EF vs MFT version
 

Philip Bloom has posted a clip the subject of which is the MFT version of the Black Magic Cinema Camera. In my opinion his bottom line lacks credibility however I might well be wrong.

If one cuts to the chase he is telling us:

‘Because it’s using the whole of the glass instead of just the center the image is way better’.

‘Able to actually use the whole of it rather than just the center part...it looks so much better...seems nicer than the Ef version I was using because it is - it’s using all the glass.

‘If you are gonna choose between the EF and this then get this one’ (the MT version)

‘I’ve got some great Lumix glass that I can’t use’

‘Still a lot better’

In particular his categorical statement that the image is so much better when the whole of the glass is used rather than just the center as with the EF version was not demonstrated. Is there any factual basis to his apparent bottom line?

What do you think?

Re: EF vs MFT version
 

I've always thought that the center of a lens was usually the sweet spot with the greatest clarity.

Re: EF vs MFT version
 

I saw some postings about this in the Forum over at Black Magic. I understand the logic of what he is saying, but I question whether it is indeed scientifically true.

You also have to remember that Phil Bloom is wonderfully artistically bent, but probably not that great on the tech side. I can remember the early days of the 5D Mark II when he was still shooting adapters with Sony EX cams, and his reluctance to believe that this new wave of DSLR imaging was the answer.

I think Phil looks at it like this: EF, as well as most 35mm still lenses are made and designed for full frame or APC size imagers. When you crop out that image, he seems to believe you lose resolution because you are only using part of the image on the smaller Black Magic sensor.

But I think the resolution limitation is still in the chip and camera processing itself, and not the lenses. Obviously there are limits to resolution capabilities in lenses, but I think the limitations of the chip and camera processing will render the lens limitations moot. From what I have seen of images coming out of the EF series, Bloom's statements seem to be quite unsupported.

The proof is in the pudding, not in someone's theories. Lets see the better stuff coming out of the MFT line before we judge it.

Besides that, are there ways or will there be ways to adapt the EF versions to the 4/3's lenses ? Is it physically possible ?

Re: EF vs MFT version
 

Yes, I read those posts too. As yet nobody is buying his bottom line. At no time did he use the word ‘resolution’ at least I think that’s true. I’m disinclined to watch and listen to his clip (I can’t call it a review) again to confirm that. I agree about Bloom and technical information; he is not my go-to person for that, but I certainly give him credit, in fact I consider him to be masterly, when it comes to selecting a sound track that wonderfully matches the visuals. His logic I won’t comment on but his rhetoric is noteworthy, for sure. He certainly uses lots of words.

I agree that the proof is in the pudding, and I’m not holding my breath. My bottom line on his comments is ignore his bottom line and select the version based on other factors including the need for having the camera talk to the lens as well as lenses one might have on hand and availability. If in fact it transpires that the MFT mount version does indeed produce a nicer image I shall stand corrected and apologize profusely.

My guess is that one might see nicer or not so nice imagery based on the lens used rather than the mount, and the amount of glass involved is a red herring.

Re: EF vs MFT version
 

The advantage of M4/3 over EF mount is the range of useable glass - you can get mount adapters for just about any lens - PL, Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus etc as well as the native (manual) m4/3 lens from Voigtlander & SLR Magic.

There is no adapter to go the other way to put a M4/3 lens on a EF mount.

For those that don't already have Canon EF lenses the m4/3 version gives you more options - it wont change the quality.

Me, I'm holding out for a electronic m4/3 version.

Re: EF vs MFT version
 

Waiting on an electronic version as well.

Re: EF vs MFT version
 

One downside to not using all the glass is you're simply wasting light.
That's the thinking behind the Metabones Speed Booster.

Re: EF vs MFT version
 

Ha ha, another downside is that you are wasting energy carrying around a few grams of glass that you are not using!

Whatever, great image for the price. I'll take the version that I can get my hands on first for the same reason I no longer buy green bananas. The mount thing for me is no big deal.

I believe some kind of announcement is expected at NAB regarding availability of the MFT version.