Blackmagic Forum

Introductory note: I open this topic hoping to find answers and help from people that make films under not-so-easy conditions.

So I preordered the BMPC4K back in June, and of course am still waiting for it. I have a film almost ready to shoot and want to shoot it on the new camera. With that delay, I've started thinking to cancel my order and change it for a BMCC EF (because I already have EF lenses that I wouldn't want to change).

I am an independent filmmaker (at least for now), and always try to do my best with the resources I have. My last film was shot in my house, which we turned to a set for a week. I currently live in a small town, so there aren't many good options to shoot (like small shooting studios and the like). This means that the space we have sometimes is too small to take the camera away from the subject.

And that's maybe the most important reason (though not the only one) that I chose the 4K camera over the BMCC; I'm very much worried that I won't be able to have wide shots when I need them.

So my questions are addressed to those people that have shot films on the BMCC at small locations, who don't have many options like building a set from scratch when needed. How easy is filming with BMCC? How far can you go?

I am asking because I consider the camera to be a tool, not an element, in films. And if the tool makes the whole process harder, then I'd go with another option (in my case, wait for the BMPC). In other words, I'd never change a shot because the tool obliges me to do so.

Thanks in advance! Please also include links to relevant videos if any!

I bought the Tokina 11-16 and used it on a short film without feeling too cramped. And we even cropped the image for a 2.39:1 ratio.

georgetsirogiannis wrote:So my questions are addressed to those people that have shot films on the BMCC at small locations, who don't have many options like building a set from scratch when needed. How easy is filming with BMCC? How far can you go?

It's working out great for us (facebook.com/MANBABYMOVIE). We're doing most of our photography with a BMCC MFT, the the lens we're using most (for stylistic reasons, not technical) is an SLR Magic 12mm. We have used the Pocket for some shots, like when the big dog was getting replaced because it crapped out on my (got the new camera in two days, and the footage from the Pocket looks just as beautiful).

What took me the longest time to get used to was that it's basically a tool designed around post production. The camera itself has basically no features outside of what it's supposed to do, so it's crazy easy to use, and is therefore facilitates production nicely. The only down side is also an up side, which is that out of the box it's a brick. I don't know about you, but that's not my idea of highly ergonomic, so you do have to rig it to make it fit your working style, but the up side is that it will fit your working style.

I have the Tokina 11-16. It's great for small interiors tho not an extreme wide.

I shot a short recently on a small apartment. We used 3 lenses. Carl Zeiss ZF.2 50mm & 35mm for all the close ups and the Tokina 11-16 for the wides... Worked a treat.

I just finished shooting my first project on the BMCC. The SLRMagic 12mm was enough for most locations. Only in the car and in the a 4 square meter room with a pop corn machine I wished I had a bit more on the wide side. But we found usable angles nevertheless. Art is to design the limits

Johannes

I think the SLRMagic lenses are MTF, right? I mean, if you get the 12mm SLRMagic on a BMCC MTF, you actually have a focal length of 12mm, is that right?

I was talking about the EF model, on which you should multiply the focal length indicated by the lens by 2.3 to determine the actual focal length...

Thanks for your answers until now guys, I really appreciate the help

georgetsirogiannis wrote:I think the SLRMagic lenses are MTF, right? I mean, if you get the 12mm SLRMagic on a BMCC MTF, you actually have a focal length of 12mm, is that right?

I was talking about the EF model, on which you should multiply the focal length indicated by the lens by 2.3 to determine the actual focal length...

No, focal lengths don't change with mounts. A 12mm is always a 12mm but depending on the sensor size your field of view will change. So a 12mm MFT will look exactly the same as a 12mm EF.

David Sandberg wrote:

georgetsirogiannis wrote:I think the SLRMagic lenses are MTF, right? I mean, if you get the 12mm SLRMagic on a BMCC MTF, you actually have a focal length of 12mm, is that right?

I was talking about the EF model, on which you should multiply the focal length indicated by the lens by 2.3 to determine the actual focal length...

No, focal lengths don't change with mounts. A 12mm is always a 12mm but depending on the sensor size your field of view will change. So a 12mm MFT will look exactly the same as a 12mm EF.

Ah okay, I thought the focal length on the MTF lenses was written on the specs after being transformed to the actual focal length on an MTF sensor.

Edit: Now I got you, yeap, it was a question put in a bad way with wrong words. Of course the focal length won't change physically, in the lens, but my problem is the change in the field of view.

The Sigma 8-16mm is a good and cheap lens, I use it for landscapes and quite rarely at 8mm, because that is really wide.

For feature or commercial film I like my wide shots around 24mm (35mm sensor-wise) so I would shoot around 11-12mm. Maybe the Tokina is wide enough for you.

georgetsirogiannis wrote:Edit: Now I got you, yeap, it was a question put in a bad way with wrong words. Of course the focal length won't change physically, in the lens, but my problem is the change in the field of view.

Still there's no difference, both BMCC models (EF and MFT) will have the same field of view using 12 mm lenses. The crop factor of 2.3 you mentioned above is the same for both mounts, because it only depends on the size of the sensor in comparison to - in this case - a standard 35 mm frame.

Mac Jaeger wrote:

georgetsirogiannis wrote:Edit: Now I got you, yeap, it was a question put in a bad way with wrong words. Of course the focal length won't change physically, in the lens, but my problem is the change in the field of view.

Still there's no difference, both BMCC models (EF and MFT) will have the same field of view using 12 mm lenses. The crop factor of 2.3 you mentioned above is the same for both mounts, because it only depends on the size of the sensor in comparison to - in this case - a standard 35 mm frame.

Right. So why is everyone thrilled with the MFT model over the EF? Is it just because you can use the Speedbooster on the MFT?

georgetsirogiannis wrote:

Mac Jaeger wrote:

georgetsirogiannis wrote:Edit: Now I got you, yeap, it was a question put in a bad way with wrong words. Of course the focal length won't change physically, in the lens, but my problem is the change in the field of view.

Still there's no difference, both BMCC models (EF and MFT) will have the same field of view using 12 mm lenses. The crop factor of 2.3 you mentioned above is the same for both mounts, because it only depends on the size of the sensor in comparison to - in this case - a standard 35 mm frame.

Right. So why is everyone thrilled with the MFT model over the EF? Is it just because you can use the Speedbooster on the MFT?

The MFT can have a lot of adapters on it, that means you can use many different kind of lenses. But yeah, the fuzz is probably most because of the Speedbooster.

And of course, the MFT lenses are designed for this sensor, so many of them perform really well with the BMCC. Most good Canon glass is made for full frame sensors, which can take away the character of the lens when mounted on a BMCC.

Currently my SpeedBooster might as well be welded on my MFT camera, I never seem to take it off. With Tokina 11-16mm is super wide to normal wide (or slightly wider). So wide shots are never a problem.

Jules