LA7200 anamorphic + 20mm pancake

terra1

terra1

Well-known member
recently managed to get a 90mm telescope mount to support the LA7200 adapter separately from the GH1 body lens.

Photoon2010-11-09at11522.jpg

Photoon2010-11-09at1152.jpg


it means i can use my 20mm f2.8 canon fd lens
(the focus ring is on the same piece of lens as the filter thread so when focusing it would have turned the anamorphic lens also)

with the same rotating issue in mind, with this set-up i can now get a FD fader in there too.

GASKET.jpg

Photoon2010-11-09at11532.jpg


all the pix above show it with the pancake lens and the FD fader.

the fear that mounting the LA7200 on the front of the pancake lens would seriously do harm to it, the lens weights next to nothing and the filter thread i think is plastic so i wanted to support the LA on its own.

i thought the pancake @ f1.7 + LA7200 anamorphic managed to get a pretty good focus as long as you are over 60cm away from the subject, closer everything goes a bit double vision like.

APOLOGIES FOR THE TERRIBLE VIDEO CLIPS, THEY WERE BADLY FILMED AND I THOUGHT PHOTO-BUCKET WOULD KEEP THE HD DIMENSIONS SO THEY ARE REALLY USELESS.
[video]http://s996.photobucket.com/albums/af86/terraone/?action=view&current=P1040822.mp4[/video]
[video]http://s996.photobucket.com/albums/af86/terraone/?action=view&current=P1040823.mp4[/video]

i think its very usable @ f1.7 (advised most places to stay above f4)

things like text and line patterns and such would probably show the double vision look a bit more but shooting a person or larger object i think it would work pretty good.

ive not managed to do a proper test yet as im lazy and ive been busy with my other hobbie :smile:

P1040827.jpg

P1040828.jpg

P1040829.jpg

P1040830.jpg


any questions or comments welcome
 
Last edited:
lpowell when you mention 35mm... would that be roughly the same as about 18mm (36mm equivalent) on the 14-140 kit lens, thats the widest i can go without vignetting.

looking forward to seeing any 1.5x posts (i think i saw your MINE! post) :smile:
 
I'm referring to a 35mm focal length, whether prime or zoom. While the diameter of the anamorphic's rear lens is one limiting factor, the physical length of the main lens (or perhaps the number of elements it contains?) seems to have an effect as well. My shallow prime lenses (20mm, Canon FD's, and Konica AR's) all vignette less with anamorphic adapters than my wide-angle zoom lenses (Lumix, Olympus, Canon FD). The notable exception is my massive Konica Hexanon zoom, 35-105mm f2.8, which is quite long but works with the Lomo Anamorphic all the way down to 35mm. You can see it in these photos:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...0-MJPEG-Mode&p=2126482&viewfull=1#post2126482
 
For what it's worth the LA7200 works perfectly on my Canon 24mm f/1.4 L FD mount lens with no vignetting - I think as OP has mentioned it's easier to get wide with primes vs zooms. Must say I really like your rig OP! I had originally intended to do something similar with my Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake but never built the rig and only went anamorphic as wide as on my 24mm f/1.4 L - I did mount it once to the Olympus with step up rings and held up the adapter to keep the weight off the lens, but it was very clear that a proper rig was necessary to use that setup without breaking the tiny pancake lens. Your results at f/1.7 are quite nice - I've never gone faster than f/4 with anamorphics - promising stuff - wide, sharp and fast + anamorphic = very nice indeed!
 
Last edited:
lpowell i still get a bit confused with the 20mm becomes a 40mm on the GH1 thing.
im guilty of not knowing why some things work/occur but i remember the things i see and read and they cross over into making sense down the line :smile:

thisisapocalypse thanks for the comments, yeah i'm happy with the rig now its working out great for getting better handheld shots.
plus the added bonus of mounting the LA7200 separately, saves lens threads and can get a ND fader in too :smile:
replaceable top rails with rails double the length that attach to a shoulder mount, the front cage element becoming a vertical handle, camera sits chest height.

i hope to get out when the rain stops and get some better examples.
 
terra1 said:
lpowell i still get a bit confused with the 20mm becomes a 40mm on the GH1 thing.
Click to expand...
It's solely a framing issue. In terms of perspective, a 20mm lens is always a 20mm lens.

If you come from a still photography background, you may have a mental image of the field-of-view obtained with each standard focal length lens on a full-frame sensor. If so, it's helpful to know that a 20mm lens on the GH1 has about the same field-of-view as a 40mm lens on a full-frame still camera.

