BMCC newbie

I had been using the Panasonic HPX170 for the past 4 or 5 years and sold it a few months ago. Now, I plan to move into the DSLR market. I had my eyes set on the Panasonic GH3, but with the price drop of the BMCC, it suddenly became relevant again.

I do not own ANY DSLR's or LENSES. I literally have no video rig right now. I am completely new to this market. I suppose I could go any route and my options are limitless, so to speak.

My budget is $10,000 (I am willing to go a bit higher if absolutely necessary), potentially another $2000.

I am looking for the best quality that I can get out of a camera and from what I've read, the BMCC is the one to get.

I'm planning several shoots (commercials, music videos, short films, etc.) for portfolio work to refine my craft as I pursue ventures into the position of Director, DoP, and Writer. These shoots are planned to take place at the start of Summer 2014. In the end of Summer 2015, that's when I get very serious and begin filming conceptual short films that will be used for major studio "pitch packages."

My questions are:

1. Which mount will deliver the best results, EF or MFT w/ Speedbooster?

2. Do you think I will still be more than satisfied if I got the Panasonic GH3 w/ Speedbooster instead?

Reasons to buy a GH3 include that it's relatively small, inexpensive, "complete" (built-in LCD & EVF, OK audio, and stills capability), can record nice quality compressed 1080p 8-bit HD at up to 60 fps (useful for slo-mo in a 24/25/30 fps edit).

Reasons to buy a BMCC include that it's relatively small, inexpensive, can record very high-quality 2.5K 12-bit RAW and compressed 1080p 10-bit HD at up to 30 fps, and is bundled with the full version of Davinci Resolve software. So, no slo-mo except for 30 fps slowed down to 24/25 fps (not much). In some ways the BMCC isn't as "complete" a camera compared to a GH3 because the BMCC doesn't have a built-in EVF and its audio capabilities aren't quite working as well as BMD promises in their product literature. And of course, the BMCC isn't a stills camera, but each frame of RAW is a 2.5K "still".

The GH3 is a great all-round little cam (I've used the GH1 & GH2 for years), but as good as it's video capability is, BMCC RAW video is in another league quality-wise.

Given your budget, I'd recommend you consider getting both a GH3 and a BMCC-MFT and a set of nice fully-manual native MFT lenses.

Use the GH3 when its smaller size or all-in-one capability or slo-mo capability is most useful, and use the BMCC-MFT as your workhorse camera when video quality is more important. You can also use the GH3 as a B-camera together with the BMCC-MFT if you light carefully -- with some planning, on many shoots their footage can inter-cut together.

Because the two cams will be able to share many of the same accessories, you could buy & outfit both cameras for well-under your budget, depending on what gear you select.

-

Given your budget, I'd recommend you consider getting both a GH3 and a BMCC-MFT and a set of nice fully-manual native MFT lenses.

-

Would you recommend I get the Speedbooster with the GH3 and BMCC-MFT, and use Nikkor lenses? I've read that this will give much better results vs. without it.

Given your budget, I'd recommend you consider getting both a GH3 and a BMCC-MFT and a set of nice fully-manual native MFT lenses.

-

Would you recommend I get the Speedbooster with the GH3 and BMCC-MFT, and use Nikkor lenses? I've read that this will give much better results vs. without it.

I haven't used a SpeedBooster myself, so I can't make a recommendation about it.

I own several >45 yr. old old Nikkor fully-manual lenses, the widest of which is 24mm, so a SpeedBooster might makes sense for use with them on a MFT camera.

On the other hand, there are many new excellent fully-manual native MFT lenses available that perform better than old Nikkors (and typically cost more, too).

Side note: Digital MFT lenses (for example, those made by Olympus, Panasonic, etc.) can't be used on the passive MFT mount on the BMCC-MFT. Digital MFT lenses require power & communication with the camera via an active MFT mount to function, even to use their "manual" features. Powered lens mount adapters exist for using digital EOS lenses on passive MFT, which can makes sense for those with large investments in EOS glass. Generally speaking, the BMCC-MFT is perhaps best used with fully-manual lenses.
-

On the other hand, there are many new excellent fully-manual native MFT lenses available that perform better than old Nikkors (and typically cost more, too).

-

Do you happen to have info on a FULL list of ALL MFT lenses that work with BMCC-MFT?

On the other hand, there are many new excellent fully-manual native MFT lenses available that perform better than old Nikkors (and typically cost more, too).

-

Do you happen to have info on a FULL list of ALL MFT lenses that work with BMCC-MFT?

Seconded.

We keep hearing about the fancy expensive lenses too - any advice on cheaper ones, maybe older ones? Thanks.

On the other hand, there are many new excellent fully-manual native MFT lenses available that perform better than old Nikkors (and typically cost more, too).

Do you happen to have info on a FULL list of ALL MFT lenses that work with BMCC-MFT?

All fully-manual native MFT lenses will work on a BMCC-MFT.

B&H and other major dealers sell many of the most popular.

-

... We keep hearing about the fancy expensive lenses too - any advice on cheaper ones, maybe older ones? Thanks.

There isn't such a thing as an "old" fully-manual native MFT lens. It's a relatively recent lens mount format.

One of the nice things about the MFT mount is that almost all old (and some new) lenses can be adapted to it, especially old fully-manual lenses such as Canon FD, Nikon F/G, C-mount, and many, many others.

Lenses designed to cover the so-called "full-frame" 135-format (stills film) will definitely cover the much smaller image circle of the BMCC's sensor. However, many C-mount lenses don't.

http://prolost.com/storage/post-images/ ... 5660764902
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

-

With your budget, the reasons and timeframe you mentioned, Id reccomend you seriously consider the Sony FS700.
If you are able, possibly rent the cameras you are interested in first too.

With your budget, the reasons and timeframe you mentioned, Id reccomend you seriously consider the Sony FS700.
If you are able, possibly rent the cameras you are interested in first too.

I strongly agree with these recommendations, especially "rent before you buy".

-

With your budget, the reasons and timeframe you mentioned, Id reccomend you seriously consider the Sony FS700.
If you are able, possibly rent the cameras you are interested in first too.

My budget includes lenses, rigs, tripods, shoulder mounts, storage, etc.

That's why the BMCC and GH3 are the only camera's I am looking at right now.

I just don't have enough knowledge in lenses at the moment, in terms of, the ULTIMATE ones to get for the best possible quality for cinematic film making.

With your budget, the reasons and timeframe you mentioned, Id reccomend you seriously consider the Sony FS700.
If you are able, possibly rent the cameras you are interested in first too.

My budget includes lenses, rigs, tripods, shoulder mounts, storage, etc.

That's why the BMCC and GH3 are the only camera's I am looking at right now.

I just don't have enough knowledge in lenses at the moment, in terms of, the ULTIMATE ones to get for the best possible quality for cinematic film making.

Your budget is reasonable to outfit a BMCC with the items you listed, except for your desire for ULTIMATE lenses. Those true ciné lenses new generally cost upwards of $5,000 each for primes and tens of thousands for each zoom. You can buy some of the ULTIMATE lenses used if you are fortunate to find them but they are still far beyond your budget to own a complete set or a even a wide, normal, portrait, telephoto copy. You could rent three or four primes as needed though if you want.

If you are shooting ProRes or DNxHD, you may manage with a relatively modest computer for edit and colour correction. If you plan to shoot raw, you will want a fair amount of GPU power for grading. There are discussions here including the Resolve group in this forum. Resolve 10 is coming next month I believe. The documentation available from the BMD Support pages will tell you the equipment you need to run Resolve at your footage frame rate. I don't know if a computer is in your budget or just the storage that you mentioned.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Your budget is reasonable to outfit a BMCC with the items you listed, except for your desire for ULTIMATE lenses. Those true ciné lenses new generally cost upwards of $5,000 each for primes and tens of thousands for each zoom. You can buy some of the ULTIMATE lenses used if you are fortunate to find them but they are still far beyond your budget to own a complete set or a even a wide, normal, portrait, telephoto copy. You could rent three or four primes as needed though if you want.

If you are shooting ProRes or DNxHD, you may manage with a relatively modest computer for edit and colour correction. If you plan to shoot raw, you will want a fair amount of GPU power for grading. There are discussions here including the Resolve group in this forum. Resolve 10 is coming next month I believe. The documentation available from the BMD Support pages will tell you the equipment you need to run Resolve at your footage frame rate. I don't know if a computer is in your budget or just the storage that you mentioned.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Oops! Let me rephrase. I mean, the best lens within the $2000 mark.

As for my desktop PC, it's sporting GTX 670's in SLI and an i7 2600k that is OC'ed. Desktop storage is not a problem either. When it comes to Post-Production, I am completely covered with more than enough power.

If I got the BMCC-MFT (or even the GH3) and decided to get the Metabones Speedbooster for Nikon lenses, does this particular lens make sense?

http://vistek.ca/store/ProPhotoCameraLenses/252359/nikon-afs-35mm-f14-g-wide-angle-lens.aspx

In terms of functionality and if it's actually compatible?

Also, what's an example of a lens (around the $2000 mark) for fully manual native MFT if I didn't use Speedbooster and just used BMCC-MFT as is?

If I got the BMCC-MFT (or even the GH3) and decided to get the Metabones Speedbooster for Nikon lenses, does this particular lens make sense?

http://vistek.ca/store/ProPhotoCameraLenses/252359/nikon-afs-35mm-f14-g-wide-angle-lens.aspx

You might find some interesting notes on this lens at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f14-afs.htm. And maybe give thought to the manual focus 35mm/f1.4 since you will not need auto-focus on the BMCC. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm.

You might find some interesting notes on this lens at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f14-afs.htm. And maybe give thought to the manual focus 35mm/f1.4 since you will not need auto-focus on the BMCC. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm.

Does the Speedbooster mount turn the BMCC passive MFT mount into an active one? Therefore, making it an ACTIVE MFT camera?

Also, I've been reading that using Speedbooster w/ Nikon gives a better FOV and better video quality overall vs. native MFT lenses. Is this true?

Example: If I were to use the Nikon Speedbooster with the Nikon 35mm f1.4 vs. Native BMCC-MFT with Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95?

Does the Speedbooster mount turn the BMCC passive MFT mount into an active one? Therefore, making it an ACTIVE MFT camera?

I don't believe so. There are so many different SB versions I'm kinda loosing track myself.

http://www.metabones.com/buy-speed-boos ... ter-detail

Also, I've been reading that using Speedbooster w/ Nikon gives a better FOV and better video quality overall vs. native MFT lenses. Is this true?

In general, yes. Refer to the SB website for details. The reason the SB is exciting is because it allows a relatively small-sensor camera to use the entire native FOV of a lens designed for 135 format ("full-frame" stills cam).

The SB makes a Nikon lens 0.71x wider than it otherwise would be on the BMCC. And 1 stop faster. And the scene will appear "sharper" because the scene's details are "squeezed" to fit within the smaller sensor's image circle.

Example: If I were to use the Nikon Speedbooster with the Nikon 35mm f1.4 vs. Native BMCC-MFT with Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95?

See above.

Note: There's no free lunch. A SB isn't perfect or magic. For example, using a SB might introduce flare in some lighting conditions, or affect bokeh, etc.

-

Also, I've been reading that using Speedbooster w/ Nikon gives a better FOV and better video quality overall vs. native MFT lenses. Is this true?

In general, yes. Refer to the SB website for details. The reason the SB is exciting is because it allows a relatively small-sensor camera to use the entire native FOV of a lens designed for 135 format ("full-frame" stills cam).

The SB makes a Nikon lens 0.71x wider than it otherwise would be on the BMCC. And 1 stop faster. And the scene will appear "sharper" because the scene's details are "squeezed" to fit within the smaller sensor's image circle.

-

FOV of film is no more than 64 degrees, and the Voigtlander 17.5 does 64.6. Will the BMCC-MFT take full advantage of the max FOV of this lens?

... the Voigtlander 17.5 ... Will the BMCC-MFT take full advantage of the max FOV of this lens?

No. Take a look at this sensor size diagram. The BMCC-MFT's sensor is smaller than (for example) the sensor in a GH2 (another camera with a MFT mount). So, relative to a GH2, the BMCC is slightly cropped (slightly less FOV) using any lens.
http://prolost.com/storage/post-images/ ... 5660764902

-