webrunner5 Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Your lucky that Silent Movies was a passing fad! Emanuel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, webrunner5 said: Your lucky that Silent Movies was a passing fad! I read somewhere that apparently they're making a come-back, or at least subtitles, because people watch on their phones in public and their headphones are probably a small Gordian knot in their bag! webrunner5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupp Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: It's never going to happen. Sony won't allow it. They will never allow it. Kinefinity can say "future adaptors" all they like. Sony run a closed eco-system. This is their MO. Sony own the mount. No other camera other than one made by Sony will have a native E mount. I'm not so sure about that. The Hasselblad Lunar had a fully capable E-mount. Also, the physical E-mount has already appeared with at least two other camera systems, and that physical mount has been offered separately online for some time. No doubt, it has occurred to Sony's camera division that they could sell more lenses if the E-mount were widely adopted. In light of the Sony CEO's recent declaration that the company is moving away from manufacturing "gadgets" (apparently including digital cameras), it certainly is conceivable that their camera division might consider selling more lenses, in deference to their scrutinized bottom line. On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Did you know that this year they went past 130 million lenses made ? 130 million EF mount lenses have been made ! Think of it like this....that's 130 million potential customers. Canon make the worlds most popular and numerously made lens mount. I did not know that there are that many EF lenses. That's incredible. The EF scourge is even more prevalent than I realized! On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Once you get serious about cinema glass, then you go to PL. So, if I want to get serious, I should ditch my set of M-mount Summicrons and get a set of PL Tokinas? On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Adapted 135 format glass...is amateurish. Does that include the PL rehousings of FF (and MF still) glass, especially those that are being used with the recent large format cinema cameras? Or, is it just using an adapter with a stock still lens that is amateurish? On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: I hate to sound like a snob but it's really really hard to make them fly on real jobs. In the end it's often very difficult to make it work on set. Yeah I know you CAN do it, yeah go post your vanity projects and your music clip that looks great but i'm saying generally, it's a pain in the arse and no one aside from hobby-ist and indie shooters can be bothered futzing around with these jigs. Well, I suppose some folks are more "adaptable" than others. I have done okay changing between different mounts and adapters in fairly rapid shoots. With a couple of ACs, usually one of them knows how mount a speed booster, so it makes things much easier. It seems to me that "futzing" is sometimes a part of filmmaking, especially if one is trying something completely new. Furthermore, if a little futzing adds some distinctiveness that sets my work apart from the run-of-the-mill, I will gladly futz. On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Look at how successful that JVC was. Name a show shot with them. Huh? If you are referring to my earlier mention of the JVC LS300, I brought it up because it merely proves that an M4/3 mount works fine with a S35 sensor. I would not know a show shot with that camera nor with most any other camera. On the other hand, I have seen some good footage from the LS300, including clips shot by our own @Mattias_Burling On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Show me someone who did some amazing creative work on that camera because it existed and did something no other camera could do. I would guess that we differ slightly in regards to the notion of what constitutes "amazing creative work" (not that one notion is better than the other). I am not familiar enough with most of the existing footage from the LS300, but I think that it's special capabilities shine if one shoots with a set of lenses made for different formats or if one uses focal reducers or tilt adapters with a S35 sensor. On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: I'm a lover of obscure lenses, but the obsession with adapting and speed boosting lenses... I say this with love of anything that isn't conventional, but to disparage camera manufactures for making a mount that services BY FAR the vast majority of the existing stills DSLR market for doing just that but holding up very marginal cameras like the JVC and Kinefinity as a beacon of success doesn't fly for me. I'm sorry, but I have to disparage some camera manufacturers for their arrogance and short-sightedness (who are possibly unlike the two manufacturers that you disparage). Outfits like BMD, Red and Canon, etc. are not interested in the fact that what I advocate does not preclude the use of EF lenses to their full capability, nor are they interested in the fact that what I propose requires ABSOLUTELY NO FUTZING for EF users. There are several inexpensive ways to make such a versatile front end, of which EF users would be completely clueless to the fact that the EF front is removable for those who need a shallower mount. The simplest example that I can give is to merely imagine a Red camera, but with its lens mount plate set further back to accommodate a shallow mount (such as the E-mount, M4/3, EF-M, Fuji X,... whatever). If such a camera is shipped with a smart EF lens plate already bolted on, the clueless EF users won't notice any difference, and such hidden versatility won't affect sales figures at all. In regards to your mention of Kinefinity, a typical shooter might consider them marginal. However, Kinefinity has already beat the larger "non-marginal" BMD (and several others) to a few important milestones, including offering a raw, M4/3 4k camera and offering a raw, FF camera. On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Because the market has already spoken. Well, the market has also said that it prefers Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber over the Beatles. On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Making a camera that has a sensor that is LARGER than it's native lens mount (MFT) which FORCES you to always use and adaptor or advocating a mount that is proprietary (E mount) is commercial suicide. Those two scenarios are not exactly what I am advocating, but I would certainly be fine with either. Again, with the right front end design, most would never know that a camera has (or can have) a shallower mount, and the camera manufacturer would not even need to supply an E-mount -- it would not be "commercial suicide." Furthermore, the notion that a S35 sensor is "LARGER" than an M4/3 mount is completely arbitrary -- especially since the LS300 (and other camera/adapter combos) proves that such a configuration works. On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: It forces the user to have an adaptor. Actually, it doesn't (not that I find anything wrong with using adapters). On 7/2/2018 at 1:30 PM, John Brawley said: Imagine all the idiots who go buy an MFT native lenses and post about the lens not covering their sensor. I have heard that excuse before, but if the front end is properly designed, there is no problem. Also, even if such a camera only has an M4/3 mount, a prominent qualifier in all literature and on all pertinent web pages should prevent most such problems. IronFilm and jonpais 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, tupp said: The Hasselblad Lunar had a fully capable E-mount. Also, the physical E-mount has already appeared with at least two other camera systems, and that physical mount has been offered separately online for some time. Hasselblad and Sony have a special relationship. A little like Leica and Panasonic, but more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Miller Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 9 hours ago, IronFilm said: Ah, very interesting, so Sound was never your main focus but you got a lot of exposure to this for a few years along the path to becoming a DoP much later on. My short/medium term plan is to keep on almost exclusively focus on location sound (perhaps with getting into a little of post sound as well) as this is going well for me. But just keep up a little bit of camera stuff on the side very occassionally (when it comes along, not chasing it) such as short films with friends or a music video here or there. Then only if I get a lucky break such as maybe if I'm DoP for a small indie feature film (had a couple of offers come along but not pan out) which does ok then maybe I might try to make the jump back into focusing on being a "DoP" instead. But I doubt it, as the more and more successful I'm as a sound mixer the harder it would be to give that up to start again from the bottom elsewhere! Yeah I've noticed that how the Directors seem to just be interchangeable to an extent you'd never ever see for a feature film. Post is very expensive too, and can experience serious budget crunch as well (especially if they're starting to run out of money by this stage...). VFX is expensive, but it makes no difference if you do the an episode over 2 days, or over 2 weeks, as long as they get done and take the same relative amount of time it costs the same. Same with any other job. You can have more people do it and get it done faster, or less people and just take longer. With the amount of shows a VFX studio does at a time, you're rarely 100% dedicated to one show. The real problems happen if the shots are initially harder than planned or new shots turn up