Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Why no Micro Four Thirds mount option for the EPIC ?

A

Antoine Fabi

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I wonder why RED does not embrace the brilliant Micro Four Thirds mount option for the EPIC...

That mount option would be perfectly in line with initial RED concept of flexibility.

We could use almost ANY lense :) including many incredible ones :)

At least, will RED let other manufacturers make these ?

Curious...and anxious...

Antoine

=====================================

EDIT: I changed the title :)
 
Hi Antoine, I'd say the basic reason is that most mico 4/3 lenses are not going to cover the sensor at 4K, 4.5K, 5K. Maybe okay for windowed 2K, maybe 3K. But most who invest in Epic will only be shooting in less than 4K in a pinch to get the higher frame rates that can't be had in 4K. Plus there are any number of brilliant relatively low-cost lenses that cover the sensor at 5K from Nikon & Canon & Leitz & others -- that can shoot the higher windowed frame rates.
 
Hi Rod,

I thought the Micro 4/3 mount with adapters allowed lenses that cover full FF35...

...at least a universal mechanism that allows to use many interchangeable mounts...

I'd love to use old lenses like Canon FDs, and not waiting one year to use them with the Epic.

Antoine
 
How can i change the title of the thread ?

Antoine
 
Hi Antoine, perhaps I misunderstood. The way you said it, I thought you wanted to use micro 4/3's lenses on an Epic. Of course there are micro 4/3's adapters that allow the use of FF and Digital frame still lenses on a micro 4/3s camera, such as the GH1 & 2 -- but why would you put that on an Epic when you could just put on a Nikon or Canon, mount. Plus the Nikon & Canon mounts for Epic are going to have electronic controls for iris & focus.

So the answer to your question is simple. If you want to use full frame older still lenses, or more modern digital still lenses, the 4/3 mount with an additional adapter makes no sense at all to achieve that.

The Epic mounts will be very easily interchangeable and very reasonable in price at $500. And if you don't care about electronic control, I suppose you can go cheap & get a Nikon mount and a Nikon to Canon adaptor. But frankly that really makes no sense either. If you can afford an Epic, you can afford the single appropriate mount for your lens set (or sets.)
 
Hi Rod,

No doubt!

But i was asking because there are no plans to make mounts for short flange focal distance like Canon FDs.

Maybe after market mounts ? :)

Thanks

Hey I Bloom, what's your real name ? :)

Antoine
 
Micro 4/3 as a format is still somewhat obscure and only two camera makers are embracing it right now (Panasonic and Olympus). Yes it is gaining in popularity. I'm pretty sure we'll see a m4/3 mount for the DSMC system at some point. If it's physically possible to fit the mount in front of the sensor.

No, m4/3 will not cover full frame, or at least will not guaranty such coverage. Not without optical magnification incorporated into the mount and that introduces loss of light transmission and resolution. Most lenses designed to cover m4/3 imagers are much smaller than typical 35mm SLR lenses, as the 4/3" sensor is roughly half the size of FF35.

The mount system on the DSMC brains is pretty universal. It's a flat mount plate that attaches via 4 bolts. Simple stuff. I'd expect plenty of third-party "dumb" mounts at some point without electronics in them. For electronic support, I'd imagine the mount will need to be certified by RED and the camera will have to support that mount format and necessary communications protocols for the mount and its associated lenses.

Some short FFD lens formats may not be possible. We don't have technical details on mounting surface to sensor depth. RED is not making a Canon FD mount and I thought I read Jarred saying because the FFD would be shorter than the DSMC cameras allow. If that is the case, then micro 4/3 and Sony E-Mount will not be possible.
 
Thanks Jeff for your reply!

Yeah, would be so helpfull to have third-party (or RED) dumb mounts with short FFD.
I use Nikon mount lenses (Zeiss and Nikons), but there are real little gems (also very lightweight) with wonderfull looks.

Antoine
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Micro 4/3 as a format is still somewhat obscure and only two camera makers are embracing it right now (Panasonic and Olympus). Yes it is gaining in popularity. I'm pretty sure we'll see a m4/3 mount for the DSMC system at some point. If it's physically possible to fit the mount in front of the sensor.

No, m4/3 will not cover full frame, or at least will not guaranty such coverage. Not without optical magnification incorporated into the mount and that introduces loss of light transmission and resolution. Most lenses designed to cover m4/3 imagers are much smaller than typical 35mm SLR lenses, as the 4/3" sensor is roughly half the size of FF35.

The mount system on the DSMC brains is pretty universal. It's a flat mount plate that attaches via 4 bolts. Simple stuff. I'd expect plenty of third-party "dumb" mounts at some point without electronics in them. For electronic support, I'd imagine the mount will need to be certified by RED and the camera will have to support that mount format and necessary communications protocols for the mount and its associated lenses.

Some short FFD lens formats may not be possible. We don't have technical details on mounting surface to sensor depth. RED is not making a Canon FD mount and I thought I read Jarred saying because the FFD would be shorter than the DSMC cameras allow. If that is the case, then micro 4/3 and Sony E-Mount will not be possible.
Click to expand...

All of that seems accurate, except Canon FD FFD 42mm, EF - 44mm (which is why you can't just use a mechanical FD to EF adapter) and why they couldn't do an FD mount on the RED1 without removing the adjuster. But if they can do EF on Epic they should be able to easily do FD.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Canon FD flange distance is 42 mm >>> LINK>>>
Click to expand...

corrected it, i was thinking off the top of my head. But I'm thinking the Epic should still have plenty of room for 42mm. If not but they can do 44 for EF we would now have a good idea of the sensor depth. I suppose it will all be known in due time.
 
"4/3rd's," "micro-4/3rd's," but it can shoot 16x9 w/o cropping and it's just like shooting S35, so the proponents say.

Whatever, I just hope it goes away. The last thing we need is another quasi aspect ratio and frame size, IMHO.
 
Antoine Fabi said:
I wonder why RED does not embrace the brilliant Micro Four Thirds mount option for the EPIC...
Click to expand...

The only brilliance of the M4/3 mount I can see is the omission of a reflex mirror in this camera class. You are able to get as close to the sensor as physically possible. You get adapters for almost any lens mount.

If PL, Nikon and Canon EF mounts on EPIC do not offer enough choices, you could always adapt other lenses to any of these. The only good glass you will not be able to use would be Leica M lenses.

(OEM M4/3 lenses, IMHO, do not warrant a special mount for EPIC.)
 
...and Canon FDs.

But anyway, if it is not possible, then there are some good K35 with that kind of look :)

Antoine
 
Peter Moretti said:
"4/3rd's," "micro-4/3rd's," but it can shoot 16x9 w/o cropping and it's just like shooting S35, so the proponents say.
Click to expand...

Some of the proponents are not making sensible statements. 4/3rds is smaller than S35 it's a 1.4X horizontal crop from S35. Not sure what the 16x9 without cropping is all about... You can use the full width and crop the top and bottom of the frame to make 16x9. Or you can shoot with the AF100, which gives you a native 16x9 aspect sensor with a 17.85mm active recording width appropriate for 4/3rds lenses. A 4/3rds imager and 4/3rds SLRs have a 1.33:1 aspect. Being a bit larger than S16mm, it makes it easier to use 35mm SLR and cine glass. However, if you want a really wide shot on 4/3rds and you're using PL glass, it's going to be tough to come up with a 7mm rectilinear lens to match what you can get with a 12-14mm lens on S35. That's really about the only shortcoming. That and you have to open up about a full stop to match DOF between 4/3rds and S35.

Whatever, I just hope it goes away. The last thing we need is another quasi aspect ratio and frame size, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I have to agree here somewhat. I'm not a fan of the whole 4/3rds format. This latest micro 4/3rds mirrorless mount trend has breathed new life into an all but dead format. I can see why people are liking it because of the compact size. It does have its advantages. I have to say that I don't find the look of the images from this sensor size to be particularly appealing though. I've bought and returned three different m4/3rds cameras over the past year. None of them have had the image quality to pull me away from 35mm SLRs. It looks like the GH2 is probably the first to truly offer the quality, but I haven't got my hands on one yet... And I doubt I will. Not a fan of the lenses and the format now that I've tried it on more than one occasion. And if I'm not going to shoot m4/3 lenses, then why bother?
 
Oh my...

@#@#

...Jeff,

I think i did put a foot in my mouth and took a bite starting this thread... heh heh...

The thread title is misleading...

All i want to know is:

Is there a way RED will allow to use short focal flange distance lenses with the EPIC.

Nothing to do with sensor aspect ratio.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers :)

Antoine
 
Peter,

...and what do you think about these old Canon lenses ? :)

Antoine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top