RED Komodo

[thebrothersthre3]

13 minutes ago, kye said:

More adaptable than MFT?

They have practically the same flange distance, so I would have thought they'd be similar.

The option for either would be great

[BTM_Pix]

8 hours ago, kye said:

More adaptable than MFT?

They have practically the same flange distance, so I would have thought they'd be similar.

It depends on how many electronic MFT lenses you have and love that you wouldn't want to give up and the sensor size of the camera.

With a £15 adapter you can use MFT lenses on an E mount, which obviously you can't do the other way round. Whilst these are useless for electronic lenses they are perfectly fine for manual ones both native (so the Meike cine primes and Voigtlanders etc can do double duty) and also any adapted lenses.

With regard to coverage, a lot of the MFT lenses can get out to about 89 or even 95% of an APS-C sensor but the image quality invariably tails off at the edges so in practical terms its less whereas with the E mounts you'll have no issue.

The E mount gives you room to grow as well as you can buy EF full frame lenses, use them with a speedbooster if your current camera is APS-C but then be able to step up to a full frame camera without changing lenses. I have an A7Rii and A6500 and get a lot of mileage out of that flexibility.

Where native MFT scores is for compact electronic lenses but only if you are sticking with the smaller format sensor and unless you have an LS300 (or someone else pulls the same trick) then you can't go any bigger with them.

Again though, having said that, with the E mount you can use the TechArt PRO and have autofocus control of very compact, fast Leica M primes (and by extension virtually all other types of manual lens) so its not something that can't be done.

For me personally, I don't have any native MFT mount lenses that I'm fond enough of that I wouldn't swap all my MFT mount cameras irrespective of sensor size (I have them ranging from Super16 in BMPCC to standard in GX80 to Super35 in LS300) to be E mount in a heartbeat if it were possible.

 

[zerocool22]

Using adapters sucks though(unless they are fully manual lenses, metabones, kipon, viltrox they all are a hassle to work with jitter, AF, aputure control,...). I much prefer native lenses this is why i like the EF mount, as most glass have a EF version anyway. I havent seen any worthwhile glass that is only available on mft/E mount. 

[kye]

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

It depends on how many electronic MFT lenses you have and love that you wouldn't want to give up and the sensor size of the camera.

With a £15 adapter you can use MFT lenses on an E mount, which obviously you can't do the other way round. Whilst these are useless for electronic lenses they are perfectly fine for manual ones both native (so the Meike cine primes and Voigtlanders etc can do double duty) and also any adapted lenses.

With regard to coverage, a lot of the MFT lenses can get out to about 89 or even 95% of an APS-C sensor but the image quality invariably tails off at the edges so in practical terms its less whereas with the E mounts you'll have no issue.

The E mount gives you room to grow as well as you can buy EF full frame lenses, use them with a speedbooster if your current camera is APS-C but then be able to step up to a full frame camera without changing lenses. I have an A7Rii and A6500 and get a lot of mileage out of that flexibility.

Where native MFT scores is for compact electronic lenses but only if you are sticking with the smaller format sensor and unless you have an LS300 (or someone else pulls the same trick) then you can't go any bigger with them.

Again though, having said that, with the E mount you can use the TechArt PRO and have autofocus control of very compact, fast Leica M primes (and by extension virtually all other types of manual lens) so its not something that can't be done.

For me personally, I don't have any native MFT mount lenses that I'm fond enough of that I wouldn't swap all my MFT mount cameras irrespective of sensor size (I have them ranging from Super16 in BMPCC to standard in GX80 to Super35 in LS300) to be E mount in a heartbeat if it were possible.

Ah, yes, I neglected the diameter in the calculation, and only took flange distance into account.  That makes sense.

1 hour ago, zerocool22 said:

Using adapters sucks though(unless they are fully manual lenses, metabones, kipon, viltrox they all are a hassle to work with jitter, AF, aputure control,...). I much prefer native lenses this is why i like the EF mount, as most glass have a EF version anyway. I havent seen any worthwhile glass that is only available on mft/E mount. 

Full manual FTW!!

[BTM_Pix]

I don't have any direct experience with Sony's higher end glass (or even that much with their lower end as I tend to use adapted) to say whether there are any killer app type ones.  A lot of people rave about them but how they stack up directly against comparable EF lenses is open to debate.

I'm about to become a reluctant short term owner of a Pocket 6K, so a set of lenses that I would think would be very worthwhile for that but which aren't available in EF would be Sigma's f1.4 trio of 16mm, 30mm and 56mm.

Offset against that of course you have the 18-35mm f1.8 which perversely isn't available in E mount

There is also the perennial aspect of EF mount cameras not being able to directly take PL lenses and, again on a personal note, Leica M lenses which add up to me personally viewing the EF as being a great mount for lenses due to its adaptability but actual EF cameras themselves less so.

I think thats why the RF mount on the Komodo is a great option as it gives you that extra distance to accommodate PL with a couple of great options for using EF lenses either boosted or with the Variable ND whilst still maintaining a "factory" level of electronic compatibility.

 

 

[currensheldon]

The RF Mount was a perfect choice, I think. That variable ND adapter alone is a huge boost to any RF-mount camera, not to mention the new Metabones speedbooster. EF mount is pretty frustrating after you've used the E-Mount or MFT mount, RF-Mount or L-Mount (really any mirrorless mount). So much easier to adapt lenses and all of the designs are more modern and the RF lenses in particular are vastly superior to their EF counterparts. 

After 2020, I think Canon will have the finest lineup of mirrorless lenses available - at least with a couple revolutionary lenses like their 28-70mm f2 and their new 70-200mm f2.8.  But they really need to get a strong lineup of high-quality f1.8 and f2 lenses going (like the Zeiss Batis or Loxia). They definitely rolled out the PRO lenses first, so I'm guessing we'll see some more compact primes and zooms in 2020. 

[IronFilm]

23 hours ago, kye said:

More adaptable than MFT?

They have practically the same flange distance, so I would have thought they'd be similar.

You can adapt manual MFT lenses to E Mount

And E mount can support up to FF, while MFT can support up to S35

[Mako Sports]

Didn't wanna make a new thread for just memes.. 

??

[nathlas]

 

 

Along with a RED ranger underneath

[Video Hummus]

58 minutes ago, nathlas said:

 

 

Along with a RED ranger underneath

Komodo still looks bigger than say a Kinefinity. Maybe it’s just the angle. 

[zerocool22]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:44 PM, zerocool22 said:

Using adapters sucks though(unless they are fully manual lenses, metabones, kipon, viltrox they all are a hassle to work with jitter, AF, aputure control,...). I much prefer native lenses this is why i like the EF mount, as most glass have a EF version anyway. I havent seen any worthwhile glass that is only available on mft/E mount. 

I see a lot of downvotes on my post
Allthough no response from those who did, are you guys not having any issues using adapters or are you responding from a theoretical pov? EF to RF adapter may be smooth as its canon to canon tech though. 

[JordanWright]

Jarred Land is claiming that the Komodo has similar DR to the Helium (16.5+ Stops) Even in global shutter mode. I know RED have always been bit liberal with there DR numbers but this is an interesting claim anyway.   http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?177459-KOMODO/page283

[Video Hummus]

Yeeaahh, based on REDs previous claims on their forums, I would take everything as marketing bullshit and just wait for independent tests. 

[JordanWright]

Yeah this might have been an understatement

8 hours ago, JordanWright said:

RED have always been bit liberal with there DR numbers

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Considering the price point I am guessing it will be similar to the Pocket 6k, which is rather good. Not on par with RED's more expensive offerings tho

[androidlad]

Just dropping this here with all the R5 buzz:

RED Komodo sensor was co-designed with and manufactured by Canon, it's literally an APS-Cish crop of the full frame sensor on R5.

[Video Hummus]

1 hour ago, androidlad said:

Just dropping this here with all the R5 buzz:

RED Komodo sensor was co-designed with and manufactured by Canon, it's literally an APS-Cish crop of the full frame sensor on R5.

🤔

[Patrick B.]

That’s very interesting and explains the whole RF mount and PDAF even more. 

[photographer-at-large]

3 hours ago, androidlad said:

Just dropping this here with all the R5 buzz:

RED Komodo sensor was co-designed with and manufactured by Canon, it's literally an APS-Cish crop of the full frame sensor on R5.

Except Red Komodo supposedly has global shutter mode.

[billdoubleu]

5 hours ago, androidlad said:

Just dropping this here with all the R5 buzz:

RED Komodo sensor was co-designed with and manufactured by Canon, it's literally an APS-Cish crop of the full frame sensor on R5.