I hired a first gen Black Magic cinema camera for a wedding in Nantucket a couple of months ago. I was really disappointed. There was definitely obvious signs of the infamous lens flange issue. I couldn’t get tack sharp focus on several of my favorite lenses and had to pretty much abandon using it. I’m not sure if this camera would be good for cinematography never mind videography in Nantucket.
The MFT versions however look much more reliable and I’d definitely consider a pocket camera. My wife is expecting our second baby so I like the idea of having this cam to shoot pro res of family stuff (definitely overkill but I’ll appreciate the high bitrate one day) and then I could potential use the RAW function for work stuff. I shoot allot of weddings and events and RAW is no way needed for that kind of thing. In fact I wonder who all these pro-am/indie shooters are that even need/have the facilities to post RAW. My business partner is currently trying to get us work shooting “video brochures” for houses that are for sale. Thats a scenario where I can see RAW being useful for us. I was considering adapting Nikon and canon FD glass for µ4/3, but would use 4/3 exclusively for autofocus settings.
I’m way more excited about their cheap 4k camera. But a small camera that can shoot high-res raw is awesome. I’m just wondering how they are going about their marketing because their 4k camera is so cheap compared to DSLR an even their own 2k camera. Are they crazy? I have always been a fan of Terry Pommett. He is consider the best Nantucket wedding photographer according to https://vimeo.com/60956024.
But I heard their 4k camera require a LOT of light…. meaning their minimum iso is 800 or something like that…. It was an EF mount BMCC. I tried a Tokina 11-16 and a Samyang Fisheye. I needed a really wide angle at the time. The BMCC couldn’t infinity focus at all. Its a common issue on the first gen cameras. If I were to buy now I would buy an MFT and use a meta bones adaptor for Canon EF lenses as I have loads. That said there is a metabones which will optically reduce meaning you don’t lose focal length and also your f/1.4 lenses will become something insane like f/1!! Interesting about the EF mount problem. was it solved through a firmware upgrade (i.e. recalibration?) or did they have to physically change the focal plane distance?
Although i have a couple of tamrons in my bag, i typically don’t trust the 3rd party AF lenses when it comes to compatibility. For some reason, the canon-compatible mfg. cannot reverse engineer the chips perfectly and newer Canon bodies routinely break compatibility with older non-canon lenses. Historically canon has never changed their EF electronics because i have a 35mm f/2 from 1991 that works on every eos camera made.
From my understanding, aperture is the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. if the focal length remains constant at 50mm, then the effective aperture diameter would have to go from 35.71mm to 50mm to achieve an F/1.0 out of this lens. canon does this by making the lens elements bigger, and inflating the barrel diameter of the lenses to compensate. i can’t figure out how metabones would do this in an adaptor without adding glass in the light path and compromising image quality.