during editing. Not all delays in post cost money, but on set it's more of an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 6 hours ago, IronFilm said: Hasselblad and Sony have a special relationship. I knew it! The A7SIII will shoot MEDIUM FORMAT 8K RAW!!! ....the delays in announcing are just them working out how to stop it catching fire ???? IronFilm and Emanuel 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brawley Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 7 hours ago, tupp said: I'm not so sure about that. I'm very sure. Sony have yet to do it even once. A physical E mount isn't the same as a native mount. Hasselblad OEM'd a Sony NEX 7, added some wooden handles to it and some designer styling and sold them for five times the price. They literally re-skinned a Sony camera, put a Hassy badge on it to take advantage of dentists who buy limited edition's of cameras like this because they think they will appreciate in value. That's NOT Hasselblad doing a native E mount camera The lunar was a Sony camera that Hasselblad put their name on and jacked up the price. Part of the failed strategy that nearly sent them under before DJI bought Hasselblad. Quote So, if I want to get serious, I should ditch my set of M-mount Summicrons and get a set of PL Tokinas? Not at all. You can use them on the camera used in the title of this thread just fine. I've got a nice M-->MFT mount adaptor that works great with my M mount leicas but the lens to lens inconsistency puts me off, almost as much as the poor MFD and short focus throw. Quote Does that include the PL rehousings of FF (and MF still) glass, especially those that are being used with the recent large format cinema cameras? No because in re-housing them, generally makes them more useable. Leaving them in their original state means they're incredibly painful to work with. Quote Or, is it just using an adapter with a stock still lens that is amateurish? It's just not very practical is it... Quote Huh? If you are referring to my earlier mention of the JVC LS300, I brought it up because it merely proves that an M4/3 mount works fine with a S35 sensor. I would not know a show shot with that camera nor with most any other camera. My point is that it's not been embraced by anyone. No one wants this great idea. It's not even doing anything clever really. If it picks up a native MFT mount lenses it auto windows the sensor size ? You can never use the full sensor size with lenses made for it's native mount. That seems pretty backwards to me. Quote I'm sorry, but I have to disparage some camera manufacturers for their arrogance and short-sightedness (who are possibly unlike the two manufacturers that you disparage). I guess the (lack of) LS300 success is my counterpoint to you disparaging short sighted manufacturers. If there really was a genuine WANT from this we'd see more camera manufacturers doing it. Quote There are several inexpensive ways to make such a versatile front end, of which EF users would be completely clueless to the fact that the EF front is removable for those who need a shallower mount. I agree that one COULD make a universal mount that does what E mount doesn't without being E mount but I disagree that it's going to be inexpensive. I've actually been down this path before. Interchangeable mounts and mount adaptors ultimately are a gamble. It's incredibly difficult to make something that precise that is field switchable that is consistent enough over time to always maintain the right FFD and electrical connections for those lenses that do meta data, IS and need Iris control. If it really really was that simple someone would have done it. The closet we've seen is Kinifinity. Quote The simplest example that I can give is to merely imagine a Red camera, but with its lens mount plate set further back to accommodate a shallow mount (such as the E-mount, M4/3, EF-M, Fuji X,... whatever). If such a camera is shipped with a smart EF lens plate already bolted on, the clueless EF users won't notice any difference, and such hidden versatility won't affect sales figures at all. But the "bolting on" part is what's difficult. See above comment. I speak from experience. There is a BMD camera that ships right now that has interchangeable mounts. Once upon a time there was some thought given to these goals. But it's turns out it's a lot harder to do than you writing "inexpensive" and "bolt on" is. And in the end, as per the LS300, not that many people want it. Quote In regards to your mention of Kinefinity, a typical shooter might consider them marginal. However, Kinefinity has already beat the larger "non-marginal" BMD (and several others) to a few important milestones, including offering a raw, M4/3 4k camera and offering a raw, FF camera. Hats off to them. Innovation should be rewarded. If it's what people want. Quote Well, the market has also said that it prefers Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber over the Beatles. It's a lot more expensive and complicated to make and produce a camera than it is to produce a song. Quote Furthermore, the notion that a S35 sensor is "LARGER" than an M4/3 mount is completely arbitrary -- especially since the LS300 (and other camera/adapter combos) proves that such a configuration works. But no one buys them. Quote Actually, it doesn't (not that I find anything wrong with using adapters). Adaptors introduce a point of failure in maintaining the flatness of the field and FFD. Quote I have heard that excuse before, but if the front end is properly designed, there is no problem. Easy to say. Harder to do. Quote Also, even if such a camera only has an M4/3 mount, a prominent qualifier in all literature and on all pertinent web pages should prevent most such problems. I'm an advocate of m4/3. Unlike the closed Sony ecosystem it's a genuinely open consortium that any manufacturer can join. Aside from E mount lenses, I can't think of any adapted lens that you can adapt to Sony that you can't also adapt to m4/3. But it's insane to make a camera that has a larger image circle than the native lens mount it has JUST so you can adapt it to other lenses. JB tupp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Savannah Miller said: VFX is expensive, but it makes no difference if you do the an episode over 2 days, or over 2 weeks, as long as they get done and take the same relative amount of time it costs the same. Same with any other job. You can have more people do it and get it done faster, or less people and just take longer. There is a famous book in software engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month https://www.amazon.com/Mythical-Man-Month-Software-Engineering-Anniversary/dp/0201835959 Keep in mind also that productions often have target deadlines to meet. 42 minutes ago, John Brawley said: My point is that it's not been embraced by anyone. But was that the fault of sensor/mount matching? Or the fault of the brand name it was released under? (JVC) None of us here would disagree that the JVC LS300 saw only limited success. But the question is did it see more or less success because of its mount/sensor combo? I'd say clearly it saw more success due to its mount. Often the only reason we talk about it is because of its MFT mount!! The LS300 would never ever have such a prominence n our minds if it had been just yet another EF mount camera wannabe. 42 minutes ago, John Brawley said: You can never use the full sensor size with lenses made for it's native mount. That seems pretty backwards to me. Not at all. You could override it manually if you wanted to capture more. (maybe say if you plan to do a wider crop in post than 16:9, or if you want the extra vignette as part of the look) Plus it is very very very common that cameras can crop in. So there is nothing "backwards" about offering the extra functionality of using a variable amount of the sensor. Often slow motion for instance is a crop of the sensor. Or look at the a7Rmk2 which offers a S35 4K crop as a way to get better quality sampled 4K video from the a7Rmk2 Or the fact that all Nikon FX DSLRs offer a DX mode as well. Plenty of examples of other cameras offering a cropped mode to give the user extra functionality! 46 minutes ago, John Brawley said: I've actually been down this path before. Interchangeable mounts and mount adaptors ultimately are a gamble. It's incredibly difficult to make something that precise that is field switchable that is consistent enough over time to always maintain the right FFD and electrical connections for those lenses that do meta data, IS and need Iris control. If it really really was that simple someone would have done it. The closet we've seen is Kinifinity. Sony FZ mount. 48 minutes ago, John Brawley said: But it's insane to make a camera that has a larger image circle than the native lens mount it has JUST so you can adapt it to other lenses. The JVC LS300 wasn't only made to be used with adapted lenses, in fact I think in all the promotional material I saw for it from JVC it was always pictured with native mount lenses? tupp and Kisaha 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Miller Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 I don't know what deadlines are for TV, but I have definitely worked on vfx on a few CBS shows that have aired the same day. You would be surprised how last-minute you can be with changes and they still air. Productions have target deadlines, but I can assure you almost every TV show is behind towards the end of the season as in post people are a bit more relaxed in the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brawley Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, IronFilm said: Not at all. You could override it manually if you wanted to capture more. (maybe say if you plan to do a wider crop in post than 16:9, or if you want the extra vignette as part of the look) Plus it is very very very common that cameras can crop in. So there is nothing "backwards" about offering the extra functionality of using a variable amount of the sensor. If Blackmagic made a native MFT version of the 4.6K camera you realise that you could NEVER shoot at published maximum resolution of 4.6K unless you DON'T use an MFT mount lens ? The other examples you make all go the other way. You're windowing down for video from a stills camera. This is a cinema camera that can never shoot the full 4.6K sensor UNLESS you DON'T use a native lens. That means you HAVE to adapt it to get the full sensor. Which is what the JVC did as well. The very fact it's so often brought up AND YET never seemingly used on anything of note is the point I make. You bring up a great point with yet another closed proprietary Sony only mount... the FZ mount. Let's look at the price of of some FZ adaptors that keep the electronic connections so we can use lens metadata, or power IS and iris control. (FZ by the way is Son'y cinema version of E mount) Here's the one that Sony make to go to PL. I presume this is the most robust mechanically and reliable. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1053116-REG/sony_lafzpl12p_pl_to_sony_fz_mount.html And some other after market ones...EF mount https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1173012-REG/optitek_cpli_fz3_prolock_i_electronic_lens.html?ap=y&gclid=CjwKCAjw4PHZBRA-EiwAAas4Zo9CR_3OYgnWusLKLjNus5ImW7Nvf11fa1DTtfhWUCpiEhCiMKQKeRoCK7wQAvD_BwE&smp=y https://www.adorama.com/kaelafzeos.html What we want is to adapt any lens to a camera. What we need is a mount that allows this with a short enough FFD and that's mechanically stable enough to be used reliably for anyone that can afford a $1200 camera. Sony E / FZ and MFT are just a way to get to that want because we can do it through adaptors. The fundamental problem is that it's EXPENSIVE to make this kind of functionality in what is a consumer priced product that 99% of those consumers don't want or need or even know about and might also potentially screw their camera up if it wasn't done well enough and failed at doing it's core job. JB Emanuel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonim Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 So, after 129 pages long thread we started to be permanently learned about all kind of professional life experiences, thoughts and achievements of respected member @John Browley - about his personal views about art of directing, blocking, etc., about (congruencе and suitability of) cameras and mounts, about TV shows, about his ideas/comments regarding future producing-perspective of different camera makers, little bit about resulted destiny of different kind of directors, as well about some important memories, friendships and personally relevant encounters... It seems that, without doubt, for all Eoshd members it is extremely important to read and learn these precious insights, but - wouldn't be better to open a new thread just about mr Browley's advices, tips, suggestions and opinions, where it would be possible to pose similar questions and follow free branching of topics and comments? IronFilm and jonpais 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 20 minutes ago, anonim said: So, after 129 pages long thread we started to be permanently learned about all kind of professional life experiences, thoughts and achievements of respected member @John Browley - about his personal views about art of directing, blocking, etc., about (congruencе and suitability of) cameras and mounts, about TV shows, about his ideas/comments regarding future producing-perspective of different camera makers, little bit about resulted destiny of different kind of directors, as well about some important memories, friendships and personally relevant encounters... It seems that, without doubt, for all Eoshd members it is extremely important to read and learn these precious insights, but - wouldn't be better to open a new thread just about mr Browley's advices, tips, suggestions and opinions, where it would be possible to pose similar questions and follow free branching of topics and comments? Well... since it is fairly likely that JB will be providing some of the long awaited footage for the P4K, I think it probably makes sense that people get to know his background and thoughts on filmmaking and gear. Would you rather we discuss the pointless desire for AF in the P4K? Or if only the P4K would add IBIS to the specs? Or maybe we can keep wondering if we’ll need IR filtration (or ignoring that we probably will) Or I guess we can add some ad hominem questions regarding what cards we can use with the P4K or which is the best M4/3 lens to use with it... In life, conversations evolve... why can’t discussions on forums do the same? Emanuel and zerocool22 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kisaha Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 JVC LS300 did a lot of things right, a few better than anyone else (included the variable sensor) and a few quite wrong. The fact is we still use this camera (together with the GH5), and there are a lot of people using it here and some buying it new. The fact that is the only modern JVC camera that we know the name of, proves that it was a successful one. Limited success, but success nevertheless. jonpais, tupp and IronFilm 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 8 hours ago, John Brawley said: If Blackmagic made a native MFT version of the 4.6K camera you realise that you could NEVER shoot at published maximum resolution of 4.6K unless you DON'T use an MFT mount lens ? The other examples you make all go the other way. You're windowing down for video from a stills camera. Plenty of native MFT lenses which cover S35: Sigma, SLR Magic, Veydra, Fujinon, Rokinon, etc And it isn't about forcing people to use adapters, but about giving people greater choice of options (you can go native, or not, simple adapters or focal reducers). And who doesn't like more freedom of choices in their life? ? 8 hours ago, John Brawley said: Which is what the JVC did as well. The very fact it's so often brought up AND YET never seemingly used on anything of note is the point I make. I've tried to explain this before, but I'll go again, because we seem to be seeing this from two completely different perspectives: 1) people talk a lot about this camera because it has a MFT mount 2) people don't buy it because it is a JVC brand (which has almost no brand recognition whatsoever in the filmmakers world in this day and age) That makes logical sense to me as why the LS300 wasn't a massive success. (but having a MFT mount did in my eyes surely help with its sales a little, not having a MFT mount likely would have lead to ever worse sales than it already had) You seem to think it is the other way round? 1) people talk a lot about this camera because it is a JVC camera 2) people don't buy it because it is a MFT mount camera That to me makes no sense at all. Thus I prefer believing the first explanation than the second way round. tupp and jonpais 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brawley Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 19 minutes ago, IronFilm said: Plenty of native MFT lenses which cover S35: Sigma, SLR Magic, Veydra, Fujinon, Rokinon, etc And it isn't about forcing people to use adapters, but about giving people greater choice of options (you can go native, or not, simple adapters or focal reducers). Or you could say it like this... ...you can go native (but most likely not ever be able to use the full advertised sensor resolution with the majority of native MFT lenses), or (be forced) to use simple adapters or focal reducers if you actually do want the full sensor resolution. It’s not about more choice if you HAVE to use something that isn’t the native lens mount of the camera to use the full sensor resolution. Some MFT lenses may cover but most will not. Thats what’s silly about this. You want MFT or E mount just so you can use other legacy mount lenses. Im against a camera with a native lens mount that doesn’t have a sensor optimised for the lens mount it’s working with. You’re commiting to being windowed in its native mount. If you were to design an OLPF for example, which format would you optimise it for ? 135 format lenses or the lens mount that’s fitted to it ? What you really want is a new universal mount with a short FFD that allows lens power, control and metadata where appropriate. JB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, John Brawley said: (...) What you really want is a new universal mount with a short FFD that allows lens power, control and metadata where appropriate. JB Seems fair enough to me at least : ) @David, pops to my mind one of my fav quotes if not my dearest one: «The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.» ~ Niels Bohr E : -) mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 9 hours ago, John Brawley said: You bring up a great point with yet another closed proprietary Sony only mount... the FZ mount. Let's look at the price of of some FZ adaptors that keep the electronic connections so we can use lens metadata, or power IS and iris control. (FZ by the way is Son'y cinema version of E mount) Here's the one that Sony make to go to PL. I presume this is the most robust mechanically and reliable. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1053116-REG/sony_lafzpl12p_pl_to_sony_fz_mount.html And some other after market ones...EF mount https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1173012-REG/optitek_cpli_fz3_prolock_i_electronic_lens.html?ap=y&gclid=CjwKCAjw4PHZBRA-EiwAAas4Zo9CR_3OYgnWusLKLjNus5ImW7Nvf11fa1DTtfhWUCpiEhCiMKQKeRoCK7wQAvD_BwE&smp=y https://www.adorama.com/kaelafzeos.html What we want is to adapt any lens to a camera. The reason they're so expensive is that anything for the higher cinema market is going to be very crazy expensive by that nature, then on top of that FZ mount is was a very small niche mount (just the three cameras for it, and only one native lens ever made) which will mean anything for it will be even more expensive due to poor economies of scale. (even so, I managed to buy each of my FZ mount adapters for only around US$100ish each) And the PL mount to FZ always comes with the camera you buy, so in a sense that costs "nothing". 3 hours ago, Kisaha said: The fact that is the only modern JVC camera that we know the name of, proves that it was a successful one. Limited success, but success nevertheless. Exactly! This. We need to judge its "success" in the context of the wider JVC line up / brand , and the LS300 (at least on this forum, and most other such filmmaking forums) is the most "successful" camera JVC has made in recent years. 27 minutes ago, John Brawley said: Thats what’s silly about this. You want MFT or E mount just so you can use other legacy mount lenses. No. I want MFT (or E mount) cameras so that I have greater choice in what lenses I use. Sometimes a native lens will be right (such as on a gimbal, or for run and gun) and other times an adapted lens will be right. It is better to have that choice, than to not have it at all! tupp, jonpais and Kisaha 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 32 minutes ago, John Brawley said: Im against a camera with a native lens mount that doesn’t have a sensor optimised for the lens mount it’s working with. You’re commiting to being windowed in its native mount. If you were to design an OLPF for example, which format would you optimise it for ? 135 format lenses or the lens mount that’s fitted to it ? Who is to say APS-C is "wrong" for MFT? It works so thus it works! Just like it is not "wrong" to use APS-C cameras with E mount which fits full frame sensors and lenses. Neither is it "wrong" of me to use a Nikon DX DSLR just because there are also Nikon FX DSLRs which use the same mount. Neither is the Pentax 645Z or the other digital medium format cameras "wrong" just because they have a mount which uses film 645 lenses which are for a larger sensor area. tupp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brawley Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 hours ago, IronFilm said: The reason they're so expensive is that anything for the higher cinema market is going to be very crazy expensive by that nature, then on top of that FZ mount is was a very small niche mount (just the three cameras for it, and only one native lens ever made) which will mean anything for it will be even more expensive due to poor economies of scale. (even so, I managed to buy each of my FZ mount adapters for only around US$100ish each) It's expensive to make a PL mount with electronic connections with precision. The fact that even the after market units are still hundreds of dollars says this. Making even a universal mount camera means adapters that would cost a similar amount. I bet your FZ mount adaptors have no electronics ? The RED one costs a similar amount too http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc-canon-lens-mount 3 hours ago, IronFilm said: Who is to say APS-C is "wrong" for MFT? It works so thus it works! Just like it is not "wrong" to use APS-C cameras with E mount which fits full frame sensors and lenses. Neither is it "wrong" of me to use a Nikon DX DSLR just because there are also Nikon FX DSLRs which use the same mount. Neither is the Pentax 645Z or the other digital medium format cameras "wrong" just because they have a mount which uses film 645 lenses which are for a larger sensor area. I've never said that it's wrong to adapt lenses. It's not always what I'd do, but it's great to be able to do it. I think you're not understanding what my issues is here. It's not wrong of you to use a Nikon D series DSLR at all, but would you feel the same if the only NATIVE mount lenses the Nikon D850 could accept were DX (not FX) lenses? Everything else had to be adapted. Would you feel the same if your Pentax 645D could only accept NATIVE K mount lenses ? Would you feel the same if the only NATIVE mount lenses the 5D MK3 could accept were EF-S lenses ? That's what you're asking for when you ask for a much larger than MFT sensor in a MFT native mount body. If you think any of the above scenarios are perfectly acceptable for a camera manufacturer to build then I'll let this one go. At the moment JVC seem to be the only one to have done this ever. Quote Sometimes a native lens will be right (such as on a gimbal, or for run and gun) and other times an adapted lens will be right. It is better to have that choice, than to not have it at all! You can do that already with MFT. It's the reason I love MFT. I'm not against that at all. JB tupp and jbCinC_12 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, John Brawley said: You can do that already with MFT. It's the reason I love MFT. I'm not against that at all. JB We are two! LOL (E : -) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.