Jump to content


Photo

XL2 and PL Adapters Aaaaaaarrrgh


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Jason Varner

Jason Varner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 August 2005 - 08:32 PM

Has anyone used a PL mount adapter on an XL2. I have 2 lenses, an angeniex 5.9, and a zeiss 10-100 t3 both in arri mount. I cant seem to get the rear element close enough to the ccd's without bonking the rear element against the ir filter. Is the filter deeper in the XL1? Anyone had any success with these?
  • 0

#2 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 03 August 2005 - 11:21 PM

Has anyone used a PL mount adapter on an XL2.  I have 2 lenses, an angeniex 5.9, and a zeiss 10-100 t3 both in arri mount.  I cant seem to get the rear element close enough to the ccd's without bonking the rear element against the ir filter.  Is the filter deeper in the XL1?  Anyone had any success with these?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm, you don't want to "bonk" the rear element of your lenses NOR the internal organs of your camera. Canon makes an EF mount for using Canon still photo lenses. No PL mount that attaches to the cam body that I've heard.

You CAN rent/buy a P&S Technik Mini 35 (Or a Micro35 or a Guerilla35) adapter for a Canon
XL-1/2 but that attaches to the FRONT of your lens, not the camera body. Then you attach the PL-mount lens to it. Like this:

http://redrockmicro.com/products.html

Mounts are available for Canon MF, Canon AF, Nikon, PL, and OCT-19, and Pentax.


  • 0

#3 Jason Varner

Jason Varner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 August 2005 - 12:39 PM

Yeah I've looked at all these before. The P+S is ridiculously expensive.The Redrock device is cheaper but I dont see how image quality can be preserved using twice as many elements, and in most cases inferior glass. The PL is a straight mechanical adapter which preserves the characteristics of the cine lens without adding gg, wax, relay lenses, etc., The only problem is that it doesn't fit, so my question remains, has anyone ever used one of these with success? If so what combo of camera and lenses did it work with?

P.S. Thanks for the bonk tip.
  • 0

#4 Patrick Neary

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

Posted 05 August 2005 - 05:56 PM

>The only problem is that it doesn't fit<

that's a pretty big problem.

if you do a little searching you'll find a recent post from someone who also bought one and discovered the same thing. (if you go back farther, you'll find a LONG thread with everyone trying to figure out how a straight mechanical adaptor could possibly work with the XL1...it turns out, it doesn't)

It baffles me that a company can make and market something like this which clearly is only good for macro work, if that. Didn't they try the stupid thing before they sent it out to market?
  • 0

#5 drew_town

drew_town
  • Sustaining Members
  • 383 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Southeast US

Posted 05 August 2005 - 09:21 PM

>The only problem is that it doesn't fit<
Didn't they try the stupid thing before they sent it out to market?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure they did. And they said "it'll give you the film look, film look, film look."

...sucka
  • 0

#6 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 05 August 2005 - 09:41 PM

>The only problem is that it doesn't fit<

that's a pretty big problem.

It baffles me that a company can make and market something like this which clearly is only good for macro work, if that. Didn't they try the stupid thing before they sent it out to market?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Even if you COULD directly attach a cine lens to it, you'd have to multiply the focal length by something like 7.9x so the guys 5.9mm becomes a 46mm and his 10-100mm becomes a
79-790mm. Not quite what he had in mind, I bet.

I might've found this stuff out BEFORE parting with my $5K for the XL-2.
  • 0

#7 Jason Varner

Jason Varner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 August 2005 - 02:38 PM

I bought the XL2 because of native 16:9 chips and for the fact that I already own the 3x and 14x lenses. As a DP I'm always looking for creative solutions to acheive different looks. There are lenses out there that work but there are few if any resources that list any kind of compatibility. A 10-100 lens on a 1/3" chip would actually translate into about a 2.6x reduction in field of view when compared to the 16mm frame which is what the lenses were originally meant for.I know what the limitations of using cine lenses on 1/3" ccd's and thats an acceptible trade. I can shoot on hour mags, change reels in 30 seconds, and see instant dailies. Professionals know that compromise is part of the game.
  • 0

#8 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 21 August 2005 - 09:27 PM

Hey now,

The never ending primes on XL issue. The only real solution is for Canon to satisfy their customers with primes made for the actual physics of the XL series. Until then, we're stuck with the non-working or overpriced solutions at hand.




