Ursa Mini 4.6k

I am considering buying the camera but have EF lenses so would want the EF mount version I have the production camera and solved the loose EF mount by unscrewing the flange and putting in a ring to make the lenses accurate.

Will the new mini EF mount be just as loose or will it be adjustable at all?

Hard to tell until it is actually released. That said, Canon EF mounts are not very consistent and tend towards looseness, and wear issues. What would solve the problem, might be some type of cam lock to tighten the lens in the mont when it is seated.

Yes but BM's implementation has so far been so out no EF lens witness marks work and close focusing was out of the question. Would be nice if they could address this on the newer models.

Yes, but still lenses are not accurate enough to have accurate witness marks, EF lens standard is too loose to even get close, you need to go to PL and Cime lenses that are made to a tighter tolerance.

Denny My lenses are CN-E primes and not the problem.
BM make their EF mount to also cover inaccurate lenses. What would be good is if the camera came with a shim to make it an accurate EF mount too.

Mark, would a third-party shim for EF do the trick on the new URSA Mini?


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Is screen of ursa mini matte or glance?

Mark, that would be a good solution, too. Also, adopting the newer improved C Mount from the C300, which is designed for the CN-E Cine Primes would be a better choice, perhaps. How do you like the Canon Cine primes?

Rick, If a third party developed a shim I'd jump on it!
Denny I love the Canons! I'm not sure what you mean by adopting the C3OO C mount?

In theory could you not just use a lens support with a fastener?

Actually I think that Blackmagic Design should offer simple interchangeable mounts on 4 screws and let us an option to change it as easy as you can do it on RED and some Alexa cameras.
PL-Mount, Canon EF-Mount , Nikon Mount, etc... instead produce two cameras with PL and EF mounts...
I think this will be better, because I know a lot of DP/Cameramen who have a bunch of good Nikon lenses, I have some EF lenses, but also I planning to get or RENT some PL lenses, so...

Why I have to buy TWO URSA Minor 4.6K cameras, instead of ONE, but with option to change my mount?

( ...I thinks lens support needed in ANY configuration .. I always use it, no matter what camera and lenses I have... )

IMHO

In theory could you not just use a lens support with a fastener?

Unfortunately not. The mount is set to far back in order to accommodate all the badly made EF lenses to err on the side of allowing infinity for those not built to EF tolerances. You really need a shim of some kind to make it more accurate for those lenses that adhere to the spec.

Cant believe BM have made the same mistake again.

Ya I'm surprised they didn't go with an EF Lock mount like what RED came up with.

Probably a build cost decision.

Ya I'm surprised they didn't go with an EF Lock mount like what RED came up with.

Probably a build cost decision.

That would be my guess as well, given that even the PL mount option adds $500 to the camera's cost.

Now to slowly build up a collection of PL mount lenses...

... Now to slowly build up a collection of PL mount lenses...

If I could be allowed to paraphrase your statement, Rakesh:

Now to slowly build up a set of affordable PL mount lenses.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Now to slowly build up a set of affordable PL mount lenses.

Hopefully, that won't be an oxymoron for much longer

Now to slowly build up a set of affordable PL mount lenses.

Hopefully, that won't be an oxymoron for much longer

PL is too niche to get the costs down. If someone, like say Veydra, decided to do PL, I doubt they could move enough volume to get the cost under $3K+ each, and at that point, you might as well stretch for the Canon's or Zeiss.

PL is too niche to get the costs down. If someone, like say Veydra, decided to do PL, I doubt they could move enough volume to get the cost under $3K+ each, and at that point, you might as well stretch for the Canon's or Zeiss.

You're probably right. My plan was to save up for Compact Primes, and start renting them when I didn't need them for production.

My plan is wait for the release of the SLR Magic 50mm T2.1 APO which is due "early this year." "Early" means by June 30th I presume. If anyone hears anything encouraging about the release or any further tests of it, I'd very much appreciate hearing about it.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

That would be a great "starter" PL mount lens

Hmmm ... I have Zeiss EF mount Duclos still primes and one Zeiss Super Speed 35mm Cinema EF lens and have not had any problems with my BMCC. Are folks on here talking about looseness, infinity focus issues, or both? I am assuming that all my lenses are all to proper spec and that's why I am not experiencing any problems or is there that much variance in the BMD EF mount.

Hmmm ... I have Zeiss EF mount Duclos still primes and one Zeiss Super Speed 35mm Cinema EF lens and have not had any problems with my BMCC. Are folks on here talking about looseness, infinity focus issues, or both? I am assuming that all my lenses are all to proper spec and that's why I am not experiencing any problems or is there that much variance in the BMD EF mount.

