Leaderboard

By the way there is a long thread on BM forums on the subject started in January this year. Last post from John Brawley explains in details why Blackmagic would not go or even cannot go with Sony E mount. Previous posts from him explain what L mount alliance is and how it differs from m43 one, why developing FF camera using EF mount doesn't make sense for BM, etc. He basically makes the same argument in details that L mount is the one that makes sense for BM. Worth reading for those who are interested: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=173840&start=450 John Brawley of course is not BM but he has a good relationship with the company. I doubt he knows something from inside but his argumentation IMHO is solid

I'm thinking more the sub-Hollywood level of productions. Like weddings. One of my 3 cameras is 'gimbal ready' and I shoot it 3 ways: 1. Handheld using the excellent IBIS. 2. On the gimbal for gimbal type stuff. (Very limited) 3. On the gimbal which itself has a quick release plate onto a tripod. This 4D can do the latter 2 ways but is not ideal for the first as it's a bit overkill due to it's size and weight ie, is hardly discrete. But perhaps with some kind of shoulder harness to take the weight, it could... What intrigues me about it is not how it compares to an Arri or really any other cinema camera, but the fact that it has 4 axis stabilisation built in for those times when that is required, full frame 50/60p 6k sensor and built in ND's. My interest is also as has been discussed in other threads, pulling high quality stills from video footage and ideally from full frame 6k or 8k. It kind of ticks a ton of boxes in this regard providing there is no requirement to shoot actual stills from the same unit. In combination with Sigma's excellent compact 28-70mm f2.8 (my workhorse) lens, for us video and smaller real world production types, this is actually a very interesting piece of kit. I would still need something static for ceremonies and speeches and a second 4D in this role would be silly, but for the other 90% of the event, just shooting one camera and then pulling the stills, has massive appeal on a certain level. For me. But horses for courses and all that and it's got sweet FA to do with Black Magic so I'll wind my neck back in 😉

From John Brawley: "No. Canon, like Sony won't license their mount. It's an open secret that Red did an IP swap for the ability to use RF mount on some of their cameras and in exchange, Canon can make their own internal raw codec that can be used in-camera. It's easy to test the theory. Name a single camera (not lens) with E mount that isn't made by Sony? Same for Canon with RF (excluding Red)?" https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=173840&start=450#p956719

According to same John Brawley there is no licensing cost for any camera manufacturer to implement BRAW recording internally, it is not just for post processing. There is a cost however in development, to put all those algorithms in the processor chip. To my knowledge processor chip development is quite costly. Companies are using one chip for all of their models and for several years in order to be able to pay for this development.

After my close friend decided to upgrade to the Lumix S5 II X he gave me an incredible deal on his Lumix S5 that I couldn't pass up. As a result I just finished packing up my trusty GH5, 12-35mm mk II, 35-100mm mk I, 25mm, and 14mm to ship off to MPB. For the first time in nearly a decade I will no longer have any M43 cameras or lenses. I think my time in the system has finally come to an (unplanned) end. 😞 I'm feeling some kind of way about it right now, honestly. I still believe in the promise of M43, I just don't know that Panasonic will ever realize it or if the market will ever be there to make it viable. It's a damn shame, honestly. I'll be happy with my full frame cameras, and having three of the same bodies will make things a bit easier for me, but I still can't help but wish there was a professional level compact M43 camera that could fit my needs and fit in with my two S5 bodies. I just don't see it happening. I had planned to always have at least one M43 camera in my kit. Eventually I was going to upgrade to the GH6 in a couple years, once they were even more affordable on the used market, but I couldn't pass on another S5 with kit lens for $750, so plans changed. It just didn't make sense to keep the GH5 and follow through with my original plans anymore, as these three S5 bodies will get me through until I can snag some S5 II bodies in a couple years when people upgrade to the latest camera. The GH5 was a total game changer for me and my work. I'm sad to see it go, because in many ways it did things that I never thought a camera would be able to do. It really cannot be overstated how much the IBIS changed things for people like me. I no longer had to set up a cumbersome shoulder rig, I could simply hold it and get steady shots even as I rushed around a wrestling ring and dodged people flying all over the place! Life goes on though, I guess.

Same here. And it is not impossible - the Fuji X-S20 have a bigger sensor (APS-C), a bigger battery, and now have 10-bit video. Put a bigger battery sideways, like the X-S10, bring the mount a little closer to the grip, and you have space for a good EVF on the side. https://camerasize.com/compare/#908,770 A GX with 10-bit video, good IBIS (the GX9's IBIS is already better than Fuji's for video, personal experience), PDAF, a non-field sequential EVF (even the X-S20 2.36mp would be enough) - would be perfect. But looks like that "rangefinder" styled bodies are negleted form the manufacturers. OM digital does not have one, Panasonic is quiet (and I guess a new GX camera will never exist), Fuji dumbed down the X-E4 and there are a lot of rumors that a X-E5 will never exists...only Sony looks like that will release the A6700 and the A7C II, but with that atrocious commands.

Also from that thread, a nice mod of the Blackmagic Pocket: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=173840&sid=d607770c079289f57c9615ae7e34fa1c&start=500#p957558

Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 L mount I haven't really had much time to do anything with it but these are example grabs from 4K footage with the new to me Panasonic S5ii from the first couple of days after I picked it up. Initial impressions are that it is fast focusing, sharp and although it is absolutely not distortion free (particularly on the wide end) but should definitely be considered by anyone with an E/L mount camera that needs a fast, constant aperture, very wide zoom.

Was very worried when he typed in "pearl necklace"

Either Tentacle Sync E or Deity TC1 is what I'd recommend buying into. But honestly, any good secondhand deal you see online is fine to jump onto.

They already are with the Ronin 4D that now can be had in L Mount but is limited to 5 Panny and 2 Sigma lenses. Intriguing camera actually and surprised it’s not discussed more than it is…

For me M43 will always be the ideal system, it just got caught up in the specs race. And for a while, it was leading, but slowly the advantages that made it attractive to me started to dwindle because the wanted to appeal to a customer base that wasn't going to buy into M43 no matter what, which resulted in larger bodies and phasing out smaller ones. Tiny bodies with exceptional photo and video capabilities interest me more than a GH6 or a future GH7, but they've seemingly abandoned that market completely. If they'd released a GH5 (or GH6) in the body of a GX camera I honestly would've held out and kept one foot in the M43 system, because that kind of setup, with the right lenses, is something that full frame will never, ever be able to achieve. Full frame will never be able to match the compactness of a GX body and the 12-35 or 35-100. Those lenses with the GX85 were probably my favorite set up I've ever used, especially for concerts and getting into venues that didn't allow "professional" video gear. No one ever looked twice when I'd bring that set up with me! As much as I loved it though, the limitations made me sell it last year. The problem is, I don't know if there is even a big enough market for cameras like that anymore. I assume if there was Panasonic would've continued it? It's hard to imagine that heading into full frame didn't impact the R&D that went into M43 though, which feels like the bigger culprit. But it seems to be paying dividends as the S5 II and S5 II X are being well received, so I guess it's hard to fault them with seeing the writing on the wall? I don't know. I just think it's a shame that we will probably never see what M43 is truly capable of, because I think we COULD see even smaller bodies and lenses without significant compromises if the resources were allocated to do so. I don't think people should rush to offload their M43 gear because there are still some years left in it, and there absolutely are benefits over full frame. I'm sure I'll miss my trusty GH5 once I do my first shoot without it, I was prepared to keep it for a couple more years and didn't have much reason to want to upgrade. But I was just given an off ramp that I kind of had to take. Selling the GH5 and the 12-35mm paid for the S5 and (excellent) kit lens, not to mention what i got for the others, so I ended up ahead financially. Plus having three of the same cameras will make things easier for me. But there's still a lot to love about M43.

Over the years I have invested so much in taking M43 underwater (GH2 GH3 GH4 GH5) that just the idea that it has reached the end of the line pisses me off like a beast. I am still convinced that M43 is the best format in existence for underwater shooting. The size of the sensor and lens allows for minimal lens ports, and with modern wet lenses you get a very compact kit (housing and port/wet lens). Switching to FF while maintaining the same quality means having an underwater kit at least twice the size and a bare expense of at least 20K euros if not more. Also, given the current availability of underwater accessories, it almost certainly means saying goodbye to Panasonic and jumping into the hands of Sony or Canon. If I were a professional earning from underwater work it would be an attractive investment. but for an amateur like me the jump is almost impractical unless you are really rich. What a shame.

