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.
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 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 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 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.
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
MFT would mean smaller sensor, E mount was the right way to go.
E Mount would be better.
I wish they made this with an MFT mount!! It would open it up to all kinds of lensing options!
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 :(
Well this is good news, because if 1600 ISO maybe 3200 ISO is usable than the mini ursa can be a real winner. Lets see the tests.
Share them with us please, I am really interested and also feedback on the temperature of the camera, and other issues you discover, I assume the temp issue is also gone because the battery in no longer present.
Also anyone here has clear the crop factor, is it really super 35 in 4.6k 4k and 1080p, or the crop factor changes and how?
I hope they work very hard to get a good firmware at launch, because this camera may be what many of us where waiting for a long time, it's cheaper than the sony FS7, better quality overall, great form factor, and hey it looks like a real camera, LOL
@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
@leonbeas I agree with you, the real limit of bmd sensors is the iso performance, I've seen that the original URSA's sensor in the real life has slightly improved this aspect...hope to test the mini soon...
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.
@Vitaliy_Kiselev Red already do electronic back focus adjustment by moving the sensor, but again it's expensive to get right...
JB
@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
Any news on the ISO performance, that was a big letdown on previous models, unless you bring the light truck with you on location.
@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!
Well, well, well... Looks like I could very well be saying so-long to Panasonic.
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.
CFast is actually using same interface as SSDs or mSATA drives. But it is so much niche product.
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.
Also, internchangeable mounts are very difficult to do if you want precision. Wasn't' the RED Titanium EF mount 2 or 3K ?
By idea, with present 5 axis sensor based stabilizers it is not so hard to compensate to mount imperfections :-)
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!