Dear RED... Micro 4/3?

[Kyle Presley]

RED Team,
Are you planning a Micro 4/3 electronic mount for Scarlet Cinema? This would be a very welcome addition, and to my knowledge is an open format used by Olympus and Panasonic. Any info you could offer would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Steven Hammer]

RED Team,
Are you planning a Micro 4/3 electronic mount for Scarlet Cinema? This would be a very welcome addition, and to my knowledge is an open format used by Olympus and Panasonic. Any info you could offer would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Personally, I like the 4/3 lenses more than the m4/3 lenses. Olympus makes some really really great, high quality 4/3 lenses, but they are designed for PDAF autofocus and focus rather slowly on my GH2. They'd be great for manual focus situations, though. The 12-60mm (24 to 120 FF equivalent), and 50-200 (100 to 400 FF) are fantastic lenses with great resolution.

I like the GH2 14-140mm lens (focuses very fast, but the glass is very slow) and the 20mm/1.7 lenses, though.

The problem is that they'd have yet another crop factor added in due to the 2/3 sensor size and you wouldn't be able to get very wide with them. it's a bummer because the 4/3 sensor size is in the middle of 2/3 and S35. What I'd really love to see is a Scarlet 4/3 with a native 4/3 sensor.

 

[David Rasberry]

Now that Panasonic has adapted the m4/3 format to a true video camera, maybe we will see some more production friendly optics as the format matures and gains popularity.
I like the format a lot too, but for now you are still stuck with using S35mm lenses if you want cine style capabilities. There aren't really any format specific video production type lenses out there yet other than the 14-140 kit lens, and it leaves a lot to be desired.
Down the road a 4k m4/3 format Scarlet would fill a nice hole between 2/3" 3k and S35 5k.
A true super 16mm quad HD format Scarlet would be a nice possibility too at the same pixel size as the 2/3". There are lots of good lenses available for that.

 

[Kyle Presley]

Well, I plan to buy the Scarlet cinema after it becomes available. I have a plan to buy some great primes from Fujinon, but I would still love to use a modern zoom lens, preferably with automatic capabilities. I have my eye on the 14-150 (from Olympus, I think?) as well as the 7-14mm from Panasonic. If I want shallow DOF anda sharp image, primes are the way to go, but for event coverage, a nice zoom would be helpful. I hope RED sells a M4/3 mount as well as a standard 4/3 mount. There are so many possibilities.

 

[Steve Wake]

I don't know how many GH1/2 fans are aware of it, but even RAW files from these cameras apply in-camera auto distortion correction. Without it, you might be surprised at the amount of barrel distortion in the 7-14, 14-140, and even the 20 f/1.7 Since I doubt that RED has any interest in participating in this pixel-fabricating game, I'd be surprised if you ever saw a m4/3 mount from them. Maybe third parties, but they would have to figure out the electronic interfaces...

Agreed that the Oly f/2 4/3 lenses are nice, but that's a different mount.

For more on the auto-distortion check one of the serious still photo equipment review sites like this one: http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests

As far as I've seen, the only m4/3 lens worthy of Scarlet is the Cosina Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95. It's all manual so would only need a dumb mount. CV will probably release other m4/3 lenses but no one knows when or what length.

 

[David Rasberry]

Well, I plan to buy the Scarlet cinema after it becomes available. I have a plan to buy some great primes from Fujinon, but I would still love to use a modern zoom lens, preferably with automatic capabilities. I have my eye on the 14-150 (from Olympus, I think?) as well as the 7-14mm from Panasonic. If I want shallow DOF anda sharp image, primes are the way to go, but for event coverage, a nice zoom would be helpful. I hope RED sells a M4/3 mount as well as a standard 4/3 mount. There are so many possibilities.

I have plenty of zooms floating around Kyle, don't mind sharing some occasionally. I still think good 16mm or super 16mm glass is the best choice for Scarlet.

