M43 mount is supposed to come next month. Praying metabones makes EF bmppc or d16 speedbooster as the nikkon mount is very limiting.

@BurnetRhoades: I have the same fujinon 0.85 Joe has been using. It's a super cool lens, performs surprisingly well at 0.85

@Vitaliy "Something tells me that financial resources of DB is near the end."

Bold statement, got any facts to back it up?

@luekio - "D16 It is however perfect for 16mm enthusiasts, indie filmmakers and anyone who is fed up with the videoish look, moire, aliasing and rolling shutter of the other options in this price range. I've been shooting with it for a couple of weeks myself and can confirm it has NONE of those problems and the image is gorgeous!

Not for everyone though, for example if you want to shoot weddings/events/your cats a gh4 would be a much better choice."

Your snark is really getting tiresome here. There are plenty of cams out there (GH2 being one) that do not look video-ish at all with the right settings and lenses. The DBolex does somewhat resemble 16mm. Older stocks of 16mm from the 70's and 80's, not the ones where they were beginning to emulate 35 more. That is what this cam is predisposed to delivering. I know this, I loaded a crapload of S16 back in the day and worked with it a lot.

You don't seem to like what is being said here about your camera. (Never become emotionally tied to hardware, btw) Feel free to go back to Joe and Elle and look down your noses at the people posting here from afar. For the record, I am not saying that they are looking down their noses, just your snarky attitude seems to imply that you are.

CCDs have been used in video cameras for decades. This equating them somehow to be more "filmlike" now that most cameras use CMOS is getting rather tedious. The lens and the grade has more to do with the net effect of any of these cameras.

Go look up sample video of the BMPCC shooting with c-mount lenses and a punchy, saturated grade that ignores the garbage LUTs that come with it and voila, retro 16mm look.

I was on the DB forum for a long time, and quite honestly couldn't keep up with all the future promises and hype that kept coming out. I'm glad they've mostly come through for everybody that bought in to it, but it's even with a 5DIII, 3x expensive as a BMPCC and 6+x expensive as a used canon 50D.
So far the hype about color turned out to be hype alone.. perhaps firmware updates will bring it more in-line with ikonoskop, but again it's over 3,000$, plus more waiting for the image optimization. Meanwhile the canon cameras look absolutely amazing to me, and the B.M. cameras are great as well, again for less price

I don't really like the look of the Fuji 25 vid you posted, but my comment was about the Bolex.

Ummm, you said:

you can perhaps get good Bokeh but you can't get decent DOF which is a limitation for a cinematic image.

...and equating "decent DOF" to making a cinematic image, implying you cannot get that on the Bolex, while somehow creating this disconnect between shallow DOF and bokeh that I'm still trying to figure out. The BMPCC is simply filling in for the Bolex given they're similar, though not exactly the same sized sensors. Now you want to quibble over issues that have nothing to do with what you actually said and fill a wall of gibberish, go right ahead.

The point is, sensor size is overcome by the aperture of the lens. Your statement was false regarding the D16 in this regard and that's before pointing out its complete incongruence with the evidence of cinematic Super-16mm filmmaking.

I have some prospec zoom lenses that I imagine myself not using every time I see them sitting on my shelf.

They are funky and with the push pull zoom they are great for that old school power zoom look.

So according to @DrDave cinematic isn't possible with 16mm. Mmmkay.

It seems like DrDave considers a bigger sensor to be more cinematic? Bmpcc will look almost exactly like a s35 sensor camera with the bmpcc speedbooster. The same would apply to the bolex, largely (slightly smaller sensor).

Obviously this gives the possibility for a wider range of looks that can be created, but hey: we already have a fantastic range of looks in the mFT sensor format...

Digital Bolex is what is is. A CCD chip camera. It can create a certain kind of look and the texture is different to a cmos sensor camera. This talk about cinematic/filmic or not is all subjective and a waste of perfectly good letters. (mostly, this kind of discussion produces a whole lot of nonsense).

No, but the optical image produced by such adapters makes it look, optically, like a bigger sensor. Not just increasing light transmission and affecting DOF - it would make the lens look almost exactly like it does on a bigger sensor (with a similar amount of crop from the circle of confusion). It doesn't change sensor properties in any way.

For example: if I'd have a canon c100 and a gh3 with a speedbooster, if using the same lens on each cameras, color correcting the images to match, there would be almost no discernible difference between them. (the noise levels might be different, there may be resolution differences depending on the resolution produced by the camera or differences in artifacts, but they would look very, very close to optically identical).

Obviously, the adapters are not COMPLETELY neutral in terms of this, but at least metabones does a pretty good job with coming close.

Similarly, on an aps-c sensor like many e-mount cams have (coupled with a speedbooster to a full frame lens), you really get a "full frame" look.

EDIT: I could write an article with graphics/examples on this if you want - VK. There seems to be much confusion on the issue.

Well, what I'm talking about is how optics look and behave on different sensor formats. It may be that the term "full frame" look is bad but there are few alternatives. I use it to describe how a specific full frame lens looks on a full frame camera and how it can be made to look the same with a focal reducer (with an ideal reduction capacity) on a smaller sensor. Talking about it in a more general sense is nonsensical, like you say.

Instead of discussing the matter further here, I'll write an extensive article about it with two different kind of examples when I have the time.

Not saying that, but you are welcome to say it....

No you've said mutually exclusive things and then shifted the subject rather than address your actual comments for what they are. You have to, because you can't actually defend what you said. Go on, try. I dare you.

You made contradictory statements regarding bokeh and DOF, which have sweet fuck all to do with anything the sensor is doing. Conflating this with the look of the sensor then is defensive posturing and has nothing to do with your original comments as they're optical phenomena and would be exactly the same if photographing with 16mm film. You want to conflate a number of image related issues rather than address what you actually said, because you likely weren't really thinking when you said it you were just auto-pilot trolling the thread of a camera you obviously want to piss on.

@RRRR he's just saying a bunch of shit is what he's saying. With the proper lenses (read not SLR) you don't need a Speedbooster to raise the effective size of a 16mm sensor in order to get depth falloff. Larger aperture on the lens compensates for smaller aperture sensor as it does for smaller gauge film. His denying it's possible on the D16 is a denial that it's possible with 16mm film which is absolute rubbish. Now he's talking hyperfocal. He has no point other than he doesn't like it and blah-blah-blah. Someone who didn't like the camera and wasn't a troll would have fucked off by now and put energy into things that actually interested them...unless the thing that actually interests them here is being a troll.

New footage:

@luekio--if you have a made a video with this camera that you think exemplifies the essential ideals of cinematic, I would be interested in seeing it. In fact, I would be interested in seeing any samples of your work that you consider representative. If you don't make videos, then I'm not sure why you need a camera.

@BurnetRhoades if you have have a problem understanding what I'm saying, I can't help you with that, but I suggest you post a sample of your work that exemplifies your ideal cinematic aesthetic, then we can learn from it. If your usage of the term cinematic is different from established directors who make movies, your work product will sharpen our awareness of what you think is good cinematic technique. As far as the insults go, they are irrelevant to the process of making video for me. If they help you, fine. Let's see a video you made that is as positive as your words are negative, I look forward to seeing it.

@RRRR I didn't say that, but you are welcome to say it.

It seems to me that from a practical point of view, an actual example is what is needed. When I see a great, cinematic image from this camera--that is better than what one could do with say a GH2--I will be the first to applaud it.

In order to do this, just for the record, do the following: 1. Show that you own the camera 2. Shoot a video 3. Post it, and explain why it is not only cinematic, but does things other cams do not do.

Look forward to your examples of cinematic with your new Bolex cameras.

PS In the unlikely event that you own this camera and really do not want to make a video with it, just send it to me and I will make a video with it. Shipping is on me.