Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[IronFilm]

https://www.aja.com/news/top-stories/304

Hmmm... their press release say shipping was in December, but a quick google suggests others are saying it might have been later in March (or even April) that Cion was actually properly shipping. So maybe it was only a teeny trickle of cameras in December and it took them a few months to properly ramp up production to fulfill orders. 

Anyway.... point was it took a while after they announced it before they shipped the Cion, which made its success an even tougher prospect against the competition. 

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/is-the-aja-cion-the-biggest-bust-in-modern-filmmaking/

That is a little summary which repeats some of what I just said. 

[John Brawley]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Digital Bolex was $3299 initially for their cheapest model (with another version which cost $4K! And another model positioned between them). 

Price is what made DB16 struggle to succeed in the market against sub $1K (and later only $500!! Is why I bought it) BMPCC. 

 

 

Right.

So price was a barrier.

You weren't prepared to pay the price required for those features. Or you dibdn;t want them enough to pay the extra premium.

Everyone wanted the kodak CCD that did glorious global shutter colour but no one wanted to PAY for it. Hence they went out of business.

I'm sure if they COULD have done it cheaper, they would have done so to stay afloat.  But they couldn't.

So making a camera with a robust enough interchangeable mount system COSTS MORE. As evidence'd by RED's 700 dollar adaptor.

Even the PL mount version of a lot of BMD's cameras COSTS MORE. Because that PL mount is hard to make cheaply to the tolerance required.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

 

AJA Cion failed for the exact same reasons I just mentioned beforehand:
PRICE! 

AJA was asking $9K for the AJA Cion. 
The original BMD URSA 4K was I think $5K?
That is an awfully big difference, nearly half the price!
 

I think Ursa was closer to 6K ?  But not that big of a difference compared to the DB example.

Again, no one wanted to pay the premium for what many thought was the BETTER made camera. Better ergonomics, better profile, much lighter weight.   Everyone laughed at the giant iPad screen of the Ursa.  

And yet, though it failed, it was still more successful than the Cion.

So here's a camera company that has a track record of making cheaper priced cameras.  They know exactly the advantages of what's being asked.  But they've made a COMMERCIAL decision about what features to bring to market. 

JB

 

 

[TwoScoops]

15 minutes ago, John Brawley said:

 

Everyone wanted the kodak CCD that did glorious global shutter colour but no one wanted to PAY for it. Hence they went out of business.

 

 

Do you know if BM ever considered a camera with that DB sensor at all? That would've been something... 

[John Brawley]

8 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

 

Do you know if BM ever considered a camera with that DB sensor at all? That would've been something... 

Part of the many behind the scenes testing I've done involves evaluating sensors.

But once again.

People say they WANT this sensor. Then they don't BUY cameras that have this sensor (Ikonoscope too remember)

JB

[jagnje]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor

Ah, Dragon 6K 16:9 is x1.35 crop. 
Bit bigger than 1.5x indeed, but not massively so?

reds site says it`s 1.25 crop...so yeah, midway between ff and s35. anyway, it made more of a diference than I would expect.

[kye]

11 hours ago, John Brawley said:

People say they WANT this sensor. Then they don't BUY cameras that have this sensor (Ikonoscope too remember)

There can be big differences between what people actually want, what they think they want, what they will tell you they want, and what they will actually pay for.

In start-up businesses there's a trick.  You hold a focus group, and then listen to people talk on and on and on about what they think (which you write down diligently and then throw away later on) and when people are leaving you either offer them free samples, or you tell people you have some stock for sale and would they like to buy some now?  That final part is the real test.

There's a story in startup land about a company getting into the MP3 player market, had a focus group with all sorts of different colours and patterns and people were very supportive of all the colours, but when the company offered a free player as a 'thank-you' every single person took black.

[Anaconda_]

I spoke to my dealer (camera dealer that is) about B&H's 3rd Sept date. They called BM Europe who apparently said they have never confirmed the 3rd to anyone. I then notice B&H changed their date. Read into that as much as you like, I'm looking forward to hearing the conspiracy theories ranging from a leaked release date to definite delays ?

