I make things
I have a Nikon G for my BMPCC. Nikon glass is (and always has been) truly great. Go for that.
Plus, I do believe it's a few hundred cheaper than the Canon EF speedbooster.
Also, ignore Stephen. Cameras like the A7s are great for many things - video included - as well as, of course, photography (the main reason they were made), but in pure image quality (and not battery life or all this other stuff that in the end doesn't show up on screen), the more affordable BMPCC blasts them out of the water.
There are many people who are bitter toward Blackmagic because, admittedly, Blackmagic has issues with things (like battery life, ergonomics, etc.). But, as one of the fellows who runs BM said "what we try to do is deliver a lot of camera for a little money. and we deliver a whole lot of camera."
Sometimes that comes at the expense of some other things. It's like that old saying of fast, cheap, and quality but you can only have two. BM chose cheap and quality because that's their market.
You can complain about a lot of issues with the BMPCC (or BMCC). Battery, poor screen especially in day light, not the most efficient controls, but image quality?
That's just a joke.
If you think there is any camera on the market that can produce equivalent image quality for the same price-point, you are fooling yourself. And you can talk about all the accessories and whatnot you need for it, but I've gone out with just a BMPCC, a lens, an SD card, and a tripod, and made footage that would make someone with GH3 weep. Sure, it was tough to focus in the daylight, but I'd put a black towel over my head to cut the light, and it wasn't so difficult.
I paid $800 for my BMPCC which included tons of accessories.
Literally a joke if you don't understand why they are so highly regarded for their image quality at that price point. "just a run of the mill mirrorless camera with RAW" is naive.
I use a Nikon speedbooster with my BMPCC, but before I got that I had both a Panasonic 12-35 and an Olympus 12-40 (not at the same time obviously, as they're very similar lenses). I much prefer the Olympus - not only do you get the meager extra zoom, but it has a repeatable focus rack, which is lacking on the Panasonic.
If I had my druthers I'd get a Minolta MD speedbooster for it (which Metabones does not make - they only make one for Micro 4/3), but there are a few off-brand ones. I have no idea how well they work, I've never used one, but I'm always inclined to try them. I have a lot of nice Minolta glass and love being able to control aperture manually.
But, if you are looking for a straight lens with no adapter or Speedbooster, I recommend the Oly 12-40 f2.8. Served me well for a long time.
Thanks! That's all great information.
I had the Olympus 12-40 and loved it, but unfortunately mine was defective (I had bought it used on Amazon, and after about 20 minutes of use, it stopped communicating with the camera). So I had to return it, and ended up buying the 12-35 on craigslist. I definitely like the 12-40 more (I had used it a lot previously via renting). The build quality of the Olympus seems better, the focus clutch is extremely nice for repeatable manual focus when it comes to video, and of course the little bit of extra zoom can always be helpful. You should definitely like it, it's a great lens!
Wow, thanks a bunch. That's especially great to know about the Speedboosters. If I can one that will fit both, no need to get a lesser alternative. Thank you!!
And I kind of figured something like that with the anamorphics - I'd probably have to go more down the adapter route. Thank you again!
Have to agree with Cary. I can buy the Ursa 4K PL mount (which is worth more) right this second for $3800 on eBay.
Now that the Ursa Mini and 4.6K versions are out, this camera isn't quite worth $4,000 unfortunately.
Though, I always say, something is worth what someone is willing to pay. So I could be totally wrong.