If you come from a film-making background, however, you're more likely to be familiar with the field-of-view obtained on 16mm or 35mm motion picture film. If so, it's helpful to know that a 20mm lens has about the same field-of-view on the GH1 as on a 35mm video camera.

Anamorphic adapters throw another factor into the mix. Due to their horizontal squeeze factor, they give the main lens a wider horizontal field-of-view, just as a wide-angle adapter would. With the LA7200's 1.33x squeeze factor, a 20mm lens has the field-of-view that a 15mm lens has by itself.
 
All those lines could be squeezed into one simple notation: 20.7mm/1.33a

That implies 20mm, f1.7, and 1.33x "a"namorphic factor.

1:1 cropping 2.6x or 3.9x is easy to express: 20.7mm/2.6x/1.33a

Concise and simple.

If Canon FD 50mm 1.4 is used, 50.4mm/2.6x/1.33a
 
Ok... remove the "mm". Then it becomes

50.4/2.6x/1.33a.

The "cryptic" notation carries enough information to calculate FOV if needed. FOV in 35mm = 50 * 2.6 / 1.33 * 1.8 = 176mm that is roughly 14 degree in diagonal angle. Normally we don't need to calculate FOV, but the notation can be simple way to communicate.
 
You know... we use notations like 24pN and 720p60. why not 50.4/2.6x/1.33a?

If I can't convince you, I will give up... :(
 
Last edited:
... if i am neither from a stills or video background can i just shoot and work by eye? :smile:

or are these cryptic codes and recipes a must? i think all the numbers from different formats brings out the Dyscalculia in me :smile:

thanks for the knowledge tho, i hadn't really seen this being discussed this way before so its good to get it out for others to read. (il figure it out 1 day)
 
Why is it so cryptic? It's not a must, but it's not cryptic at all.

20.7... We just know it's the pancake. Not just any pancake. It's the panny pancake 20mm f/1.7.
14.5... Panny 14mm f/2.5. Is there any other 14mm prime at 2.5?
50.4... Nifty fifty f/1.4.
25.95... You know what it is... cuz .95 is so unique.
2.6x... That means just one thing in this forum. 2.6x 1:1 cropping.
1.33a.... You don't even need to guess. What else can have "1.33" other than anamorphic factor?

If we know what those numbers imply, that's natural notation. Some call it "hacked GH1". We call it GH13. But... I will stop here. I just had to try once.
 
Last edited:
stonebat said:
Why is it so cryptic? It's not a must, but it's not cryptic at all.

20.7... We just know it's the pancake. Not just any pancake. It's the panny pancake 20mm f/1.7.
14.5... Panny 14mm f/2.5. Is there any other 14mm prime at 2.5?
50.4... Nifty fifty f/1.4.
25.95... You know what it is... cuz .95 is so unique.
2.6x... That means just one thing in this forum. 2.6x 1:1 cropping.
1.33a.... You don't even need to guess. What else can have "1.33" other than anamorphic factor?

If we know what those numbers imply, that's natural notation. Some call it "hacked GH1". We call it GH13. But... I will stop here. I just had to try once.
Click to expand...

Good try. I applaud your efforts. However, this seems a lot like writing shorthand. It will most likely only have the exact meaning to the one writing it. You give a perfect example of why this is flawed with your "14.5... Panny 14mm f/2.5. Is there any other 14mm prime at 2.5?" -- Well, no, maybe not today. But what happens when someone's reading a post using "14.5" to refer to this lens months or even years from now when there may be multiple 14mm f/2.5 lenses available?
 
lpowell said:
Anamorphic adapters throw another factor into the mix. Due to their horizontal squeeze factor, they give the main lens a wider horizontal field-of-view, just as a wide-angle adapter would.
Click to expand...

True but important to point out that a wide angle adapter will give you both a wider horizontal and vertical FOV whereas anamorphic adapters give you a wider FOV only and the vertical FOV stays the same as on the taking lens.
 
Nice!!!

Nice!!!

terra1 said:
slightly better test @ f1.7
Click to expand...

Nice looking, Terra1! I like the look of the pancake with the LA 7200 on it. It's not as sharp which to me is a good thing. Most of the stuff I've shot on my pancake is too sharp and contrasty for me. However I've shot some things in black and white with it that I liked just fine. Not sure why I liked one over the other though. I can't figure it out. I'm still lookoing for rails too before I throw the LA on the pancake.

Trey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top