Metabones alternatives?

1 thing could be improved for fs100 users - ND filter (3 stops) inside the adopter(could be 1 adopter for fs700 with out nd, and another 1 with nd for the rest of the NEX cams) - that would be a nice feature i think! wifi follow focus something like birger was planning to make but failed...that could be something to charge extra for.....
 
Chris Johnston said:
???? I'm lost here....... and this bokeh change is different from any other camera? (metabones or not)
Click to expand...

At f2 the Bokeh was a circle. At f1.4, the top and the bottom was not circular, but has a square-ish shape, like it was being clipped. But this was on a consumer NEX 7. Who knows, maybe on the FS cameras it's different?

I don't have my FS-700 yet, so can't test until then.
 
paulcurtis said:
I think metabones have done very well commercially with their adapter, which gives an example of a price that is working.
Click to expand...

Agreed - It is apparent that many have been sold and at a price point that no one would argue with.

Steve R said:
If you are going to make something to compete, how is yours going to be better? Lower price? (Doesn't sound like it). Higher quality? Is there really room for a lot of improvement in this area?
Click to expand...

The idea is to not pick a fight, but rather get a sense of whether or not the general population of FS100 (or FS700) owner/operators is interested on something that is a step up from what is available. For those that own an active EF adapter that was $400 or so, and they are happy with it and don't want to spend more - great. I have heard from many full time professionals privately that the only reason they purchased the adapter they were using was because it was the only one available. They have explained that it was loose, not reliable, no external physical support, etc. They are still figuring out how to make it all work somehow. I have never once used any of the current E-EF active adapters out there so I don't personally have anything bad to say. Even though I believe we can step up the function and quality - if there is no market it does not matter.

We are only interested in making something that is innovative and adds function that was previously not available. Our starting point is not whatever the current hot item is, but rather what full size motion picture cameras are. I am only speaking to those that have issues with what it out there today. I have carried big and small cameras all over the planet for a very long time. For most of that time, camera systems were unbelievably expensive - but they [in general] always worked no matter how hard we pushed them. The small compact cinema cameras today make great pictures but are built like toys and require all kinds of tinkering to get the job done. My hope is to remove as much of the tinkering and toy-like qualities away from these cameras. Not everyone can have an Alexa with a 1st and 2nd AC and 5 cases full of lenses - I get that. I do believe that what I see in compact cinema has TONS of room for improvement in quality, ease of use, flexibility, and reliability. Of course it costs more and therefore not for everyone. The days of spending 10% of the value of the camera on accessories are long gone, especially when you have to adapt the optical path just to do the most basic work. What I see is that the camera has largely become the accessory to a really nice package of lenses.

With all that said, some highlights of what we have done with our EF concept. Some of the features I will keep to myself because I don't want to feed copy cats.

Double Lock support: This is the same way we do our PL mounts. Essentially it is an external bayonet that provides 360 concentric support of the entire mount leaving no pressure the cameras native mount.

PL (positive lock) for the EF lens: This method of attaching the lens is conceptually the same as a PL mount. Is does not rely on a spring to hold the lens and makes a more consistent mate with the mount. This method along with the double lock is very rigid even with worn lenses.

integrated electronics powered by the camera (this is not a new idea - but most people ask)

integrated mini-display for f-Stop

External display and control option for iris, zoom, focus position.

iris control is on a .8 MOD geared ring with 170 degrees of rotation - functions like a cine lens and allows remote motors to control it. Good for steadicam, cranes, etc. Not to mention is feels and operates like a cine lens.

Option of internal ND filter wheel (FS100 only)

In general, built solid as a rock - treat it like a pro.
 
rx8pilot said:
Agreed - It is apparent that many have been sold and at a price point that no one would argue with.



The idea is to not pick a fight, but rather get a sense of whether or not the general population of FS100 (or FS700) owner/operators is interested on something that is a step up from what is available. For those that own an active EF adapter that was $400 or so, and they are happy with it and don't want to spend more - great. I have heard from many full time professionals privately that the only reason they purchased the adapter they were using was because it was the only one available. They have explained that it was loose, not reliable, no external physical support, etc. They are still figuring out how to make it all work somehow. I have never once used any of the current E-EF active adapters out there so I don't personally have anything bad to say. Even though I believe we can step up the function and quality - if there is no market it does not matter.

We are only interested in making something that is innovative and adds function that was previously not available. Our starting point is not whatever the current hot item is, but rather what full size motion picture cameras are. I am only speaking to those that have issues with what it out there today. I have carried big and small cameras all over the planet for a very long time. For most of that time, camera systems were unbelievably expensive - but they [in general] always worked no matter how hard we pushed them. The small compact cinema cameras today make great pictures but are built like toys and require all kinds of tinkering to get the job done. My hope is to remove as much of the tinkering and toy-like qualities away from these cameras. Not everyone can have an Alexa with a 1st and 2nd AC and 5 cases full of lenses - I get that. I do believe that what I see in compact cinema has TONS of room for improvement in quality, ease of use, flexibility, and reliability. Of course it costs more and therefore not for everyone. The days of spending 10% of the value of the camera on accessories are long gone, especially when you have to adapt the optical path just to do the most basic work. What I see is that the camera has largely become the accessory to a really nice package of lenses.

