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.

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.

MFT would indeed be best, and is one of the big factors holding me back from buying this camera. (With built in ND filters being the other big missing piece from this camera)

It is a fallacy to say it would mean a smaller sensor, as JVC has proved MFT works well with Super 35mm

E Mount would be better.

I've made a quick comparison flipping one image and resizing according to specs and URSA looks really close in size to FS7. I hoped it was a more suitable camera for my Ronin but it seems it will have the same big problems of Sony model. Sad to know that a 60k$ regular RED camera fits perfectly and a 5K$ "mini" URSA is a pain to be used :(

@leonbeas native ISO is a bit over 800 - the new sensor behaves the same (actually a hair better) in lowlight like the Pocket and original 2.5k BMCC - and yeah no black sun dot and no FPN

I have no use for 4.6k. It's ridiculous. The only advantage I see to the higher resolutions is better end color resolution. Almost everybody is delivering a 2K master for projection and broadcast/digital distribution.

Even RED's 8K is only attractive in that it may yield a true 444 color option with equal numbers of RB and G lines for every line of 4K res.

@Sangye You claim 1150 an hour for RAW 4:1 yet compare it to a GH4 ? Do you shoot RAW 4:1 your GH 4 ? with your RED or ArriRAW ?

Horses for courses...I think the media cost isn't insignificant, but it's already more or less halved over the last 12 months...

CFast is here to stay and, like SSD's will get cheaper. More can more cameras support it (like the new C series Canons)

JB

@Sangye I'm holding off on a purchase too, probably until the price on the 4.6K drops a little further and CFAST 2.0 becomes a bit more price & brand competitive. A big plus to this cam is that rental costs should be very reasonable - as low as $300 for 4-5 days, plus it requires almost no rigging to get the job done.

@Tron you're right, I wasn't calculating using their 4:1 compression figure. $1120/hr is a little better. Still about twice as much as SSDs would cost though. I would definitely consider this camera for paid documentary gigs, but for the freelance work I'm doing now, it's a big expense. Either I use my GH4, or I rent a RED / Alexa. The upfront cost of owning this puts it just out of reach for me. Maybe once CFast cards and storage in general gets a little cheaper!

My math works out to 32 mins of raw 4.6K/30P per 256GB card (with 4:1 compression). These 128GB cards seem fairly reasonable - http://www.amazon.com/Apacer-APCFA128GACAD-BTM-MLC-High-Speed/dp/B00RB5FPAM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1424266220&sr=8-4&keywords=apacer+cfast+2.0+128gb That would get the price down around $1120/hr if they work.

Expect to budget an extra $3000 per hour of RAW recording time.

256GB will hold around 20 minutes of 4.6K RAW, and a 256GB CFast card costs around $1000 at the moment.

Too bad they couldn't have used SSDs.