Both. Looseness can be handled with lens supports in most cases, but infinity focus is always a hassle with EF mounts.

The original BMCC had a flange focal distance of exactly 44mm as everyone understands is correct for an EF mount camera. But then many people complained that their favourite lenses wouldn't focus to infinity, particularly the Tokina 11-16mm but others as well. So BMD offered to fix the problem for those who requested a fix by shortening the FFD. All future BMCC were sent from the factory with the shorter FFD.

People were mostly happy their lenses could focus to infinity, but that also meant the witness marks on quality lenses like the Canon CN-E primes were no longer accurate. Understandably frustrating for those with professional Ciné lenses that they were no longer accurate. It appears the EF FFD has remained a bit short on all later iterations of the BMD cameras: BMPC4K, URSA. There is hope that the URSA Mini will have an accurate 44mm EF FFD so witness marks on Ciné lenses will be reliable.

The EF mount on BMD cameras is the normal mount from a physical perspective with which most people are familiar. The mount doesn't lock securely like a PL mount and that can cause problems for example when pulling focus.

The mounts themselves are not as strongly built and so over time with heavy use, the mount can experience more wear than, once again, for example, a titanium PL mount.

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Well Summed up Rick.

Just to add though I have never had problems with follow focus on any lens with the EF mount on the production camera.
I have made my own shim and I could possibly apply this same solution to the new BM Mini But it may not work and it's not a professional solution. But if I can do it there is no reason why this cant be done.

Perhaps BM or a third party manufacturer could come up with a shim to make the mount exactly to spec for those who need it!

You're probably right. My plan was to save up for Compact Primes, and start renting them when I didn't need them for production.

CP's a re a very pragmatic and great option, because they at least have interchangeable lens mounts and can be easily user re-shimmed as well, which means you can tailor the lenses to any camera mount variances.

This is unlike the CN-E canons and even the more expensive Schneider options.

They have their own shortcomings, but they are really good value for money and longevity just for the mount flexibility.

JB

Well Summed up Rick.

Just to add though I have never had problems with follow focus on any lens with the EF mount on the production camera.
I have made my own shim and I could possibly apply this same solution to the new BM Mini But it may not work and it's not a professional solution. But if I can do it there is no reason why this cant be done.

Perhaps BM or a third party manufacturer could come up with a shim to make the mount exactly to spec for those who need it!

Mark ... Curious ... how did you make your shim? Do you have a pic? Are there specific lenses you are using the shim with and not with others?

Hi Scott

First I tried to lobby BM but without any success and with some criticism anger and resentment for my attempts on the forum. Eventually I gave up as BM were not listening and the argument was no longer viable. However through it all I did find a solution in part from myself and in part from one forum member whose suggestions helped better my solution.

I used tape on the outside and this worked well but was ugly temporary and left me wondering about unscrewing the flange and inserting tape there where it wouldn't be in the way of lens changes wearing it away as well as the possible problem of bits getting into the sensor area by sticking it externally on the mount.

Adam Roberts suggested the flange could be removed and warned of a spring inside that needs to be taken into account He further suggested I got some shims made But I thought that could be a lot of time and expense for something that may not work out.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22052&start=50#p140680

In a later post Adam suggested I use Gel instead of tape which I found to be perfect. I would warn though that I cut out the required shape and also screw holes and got lucky with this I wouldn't advise others to do the same and do so at your own risk. That's why it would be better if a more professional solution was found.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27517

However, for me the results have solved the problem for my current camera at least.

PL is too niche to get the costs down. If someone, like say Veydra, decided to do PL, I doubt they could move enough volume to get the cost under $3K+ each, and at that point, you might as well stretch for the Canon's or Zeiss.

You're probably right. My plan was to save up for Compact Primes, and start renting them when I didn't need them for production.

In comparison to the CP2's, the Sony CineALTA gen II is an interesting option if you don't mind the weight. They don't cover full frame either, but that shouldn't be an issue.
$13K, or ~$2100 per lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/9 ... _lens.html

In comparison to the CP2's, the Sony CineALTA gen II is an interesting option if you don't mind the weight. They don't cover full frame either, but that shouldn't be an issue.

To be honest, I actually DO mind the weight... because I'm not only going to using this beast on a film set. I plan on dragging it up a mountainside or two... unless the Axiom Beta gets here in time for my Sahale Peak summit bid.

For just use in cinema, I don't care all that much about weight. I got a nifty new rig that I will hopefully be freed to write a review of in the next few weeks that would probably appeal to Black Magic users because of its price tag and build quality, but the makers are dealing with some IP issues, I can't say more about it (yet).

Adam Roberts suggested the flange could be removed and warned of a spring inside that needs to be taken into account He further suggested I got some shims made But I thought that could be a lot of time and expense for something that may not work out.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22052&start=50#p140680

In a later post Adam suggested I use Gel instead of tape which I found to be perfect. I would warn though that I cut out the required shape and also screw holes and got lucky with this I wouldn't advise others to do the same and do so at your own risk. That's why it would be better if a more professional solution was found.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27517

Thanks for the tip, Mark via Adam.

You're welcome Scott. Hope it helps!

Actually I think that Blackmagic Design should offer simple interchangeable mounts on 4 screws and let us an option to change it as easy as you can do it on RED and some Alexa cameras.
PL-Mount, Canon EF-Mount , Nikon Mount, etc... instead produce two cameras with PL and EF mounts...
I think this will be better, because I know a lot of DP/Cameramen who have a bunch of good Nikon lenses, I have some EF lenses, but also I planning to get or RENT some PL lenses, so...

Why I have to buy TWO URSA Minor 4.6K cameras, instead of ONE, but with option to change my mount?

( ...I thinks lens support needed in ANY configuration .. I always use it, no matter what camera and lenses I have... )

IMHO

+1

And please add EF lock mount

Actually I think that Blackmagic Design should offer simple interchangeable mounts on 4 screws and let us an option to change it as easy as you can do it on RED and some Alexa cameras.
PL-Mount, Canon EF-Mount , Nikon Mount, etc... instead produce two cameras with PL and EF mounts...
I think this will be better, because I know a lot of DP/Cameramen who have a bunch of good Nikon lenses, I have some EF lenses, but also I planning to get or RENT some PL lenses, so...

Why I have to buy TWO URSA Minor 4.6K cameras, instead of ONE, but with option to change my mount?

( ...I thinks lens support needed in ANY configuration .. I always use it, no matter what camera and lenses I have... )

IMHO

+1

And please add EF lock mount

+2

The AJA approach seems like the best way to go, since other manufacturers like Wooden Camera and MTF Services jumped on board to make lens mounts for it. And the Cion has only been available for less than six months.

That might make for higher production cost, and probably also would make the sensor upgrade something that would require sending the camera into Black Magic.

+1

And please add EF lock mount

Have you priced a RED EF mount ? It's 3k from memory.

That's probably what it would cost to do something with repeatable field swappable precision.

You want to add 3k to the price of the camera ?

The PL mount is already 500 more and not swappable.

JB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But John, then they'd be able to complain that it's too expensive.

+1

And please add EF lock mount

Have you priced a RED EF mount ? It's 3k from memory.

That's probably what it would cost to do something with repeatable field swappable precision.

You want to add 3k to the price of the camera ?

The PL mount is already 500 more and not swappable.

JB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The RED EF mount costs $700 and $2000 for alumunium and Titanium EF mounts respectively.

Similar cost for other mounts like PL and Leica M.

Whether I'll be adding these mounts to the price of my camera is my option. But if needed I would rather spend $2000 to buy the additional mount than buy a whole camera at double the price.

Does that make sense now?

The point is,

To make a precision mount (not from aluminum) costs. Both on the mount AND in the way it mounts to the camera.

It is so critical to get this right and can't be done cheaply at all.

The option to have this will add thousands to the cost of the camera. Because as well the mount itself the camera has to have the same precision in the engineering to allow for users to swap them out.

JB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JB

I understand your point very much. Yet, the price of a precision extra mount costs less than the camera itself, even at BMD price point.

Also, since many critical accessories of a BMD camera are left to third party vendors (SSDs and CF cards for example), the mounts could have been left to others too. Just a swappable mount option would have done the trick.

And we could have got another round of tech specs like "BMD approved camera mounts" as we get to see with SSDs and CF cards.

I'm not really sure you understand how critical a LENS mount is.

It's something that has to be made with a lot of precision.

The EF mount doesn't have the same precision because the lenses are designed that way. (Which by the way, is what you're asking to fix with a locking style mount)

That precision costs. Right now it costs more to have a dumb PL mount than a smart EF or MFT mount.

And that's before you make them user interchangeable.

It's already in evidence that blackmagic, even with their MO are still charging more for a DUMB mount.

It's going to add substantially to the cost and I don't think most people want that.

JB



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JB, there's no point in getting into an argument, since we have different points of view. But still, in case...

I'm not really sure you understand how critical a LENS mount is.

It's something that has to be made with a lot of precision.

Of course I understand. It's not only the lens mount though. The entire camera has to work with precision. The sensor, the recorder, the codecs. Everything needs to work in tandem.

The EF mount doesn't have the same precision because the lenses are designed that way. (Which by the way, is what you're asking to fix with a locking style mount)

It's not me who is asking for this fix of a locking style mount. This is fast become the Industry standard. Red has it, Arri Amira has it, Kinefinity has it, Canon C-300 Mark II will have it. I see no reason why BMD cameras cannot have this.

That precision costs. Right now it costs more to have a dumb PL mount than a smart EF or MFT mount.

And that's before you make them user interchangeable.

It's already in evidence that blackmagic, even with their MO are still charging more for a DUMB mount.

It's going to add substantially to the cost and I don't think most people want that.

This costing factor is actually beyond me. I am not a cost analysis person.

I can only ponder that Arri and Red cameras cost the same in both the mounts. And their PL mount IS NOT DUMB unlike BMD cameras. Suitable PL lenses can pass on the digital metadata to the camera. Yet, their PL mounts cost the same as their EF mounts.

Actually, I do not mind a dumb PL mount. But a locking EF mount can make a world of difference. Even it that meant that the price of BMD EF mount cameras costed the same as their PL versions.

I think the reality is that BMD just didn't have time. They announced 38 new products. Just try to imagine how much design time alone this would require, let alone engineering, software, etc.

MAYBE we'll see something like swappable mount or lockable EF on the next version, that's FAR more how BMD does things. Release, then improve with revisions and newer versions and update current models as far as they can with firmware updates.

To that end, if they hadn't already considered this before (unlikely, they've probably considered far more than anything that's come up in these forums) it would be on their radar now so job done and we can move on.

Sometimes manufactures simply charge more because they can. I'm sure both the Al, and Ti mounts are built to the same tolerances, yet titanium resists deformity, and temperature extremes. I will give a great example of what I mean. A few years ago, someone cut off, and stole the exhaust off my 911. I had the standard exhaust system, because Porsche charges $3K for the upgraded sport version of the exhaust as an option when buying the car. When I had the car towed to the dealership, they replaced the standard stolen exhaust with the sport exhaust because the part was $1500 cheaper than the standard exhaust. When I asked the service rep what that was all about, he said that all Porsche options are pure profit.

If costs need to be kept down and interchangeable mounts can't be offered, then the very least that should be done is offer an MFT or E-mount option. No, they're not the most solid mounts. But it would at least give people the option of coming up with their own solutions for swapping between PL and various stills mounts. And to come up with their own methods of shimming and supporting, whether it's for a cam-locking EF or Nikon or whatever other mount. One could fabricate baseplate supported mounts, like some third party PL mounts for dSLRs. Or make adapters that have cam locks on both sides, that can both tighten itself to the camera body, and tighten the lens into the mount. There could certainly be simple and cost effective options. Easy compromise that won't cost BMD anything.

If costs need to be kept down and interchangeable mounts can't be offered, then the very least that should be done is offer an MFT or E-mount option.

If you're gonna make suggestions about what SHOULD be done, then at least do a search and realise E Mount has been discussed many times and is under patent by Sony which they won't license. BMD is part of the MFT consortium and EF is no longer under patent since it is so old. MFT is unlikely since the sensor in the camera is so much bigger and it's silly to have a mount that you can't use the native lenses for without sensor cropping and MUST adapt to use full resolution - just because one company made a camera like that, doesn't mean others should (how have sales for that camera gone?). The best option would be a interchangeable mount, and perhaps in the next versions we will see that.

Steven, there is no doubt a m4/3 mount could've been offered with the URSA Mini 4K.
After all, JVC is already using a Super 35mm sensor in their m4/3 camcorder.

I hope the reason they excluded it is simply due to a lack of time to get it designed and implemented, and that once the other URSA Mini cameras are shipping they'll announce an URSA Mini 4K with m4/3 (kinda like they did with the BMCC MFT) as that I'd get!!!

Steven, there is no doubt a m4/3 mount could've been offered with the URSA Mini 4K.
After all, JVC is already using a Super 35mm sensor in their m4/3 camcorder.

just because one company made a camera like that, doesn't mean others should (how have sales for that camera gone?).

Already covered this in my post above yours. Who is gonna get that JVC camera? EF and PL were a good decision for the 4.6K sensor. Interchangeable on the next version would be a good next step. MFT on a big sensor is a fudge and a halfway solution, just make a proper interchangeable mount and be done with it.

Interchangeable Mount would require substantial R&D from BMD beforehand, m4/3 is already there and waiting. Plus they have substantial experience already implementing it on their cameras. In terms of R&D, adding m4/3 to their URSA Mini 4K should be the easiest new mount to add to their line up.

Plus for many people this isn't a "half solution", it is an ideal solution because we're already geared upmfor m4/3 mount.

The point is,

To make a precision mount (not from aluminum) costs. Both on the mount AND in the way it mounts to the camera.
It is so critical to get this right and can't be done cheaply at all.
The option to have this will add thousands to the cost of the camera. Because as well the mount itself the camera has to have the same precision in the engineering to allow for users to swap them out.

Are you sure about "not from aluminum" ? WHY? ... if you look carefully to RED-mounts you will see that all mounts RED offered are "Lock-Mounts" .. and I'm sure they are 100% stronger that standard EF-mount on BMPC4K, URSA and URSA-Mini cameras!!!



..and I'm sure, that if I'd like to get very strong PL-mount for HUGE Cinema Lenses, I'm also sure, that for most Canon and Nikon lenses, Aluminum Lock Mounts will be more than enough!

.. so, why small American RED company are able to offer that PROPER OPTIONS for they users, when big Australian Blackmagic Design company don't even thinking about they OWN PROFIT!!!
Yes! I'm talking about they PROFIT!!!

I'm sure that if Blackmagic listen to my arguments and OFFER us "AN USER-INTERCHANGEABLE MOUNT URSA and URSA MINI 4.6K CAMERAS" ( instead of producing FOUR (!!!) different cameras of URSA and URSA Mini - and specially to produce cheap 4K URSA and URSA MINI cameras ) - much more cinematographers will jump from different brands, as Sony, Canon, Panasonic and others to that Blackmagic cameras!!!
and a LOT of them will pay $7,495 for URSA 4.6K and $5,495 for URSA Mini 4.6K WITH PL MOUNTS!!!.., and they will be happy to pay an EXTRA $700-$800 for CANON or NIKON mounts, depends of what set of lenses they ready have!
This will save a lot of money for Blackmagic - in case do NOT produce almost useless "variations" of cameras and give them MUCH MORE PROFIT and will make HAPPY THOUSANDS Users with PL, Canon and Nikon lenses

Look to my own situation: I ready order URSA MINI 4.6K camera with EF-mount, even I don't have a lot of Canon lenses... why? - because I don't have PL-lenses yet!!!

.. but a couple days ago I was trying Sony CineAlta Lenses in B&H and I LIKE IT SO MUCH, even they are HUGE and about 2kg each



Take a look to my video taken with 3 of this lenses and ... ( SHAME!!! - with Sony FS7 camera with PL adapter, because I'm NOT able to try them on my BMPC4K EF-camera.. and B&H don't even have BMPC4K with PL mount ON SHELVES!! - only STOCK, sealed PL-cameras for sale, so they are not able to give me a try... )

This short video (in 4K on YOUTUBE ) not even real "test" just a try of 20mm, 35mm and 135mm lenses on T2 open aperture...
....so?. .if I get this set of Lenses NOW - I cannot use them on my BPMC4K.. and I'm not able to preorder PL URSA Mini, if I don't get this lenses..

I've been working with Red cameras starting from the Red One. Believe me, apart from those mounts not being cheap, they would require the camera to have an adjustable sensor positioning to eliminate tolerances, which is obviously making the whole construction more expensive too. The tolerances for such mounts are so tight that you are even recommended to tighten the screws in a defined sequence not to tilt the mount when changing it.

So, if you want to compare, you'll need to compare the whole camera, not the price of the mounts only. To put it in other words, if you want Red, buy Red and pay the premium.

For my part I'm very impressed what BM has made possible at that price point. They even forced Red to escape into the upper regions, since people would think twice now to buy a Scarlet MX vs a BM camera. Have a look at the costs for their "Weapon".

Regarding those Sony lenses, I tested both versions. Believe me, the first series had very crappy mounts and it took them quite a while to get things right. Only the second generation has decent mounts (the lenses were always good for the price) and still their tolerances are less tight than high-end glass from Zeiss or Cooke.