Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera c-mount lens compatibility list

[cantsin]

Does anyone know if the angenieux 5.9mm f 1.8 will cover? I keep seeing conflicting information about it, and then examples of people using it on the GH2. Any idea if it works?

 

I once tested it in a vintage camera shop, and it doesn't cover.

[Lee Mullen]

Anybody considered this lens? Some are M42 mount so ideal.

Meteor 5-1. f1.9 /17-69mm

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zoom-Meteor-5-1-1-9-17-69mm-Krasnogorsk-3-s-n-771942-/150759480280

 

 

 

 

Camera

PENTAX K-5

Focal Length

70mm

Aperture

f/11

Exposure

1/125s

ISO

200

 

Camera

PENTAX K-5

Focal Length

70mm

Aperture

f/11

Exposure

1/125s

ISO

200

 

Camera

PENTAX K-5

Focal Length

70mm

Aperture

f/11

Exposure

1/125s

ISO

200

[Lee Mullen]

https://vimeo.com/72799481

[Lee Mullen]

https://vimeo.com/72470934

[cantsin]

On the Meteor 5-10 M42 zoom: This is the kit zoom lens of the legendary Russian Krasnogorsk-3 16mm camera. Just tested it: vignettes at 17mm, slightly so at 20mm, clean from 25mm-69mm.

[cantsin]

Here's more information on the Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 zoom, for anyone who's curious:

• It's optically a pretty decent lens, especially when stopped down.
• Its rear element protrudes deep into the camera body. This is not a problem for MFT per se, since M42 has a greater flange distance, and M42-to-MFT adapters have exactly the length of the protruding element. (I.e. the element doesn't protrude from the adapter anymore.) However, you need an M42 adapter that is a "clear tube", i.e. has no obstructing rings or other mechanical elements inside. The first adapter I had didn't qualify, a second one I bought (no name product, with the lettering "42X1M-m4/3" on its top) did.
• I took test pictures at 17, 20, 25, 32, 42, 50, 60 and 69mm (the focal lengths marked on the lens' zoom lever) and at f5.6, with a Panasonic GX1, cropped the center to 3301x1857 pixels to obtain BMPC sensor-equivalent images, and converted them to 1920x1080 pixel jpegs:

1. 17mm
2. 20mm
3. 25mm
4. 32mm
5. 42mm
6. 50mm
7. 60mm
8. 69mm

 

[Nespolo]

I dont know what to do ...i have a canon 7d that now its shooting raw , and I have a collection of lens from my bolex , like ageniux 12 120
What to do I buy my self a L series from canon or I buy a black magic pocket camera ? Big question here !!

[randyman]

The 7D has a loooong way to go before it's actually useable as a reliable, or even viable raw production camera.

 

I can't advise you what to do, but I do have a 7D, a BMCC EF that I love, and my Pocket camera arrives Monday. 

 

You can draw your own conclusions... :)

[Lee Mullen]

 

Here's more information on the Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 zoom, for anyone who's curious:

• It's optically a pretty decent lens, especially when stopped down.
• Its rear element protrudes deep into the camera body. This is not a problem for MFT per se, since M42 has a greater flange distance, and M42-to-MFT adapters have exactly the length of the protruding element. (I.e. the element doesn't protrude from the adapter anymore.) However, you need an M42 adapter that is a "clear tube", i.e. has no obstructing rings or other mechanical elements inside. The first adapter I had didn't qualify, a second one I bought (no name product, with the lettering "42X1M-m4/3" on its top) did.
• I took test pictures at 17, 20, 25, 32, 42, 50, 60 and 69mm (the focal lengths marked on the lens' zoom lever) and at f5.6, with a Panasonic GX1, cropped the center to 3301x1857 pixels to obtain BMPC sensor-equivalent images, and converted them to 1920x1080 pixel jpegs:

1. 17mm
2. 20mm
3. 25mm
4. 32mm
5. 42mm
6. 50mm
7. 60mm
8. 69mm

 

Looking good. Thanks for sharing. Can you post a pic of the adapter you use? thanks :)

[Christoph Thoresen]

Hi , first post from me!

 

I have 2 wide angle lenses that I am currently testing on the BMPCC

 

ikonoskop  F1,7 9mm (the standard A-cam lens)  , I think its an Angenieux , but I am not sure

Kinoptik Tegea F1,8  5,7,mm  

 

I have bought this adapter

http://www.ebay.de/itm/C-Mount-Lens-to-Micro-4-3-M4-3-MFT-System-Adapter-/271167449658?ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:DE:3160

 

but the focus is way off, and  I am not sure if its the adapter or the lens

I can focus it if I unscrew the ring to hold the thread of the lens

if I get the lens closer to the chip they seem sharp and dont vingette!! : )

 

can somebody help me with a good adapter that works with theses lenses , or do I have to modiy the lenses or adapter somehow

 

thanks!

[cantsin]

Looking good. Thanks for sharing. Can you post a pic of the adapter you use? thanks :)

 

Here it is:

[attachment=639:m42-adapter.jpg]

 

[Gibbsy]

Does anyone know how to mount ND's to Bell and Howell (and the likes) c-mount lenses? Trying to avoid matte box and straight ND's.

[cantsin]

Does anyone know how to mount ND's to Bell and Howell (and the likes) c-mount lenses? Trying to avoid matte box and straight ND's.

 

Use step-up rings, or gaffer tape, or a combination of the two.

[Lee Mullen]

Use step-up rings, or gaffer tape, or a combination of the two.

Most seem to take a 32mm thread.

[fosterchen]

Just tested my modified Rainbow TV Zoom Lens, 11.5-69mm f1.4

Here are the results.

Shot at f1.4 both at wide and tele.  Looks good to me.

[cantsin]

Just a personal conclusion: I've had the Blackmagic Pocket for two weeks and tested a large number of c-mount lenses from my collection on it, both classical 16mm cine lenses and cctv lenses. 

 

In all cases, I have found the c-mounts to be significantly inferior to native MFT lenses (such as the SLR Magic 12mm, the Voigtländer 25mm, but also the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm primes), even when testing top tier lenses such as the Schneider 25mm/1.4 or the Canon 13mm/1.5. Sharpness/detail is significantly lower, the image gets unsharp in the corners. The only advantage I see in those lenses is their compact size. In some cases, they can be used as speciality lenses (the Ernitec 6.5mm/1.8 as a fix focus fisheye, or a VT 8mm as a psychedelic wide angle with heavy vignetting and color casts); the 16mm/2.0 Tevidon is a decent performer with constant sharpness across the frame, but surely not as a good as an Olympus 17mm/1.8 or Samyang/Rokinon 16mm/2.0.

 

Unlike on the GH2, vintage glass doesn't look good on the Blackmagic Pocket. Since the BM Pocket gives an uncooked, non-artificially sharpened image with true organic color depth, it looks best with a good lens. A bad lens just looks bad. 

[Lee Mullen]

Just a personal conclusion: I've had the Blackmagic Pocket for two weeks and tested a large number of c-mount lenses from my collection on it, both classical 16mm cine lenses and cctv lenses. 

 

In all cases, I have found the c-mounts to be significantly inferior to native MFT lenses (such as the SLR Magic 12mm, the Voigtländer 25mm, but also the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm primes), even when testing top tier lenses such as the Schneider 25mm/1.4 or the Canon 13mm/1.5. Sharpness/detail is significantly lower, the image gets unsharp in the corners. The only advantage I see in those lenses is their compact size. In some cases, they can be used as speciality lenses (the Ernitec 6.5mm/1.8 as a fix focus fisheye, or a VT 8mm as a psychedelic wide angle with heavy vignetting and color casts); the 16mm/2.0 Tevidon is a decent performer with constant sharpness across the frame, but surely not as a good as an Olympus 17mm/1.8 or Samyang/Rokinon 16mm/2.0.

 

Unlike on the GH2, vintage glass doesn't look good on the Blackmagic Pocket. Since the BM Pocket gives an uncooked, non-artificially sharpened image with true organic color depth, it looks best with a good lens. A bad lens just looks bad. 

But this is where grading comes into it. Adding sharpness, detail and contrast makes the difference.

[cantsin]

But this is where grading comes into it. Adding sharpness, detail and contrast makes the difference.

 

Beg to disagree. You might, eventually, prefer organic sharpness and true detail from a decent lens to an artificially sharpened consumer camera-like video image.

 

I'd say that the Blackmagic Pocket camera is like a studio monitor speaker with clean linear frequency response - on which good recordings sound really good, but crappy recordings sound crappy (as opposed to consumer stereo sets that boost certain frequencies to make everything superficially sound good or at least fat).

 

But I had to learn this the hard way. Wouldn't have expected that I would be so disappointed by the results of the c-mount lenses and see such great differences to high quality MFT glass.

[lxd]

I shot a test film using 25mm f/1.4 CCTV cine Fujian:

 

http://youtu.be/UOdC59lUhYI

 

I'm pretty happy with the results, especially given the price of the lens:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/25mm-f-1-4-CCTV-cine-Fujian-lens-panasonic-Olympus-m4-3-/180763010574?ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:US:3160

[Lee Mullen]

Looks great. Shared it on here https://www.facebook.com/groups/cmountm43/