mount on a 27K something kitted out camera and it's a whole different kind of camera...This camera for me at least could have made sense as simply something I wanted...it's in a different affordability league...in this incarnation, no thanks....and I was poised to buy this as Norbro could probably tell from my incessant posts lol...including rambling on half asleep last night邏邏
TSDavis
Well-known member
I kind of get it. I remember when I was shooting on the AF100 all I wanted was an adapter to put EF lenses on my rig and redrock at the time was the only company providing one in scarce supply. While I personally prefer the MFT mount for adaptability (not to mention I love Veydra's) I feel like Panny is aiming more for the disenfranchised c100 shooters that want more from their package but aren't willing or can't afford to go c300 mkii.
I'm very curious to see what comes of this camera and what image it produces.
I'm very curious to see what comes of this camera and what image it produces.
fboonzaier
Well-known member
Agreed...but if a fledgling camera company could release there 1st cinema camera (BMCC) with both an EF and M4/3 mount....granted, the latter after a few months, why not Panasonic who must have 100,000's of loyal clients invested in the M4/3 system...the more I think about this...the more unbelievable this is to me!!!
And the Varicam has an interchangeable lens mount, with a PL option, not this EF only mount sibling, yes, a very big disappointment. The big issue with a still camera EF mount, is it can not be shimmed, so getting Parfocal zoom with out electronic correction is nill, and Cine prime lenses witness marks will not be accurate. Also given the big difference between the EF mount FFD (longer at 44mm) vs the 19.25 FFD on the MFT mount, you are not going to swap out the mounts very easy on this fixed mount camera, without a resisted front end like the Varicam LT has.
Cheers
Cheers
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Seem like there's quite a few emotions surrounding the release of this camera. I think it's important to point out that none of us as individuals represent the industry as a whole. For that reason, a camera that appeals to a great majority of the industry may not be personally suitable for us.
A lot of GH users are already using EF lenses, especially since the Speedbooster became available. I'd also argue that there are very many more "useable EF lenses" than there are m4/3rds lenses. Unless, of course, your primary concern is AF.
If they've outgrown EF, they've definitely outgrown m4/3rds as well. So what are you suggesting they should use instead? PL? A lot of the "affordable PL Cine lenses" are also released in EF mount as well.
If you think these lenses are expensive, then you definitely don't want to be using PL. The PL versions of these EF lenses you mention are considered 'low-cost' PL lenses. In any case, many PL lenses can be used on this new camera with an adaptor anyway because, unlike the Canon DSLR's, there's no mirror block to get in the way. Besides, plenty of people are more than happy using EF photo lenses on cameras like the C300, FS7, BM 4.6K, and even on the Red cameras. Short of the mostly-prohibitively-expensive PL system, EF is by far the best, most widely supported lens mount system to use for video at this point in time.
What makes you think that this camera's internal codec won't fit into a "normal pro post-production workflow"? Especially given the camera is not due out for a while, I have no doubt Panasonic are working with most major NLE's to get the codec implemented natively, and there is nothing that suggests the codec is not up to professional standards.
A locking m4/3rd mount might not even be physically possible. I know there were several comments from the Sony engineers that it was incredibly difficult to implement the locking E-mount due to the short flange distance.
Blackmagic did not choose the m4/3rd mount to appease current lens owners - they chose it because it was the best modern mount to match the sensor size they had at the time. Panasonic knew there is much broader desire for an s35 sensor than a m4/3rds sensor, and hence we've been given a matching lens mount.
A lot of GH users are already using EF lenses, especially since the Speedbooster became available. I'd also argue that there are very many more "useable EF lenses" than there are m4/3rds lenses. Unless, of course, your primary concern is AF.
If they've outgrown EF, they've definitely outgrown m4/3rds as well. So what are you suggesting they should use instead? PL? A lot of the "affordable PL Cine lenses" are also released in EF mount as well.
If you think these lenses are expensive, then you definitely don't want to be using PL. The PL versions of these EF lenses you mention are considered 'low-cost' PL lenses. In any case, many PL lenses can be used on this new camera with an adaptor anyway because, unlike the Canon DSLR's, there's no mirror block to get in the way. Besides, plenty of people are more than happy using EF photo lenses on cameras like the C300, FS7, BM 4.6K, and even on the Red cameras. Short of the mostly-prohibitively-expensive PL system, EF is by far the best, most widely supported lens mount system to use for video at this point in time.
What makes you think that this camera's internal codec won't fit into a "normal pro post-production workflow"? Especially given the camera is not due out for a while, I have no doubt Panasonic are working with most major NLE's to get the codec implemented natively, and there is nothing that suggests the codec is not up to professional standards.
A locking m4/3rd mount might not even be physically possible. I know there were several comments from the Sony engineers that it was incredibly difficult to implement the locking E-mount due to the short flange distance.
Blackmagic did not choose the m4/3rd mount to appease current lens owners - they chose it because it was the best modern mount to match the sensor size they had at the time. Panasonic knew there is much broader desire for an s35 sensor than a m4/3rds sensor, and hence we've been given a matching lens mount.
fboonzaier
Well-known member
@deltoidjohn
Blackmagic did not choose the m4/3rd mount to appease current lens owners - they chose it because it was the best modern mount to match the sensor size they had at the time. Panasonic knew there is much broader desire for an s35 sensor than a m4/3rds sensor, and hence we've been given a matching lens mount.
Very well... I'll repeat that I was not advocating for a M4/3s sensor but M4/3s MOUNT...personally I was thrilled about the S35 sensor....and as for a locking M4/3 mount, if that is prohibitively expensive or difficult, the DSLR style push button lock/unlock on the EF mount shown in the EVA prototype in a M4/3 mount, would been the difference between me buying the camera or not...JVC did this same thing a couple of years ago...no great innovation here...you don't need a M4/3 sensor to accompany a M4/3 mount...so why some are posting here about the dissapointment at the lack of a M4/3 sensor on the EVA is baffling...of course...most of us have been talking about this upcoming pre release on this forum for some 6weeks or more...
Blackmagic did not choose the m4/3rd mount to appease current lens owners - they chose it because it was the best modern mount to match the sensor size they had at the time. Panasonic knew there is much broader desire for an s35 sensor than a m4/3rds sensor, and hence we've been given a matching lens mount.
Very well... I'll repeat that I was not advocating for a M4/3s sensor but M4/3s MOUNT...personally I was thrilled about the S35 sensor....and as for a locking M4/3 mount, if that is prohibitively expensive or difficult, the DSLR style push button lock/unlock on the EF mount shown in the EVA prototype in a M4/3 mount, would been the difference between me buying the camera or not...JVC did this same thing a couple of years ago...no great innovation here...you don't need a M4/3 sensor to accompany a M4/3 mount...so why some are posting here about the dissapointment at the lack of a M4/3 sensor on the EVA is baffling...of course...most of us have been talking about this upcoming pre release on this forum for some 6weeks or more...
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Sure, it's been proven that a m4/3rds mount can work with an EF sensor, but that doesn't mean it will work in every scenario. Take into account, perhaps, that the Panasonic shoots 4K DCI while the JVC is only UHD - Maybe those extra pixels on the edges add just enough width to the sensor to make it no longer possible to use a m4/3rds mount? Perhaps it was too difficult to engineer good quality re-scaling of the cropped portion of that particular sensor? Or perhaps they just knew the economies of scale where stacked more in their favour if they targeted owners of native EF lenses?
If you were expecting (and hoping for) Panasonic to release a direct successor the the AF100, I can see why you might be disappointed. But if you look at the entire market as a whole, leaving personal emotions out of it, this camera makes a hell of a lot of sense. It is really a true pro camera, with a quality codec, TC in/out, and plenty of other features which separate if from the market the AF100 or GH cameras were/are playing in, and as such it makes sense that they've used a widely-accepted pro-level mount.
If you were expecting (and hoping for) Panasonic to release a direct successor the the AF100, I can see why you might be disappointed. But if you look at the entire market as a whole, leaving personal emotions out of it, this camera makes a hell of a lot of sense. It is really a true pro camera, with a quality codec, TC in/out, and plenty of other features which separate if from the market the AF100 or GH cameras were/are playing in, and as such it makes sense that they've used a widely-accepted pro-level mount.
Last edited:
John, I agree with many of your points, a Cine locking EF mount similar to what Canon did on the C300 would solve many if the plain EF mount issues. I also was not saying there are more good MFT lens than EF. Adapting PL lenses on the still EF mount is problematic, not just the mirror issue, but FFD differences are very close, limiting the PL lenses that can be adapted. There are quite a few "affordable" PL monunt primes coming out at under $3K, which is good. The main advantage of the PL mount, which I agree is not for everyone, is it can b shimmed to correct FFD to get Parfocal zooms and accurate witn SS marks on prime lenses.
The advantage of MFT mount, is the same as the Sony E mount, both not perfect, but their short FFD makes using adapters to Nikon or PL easier. Also my big issue with native EF lenses, is they are electronic only Iris control only (same issue with MFT native lenses). OK for regular video work like weddings, etc. but not Cine narrative shooting, or even some run/gun shooting where a smooth Iris change is needed, or a quick Iris change is needed, most electronic Iris lenses just can not do this.
MFT mount at least had a variety of manual Iris/ Focus lenses available for it, Zeiss ZF, Voightlander MFT, SLR Magic and Veydra Mini Primes, all of which are less expensive than $3-10K PL Cine lenses.
Yes, the MFT mountbwould have been too small for this sensor (possibly, but its actual size is unknown, and S35 size in digital sensors is a loose measurement including anything larger than Standard Cine 35. But given uts a 5.xK sensor (line .BM 4.6K sensor) is larger than S35, so a bigger lens mount is required.
Panny has obviously made this camera for those coming from the DSLR market, which is fine (same original market the AF 100 was aimed at), which is fine. But calling it a "Cinema" camera without adding an interchangeable lens mount to give a choice between EF and PL (like the Varicam LT) is a bit of a stretch!
Cheers
The advantage of MFT mount, is the same as the Sony E mount, both not perfect, but their short FFD makes using adapters to Nikon or PL easier. Also my big issue with native EF lenses, is they are electronic only Iris control only (same issue with MFT native lenses). OK for regular video work like weddings, etc. but not Cine narrative shooting, or even some run/gun shooting where a smooth Iris change is needed, or a quick Iris change is needed, most electronic Iris lenses just can not do this.
MFT mount at least had a variety of manual Iris/ Focus lenses available for it, Zeiss ZF, Voightlander MFT, SLR Magic and Veydra Mini Primes, all of which are less expensive than $3-10K PL Cine lenses.
Yes, the MFT mountbwould have been too small for this sensor (possibly, but its actual size is unknown, and S35 size in digital sensors is a loose measurement including anything larger than Standard Cine 35. But given uts a 5.xK sensor (line .BM 4.6K sensor) is larger than S35, so a bigger lens mount is required.
Panny has obviously made this camera for those coming from the DSLR market, which is fine (same original market the AF 100 was aimed at), which is fine. But calling it a "Cinema" camera without adding an interchangeable lens mount to give a choice between EF and PL (like the Varicam LT) is a bit of a stretch!
Cheers
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
LOTS of glass available in EF mount. LOTS of glass available with swappable mounts. And there are PL-to-EF mount adapters out there that allow you to use certain PL lenses on EF mount cameras. AND you can most certainly use B4 lenses on EF mount cameras.
In my short visit to their booth where the camera was displayed behind the glass I heard few "non interchangeable mount" complaints.
I assume they got an ear full. They may change to interchangeable mount even for the production release. If not maybe another model coming soon. But change they will for sure. I even got that from their rep on the show floor. Or maybe he was just sick and tired from all the complaints he had heard....
Either way- we are ready to make a mount adapter for your cameras Mr Panasonic!! Can you hear me there!!!? We can do it for you - just like we did it for Sony F5/55 and it made millions in sales for them....
Otherwise-- well done!!
Great cam with amazing specs...
I assume they got an ear full. They may change to interchangeable mount even for the production release. If not maybe another model coming soon. But change they will for sure. I even got that from their rep on the show floor. Or maybe he was just sick and tired from all the complaints he had heard....
Either way- we are ready to make a mount adapter for your cameras Mr Panasonic!! Can you hear me there!!!? We can do it for you - just like we did it for Sony F5/55 and it made millions in sales for them....
Otherwise-- well done!!
Great cam with amazing specs...
Run&Gun
Veteran
Having a camera with a user swappable mount is super convenient and versatile. My other large sensor camera is an F55 and I'm spoiled by it, because I can swap the mount in literally seconds. I have(more like had, now) an opportunity to buy a demo V35 for a STEAL, but the big drawback on that camera(beside no GS) is no native swappable mount system(P+S Technik does make a system, BUT it's mechanical only) and I would lose the ability to use my CN-E primes, unless I sent them to Duclos to have them converted to PL, but then I lose the ability to use them on my C300.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm definitely in the camp that thinks that camera manufacturers should be making their cameras with user swappable mount systems, like on the F5/55. Super shallow flange distance, wide, strong, electronic contacts built-in for power and comms/control.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Factually incorrect.
Virtually every manufacturer of new PL glass is offering switchable mounts, including EF an Emount.
fboonzaier
Well-known member
I suspect that if the Sony E mount at 18mm flange distance to sensor can cover FF, then the M4/3 mount at 19.25 mm can cover S35. JVC is already doing it and Sony covers a larger sensor with less flange distance.
I never owned an AF100 and was not looking for a successor...I have however made a considerable investment in the M4/3 system (in legacy glass and adapters)...I actually tried to stream the release info and seriously considered purchasing this camera...the mount stopped me dead...so my investment lies in my lenses....not cameras...shooting side by side with a GH5 or G85 with the EVA on Nikons or Canon FD lenses seemed like an ecosystem I could work with.
Last edited:
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Flange distance and sensor coverage have nothing to do with each other. Diameter is what effects sensor coverage. I don't know the specs, or how close to the limits the fit is in the JVC, but the Sony E-mount was designed from the start with a diameter to be used with FF. Micro 4/3rds was not originally designed to be used with s35. The fact it can be used in certain circumstances is a happy coincidence, but does not guarantee it can be engineered in every scenario.
John, you are spot on, it is the mount diameter that counts, but shorter FFD, requires larger mount diameter at the shorter distances. MFT can cover the Standard 35 sensors, as slightly larger, if you cut it away like JVC did, but their sensor is between Std 35 and Suoer 35. As impervious mentioned, until the actual sensor size info is released, we are just guessing, but I think, like the Blackmagic 4.6K sensor, it is going to be larger than Super 35, hence the move to a EF mount.
McGee, I stand corrected, you are right, Angenieux has a nice zoom setup with interchangeable EF mount (swappable for the PL), as does SLR Magic APO prime lenses, and several others like Tokina have affordable short range zooms with a EF mount, but these are non servo, manual zooms, like the Angenieux Optimo 25-250mm Cinema Style t/3.5 zoom, which will need additional lens support. Also, MTF Services makes a optically corrected B4 to EF mount for $1600, but will it cover this larger sensor is yet to be known. Also, AbelCine bakes a EF/B4 adapter for the Canon C100/300 series cameras. But these are adapters, on top a weak EF mount, so again les support required. A better solution is the interchangeable mount wi both PL and optically corrected B4 mount like the BM Ursa Mini Pro.
The Tokina zooms are more limited, 11-16, 16-28 and 50-135; while'the Sigma Cine zooms are also available in EF mount. But unless the EF mount in theses manual zooms (which are nice lenses, at reasonable prices) is shimable like the Angenieux interchangeable mount is, good luck on getting them Parfocal on a still camera EF mount, which is fixed, and has a very loose FFD tollerence in manufacturing, as discovered with the Blackmagic EF mount cameras. MFT mounts can vary from one camera company/line to another also.
In my previous post, the limitations in EF zooms, was for Servo EF zooms, that would meet the documentary/wedding shooter, who are the main market for the EVA-1. It would be great, if Panny did change it to an interchangeable mount, that would be grand, or even a beefed up shimable, locking EF mount as found on the C300 would also be better.
I am kind of playing the devil's advocate here with this, and I tend to be anti-Canon, incase you couldn't tell! The EVA-1 is a competitor for the Sony FS6/7 and Canon C200 market, and should serve the videographer who lends towards auto lenses, and auto exposure systems to help them along their way. My original point was, a good video camera it should turn out to be, a serious Cinema camera it is not, but can be a good camera to learn with, and will fit the bill for quite a few Video shooting situations.
Here's wishing Panny good luck with their new camera launch. And if the sensor can give a clean, good looking image, that has good color science, then it should be a success!
McGee, I stand corrected, you are right, Angenieux has a nice zoom setup with interchangeable EF mount (swappable for the PL), as does SLR Magic APO prime lenses, and several others like Tokina have affordable short range zooms with a EF mount, but these are non servo, manual zooms, like the Angenieux Optimo 25-250mm Cinema Style t/3.5 zoom, which will need additional lens support. Also, MTF Services makes a optically corrected B4 to EF mount for $1600, but will it cover this larger sensor is yet to be known. Also, AbelCine bakes a EF/B4 adapter for the Canon C100/300 series cameras. But these are adapters, on top a weak EF mount, so again les support required. A better solution is the interchangeable mount wi both PL and optically corrected B4 mount like the BM Ursa Mini Pro.
The Tokina zooms are more limited, 11-16, 16-28 and 50-135; while'the Sigma Cine zooms are also available in EF mount. But unless the EF mount in theses manual zooms (which are nice lenses, at reasonable prices) is shimable like the Angenieux interchangeable mount is, good luck on getting them Parfocal on a still camera EF mount, which is fixed, and has a very loose FFD tollerence in manufacturing, as discovered with the Blackmagic EF mount cameras. MFT mounts can vary from one camera company/line to another also.
In my previous post, the limitations in EF zooms, was for Servo EF zooms, that would meet the documentary/wedding shooter, who are the main market for the EVA-1. It would be great, if Panny did change it to an interchangeable mount, that would be grand, or even a beefed up shimable, locking EF mount as found on the C300 would also be better.
I am kind of playing the devil's advocate here with this, and I tend to be anti-Canon, incase you couldn't tell! The EVA-1 is a competitor for the Sony FS6/7 and Canon C200 market, and should serve the videographer who lends towards auto lenses, and auto exposure systems to help them along their way. My original point was, a good video camera it should turn out to be, a serious Cinema camera it is not, but can be a good camera to learn with, and will fit the bill for quite a few Video shooting situations.
Here's wishing Panny good luck with their new camera launch. And if the sensor can give a clean, good looking image, that has good color science, then it should be a success!
Last edited: