[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

Just a couple other thoughts…

Your lenses will always be valuable. Get the camera that makes sense for what you are doing. The Canon EF mount is very quickly becoming a standard in the cinema world. They will be there for you when you need them, or you can always buy a T4i if you really wanted specific things.

I think that the PMW-200 would be a great option for you if you are doing event work. Even more so than the C100, it is a camera designed for hand held and in a world where ergonomics are everything (event photography), you need to make sure that you will be happy for hours. Also, standard Sony batteries are cheap while the BMCC needs a full battery solution. The batteries that the C100 takes will also pretty much only work with the C100 while the Sony batteries have become a pretty general standard for monitors, converters, and other accessories. The codec as well will hold up for what you need. 50mbps 4:2:2 is no slouch!

I have shot on the EX-1 and while I have and love the Panasonic HPX170, the Sony is a joy to use. It’s expensive yes but kitting out the other options mentioned here will quickly meet or surpass the PMW-200. Also, while I now own a RED Scarlet, a BMCC, and a 7D, I still keep and use my HPX170 because sometimes you need the easy camera. Sometimes you need a camera that has a decent lens, with decent enough internal sound recording, standard connections, autofocus, and fits in one hand.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

C100 records to H.264 at 4:2:0. However the HDMI out gives you 4:2:2. Yes it is 8 bit from the HDMI but it is uncompressed. Remember that 8 bit is not bad. There’s a lot of talk about codecs lately with what the BMCC has to offer but yes, raw is just not practical for most applications and DaVinci needs a beast of a machine. Most likely a very powerful tower. For your needs you would need to think of the BMCC as a ProRes or a DNx camera. Raw for event shooting is also just too expensive. The 8 bit 4:2:2 uncpressed into either a hyperdeck shuttle, a Ki Pro mini, or a nano flash, will probably give you the best bang for your buck if you want to use your lenses that you have already with the best acquisition codec. For memory card economy, shoot the H.264 and don’t forget about Cineform to edit. I have had great luck with Cineform and DSLRs. But as far as event goes, something with a wide range and autofocus would go a long way.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

Hi Chris,

So sorry it took me so long to respond on this.

Yes, I would definitely recommend the Tokina 11-16 for the reasons stated above. I find it to have an almost “special” quality to it which is something that eludes most other modern lenses. It just has character. I have the version 2 (Pro DX-II) for Canon mount.

And then I would think that you should have a medium wide to a medium telephoto. The Canon 17-55 2.8 is an excellent zoom and at $999 will keep you under your 2000 budget. The only other thing you might want is a macro but you would have no problem affording an extension tube if you wanted for the 17-55.

These two lenses would also be helpful as they would be a matched pair in terms of speed so you would not have to relight to grab a tighter or wider shot. Also, as the Canon picks up directly where the Tokina leaves off, you would have the 35mm equivalent on the BMCC of 25.3mm-126.5mm all at f2.8.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

Not so obvious as you claim it to be…

In my opinion, I would recommend going with the zooms. Those are two good zoom lenses (though I prefer the Tokina 11-16 over the Sigma for it’s constant 2.8 aperture and I prefer the optical performance). No they are not the best but they are solid performers. I think that you will find yourself crippled by only having a 21. Even a good 21 will not be wide enough for wide shots, or long enough for close ups. I think that you are better serving yourself having the range of focal lengths and being able to not worry about having to tailor every shot around only having a 21mm lens. You may even find yourself discouraged from shooting certain shots because you just don’t have the right lens.

Besides, hopefully producing the work will get you some sort of an income that can finance higher quality glass in the future and in that way, the zooms are just a starting point.

Also, keep in mind that the crop factor is actually a 2.3 on the BMCC even though the mount is MFT. The sensor is not a MFT sensor. In the same way, the EF mount version has the same crop as the sensors are the same. The mount, the flange distance, and the type of lens, have no effect on crop factor. That is entirely the sensor. That being said, I find the Tokina at 11 to still be impressively wide.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

Thank you everyone for all of your help!

So I obviously was not doing this in the right place to start. I definitely agree on that now. But as I don’t really have to means to get a full dedicated 3D application at this point, let alone learn it to the point that I could do what I really wanted in any reasonable amount of time, is there any sort of workaround that you might know of? When it comes to plugins, which would you recommend to help me accomplish what I am looking to do?

Thanks again for everyone’s help!

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

That is correct. Same exact crop and field of view between those two setups.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

Just wanted to add one more thing.

Just because the image circle of MFT lenses are optimized for a MFT sensor, and other lenses such as Canon L or Zeiss ZF have larger image circles optimized for full frame, that does not mean that their focal lengths are measured any differently. What matters here is how crop factor effects field of view, not focal lengths. These are two different measurements and the size of the image circle between the two standards does not effect these measurements.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

Hi Ali,

Crop factor on both the MFT and EF versions is exactly the same. This is a function of the sensor size, not the mount itself as the only difference in the mount are the mount’s physical specifications and the flange distance which effects back focus (infinity focus). Focal length however remains consistent as this is a property if the lens. The only thing that changes is the field of view but this is a function of the crop of the sensor size as compared to the 35mm standard.

In terms of the quality between the two mount standards, it is entirely the lens. Considering that the MFT is passive, you may want to use the Vogtlander 17.5 or 25 f.95. These are great lenses but regardless of speed they won’t be better glass than Zeiss or Canon L or Leica on an EF in my opinion but they may be better than standard Canon or Sigma or Tamron on an EF. But the camera’s possibilities in terms of the raw file is identical.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

I agree that it is a very cool adapter. But an adapter that had ND filters as you desire, while it would be cool and very helpful, would probably be more expensive than just buying a Tiffen 4×4 or 4×5.65 glass kit. Also bare in mind that the ND’s in the cameras are rotating wheels. You would be talking about needing to have a large attachment coming off of the adapter to house that wheel and advance it into place. Very cumbersome indeed. But with the availability of even screw ons, I would not let a lack of ND filters be a reason for not buying the BMCC if you like the look of the camera.

However you’re right, if the adapter is as good as Philip Bloom seems to say, then it can be very helpful and offer a lot of real flexibility. Personally though, I like the look of Super35. I like the DOF that it gives and I am used to the focal lengths on it. Essentially the adapter gives full frame on APS-C, which in film terms is basically vistavision. I think that something many people need to remember is that just the ability to have full frame looks doesn’t mean that you should every time. Full frame is not actually “cinematic” in the way we think of the term. All said and done though, I am excited for the adapter as that does give us another tool in the arsenal which is always good no matter how you spin it.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary

[Matthew Sonnenfeld]

Peter makes a very good recommendation when it comes to used glass. The old Nikon lenses are high quality, easily adaptable, and fully manual. Personally, I have been building a Leica R prime set and cannot recommend them enough if you are willing to hunt them down and spring for the few that are a bit more on the expensive side, but in my opinion, they truly are worth it. There are many options when it comes to vintage glass, however just be sure that the flange distance of the lens is equal to or larger than 44mm or you will lose infinity focus.

If you are looking for new glass though, it gets a little bit harder. Again you will be able to find a bunch of high quality Nikon, and even the Zeiss ZF lenses will offer you manual aperture and it will be the same Nikon to Canon adapter.

If you are looking for manual cine glass, look to the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower options that are out there. Very well priced and a lot of people seem to like them, including Marco. Unfortunately I can’t speak to them personally as I have had no experience but Matthew Duclos writes a very interesting article on them here: https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/35mm-f1-4-showdown/

Within the next week I plan to have a focal length/color match test of my Leica R primes on the BMCC and I will be posting results here if you are interested.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera, RED Scarlet-X, Panasonic HPX170, Canon 7D
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 16GB RAM
AJA IoXT
Adobe Production Premium CS6, Avid Symphony 6, Final Cut Pro Studio 3
The College of William and Mary