 

 

[Tone1k]

3 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

I spoke to my dealer (camera dealer that is) about B&H's 3rd Sept date. They called BM Europe who apparently said they have never confirmed the 3rd to anyone. I then notice B&H changed their date. Read into that as much as you like, I'm looking forward to hearing the conspiracy theories ranging from a leaked release date to definite delays ?

 

 

Let's not start speculating in delays until after September. There is still plenty of time for BM to deliver on time... Delay conversations are boring especially when the due date hasn't even passed yet. 

[John Brawley]

9 hours ago, kye said:

There can be big differences between what people actually want, what they think they want, what they will tell you they want, and what they will actually pay for.

 

Indeed.

I guess I was trying to say, it’s not really what I agree with or want, but I can seperate my personal views about what is pragmatic and practical and understand why a company makes these kinds of choices. Because they also need to be viable as a business as well.

What I want from a camera is not what most of the users of this forum want and is likely to result in a camera that would fail commercially.  So who cares what I want !

I’m not against choice, but I’ve also had the SAME conversations with the people that can make this stuff happen. I’m just paraphrasing the answers to the questions I’ve already asked long ago from those that do the making.

I have to say it’s really disheartening to see people shooting off about trying to work around and defeat IP. Even if you’re philosophically OK with trying to do that, you know that if Sony’s lawyers come knocking I’m pretty sure you’d feel different.  Not to mention the fact that they are an important vendor for someone making a camera.  The make a lot of components from the sensor down.... Would you REALLY want to jeapordise a new product that you’ve invested millions on R&D into only to have the company that potentially make your sensor yank it because you’re trying to circumvent their IP on a lens mount ?

And then seeing engineering challenges claimed that are easy and cheap without any true understanding of what they’re claiming is possible. 

I’ve been a part of these conversations already.  I’ve already asked most of the same questions that then get asked here.  The same things get kicked around by R&D and product managers.  They already have done the numbers on most of these things and I think BMD have shown more than anyone, if they can make something, they will, they have zero fear of market segmentation or protectionism of product class. But it does have to be profitable and enough people that will want it.  

JB

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, John Brawley said:

Indeed.

I guess I was trying to say, it’s not really what I agree with or want, but I can seperate my personal views about what is pragmatic and practical and understand why a company makes these kinds of choices. Because they also need to be viable as a business as well.

What I want from a camera is not what most of the users of this forum want and is likely to result in a camera that would fail commercially.  So who cares what I want !

I’m not against choice, but I’ve also had the SAME conversations with the people that can make this stuff happen. I’m just paraphrasing the answers to the questions I’ve already asked long ago from those that do the making.

I have to say it’s really disheartening to see people shooting off about trying to work around and defeat IP. Even if you’re philosophically OK with trying to do that, you know that if Sony’s lawyers come knocking I’m pretty sure you’d feel different.  Not to mention the fact that they are an important vendor for someone making a camera.  The make a lot of components from the sensor down.... Would you REALLY want to jeapordise a new product that you’ve invested millions on R&D into only to have the company that potentially make your sensor yank it because you’re trying to circumvent their IP on a lens mount ?

And then seeing engineering challenges claimed that are easy and cheap without any true understanding of what they’re claiming is possible. 

I’ve been a part of these conversations already.  I’ve already asked most of the same questions that then get asked here.  The same things get kicked around by R&D and product managers.  They already have done the numbers on most of these things and I think BMD have shown more than anyone, if they can make something, they will, they have zero fear of market segmentation or protectionism of product class. But it does have to be profitable and enough people that will want it.  

JB

 

Definitely agree.

It's easy to say that a company didn't make good decisions but often their decision-making is quite sophisticated.  I don't know what kind of margin a manufacturer might make on a camera model, but it might only be a few percent, which means that a successful company has great ability to predict the market.  I used to work in finance, and before that in the insurance industry,  and both of those industries are single percentage point profitability industries.  I used to catch the train with a co-worker who was in the strategy team and did a 6 month analysis for a new financial product (a loan of some kind I think) and he worked out that they could get something like 1% profit over the multi-year lifetime of the product, and it was going to have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars put through it.  The key difference in finance being that if the product wasn't popular they wouldn't have lost much, maybe a few million dollars in development and advertising, but the cost of developing a camera would be absolutely huge.

I, too, feel like I want a camera that's different to almost everyone else on this forum.  Ironically, the impression that I get is that most people here have similar priorities to you!  I wonder if everyone feels the same way - what an amusing / ironic situation that would be.

[andrgl]

50 minutes ago, kye said:

but the cost of developing a camera would be absolutely huge.

Imagine how much cash they burn through just that stage alone. Overhead, salaries, development hardware, etc. Six months, a year, maybe two later: now you have to source your BOM, have the camera certified a half dozen times, ramp up production, package, ship...

By the way, your first run of 1,000 units has a faulty LCD ribbon cable. And a prominent YouTuber just shit all over your product in a review video. What do we do?

 

I would never invest in a company manufacturing cinema cameras. Market is too niche, upfront costs too high for little profit.

[tupp]

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

That's not licensing.  That's OEM

It is doubtful that Hasselblad (or any other company) would include a patented, 3rd-party component on a product without a licensing agreement, or without an agreement with a clause regarding licensing.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

No one has ever made THEIR OWN camera with a native E mount.  Like I said.  Never going to happen.

I am not so sure about that, for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

At any rate, what is the relevance of "native?"  Does the Red or Kinefinity have a "native" lens mount?  Either a camera has an E-mount, or it doesn't.  Kinefinity has an E-mount.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

It's still painful TO DO.

Maybe for some it is painful.  Again, if a special lens or an adapter can give a distinctive edge, some of us can stand the "pain."

 

Clairmont Camera got a lot of business from their various cinema adapters, which they advertised heavily with full page ads in magazines such as "American Cinematographer." These were often big, unwieldy contraptions, but I don't recall anyone complaining about them being "painful" to use (unless someone did something foolish with the squishy lens).

 

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

Have shorter focus throws, clicked iris, more problems with breathing and zoom tracking.

Except for the clicked iris non-parfocal zoom, there are definitely cine lenses have the same problems.  However, there are plenty of still lenses without clicked a iris, and, of course, in most cases, the iris can be de-clicked if that is really important.

 

If you want a parfocal zoom, you have to use a parfocal zoom -- that's all there is to it.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

But why limit it to a native mount that's always smaller than the full sensor resolution that you have to use an adapted lens with.

Again, I am fairly sure that the throat diameter of a M4/3 mount is larger than the image circle required for S35.  Also, I am not saying that this is the best way to accomplish a shallow mount, but it's better than nothing.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

If this is the design ideal, as a proof of concept, it's hardly been stellar.  I look at a camera like the Digital Bolex as a camera with similarly noble ideals that had a lot more directed visual impact. 

I do not look at the Digital Bolex as similar to the JVC LS300.  Their "ideals" seem very different to me.

 

Not sure about which has more "direct visual impact,"  but, from what I've seen, I generally prefer the look of the Digital Bolex.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

Kinifinity made an E mount.  But they can't put an E mount lens on there.  Because the lens protocol is what's protected.  You can't talk to an E mount lens without that.  Thus...  No native E mount from Kinifinity.

I'm not so sure about that.  I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just won't have the electronics.

 

At any rate, Kinefinity already has a "non-native" E-mount, and that's all that matters.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

You disparaged manufactures for making cameras in a mount that's incredibly prevalent and means they can stay in business and instead advocate a native mount that would force any user to use another adaptor to get the full sensor resolution out of and realistically few people want.

No.  I disparage manufacturers for being arrogant and ignorant.  They don't want to understand that they can ship a "native" EF mount and still be able to use a shallower mount -- AT NO EXTRA COST!!!  Do you understand that?

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

It's the only thing that can be done because it's DUMB to use MFT as an intermediary mount.

I don't think doing so is "dumb," but there are better solutions for cinema cameras.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

What are you talking about "the cost" of the RED plate ?  It sells for 700 bucks.  Go check the price of the Titanium one. 