With all that said, some highlights of what we have done with our EF concept. Some of the features I will keep to myself because I don't want to feed copy cats.

Double Lock support: This is the same way we do our PL mounts. Essentially it is an external bayonet that provides 360 concentric support of the entire mount leaving no pressure the cameras native mount.

PL (positive lock) for the EF lens: This method of attaching the lens is conceptually the same as a PL mount. Is does not rely on a spring to hold the lens and makes a more consistent mate with the mount. This method along with the double lock is very rigid even with worn lenses.

integrated electronics powered by the camera (this is not a new idea - but most people ask)

integrated mini-display for f-Stop

External display and control option for iris, zoom, focus position.

iris control is on a .8 MOD geared ring with 170 degrees of rotation - functions like a cine lens and allows remote motors to control it. Good for steadicam, cranes, etc. Not to mention is feels and operates like a cine lens.

Option of internal ND filter wheel (FS100 only)

In general, built solid as a rock - treat it like a pro.
Click to expand...

I really like the sound of it. Obviously it would cost more
than the metabones, but how much more? 2 times, 3
times? Much more than that and it might be priced
more than most fs100 owners want to pay seeing as
the camera is around 5 grand. I'm not saying
it isn't worth more, but I might pay up
to 1200 for it. Much more than that
and I might as well get a more expensive
camera.
 
PREFACE: I understand that my requirements are... odd... and that for 90% of the industry, what you currently describe - with a nice big geared ring for iris - would be ideal! But you asked:

Your mount sounds great though personally I would rather that you just have iris control able to be adjusted directly by standard controllers. EG if you plugged a Preston or Bartech or RTMotion etc it would just work.

The issue with that of course would be getting things compatible with most remote systems. But if you could do it... Maybe if you emulated a motor? So that the iris controller just thinks it's plugged into an M-One? And you translate motor commands into iris changes?

for me:
Controller -> electronic EF control
beats
Controller -> remote motor -> geared ring -> electronic EF control

Since I like stereo and desperately want to keep the number of motors and overall rig weight down.
But then there is no genlock on FS700... so makes this whole chat a bit pointless. Sorry.

Just remember this when they do bother to make an E mount cam with some kind of stereo sync option! Thanks, man :)

BTW I am assuming we're only talking about electronic iris here. EG you are not going to attempt electronic focus since the motors in lenses are too steppy?

How about those new Canon lenses that are supposedly designed for video? Could your mount do good electronic focus on those or is it more a protocol thing?

Obviously if you made a mount with electronic focus and iris that we can control with standard controllers it would be ideal.

Either that or make a truly professional focus / iris controller of your own? Like that RedMote Pro with a big focus wheel that never got made... add tables for matching lenses in stereo and you saved me thousands and thousands of dollars. And even more in light weight and convenience.

End my 2c - and all the best.

Cheers

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
The Metabones might not be perfect, but with my limited time spent with it on the NEX 7 I can say that the BIGGEST strength of it, is the SIMPLICITY of it. It might be nice to have a better lock, more features, etc.... but with then we might just have a huge, heavy adapter.

On Metabones, the lock works fine, the IS works fine, etc... It just works, it's small, well made and the price is good.

And unlike other companies like Berger, they came out with it in no time at all. That's what counts the most.
 
gene_can_sing said:
The Metabones might not be perfect, but with my limited time spent with it on the NEX 7 I can say that the BIGGEST strength of it, is the SIMPLICITY of it. It might be nice to have a better lock, more features, etc.... but with then we might just have a huge, heavy adapter.

On Metabones, the lock works fine, the IS works fine, etc... It just works, it's small, well made and the price is good.

And unlike other companies like Berger, they came out with it in no time at all. That's what counts the most.
Click to expand...

There is a ton of truth in your statements. If it aint broke, don't fix it. The last thing I am trying to do is convince anyone that there is a problem with Metabones or any other manufacturer. They have achieved a functional system at a (IMO) fantastic price point.

What I have described is more complicated and heavier (like Alexa is to an FS100) and more expensive. This means that the target audience is much smaller right off the bat.

As for Bruce....thank you for taking the time to write up a constructive post. I totally understand what you mean about the external motors. The option is there, but it is not required. We have an external controller/display that can do the same thing. Controlling it with a Fi+Z, Bartech, or some other closed loop system is technically possible, but unlikely to be financially viable unless the various vendors involved were very cooperative. Essentially, we would have to spoof the motor that the system is expecting to see and translate to the desired position. Everyone has differing ways of communicating and controlling their motors and that is information that is not likely to be shared. This is why I decided to do the external display/controller option. If you just need compact and simple - put it on the camera and go. No supports, no wires, no waiting. When the task is bigger, add support, and external control. See you depth of field, recall presets, set limits, etc. This is a good option for remote work like jibs, car mounts, or the like.

