Unless BM release their own m43 lens with focal length of 28-400 (35mm equivalent) and preferably constant aperture, I seriously cannot justify getting into their ecosystem.
Thanks for the in depth video! I both agree and disagree on that. Are zoom powered MFT lenses bad ? Definitely! I hate those, and it’s perfectly well explained in your video. Are MFT lenses bad ? I don’t think so. There are lenses that I use on a regular basis in many different environments such as the Olympus 12-100 F4 which has an incredible range and very sharp quality including at F4. The remote focus control is very smooth too. Much more choice in non zoom servo lenses. Also the MFT mount makes it possible to use EF lenses and B4 lenses. So I think Blackmagic should do two things to make things better : 1. a zoom motor ( just like DJI ) so that we can control zoom of any lens. 2. a proper MFT to B4 adapter, with the right crop, that would forward the electronic communication of the MFT mount to the lens.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough on my point. I don’t have anything against MFT in and of itself. I use an MFT camera for my overhead shots. My issue is primarily that these particular lenses are pretty awful, and secondarily that Blackmagic is essentially endorsing them as a good solution for live video. If Blackmagic or someone else provided proper adapters the problem would be solved.
@@djp_video Ok I see! We definitely need some sort of adapter MFT to B4 which excels both optically and electronically speaking. I tend to use B4 lenses for manned cameras and MFT lenses for fixed shots or small studio shots or remote controlled shots. The future of MFT lenses is also unknown as you said...
Ehh yes and no, Ethernet is locking by its self, and it's not like it is a weatherproof camera that needs the extra protection. Yes the extra level of strain relief if it gets stepped on is nice, but they look like they are running short on space already.
Modularity would have been a good way to go, with ability to have your choice of lens mount. Same for the I/O - eg: be able to switch out the SDI connections vs Fiber vs Ethernet. That way, people can mix and match according to their individual needs.
if you want to use B4 lenses, there is already the ursa broadcast for that use. my guess is BMD may be in talks to get lenses to be manufactured in their name
I'm not sure about that. People using ATEM Minis tend to be budget conscious buyers, and tend to already have cameras. And how many of them are going to drop a minimum of $1400 for a camera plus another $300 for the cheapest zoom lens when their $500 camera already works okay? Besides, that $1700 comes awfully close to a Sony FDR-AX700 which is going to blow these cameras out of the water in terms of not only image quality but zoom capability. Yes, you do get the ability to remotely color the BMD cameras, but I'd give that up in a second for a usable zoom.
In terms of just getting a high quality image, that would certainly work, as do most M43 lenses. The big problem with the M43 system though is that there aren't many parfocal lenses, and even fewer with electronic zoom, making them less than ideal for live production.
Totally agree with this assessment! Curious as I’ve never used B4 lenses; why would you prefer that mount over EF and the ability to use the canon servo lenses? Cost? Lens options? Thanks!
Both lens variety and cost. You can pick up used B4 lenses for relatively little, and they're purpose-built for live video production. The EF servo zoom lenses are pretty expensive. Also, the smaller sensors (2/3", 1/2", and 1/3") that come with B4 make it easier to keep subjects in focus.
@@djp_video I totally agree. I use the ENG lenses on all my BMD Studio cameras. By the way I am a big follower of your tutorial and contents on your TH-cam Channel.
Is bm in time to fix this bad decision? What should they do in your opinion? Maybe cooperating with an optics manufacturer to produce a minimum constant aperture 12x lens. It won't be cheap anyway...
BMD doesn't have enough power in the market to try to jumpstart the struggling M43 ecosystem. And designing and manufacturing lenses is extremely time consuming and expensive. They could potentially have partnered with an existing lens manufacturer, but I can't see any of them wanting to take that on -- the return on investment just isn't there. Nobody besides BMD is trying to make M43 work for live video with its unique requirements. They should have just gone with B4. While new B4 lenses can be very expensive, because the mount has been around for decades you can pick up used lenses for pennies on the dollar. Unfortunately, there aren't any other lens mounts with any significant market share that are designed for live production. The world has standardized around B4. EF could maybe have been an option -- there are a handful of servo zoom lenses for EF, but they are extremely expensive too. Sony has a couple servo zoom lenses for the E mount, but it's just that -- a couple -- and they are a lot better than the M43 options, but they aren't great either.
Exactly, even Panasonic made strides by making the LX100, a compact fast zoom. 4/3 can be a cinematic alternative to 35mm, just like 16mm. Its funny how lens manufacturers can be innovative but not fill a niche
A very nice well balanced piece Doug... As I posted several times on the very first day of release - a big mistake and a backwards step IMHO... At least EF lenses and I ideally EF & B4 options. The only saving grace just maybe looking at the front plate with 4 removeable screws that possibly some further options are to be announced shortly from BMD.... I live in hope because MFT is a definite no-no for us.
Hi Doug, thank you very much for this video! We are looking to buy these cameras for our church and bumbt into this video while doing research. Could you give some advice what to buy; this or another camera? And what lenses? We have quite a dark setting, a stage, professional lights and a big ledwall behind the speaker and or band. We asked some dealers but they all are ‘fund of their products’ as they should? No we do not have a indefinite budget… that is why our eye fell on this option. Oh and, I’m from Europe, the Netherlands 😊 Your reply would be very helpful, thank you in advance!💪
I still haven't found what I would call "good" lenses for video on Micro 4/3. I spent a week with one of the new Studio cameras about a month ago, and at the time I rented the highest rated zoom lens for M43. I wasn't impressed with the image quality -- it was quite soft. Compared to my Sony camcorders the image quality was really lacking. The Sony was noisier, but every other aspect of the Sony was much better. But it really all depends on your situation. If you need a wide zoom range a camcorder or B4-based camera (like the Ursa Broadcast G2) would be best. If you were shooting in a studio with a ton of light, and didn't need zoom capabilities the Studio camera probably would be a good choice.
If BMD produced the new studio cameras with a B4 mount would make them unusable for most people as these lenses are way too expensive. On the other hand you can probably convert other lenses for MFT cameras if you wish to do so. I wonder if there are any "affordable" PZ lenses on a different mount system that would make sense for the BMD studio cameras.
New lenses are too expensive, yes. There's a whole huge inventory of older used B4 lenses out there that sell for next to nothing, relative to their original price and performance. And even the SD lenses from decades ago are going to produce a better image than these EZ M43 lenses. If cost savings is the intent, buyers would be better off just getting a camcorder.
@@djp_video Okay, I mean if they then produce an adaptor that does the iris control, then some servos that connect via USBC and drive the lens externally, that would work.
is there a powered zoom lens you would recommend to pair with the blackmagic 4k camera at the moment? is there an affordable EF mount one with powered zoom that works with the zoom and focus toggle in the ATEM software? Thanks so much for the info!
"Affordable" and EF powered zoom don't go well together. The least expensive Canon Cine Servo lens I've seen starts at $4,600, but most of them go for $30,000 or more. B4 would be much more suitable. Even though some of those lenses get crazy expensive, there are good choices for less, especially on the used market.
Great video as always Doug! If you allow me one question please. I was thinking build a 3 Studio Camera 4K Pro home studio. I don't need zoom, the ambient will be controled. Lights, angles, etc After your video i'm not sure if the Studio Cameras are the best choice? Maybe i should go with Broadcast G2 to get better image? I will appreciate your feedback if is it possible Thanks in advance and sorry for my English; I'm still learning Have a Productive and Healthy day!
It mostly comes down to the lenses. But even with great lenses the Studio cameras are just soft and lacking detail and contrast. I don't have an Ursa Broadcast to compare against so I can't say for sure. About 6 months ago I rented a Studio Camera 4K Pro and put the best Micro 4/3 zoom lens on it I could find. And the image quality was still quite poor compared to my Sony camcorders. Here's a still image comparison of the two cameras under the same conditions, taken a couple seconds apart... 1drv.ms/u/s!Aq9iquFi-Ojx2rJSQpxg5eJYDWMB2Q?e=WlFJad The Sony camcorder looks so much better. But I wish I had access to an Ursa Broadcast with a good lens for comparison.
The other problem with this camera, as far as I can tell, is the ability to adjust the viewfinder independently of the full camera. Correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't look adjustable to me. Example you've got the camera set to a high angle looking down or you've got it set to 4 feet high shooting across. How do you see the viewfinder without getting a ladder or stooping down? This camera really is a budget camera with the average height adjustment being used.
There were the times of the very early tube cameras with fixed angle built in viewfinders .. but that was 60+ years ago … Not being able to tilt the screen up or down is a harsh limitation.
Hi Doug, thanks for the comprehensive video. I'm looking at kitting out a small studio for podcasts, video and livestreaming. I'd like to be able to run the studio with one operator. I'm disappointed to see the issues with these lenses as I was very impressed with the selling point of being able to control the cameras from the Atem. Can you tell me: do other, better lenses allow focus control even if zoom control is not possible?
Most electronic focus lenses will work. How well they focus remotely is going to vary by lens model. But I'll qualify that by saying that the Studio Camera's auto-focus is terrible. I wouldn't use it.
@@djp_video thanks, interesting. But I'm not looking for autofocus, I'm after remote focus control either through the focus demand or the Atem. Do you know if other lenses support this?
@@PilgrimaticStone Lenses with auto-focus capability can be controlled by the camera. But remember that these are photography lenses and are designed to focus quickly, the way that auto focus tends to do. If you’re looking for smooth focus transitions controlled electronically you aren’t going to find those on MFT. It’s fine for adjusting focus between shots, but if you want smooth focus changes you’ll have to go with manual focus lenses, preferably those designed for cinema work.
@@djp_video yeah that's interesting. I'm only bothered about setting up shots, not smooth focus transitions while the camera is live, really. Want something that can be controlled at the desk most of the time.
I’m not sure why there are not professional power zooms for the M43 system. I shoot live theatre concerts and dance shows. I used to use ENG cameras. Now I use two GH5’s and a GH5 Mk2. Two cameras are static and the Mk2 does the close-ups with the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 or the Leica 50-200 f2.8-4. Neither of these has a power zoom. I still have one ENG camera a Panasonic PX270 but I have not have to use it this year. If their was a pro power zoom I’d have a close look at it but really I don’t miss it.
This video has been super helpful! So please correct if I am wrong, if I was to get a Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm for a Blackmagic Design Studio Camera 4K Pro, because its not parafocal, I could never do a live shot while zooming because it won't hold the focus, correct?
I use the older models in a studio setting where zoom is not a factor. I have a wide selection of M43 lenses, primes and zooms, due to using a GH5 as my field production camera. This is a cost effective solution, not a high end offering. I do have a Canon lens on my old broadcast camera, but it would be disappointing in a studio setting because, while it has a nice servo zoom that I don’t need in the studio, it is strictly manual focus. Because I work with multiple cameras but no operators in the studio, I rely on ATEM remote focus control constantly.
@@djp_video curious to see in action, since I am hoping to pair a panasonic lumix servo lens with the blackmagic 4k cam for low light, in studio use with a little zoom control.
myself being invested in the mft system (since gh3) and trying to do live production it is not fun at all to make work. I now only use them for stationary shots or scenarios where there is minimal zooming and focus changes. I since went with a dedicated video camera the cx350 and it is so much better in every aspect for live production, and the 1 inch sensor is descent in low light (and focus seems spot on as well.)
I think the m43 lenses are fine when you use these cameras in locked down situations. On our stages, we have two of these studio cams locked down, and then ursa broadcast for the handhelds and jibs.
I would imagine you could also do a speedbooster with a Compact Servo 70-200 or 18-80 EF. So ideally that would fix almost all the issues you mentioned. 🤷🏻♂️
Olympus is supposedly (finally) going to lean into video with upcoming cameras. Perhaps there’s hope for new studio-appropriate lenses from Olympus? Fingers crossed.
Unless Olympus were to start to get into producing video cameras specifically made for live video, it's highly doubtful. Live production equipment is very different than even what you'd use for shooting in a film- or cinema-style workflow.
I am wanting to get 3 of these for fundraising and talking head live streams and using them along side 2 bmpcc 4k cameras on a separate set. This means having MFT keeps me from needing separate lens sets.
@doug, thank you for the video. We decided for the older panasonic fz-1000 which is on paper very similar to an sony ax700. I‘m curious if i missed something the sony offers over the pana fz1000? Why would you prefer the ax700? One thing i noticed on the fz: the zoom speed and and precision you get with a wifi remote is not very good. Also noise gets considerably higher when increasing ISO. Apart from that a very budget friendly option, especially for fixed shots.
@@pixpaxpostproductionThe FZ1000 does look like a compelling option for budget shooters. And the increase in noise at higher ISOs is normal across all cameras. The thing to consider is how much noise there is -- whether it is too much in the shooting conditions you're likely to encounter. If you're shooting outside in the sun it's likely not going to be a problem on most any camera. But if you're shooting indoors in rooms without purpose-made lighting, a lot of cameras will fail you. But I haven't used the FZ1000 so I can't say where its threshold is, and you'd have to consider your own needs too. I prefer camcorder style cameras because they're designed for live video. They tend to have purpose-made controls to adjust camera settings -- dedicated buttons/controls for iris, focus, zoom, white balance, gain, shutter speed, etc., so they can be adjusted without going through menus. And that's pretty important when shooting an event and you have to be able to react quickly when shooting live. Having a smooth, adjustable zoom is something that is also very important to me. I love to include zoom shots when shooting concerts and other music-related events, and very few cameras -- especially SLR-style models -- do that well.
@@jwlighting The upper end of that Sony product line (Z90V, Z150) do have SDI outputs, though they are HD only (no 4K). The lack of remote control hasn't been a serious issue. I have operators on my cameras almost all of the time and I can just ask them to make changes for me. I would love to be able to remotely paint and otherwise control the cameras for sure. But not at the expense of video quality.
There are certainly some high quality lenses for Micro Four Thirds. But high quality, electronic focus, and electronic zoom don’t all exist in a single lens.
This is pretty fascinating stuff. I have been debating between the BMPCC 4k and other cameras. I blindly assumed m43 lenses would be sufficiently sharp , especially for video, as the lenses are designed for higher resolution capture than 4k . As a result of those assumptions I figured the low prices m43 lenses would make for a compelling price point. I also assumed larger format lenses would be less sharp as a result of the crop. Im definitely going to investigate this further as im curious about whether the resolution loss are a result of zooms vs primes.
There are certainly some high quality Micro 4/3 lenses out there (usually with a corresponding price tag). But none of them are among the handful that offer electronic zoom. That particular collection of lenses are universally terrible, which was kind of the point of this video. Keep in mind that M43 lenses are designed primarily for photography, not video, so some issues like focus breathing, or variable aperture through the zoom range, which don't impact photography that much could be a real problem with video. But, even with that said, a year ago I did some pretty extensive testing on the 4K Pro version of this camera, and rented a couple of the highest rated lenses out there. And the resulting image was decidedly quite soft no matter what I did. And the color reproduction on the camera was too orange unless I used the color correction tools to tweak it -- setting the white balance alone never got it to what I would call neutral or accurate color.
@@djp_video thanks. I come from a stills background and for the past year have been researching cameras for filmmaking - its kinda nuts. Originally i was floored by what i thought was the magic of BlackMagic cameras, it seemed like the poor man’s hasselblad for movies. But I always had a nagging feeling that its cult following or the “cinematic” qualities ascribed to it were a one trick pony and that there was another lesson sexy side to them which was rarely touched upon. Fast forward one year later, and a slightly more nuanced eye, and I’m no longer convinced that it is the end all be all camera, nor that its color science is . I noticed that the higher end m43 lenses are not bargains, nor are they small , nor are the sensors’ read out speeds competitive with APSC . Its interesting you bring up your rented lemses’ results, as this addresses another peeve of mine: as a result of this camera’s fervent church of fanboys, it’s damn near impossible to find much in the way of constructive debate and conversations about shortcomings such as those you mentioned without a riot breaking out. Btw I love your channel because it touches on various tidbits and aspects of video production I know nothing about, so thank you so much for sharing this wealth of knowledge.
I think 4/3 will work but there's no existing servo for 4/3. Canon and Fuji made many 35mm servos but no 4/3. Even Tamron made a long fast lens. 4/3 would be smaller and lighter
An external powerzoom for manual lenses would make more sense :) but MFT built in powezooms with just 4 lens options most not constant aperture is a bit weird. I’d more expect MFT/EF/E to enable lower end customers to jump into this. E-mount seems to have a couple of constant aperture powerzooms built for Sony pro video, as well as a ton of cheap non-pz lenses, so from a very naive look at the market it appears the logical choice of Mount. B4 sounds a bit too obscure to make the camera feel accessible to “normal people”. Maybe it is a great choice for a real studio but does most potential buyers of this product line know B4 or have any investment in it? Maybe BMD stuck to MFT to keep the old product compatibility, or they’ll eventually release variants with other mount.
hey Doug, i have 2 questions. 1 do you think these bmd cameras would be great for a church setting?? 2 since u were mentioning b4 lens, is it possible to adapt a b4 lens to a canon r series or a sony a7 series thru adapters? since they have amazing auto focus do you think af would work w a b4 lens??
Using these cameras for a church setting can work well if you get good quality lenses. You won't have powered zoom, though, so if you need to change the zoom you'll be reaching around to the lens and twisting the zoom ring manually. I'd also avoid variable aperture lenses or you'll be adjusting the exposure every time you zoom too. Adapting B4 lenses to larger sensors isn't a good idea. Going from a larger format to a smaller format can work well, but not the other way around. Still/photo cameras like the Canon R and Sony A7 series aren't made for live video and are awkward to use in those kinds of settings. They're also much more expensive than much more workable solutions like a camcorder when you factor in lenses. A Sony FDR-AX700, for example, is just $1900 and makes a great camera for live production.
Ignoramus Warning!! Would something like the Tilta Nucleus + Some Good zoom be the solution. Say the Olympus 12~100 mm F:4 and the Titlta Nucleus for zoom and focus... ??
It could work. But you wouldn't be able to control the zoom/focus from the Blackmagic camera, ATEM Software Control, or one of BMD's control surfaces -- it would only be controlled by the Nucleus.
I already own a BMPCC 4K and I want to buy the studio 4K plus for the focus and zoom on demand option. Is this a good move or shall I stick with another BMPCC 4K?
I guess I will be the sore thumb here. But I just don't get how people don't realize that the "Studio" cam is designed as an affordable option or filmmakers in......a studio. Do most filmmakers have low light settings in their studios? Maybe I missed something ??
From my experience, most people who seek out these cameras AREN'T using them in studios. They're using them for the random scenarios that contract video producers get hired to work in. These cameras are absolutely terrible in any situation outside of a studio, and only of dubious value inside a studio due to the really poor selection of lenses. If you have a need to zoom/reframe or keep up with a moving subject these cameras just do those things well at all. But they get treated as general-purpose devices for general usage.
Most any camcorder does a better job, even those that cost less. The only advantage that the BMD cameras have is the ability to remotely control exposure and color. In every other way a camcorder is a better choice -- better quality image, more flexibility, cheaper.
@@djp_video I'd love to hear your recommendations on alternatives. I'm not saying you're wrong. But what other cameras can capture 4k 60fps, record 12-bit raw video, 24 bit HQ audio, SDI in & out, Ethernet, XLR, physical and digital tally lights, remote control and operation via free software. All without having to purchase a monitor since it's got a 7" HDR touchscreen. I'm know if the budget allowed for it finding something better would be easy. But at price point of $1850 per unit, I'm curious about what other cameras you'd suggest. We got 3 of these cameras in our studio for $5,500 and have had absolutely no issues whatsoever. We run them in an indoor environment (live music bar/restaurant) and have cheap Godox LEDs. I'm pretty sure in the last 6 months we've never needed to go above 800iso.
I'm not saying that a lot of the features of the Studio cameras aren't great and appealing. They certainly are. But the camera fails in other areas which make more of a difference in the final result. For me the most important part of a camera is the quality of the image that it produces, especially in its given price range. The $1800 of the Studio camera is pretty affordable for what it is (meant to be), but to make a comparison against camcorders you also have to factor in the cost of the lens(es) you're going to be using. The BMD camera by itself is useless. So keep that in mind. Below is a link to a shot of two images which were captured from a Sony PXW-Z150 and the Blackmagic Studio Camera Pro 4K seconds apart from one another. The BMD camera is equipped with a Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens, which is the sharpest MFT zoom lens I could find. The Z150 is a $3000 camera, but it has effectively the same sensor, optics, and capabilities as less expensive models in the Sony lineup, including the FDR-AX700, which is $1800. For price comparison purposes, factor in about $150 for a 7-inch 1080p LCD monitor on the Sony camera. 1drv.ms/u/s!Aq9iquFi-Ojx2rJTJGtGHZ_01SDHjg The difference in image quality is staggering to me. The Sony is crisp and detailed. The Blackmagic image is a muddy mess with almost no detail in the skin. The two cameras had the same white balance settings but the skin tones on the Blackmagic are much too orange. Correctable, yes, but it sure is nice to not have to worry about that every time you setup a camera. The Sony camera has a zoom range of 29-696mm (35mm equivalent), a 24X range. I don't believe there are ANY MFT lenses that cover such a wide range, especially at an f/4.0. And in the types of situations I shoot, I need every little bit of that. A studio setting would be different, but a range like that would still be useful. And keep in mind that the zoom on the Sony is electronically controllable, another feature I use constantly, which you aren't going to find on any decent MFT lens. My point is that camcorders produce a visually better result and are purpose-built for live video production. The BMD cameras never produce a fantastic image and are limited in where and how they can be used because of the lack of suitable lenses.
Doug, Considering the fact that the interface is usb-c on the focus demand (also the zoom demand), do you think they will make these controls compatible with their pocket 4K which is also m4/3?
I think you've missed the mark on why they choose M4/3's mount. They don't expect you to stay in the M4/3's range of lenses. The point is that M4/3's can be adapted to practically any other lens mount you would want to use. So if you're on a budget, you can stay with cheap lenses, but if you want B4 lenses, you can adapt and run those instead.
If they're expecting you to use lenses from other systems they should just give you a camera with the proper mount. They already make cameras with both EF and B4. When you adapt to other systems you lose the focus and zoom control capabilities, and depending on the quality of the adapter, you could lose the ability to control the iris electronically. Blackmagic really pushes this camera as part of the M43 system. When they've demoed it they've used native lenses. And they even had the audacity to praise the capabilities of the Power Zoom lenses (which are universally worse than awful) when this camera was introduced. They've also never mentioned adapting to other systems in any of their literature or product demonstration videos. B4 are hard to adapt to M43 properly. The image circle on B4 lenses is much smaller than a M43 sensor, so just to fill the sensor you have to use a teleconverter, drastically reducing the amount of light and image quality.
@@djp_video True, it's just that M4/3's gives buyers the most options out of the box in terms of adapting. It's kind of like how they only have 1 SKU for the entire world on all their products and just include all the power socket adapters in the box. Makes sense from a manufactures perspective, but maybe not every users needs. And since it's the budget option, they're trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible with 1 product. Love your videos man. Keep up the work. :)
Either this is another bizarre choice from BM, or they know something we don't about m43 lenses... I have the pancake lens you showed and I agree, it's awful. I never use it.
Three words: Focal Flange Distance... MFT has a fairly low FFD, at 18mm or so, which means it's a bit easier to adapt other lens mounts to MFT native mounts. Adapter can be expensive depending on what you're looking for, but it is possible to adapt EF or B4 fairly easily. There are drawbacks to both options, but you could mount a Canon CN-E lens to have all of the motorized lens features. This would set you back a fair amount, as these lenses are upwards of 3K$ and a speedbooster is around 600$.
I'll always be an MFT user as long as they keep making cameras. I have zero MFT lenses, they just don't make sense for any use. Having worked for so long with S35, MFT is just the best. Looks amazing and really flexible.
@@dpc4548 There seems to be confusion in what you wrote: You claimed: "I will always be an MFT user but I have no MFT Lenses since they do not make sense" So are you using MFT (=M43 Micro for thirds) Lens? I am curious what your setup is?
One word: speedbooster. The MFT system's inherently wide DOF makes it practical to use wide apertures less that f2 without blurring out everything in the background. For live events and documentaries, the "cinematic look" is not the priority, you want things to stay in focus. To do this with full-frame video cameras, you need professional lighting and multiple takes, luxuries you rarely have when filming a live performance. With MFT, an inexpensive 0.7x speedbooster gives you access to an immense legacy of Nikon or Canon full-frame lenses whose incomparable speed and exquisite center-crop FOV are just priceless. No, you don't get motorized zoom/focus and lens breathing is often an issue, but real gems are out there to be found. BMD is really all about prosumer DIY solutions to traditionally heavy and expensive professional video production problems, and for that MFT is a perfect fit.
Speed Boosters are great for giving access to a larger selection of better quality lenses, but as you pointed out zoom (and often focus) control is seriously lacking there too. So they aren't an ideal solution.
@Doug Johnson Productions, I am thinking of getting this camera. Mainly, I want to record in a studio setting and am looking for a simple workflow. To that end, the ATEM Mini Extreme ISO + two studio pros seemed promising. I would probably slap primes on them and forego any zoom. Your thoughts would be appreciated. The room I would be recording in is 11'5"x14'x11". The primary content would be talking head and screen share/slides. I plan to edit in DaVinci. My goal is high quality capture (before it gets super expensive) and simple workflow so that I can capture + edit in 30 minutes + watch once at the end to verify it looks good. I *may* keep the old footage, but any major editing, I would rather make it simple to retake than spend too much time in post. Regarding the ATEM, I was thinking of using it to synchronize the footage and create the project file, but not switch cameras at first. Once I get someone to help me, let them swap camera angles to speed up the editing in post and watch out for mistakes. I already own a Lumix GH4 with a Lumix 20mm F1.7. The image is pretty good by my eye. I don't know if the workflow improvements will end up being worth replacing this for the second studio pro, or if I should continue using this camera for my B angle. I'd like to record on the cameras in 4k allowing me to zoom nicely in post. The feature in DaVinci to import BMPCC raw files when working with ATEM projects looks nice. Any thoughts are welcome.
These cameras, when coupled with good quality lenses, will be great, especially if you take the time to adjust coloring. But if you require auto-focus, I'd consider something else. Blackmagic Design's track record with auto-focus is... not good. I wouldn't mix cameras from different manufacturers. If you're still planning on using your GH4, I'd get more GH4s. Or replace the GH4 with one of these Studio Cameras. Trying to get cameras of different brands to match is a real headache.
M43 lense mount is EXTREMELY adaptable. I have been using the GH4, GH5 and JVC LS300 for years and LOVE the mount, even able to do B4. That being said I have been waiting for years for more servo lenses. I HOPE they come out with better ones. That being said, what looks pretty iffy on my GH4/5 with these servo lenses (I have the 2 Panasonic ones), looks considerably better on the LS300, with the Super 35 sensor. Maybe BM pulled some magic out of their hat with the new sensor. Also, on my LS300 the zoom rocker appears to be variable on the 45-175. Just my thoughts
B4 only works properly if you have a teleconverter. Otherwise the image circle is just too small to cover an M43 sensor. M43 is versatile, but not when you need electronic focus or zoom. Which kind of defeats the point of the Focus and Zoom Demands introduced by BMD.
You nailed it pretty much. Was really sad to see the MFT move from BMD on these cameras. Everything ELSE makes so much sense-but these lenses. Makes me feel there's a product evolution coming in the near future with an EF mount. The B-Mount option creates a few issues with the sensor type and how those lenses operate, all the different styles of rosettes, etc. Skårhøj had a really nice product for those lenses, but not for cheap and not for entry level users. I was interested in the switch from fibreoptics as well...major pivot for BMD and one I certain would welcome on the URSA range for broadcast Imagine a world with URSAs with global sensors and CAT 6 over 500m cable runs? Total gamechanger for sports and live events. Couple that with a new set of bigger ATEM 4K hardware and just hand over the AmEX Black Card to Grant, whydoncha?!?!
I have several SD B4 lenses with 2X teleconverter.It's easy to find on the second-hand market.When used in MFT cameras,the center image quality is okay, but the edges are not ideal.I'm not sure about the performance of the HD B4 lenses.
The truth is there are no affordable B4 lenses, apart from the second hand market, or going down to SD lenses, which will not make much sense in a 4k camera...
Because Micro 4/3 is meant for photography, and there isn't much need for powered zoom for photos. And Blackmagic is trying to repurpose them to work for video, which is awkward at best.
Greetings from Germany! Honestly, while watching the announcement, I expected to see a servo-add-on to accompany the zoom/focus demands. This at least would make the manual lenses usable, but I doubt there are any MFTs with geared rings. I think BMD should leave the camera market and instead should rather concentrate on their switchers. Some ideas on the cams are really neat, but I dont understand what group of customers they are targeting. The typical ATEM-mini user will probably use DSLR-Style cameras like the Sony Alphas anyway. IMHO they also missed the perfect opportunity to introduce a cost-effective, new fibre solution instead of this weird (proprietary?) Ethernet-thingy. Maybe based on a ruggedized add-on connector for standard LC-Plugs (like the Ethercon add-ons for RJ45). This would at least let more "pro" users consider investing in their ecosystem. For me, this seems like a step back.
