Glass: Which lens mount would you choose?

Which lens mount would you choose?

  • EF

    Votes: 23 18.1%

  • m4/3

    Votes: 78 61.4%

  • PL

    Votes: 9 7.1%

  • Nikon

    Votes: 15 11.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 1.6%
  • Total voters
    127
Looking as the photos of the BMD Cam it looks like the whole front black panel can be removed (not unlike the bottom plate on the Hyperdeck Shuttle 1/2). With a camera like this, third parties will be making tons of accesories. Maybe BMD or a third party will come up with replacement front panels with attaching lens mounts. I could see a M4/3 mount, a Nikon mount, PL mount, and maybe even a panel with an interchangeable mount system and an ND wheel. P+S Technic did a replacement interchangable mount front end for the RED ONE, why wouldn't a company do that here?

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-ims-red.php
 
Last edited:
It looks one solid piece (Hope I'm wrong)

But yes, m4/3 as it's pretty much universal, and I say that as a bloke with EF glass
 
The 'other' should include the PS Tecknic universal mount system. As rugged and Pro as PL, but for shallow flange digital. Already has a lot of standard adapters available, and the adapter makers could fill the gaps. I would imagine the pins for electronic control of slr lenses could be added to the spec. Would increase the price of the 'pro' model some, but would be worth it.
 
According to someone in the other thread, it was confirmed on the floor from a BM employee that M/43 and PL mounts are on the roadmap.
 
Wow, now that there's officially 100 votes, it's interesting to see how they break down. So far, 60% want micro 4/3! Of course, it's likely that most people that want an EF mount DIDN'T vote, because they already got what they wanted. But, still, I'm amazed at the results of this limited pool.
 
That and the fact that this is a Panasonic heavy forum could have something to do with that. ;o)

I was ok with the EF mount and even tried defending it on many occasions but heck as a M4/3 owner myself I would gladly welcome having the option to use my current lenses and keep my current camera for stills and vacation video. M4/3 has my vote.
 
I make most of my income on Canon HDSLR projects, and thus have a lot of L glass either that I own or have direct access to, but I also worked with an AF100 for 2 months straight and used an adaptor when needed for my EOS glass, and I really didnt have a problem with doing that (for my specific uses). Considering the amount of adapters (incl. Redrock MFT electronic adapter) I feel that m4/3 would allow for many more options.

That being said, I preordered regardless, because at $3,000 I can get another if they release a m4/3 version later (or make my partner :evil: get one).
 
Jaime Valles said:
Wow, now that there's officially 100 votes, it's interesting to see how they break down. So far, 60% want micro 4/3! Of course, it's likely that most people that want an EF mount DIDN'T vote, because they already got what they wanted. But, still, I'm amazed at the results of this limited pool.
Click to expand...

Adaptability has always been one of the biggest advantages of the m43 systems. There are a couple obscure things that won't work, but not many. I think using the m43 mount carries a price tag though, licensing to the consortium or such?
 
I personally find it frustrating that a m4/3 mount is in the roadmap. I mean buying another camera in 12 months time makes the camera start to lose its low budget tag. I know the EF mount camera will be great but its tantalisingly one step away from the ideal and deciding to wait for a m4/3 version would be just too painful.

I'm guessing they are busy with NAB and production but their seems to be a lack of direct communication with BM online at least. I would love to know what they feel about the M4/3 mount and what time frame they would hope to implement it and how, ie a conversion job if people send their cameras in or the most likely a new camera purchase would be needed.
 
I reckon it could well be worth petitioning companies like SLR Magic to create EF mount versions of lenses like the 12mm f/1.6 - lord knows with the BMCC available they'd sell like hotcakes.
 
I'm guessing they are busy with NAB and production but their seems to be a lack of direct communication with BM online at least. I would love to know what they feel about the M4/3 mount and what time frame they would hope to implement it and how, ie a conversion job if people send their cameras in or the most likely a new camera purchase would be needed.
Click to expand...
This is what I'd be interested to know. If an m43 version is likely and it came within a few months of the first camera, then it would be worth waiting on ( for me anyway ). If we're looking a year or so down the road, if at all, then that means just accepting the EF mount and getting on with it I suppose.
 