For loose reference, it would be in the range of $1000 USD with the ND filter wheel. As for getting it done, we have already done the majority of the work including the electronics. Everything is done in-house from concept to shipping so we do not have the variables of dealing with 3rd party designers, engineers, or manufactures. All we need to do is make the decision to go forward or scrap it. My feelings won't be hurt if the community prefers the Metabones of any other solution.
 
Bjoern said:
Hi everyone,

for those who searched for bokeh-clipping on the metabones adapter at wide aperture:
I (aka "Schoko") posted some pics of this effect in a german forum (middle of the page):

http://www.videotreffpunkt.com/thre...0&sid=23db16cf0e3c6fc71ba30973b006f419&page=1
Click to expand...

Thanks Bjoern
That kinda explains what I was thinking the problem might be. Were those pics full screen captures or just a portion of a video capture?
I guess for the price of the metabones and for what it does, It's still a pretty good deal even with that problem, No?
 
rx8pilot said:
There is a ton of truth in your statements. If it aint broke, don't fix it. The last thing I am trying to do is convince anyone that there is a problem with Metabones or any other manufacturer. They have achieved a functional system at a (IMO) fantastic price point.

What I have described is more complicated and heavier (like Alexa is to an FS100) and more expensive. This means that the target audience is much smaller right off the bat.

As for Bruce....thank you for taking the time to write up a constructive post. I totally understand what you mean about the external motors. The option is there, but it is not required. We have an external controller/display that can do the same thing. Controlling it with a Fi+Z, Bartech, or some other closed loop system is technically possible, but unlikely to be financially viable unless the various vendors involved were very cooperative. Essentially, we would have to spoof the motor that the system is expecting to see and translate to the desired position. Everyone has differing ways of communicating and controlling their motors and that is information that is not likely to be shared. This is why I decided to do the external display/controller option. If you just need compact and simple - put it on the camera and go. No supports, no wires, no waiting. When the task is bigger, add support, and external control. See you depth of field, recall presets, set limits, etc. This is a good option for remote work like jibs, car mounts, or the like.

For loose reference, it would be in the range of $1000 USD with the ND filter wheel. As for getting it done, we have already done the majority of the work including the electronics. Everything is done in-house from concept to shipping so we do not have the variables of dealing with 3rd party designers, engineers, or manufactures. All we need to do is make the decision to go forward or scrap it. My feelings won't be hurt if the community prefers the Metabones of any other solution.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested at that price. Having a mount that
doesnt put any strain on the emount, plus controls
iris and gives me ND? Sign me up.
 
If the non-ND version were, say, $899 - with lock and mount support as you describe, geared iris ring and display etc. (and no vignetting) - I'd consider that a good price, if build quality were high.

A couple of questions:

1) What stop increments would you support?

2) If you're going to the trouble to gear the iris and put a long throw on it - I assume one would be able to pull iris smoothly on it, correct? If not (i.e. the iris jumps in hard increments vs. smooth ramping) - then I'd honestly say don't bother with the gearing.
 
Chris Johnston said:
Thanks Bjoern
That kinda explains what I was thinking the problem might be. Were those pics full screen captures or just a portion of a video capture?
I guess for the price of the metabones and for what it does, It's still a pretty good deal even with that problem, No?
Click to expand...

Fullscreen, no crop, and I have this issue only with one lens, Samyang 35mm 1.4.

And: Yes, exactly, I won't give away the metabones, I love it.
As somebody mentioned, one of the biggest advantages is the compact size. Another point is, that the lens is powered from the cam. No hazzle with additional batteries an so on.

The first day I got it, I put it on the cam and it worked like a charm. I did some weddings with it now and had no problems. Great to have ef lenses with is on the fs. No need for autofocus. Really :-)
 
Bjoern said:
Fullscreen, no crop, and I have this issue only with one lens, Samyang 35mm 1.4.

:-)
Click to expand...

I have the same lens (rokinon though) and that would seem to explain a lot... that lens is actually a fairly large piece of glass and I assume that the physical size of it combined with the metabones (at certain apetures) is what's causing the problem. I would guess that if you put a physically smaller lens on the metabones (say a canon 50mm 1.4) you would not be able to duplicate that anomoly. (maybe with the Canon 85 1.4???? that one seems to be fairly big chunk of glass too??)

For me, I only have a canon 17-55 2.8 and a 50 1.4, so I don't think I would be able to duplicate it with those lens. The rokinon 35 and 85 I have are both nikon mounts with a novaflex adapter so I wouldn't see it on either of those lens either.
 
I'm on job at moment, but I doublechecked the effect on:

- Samyang 85 1.4 - same effect, less obvious
- Canon 100 2.8 IS - clean, no clipped bokeh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top