With no electronic zoom, a limited 2.87 zoom ratio, and no wide angle capability it doesn’t seem very useful for video. It seems to rate about the same as an Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens I rented last weekend. Unfortunately that lens was really soft on the Studio camera I was testing. Performance was pretty disappointing overall. I hope the Panasonic is better even though the test results seem similar.
look at this. concert recorded with this lens probably without tripod. great stabilization with panasonic body. th-cam.com/video/Fc9Ojq04P6s/w-d-xo.html
It. appears that they want you to pay double for that B4 mount. Why they would not offer a B4 mount as even an option is just very odd at this point. MFT shooters may not like to hear this, but hopefully that format will die off sooner rather than later and force BMD's hand.
Thought BMD finally abandoned mft with the 6K camera. I'm both disappointed and confused. Probably still going to get a couple for my videostudio mounted with Panasonic Leica 12-60 2.8-4 that I've been very happy with for my three Micro Studio 4K cams. But I still resent their continued dishonest claim about the many great mft lens options. That simply isn't true.
hopefully you only speak in regard of live production and mft lenses... there are a lot of great mft lenses if you don't look them specifically for broadcasting.
What they should have done is releasing a follow focus/lens control accessory that can be plugged in like the focus/zoom demand. That way every regular lens could be controlled from their demands or remotely. I think such an accessory would be more popular then the demands because most people want the remote control ability.
Artificial sharpening results in too much sharpness. But that’s not what I’m talking about here, and a high quality lens won’t do that. A poor quality lens, like the Micro 4/3 lenses that feature electronic zoom, will always give you a low quality picture no matter what you do. You can always soften a sharp image, but you can’t extract more detail than is resolved by a lens (make a soft image sharp). You can enhance edges, but you can’t add detail that isn’t there in the first place. I will take a high detail lens over a soft lens 100 times out of 100. If the stylistic requirements of a production demand a softer image, it will be done in processing or with filters. The Micro 4/3 lenses I talk about in this video are basically garbage and don’t resolve detail much above standard definition pixel counts, if that. There are good M43 lenses out there, but none of these are among them. In studio and broadcast settings, the kinds of softening you’re talking about are applied selectively in image processing, like softening skin details. You can’t do that and retain a crisp image strictly with a lens. In professional circles there is constantly a pursuit of higher and higher quality lenses, not looking for lenses which soften an image.
Caution, mft fanboy writing: To me this choice makes perfect sense since I'm heavily invested in mft. At the moment noone knows where the new Olympus owners will go but the new bgh1 from Panasonic could use a broadcast-ish lens, too. They already have some great lenses to film with I use 3 bmpcc4k with 12-50 lenses fixed on f5.6, a fourth one with 12-100 for CU and a fifth with 8-18 for wide shots. Got an old jvc LS300 i sometimes use as a stage cam (sdi...) this setup is awesome for small one man jobs controlling everything (but the LS300 which is ip controllable via browser) from a mobile desk with an atem mini extreme, which is FHD anyways. For now the clients were happy with the quality (without having direct comparison) I could see a broadcast version of this coming with a b4 mount although most quality 4k b4 lenses are "very expansive", too. For my regular setup I will go for the pro model, hoping to see a box cam variant soon to replace the other pockets and the jvc with. Was also considering the bgh1 but would love to stay with one brand (love the jvc colors but boy is it a hustle to get the look fit...) So I am very happy they decided to stick with mft :)
I think you might be the only one. Everyone else I've interacted with is very disappointed with their decision. The MFT electronic zoom lenses are pretty much universally loathed.
I use the BMPC 4K cameras in a studio environment where the cameras are stationary and I don't use zoom. All my lenses are fixed f/2,8 all the way through their zoom range. I noticed that every one of the lens options you showed has variable f-stop which means that the shutter speed and/or ISO would have to be adjusted with zoom. That's a HORRIBLE feature for any professional studio. They should have used the B4 or EF lens mount... these are standards in studios.
M4/3 is the most adaptable lens mount there is. You could use nearly any lens on the planet on these cameras. If you don’t like the performance of a cheap photography lens.. put a more expensive cine lens on it! For instance.. the DZO 20-70mm T2.9. Also, if you don’t think the light gathering of a 2x crop factor sensor (m4/3) is good, how the heck can you recommend a 1/3” sensor at a crop factor of 7.21? This means a m4/3 F2 lens has an F4 equivalent (to full-frame) and an F14.42 equivalent for a 1/3” sensor. ?? And with the m4/3, you have the ‘option’ to stop down if you want deeper depth of field. Let’s say your 1/3” lens boasts it has an F2.. you can stop a m4/3 F2 lens down to F8 to get the same light and depth of field. Fstop x crop factor = Full-frame equivalent: F2 x 7.21 = F14.42 for 1/3” F8 x 2 = F16 for m4/3
While you can attach a lot of different lenses, none of the other options will give you electronic zoom, which is kind of the point of the Zoom Demand introduced by Blackmagic, as well as the point of this video. Blackmagic is pushing this camera as great for live production when the only options for lenses with electronic zoom are universally awful. The Sony cameras that I use, and recommend for live production on the budget side of the industry, have a 1-inch sensor, not 1/3". But in terms of light gathering ability, B4 lenses meant for 1/3" are specifically designed for the smaller sensors. They usually have large front elements so they can capture a lot of light, which they then focus down to the smaller sensor. That isn't the same thing as a tiny sensor with a tiny lens. The biggest predictor of how much light a lens can gather isn't the sensor size/format, but rather the physical size of the lens and its aperture -- bigger glass = more light. A microscopic sensor could in theory work just fine for low light if the lens in front of it captures and concentrates light from large elements. Small sensors are fine as long as the lenses you use with them are designed for them. But having a smaller sensor can be an advantage for live production. You can operate with a "large" aperture and not have to deal with a shallow depth of field. This is a problem when you can't predict where your subject is going to be relative to your camera, for example if they are walking around. Trying to maintain critical focus on a moving subject with a shallow depth of field can be very difficult and exhausting. That's why professional cameras for live production use 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3-inch sensors -- it's easier to build equipment that can maintain focus in unpredictable situations. The big problem with trying to adapt B4 lenses to Micro 4/3 is that the M43 sensor is larger than the B4 options so you'd have to expand the image to fill the sensor. A simple adapter without any optics will result in an image that, even if it does fill the screen, is going to have severe darkening, softening, and chromatic aberration at the corners. And if you did have such an adapter (teleconverter), you're darkening the image quite significantly. You wouldn't put a M43 lens on a full-frame camera, and likewise a B4 lens wouldn't be a good fit for a M43 camera.
@@djp_video I hear what you’re saying.. you wish you could use B4 lenses on the blackmagic cameras because you want the power zoom.. what I’m saying is blackmagic went with a better sensor and more adaptable lens mount. If you want “power” functions, get powered accessories like the Nucleus-M and power zoom any lens you want.. but don’t handicap the camera to fit the lenses you like to use. Also, it doesn’t really matter how big the lens opening is.. the F-stop is the theoretical max light that lens can gather.. an F4 is an F4. However if the F4 is designed for 1/3” sensor, it has a 7.21 crop factor (compared to full frame), which you must apply to field of view and aperture. The 1” sensor has a crop factor of 6.. so an F2 lens on a 1” sensor gathers the same light as an F12 in full frame. The point is, don’t handicap the sensor to fit the lens.. take advantage and f the bigger sensor to get better lenses!
...and ruin the camera's ability to do live video properly in the process. That's my point. M43 doesn't belong in live production because there aren't proper lenses for that workflow.
How is this camera adaptable? You could put EF lenses (or similar size mounts) on it with an adapter, but you'll probably lose iris, focus, and definitely lose zoom control. You can't use B4 lenses because the image circle is too small. I don't think anyone makes a teleconverter to make B4 connect and fill the sensor, but then it will look terrible. I'll add that the size of the lens plays the biggest role in the maximum light gathering ability. And you shouldn't use F-stop for measuring exposure -- that's what T-stops are for. They're different. Good quality lenses will have a T-stop number similar to F-stop, but on cheap lenses with poor optics the numbers can be quite different. Be careful when comparing F-stops from one lens to another. Most manufacturers are really deceptive in how they measure lenses. They'll give you F-stop numbers relative to the native focal length, but then express zoom capability in 35mm terms... so you aren't comparing apples to apples. If you want a good point of comparison for how much light a lens can gather, divide its the (real) focal length by its T-stop. That's the only real measurement you can make. Micro 4/3 might be good for photographers, or film shooters (who have the Pocket Cinema Camera as an excellent choice), but it's an awful choice for live video due to the poor selection of appropriate lenses.
@@djp_video Yup, I’m with you on f-stops vs T-stops.. that’s why the lens I recommended above has T-stops. My point with f-stops is that is a calculation of the ratio of focal length to the opening of the lens. An F4 lens with an 80mm opening has the same theoretical light gathering of an F4 lens with a 50mm opening.. the F- number is that calculation. So the actual size is irrelevant. If you want to compare real light transmission, use lenses with T-stops. To say it another way, a T2.9 lens with a 50mm front opening will gather the same exact amount of light as a T2.9 lens with an 80mm front opening. MFT mount can be adapted to: EF, PK, PL, B4, Nikon F, CY, OM, Adaptall, T, C, M42, Arri-S, M39, L39, Sony-A, SR, MD, MC, Leica-L, canon FD, FL, Pen-F, V-mount, Arri-B, Nikon-G, P67, PK67, Kiev 60, RB67, RZ67, DKL, M645, SL35, AR, Leica-R, Nikor-S, Exakta, Contax-G, Bronica SQ, MIR, Contax-N, Yashika 230, Praktica B, ZE, CRX, Alpa 35, Leica-M, Sony-E, and many more.. They are seriously adaptable! I think what you’re trying to do is say these cameras aren’t great for live ENG style filming. You would be right! They are studio cameras, and in a studio context, they are fantastic, even for live filming. The only m4/3 ENG style camera I know if is the Panasonic AG-DVX200. If you’re trying to make a Camcorder or PTZ out of the BMD Studio camera, it’ll probably fall short. But if you want great studio performance with a high degree of flexibility in lens options, the new studio cameras should do great!
Only four lenses can zoom electronically, and all of them are terrible. Blackmagic is pushing this as a great solution for studio work because you can control lens focus and zoom electronically, but the only way to do that is with lenses that are just awful. I actually got my hands on one of these cameras and spent a week with it. I'll be publishing a proper video about it before too long. But I can summarize by saying that the results you get with this camera, even with an excellent lens, pale in nearly every way compared to less expensive consumer camcorders.
Well, I think they keep using the M4/3 mount because its an open standard, meaning its free to use, which continues the legacy of Black Magic using the lowest price components in their cameras as possible. The B4 mount is dead by todays standards, there really is no ENG industry anymore, local news shooters are using A7's now not ENG cameras. Most pro sports video is done with Sony FX cameras or Canon C cameras which are super 35. The RF mount is probably the most adaptable mount out there right now but there would be licensing fees if Black Magic wanted to use it, if Canon would even let them use it. Not sure how RED managed to use the RF mount on their new cameras.
TV stations might not be using B4 cameras as much as they used to, but there's still a huge market for B4 cameras and lenses. Once you step up a couple levels past entry-level broadcast gear, everything is B4.
Im sorry but you are so wrong in so many especs .. but i don't have the time to write it. Its a very smart choice.. beside selling a zoom control.. we have so many veriantes of focus/zoom today.. and all the other wrong things is to loong for me to write. you looks a nice man and thanks for your opinion. (English is not my main language)
Like others commenting, I believe you think that I'm trashing the cameras, or even the Micro 4/3 system. I did not do either. I was careful to point that out -- I demonstrated a high quality lens and specifically called out that I think the cameras themselves are likely very good. If you missed that, please go back and watch the video again. My critique is with trying to use Micro 4/3 for live video production, where electronic zoom, smooth focus, and high image quality are critical to getting the job done in most situations. As far as I can tell, there aren't lenses on the market that do all three. You can get electronic zoom, but those lenses (as demonstrated here) are absolutely terrible. You can get smooth focus (cinema lenses), but those lenses don't have electronic zoom. You can get high image quality, but then you don't get electronic zoom with those either.
I was waiting for this/these cameras, I live stream from an ATEM TVSHD and also have a Mini Pro, and I already own some m43 lenses….. but I’m still disappointed, EF or B4 would be better. Doug I found the demo of the lenses very helpful. It would have been great to see them paired with the new camera, but totally understand you NOT buying one just to show us bad lenses. To me Studio cameras need fairly long focal lengths, and 2 of the 3 power zoom lenses are wide to mid.
That doesn't help. The zoom feature wouldn't work at all, and focus will be hit and miss. There are many good Micro 4/3 lenses that would produce a high quality image. But none of the good ones support electronic zoom.
You guys might be missing the intended market. Not everyone needs zoom or remote focus. At $1295 they could sell 500,000 to just TH-cams that own ATEM minis. As someone mentioned the Panasonic BGH1 is $2000 and doesn’t have a monitor. Did the previous model also use m43 lenses? Did everyone trash that camera as well? Seems to me they have upgraded a product that was already successful. They are offering more camera for less money. Is the mistake they made introducing zoom and ocus controls ?
If they don't need zoom and focus controls, why introduce the Zoom and Focus Demands? Or why buy these cameras over say a G7 at a fraction of the price? They're positioning these as professional products (CCU-like functionality, RAW recording, Zoom/Focus Demands, video over 10G Ethernet, 4K) but put a consumer lens mount on it. It's a total mismatch. The previous version did use M43 lenses, and, yes, it was trashed by the professional community. And they sold horribly. So we're that much more surprised when they double down on the M43 mount.
It's hard to tell what their intended market is. If it's ATEM Mini users, they've missed entirely. That group of people is usually looking for something super simple where you just plug it in and it works. People who own a GH5 at most, nothing more complicated. No messing with setting the video resolution or frame rate, or remotely painting the cameras or researching which lenses actually have electronic zoom capability. And this group of people would probably never buy the zoom or focus controllers. The other potential market are professionals who understand what the camera is capable of. But they'll never buy one because of the lack of appropriate lenses to match the camera's otherwise amazing capabilities.