AdrianF said:
This is what I'd be interested to know. If an m43 version is likely and it came within a few months of the first camera, then it would be worth waiting on ( for me anyway ). If we're looking a year or so down the road, if at all, then that means just accepting the EF mount and getting on with it I suppose.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Hopefully BMD will consider this question and give an answer soon.
 
The thing that I am seeing here is that there is absolutely no reason that Blackmagic themselves could not create an interchangeable mount for this camera. The extended tube of their current mount could easily be interchangeable with others for correctly positioned flange distance. This is not high tech and is easily accomplished with a minimum of knowledge about design and engineering. Selling those accessories alone with a rock solid mount for Nikon, M43, and PL is absolutely in the spirit of their strategic alliance with Zeiss and far better than the adapters we have been speaking about thus far.

Heck, they could call it the "Zeiss Universal Mounting System" and they would have a total winner which pleased their strategic partner. As Zeiss already has a relationship to the other manufacturers in terms of partnership agreements and aperture/electonic control of iris's from them, this makes a lot of sense and has got to have been one of the reasons the alliance already exists. If this did come to pass, this camera would be a defacto backup in every filmmakers kit from that point going forward, if it isn't that already given the way things are going....
 
Last edited:
AdrianF said:
This is what I'd be interested to know. If an m43 version is likely and it came within a few months of the first camera, then it would be worth waiting on ( for me anyway ). If we're looking a year or so down the road, if at all, then that means just accepting the EF mount and getting on with it I suppose.
Click to expand...
Same boat.

Thankfully ebay exists, so if they do come out with an m43 version you could unload your EF version on ebay, so it wouldn't be a total re-buy.
 
yoclay said:
The thing that I am seeing here is that there is absolutely no reason that Blackmagic themselves could not create an interchangeable mount for this camera.
Click to expand...
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.

I'm not disagreeing with what you want -- I was very, very disappointed to see that they went with a fixed mount, and one of the most restrictive mounts at that. I really, really wish they'd taken the effort to design some manner of interchangeable mount or, at the very least, they could have gone with a far more flexible mount (such as m43) which would have allowed the use of simple adapters and would have given us basically all the benefit of interchangeable mounts, with (hopefully) little additional engineering, but that's not the path they chose.

The extended tube of their current mount could easily be interchangeable with others for correctly positioned flange distance. This is not high tech and is easily accomplished with a minimum of knowledge about design and engineering.
Click to expand...
Again, you know this how? I agree that making a simple tube is not a big deal, but making it work with electronic lenses apparently IS a big deal. It's taken Birger a year and a half to sort out making a Canon mount speak to other mounts. And Birger's not dumb, they've done it for the Red already.

It's very simple to type "hey, it's easy, just do it, anyone with a minimum knowledge of design and engineering could do it." It's a far more difficult task to actually go and DO it.

I think it's along the lines of when a grinder client says to us "I just want a simple music video, just shoot it, it shouldn't take more than a couple of hours and I can't see why it would cost me more than a hundred bucks." To those of us in the business, it's easy for us to see that that person has zero idea of the complexities of delivering what they want. Surely the same situation exists here -- if it's taken Birger a year and a half to come up with a mount, then to suggest that it's a trivial task seems unlikely.
 
I can understand the complexity of an electronic mount for a third party interest, and so I totally understand the ef decision for the first release. There has certainly been a very loud community that have stated I would buy such and such release if only it worked with my L-glass, sold. The mark 2 release should be a shallow flange mechanical system for manual lens users. It could even be c-mount as far as that goes as there are adapters for nearly everything, although something with a locking bayonet at the back end would be preferable.

I'm sure any of the adapter machinists would be willing to collaborate on this. From reading the GH-2 and Af-100 boards, the vast majority of those guys use manual lenses of various mounts, so they are only using m43 for the mechanical component, there are other options that would be just as universal. I'm sure a mechanical m43 for voitlander and slr magic lenses could be part of the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top