Blackmagic Forum

Hey everyone, hobbyist here looking into the BMPCC.

I am fairly new to all this, looking to graduate from prosumer camcorders to the BMPCC.

I know it arrives lens-less and you need to purchase an MFT lens. I also know no one has been able to get their hands on it yet so maybe this thread is moot from the start.

I mostly plan on shooting live concerts, inside with just concert-type lights. What's a good MFT lens for this?

I would need: OIS, auto-focus and some kind of zoom (3x, 4x?). Obviously the more compact the better.

Thanks.

We don't know about exact compatibility with every MFT lens out there yet, but usually that info begins to appear soon after a camera starts to ship, if not sooner.

The Panasonic Lumix X VARIO 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. lens is one possibility if you want a fully-digital lens:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemca ... index.html

There are many MFT and MFT-adaptable lenses available, from many different manufacturers, and at a wide variety of prices.

In general I recommend against buying expensive accessories for a camera you don't yet have in-hand. Get the camera first, then get lens(es) for it. That way you can return a lens for a full refund, from a reputable dealer, if necessary.

-

Thanks for the reply, kind of sounds like what I am looking for. Will wait until the camera starts shipping of course.

Another question that will really out me as a newbie, on that lens' product page is a lot of numbers being thrown around, which one tells me the "optical zoom" (i.e. camcorders have 10x, etc.)?

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemca ... 12_35.html

Thanks again.

Tom_T wrote:Thanks for the reply, kind of sounds like what I am looking for. Will wait until the camera starts shipping of course.

Another question that will really out me as a newbie, on that lens' product page is a lot of numbers being thrown around, which one tells me the "optical zoom" (i.e. camcorders have 10x, etc.)?

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemca ... 12_35.html

Thanks again.

the numbers on these cameras are different to your video cameras you are used to. you wont get 10x or anything like that. the zoom is expressed in the 12 - 35mm.

I would probably say that the 12 - 35 on the pocket camera would be like from a little bit wider than the view that your eyes see to quite zoomed in.

I think I need to find an idiot's guide to lenses.

I figured I wouldn't get 10x magnification with something so compact but is there any way to quantify it in that way from looking at the lens specs?

Tom_T wrote:I think I need to find an idiot's guide to lenses.

I figured I wouldn't get 10x magnification with something so compact but is there any way to quantify it in that way from looking at the lens specs?

10x doesn't really mean anything, it's just marketing speak. It means that it goes from one focal length to 10x that. But the starting focal length changes with each camera and lens.

So is that why zooms are quantified that way on camcorders? Because the focal length is always fixed whereas with a lens it changes depending on the camera? Makes sense. I guess I just need to get a feel for what these numbers mean.

Darkfable wrote:I would probably say that the 12 - 35 on the pocket camera would be like from a little bit wider than the view that your eyes see to quite zoomed in.

Sounds like this lens will be pretty adequate for my needs as far as zoom goes.

Has anyone decided to purchase the new Panasonic Lumix 20mm F1.7 lens? I know that besides the new casing there is not much anything new added, but I decided to go with it anyways.

ALSO: based on my brother's positive feedback, I decided to buy off of ebay a Contax C/Y Carl Zeiss Tessar 45mm f/2.8 45/2.8 T* Lens and a EzFoto Tilt Contax Yashica C/Y Lens to M4/3 MFT Camera Adapter (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005FD2U6Y/ref ... YR9YT466WP)

While my brother uses his on an NEX, I look forward to seeing how this Contax C/Y lens will perform. It's a beautiful lens!

I also decided to try out a C-mount lens and purchased off of eBay a Fujinon H6X12.5R TV Zoom 1:1.2/12.5-75mm Lens with a C-mount to M43 adapter. Will definitely report back once the camera falls into my hands!

Buying lenses that work for film production is expensive and time consuming. The EF version can pretty much take most modern still lenses. So if you had that from a prosumer side just finding a still zoom that is pretty wide under $1000 is pretty easy. The MTF however can take pretty much all the movie pro lenses no problem as long as you have the adapter mounts. After that trying to stay cheap gets tricky real fast. In the end for just getting my rig up and running I went with Canon fd mount lenses. They are old you can find them on EBay for like $25 dollars and up get an FD to MTF adapter and your good to go. For zoom I got an old Nikon 24-120 T3.5/5.6. I was shooting with great results fairly quickly. I then bought an SLR Magic 12mm to work the wide end. Last I found a Vivatar 17mm Nikon mount. They all great lenses and I didn't have to spend too much money to get started. Hope this helps.

Malc84cine wrote:... I then bought an SLR Magic 12mm to work the wide end. Last I found a Vivatar 17mm Nikon mount. They all great lenses and I didn't have to spend too much money to get started. Hope this helps.

How do you like the SLR Magic 12mm? I'm thinking of that lens as an add on.

Dan

boscpug wrote:

Malc84cine wrote:... I then bought an SLR Magic 12mm to work the wide end. Last I found a Vivatar 17mm Nikon mount. They all great lenses and I didn't have to spend too much money to get started. Hope this helps.

How do you like the SLR Magic 12mm? I'm thinking of that lens as an add on.

Dan

Same here, although I can't work out the equivalent FOV - JB was saying on Twitter that the SLR Magic lenses are native M4/3, so I don't think the difference will be 2.88x.

Tom_T wrote:I think I need to find an idiot's guide to lenses.

I figured I wouldn't get 10x magnification with something so compact but is there any way to quantify it in that way from looking at the lens specs?

The 10x number is actually a ratio. the widest focal length divided into the longest focal length. So a 10-100mm lens (no matter the crop or sensor size is a 10X or as well like to say in the cine world, a 10:1

The 12-35 mm is a 3x or 3:1 or (2.91:1 to be totally precise)

Usually wide lenses like the 12-35 have lower ratios reflecting how much more difficult it is to make them.

jb

Ryan Jones wrote:

boscpug wrote:

Malc84cine wrote:... I then bought an SLR Magic 12mm to work the wide end. Last I found a Vivatar 17mm Nikon mount. They all great lenses and I didn't have to spend too much money to get started. Hope this helps.

How do you like the SLR Magic 12mm? I'm thinking of that lens as an add on.

Dan

Same here, although I can't work out the equivalent FOV - JB was saying on Twitter that the SLR Magic lenses are native M4/3, so I don't think the difference will be 2.88x.

Cropfactors ONLY matter if you're trying to compare a focal length equivalent on a full frame sensor.

In my mind they don't matter at all and are the single biggest cause of misunderstanding about frame sizes and shot sizes. Please don't get hung up on the crop factor unless you actually understand what it's used for.

The 12mm SLRmagic is a great lens. I generally like the manual focus primes as they mean you have a better feel when manually focusing. The lens also has a declicked iris, again, something that tends to better suit motion style shooting.

The only thing I don't love about the 12mm is that it can flare in unorthodox ways wide open. But it's also pretty easy to avoid...

jb

John Brawley wrote:
The 12mm SLRmagic is a great lens. I generally like the manual focus primes as they mean you have a better feel when manually focusing. The lens also has a declicked iris, again, something that tends to better suit motion style shooting.

The only thing I don't love about the 12mm is that it can flare in unorthodox ways wide open. But it's also pretty easy to avoid...

jb

What's build quality like? As good as a Voigtlander 17.5 0.95?

Gan Eden wrote:
What's build quality like? As good as a Voigtlander 17.5 0.95?

I'd say it's the same. It's well made and doesn't have a lot of slop in the action. SLR Magic are also good to deal with so I can't imagine if there was a problem they would be onto sorting it out.

I prefer the SLRMagic to the Voightlander which i found pretty milky wide open.

jb

But, the Voigtlander has some technical benefits over the SLR Magic. Voigtlander has less flare, no distortion, and in my personal opinion, better color rendering and contrast. It's also appears sharper than the SLR Magic at most stops except below an f2 or 1.6 area.

Thanks for that feedback John. Might look at the SLR Magic 12mm and 25mm instead. Is it worth getting the hood ring and lens gear?

As for flare, surely a hood or a matte box eliminates this?

sirandyhoffman wrote:But, the Voigtlander has some technical benefits over the SLR Magic. Voigtlander has less flare, no distortion, and in my personal opinion, better color rendering and contrast. It's also appears sharper than the SLR Magic at most stops except below an f2 or 1.6 area.

Well they aren't comparable are they ? One is a 12mm T1.6 and the other is a 17.5mm 0.96 for starters. And it "blooms" out to T2.8.

jb

Ryan Jones wrote:Thanks for that feedback John. Might look at the SLR Magic 12mm and 25mm instead. Is it worth getting the hood ring and lens gear?

As for flare, surely a hood or a matte box eliminates this?

Sure a mattebox can help, but sometimes you will get a flare because of something bright in shot. On the 12mm these flares can look unusual....not like a normal flare.

jb

boscpug wrote:

Malc84cine wrote:... I then bought an SLR Magic 12mm to work the wide end. Last I found a Vivatar 17mm Nikon mount. They all great lenses and I didn't have to spend too much money to get started. Hope this helps.

How do you like the SLR Magic 12mm? I'm thinking of that lens as an add on.

Dan

So far it's pretty cool. It's nice to have a really cool elegant lens like that in my pocket. Keeps the camera intimate even though mine is starting to get bulky.

if you are looking into something really small, look for C-mount lenses. The 10mm Distagon from Schneider (the 1" version!) is great, but not so cheap, I paid close to 300,- €.

A cheaper alternative are Zeiss Jena Tevidons, they also exist in 10mm and cover S-16. You'll need some lathe work to make them fit the adapter, though. Not too difficult, since that part can be taken off easily.

Malc84cine wrote:

boscpug wrote:

Malc84cine wrote:... I then bought an SLR Magic 12mm to work the wide end. Last I found a Vivatar 17mm Nikon mount. They all great lenses and I didn't have to spend too much money to get started. Hope this helps.

How do you like the SLR Magic 12mm? I'm thinking of that lens as an add on.

Dan

So far it's pretty cool. It's nice to have a really cool elegant lens like that in my pocket. Keeps the camera intimate even though mine is starting to get bulky.

I saw that SLR vs Voightlander test and fell in love with the SLR magic. Once you fall in love with a product it pretty much a done deal.

nomad wrote:if you are looking into something really small, look for C-mount lenses. The 10mm Distagon from Schneider (the 1" version!) is great, but not so cheap, I paid close to 300,- €.

A cheaper alternative are Zeiss Jena Tevidons, they also exist in 10mm and cover S-16. You'll need some lathe work to make them fit the adapter, though. Not too difficult, since that part can be taken off easily.

I love the schneider 10mm from my Bolex days. I just wasn't sure 10mm for 16mm C mount would cover 2.5 or would the image vignette.

Checkout http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html they got some good lineups.

John when you mean milky do you mean the picture is soft?

just pre ordered a BMPCC. I am just a photo enthusiast and wondered if I am better off with the panasonic 14mm 2.5 or the 20mm 1.7. Any advice would be appreciated.

also what does focus peaking and focus assist really mean? Will I be manually focusing the device? its a little confusing.

randy672 wrote:just pre ordered a BMPCC. I am just a photo enthusiast and wondered if I am better off with the panasonic 14mm 2.5 or the 20mm 1.7. Any advice would be appreciated.

also what does focus peaking and focus assist really mean? Will I be manually focusing the device? its a little confusing.

You ordered a device of which you don't yet know how it works? Brave!

What lens to order? Both. And then some. Seriously, you want to make films with it, right? The art of film making is all about chosing the right lens for the shot you have in mind, and that means to decide how wide and how fast your lens has to be to achieve your goal. 14 or 20 mil doesn't seem too different, yet the latter is almost 50% longer and that means a completely different image composition. On the other hand the 1:1.7 lens is a lot faster, gathering more light than the 1:2.0 .

Focus peaking / focus assist are visual aides for manual focussing, really usefull stuff, especially since the camera has no autofocus - at least it has not been in the specs. There may be some kind of autofocus in the future, but many interesting lenses are fully manual anyway, so an electronic focussing feature won't help there either.

yeah i know leap of faith. I buy BM stuff for my company and saw the Pocket Camera and was very intrigued by the technology and wanted a toy to play with. I'm also old enough to have used a manual focus camera in high school to shoot for my yearbook

i guess I am more concerned about what would the one i would rather keep on all the time for average shooting of hobbyist type stuff.

thanks for the advice.

Maybe one of the Panasonic zooms if you're after one walk around lens?

And Mac, they have now updated the firmware to include auto focus on the M4/3 lenses that support it.

randy672 wrote:just pre ordered a BMPCC. I am just a photo enthusiast and wondered if I am better off with the panasonic 14mm 2.5 or the 20mm 1.7. Any advice would be appreciated.

Between just those two lenses, the 20mm lens is sharper (very sharp wide open in the centre) and has less distortion. The BMPCC does not correct for the 3.6% Barrel distortion but on the BMPCC the distortion will not be quite that bad due to the sensor being smaller than a full micro four-thirds sensor. Vignetting is better at f/4, but noticeable at f/1.7. On the BMPCC, this will act like a slightly long 'normal' lens in terms of the angle of view. So you may need to step back a bit when shooting the family dog. It does cost more.

The 14mm is even smaller but both are pancakes so quite unobtrusive. Not as sharp but not bad. Vignette is more persistent even when the iris is stopped down a little. Distortion is 5% on the BMPCC since there is no in-camera correction of distortion in the BMPCC like a normal Panasonic or Olympus camera. The lens will act like a mild wide angle on the BMPCC which may be better indoors or in cramped quarters.

Your decision but I'd take the 20mm for the sharper lens and the faster aperture.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Ryan Jones wrote:And Mac, they have now updated the firmware to include auto focus on the M4/3 lenses that support it.

Have they? I only knew JBs twittered pre-release teasing, but thought it hadn't made it to the 1.4 firmware...

Mac Jaeger wrote:

Ryan Jones wrote:And Mac, they have now updated the firmware to include auto focus on the M4/3 lenses that support it.

Have they? I only knew JBs twittered pre-release teasing, but thought it hadn't made it to the 1.4 firmware...

I wasn't sure either but its in the new manual, so I guess it made it in. Was on all the demo units at this weeks event too.

Mac Jaeger wrote:

Ryan Jones wrote:And Mac, they have now updated the firmware to include auto focus on the M4/3 lenses that support it.

Have they? I only knew JBs twittered pre-release teasing, but thought it hadn't made it to the 1.4 firmware...

AF works on the pocket with 1.4

jb

John Brawley wrote:

Mac Jaeger wrote:

Ryan Jones wrote:And Mac, they have now updated the firmware to include auto focus on the M4/3 lenses that support it.

Have they? I only knew JBs twittered pre-release teasing, but thought it hadn't made it to the 1.4 firmware...

AF works on the pocket with 1.4

jb

I wouldn't get excited about that feature. I need time remaining on my SSD more than autofocus.

Malc84cine wrote:I wouldn't get excited about that feature. I need time remaining on my SSD more than autofocus.

This thread is not about the 1.4 firmware. It's about MFT lenses for bmpcc, which does not use ssds by the way.

John Brawley wrote:

Mac Jaeger wrote:

Ryan Jones wrote:And Mac, they have now updated the firmware to include auto focus on the M4/3 lenses that support it.

Have they? I only knew JBs twittered pre-release teasing, but thought it hadn't made it to the 1.4 firmware...

AF works on the pocket with 1.4

Thanks Ryan & John for clearing this up! I won't need it much as i'm going to use some older, all manual lenses mostly, but it's always good to have such a feature even if it's only used occasionally.

@Malc84cine

There are two versions of the 10mm Schneider Cinegon. Get the 1:1.8 one with the huge front lens (55mm filter thread), that will cover 1". should be plenty enough for the BMPCC according to my crop tests on the GH2.

The other does not, it only covers N-16mm.

nomad wrote:that will cover 1". should be plenty enough for the BMPCC according to my crop tests on the GH2.

Absolutely! Even most 2/3" lenses cover the s16 sensor nicely.

Mac Jaeger wrote:

nomad wrote:that will cover 1". should be plenty enough for the BMPCC according to my crop tests on the GH2.

Absolutely! Even most 2/3" lenses cover the s16 sensor nicely.

It's pretty cool looking. Anyone found any camera tests with it?

boscpug wrote:Has anyone decided to purchase the new Panasonic Lumix 20mm F1.7 lens? I know that besides the new casing there is not much anything new added, but I decided to go with it anyways.

I thought about going for that, but one unfortunate lack is of optical image stabilization. At a nearly 3x crop factor, such a wide lens (usually not with OIS) would have benefited. Hope someone else steps up.

John Brawley wrote:Cropfactors ONLY matter if you're trying to compare a focal length equivalent on a full frame sensor.

In my mind they don't matter at all and are the single biggest cause of misunderstanding about frame sizes and shot sizes. Please don't get hung up on the crop factor unless you actually understand what it's used for.

Seriously? You don't think there's any compromise in the area of lens physics when using lenses designed for ultra-wide focal lengths (with pertaining major flaws inherent in ultra-wides), for usages at telephoto focal lengths? We're talking about moving images here, where motion across the frame distorts more on ultra-wides.

focuspulling wrote:

John Brawley wrote:Cropfactors ONLY matter if you're trying to compare a focal length equivalent on a full frame sensor.

In my mind they don't matter at all and are the single biggest cause of misunderstanding about frame sizes and shot sizes. Please don't get hung up on the crop factor unless you actually understand what it's used for.

Seriously? You don't think there's any compromise in the area of lens physics when using lenses designed for ultra-wide focal lengths (with pertaining major flaws inherent in ultra-wides), for usages at telephoto focal lengths? We're talking about moving images here, where motion across the frame distorts more on ultra-wides.

An ultra-wide lens on a large sensor that covers the image circle of the lens may produce some unattractive results if there's motion across the frame. I feel that way personally with the amount of distortion that may occur but some people may feel differently. In any event, when the ultra-wide is mounted on the BMPCC, since the sensor is much smaller, you are only seeing the more central portion of the image circle. On the smaller sensor, any distortion from the lens is significantly reduced.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

rick.lang wrote:

focuspulling wrote:

John Brawley wrote:Cropfactors ONLY matter if you're trying to compare a focal length equivalent on a full frame sensor.

In my mind they don't matter at all and are the single biggest cause of misunderstanding about frame sizes and shot sizes. Please don't get hung up on the crop factor unless you actually understand what it's used for.

Seriously? You don't think there's any compromise in the area of lens physics when using lenses designed for ultra-wide focal lengths (with pertaining major flaws inherent in ultra-wides), for usages at telephoto focal lengths? We're talking about moving images here, where motion across the frame distorts more on ultra-wides.

An ultra-wide lens on a large sensor that covers the image circle of the lens may produce some unattractive results if there's motion across the frame. I feel that way personally with the amount of distortion that may occur but some people may feel differently. In any event, when the ultra-wide is mounted on the BMPCC, since the sensor is much smaller, you are only seeing the more central portion of the image circle. On the smaller sensor, any distortion from the lens is significantly reduced.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Quite agreed; I'm just comparing to ideal circumstances, where the reduced effect of distortion from ultra-wide lenses remains less ideal than a matched sensor size.

This is a really good time for filmmaking old lenses that were seemingly novelty items for conversation are back in style. manufactures are competing with one another to make the cheapest high quality glass they can get away with and the pros are finding new ways to take barrel distortion out of an 8mm. I say that to say the only limits currently are you wallet and imagination. Find a pawn shop and dig in you just might get lucky.

2 Questions about lenses for BMPCC:

1. Now it has come out that the BMPCC will support Image Stabilization and Auto Focus for micro 4/3 lenses. But I'm still confused about how image stabilization is supported. It sounds like it will be supported for the Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses because image stabilization is part of the spec of the lens. But what about the Olympus micro 4/3 lenses? Will they only be image stabilized when using an Olympus Camera or will the BMPCC communicate with the Olympus lenses for stabilization?


2. When using older, heavier vintage or prime lenses with the BMPCC, what is a safe max weight limit for use with its mount without using rig or lens support?

Steven wrote:2 Questions about lenses for BMPCC:

1. Now it has come out that the BMPCC will support Image Stabilization and Auto Focus for micro 4/3 lenses. But I'm still confused about how image stabilization is supported. It sounds like it will be supported for the Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses because image stabilization is part of the spec of the lens. But what about the Olympus micro 4/3 lenses? Will they only be image stabilized when using an Olympus Camera or will the BMPCC communicate with the Olympus lenses for stabilization?

If the active MFT mount on the BMPCC supports image stabilization, it would only be providing the electrical contact for stabilization in-lens, not in-camera. So the Olympus lens would not provide stabilizing help on the BMPCC.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

rick.lang wrote:

Steven wrote:2 Questions about lenses for BMPCC:

1. Now it has come out that the BMPCC will support Image Stabilization and Auto Focus for micro 4/3 lenses. But I'm still confused about how image stabilization is supported. It sounds like it will be supported for the Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses because image stabilization is part of the spec of the lens. But what about the Olympus micro 4/3 lenses? Will they only be image stabilized when using an Olympus Camera or will the BMPCC communicate with the Olympus lenses for stabilization?

If the active MFT mount on the BMPCC supports image stabilization, it would only be providing the electrical contact for stabilization in-lens, not in-camera. So the Olympus lens would not provide stabilizing help on the BMPCC.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

OK.... Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Good to know!

Panasonic lenses (often) have stabilization built in (moveable lens elements), olympus lenses (usually) don't, because the original olympus mft cameras have stabilization built into the camera (moveable sensor element). The pocket cc can provide power to the panasonic lenses and thus use their built in ois.