@@djp_video Maybe the G7 is the right answer, it depends on the question. And this where I have a problem with those that are trashing these new cameras. Question: 1. Do the current BMD Studio Cameras have Zooms//Focus controls ? If not did they sell any of those cameras ? 2. What Camera on the market that are $1295 / $1795 have B4 lens support, zoom/focus and remote color ccu controls, 10g ethernet, SDI ? I am asking because I honest don't know. 3. B4 Adapter www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1103381-REG/fotodiox_b4_mgc_mft_p_b4_magic_mft_pro_lens.html The bottom line is BMD developed a product for a specific market. It obviously is not the product for your application. But to trash what appears to be leap forward in camera technology just because it was not designed for your application makes no sense. You guys sound like the same people I remember saying "The iPhone will never take off, it doesn't have real keyboard like my Blackberry", or who trashed the ATEM Mini, "This is a toy it doesn't have multiview, it does have iso, and without SDI it will never sell". I predict they will sell a ton of these for those that need the feature set that it was designed for, especially at this price point.
The problem is that these cameras aren't well suited for anybody. They've created a product with professional level features (and the corresponding learning curve to use them) but they use consumer lenses that aren't made for doing live video. The 4 lenses that have the features targeted by the camera are all terrible. So they end up with a product that isn't a desirable choice for any segment of the market. To answer your questions: 1. The older model Studio cameras support LANC, so you can add Zoom/Focus controls. Blackmagic doesn't make those, but they will in practice work just as well as the Zoom/Focus Demands, mostly due to limitations of Micro 4/3. But those studio cameras have never sold very well. And based on the feedback I've gotten from people who watch this channel, almost everybody who did buy them won't use them because of the limitations of Micro 4/3. 2. There aren't any cameras in this price range that supports B4. But what if Blackmagic made one? They would sell them like crazy. It would dominate the market. Instead, they've got a product that appeals to very few. 3. That adapter physically lets you connect a B4 lens to the camera, but it's going to be unusable. B4 lenses produce an image sized for 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3-inch sensors. Micro 4/3 is much larger, so B4 lenses won't fill the sensor. So, those lenses are useless on this camera. Additionally, those adapters don't provide a way to control the lens in any way whatsoever -- no iris, no focus, no zoom. I can't figure out who this product is really for. Professionals universally hate it -- just look at the comments here and on my Discord server for examples. Amateurs won't want to pay for it once you add on everything else you need to make it useful (namely a lens), and/or won't want to take the time to learn how to use it. Those in between will get use camcorders as they fill that in-between space really well. You can pick up camcorders from Canon or Sony that will destroy the performance of this camera just because of the lens system and work in a much wider variety of situations, but still manage to cost less. I think it won't sell well, just like the predecessors didn't. They've already had cameras with similar capabilities and almost nobody bought them. This isn't a new idea; it's just and update to an old idea that never caught on, and is even less likely to do so now with the ongoing decline of the Micro 4/3 ecosystem.
@@PhotoMentor I should also mention that I would absolutely love a camera like this if I could put decent lenses on it. The remote control capabilities would be awesome to have. But there's no way I can do that. Good quality lenses with controllable focus/zoom that work on this camera just don't exist.
That certainly hasn't been my experience -- they look great out of the box without many tweaks. But the Blackmagic cameras I've used are all way too purple or way too green.
Don't how long you are in photography or even if you were I've been doing it for 54years and photography lens DO AUTO FOCUS PERFECTLY and the MF3 lens is really the best choice for the BM Studio new camera. So glad they did that. Not everyone can afford the garbage lens from Canon. In doing video you need good lightning no matter what camera or lens you are using. Your lighting there is very very poor so I can't see how you can compare lens quality. Don't knock it till you try it with the camera. Under proper conditions MF3 lens are great for many people on a budget. So happy BM decided to us. That's the only reason I will get the Studio camera, declined the 6K because of the canon lens. BTW if you use an iPhone as your video camera you can see the great quality better the canon or sony that you are pushing so much. You have do your research and see what is best for the consumer not what is best for you personally.
Ummm... i'm going to have to disagree with you on pretty much everything you said. Have you actually tried these particular lenses yourself... and for video? They're terrible, and I demonstrated that here. Others who own them say the same thing -- check the other comments on this video and other forums on the internet. They are universally loathed. There are plenty of good Micro 4/3 lenses, and I started with one to show that the problem here isn't my Micro 4/3 camera. I didn't test or demonstrate autofocus because that is a feature of the cameras, not the lenses, and I don't have one of the new cameras in my possession to give an accurate assessment. I don't doubt that M43 cameras can do a great job of autofocusing. I do have my doubts about BMD Studio Cameras being able to autofocus, particularly with these lenses, though. Their auto-focus has historically been awful. Have you used the Sony cameras that I use? I thought not. It is leagues better in low light than any Micro 4/3 camera I've tried. I mean, not even close. And I can do smooth, clean, slow zooms with them. I do that in every event I shoot. None of the M43 have that capability at all. That alone makes M43 a non-starter for many people in video. I've actually gone overkill on the lighting. I'm running under 120 watts of light. That's LED consumption, not incandescent equivalent watts, which would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 W -- a ton of light for the small space I'm shooting in. And it's clearly enough light for the Panasonic 25mm lens I demonstrated -- I had to iris down to avoid blowing out the shot. But with the two EZ lenses I used I had to open up the aperture all the way and add 18dB of gain to get even a somewhat usable image (and still too dark). And then when I zoomed out it was overexposed and. That's terrible! For reference, on the Sonys I shoot at f/5.2 with 0 gain. And the exposure doesn't change and the shot doesn't go out of focus when I zoom. These cameras are designed to do that. Photography lenses aren't. Again, my issue isn't with the cameras, or Micro 4/3 itself. It's with these particular lenses. And it's crazy to me that Blackmagic is pushing the amazing capabilities of their camera WITH THESE LENSES, and continuing to develop NEW cameras that use Micro 4/3 when there aren't suitable lenses for live VIDEO production in that system, particularly when the ecosystem is struggling. The only four electronic zoom lenses available are terrible. Pretty much everyone agrees on that.
@@djp_video I have 3 of these lenses which i have done corporate productions PPV streams and large events and all i get is rave reviews on the quality. you have to know what you are doing before you go public. Know yur camera know your lens know your lighting and you will be great at what you do
@@djp_video I would still want to see how it worked with the actual new studio camera rather than the 5ish year old model. I want to know if and how they address the lens shortfalls.
As someone who has used this system and these lenses they are horrible! They are not made for true professionals on any level. If you are being paid to produce video do not use these lenses. If your a beginner you tuber then these lenses are good for non paid gigs. Black magic def missed the mark big time on this selection of lens options
@Alvin Burrell, How much could possibly be done? You can't fix the shaking issues when the 14-42mm zoom reaches the extents of the focal length. You can't magically make the lenses zoom slower or faster than the motors allow. You can't add detail that isn't there, and can't increase sharpness without adding noise and other artifacts (sharpness is not the same as detail). You can't really make a non-parfocal lens parfocal. You can't practically fix focus breathing in software. You can't make the lens capture more light or open up the aperture larger than that aperture's physical size. And we already know that the camera doesn't compensate for the darkening that happens when zooming. These lenses were meant to be used on budget, bottom-of-the-line cameras for photographers taking still photos. Asking them to perform the tasks necessary for video production is unrealistic and impractical.
I watched till 14 minutes and stopped because your conclusion is utterly wrong :-) It's 14 minutes about what you hate about those lenses and you don't even have the camera. How silly is that? I have both panasonics and I am extremely happy with them on Lumix cameras. It's the result that counts, not the specs. If you would put the Leica 10-25 on the blackmagic studio camera, you would have sharpness, no focus breathing and it's more or less parfocal. So, sorry but you wasted 14 minutes of my time.
The problems mentioned are going to be universal and apply to any camera that uses these lenses. Going with a different camera doesn't fix jumpy zooms, single speed/too fast zooms, effective apertures changing as you zoom, focus breathing, etc. These problems are inherent in the lenses and it doesn't matter how good the camera is -- they're still going to exist. Not only that, but several of these issues are seen in the Blackmagic video when Grant demonstrated the new camera, even in the ultra-brief shots that were shown.
@@djp_video yes, but use other lenses instead with a remote follow focus to do the job. It has nothing to do with the camera itself. And do you need to zoom while filming? Let's hope they have plans for a proper MFT power zoom, that would be nice. My 2 Panasonic pz lenses are rasor sharp with none of the problems that you mention. The secret is "full auto", try it :-) I don't use them in manual mode.
We zoom during shots all the time, particularly for musical events, as a way to add some motion to the shots. Smooth zoom with good quality glass is essential to a lot of people in video production. And the fact that Blackmagic introduced the new Zoom Demand specifically for these lenses -- there aren't any alternatives that will work. With people shooting cinema style, smooth Zoom won't matter. But for live events it's essential. My experience with these lenses, and as shown by the DXOMark testing, is that they aren't very sharp. Do a side-by-side comparison between the videos here on my channel today (Sony) vs those from 2 years ago (Olympus 12-50mm) and the difference is enormous -- not in the least bit subtle.
@@djp_video, still I think you are jumping to the wrong conclusions because of a few powerzoom lenses you don't like. These new studio cameras are great if you ask me. EF/RF mount would have been bad as well because of no power zooms. What mount is left? I would try these cameras first before breaking them down. Your Olympus might suddenly look great, you never know.
No camera is going to be able to fix bad optics. It just isn't possible. Poor sharpness, lack of parfocal capability, focus breathing, and a variable aperture when zooming are terrible are things that a camera just can't compensate for. I have to ask, what are these cameras great for? Maybe great if you're shooting with primes, but who does that in live production? For film, sure... but these aren't cinema cameras. They're made for live production. You're really downplaying the role of electronic zoom. But it really is essential when producing video for live events. With my crew we're constantly zooming in and out to reframe or to add some motion to a shot. And it's something that Blackmagic really emphasized when introducing the camera. The Zoom Demand that they introduced ONLY works on these four lenses, but Grant spent a lot of time on it. Interestingly, they only showed a live shot through the lens zooming for a couple seconds before cutting away -- before the darkening or shaking at the end of the zoom range became really apparent (but it was still there). They know that these lenses aren't any good. They would have spent more time showing the image from the cameras if it was good, but they didn't. EF does have some power zoom lenses. There aren't a lot, but they are high quality and are designed for live production. There are a few for Sony E mount as well. They're far better choices than these four for M43. Spend a couple minutes reading the other comments on this video. Other than a couple die-hard M43 fans who will be unwilling to use anything else, everybody else agrees with me, especially those that have actually owned or used these lenses... that this is a bad combination. This combination of studio camera with these lenses isn't new. BMD has been selling Studio cameras for several years. And they've never sold well, and most people who have used them strongly dislike them. Nothing is going to change that with this generation unless someone comes out with suitable lenses. Right now there just aren't any.
Unless BM release their own m43 lens with focal length of 28-400 (35mm equivalent) and preferably constant aperture, I seriously cannot justify getting into their ecosystem.
We were going to go with the hd versions of this camera, but decided to make the jump to the ursa broadcast with the b4 mount.
Thanks for the in depth video! I both agree and disagree on that. Are zoom powered MFT lenses bad ? Definitely! I hate those, and it’s perfectly well explained in your video. Are MFT lenses bad ? I don’t think so. There are lenses that I use on a regular basis in many different environments such as the Olympus 12-100 F4 which has an incredible range and very sharp quality including at F4. The remote focus control is very smooth too. Much more choice in non zoom servo lenses. Also the MFT mount makes it possible to use EF lenses and B4 lenses.
So I think Blackmagic should do two things to make things better :
1. a zoom motor ( just like DJI ) so that we can control zoom of any lens.
2. a proper MFT to B4 adapter, with the right crop, that would forward the electronic communication of the MFT mount to the lens.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough on my point. I don’t have anything against MFT in and of itself. I use an MFT camera for my overhead shots. My issue is primarily that these particular lenses are pretty awful, and secondarily that Blackmagic is essentially endorsing them as a good solution for live video.
If Blackmagic or someone else provided proper adapters the problem would be solved.
@@djp_video Ok I see! We definitely need some sort of adapter MFT to B4 which excels both optically and electronically speaking. I tend to use B4 lenses for manned cameras and MFT lenses for fixed shots or small studio shots or remote controlled shots. The future of MFT lenses is also unknown as you said...
@@zebrazone Hi Zebra, why not team up with Doug in the making of the live streaming course. I'm so looking forward to it btw.
No Ethercon for the RJ45 on the new studio camera is also a major mistake.
Ehh yes and no, Ethernet is locking by its self, and it's not like it is a weatherproof camera that needs the extra protection. Yes the extra level of strain relief if it gets stepped on is nice, but they look like they are running short on space already.
Yeah, same complaint for the Studio Converter. There's so much more security with Ethercon vs standard RJ45
Thanks!
Modularity would have been a good way to go, with ability to have your choice of lens mount. Same for the I/O - eg: be able to switch out the SDI connections vs Fiber vs Ethernet. That way, people can mix and match according to their individual needs.
if you want to use B4 lenses, there is already the ursa broadcast for that use.
my guess is BMD may be in talks to get lenses to be manufactured in their name
It's possible. But what manufacturer would want to devote resources to creating lenses for such a small market?
@@djp_video even if the market is 10% of the atem mini * market (and I’m sure it’s more), they should be plenty fine
I'm not sure about that. People using ATEM Minis tend to be budget conscious buyers, and tend to already have cameras. And how many of them are going to drop a minimum of $1400 for a camera plus another $300 for the cheapest zoom lens when their $500 camera already works okay? Besides, that $1700 comes awfully close to a Sony FDR-AX700 which is going to blow these cameras out of the water in terms of not only image quality but zoom capability. Yes, you do get the ability to remotely color the BMD cameras, but I'd give that up in a second for a usable zoom.
@@djp_video future will tell
Without a doubt. But it would seem foolish to invest in cameras now hoping that better lenses might come later.
Why not sigma EF with speedbooster? Also I think Panasonic will introduce a couple of lenses that will mirror sigma 18 35
In terms of just getting a high quality image, that would certainly work, as do most M43 lenses. The big problem with the M43 system though is that there aren't many parfocal lenses, and even fewer with electronic zoom, making them less than ideal for live production.
Totally agree with this assessment! Curious as I’ve never used B4 lenses; why would you prefer that mount over EF and the ability to use the canon servo lenses? Cost? Lens options? Thanks!
Both lens variety and cost. You can pick up used B4 lenses for relatively little, and they're purpose-built for live video production. The EF servo zoom lenses are pretty expensive. Also, the smaller sensors (2/3", 1/2", and 1/3") that come with B4 make it easier to keep subjects in focus.