The Red plate is required on a Red body, regardless of price.  Doing what I suggest doesn't have to add a penny extra to the cost of whichever plate ships default with a Red body.

 

Do you understand?  The price of the individual plates is irrelevant -- one has to use some plate on the front of a Red camera, so merely making the required plates shallower will not add to the cost of whatever plate one has to use (unless there is a way to shoot with a Red camera without a plate).

 

I am not sure if you (nor some manufacturers) grasp this very basic concept.

 

I just used Red as an example, because of the simple configuration of their plate system (which BTW has been done with precision on other cameras for a fraction of what Red charges).  The cost of the individual plates is irrelevant -- what I propose will not add to that cost, nor does it need to add to the cost of any camera with a removable front.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

Quote

I've never had a precision problem with cheap adapters and prime lenses.  In regards to parfocal zooms, usually adapters with higher tolerances are required, sometimes with captive shims.

99% of people that buy this camera aren't going to want to know about shimming anything.  Most people don't even understand how to do it correctly.

99% percent of the don't have to know anything about shimming if the shims are captive.

 

In addition, higher quality adapters should be fine (though more expensive).  Again, this is usually only a problem with parfocal zooms (or with folks who use lens marks).

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

Gee like Blackmagic did with their first EF mount cameras that were the EXACT FFD for EF mount ?  Ask all those Tokina owners how they feel about their lenses not hitting infinity.

I remember that.  Somebody f***ed up.  If a lot of different lenses can't focus to infinity, I wonder who f***ed up?

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

Quote

It's been done:  Kinefinity; Sony (FZ); Sony (E-mount); M4/3; Canon (EF-M); Red (plate).  All of these mounts are precise and allow electronic connections.

You mean those ones you were just saying don't have to be expensive ?  Which is it then ?

Again, if you already have plate or other intermediate mount, it doesn't add extra cost to merely make them shallower (especially with the simple plate system).

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

Except with a camera that has a universal mount they're MORE LIKELY to have problems even if they don't use that feature. 

Right now EF mount's aren't generally shimmable (except for a couple of higher end C seriesd Canon cameras and a few RED's)

I have not heard of a lot of problems with folks using FZ, KineMount, M4/3, E-mount, Red plates, etc.  Parfocal zooms are the most likely problem.  Cheap adapters tend to err on the short side, to avoid infinity focus problems.

 

By the way, anything is shimmable, as long as there is enough male/female thread.  A shim is just a spacer.

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

Quote

a few degrees of skew is very difficult to perceive, unless you are shooting flat art with a wide aperture.

I think you said it earlier.  It's about degrees of precision.  A bit out for you might be acceptable for for other sit most certainly won't be.

Nobody is going to notice 1-2 degrees of skew, unless they are shooting flat art or they are using a very narrow lens wide open (or if they are focusing with lens marks).

 

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

I think youre confusing things.  I hate EF leneses.  I hate EF mount.

But I can understand why a manufacturer would prefer to make a camera for a lens mount that has . amuch larger installed user base.

I am not crazy about EF lenses either, but it is obvious that shipping a camera with a precise, fully capable EF mount, doesn't have to preclude the possibility of a shallower mount on that camera.   Manufacturers have already shown that such an EF mount can be default, while retaining the versatility of shallower mount, with no complaints from the clueless EF users.

 

In addition, there is no extra cost to do so in some cases, and in other instances the additional cost would be low (maybe 8 more simple machining operations).

 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:28 PM, John Brawley said:

To do anything as PRECISE as a lens mount needs to be it has to be done with great care and precision with the added complication of the electronic side of things.   It's fine if you're used to still lenses that NEVER have accurate witness marks in the first place and usually overshoot infinity JUST BECAUSE the tolerances are far less.

I agree that when precision is important, it's important!  What I propose can utilize the same amount of precision required for the Red plate system -- you just start out with everything a little further back,  That's all -- no increase in the amount of precision required.

 

Unless something was wrong or I was using a cheap adapter, I have never any problem with still lenses overshooting infinity.  It wouldn't matter anyway, because I am usually setting marks with digital zoom or pulling focus on the fly by eye (hopefully by some kid good vision and a big monitor).  Likewise, 99% of EF shooters never use marks on the lens (and they probably are using still lenses), so the point is somewhat moot.

 

There is no need to address the other points you mentioned about cost, because what I advocate doesn't cost extra in some instances and it adds little to the cost in other instances.  Do you understand?

[Savannah Miller]

You can make any lens mount you want, but it's not EASY to do.  Canon EF and Nikon mounts are very old so it's well known how these mounts work and are easy to create similar mounts with working electronics.  Sony E-mount is newer with lots of encryption so it's not easy to build an electronic mount, hence why there are none that exist.  A "dumb" mount is mainly useful for cine glass, but otherwise it makes no sense. 

Blackmagic didn't screw up with the EF mount, it's just that they built it precisely to spec which made certain lenses (mainly tokina 11-16) not infinity focus properly.  Since it was only a few lenses, you could actually adjust the lenses themselves to fix this issue, as the tokina came built with a way to  adjust that.  A lot of lenses do seem to have tolerance issues as the infinity focus never matches the markings on the lens.

EF mounts that are fixed into the camera do not have a way to shim them as I don't believe that there are any exposed screws or anything that you can easily remove and stick shims under. 

[John Brawley]

1 hour ago, tupp said:

It is doubtful that Hasselblad (or any other company) would include a patented, 3rd-party component on a product without a licensing agreement, or without an agreement with a clause regarding licensing.

Sony are the OEM. They built it FOR Hasselblad.  It's not licensed to Hasselblad so that Hasselblad can then go and make the camera under licence in their own factory. 

Sony made the camera with a Hasselblad badge on it.

OEM.  Not Licence. They are very different business arrangements.

 

 

Quote

 

 

I am not so sure about that, for the reasons I stated earlier.

You have not made that case.

 

Quote

 

At any rate, what is the relevance of "native?"  Does the Red or Kinefinity have a "native" lens mount?  Either a camera has an E-mount, or it doesn't.  Kinefinity has an E-mount.

It's not an E mount if you can't use an actual E mount lens.  Isn't that obvious ? Isn't that relevant to the topic ?  You're claiming E mount, you're claiming it's easy to get around and yet, you actually can't use an E mount lens on the Kinifinity despite the fact it has an E Mount option (unless it's some aftermarket E mount lens that doens't have comms)

E mount lenses require electronic comms for iris and power for IS. If you don't supply that then no native E mount lens with work on Kinifinity's E-mount.

The ONLY reason Kinifinity have been able to get away with saying it's an E mount is because it's not an E mount.  It's only mechanically an E mount

 

Quote

 

Clairmont Camera got a lot of business from their various cinema adapters, which they advertised heavily with full page ads in magazines such as "American Cinematographer." These were often big, unwieldy contraptions, but I don't recall anyone complaining about them being "painful" to use (unless someone did something foolish with the squishy lens).

Give me some examples with costs please. By the way you know Clairmount went bust ?

I guarentee you the cost of a squishy lens was many thousands to manufacture. (Clairmount were like Panavision, mostly rental only)

 

Quote

 

I'm not so sure about that.  I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just won't have the electronics.

You should edit this and say...

"I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just can't change exposure or use the IS or record any metadata when using Native E mount lenses."

 

Quote

 

At any rate, Kinefinity already has a "non-native" E-mount, and that's all that matters.

As long as you're OK with not being able to change exposure, use IS or use metadata with E Mount lenses.

 

Quote

 

 

No.  I disparage manufacturers for being arrogant and ignorant.  They don't want to understand that they can ship a "native" EF mount and still be able to use a shallower mount -- AT NO EXTRA COST!!!  Do you understand that?

How ?  By making a "plate" that magically doesn't cost extra ?  You're being foolish.

 

Quote

 

The Red plate is required on a Red body, regardless of price.  Doing what I suggest doesn't have to add a penny extra to the cost of whichever plate ships default with a Red body.

