Blackmagic Forum

Hello everyone,

Could someone please briefly describe the advantages and disadvantages of both mounts?

Ignoring the fact weather or not i have lenses in my kit already.

Thanks a lot.

The big advantage of the EF mount is if you already have Canon glass. Many people do.

The MFT has such a shallow flange depth that nearly any lens that will cover the sensor can be used on the MFT with an inexpensive adaptor, including Canon glass.

Many MFT shooters buy old manual Nikon and Zeiss lenses, which are in low demand now, and use them on MFT to great effect.

Also, there are some great affordable fast lenses for MFT that are not available on EF.

IMHO, EF is great because you can use your exisitng Canon glass, and because you can buy it right now with no waiting.

If you have no lenses yet, I would recommend MFT for the versatility.

And to add on that, you can get a relatively inexpensive lens from SLR magic and Voigtlander that is as fast as T 0.95 which I don't believe you can find with a Canon EF lens.

Being a somewhat small sensor size compared to full frame camera's, that extra stop of light could also give you a bit more shallow depth of field if you so choose.

masterok wrote:Hello everyone,

Could someone please briefly describe the advantages and disadvantages of both mounts?

Ignoring the fact weather or not i have lenses in my kit already.

Thanks a lot.

And remember the BMCC EF is an active mount and the BMCC MFT is passive. Manual lenses certainly work well in either mount; electronic lenses designed for the EF mount can be problematic on the MFT if they require power from the camera to for example control iris. I think image stabilization is the biggest benefit to EF unless you will provide other stabilization for the camera such as a tripod or steadicam etc. if your style requires handheld, you may get better results with IS on the BMCC EF. If you can take time to compose your shots the MFT mount has more cinema glass that can be adapted for it I believe. But new ciné lens sets cost as much as a fine car it seems!

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

PL mount is a breeze with the MFT.

IS and AF is nice, I came from the 35mm world and all glass is manual there. So, it's a matter of preference in how you like to lens a shot.

Leica-R glass on EF works beautifully

Contax Zeiss too.

masterok wrote:
Ignoring the fact weather or not i have lenses in my kit already.

If you take lenses out of the mix then there is no advantage (or disadvantage) . . . it's the same sensor, same camera.

Thanks everyone for feedback. In my case, i will go for EF.

dregenthal wrote:

masterok wrote:
Ignoring the fact weather or not i have lenses in my kit already.

If you take lenses out of the mix then there is no advantage (or disadvantage) . . . it's the same sensor, same camera.

Not entirely true. EF is an active mount. MFT is a passive mount.

Each mount has its pros and cons.

The rest is the same.

Adam is right, there are pros and cons to each mount. Personally, I have the EF and I like it. I had a pre order for the MFT, but cancelled it. For two reasons: I have the 2.5K EF, and the MFT is passive. Not a big deal, but there are some instances where IS and aperture control on Lumix lenses would be nice. Instead, I ordered the Pocket, which has an active MFT mount, smaller S16 sensor, but you get all the pros of all MFT lenses electronic and manual, PL, etc etc.
I think the EF makes good sense, and then pick up the Pocket if you want MFT versatility.

If you are using a smallish lens (I use Leica lenses) then I find there is an advantage to the extended length of the EF´s mount, it makes focusing and access to the lens easier once caged etc.

John Bartman wrote:If you are using a smallish lens (I use Leica lenses) then I find there is an advantage to the extended length of the EF´s mount, it makes focusing and access to the lens easier once caged etc.

The position of the lens relative to the sensor on the two cameras should be identical (within manufacturing tolerance) between the two. If there is any benefit to the EF mount itself it would be that its a bit sturdier and built into the body of the camera.

The position is not the same.
MFT has a very short flange distance, while EF is taking the swinging mirror into account.

nomad wrote:The position is not the same.
MFT has a very short flange distance, while EF is taking the swinging mirror into account.

The distance will be the same and there is no swinging mirror on a bmcc. The lens has to be a set distance from the sensor or it will not function. The ef mount has a longer flange distance to accommodate the mirror on a dslr, but it is just a convenient mount choice to use on the bmcc. If you purchase an ef -> mft adapter it is basically a tube which ensures that the lens is the correct distance from the sensor (i.e. the same distance regardless of whether it is a native ef mount, or an ef -> mft adapter on and mft mount). The same is true if you are adapting another lens to ef or mft, for example:

(ef flange distance + c/y -> ef adapter) = (mft flange distance + c/y -> mft adapter)

The reason why mft is good for adapting other lenses to is because it is relatively easy to construct an adapter to position a lens further away from the sensor. Whereas it is difficult, detrimental (e.g. using lenses in the adapter), or impossible to recess a lens into the mount of the camera.

Thanks, Jamesedge, for the detailed explanation, I wanted to say nothing else.

Any lens that has a longer flange distance than EF (like a Zeiss Contax, for example) can be adapted with a simple ring to EF or with a longer tube to MFT.

A lens with a shorter flange distance than EF ( like A Canon FD) can only be adapted to EF with an adapter with a lens, which will reduce image quality. But nearly any mechanically operated lens can be adapted to MFT.

This thead is very much useless without adding the advantage of ussing Metabones Speedbooster with MTF, IMO

My EF with Leica R lenses (via an adapter) couldn't give me any better results!

I think one should always start with the question, what glass are you going to use.

Oscar Romero wrote:This thead is very much useless without adding the advantage of ussing Metabones Speedbooster with MTF, IMO

I think you can't put down the speedbooster as an unqualified plus until there is more footage out there. I've seen frames with swirling bokeh which isn't particularly nice. Even so I'll probably get one, but its not the same as having a larger/faster sensor.