Jump to content


Photo

Not all PL mounts are equal


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 09 May 2007 - 02:48 PM

Hi Jim,

You may be interested to know that I had a problem with some PL mounted lenses on a Phantom HD camera that I was testing. The mount was beautifully made but was slightly too tight, I was therefore unable to properly close the mount with some but not all the lenses.

I had a selection of lenses, I wanted to see how Zeiss Standard lenses would work on a digital sensor .(They don't with a P+S adapter)

My best

Stephen
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 October 2007 - 01:51 AM

Hi Jim,

You may be interested to know that I had a problem with some PL mounted lenses on a Phantom HD camera that I was testing. The mount was beautifully made but was slightly too tight, I was therefore unable to properly close the mount with some but not all the lenses.

I had a selection of lenses, I wanted to see how Zeiss Standard lenses would work on a digital sensor .(They don't with a P+S adapter)

My best

Stephen


Hi,

Just an update, I understand from Mitch at Able Cine that the mount issues have been fixed on the Phantom Cameras.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Rob van Gelder

Rob van Gelder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 07 October 2007 - 08:53 AM

Stephen, how did those lenses perform? I am interested.
The company I work for has now a Cine-Speedcam and that camera has a full size chip too, though a slightly different format than the Phantom.
We are testing now but others experiences are welcome.
Our first problem was that the company did make the mount inside to shallow, so a few lenses (Ultraprimes) could not be used. But a short trip to the metal workshop solved that.

Regarding the closing of the lensmount/bajonet, what i know about the mounts is that the part that actually locks can be turned several times before reaching the part where it locks to the flange (the 4 wings" of the lens.
These flanges can be slightly different in dimension , depending on the manufacturer. Often a retaining screw is used (Arri cameras) to prevent people from turning the locking loose (the 2 tabs on the ring will hit a blocking screw).
In certain cases you can remove this locking screw if the "wings" on the PL-mount are a bit too big.
(Not sure if I should say this.........) <_<
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 October 2007 - 11:11 AM

Hi Rob,

The Zeiss Standards 16, 24 (probably 32) portholed unless stopped down to about T4. You would notice this on a even colored Background. My Cooke 20-60 looked very good.

Arri Bayo lenses in a PL adapter can be an issue depending on who made the Adapter.

It seems that the makers of Digital Cameras don't take enough care with lens mount design & correct FFD.

Stephen


Stephen, how did those lenses perform? I am interested.
The company I work for has now a Cine-Speedcam and that camera has a full size chip too, though a slightly different format than the Phantom.
We are testing now but others experiences are welcome.
Our first problem was that the company did make the mount inside to shallow, so a few lenses (Ultraprimes) could not be used. But a short trip to the metal workshop solved that.

Regarding the closing of the lensmount/bajonet, what i know about the mounts is that the part that actually locks can be turned several times before reaching the part where it locks to the flange (the 4 wings" of the lens.
These flanges can be slightly different in dimension , depending on the manufacturer. Often a retaining screw is used (Arri cameras) to prevent people from turning the locking loose (the 2 tabs on the ring will hit a blocking screw).
In certain cases you can remove this locking screw if the "wings" on the PL-mount are a bit too big.
(Not sure if I should say this.........) <_<


  • 0

#5 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 07 October 2007 - 01:01 PM

Most times the problem with any breech lock type lens mount is the thickness of the ears themselves. This is true for any of them be it Arri, Panavision or Mitchell etc. I never ran into a camera side that was wrong. Don't know about that video camera though.

The same is true for the Arri S/B lens mounts. The position of the ears and their deminsions is very critical.

Edited by chuck colburn, 07 October 2007 - 01:03 PM.

  • 0

#6 Patrick Neary

Patrick Neary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Portland, OR

Posted 07 October 2007 - 08:18 PM

we had a problem mounting a primo 11-1 on a pana-435, and it turned out to be the tiniest bit of grit on the lens mount, it looked like a pencil smudge. Those tolerances are tight!
  • 0


Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Opal

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post