F35: Holy smokes, I bought a F35 too

Hey Yachacha, I only have one glass with me so I cant confirm, but I have a feeling that a bigger diameter glass could be moved forward as long as it covers the cone shaped beam going to the sensor. Am I wrong? Did you test this?
 
Anyone has any insight on this? If Metabones or Kipon have a line up of adapters that do the same focal length reduction lets say 0.7x...and these adapters are for different mounts types and sensor sizes ie: M43, S16, FF. Now any reason to believe the optics are different in all these models? I would think its the same optics but on different mounts and different distances from the sensor, Anyone can confirm that the optics are different? example: this one https://www.adorama.com/kabenexma645.html and https://www.adorama.com/kabefjxcefaf.html. Im going to buy one, I don't want to pay extra since im going to rip all the metal off. I just need the glass. Any one has experience with them?
 
Last edited:
I ordered a Kippon Speed booster mamiya to Sony E mount. It's a.7x and it already accepts mamiya lenses on one end. I'm going for some duck tape next as any expert would. I imagine I have to get it really close to the sensor and when I'm done we'll have the world's first Sony F645.
 
What is all this talk of duct tape in this forum lately? I guess cameras are like cars. If it gets cheap to buy people make all sorts of cheap and questionable mods. Maybe some F35 will appear with tasteless cheap wing spoiler and poop can exhaust. :grin: Poor thing fell far from times shooting with George Lucas and the Rock blockbusters. :violin:
 
SJX said:
What is all this talk of duct tape in this forum lately? I guess cameras are like cars. If it gets cheap to buy people make all sorts of cheap and questionable mods. Maybe some F35 will appear with tasteless cheap wing spoiler and poop can exhaust. :grin: Poor thing fell far from times shooting with George Lucas and the Rock blockbusters. :violin:
Click to expand...
Hahaha if I was from NY I'm I'm pretty sure chrome 20" rims would be next. I can tell you though, the kippon adapter was 600 usd, the only cheap part of this mod maybe the Duct tape. Lol
 
Noob question coming up:

I'm new to a lot of this, PL mount is my first for sure. I just bought a Red Pro 85mm prime, and for my surprise it doesn't really sit properly on my F35. The locking ring will not lock or if I misalign the lens with lock pin the lens spins with the ring. It holds the lens but its loose. Kind of unscrews when I pull focus. Anything I'm doing wrong? Aren't PL lenses standard. My other PL lens fit and lock nicely. What is wrong here? Besides my dumbness?
 
keisersoze said:
Noob question coming up:

I'm new to a lot of this, PL mount is my first for sure. I just bought a Red Pro 85mm prime, and for my surprise it doesn't really sit properly on my F35. The locking ring will not lock or if I misalign the lens with lock pin the lens spins with the ring. It holds the lens but its loose. Kind of unscrews when I pull focus. Anything I'm doing wrong? Aren't PL lenses standard. My other PL lens fit and lock nicely. What is wrong here? Besides my dumbness?
Click to expand...

I can't say for sure since I never used that lens with my F35 when I had it, I did have some issues with some lenses contacting the pl mount and not wanting to seat all the way in the mount. Bascially the lenses were to wide after the mount at the aperture ring and that was contacting the knobs on the PL mount. Looking at a picture of the 85mm it sure looks like that could be what is going on.
 
Actually there are no contacts with the knobs...it seems like the the lens will not go deep inside enough by a micron or so...the lens is more than 3lbs...
 
dhessel said:
I can't say for sure since I never used that lens with my F35 when I had it, I did have some issues with some lenses contacting the pl mount and not wanting to seat all the way in the mount. Bascially the lenses were to wide after the mount at the aperture ring and that was contacting the knobs on the PL mount. Looking at a picture of the 85mm it sure looks like that could be what is going on.
Click to expand...

Wow you are right! I removed the little knobs and the lens fit and locks just fine. Do slim versions of these handles exist? Handles that are flush to the mount? I'm thinking of Grinding them down but really dont know if I should.
 