@Evgeniy85 I got a LX15 myself but was a bit underwhelmed by its output compared to a G6, G7 or GX85. After revising the example from above I might give it a try again. I had posted it here before. I was amazed back then when I found it and I still am. The material just looks like some of the best footage I have seen from a GX85 or G7. Sensor estate in 4K on this cam is 2/3 inch only, so quarter the area of MFT. Same relation like MFT to FF. But since MFT is faring pretty good in that regard this camera should compare well to mft 8bit cams as well. It does pretty good going by the example above. Here is another one by the same artist, Rec709 8bit 420 glory, 2/3 inch prowess :)

I guess if I look at it from the perspective of BM then perhaps it makes slightly more sense. BM has made cameras with S16 and MFT sensors and they used the MFT mount, and they made cameras with S35 sensors and used the EF mount. Assuming they then wanted to make a FF camera, what mount would they choose? EF mount They have used it before, and their users already have lenses that use it, but the crop factor would change between the S35 and FF sensors, and the EF mount has pretty much been abandoned by Canon, so maybe BM want something that's still in active support RF mount Canon have been quite restrictive with third-party use of the mount, so maybe Canon is blocking BM from licensing it, or maybe it's prohibitively expensive, or maybe the flange distance is too little for things like internal NDs PL mount Seems like a logical choice with lots of existing lenses and support from other manufacturers, but maybe it's a step too far for their existing customer base, or maybe they want AF support (does PL support AF?) Nikon mounts Not a lot of cine lenses for Nikon I wouldn't have thought, focus direction is the other way to EF lenses, which might be troublesome to their existing customers Fujifilm X-mount No AF lenses available that cover FF and only 5 third-party lenses that do (on B&H) MFT mount Wouldn't cover FF sensor Sony A logical choice, but like Canon RF, Sony might not want to help BM compete with their cine-cameras so might be charging a lot for the license or might be refusing outright From this perspective I think L-mount makes more sense, and sort-of aligns with their previous use of MFT and EF mounts, which were both "semi-open" systems with lots of existing glass from original and third-parties.

Out of all the mirrorless mounts it makes the most sense that they'd go with the L-mount due to its open nature. There aren't really many alternatives.

So, some photography with my beloved GX85 and the beautiful Zeiss Tevidon 25mm 1.4. It was pretty tricky doing pictures during this beautiful street fest. Small EVF, heat, loud but cool music, MF with very small focus throw, 200.000 people, dancing all over the place and the overwhelming presence of all auto smartphone computers.:) But the pleasure was all mine that day!:)

I know the feeling...not a m4/3 fan myself, but the feeling of an era coming to an end with letting go of beloved camera systems. For me it was my FS100, I got so much out of that camera over hundreds of projects it still holds a special place of nostalgia in my heart, even though it was technically a terrible camera in many ways.

As you already have the Ninja then it may be worth looking at the Atomos Connect which does a few different things (shoot to cloud, stream on set, adds SDI to the Ninja etc) but can act as the central timecode hub. It will embed the timecode into whatever you are recording on the Ninja V (which would also take care of your footage handoff scenario) whilst also acting as the master wireless timecode source for the Atomos/TimecodeSytems family of products. So you could attach an UltraSync One to anything that has a timecode input (such as your F4 or other cameras) and they would sync wirelessly and you could also do the same with your F3 (with the BTA-1 dongle) or anything else that supports their Bluetooth timecode protocol. As the Atomos Connect provides the timecode over Bluetooth then you wouldn’t need the additional UltraSync Blue unit that is usually required to sync things like the F3. So in that regard you can knock £180 off the price of the Atomos Connect due to that saving. You’d then be also able to painlessly integrate other products such as the F2-BT lav recorder or even Tascam X8 or Nikon Z8/9. I’m picking my Atomos Connect up the week after next (they had it in a heavily discounted bundle with the AtomX Cast which turns the Ninja V into a 4 camera switcher) so I’ll report back if it works as advertised!

Now is the time to buy a couch, just so that when he's homeless he's got somewhere to sleep....

Whilst its true that if you had the BT versions then you would be able to achieve it, even then its still not that straightforward/inexpensive as you would need the Ultrasync One for the camera and also the UltraSync Blue to connect to that to provide the BT timecode to the F2s. With the non-BT versions you will have to rely on basic audio sync in post but that has got a lot slicker over the past couple of years so, whilst far from being as ideal as having TC sync, it will still do the job albeit with an additional burden on file handling and making sure the mics are rolling etc. The issue with doing it through basic audio sync though is you still have to get good scratch audio into the camera to make the post syncing easier. This is where using a Rode Wireless Go system (or similar) in tandem with the F2s will be a big advantage if you have access to them. The output of each F2 can be attached to the input of a Wireless Go as shown here in the Newsshooter review (https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/01/14/zoom-f2-review/). The dual channel receiver can then be attached to the input of the 6K to provide good scratch audio of both F2s in the camera files whilst still taking advantage of the 32bit float audio of the recorder's own internal recordings. Of course, this setup will also be a boon in terms of remote monitoring of the audio of the F2s. Obviously you don't need to go the extra step with the transmitters/receivers and can just use any decent mic that you have around plugged into the camera but the audio monitoring aspect of such a setup for the F2s will potentially payoff in picking up issues.