@@djp_video I totally agree. I use the ENG lenses on all my BMD Studio cameras. By the way I am a big follower of your tutorial and contents on your TH-cam Channel.
Is bm in time to fix this bad decision? What should they do in your opinion? Maybe cooperating with an optics manufacturer to produce a minimum constant aperture 12x lens. It won't be cheap anyway...
BMD doesn't have enough power in the market to try to jumpstart the struggling M43 ecosystem. And designing and manufacturing lenses is extremely time consuming and expensive. They could potentially have partnered with an existing lens manufacturer, but I can't see any of them wanting to take that on -- the return on investment just isn't there. Nobody besides BMD is trying to make M43 work for live video with its unique requirements.
They should have just gone with B4. While new B4 lenses can be very expensive, because the mount has been around for decades you can pick up used lenses for pennies on the dollar.
Unfortunately, there aren't any other lens mounts with any significant market share that are designed for live production. The world has standardized around B4. EF could maybe have been an option -- there are a handful of servo zoom lenses for EF, but they are extremely expensive too. Sony has a couple servo zoom lenses for the E mount, but it's just that -- a couple -- and they are a lot better than the M43 options, but they aren't great either.
@@djp_video absolutely. Will see how they sell...
Exactly, even Panasonic made strides by making the LX100, a compact fast zoom. 4/3 can be a cinematic alternative to 35mm, just like 16mm. Its funny how lens manufacturers can be innovative but not fill a niche
Hey Doug, wouldn’t the Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm/F4.0-5.6 OIS Lens also be an option for the Zoom Demand?
Apologies, you DID feature this lens. 👍
Unfortunately it is not par focal so you lose focus during a zoom which isn't great for live production.
A very nice well balanced piece Doug... As I posted several times on the very first day of release - a big mistake and a backwards step IMHO... At least EF lenses and I ideally EF & B4 options.
The only saving grace just maybe looking at the front plate with 4 removeable screws that possibly some further options are to be announced shortly from BMD.... I live in hope because MFT is a definite no-no for us.
Hi Doug, thank you very much for this video! We are looking to buy these cameras for our church and bumbt into this video while doing research. Could you give some advice what to buy; this or another camera? And what lenses?
We have quite a dark setting, a stage, professional lights and a big ledwall behind the speaker and or band. We asked some dealers but they all are ‘fund of their products’ as they should? No we do not have a indefinite budget… that is why our eye fell on this option. Oh and, I’m from Europe, the Netherlands 😊
Your reply would be very helpful, thank you in advance!💪
I still haven't found what I would call "good" lenses for video on Micro 4/3.
I spent a week with one of the new Studio cameras about a month ago, and at the time I rented the highest rated zoom lens for M43. I wasn't impressed with the image quality -- it was quite soft. Compared to my Sony camcorders the image quality was really lacking. The Sony was noisier, but every other aspect of the Sony was much better.
But it really all depends on your situation. If you need a wide zoom range a camcorder or B4-based camera (like the Ursa Broadcast G2) would be best. If you were shooting in a studio with a ton of light, and didn't need zoom capabilities the Studio camera probably would be a good choice.
If BMD produced the new studio cameras with a B4 mount would make them unusable for most people as these lenses are way too expensive. On the other hand you can probably convert other lenses for MFT cameras if you wish to do so. I wonder if there are any "affordable" PZ lenses on a different mount system that would make sense for the BMD studio cameras.
New lenses are too expensive, yes. There's a whole huge inventory of older used B4 lenses out there that sell for next to nothing, relative to their original price and performance. And even the SD lenses from decades ago are going to produce a better image than these EZ M43 lenses.
If cost savings is the intent, buyers would be better off just getting a camcorder.
Awesome commentary and perspective. Well supported and illustrated.
is it technically possible to adapt it to EF or another lens mount?
There are EF adapters. But from what I've heard the electronic control features either don't work, or don't work reliably.
@@djp_video Okay, I mean if they then produce an adaptor that does the iris control, then some servos that connect via USBC and drive the lens externally, that would work.
is there a powered zoom lens you would recommend to pair with the blackmagic 4k camera at the moment? is there an affordable EF mount one with powered zoom that works with the zoom and focus toggle in the ATEM software? Thanks so much for the info!
"Affordable" and EF powered zoom don't go well together. The least expensive Canon Cine Servo lens I've seen starts at $4,600, but most of them go for $30,000 or more.
B4 would be much more suitable. Even though some of those lenses get crazy expensive, there are good choices for less, especially on the used market.
Is it possible to adapt to e mount and use some of Sony's power zooms? Like the 18-105 f/4, 18-135 f/4, etc.
There are adapters to let you connect them, but the zoom features would not work.
Have tried the DZOFILM 20-70mm T2.9 MFT Parfocal Cinema Style Zoom Lens with this camera, Would need a zoom controller ?
That lens doesn't have any motorized control. You'd need a servo zoom unit (or equivalent) to control the zoom.
Great video as always Doug!
If you allow me one question please. I was thinking build a 3 Studio Camera 4K Pro home studio. I don't need zoom, the ambient will be controled. Lights, angles, etc
After your video i'm not sure if the Studio Cameras are the best choice? Maybe i should go with Broadcast G2 to get better image?
I will appreciate your feedback if is it possible
Thanks in advance and sorry for my English; I'm still learning
Have a Productive and Healthy day!
It mostly comes down to the lenses. But even with great lenses the Studio cameras are just soft and lacking detail and contrast. I don't have an Ursa Broadcast to compare against so I can't say for sure.
About 6 months ago I rented a Studio Camera 4K Pro and put the best Micro 4/3 zoom lens on it I could find. And the image quality was still quite poor compared to my Sony camcorders. Here's a still image comparison of the two cameras under the same conditions, taken a couple seconds apart... 1drv.ms/u/s!Aq9iquFi-Ojx2rJSQpxg5eJYDWMB2Q?e=WlFJad
The Sony camcorder looks so much better. But I wish I had access to an Ursa Broadcast with a good lens for comparison.
The other problem with this camera, as far as I can tell, is the ability to adjust the viewfinder independently of the full camera. Correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't look adjustable to me. Example you've got the camera set to a high angle looking down or you've got it set to 4 feet high shooting across. How do you see the viewfinder without getting a ladder or stooping down? This camera really is a budget camera with the average height adjustment being used.
I believe you are correct.
There were the times of the very early tube cameras with fixed angle built in viewfinders .. but that was 60+ years ago … Not being able to tilt the screen up or down is a harsh limitation.
Hi Doug, thanks for the comprehensive video. I'm looking at kitting out a small studio for podcasts, video and livestreaming. I'd like to be able to run the studio with one operator. I'm disappointed to see the issues with these lenses as I was very impressed with the selling point of being able to control the cameras from the Atem. Can you tell me: do other, better lenses allow focus control even if zoom control is not possible?
Most electronic focus lenses will work. How well they focus remotely is going to vary by lens model. But I'll qualify that by saying that the Studio Camera's auto-focus is terrible. I wouldn't use it.
@@djp_video thanks, interesting. But I'm not looking for autofocus, I'm after remote focus control either through the focus demand or the Atem. Do you know if other lenses support this?
@@PilgrimaticStone Lenses with auto-focus capability can be controlled by the camera. But remember that these are photography lenses and are designed to focus quickly, the way that auto focus tends to do. If you’re looking for smooth focus transitions controlled electronically you aren’t going to find those on MFT. It’s fine for adjusting focus between shots, but if you want smooth focus changes you’ll have to go with manual focus lenses, preferably those designed for cinema work.
@@djp_video yeah that's interesting. I'm only bothered about setting up shots, not smooth focus transitions while the camera is live, really. Want something that can be controlled at the desk most of the time.
another question, what about a sony pz lens adapted to the new studio camera you think the zoom control would work??
If you find an adapter that translates those commands. But I doubt that would be a high priority for someone creating an adapter.
I’m not sure why there are not professional power zooms for the M43 system. I shoot live theatre concerts and dance shows. I used to use ENG cameras. Now I use two GH5’s and a GH5 Mk2. Two cameras are static and the Mk2 does the close-ups with the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 or the Leica 50-200 f2.8-4. Neither of these has a power zoom. I still have one ENG camera a Panasonic PX270 but I have not have to use it this year. If their was a pro power zoom I’d have a close look at it but really I don’t miss it.
This video has been super helpful! So please correct if I am wrong, if I was to get a Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm for a Blackmagic Design Studio Camera 4K Pro, because its not parafocal, I could never do a live shot while zooming because it won't hold the focus, correct?
Correct. If you want to zoom live, you'll need a parforcal lens.
The same reason why i refuse to use BM Studio camera for live event.
Would Autofocus work on this camera? which lens should I buy any with the autofocus feature? thanks in advance
Autofocus on the Blackmagic cameras is terrible. You shouldn’t even consider using it.
What metabones should i use if i want to use ef lenses? i can't find any clear info online
The one that I know for sure works is the Metabones Canon EF to BMPCC4K Speed Booster T XL. I have used it with the Studio camera and it works well.
@@djp_video thanks! can you send me a link, affiliates are welcomed as well
@@djp_video thanks! any links? they are rather expensive and i'd hate to get the wrong one.
Here you go: amzn.to/3IGl4p9
I use the older models in a studio setting where zoom is not a factor. I have a wide selection of M43 lenses, primes and zooms, due to using a GH5 as my field production camera. This is a cost effective solution, not a high end offering. I do have a Canon lens on my old broadcast camera, but it would be disappointing in a studio setting because, while it has a nice servo zoom that I don’t need in the studio, it is strictly manual focus. Because I work with multiple cameras but no operators in the studio, I rely on ATEM remote focus control constantly.
Isn't the auto-focus on the Studio cameras, ummm.... lacking?
@@djp_video curious to see in action, since I am hoping to pair a panasonic lumix servo lens with the blackmagic 4k cam for low light, in studio use with a little zoom control.
love the ef mount. works great with focus button
myself being invested in the mft system (since gh3) and trying to do live production it is not fun at all to make work. I now only use them for stationary shots or scenarios where there is minimal zooming and focus changes. I since went with a dedicated video camera the cx350 and it is so much better in every aspect for live production, and the 1 inch sensor is descent in low light (and focus seems spot on as well.)
+1 for cx-350. BM Studio's didn't make sense.
I think the m43 lenses are fine when you use these cameras in locked down situations. On our stages, we have two of these studio cams locked down, and then ursa broadcast for the handhelds and jibs.
Can you please share a link to video using these.
What Sony lens are you using here?
It's a Sony camcorder... PXW-Z150.
@@djp_video Ah ok. That makes sense. I can’t find a converter for E mount to M4/3 camera.
I would imagine you could also do a speedbooster with a Compact Servo 70-200 or 18-80 EF. So ideally that would fix almost all the issues you mentioned. 🤷🏻♂️
If the SpeedBooster supports zoom commands it should work. I don't have those products to be able to test it, though.
Olympus is supposedly (finally) going to lean into video with upcoming cameras. Perhaps there’s hope for new studio-appropriate lenses from Olympus? Fingers crossed.
Unless Olympus were to start to get into producing video cameras specifically made for live video, it's highly doubtful. Live production equipment is very different than even what you'd use for shooting in a film- or cinema-style workflow.
I am wanting to get 3 of these for fundraising and talking head live streams and using them along side 2 bmpcc 4k cameras on a separate set. This means having MFT keeps me from needing separate lens sets.
You can get a vastly higher quality camcorder (Sony FDR-AX700, for example) for less than the camera with any lens.
@doug, thank you for the video. We decided for the older panasonic fz-1000 which is on paper very similar to an sony ax700. I‘m curious if i missed something the sony offers over the pana fz1000? Why would you prefer the ax700?
One thing i noticed on the fz: the zoom speed and and precision you get with a wifi remote is not very good. Also noise gets considerably higher when increasing ISO. Apart from that a very budget friendly option, especially for fixed shots.
@@pixpaxpostproductionThe FZ1000 does look like a compelling option for budget shooters. And the increase in noise at higher ISOs is normal across all cameras. The thing to consider is how much noise there is -- whether it is too much in the shooting conditions you're likely to encounter. If you're shooting outside in the sun it's likely not going to be a problem on most any camera. But if you're shooting indoors in rooms without purpose-made lighting, a lot of cameras will fail you. But I haven't used the FZ1000 so I can't say where its threshold is, and you'd have to consider your own needs too.
I prefer camcorder style cameras because they're designed for live video. They tend to have purpose-made controls to adjust camera settings -- dedicated buttons/controls for iris, focus, zoom, white balance, gain, shutter speed, etc., so they can be adjusted without going through menus. And that's pretty important when shooting an event and you have to be able to react quickly when shooting live. Having a smooth, adjustable zoom is something that is also very important to me. I love to include zoom shots when shooting concerts and other music-related events, and very few cameras -- especially SLR-style models -- do that well.
You‘re right. Thank you!
@@djp_video the Sony's image quality would outpace the studio cameras with a good m43 lens?
Which Sony do you use for comparison?
PXW-Z150. But all of the other cameras in that family would perform identically: PXW-Z90V, HXR-NX80, FDR-AX700, PXW-X70, and FDR-AX100.
Your Sony doesn't have SDI or any kind of remote control that the BMD ecosystem offers. Do you miss that in your workflow?
@@jwlighting The upper end of that Sony product line (Z90V, Z150) do have SDI outputs, though they are HD only (no 4K).
The lack of remote control hasn't been a serious issue. I have operators on my cameras almost all of the time and I can just ask them to make changes for me. I would love to be able to remotely paint and otherwise control the cameras for sure. But not at the expense of video quality.
What about DZO? They make pretty good MFT cine lenses.
There are certainly some high quality lenses for Micro Four Thirds. But high quality, electronic focus, and electronic zoom don’t all exist in a single lens.
@@djp_video yeah definitely true. I think I have to add something like a Tilta nucleus system to get control of the zoom.
This is pretty fascinating stuff. I have been debating between the BMPCC 4k and other cameras. I blindly assumed m43 lenses would be sufficiently sharp , especially for video, as the lenses are designed for higher resolution capture than 4k . As a result of those assumptions I figured the low prices m43 lenses would make for a compelling price point. I also assumed larger format lenses would be less sharp as a result of the crop. Im definitely going to investigate this further as im curious about whether the resolution loss are a result of zooms vs primes.
There are certainly some high quality Micro 4/3 lenses out there (usually with a corresponding price tag). But none of them are among the handful that offer electronic zoom. That particular collection of lenses are universally terrible, which was kind of the point of this video.
Keep in mind that M43 lenses are designed primarily for photography, not video, so some issues like focus breathing, or variable aperture through the zoom range, which don't impact photography that much could be a real problem with video.
But, even with that said, a year ago I did some pretty extensive testing on the 4K Pro version of this camera, and rented a couple of the highest rated lenses out there. And the resulting image was decidedly quite soft no matter what I did. And the color reproduction on the camera was too orange unless I used the color correction tools to tweak it -- setting the white balance alone never got it to what I would call neutral or accurate color.
@@djp_video thanks. I come from a stills background and for the past year have been researching cameras for filmmaking - its kinda nuts. Originally i was floored by what i thought was the magic of BlackMagic cameras, it seemed like the poor man’s hasselblad for movies. But I always had a nagging feeling that its cult following or the “cinematic” qualities ascribed to it were a one trick pony and that there was another lesson sexy side to them which was rarely touched upon. Fast forward one year later, and a slightly more nuanced eye, and I’m no longer convinced that it is the end all be all camera, nor that its color science is . I noticed that the higher end m43 lenses are not bargains, nor are they small , nor are the sensors’ read out speeds competitive with APSC . Its interesting you bring up your rented lemses’ results, as this addresses another peeve of mine: as a result of this camera’s fervent church of fanboys, it’s damn near impossible to find much in the way of constructive debate and conversations about shortcomings such as those you mentioned without a riot breaking out. Btw I love your channel because it touches on various tidbits and aspects of video production I know nothing about, so thank you so much for sharing this wealth of knowledge.
The lens mount is screwed on. All they need to do is allow us to swap it out for B4 or EF etc. Problem solved. But MFT lost them a sale from me.
I think 4/3 will work but there's no existing servo for 4/3. Canon and Fuji made many 35mm servos but no 4/3. Even Tamron made a long fast lens. 4/3 would be smaller and lighter
First time I see Micro Four Third being shorten to M43 instead of the (more common) MFT. 🤔
An external powerzoom for manual lenses would make more sense :) but MFT built in powezooms with just 4 lens options most not constant aperture is a bit weird.
I’d more expect MFT/EF/E to enable lower end customers to jump into this. E-mount seems to have a couple of constant aperture powerzooms built for Sony pro video, as well as a ton of cheap non-pz lenses, so from a very naive look at the market it appears the logical choice of Mount.
B4 sounds a bit too obscure to make the camera feel accessible to “normal people”. Maybe it is a great choice for a real studio but does most potential buyers of this product line know B4 or have any investment in it?
Maybe BMD stuck to MFT to keep the old product compatibility, or they’ll eventually release variants with other mount.
hey Doug, i have 2 questions. 1 do you think these bmd cameras would be great for a church setting?? 2 since u were mentioning b4 lens, is it possible to adapt a b4 lens to a canon r series or a sony a7 series thru adapters? since they have amazing auto focus do you think af would work w a b4 lens??
Using these cameras for a church setting can work well if you get good quality lenses. You won't have powered zoom, though, so if you need to change the zoom you'll be reaching around to the lens and twisting the zoom ring manually. I'd also avoid variable aperture lenses or you'll be adjusting the exposure every time you zoom too.
Adapting B4 lenses to larger sensors isn't a good idea. Going from a larger format to a smaller format can work well, but not the other way around.
Still/photo cameras like the Canon R and Sony A7 series aren't made for live video and are awkward to use in those kinds of settings. They're also much more expensive than much more workable solutions like a camcorder when you factor in lenses. A Sony FDR-AX700, for example, is just $1900 and makes a great camera for live production.
@@djp_video thanks alot for answering my questions Doug really appreciate the feedback and info!! Really made things clearer!!
Ignoramus Warning!! Would something like the Tilta Nucleus + Some Good zoom be the solution. Say the Olympus 12~100 mm F:4 and the Titlta Nucleus for zoom and focus... ??
It could work. But you wouldn't be able to control the zoom/focus from the Blackmagic camera, ATEM Software Control, or one of BMD's control surfaces -- it would only be controlled by the Nucleus.
I already own a BMPCC 4K and I want to buy the studio 4K plus for the focus and zoom on demand option. Is this a good move or shall I stick with another BMPCC 4K?
Only you can make that call. Considering the poor quality of the only lenses that work with both demands, I don't think I'd do it personally.
I guess I will be the sore thumb here.
But I just don't get how people don't realize that the "Studio" cam is designed as an affordable option or filmmakers in......a studio. Do most filmmakers have low light settings in their studios? Maybe I missed something ??
From my experience, most people who seek out these cameras AREN'T using them in studios. They're using them for the random scenarios that contract video producers get hired to work in. These cameras are absolutely terrible in any situation outside of a studio, and only of dubious value inside a studio due to the really poor selection of lenses. If you have a need to zoom/reframe or keep up with a moving subject these cameras just do those things well at all. But they get treated as general-purpose devices for general usage.
@@djp_video interesting...I do believe that there's obviously better out there. But for the price, idk what people are getting that's better.
Most any camcorder does a better job, even those that cost less. The only advantage that the BMD cameras have is the ability to remotely control exposure and color. In every other way a camcorder is a better choice -- better quality image, more flexibility, cheaper.
@@djp_video I'd love to hear your recommendations on alternatives. I'm not saying you're wrong. But what other cameras can capture 4k 60fps, record 12-bit raw video, 24 bit HQ audio, SDI in & out, Ethernet, XLR, physical and digital tally lights, remote control and operation via free software. All without having to purchase a monitor since it's got a 7" HDR touchscreen.
I'm know if the budget allowed for it finding something better would be easy. But at price point of $1850 per unit, I'm curious about what other cameras you'd suggest. We got 3 of these cameras in our studio for $5,500 and have had absolutely no issues whatsoever. We run them in an indoor environment (live music bar/restaurant) and have cheap Godox LEDs. I'm pretty sure in the last 6 months we've never needed to go above 800iso.
I'm not saying that a lot of the features of the Studio cameras aren't great and appealing. They certainly are. But the camera fails in other areas which make more of a difference in the final result.
For me the most important part of a camera is the quality of the image that it produces, especially in its given price range. The $1800 of the Studio camera is pretty affordable for what it is (meant to be), but to make a comparison against camcorders you also have to factor in the cost of the lens(es) you're going to be using. The BMD camera by itself is useless. So keep that in mind.
Below is a link to a shot of two images which were captured from a Sony PXW-Z150 and the Blackmagic Studio Camera Pro 4K seconds apart from one another. The BMD camera is equipped with a Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens, which is the sharpest MFT zoom lens I could find. The Z150 is a $3000 camera, but it has effectively the same sensor, optics, and capabilities as less expensive models in the Sony lineup, including the FDR-AX700, which is $1800. For price comparison purposes, factor in about $150 for a 7-inch 1080p LCD monitor on the Sony camera.
1drv.ms/u/s!Aq9iquFi-Ojx2rJTJGtGHZ_01SDHjg
The difference in image quality is staggering to me. The Sony is crisp and detailed. The Blackmagic image is a muddy mess with almost no detail in the skin. The two cameras had the same white balance settings but the skin tones on the Blackmagic are much too orange. Correctable, yes, but it sure is nice to not have to worry about that every time you setup a camera.
The Sony camera has a zoom range of 29-696mm (35mm equivalent), a 24X range. I don't believe there are ANY MFT lenses that cover such a wide range, especially at an f/4.0. And in the types of situations I shoot, I need every little bit of that. A studio setting would be different, but a range like that would still be useful. And keep in mind that the zoom on the Sony is electronically controllable, another feature I use constantly, which you aren't going to find on any decent MFT lens.
My point is that camcorders produce a visually better result and are purpose-built for live video production. The BMD cameras never produce a fantastic image and are limited in where and how they can be used because of the lack of suitable lenses.
Doug,
Considering the fact that the interface is usb-c on the focus demand (also the zoom demand), do you think they will make these controls compatible with their pocket 4K which is also m4/3?
It is possible, but I doubt it. The two products are intended for different workflows.
I think you've missed the mark on why they choose M4/3's mount. They don't expect you to stay in the M4/3's range of lenses. The point is that M4/3's can be adapted to practically any other lens mount you would want to use.
So if you're on a budget, you can stay with cheap lenses, but if you want B4 lenses, you can adapt and run those instead.
I got some and adapted EF lenses with focal reducers and the experience has been amazing.
If they're expecting you to use lenses from other systems they should just give you a camera with the proper mount. They already make cameras with both EF and B4.
When you adapt to other systems you lose the focus and zoom control capabilities, and depending on the quality of the adapter, you could lose the ability to control the iris electronically.
Blackmagic really pushes this camera as part of the M43 system. When they've demoed it they've used native lenses. And they even had the audacity to praise the capabilities of the Power Zoom lenses (which are universally worse than awful) when this camera was introduced. They've also never mentioned adapting to other systems in any of their literature or product demonstration videos.
B4 are hard to adapt to M43 properly. The image circle on B4 lenses is much smaller than a M43 sensor, so just to fill the sensor you have to use a teleconverter, drastically reducing the amount of light and image quality.
@@djp_video True, it's just that M4/3's gives buyers the most options out of the box in terms of adapting. It's kind of like how they only have 1 SKU for the entire world on all their products and just include all the power socket adapters in the box. Makes sense from a manufactures perspective, but maybe not every users needs. And since it's the budget option, they're trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible with 1 product.
Love your videos man. Keep up the work. :)
Great video! Thanks and respect!
Either this is another bizarre choice from BM, or they know something we don't about m43 lenses... I have the pancake lens you showed and I agree, it's awful. I never use it.
Three words: Focal Flange Distance... MFT has a fairly low FFD, at 18mm or so, which means it's a bit easier to adapt other lens mounts to MFT native mounts. Adapter can be expensive depending on what you're looking for, but it is possible to adapt EF or B4 fairly easily. There are drawbacks to both options, but you could mount a Canon CN-E lens to have all of the motorized lens features. This would set you back a fair amount, as these lenses are upwards of 3K$ and a speedbooster is around 600$.
You answered me on a fb thread on this very subject. Thank you for making a detailed video about it.
I'll always be an MFT user as long as they keep making cameras. I have zero MFT lenses, they just don't make sense for any use. Having worked for so long with S35, MFT is just the best. Looks amazing and really flexible.
Did you mean what you wrote?
@@JordanLedbetter of course, why?
@@dpc4548 There seems to be confusion in what you wrote: You claimed: "I will always be an MFT user but I have no MFT Lenses since they do not make sense" So are you using MFT (=M43 Micro for thirds) Lens? I am curious what your setup is?
One word: speedbooster. The MFT system's inherently wide DOF makes it practical to use wide apertures less that f2 without blurring out everything in the background. For live events and documentaries, the "cinematic look" is not the priority, you want things to stay in focus. To do this with full-frame video cameras, you need professional lighting and multiple takes, luxuries you rarely have when filming a live performance. With MFT, an inexpensive 0.7x speedbooster gives you access to an immense legacy of Nikon or Canon full-frame lenses whose incomparable speed and exquisite center-crop FOV are just priceless. No, you don't get motorized zoom/focus and lens breathing is often an issue, but real gems are out there to be found. BMD is really all about prosumer DIY solutions to traditionally heavy and expensive professional video production problems, and for that MFT is a perfect fit.
Speed Boosters are great for giving access to a larger selection of better quality lenses, but as you pointed out zoom (and often focus) control is seriously lacking there too. So they aren't an ideal solution.
@Doug Johnson Productions, I am thinking of getting this camera. Mainly, I want to record in a studio setting and am looking for a simple workflow. To that end, the ATEM Mini Extreme ISO + two studio pros seemed promising. I would probably slap primes on them and forego any zoom. Your thoughts would be appreciated. The room I would be recording in is 11'5"x14'x11". The primary content would be talking head and screen share/slides. I plan to edit in DaVinci. My goal is high quality capture (before it gets super expensive) and simple workflow so that I can capture + edit in 30 minutes + watch once at the end to verify it looks good. I *may* keep the old footage, but any major editing, I would rather make it simple to retake than spend too much time in post. Regarding the ATEM, I was thinking of using it to synchronize the footage and create the project file, but not switch cameras at first. Once I get someone to help me, let them swap camera angles to speed up the editing in post and watch out for mistakes.
I already own a Lumix GH4 with a Lumix 20mm F1.7. The image is pretty good by my eye. I don't know if the workflow improvements will end up being worth replacing this for the second studio pro, or if I should continue using this camera for my B angle. I'd like to record on the cameras in 4k allowing me to zoom nicely in post. The feature in DaVinci to import BMPCC raw files when working with ATEM projects looks nice.
Any thoughts are welcome.
These cameras, when coupled with good quality lenses, will be great, especially if you take the time to adjust coloring. But if you require auto-focus, I'd consider something else. Blackmagic Design's track record with auto-focus is... not good.
I wouldn't mix cameras from different manufacturers. If you're still planning on using your GH4, I'd get more GH4s. Or replace the GH4 with one of these Studio Cameras. Trying to get cameras of different brands to match is a real headache.
M43 lense mount is EXTREMELY adaptable. I have been using the GH4, GH5 and JVC LS300 for years and LOVE the mount, even able to do B4. That being said I have been waiting for years for more servo lenses. I HOPE they come out with better ones. That being said, what looks pretty iffy on my GH4/5 with these servo lenses (I have the 2 Panasonic ones), looks considerably better on the LS300, with the Super 35 sensor. Maybe BM pulled some magic out of their hat with the new sensor. Also, on my LS300 the zoom rocker appears to be variable on the 45-175.
Just my thoughts
B4 only works properly if you have a teleconverter. Otherwise the image circle is just too small to cover an M43 sensor.
M43 is versatile, but not when you need electronic focus or zoom. Which kind of defeats the point of the Focus and Zoom Demands introduced by BMD.
You nailed it pretty much. Was really sad to see the MFT move from BMD on these cameras. Everything ELSE makes so much sense-but these lenses. Makes me feel there's a product evolution coming in the near future with an EF mount. The B-Mount option creates a few issues with the sensor type and how those lenses operate, all the different styles of rosettes, etc. Skårhøj had a really nice product for those lenses, but not for cheap and not for entry level users.
I was interested in the switch from fibreoptics as well...major pivot for BMD and one I certain would welcome on the URSA range for broadcast
Imagine a world with URSAs with global sensors and CAT 6 over 500m cable runs? Total gamechanger for sports and live events. Couple that with a new set of bigger ATEM 4K hardware and just hand over the AmEX Black Card to Grant, whydoncha?!?!
