Blackmagic Studio Camera + M43 Lenses - A Terrible Combination 

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.

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.

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

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 RU-vid Channel.

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.

Correct. If you want to zoom live, you'll need a parforcal lens.

+1 for cx-350. BM Studio's didn't make sense.

There are adapters to let you connect them, but the zoom features would not work.

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.

"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.

If you find an adapter that translates those commands. But I doubt that would be a high priority for someone creating an adapter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A very small chance

That lens doesn't have any motorized control. You'd need a servo zoom unit (or equivalent) to control the zoom.

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.

Autofocus on the Blackmagic cameras is terrible. You shouldn’t even consider using it.

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.

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.

Can you please share a link to video using these.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

If the SpeedBooster supports zoom commands it should work. I don't have those products to be able to test it, though.

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.

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

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?

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$.

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.

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?

It is possible, but I doubt it. The two products are intended for different workflows.

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!!

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.

Those SD lenses are far sharper than the EZ M43 lenses available today.

I don't have access to either one.

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.

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.

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.

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

But how many good ones with power zoom? None. That's my point.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eW_j_lhip4U.html@@djp_video

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. :)

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.

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.

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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Fc9Ojq04P6s.html

The Blackmagic cameras have focus-on-demand, but it isn't full-time and it is so bad nobody would ever use it.

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.

HD lenses aren't likely to be much better. B4 lenses are meant to be used with a much smaller sensor.

That sounds like a pretty decent middle ground. I'd be shocked if it was to happen though.

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.

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.

I'm sure it's not because of me. But the EF version is nice to have. I might even get one now.

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.

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!

The lenses won't be any better with the new cameras. Their issues are independent of the camera.

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.

Agreed

Dumb question: can you just get an adaptor from B4 to MFT?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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...

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.

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.