Right.  It's required. You agree.  It costs 700 bucks.  You want to add 700 bucks to the cost of a 1200 dollar camera for a feature few will use. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

I am not sure if you (nor some manufacturers) grasp this very basic concept.

I am not sure you understand  the implications of native lens control or market economics mean to a camera design.

 

Quote

 

what I propose will not add to that cost, nor does it need to add to the cost of any camera with a removable front.

Of course it does.

 

1 hour ago, tupp said:

 

I remember that.  Somebody f***ed up.  If a lot of different lenses can't focus to infinity, I wonder who f***ed up?

 

Yes.  Tokina made a lens that some copies couldn't hit infinity at the standard Canon FFD. 

 

Quote

 

99% percent of the don't have to know anything about shimming if the shims are captive.

Until they change over time or aren't right.Which is what happens when you make something user-changeable.

 

 

Quote

 

By the way, anything is shimmable, as long as there is enough male/female thread.  A shim is just a spacer.

Show me some detail about how you shim your EF mount ?

 

Quote

 

 

Nobody is going to notice 1-2 degrees of skew, unless they are shooting flat art or they are using a very narrow lens wide open (or if they are focusing with lens marks).

You're saying you accept a mechanically induced optical problem. 

Not everyone's going to agree with you.  And that's the point.  You're saying you're happy to accept a lower level of precision with a lesser well built plate or adaptor.

I think you're alone in thinking that everyone will be fine with the compromise that goes with that.

 

Quote

 

 

I am not crazy about EF lenses either, but it is obvious that shipping a camera with a precise, fully capable EF mount, doesn't have to preclude the possibility of a shallower mount on that camera.   Manufacturers have already shown that such an EF mount can be default, while retaining the versatility of shallower mount, with no complaints from the clueless EF users.

Yep.  At substantial cost.  It can be done. I agree.  You just don't want to pay for what it would take to do this.

 

Quote

 

In addition, there is no extra cost to do so in some cases, and in other instances the additional cost would be low (maybe 8 more simple machining operations).

Can you elaborate ? Have you made lens mounts ? Lens adaptors ?  Are you a manufacturer ? can you share some examples of your work ?

 

Quote

 

I agree that when precision is important, it's important!  What I propose can utilize the same amount of precision required for the Red plate system -- you just start out with everything a little further back,  That's all -- no increase in the amount of precision required.

But it's a 700 dollar item. Round and round we go.  You keep saying it won't cost anything extra.

It's 700 bucks ! 

If you buy a theoretical camera with two plates, that's 700 bucks a pop. Or at least and extra 700 bucks for the EF version and you can make some homebrew e mount adaptor for 100 bucks, but it's still added 700 bucks to everyone else's camera for a feature they'll never use.

JB

 

[Trek of Joy]

3 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

You can make any lens mount you want, but it's not EASY to do.  Canon EF and Nikon mounts are very old so it's well known how these mounts work and are easy to create similar mounts with working electronics.  Sony E-mount is newer with lots of encryption so it's not easy to build an electronic mount, hence why there are none that exist.  A "dumb" mount is mainly useful for cine glass, but otherwise it makes no sense. 

One thing to remember too, at least here in the US, patents last 20 years - so the patent on the Canon and Nikon mounts have long since expired. The E-mount is still protected, you can't sell an E-mount camera here without licensing it from Sony. That's certainly a contributing factor as to why we haven't seen any E-mount cameras outside of Sony. Canon and Nikon no longer have such protections, anyone can build a camera with their mount.

Chris

[kye]

5 hours ago, tupp said:

If you want a parfocal zoom, you have to use a parfocal zoom -- that's all there is to it.

Actually, there have been a few attempts at electronically compensating for zoom to simulate a parfocal lens:

Quote

The XC10 lens isn’t mechanically parfocal, but electronically corrects focus during zooming, much like the C100 does with the newer STM lenses.