I can't recall if that lens is an example of the following, but it may be. Some lenses from newer lens companies (ones that were not around in the days when everything had to fit on a film camera) have rather fat rear housings. The metal shell between the PL mount and the apeture ring can be fat and this may interfere with the handles of an older PL mount clamp. Back in the day the lens manufacturers had to allow room for the spinning mirror shutters on the cameras which meant that the clearance for this part of the lens neded to be cone-shaped. Some newer companies simply don't take film camera shutter housings into consideration and the housings are unnecessarily plump. I know for a fact that this is the case with the RED 18-85. On that lens one could simply remove the shell of this rear housing as it was only cosmetic and this would allow it to fit onto an ARRI 35-3. The removal of the shell would also help with the handles on various PL mounts.

Don't know if any of this would help with your prime lens.
 
keisersoze said:
Wow you are right! I removed the little knobs and the lens fit and locks just fine. Do slim versions of these handles exist? Handles that are flush to the mount? I'm thinking of Grinding them down but really dont know if I should.
Click to expand...

Don't grind them. They are Flimsy AF. They will probably snap at the screwing mount. All you need are a couple of the screws in there for leverage. Add a little Loctite and they will be enough for lens changes. Not super comfy, but enough.

If you've noticed... there are several cameras that are missing a number of those handles... sometimes owners remove them and lose them. One of my cameras came with only 1, but it works equally as well. That's all you need.
 
rbirnbaum said:
It's on an old thread. Google will take you there. But saving you some time coz I did a recent search for it for Art before he was a member.

2016.01.1336

Downloadable from Convergent Design. Last version that supported 50p ProResHQ after that the DPX update was developed. Problem is that DPX records huge files for 10bit 422 at 50p... but if you need 2-3 shots, the latest firmware works fine for everything else, except 50p ProResHQ. If you want that downgrade to the firmware above.

PEOPLE of the DVXUser... Start using the search function! :tongue:
Click to expand...

Please forgive my ignorance, I had my odyssey 7q on a loan until last week, I decided to finally do some tests with it with my F35. I have downloaded the the mentioned version above. I just need clarification, I do not plan to shot ProRes. Is this version the most optimized if Im only recording DPX 12bit files from the F35. At the moment this Odyssey is dedicated for the F35 only so I don't care if other functions get sacrificed as long as it's the best version for the F35 at 24fps 12bit, DPX. Can anyone please confirm. I will be without internet until Wednesday and I want to make sure I flash it with the best firmware. Thanks a million.
 
keisersoze said:
Please forgive my ignorance, I had my odyssey 7q on a loan until last week, I decided to finally do some tests with it with my F35. I have downloaded the the mentioned version above. I just need clarification, I do not plan to shot ProRes. Is this version the most optimized if Im only recording DPX 12bit files from the F35. At the moment this Odyssey is dedicated for the F35 only so I don't care if other functions get sacrificed as long as it's the best version for the F35 at 24fps 12bit, DPX. Can anyone please confirm. I will be without internet until Wednesday and I want to make sure I flash it with the best firmware. Thanks a million.
Click to expand...

Honestly, having tested and compared the two extensively for a Sci-Fi project that required an intensely heavy grade. The difference between 12-bit DPX and 12-bit Prores4444XQ is almost imperceptible. So I wouldn't worry too much about it from an image-quality perspective.

I'm pretty certain the 7Q had DPX support from the beginning. It's only the 50p recording that was lost in the later firmware updates. 2016.01.1336 definitely has DPX. We began shooting the Bollywood feature I did on the F35 in DPX (but had to change to Prores4444XQ once it became apparent that the shitty spinning harddrives we'd been given to store the footage on, literally couldn't copy over the day's DPX files before we needed the cards again for the next day.
 
Grug said:
Honestly, having tested and compared the two extensively for a Sci-Fi project that required an intensely heavy grade. The difference between 12-bit DPX and 12-bit Prores4444XQ is almost imperceptible. So I wouldn't worry too much about it from an image-quality perspective.

I'm pretty certain the 7Q had DPX support from the beginning. It's only the 50p recording that was lost in the later firmware updates. 2016.01.1336 definitely has DPX. We began shooting the Bollywood feature I did on the F35 in DPX (but had to change to Prores4444XQ once it became apparent that the shitty spinning harddrives we'd been given to store the footage on, literally couldn't copy over the day's DPX files before we needed the cards again for the next day.
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate your time explaining it.
 
Speaking of 7q f35 50p... what settings shot the f35 and 7q be in order to record 50p? I’ve tried a few and haven’t gotten it to work yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top