Glass: Which lens mount would you choose?

[PopcornFlix]

We need to ask Blackmagic Design to come out with M4/3 as an option in July.

All due respect to Barry, a M4/3 mounting plate is an accomplishable side-project for BMD. Based on what? Based on BMD previous history of rapidly developing changes in gear when they need to.

If they make it an option for July, they will get even more sales from M4/3 users who are sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the M4/3 version that's "on the roadmap."

I would cheerfully accept a delivery delay of 30 days in order to get a M4/3 mount.


Spread the word and let Backmagic Design know.

 

[yoclay]

At risk of being pedantic, you know this how? It always drives me batty when folks who are not in the industry (of building and manufacturing cameras) go around telling people who are in the industry how "there's no reason you can't do this." There may very well be reasons, that you don't know of. Maybe they don't have the electronic specifications of the various mounts. There could be licensing reasons. There could be sponsorship reasons with one manufacturer that prevent the use of other mounts. It may just fall outside their range of expertise. Or maybe there's just no interest. There could be lots of reasons why. Heck, engineering a truly universal lens mount might be a pretty complex task in and of itself, beyond the notion of designing a camera from scratch from the ground up.

Barry, you have spent considerable time slicing and dicing my argument, but I never said that it was easy to deal with the electronics issue or that licensing agreements weren't possibly at the heart of this. In fact in my opinion the issue most often is not the technology, but rather the negotiations between these kind of companies which can drag on for months, even years.
I think it is very likely that BM decided it was more important to bring it to market NOW, rather than trying to create some kind of elusive perfect solution. However, all of that is beside the point. What I said was that there was no reason that Blackmagic could not create an interchangeable mount. The interchangeable aspect being the tube itself. I never said that it was easy to create a hot mount (one which integrated all the electronic issues). That is another issue entirely and where I think there is a certain misunderstanding. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I am speaking about the mount in specific mechanical terms and I am saying that even that alone would represent a good alternative. As someone who has spent considerable time around industrial designers (I have two in my immediate family), I can tell you that for those folks and from a mechanical point of view, creating an interchangeable mount system in this instance is the design equivalent of peanuts on top of a sundae.

The other thing I said was that for me they clearly have some kind of strategic alliance with Zeiss, and that company has already dealt with these kind of issues in their CP.2's for instance, so why not take it a step forward?*

That's it. It's my opinion, just as everyone else here has an opinion. Sometimes it can be so combative here. Let's not get stuck in academic arguments and spending our time trying to shoot one another down. (I am speaking generally here, not about you specifically).

As always: Take what you like and leave the rest.



edit: John Brawley has stated in another thread that this is not the case, so I stand corrected. However it is never too late to establish one!

 

[Thomas Smet]

The other reason why I think now that a M4/3 option would be a really good option by July is that M4/3 users are already used to a cropped sensor. While the rest of the industry freaks out by the concept of using a smaller sensor we are all used to it already. The BM sensor is only slightly smaller for us so I could see a lot of M4/3 users saying cool lets do it. For many of us that was the whole point to hacking was to get to that magical area of little to no compression. Many of us are even trying to hack with a gop 1 profile. This camera marks an almost holy grail for us M4/3 users. As was pointed out to me we actually do have a few lenses that are faster and wider then anything else out there and in the end I think many in the industry will end up choosing the M4/3 mount over the EF mount. Even if they have EF glass I think they will eventually be lured in by the 12mm f1.6 and 12mm f2.0 lenses not to mention the 7mm to 14mm. This could mean great sales of M4/3 glass assuming Panasonic, Olympus and Nokton can keep up with the demand which is already strained.

 

[leteeci]

And with MFT, don't forget about adopting B4 broadcast lenses.. more than 2x crop factor would blend nicely in soft edges, reproduced in GH1-2 ( with optical extender )..

 

[philiplipetz]

We need to ask Blackmagic Design to come out with M4/3 as an option

I would cheerfully accept a delivery delay of 30 days in order to get a M4/3 mount.


Spread the word and let Backmagic Design know.

+2

Our team has ordered two.

 

[Chaos123x]

Loved to have MFT dummy mount with EF electronics pass thru. Then come with attachable EF mounting plate.

That way the electronics would work with EF lenses.

I would use the MFT mount to use my NOKTONs NOKTORS HYPERPRIMES and Vintage Glass. Don't really need the electronics to work with MFT.

 

[philiplipetz]

A m4/3 mount would counter two of the main limitations of the BMCC, one lower ISO with a f0.95 lens, and the greater than 2x crop with extreme wide angle lenses not duplicated in EOS mount.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Question. Since we have cheap $20.00 EF to M4/3 adapters couldn't one be made flipped around also for $20.00? I realize these wouldn't work on Canon cameras due to their sensor size being larger but an adapter like that should have no problem at all on the BM camera. Seems like an easy and cost effective solution since most of us are saying we would even be fine with a dummy mount for now. Since these things are so easy and cheap to make BM could even make one. Aperture would still be a problem I think.