@IronFilm - exactly. While using other lenses could utilize the full 4.6K, I wonder how much they would need to crop to accommodate mft lenses (may vary somewhat by lens, so maybe allow to crop by x%). I'm guessing the result would still be higher resolution than 1080p. If it could get into the 2.5K range, that would be plenty for me.

@johnbrawley Will BMD let you test the Mini soon? We are all waiting for real life shootage!

The super 35 sized sensor is too big for MFT to cover. So you want BMD to make a MFT sized sensor and crop out of the rest of the uncovered area to accommodate MFT lenses? Sounds like a waste to me. There's always the JVC way.

Im sure if BMD is actually making the call for the low level sensor specs, they would have considered a smaller size sensor, etc...

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.

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 :-)

@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.

@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

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.

"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.

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).

very interested, but please, no black sun

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..

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