Fiber is cheap and much better to work with. There’s no way you’ll get 500m on CAT 6. Also, EF is a photo mount as well.
I have several SD B4 lenses with 2X teleconverter.It's easy to find on the second-hand market.When used in MFT cameras,the center image quality is okay, but the edges are not ideal.I'm not sure about the performance of the HD B4 lenses.
HD lenses aren't likely to be much better. B4 lenses are meant to be used with a much smaller sensor.
Doug, metabones mft-ef, canon compact servo. Do it for me pls)
I don't have access to either one.
M4/3 has a huge selection of Len's ! There 40 video lens that are very good ! Show us the prices on Fool Frame and M4/3 ? The customers will decide !
But how many good ones with power zoom? None. That's my point.
th-cam.com/video/eW_j_lhip4U/w-d-xo.html@@djp_video
100% agree. I've also owned those lenses for a few years and don't like the results.
The truth is there are no affordable B4 lenses, apart from the second hand market, or going down to SD lenses, which will not make much sense in a 4k camera...
Those SD lenses are far sharper than the EZ M43 lenses available today.
This is a disaster for us as I listened to Grant and trusted him and purchased 6 of the Studio camera pro! I'm pissed.
This video makes me depressed. HOW are there only FOUR lenses out there that even work with the Zoom Demand?!
Because Micro 4/3 is meant for photography, and there isn't much need for powered zoom for photos. And Blackmagic is trying to repurpose them to work for video, which is awkward at best.
Greetings from Germany!
Honestly, while watching the announcement, I expected to see a servo-add-on to accompany the zoom/focus demands. This at least would make the manual lenses usable, but I doubt there are any MFTs with geared rings.
I think BMD should leave the camera market and instead should rather concentrate on their switchers. Some ideas on the cams are really neat, but I dont understand what group of customers they are targeting. The typical ATEM-mini user will probably use DSLR-Style cameras like the Sony Alphas anyway.
IMHO they also missed the perfect opportunity to introduce a cost-effective, new fibre solution instead of this weird (proprietary?) Ethernet-thingy. Maybe based on a ruggedized add-on connector for standard LC-Plugs (like the Ethercon add-ons for RJ45). This would at least let more "pro" users consider investing in their ecosystem. For me, this seems like a step back.
12-100mm would be the best choice. If only it was one stop faster and was a servo zoom...
PANASONIC 35-100MM F/2.8 II is excellent, read reviews. great optics , sharp and fast focus.
With no electronic zoom, a limited 2.87 zoom ratio, and no wide angle capability it doesn’t seem very useful for video.
It seems to rate about the same as an Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens I rented last weekend. Unfortunately that lens was really soft on the Studio camera I was testing. Performance was pretty disappointing overall. I hope the Panasonic is better even though the test results seem similar.
@@djp_video i use tilta nucleus N to have motorized zoom with this lens. For main camera pointing stage from far you do not need wide lens.
i use this lens with panasonic g80. With cage and hdmi clamp. It can be used for streaming. with blackmagic probably you do not have autofocus
look at this. concert recorded with this lens probably without tripod. great stabilization with panasonic body.
th-cam.com/video/Fc9Ojq04P6s/w-d-xo.html
The Blackmagic cameras have focus-on-demand, but it isn't full-time and it is so bad nobody would ever use it.
It. appears that they want you to pay double for that B4 mount. Why they would not offer a B4 mount as even an option is just very odd at this point. MFT shooters may not like to hear this, but hopefully that format will die off sooner rather than later and force BMD's hand.
Dumb question: can you just get an adaptor from B4 to MFT?
Thought BMD finally abandoned mft with the 6K camera. I'm both disappointed and confused. Probably still going to get a couple for my videostudio mounted with Panasonic Leica 12-60 2.8-4 that I've been very happy with for my three Micro Studio 4K cams. But I still resent their continued dishonest claim about the many great mft lens options. That simply isn't true.
hopefully you only speak in regard of live production and mft lenses... there are a lot of great mft lenses if you don't look them specifically for broadcasting.
@@broaf That is what the camera is made and bought for though.
@@FlemmingEiberg yeah that's correct. Just it was a bit misleading and seemed you were speaking in general about mft lenses
They need to join or work with the L-Mount Alliance.
What they should have done is releasing a follow focus/lens control accessory that can be plugged in like the focus/zoom demand. That way every regular lens could be controlled from their demands or remotely. I think such an accessory would be more popular then the demands because most people want the remote control ability.
That sounds like a pretty decent middle ground. I'd be shocked if it was to happen though.
too sharp isnt great when you are using things for broadcast or studio setting.
Artificial sharpening results in too much sharpness. But that’s not what I’m talking about here, and a high quality lens won’t do that. A poor quality lens, like the Micro 4/3 lenses that feature electronic zoom, will always give you a low quality picture no matter what you do. You can always soften a sharp image, but you can’t extract more detail than is resolved by a lens (make a soft image sharp). You can enhance edges, but you can’t add detail that isn’t there in the first place. I will take a high detail lens over a soft lens 100 times out of 100. If the stylistic requirements of a production demand a softer image, it will be done in processing or with filters.
The Micro 4/3 lenses I talk about in this video are basically garbage and don’t resolve detail much above standard definition pixel counts, if that. There are good M43 lenses out there, but none of these are among them.
In studio and broadcast settings, the kinds of softening you’re talking about are applied selectively in image processing, like softening skin details. You can’t do that and retain a crisp image strictly with a lens. In professional circles there is constantly a pursuit of higher and higher quality lenses, not looking for lenses which soften an image.
Caution, mft fanboy writing:
To me this choice makes perfect sense since I'm heavily invested in mft. At the moment noone knows where the new Olympus owners will go but the new bgh1 from Panasonic could use a broadcast-ish lens, too. They already have some great lenses to film with
I use 3 bmpcc4k with 12-50 lenses fixed on f5.6, a fourth one with 12-100 for CU and a fifth with 8-18 for wide shots. Got an old jvc LS300 i sometimes use as a stage cam (sdi...) this setup is awesome for small one man jobs controlling everything (but the LS300 which is ip controllable via browser) from a mobile desk with an atem mini extreme, which is FHD anyways. For now the clients were happy with the quality (without having direct comparison)
I could see a broadcast version of this coming with a b4 mount although most quality 4k b4 lenses are "very expansive", too.
For my regular setup I will go for the pro model, hoping to see a box cam variant soon to replace the other pockets and the jvc with. Was also considering the bgh1 but would love to stay with one brand (love the jvc colors but boy is it a hustle to get the look fit...)
So I am very happy they decided to stick with mft :)
I think you might be the only one. Everyone else I've interacted with is very disappointed with their decision. The MFT electronic zoom lenses are pretty much universally loathed.
I use the BMPC 4K cameras in a studio environment where the cameras are stationary and I don't use zoom. All my lenses are fixed f/2,8 all the way through their zoom range.
I noticed that every one of the lens options you showed has variable f-stop which means that the shutter speed and/or ISO would have to be adjusted with zoom. That's a HORRIBLE feature for any professional studio. They should have used the B4 or EF lens mount... these are standards in studios.
Agreed
M4/3 is the most adaptable lens mount there is. You could use nearly any lens on the planet on these cameras. If you don’t like the performance of a cheap photography lens.. put a more expensive cine lens on it! For instance.. the DZO 20-70mm T2.9.
Also, if you don’t think the light gathering of a 2x crop factor sensor (m4/3) is good, how the heck can you recommend a 1/3” sensor at a crop factor of 7.21? This means a m4/3 F2 lens has an F4 equivalent (to full-frame) and an F14.42 equivalent for a 1/3” sensor. ?? And with the m4/3, you have the ‘option’ to stop down if you want deeper depth of field. Let’s say your 1/3” lens boasts it has an F2.. you can stop a m4/3 F2 lens down to F8 to get the same light and depth of field.
Fstop x crop factor = Full-frame equivalent:
F2 x 7.21 = F14.42 for 1/3”
F8 x 2 = F16 for m4/3
While you can attach a lot of different lenses, none of the other options will give you electronic zoom, which is kind of the point of the Zoom Demand introduced by Blackmagic, as well as the point of this video. Blackmagic is pushing this camera as great for live production when the only options for lenses with electronic zoom are universally awful.
The Sony cameras that I use, and recommend for live production on the budget side of the industry, have a 1-inch sensor, not 1/3". But in terms of light gathering ability, B4 lenses meant for 1/3" are specifically designed for the smaller sensors. They usually have large front elements so they can capture a lot of light, which they then focus down to the smaller sensor. That isn't the same thing as a tiny sensor with a tiny lens.
The biggest predictor of how much light a lens can gather isn't the sensor size/format, but rather the physical size of the lens and its aperture -- bigger glass = more light. A microscopic sensor could in theory work just fine for low light if the lens in front of it captures and concentrates light from large elements.
Small sensors are fine as long as the lenses you use with them are designed for them. But having a smaller sensor can be an advantage for live production. You can operate with a "large" aperture and not have to deal with a shallow depth of field. This is a problem when you can't predict where your subject is going to be relative to your camera, for example if they are walking around. Trying to maintain critical focus on a moving subject with a shallow depth of field can be very difficult and exhausting. That's why professional cameras for live production use 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3-inch sensors -- it's easier to build equipment that can maintain focus in unpredictable situations.
The big problem with trying to adapt B4 lenses to Micro 4/3 is that the M43 sensor is larger than the B4 options so you'd have to expand the image to fill the sensor. A simple adapter without any optics will result in an image that, even if it does fill the screen, is going to have severe darkening, softening, and chromatic aberration at the corners. And if you did have such an adapter (teleconverter), you're darkening the image quite significantly. You wouldn't put a M43 lens on a full-frame camera, and likewise a B4 lens wouldn't be a good fit for a M43 camera.
@@djp_video I hear what you’re saying.. you wish you could use B4 lenses on the blackmagic cameras because you want the power zoom.. what I’m saying is blackmagic went with a better sensor and more adaptable lens mount. If you want “power” functions, get powered accessories like the Nucleus-M and power zoom any lens you want.. but don’t handicap the camera to fit the lenses you like to use.
Also, it doesn’t really matter how big the lens opening is.. the F-stop is the theoretical max light that lens can gather.. an F4 is an F4. However if the F4 is designed for 1/3” sensor, it has a 7.21 crop factor (compared to full frame), which you must apply to field of view and aperture. The 1” sensor has a crop factor of 6.. so an F2 lens on a 1” sensor gathers the same light as an F12 in full frame.
The point is, don’t handicap the sensor to fit the lens.. take advantage and f the bigger sensor to get better lenses!
...and ruin the camera's ability to do live video properly in the process. That's my point. M43 doesn't belong in live production because there aren't proper lenses for that workflow.
How is this camera adaptable? You could put EF lenses (or similar size mounts) on it with an adapter, but you'll probably lose iris, focus, and definitely lose zoom control. You can't use B4 lenses because the image circle is too small. I don't think anyone makes a teleconverter to make B4 connect and fill the sensor, but then it will look terrible.
I'll add that the size of the lens plays the biggest role in the maximum light gathering ability. And you shouldn't use F-stop for measuring exposure -- that's what T-stops are for. They're different. Good quality lenses will have a T-stop number similar to F-stop, but on cheap lenses with poor optics the numbers can be quite different.
Be careful when comparing F-stops from one lens to another. Most manufacturers are really deceptive in how they measure lenses. They'll give you F-stop numbers relative to the native focal length, but then express zoom capability in 35mm terms... so you aren't comparing apples to apples.
If you want a good point of comparison for how much light a lens can gather, divide its the (real) focal length by its T-stop. That's the only real measurement you can make.
Micro 4/3 might be good for photographers, or film shooters (who have the Pocket Cinema Camera as an excellent choice), but it's an awful choice for live video due to the poor selection of appropriate lenses.
@@djp_video Yup, I’m with you on f-stops vs T-stops.. that’s why the lens I recommended above has T-stops. My point with f-stops is that is a calculation of the ratio of focal length to the opening of the lens. An F4 lens with an 80mm opening has the same theoretical light gathering of an F4 lens with a 50mm opening.. the F- number is that calculation. So the actual size is irrelevant. If you want to compare real light transmission, use lenses with T-stops. To say it another way, a T2.9 lens with a 50mm front opening will gather the same exact amount of light as a T2.9 lens with an 80mm front opening.
MFT mount can be adapted to:
EF, PK, PL, B4, Nikon F, CY, OM, Adaptall, T, C, M42, Arri-S, M39, L39, Sony-A, SR, MD, MC, Leica-L, canon FD, FL, Pen-F, V-mount, Arri-B, Nikon-G, P67, PK67, Kiev 60, RB67, RZ67, DKL, M645, SL35, AR, Leica-R, Nikor-S, Exakta, Contax-G, Bronica SQ, MIR, Contax-N, Yashika 230, Praktica B, ZE, CRX, Alpa 35, Leica-M, Sony-E, and many more.. They are seriously adaptable!
I think what you’re trying to do is say these cameras aren’t great for live ENG style filming. You would be right! They are studio cameras, and in a studio context, they are fantastic, even for live filming. The only m4/3 ENG style camera I know if is the Panasonic AG-DVX200.
If you’re trying to make a Camcorder or PTZ out of the BMD Studio camera, it’ll probably fall short. But if you want great studio performance with a high degree of flexibility in lens options, the new studio cameras should do great!
How is it terrible you can damn near mount any lens to it
Only four lenses can zoom electronically, and all of them are terrible. Blackmagic is pushing this as a great solution for studio work because you can control lens focus and zoom electronically, but the only way to do that is with lenses that are just awful.
I actually got my hands on one of these cameras and spent a week with it. I'll be publishing a proper video about it before too long. But I can summarize by saying that the results you get with this camera, even with an excellent lens, pale in nearly every way compared to less expensive consumer camcorders.
Well, I think they keep using the M4/3 mount because its an open standard, meaning its free to use, which continues the legacy of Black Magic using the lowest price components in their cameras as possible. The B4 mount is dead by todays standards, there really is no ENG industry anymore, local news shooters are using A7's now not ENG cameras. Most pro sports video is done with Sony FX cameras or Canon C cameras which are super 35. The RF mount is probably the most adaptable mount out there right now but there would be licensing fees if Black Magic wanted to use it, if Canon would even let them use it. Not sure how RED managed to use the RF mount on their new cameras.
TV stations might not be using B4 cameras as much as they used to, but there's still a huge market for B4 cameras and lenses. Once you step up a couple levels past entry-level broadcast gear, everything is B4.