 

[Kyle Presley]

Perhaps you are right David. I certainly appreciate the offer. We'll have to hang out again, especially once we each nab our Scarlets and go shoot something cool.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

It all depends on the flange depth of the Scarlet Cinema. If it allows for a m4/3 mount, that would be ideal, as you could use m4/3 lenses, or an adapter for 4/3 and many other types of lenses.

 

[Kyle Presley]

It all depends on the flange depth of the Scarlet Cinema. If it allows for a m4/3 mount, that would be ideal, as you could use m4/3 lenses, or an adapter for 4/3 and many other types of lenses.

I don't know if things have changed, but originally the sensor block is adjustable. It shouldn't matter much though because I believe the flange depth for c mount is still slightly less than m4/3. David R is the go-to-guy for these little tidbits of information. I could look it up, but it's getting late and I'm tired. David?:smile5:

 

[Robert Jackson]

The 12-60mm (24 to 120 FF equivalent), and 50-200 (100 to 400 FF) are fantastic lenses with great resolution.

I'm not sure the 12-60mm would make a very good cinema lens. Lotta complex distortion from that one. Not so visible in stills. Probably a lot more so shooting motion.

Olympus has some truly great glass for that system, though. Their "Super High Grade" lenses are pretty much all keepers. I've mentioned it before, but the 150mm f/2 was a real favorite of mine. It was fast, small and easy to carry around, but it was an excellent optic as well as being convenient. Rehoused I'll bet it would make a pretty nice telephoto for cinema work.

A couple of shots from the old rig:

 

[Steven Hammer]

I'm not sure the 12-60mm would make a very good cinema lens. Lotta complex distortion from that one. Not so visible in stills. Probably a lot more so shooting motion.

I hadn't noticed that, but as they say, "you learn something every day". Thanks!

I'm pretty disappointed in Olympus and where they're going with 4/3 (pretty much abandoning it, with the E5 having been publicly acknowledged as the end of the line for Olympus DSLRs, all future cameras to be mirrorless). I like the GH2 as something to tide me over until Scarlet is available. But once Scarlet Fixed comes out, that's gonna be my camera. Then, if it becomes a profitable enterprise, the next step is Epic S. So, while a Scarlet 4/3 is kinda interesting, when Epic S is there already, it becomes less interesting. It's just a bummer that I won't have much use for that Olympus glass sitting on the shelf.

RED is the future for me, that's for sure. Olympus just doesn't seem to "get it" or to listen to their customers... RED clearly listens to their customers!

 

[Robert Jackson]

Olympus just doesn't seem to "get it" or to listen to their customers... RED clearly listens to their customers!

Olympus had a pretty decent opening strategy. The "4/3" sensor size was a Kodak industrial sensor before it became the "4/3 Standard." So they built a system around an existing sensor that was very practical at the time. It's an excellent sensor size for consumer cameras. Not nearly as finicky as larger sensors and back when it came out it was much, much more cost-effective than APS or 135-sized sensors. Olympus apparently always intended the system to top out at 20 megapixels or less and they assumed that consumers would be pleased with a 20-megapixel system.

The problem, IMO, was that they never seemed to work to the strengths of the system. They were always trying to push it head-to-head with cameras that have four times the sensor area. With its small sensor it always seemed to me that they should have focused on speed in their "pro" bodies. Their "pro" bodies should have been able to shoot at much higher frame rates than the competition. Speed up those data busses and get that tiny mirror flapping like crazy for sports shooters and PJs.

And then the small cameras should have had a range of really compact, high-quality f/2 pancake lenses available from the start. An E-400 (and subsequent bodies of that size) with 20mm f/2 and 40mm f/2 pancakes would still be an attractive package to me if the optics were good. I love small cameras with great optics. That's why I shot OM stuff for 30 years.

But then the next step should have always been a 135-series "Digital OM" because they knew there was no way half-frame was going to be competitive with larger sensors.

I hate to see them kind of on the wane because they always made amazing optics. For every segment, really. Their macro stuff was always amazing, but then they had stuff like the 250mm f/2 that was just mind-blowing for the time. And that whole line of tiny f/2 primes were wonderful.