Blackmagic Forum

This article: https://petapixel.com/2022/08/29/viltro ... nt-lenses/

Canon is holding their RF technology close and dear. Telling a third party lens manufacturer not to make lenses in their mount is proof.

Clearly RED got the mount by working out a trade in terms of allowing Canon Compressed RAW.

PL is the better Mount for cinema anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds about right.
Hopefully the next BMD camera comes with a similar system as the Ursa Mini mounts.

It was never going to be RF. EF only happened because it was out of patent.

It will never be E mount either.

L mount might be the one.

JB

Adam Langdon wrote:Sounds about right.
Hopefully the next BMD camera comes with a similar system as the Ursa Mini mounts.

Yeah, interchangeable lens mounts is the optimum option. I’m still hoping the next cameras are an URSA Mini Pro G4 and an URSA Micro. Both would naturally have interchangeable lens mounts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John Brawley wrote:It was never going to be RF. EF only happened because it was out of patent.

It will never be E mount either.

L mount might be the one.

JB

Yeah, and even now EF is on the way out for Canon. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see less EF Mount cinema cameras over the next 2-3 years.

Blackmagic could embrace L Mount. But PL definitely should be a default on an interchangeable mount system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

timbutt2 wrote:
Blackmagic could embrace L Mount. But PL definitely should be a default on an interchangeable mount system.

Right, But PL mount doesn't allow much room to use other legacy (photo) lenses either.

And then there's LPL now too

JB

timbutt2 wrote:Yeah, and even now EF is on the way out for Canon. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see less EF Mount cinema cameras over the next 2-3

Since EF is out of patent and a mount that has been commonly used by many lens manufacturers in the past, instead of phasing it out, how about some manufacturer(s) make it another standard and open mount that BMD or any camera manufacturers can support. It is already being supported in the first place. Why not? Canon don’t have to support it.

I'd already be happy if BM could make it a locking EF mount, like Red did.
Or do they hold a patent on that too?

Uli Plank wrote:I'd already be happy if BM could make it a locking EF mount, like Red did.
Or do they hold a patent on that too?

I think a locking EF mount makes it all a lot more expensive. Only a few people want a locking EF mount. It’s not what you want but I think economics drive this.

I do think EF is a dreadful mount. It also doesn’t offer much interoperability to any other stills mount. It’s a dead end.

Better to go to a shorter adaptable mount and start again. L mount is the only maybe, if Leica are open to allowing others that aren’t partners to access it. (So far it’s Sigma and Panasonic and they all have a long history together)

Or they make their own open mount, but I think that would be much harder to ask other manufacturers to tool up for yet another mount AND it makes it also again, more expensive.

FYI….PL stands for Positive Lock
LPL stands for Large Positive Lock

JB

hmmm..... i wonder.... LPL mount Ursa Mini/Micro....

Is the RF mount technically patentable? Can it demonstrate any new and useful improvement over EF ,or even E or L if we’re talking mirrorless FFD.

I don’t know if Canon would have an issue sharing the RF mount on the camera side. If they shut down all the 3rd party RF products it leaves only Canon.

Gotta admire the hubris of some corporations. Canon steals the Speedboster from Metabones then sends Viltrox the cease and desist.

Good Luck

Howard Roll wrote:Is the RF mount technically patentable? Can it demonstrate any new and useful improvement over EF ,or even E or L if we’re talking mirrorless FFD.

I don’t know if Canon would have an issue sharing the RF mount on the camera side. If they shut down all the 3rd party RF products it leaves only Canon.

Gotta admire the hubris of some corporations. Canon steals the Speedboster from Metabones then sends Viltrox the cease and desist.

Good Luck

https://petapixel.com/2018/06/01/canon- ... ens-mount/


It’s not just the mount, but it’s also all the comms.

Notice that BMD don’t officially support EF-S? That’s still patented.

Now BMD have found the EF-S and EF comms for talking to lenses and setting iris is the same. But you can’t claim that it’s supported if it’s still under patent.

Also, Canon actively block and try to prevent companies like BMD supporting EF. They don’t provide any support for the comms. All of that has been reverse engineered or hacked. This is why obscure lenses like the Canon 50mm F1 and the Macro sometimes don’t work.

Back when they developed EF I’m sure they weren’t worried but I bet RF is harder to hack today even if you could make a product that claimed to support that mount. (I’m sure canon never considered that EF would be used on video and cinema cameras either which is clear from their terrible design)

Not sure where the “speedbooster” comment comes from? Speedboosters have been a part of optics for a long time. They were just the give it a name. It’s been long accepted that the ultra fast F2 Olympus 4/3 zooms were really full frame lenses that were speedboosted internally.

I’m guessing without knowing anything about what you’re referring to, is that Canon are going after someone for doing an RF mount, not for making a speedbooster.

Speedbooster is a marketing name. They are really called focal reducers or telecompressors

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecompressor

JB

IIRC, focal reducers were initially patented by Canon and it was Metabones who made one after that patent expired.

Uli Plank wrote:IIRC, focal reducers were initially patented by Canon and it was Metabones who made one after that patent expired.

Don't think so....

They've been in astronomy for telescopes for a very long time. Olympus four thirds zooms in the mid 2000's....

Nikon even had this oddity back in the early 90's before they invented "crop factors" in the very early days of digital imaging...

"It's all the result of Nikon's outstanding Reduction-Optics Technology, which compresses the full 35mm lens image into the smaller 2/3 inch CCD format."

https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/c ... /index.htm

Nikon were also selling this thing...

https://picclick.com/Nikon-FW-ENG-EFP-C ... 21201.html

JB

Adam Langdon wrote:hmmm..... i wonder.... LPL mount Ursa Mini/Micro....

LPL makes sense for future cameras, even if they are only Super 35, since it is offered by Arri, as is PL, freely without licence and PL is really a film camera mount with a deeper flange focal distance to clear a mirrored shutter. Whereas LPL is a purely digital cinema camera mount, with a shorter flange distance that allows greater optical fidelity, even with FF lenses on S35 sensors. It can also be happily combined with a PL adaptor. However it cannot be retro fitted to existing Ursa bodies, since it is too large a physical diameter.

EF will be around for some time I feel, even Arri offer an EF adaptor, due to the very large existence of EF mount lenses. But as John says, it is not ideal for video cameras, especially with large heavy lenses, adapted or designed for film, such as the Pictor zooms. It is flimsy in comparison to PL mounts. The desire for newer more advanced still mounts, is driven, I feel, by the fanatical desire of some, for FF, it seems, as autofocus and IBIS will become more essential for vlogging hand held YT cinematic masterpieces That last bit is a light-hearted aside, truly.

@JB
You were right, my memory was a bit shady. It was Kodak who held such a patent (US Patent 5,499,069).