Looks like they hear’d you and gave 6K with EF mount !!
I'm sure it's not because of me. But the EF version is nice to have. I might even get one now.
Im sorry but you are so wrong in so many especs .. but i don't have the time to write it. Its a very smart choice.. beside selling a zoom control.. we have so many veriantes of focus/zoom today.. and all the other wrong things is to loong for me to write. you looks a nice man and thanks for your opinion. (English is not my main language)
Like others commenting, I believe you think that I'm trashing the cameras, or even the Micro 4/3 system. I did not do either. I was careful to point that out -- I demonstrated a high quality lens and specifically called out that I think the cameras themselves are likely very good. If you missed that, please go back and watch the video again.
My critique is with trying to use Micro 4/3 for live video production, where electronic zoom, smooth focus, and high image quality are critical to getting the job done in most situations. As far as I can tell, there aren't lenses on the market that do all three. You can get electronic zoom, but those lenses (as demonstrated here) are absolutely terrible. You can get smooth focus (cinema lenses), but those lenses don't have electronic zoom. You can get high image quality, but then you don't get electronic zoom with those either.
I was waiting for this/these cameras, I live stream from an ATEM TVSHD and also have a Mini Pro, and I already own some m43 lenses….. but I’m still disappointed, EF or B4 would be better. Doug I found the demo of the lenses very helpful. It would have been great to see them paired with the new camera, but totally understand you NOT buying one just to show us bad lenses. To me Studio cameras need fairly long focal lengths, and 2 of the 3 power zoom lenses are wide to mid.
The lenses won't be any better with the new cameras. Their issues are independent of the camera.
Put speedbooster or adapter and forget this 'problem'
That doesn't help. The zoom feature wouldn't work at all, and focus will be hit and miss. There are many good Micro 4/3 lenses that would produce a high quality image. But none of the good ones support electronic zoom.
👍🏾🙏🏾
You guys might be missing the intended market. Not everyone needs zoom or remote focus. At $1295 they could sell 500,000 to just TH-cams that own ATEM minis. As someone mentioned the Panasonic BGH1 is $2000 and doesn’t have a monitor.
Did the previous model also use m43 lenses? Did everyone trash that camera as well? Seems to me they have upgraded a product that was already successful. They are offering more camera for less money. Is the mistake they made introducing zoom and ocus controls ?
If they don't need zoom and focus controls, why introduce the Zoom and Focus Demands? Or why buy these cameras over say a G7 at a fraction of the price?
They're positioning these as professional products (CCU-like functionality, RAW recording, Zoom/Focus Demands, video over 10G Ethernet, 4K) but put a consumer lens mount on it. It's a total mismatch.
The previous version did use M43 lenses, and, yes, it was trashed by the professional community. And they sold horribly. So we're that much more surprised when they double down on the M43 mount.
It's hard to tell what their intended market is. If it's ATEM Mini users, they've missed entirely. That group of people is usually looking for something super simple where you just plug it in and it works. People who own a GH5 at most, nothing more complicated. No messing with setting the video resolution or frame rate, or remotely painting the cameras or researching which lenses actually have electronic zoom capability. And this group of people would probably never buy the zoom or focus controllers.
The other potential market are professionals who understand what the camera is capable of. But they'll never buy one because of the lack of appropriate lenses to match the camera's otherwise amazing capabilities.
@@djp_video Maybe the G7 is the right answer, it depends on the question. And this where I have a problem with those that are trashing these new cameras.
Question:
1. Do the current BMD Studio Cameras have Zooms//Focus controls ?
If not did they sell any of those cameras ?
2. What Camera on the market that are $1295 / $1795 have B4 lens support, zoom/focus and remote color ccu controls, 10g ethernet, SDI ?
I am asking because I honest don't know.
3. B4 Adapter
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1103381-REG/fotodiox_b4_mgc_mft_p_b4_magic_mft_pro_lens.html
The bottom line is BMD developed a product for a specific market. It obviously is not the product for your application. But to trash what appears to be leap forward in camera technology just because it was not designed for your application makes no sense. You guys sound like the same people I remember saying "The iPhone will never take off, it doesn't have real keyboard like my Blackberry", or who trashed the ATEM Mini, "This is a toy it doesn't have multiview, it does have iso, and without SDI it will never sell".
I predict they will sell a ton of these for those that need the feature set that it was designed for, especially at this price point.
The problem is that these cameras aren't well suited for anybody. They've created a product with professional level features (and the corresponding learning curve to use them) but they use consumer lenses that aren't made for doing live video. The 4 lenses that have the features targeted by the camera are all terrible. So they end up with a product that isn't a desirable choice for any segment of the market.
To answer your questions:
1. The older model Studio cameras support LANC, so you can add Zoom/Focus controls. Blackmagic doesn't make those, but they will in practice work just as well as the Zoom/Focus Demands, mostly due to limitations of Micro 4/3. But those studio cameras have never sold very well. And based on the feedback I've gotten from people who watch this channel, almost everybody who did buy them won't use them because of the limitations of Micro 4/3.
2. There aren't any cameras in this price range that supports B4. But what if Blackmagic made one? They would sell them like crazy. It would dominate the market. Instead, they've got a product that appeals to very few.
3. That adapter physically lets you connect a B4 lens to the camera, but it's going to be unusable. B4 lenses produce an image sized for 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3-inch sensors. Micro 4/3 is much larger, so B4 lenses won't fill the sensor. So, those lenses are useless on this camera. Additionally, those adapters don't provide a way to control the lens in any way whatsoever -- no iris, no focus, no zoom.
I can't figure out who this product is really for. Professionals universally hate it -- just look at the comments here and on my Discord server for examples. Amateurs won't want to pay for it once you add on everything else you need to make it useful (namely a lens), and/or won't want to take the time to learn how to use it. Those in between will get use camcorders as they fill that in-between space really well. You can pick up camcorders from Canon or Sony that will destroy the performance of this camera just because of the lens system and work in a much wider variety of situations, but still manage to cost less.
I think it won't sell well, just like the predecessors didn't. They've already had cameras with similar capabilities and almost nobody bought them. This isn't a new idea; it's just and update to an old idea that never caught on, and is even less likely to do so now with the ongoing decline of the Micro 4/3 ecosystem.
@@PhotoMentor I should also mention that I would absolutely love a camera like this if I could put decent lenses on it. The remote control capabilities would be awesome to have. But there's no way I can do that. Good quality lenses with controllable focus/zoom that work on this camera just don't exist.
Too bad the Sony has such bad colors. The journey toward electric zoom continues!
That certainly hasn't been my experience -- they look great out of the box without many tweaks. But the Blackmagic cameras I've used are all way too purple or way too green.
Don't how long you are in photography or even if you were I've been doing it for 54years and photography lens DO AUTO FOCUS PERFECTLY and the MF3 lens is really the best choice for the BM Studio new camera. So glad they did that. Not everyone can afford the garbage lens from Canon. In doing video you need good lightning no matter what camera or lens you are using. Your lighting there is very very poor so I can't see how you can compare lens quality. Don't knock it till you try it with the camera. Under proper conditions MF3 lens are great for many people on a budget. So happy BM decided to us. That's the only reason I will get the Studio camera, declined the 6K because of the canon lens. BTW if you use an iPhone as your video camera you can see the great quality better the canon or sony that you are pushing so much. You have do your research and see what is best for the consumer not what is best for you personally.
Ummm... i'm going to have to disagree with you on pretty much everything you said. Have you actually tried these particular lenses yourself... and for video? They're terrible, and I demonstrated that here. Others who own them say the same thing -- check the other comments on this video and other forums on the internet. They are universally loathed.
There are plenty of good Micro 4/3 lenses, and I started with one to show that the problem here isn't my Micro 4/3 camera.
I didn't test or demonstrate autofocus because that is a feature of the cameras, not the lenses, and I don't have one of the new cameras in my possession to give an accurate assessment. I don't doubt that M43 cameras can do a great job of autofocusing. I do have my doubts about BMD Studio Cameras being able to autofocus, particularly with these lenses, though. Their auto-focus has historically been awful.
Have you used the Sony cameras that I use? I thought not. It is leagues better in low light than any Micro 4/3 camera I've tried. I mean, not even close. And I can do smooth, clean, slow zooms with them. I do that in every event I shoot. None of the M43 have that capability at all. That alone makes M43 a non-starter for many people in video.
I've actually gone overkill on the lighting. I'm running under 120 watts of light. That's LED consumption, not incandescent equivalent watts, which would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 W -- a ton of light for the small space I'm shooting in. And it's clearly enough light for the Panasonic 25mm lens I demonstrated -- I had to iris down to avoid blowing out the shot. But with the two EZ lenses I used I had to open up the aperture all the way and add 18dB of gain to get even a somewhat usable image (and still too dark). And then when I zoomed out it was overexposed and. That's terrible! For reference, on the Sonys I shoot at f/5.2 with 0 gain. And the exposure doesn't change and the shot doesn't go out of focus when I zoom. These cameras are designed to do that. Photography lenses aren't.
Again, my issue isn't with the cameras, or Micro 4/3 itself. It's with these particular lenses. And it's crazy to me that Blackmagic is pushing the amazing capabilities of their camera WITH THESE LENSES, and continuing to develop NEW cameras that use Micro 4/3 when there aren't suitable lenses for live VIDEO production in that system, particularly when the ecosystem is struggling. The only four electronic zoom lenses available are terrible. Pretty much everyone agrees on that.
@@djp_video I have 3 of these lenses which i have done corporate productions PPV streams and large events and all i get is rave reviews on the quality. you have to know what you are doing before you go public. Know yur camera know your lens know your lighting and you will be great at what you do
@@IrieTimes you do you bro, you seem happy with that system. Good for you. Leave the rest of us to whinge in peace.
I kinda would prefer you did this with the actual Blackmagic camera as there are way too many assumptions.
I did. I used the Micro Studio Camera 4K. But the things I pointed out will be universal no matter what camera you put them on.
@@djp_video I would still want to see how it worked with the actual new studio camera rather than the 5ish year old model. I want to know if and how they address the lens shortfalls.
As someone who has used this system and these lenses they are horrible! They are not made for true professionals on any level. If you are being paid to produce video do not use these lenses. If your a beginner you tuber then these lenses are good for non paid gigs. Black magic def missed the mark big time on this selection of lens options
@Alvin Burrell, How much could possibly be done? You can't fix the shaking issues when the 14-42mm zoom reaches the extents of the focal length. You can't magically make the lenses zoom slower or faster than the motors allow. You can't add detail that isn't there, and can't increase sharpness without adding noise and other artifacts (sharpness is not the same as detail). You can't really make a non-parfocal lens parfocal. You can't practically fix focus breathing in software. You can't make the lens capture more light or open up the aperture larger than that aperture's physical size. And we already know that the camera doesn't compensate for the darkening that happens when zooming.
These lenses were meant to be used on budget, bottom-of-the-line cameras for photographers taking still photos. Asking them to perform the tasks necessary for video production is unrealistic and impractical.
@@djp_video Was just giving an opinion Doug...
I watched till 14 minutes and stopped because your conclusion is utterly wrong :-) It's 14 minutes about what you hate about those lenses and you don't even have the camera. How silly is that? I have both panasonics and I am extremely happy with them on Lumix cameras. It's the result that counts, not the specs. If you would put the Leica 10-25 on the blackmagic studio camera, you would have sharpness, no focus breathing and it's more or less parfocal. So, sorry but you wasted 14 minutes of my time.
The problems mentioned are going to be universal and apply to any camera that uses these lenses. Going with a different camera doesn't fix jumpy zooms, single speed/too fast zooms, effective apertures changing as you zoom, focus breathing, etc. These problems are inherent in the lenses and it doesn't matter how good the camera is -- they're still going to exist. Not only that, but several of these issues are seen in the Blackmagic video when Grant demonstrated the new camera, even in the ultra-brief shots that were shown.
@@djp_video yes, but use other lenses instead with a remote follow focus to do the job. It has nothing to do with the camera itself. And do you need to zoom while filming? Let's hope they have plans for a proper MFT power zoom, that would be nice. My 2 Panasonic pz lenses are rasor sharp with none of the problems that you mention. The secret is "full auto", try it :-) I don't use them in manual mode.
We zoom during shots all the time, particularly for musical events, as a way to add some motion to the shots. Smooth zoom with good quality glass is essential to a lot of people in video production. And the fact that Blackmagic introduced the new Zoom Demand specifically for these lenses -- there aren't any alternatives that will work. With people shooting cinema style, smooth Zoom won't matter. But for live events it's essential.
My experience with these lenses, and as shown by the DXOMark testing, is that they aren't very sharp. Do a side-by-side comparison between the videos here on my channel today (Sony) vs those from 2 years ago (Olympus 12-50mm) and the difference is enormous -- not in the least bit subtle.
@@djp_video, still I think you are jumping to the wrong conclusions because of a few powerzoom lenses you don't like. These new studio cameras are great if you ask me. EF/RF mount would have been bad as well because of no power zooms. What mount is left? I would try these cameras first before breaking them down. Your Olympus might suddenly look great, you never know.
No camera is going to be able to fix bad optics. It just isn't possible. Poor sharpness, lack of parfocal capability, focus breathing, and a variable aperture when zooming are terrible are things that a camera just can't compensate for.
I have to ask, what are these cameras great for? Maybe great if you're shooting with primes, but who does that in live production? For film, sure... but these aren't cinema cameras. They're made for live production.
You're really downplaying the role of electronic zoom. But it really is essential when producing video for live events. With my crew we're constantly zooming in and out to reframe or to add some motion to a shot. And it's something that Blackmagic really emphasized when introducing the camera. The Zoom Demand that they introduced ONLY works on these four lenses, but Grant spent a lot of time on it. Interestingly, they only showed a live shot through the lens zooming for a couple seconds before cutting away -- before the darkening or shaking at the end of the zoom range became really apparent (but it was still there). They know that these lenses aren't any good. They would have spent more time showing the image from the cameras if it was good, but they didn't.
EF does have some power zoom lenses. There aren't a lot, but they are high quality and are designed for live production. There are a few for Sony E mount as well. They're far better choices than these four for M43.
Spend a couple minutes reading the other comments on this video. Other than a couple die-hard M43 fans who will be unwilling to use anything else, everybody else agrees with me, especially those that have actually owned or used these lenses... that this is a bad combination.
This combination of studio camera with these lenses isn't new. BMD has been selling Studio cameras for several years. And they've never sold well, and most people who have used them strongly dislike them. Nothing is going to change that with this generation unless someone comes out with suitable lenses. Right now there just aren't any.