Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
BlackMagic URSA Mini, 4.6K sensor, 15 stops DR, 2160p60
  • 230 Replies sorted by
  • I think MFT would have been an odd choice from a marketing perspective. As there are limits to which native glass you can use properly. But, does anyone actually care about native glass in a camera like this? Probably not. Arguably a dumb Emount would have made the most sense. Licensing the mount (if that's necessary) could have been problematic though.

  • I have lots of Nikon F mount lenses, which I intentionally invested in because they can be used on the widest range of cameras.

    But I still see the lack of m4/3 mount as a big bummer. As if it had a m4/3 mount I could use an adapter for my Nikon F mount lenses which has a built in ND filters, and thus fixing their terrible error of leaving it out of the URSA body.

    Ditto, when it is lowlight instead of bright scenes, I can swap the ND filter adapter for a focal reducer, and thus help overcome the 4K sensor's weakness in lowlight.

    (on which point... does the URSA Mini 4K do FHD 160fps too?)

    So I see zero serious issue whatsoever, even with native mount m4/3 lenses. Just use a crop. You'd still be getting more resolution than the original BMCC had.

    Plus as I pointed out, the MAJOR reasons for me to use a m4/3 mount isn't even for using my stock of native m4/3 mount lenses. But because it would mean my Nikon F mounts lenses with the URSA Mini would work even better together.

  • I agree with the MFT mount, it has huge advantages. One being the flange distance and the other being able to run in a MFT crop mode while recording slow motion. I would love to be able to kit this out with the diminutive 35-100mm 2.8, 40-150mm 2.8 or 300mm F4 on wildlife shoots. BMD already worked out the software issues with the BMPCC active mount so I can't imagine it would be a huge push to implement this option.

  • i wouldn't want MFT mount. i'd much rather have EOS M, you get full use of any canon lens, with the same wide adaptability to other s35 and larger lenses.

  • EF would be more acceptable if they'd at least used that huge flange distance for internal ND filters. Otherwise they should have definitely gone with a mirrorless mount. I would prefer m4/3 mount as well, but I think it would cause concern for people using big cinema lenses, which this cam will definitely see plenty of.

    The EOS M mount is probably still completely locked down by Canon. I believe BM is only able to use the EF mount because it's now old enough that the patents have expired, or something like that. BM is already a member of the m4/3 group so they have access to the rights and protocols.

    You get full use of Canon lenses with Metabones' electronic m4/3 adapters. Well, not autofocus, but I doubt the camera has AF coding anyways.

  • EOS M is Canon Proprietary. Sony E mount is also Sony Proprietary. an MFT mount makes no sense on a camera with a sensor size that doesn't cover MFT. As fas as I can tell, the JVC reverts to a super 16 crop when using MFT native lenses on it.

    You guys just want to be able to use legacy stills glass right ? That's where the want for an MFT mount comes from, just so you can use an adaptor to another mount.

    So what they SHOULD do is their own short flange depth open mount and either make their own adaptors or allow others to do so.

    Why use a native mount that doesn't actually cover the sensor just so you can adapt to other mounts ? That's why you're asking for this right ?

    Like EF, MFT isn't a great mount for motion imaging and suffers from rotational torque when using lenses with longer focus throws....

    JB

  • JB, the camera is priced to hit the sweet spot of the indie market where a lot of guys just happen to run FD, Nikon F, MFT mount Samyangs, etc. Buying L lenses or PL mount is not in the budget for many of us. The mount would be appealing to a lot of folks even if MFT glass support was only limited to 1080P slow mo shooting because of the smaller image circle coverage.

  • They should have gone the route of jvc. I'm not buying this unless it comes in mft mount, and it sounds like that is a pretty popular opinion..

  • @tosvus, what kind of lenses do you have or want that you can't adapt to EF mount? I also don't love the EF mount, but I knew from the beginning, with a GH3, that I should stick with Nikon lenses knowing I can adapt them to other mounts. Luckily I was preparing for the EF version of the BMCC, but now it looks like for the EF mini ursa.

  • very interested, but please, no black sun

  • Minolta SR (aka MD/MC) and Canon FD are just two examples of amazing lens lines that don't fit EF. There are plenty more. Leica rangefinder glass for example.

    Just because m4/3 native lenses don't cover the whole sensor doesn't mean the mount is useless. At 4.6K I'm sure the new sensor would still have plenty of res in a cropped mode, making those lenses still totally viable, and the flexibility of all the glass that could be adapted is well worth it alone.

  • EOS M is Canon Proprietary. Sony E mount is also Sony Proprietary. an MFT mount makes no sense on a camera with a sensor size that doesn't cover MFT. As fas as I can tell, the JVC reverts to a super 16 crop when using MFT native lenses on it.

    As far as I remember Sony E mount data and all licensing can be got if you sign some agreement. No different to MFT (actually it is MFT owners who constantly punish firms making anything that uses active mount, not Sony).

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev. No.

    It's possible to use the E-Mount if you make lenses.

    It's not possible if you make cameras.

    See the difference ? Sony like companies making lenses for THEIR cameras. They don't like other companies making cameras that use THEIR mount.

    That is nothing like mft which is a genuinely open consortium which has no licensing costs.

    JB

  • "i wouldn't want MFT mount. i'd much rather have EOS M, you get full use of any canon lens, with the same wide adaptability to other s35 and larger lenses.

    No, the downside to EOS M (or BMD coming up with their own mount) is there is zero support for focal reducers or other innovations such as HolyManta (an adapter with internal adjustable ND filters, inside the adapter). Thus if you went with that you'd be missing out on it.

    And even if BMD did produce their own adapters with all the variations and innovations that the market is offering, you'd still be limited to just what BMD is making and not have the large range of choice and pricing which m4/3 adapters can provide instead.

    EF would be more acceptable if they'd at least used that huge flange distance for internal ND filters."

    Nope, even that is not a good enough excuse to use EF mount. There are plenty enough of mirrorless cameras which also have internal ND filters.

  • Sony like companies making lenses for THEIR cameras. They don't like other companies making cameras that use THEIR mount.

    Do you have any documented references to it?

    That is nothing like mft which is a genuinely open consortium which has no licensing costs.

    People who made active adapters tell that m43 (that require knowledge of protocols and specs) is much worse than Sony. May be if you become consortium member only they become more open.

  • I don't know what the big deal is about Blackmagic using an EF mount, they just created an almost perfect Cinema Camera it's feature pack with 15 stops of DR are you kidding me all for $5,000 we should be jumping for joy I know I am. It's a smart business move on their end because they know how many Canon users there is out there using EF Lenses and Canon runs the lens market. To everyone out there imagine putting yourself in their shoes running a multi million dollar company & coming out with a brand new camera most importantly a Super 35mm Size Sensor Cinema Camera, EF mount would be the best choice what better way to convert some of those Canon users. Don't get me wrong MTF lenses are phenomenal I love them, but MTF Lenses won't even cover a Super 35mm Sensor why would you want to crop the sensor. On ebay there are a soo.. many amazing cheap lens that you can buy to use with the Blackmagic Mini. Last thing I'm going to say is Blackmagic with the Mini 4.6K is on the brink of taking over the indie market totally, definitely disturbing the higher end market as well, and solidifying themselves as the new kids on the block. I know they had the Production Cinema Camera, the original URSA, BMCC ect.. but nothing compares to this upgrade out there period. By the way they have a sample video showcasing the new Sensor images are amazing.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev I'm restricted by NDAs.

    How about this. Name me a lens not made by sony that's in E mount.

    Then name me a camera that isn't made by Sony that has E-Mount.

    JB

  • @Tron I think the camera is priced to hit a sweet spot for pros that want a very low cost B camera.

    Indies will like it too but the reality is that legacy 135 stills lenses is getting pretty niche.

    I get it I really do but honestly I think it's a pretty small market after EF and PL.

    JB

  • How about this. Name me a lens not made by sony that's in E mount.

    Sigma and Tamron make E mount lenses - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Tamron&ci=17912&N=4196380428+4099560915+4291220258+4291172234

    I mention AF lenses only, of course.

    Then name me a camera that isn't made by Sony that has E-Mount.

    I was talking about active adapters here like - http://www.ebay.com/itm/FOTGA-Electronic-AF-Full-Frame-Adapter-for-Canon-EF-S-lens-to-Sony-NEX-E-Mount-/201269544046

    It is plenty of them for E mount but for m43 manufacturers where punished by m43 members as I know.

  • @Grierdill I have a large number of Sony Alpha/Minolta Maxxum lenses for both aps-c an FF. Prefer to have chance to use focal reducers. I also have a m42 lens with a good anamorphic adapter. Lastly, several really nice mft lenses that would probably work great in some crop mode w/lower rez.

  • As I said.

    I know there are lenses.

    I know there are adapters (that allow you to use lenses on SONY cameras.

    No one makes an E-Mount camera except Sony.

    See where this is going ?

    JB

  • No one makes an E-Mount camera except Sony.

    Well, may be BM will be first? :-)

    See where this is going ?

    It is not going anywhere, I just told that m43 is not fluffy smiling teddy bear :-)

  • How much more clear can I be.

    Sony will not allow camera manufactures to make cameras that are E mount native. I know. They won't license the mount to allow this.

    They happily allow third parties to make lenses and accessories that work in their cameras. THEIR cameras.

    Like Panavision, the mount is the key to keeping it proprietary.

    You're disparaging mft and yet there are many lens, accessory AND camera manufactures that use the mount.

    You keep alluding that E mount is somehow open, Sony are friendly and it's doable. They aren't.

    Even canon still refuse to publicize their lens protocols. Every EF accessory out there has had to reverse engineer that knowledge.

    JB

  • Sony will not allow camera manufactures to make cameras that are E mount native. I know. They won't license the mount to allow this.

    Well, this must be in your first reply :-)

    Like Panavision, the mount is the key to keeping it proprietary.

    I think more correct term here is - not licensing it for camera manufacturers.

    You're disparaging mft and yet there are many lens, accessory AND camera manufactures that use the mount.

    No one here is "disparaging mft", as I just told you facts I know.

    You keep alluding that E mount is somehow open, Sony are friendly and it's doable.

    I did not say any of this things. You somehow managed to interpret it this way, do not know why.

    Sony published that you can license mount information, and I said that Sony is fully ok with active adapters manufacturers (who did not license or sign anything).

    Even canon still refuse to publicize their lens protocols. Every EF accessory out there has had to reverse engineer that knowledge.

    Yep, but Canon do not call active adapters manufacturers with request to stop production and development. They are ok with it as I know from multiple sources.

    P.S. My fault for guiding discussion offtopic.

  • Discussing Sony E mount is just a side distraction..... the fact is, BMD could TODAY put in place bringing out a m4/3 URSA Mini if they wished to. They've already done it with their other cameras.