(Source: https://www.newsshooter.com/2015/09/25/canon-xc10-review-a-simple-solution-for-everyday-video-journalism/ )

I just did a quick test with my XC10 and when you zoom in (24mm to 240mm) it doesn't stay in focus, but when you zoom out it seems to stay in focus, even if you do it quite quickly.  Obviously in the XC10 it's not a perfect implementation, and obviously it would require the camera to be able to talk to the lens and "know" how to adjust, but with the modern focussing systems like the A7III etc you should be able to get something that would work pretty well.

Sorry if this is out of context with the broader conversation, I was skimming though and just saw your comment and thought I'd mention the above

[Tone1k]

Hi JB, 

Thanks for your input here on this forum. 

While you say that BM have asked most of the questions asked here already in the devolopment stages, I'm a little more interested in the product testing stages pre release.

While the Ursa Mini line have had a lot less image quality issues than 1st Gen BMD cameras like the Production and Production 4k, image quality issues like sunspots in highlights, high levels of flicker and FPN (in the UrsaMini 4k) seem like obvious  issues that should be picked up on pre release of the camera. Why do issues like this get through if product testing occurs prior to release? Surely a test of the original Production camera would have included shooting a frame with a light source on it and the sun spot show up? 

While I trust that BM have learned from their past mistakes, and I know that a working version of the Pocket 4K has been doing the rounds with viewings in retailers here in Australia to hopefully get feedback pre release, do cameras go through more thorough testing now compared to a few years ago or can we expect the Pocket 4K, with a new sensor (to BMD) to have image quality issues on release and then BMD address them afterwards? 

Cheers. 

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, John Brawley said:

It's not an E mount if you can't use an actual E mount lens.  Isn't that obvious ? Isn't that relevant to the topic ?  You're claiming E mount, you're claiming it's easy to get around and yet, you actually can't use an E mount lens on the Kinifinity despite the fact it has an E Mount option (unless it's some aftermarket E mount lens that doens't have comms)

E mount lenses require electronic comms for iris and power for IS. If you don't supply that then no native E mount lens with work on Kinifinity's E-mount.

The ONLY reason Kinifinity have been able to get away with saying it's an E mount is because it's not an E mount.  It's only mechanically an E mount

 

That logic makes no sense at all. Are you going to claim the BMCC MFT is not a Micro Four Thirds camera? And if it isn't, what is it?!

 

[John Brawley]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

That logic makes no sense at all. Are you going to claim the BMCC MFT is not a Micro Four Thirds camera? And if it isn't, what is it?!

 

BMD always said in their marketing materials up front....

"Passive MFT Mount"

That was the headline.

"The new Passive Micro Four Thirds (MFT) gives you compatibility with a wide range of manually operated lenses, while also being easily adapted to other mounts such as PL mount via third party adapters."

So it was clear what the mount was. And that it was "manually" operated lenses.

And they got a lot of crap from people about doing it like that too. Go look at the BMD forum around the launch date.

Kinifinity say "E mount" and it's really only click on the adaptor itself and then once you drill down you find that they define the caveat's...like it's a minor thing.

"Attention: it does not support lenses which need protocol from camera, like SONY G series lenses, though the current E mounting adapter has electronic contacts. There would be trade-in plan with new adapters if new adapters support these electronic lenses in the future."

Many people make the mistake of assuming E mount means E mount.

Even here on this thread we've had arguments about if it does or doesn't do native E Mount. It doesn't . And it should be really obvious.

They should be describing their $500 E mount adaptor (so cheap right ?) as Passive or Dumb E mount. Instead they say "E mount" with a hyperlink to a picture of an adaptor with electronic contacts and some fine print.

http://www.kinefinity.com/shop/k2e/?lang=en

JB

 

[IronFilm]

35 minutes ago, John Brawley said:

Kinifinity say "E mount" and it's really only click on the adaptor itself and then once you drill down you find that they define the caveat's...like it's a minor thing.

So you're only arguing over degrees here, splitting hairs, that BMD where up front "enough" but Kinefinity is not? Seems clear enough to me what Kinefinity is doing. 

But you still didn't answer my question before, is the BMCC MFT a MFT camera or not, and if not, what is it?