BMCC EF or MFT?

Hi all-

I am confused as to which I would be better off with- the EF or MFT version of the BMCC (I am not interested in the pocket camera, I want the 2.5k raw capability)

I am planning on mostly tripod work, documentaries, interview kind of things (I have a project in mind, and then some- after I figure out how it all works ). I might do some handheld, but not much.

I have quite a bit of good and some excellent nikon glass at my disposal (the list, if it helps: old beast of a 20-35 f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 versions, 70-200 f/2.8, 35mm (f/1.4 & dx f/1.8), plus some others). A couple of the old ones have an aperture ring, but most don't.

Would it be a mistake to think that I can rely on using the speedbooster all of the time?

I should mention that my alternative would be the EF mount, along with a decent zoom (maybe the sigma 18-35 f/1.8, or the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8), along with a novaflex adapter or similar to use my nikon lenses on that body as well.

Many Thanks,

-jamie

Both would be fine for the lenses you have access to.

I own a BMCC EF (and a BMPCC) that I use with my Carl Zeiss ZF.2 and Nikon primes. I also have a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS that I use for hand held work.

Having access to IS lenses for handheld work is very useful.

With the recent price drop I've seriously been considering adding the BMCC MFT as I can then use my Speedbooster with my Zeiss glass.

In your case if handheld is a minor need I'd grab the BMCC MFT and a Speedbooster.

How well does the IS work in your opinion?

Have you ever done an on/off comparison?

The IS in the 17-55 f/2.8 Canon lens is pretty good. Smooths out the jitters that are present with rolling shutter.

I've shot with on and off (I don't have any online). You can clearly see the benefit especially at longer focal length (35-55).

With IS on I can shoot without a should rig.