Darn it!
  • 0

#9 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 15 September 2005 - 11:00 PM

Also,

Sure, we love DOF. But, is it really that important? It doesn't prevent you from telling a good story. Don't dump your XL just because of DOF. It's still a damn handy tool for indie movie production. If you have to get a lens then I'd recommend getting the manual zoom. I've got the 14X and love it. The servo controlled focus ring on the auto lens was a dumb idea. The only thing I use the auto lens for is shaky shots where the stabilizer helps out.

As well, DOF is not impossible on the manual lens. Facial close-ups with a longer lens setting and lens mount NDF to get the iris open gets a blurred background. It looks pretty good.
  • 0

#10 DaveD

DaveD

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 November 2005 - 01:35 PM

Yeah I've looked at all these before. The P+S is ridiculously expensive.


A friend of mine gave me an interesting link to a new DOF lens adapter producer website: Indie35 at http://www.indie35.com/

Seems that they are quite new on market, however, their adapter looks pretty good.
Have not tried it with my Xl2 yet, however, plan to contact them and buy the nuke.

Edited by DaveD, 16 November 2005 - 01:41 PM.

  • 0

#11 DaveD

DaveD

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 November 2005 - 02:22 PM

A friend of mine gave me an interesting link to a new DOF lens adapter producer website: Indie35 at http://www.indie35.com/

Seems that they are quite new on market, however, their adapter looks pretty good.
Have not tried it with my Xl2 yet, however, plan to contact them and buy the nuke.


Forgot the most important.. a sample vid and setup pics page link
http://www.indie35.c...ogcategory/4/9/

The sample video seems an unproffessional take, however, DOF field effect is quite nice
Adapter itself looks pretty impressive.
  • 0

#12 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 November 2005 - 03:05 PM

That website is incredibly obtuse in that the descriptions sound technical but they don't really tell you anything. It's like reading poorly translated stereo instructions. In the end this is a series of magnifying and reduction lenses in a cyllinder. You are not rephotographing the image as on other systems such as the Mini35 or Micro35, but you are also losing much of the optical qualities of the original glass. It may be worth testing but I question the optical quality of the system.

If you spent some time at a good photostore you could cobble the same thing together with a bunch of retaining rings and diopters. In fact others have done this and it is probably the origin of this device.
  • 0

#13 DaveD

DaveD

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 November 2005 - 04:46 PM

In fact others have done this and it is probably the origin of this device.


Yes you are right here.
I have kept eye on all of those adapters (mini35, micro35 etc.). Their progress is impressive!
However, my point is that Indie35 guys have worked out an adapter that can be used with any camera and lens by just adding a cheap mount module. Have not tried their optics yet.. however their fully modular system seems to be a nice step further.
  • 0

#14 DaveD

DaveD

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 December 2005 - 01:37 AM

Found pretty impressive demo from indie35 guys http://www.indie35.c...tent/view/40/3/ (unfortunately highly compressed).

And it comes out that indie35.com is not just a DOF adapter, but a whole planned product line http://www.indie35.c...tent/view/38/1/

nice try!
  • 0

#15 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11942 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 December 2005 - 03:32 PM

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that "28 Days Later" was shot on XL1s with the PL adaptor. Is the lens mount the same on the -2? I believe it is. If I'm right, it would imply that the problem (which I've heard from several sources) is that certain PL mount lenses protrude a lot further behind the mount than others. You might try posting on CML's video list - people who worked on "28 Days Later" are there and could answer authoritatively.

But really, I've seen PL mounts for XL1s offered for years, I can't quite believe they just don't work.

Phil
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Opal

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab