There are a lot of cheap C-mount lenses on eBay. What's

Just get a nikon 1 or a BMPCC and stop being such a hipster. Unless you're literally Pablo Larrain there is absolutely no reason to shoot such small format film.

>>3121862
a few c mount lenses cover APS-C with minimal vignetting

>>3121924
>BMPCC
I hadn't heard of this one. I've been looking for something smartphone sized but high quality.

>>3122059
Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera.
To be honest the lens matters more than the camera. Almost no point using a £500 camera if you're just going to put £20 lenses on it

File: A1338-669x526.jpg (38KB, 669x526px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 669x526px

>>3121862
There are no native C-mount stills cameras, only surveillance and old amateur movie cameras.

Get a cheapo micro4/3 camera (Olympus or Panasonic) or Nikon 1 series, and a C-mount adapter. I'd recommend Olympus due to image stabilization that will work with C-mount lenses.

Larger sensors are a waste with C-mount lenses, even if a few lenses cover them, the quality towards the edges is typically abysmal due to a combination of vignetting, massive field curvature, CA and general softness (although if you're into Lomography shit aesthetic, this might be a plus)

I'll have to agree with what most say, c mount lenses were designed for 16mm, super 16mm and 8mm cameras, wich were film cameras at the time. Unless you plan to buy a Bolex and shoot, develop, scan, and edit films on that platform; or buy a Blackmagic Pocket for the sake of using low resolution lenses on it, I wouldn't sugest them. Cinema and TV student here so I've got around a few of them, they are not worth it unless you go for that old school lo-fi hipster look

>>3121862
I stole a macro c-mount lens from my old lab, it was in a box of broken equipment and I guess the sensor of the camera was busted, but the lens was fine.

I'm gonna stick mine on my XT-10.

>>3123602
I'm excited to see how that turns out