New adjustable PL->m4/3 from ciecio7

And, on another note, I wanted to say thanks to Mitch Gross for his participation here on the forums. Mitch has participated and shared knowledge on lots of forums and he's really been a great help to me and many others throughout the years, and his tech expertise is really greatly appreciated. Thanks for all you do, Mitch!
 
Barry_Green said:
Assuming I am interpreting correctly, Optitek's point is that you should have a perfectly-aligned adapter and that you shouldn't get caught up in the trap of using the mount to "chase" after lenses whose collimation is off. And I totally agree. While a shimmable mount makes it possible to adjust, ideally you shouldn't have to -- if you have two lenses and one of them focuses spot-on and another one doesn't, you probably should be adjusting the non-focusing lens, not the mount on the camera.
Click to expand...

I'm going to chime in hear on this one. Barry's interpretation of Jacek's point is absolutely correct. Adjusting a mount to a lens is a fireable offense at at least one rental house chain I know. This is a significant danger with having any mount that is advertised as "field adjustable".

I know that adjustments to the Red camera's flange has, and still does, happen on shoots when someone starts to second guess performance on set. This is generally the wrong time and place to be making changes even if you suspect something is off, even if you think you can do it quickly and safely.

The bottom line is that having and externally adjustable mount allows you to the ability to set the FFD in a different way from a shimmable mount, but the end result are the same. With the proper tools any professional can shim a PL mount in 10-minutes or less. It's not a big deal unless you have never done it before, or are lacking the correct tools. Once set, unless some kind of serious trauma has occurred, it is highly unlikely your FFD on a professionally designed and built PL mount will change.

However, if like HeavyG you believe that the external adjustment adjustment will somehow save you time either on set or off, I believe the opposite is true, and you will likely spend more time fiddling with it when you should be leaving it alone.

I've received anecdotal evidence from Red one users over the past three years- externally adjustable flange depth is far more likely to be perceived as "changed" over an extended length production, and thus needs more frequent checking and adjusting. I'm not saying that it actually does change, but the perception of having something change that can easily be changed (or that may have actually changed) seems to require a lot more time be spent confirming that it hasn't.

It's certainly important to check FFD for any camera if you are a rental house. But people I know in the rental industry tell me that Red cameras seem to get checked far more often than cameras with a shimmable mount. I believe this may be just perception, but then again it may not.

Now before anyone thinks that I am attempting to discredit a methodology different from my own keep in mind that a threaded flange is nothing new, and just because it was popularized in the last couple years by Red, they did not invent the concept. I believe I first saw it 15-years ago used on a projector, and I doubt the concept was new then either.

In addition, I would be lying if I said I haven't also noodled around with the concept of building a threaded flange. Although I'm yet to see this concept implemented in a way I would consider a superior fashion to the traditional shimmable mount, and as such I'm hesitant to make changes to what may be perceived ultimately as a gimmick or a less desirable adjustment methodology by professionals, which is who really cares about these things anyway. Most people I would say just want their marks to be correct, and would like to be confident that when they tighten a set screw that nothing moved- if you are a rental house and if your inexperienced customer can easily screw up the flange focal depth, that isn't a good thing.

As the externally adjustable design from the copycats manufacturers in China and Poland are the largest departure from a traditionally professional design, I am of course eager to see what they have done with my invention- probably more than anybody else. Looking forward to NAB!
 
Barry_Green said:
I think you guys probably both understand the situation fully, but for those who may be new to this, let's discuss a bit...

The thing about an adjustable mount is that, ideally, it shouldn't be necessary. The mount should be exactly and precisely the distance necessary from the sensor. Every film camera I've had (usually older ones), they don't even have a way to adjust the mount distance. It just "shouldn't" be necessary to do so. In the real world, however, especially with an interchangeable adapter, it sometimes is necessary to adjust the distance, and if someone adjusts improperly that can cause complications.

Assuming I am interpreting correctly, Optitek's point is that you should have a perfectly-aligned adapter and that you shouldn't get caught up in the trap of using the mount to "chase" after lenses whose collimation is off. And I totally agree. While a shimmable mount makes it possible to adjust, ideally you shouldn't have to -- if you have two lenses and one of them focuses spot-on and another one doesn't, you probably should be adjusting the non-focusing lens, not the mount on the camera.

All my Compact Primes were "off" when used on my original Ciecio7 (non-adjustable) mount. That's a pretty clear indication that it is the mount, and not the lenses, that was the problem. With the new adjustable mount I have, I took the time to calibrate it perfectly, and now shazam -- all my lenses work. If I encounter a case where one of my lenses (or any future lens) doesn't work, then I will presume that the lens needs collimation, and not the mount.

The problem with all these inexpensive camera adapters (not just PL, but Nikon and Canon and all that) is that they're designed to "guarantee infinity focus" and they can do that by making the mount just a little shorter than the spec truly calls for. If the mount distance is just a tiny bit narrower, it means that all your lenses will definitely be able to hit infinity. But, it also inherently means the mount isn't perfectly aligned. My Ciecio7 certainly wasn't. And on a stills camera it's not usually a big deal because stills lenses aren't marked accurately or frequently enough for their focus marks to be truly usable anyway. But with real cinema lenses with real housings and real markings, it becomes a very big deal. Which is why we're now seeing the introduction of more shimmable or otherwise-adjustable PL mounts.

The solution is to either have a perfect mount that is guaranteed at all times to deliver the requisite 52.00mm distance, or to have an adjustable mount which you can then calibrate to your camera so that you achieve a perfect 52.00mm distance. And then, from then on, not to ever touch the mount again (as Mitch said). If a certain lens doesn't hit the marks, it is folly to adjust the mount to make up for the lens' problem, you should instead recognize where the issue is and adjust the lens itself.

If someone doesn't intend to rely on the witness marks, or rely on a zoom holding focus throughout its range, then none of this matters and the non-shimmable mounts are just fine for that use (and much less expensive!)

If you want the focus witness markings to line up perfectly, then I do recommend either getting an adjustable PL mount, or get a mount that guarantees absolute perfect distance to the sensor (which may or may not even be possible; I don't know the manufacturing tolerances on the body and the sensor positioning, maybe they guarantee pinpoint precision and maybe they allow for a range of, oh, who knows, +/- 0.1mm or something -- but if they do, that .1mm can have a noticeable effect on focus!) If you have a perfectly-positioned 52mm distance, there's no need for an adjustable mount. If you don't have a guarantee on that, then an adjustable mount is highly recommended -- if only to adjust it once so that it is at a perfect 52mm.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you Barry.

I know my lenses are adjusted correctly, so it's the mounts that have been 'off'. In my case it may even be the AF100 mount that is 'off' since I own 2 of them and each is different when I swap the same lens / mount combo between them (this was done as a test and will not be my regular set-up. I have PL adapters for each camera).

So if my lenses are correct and the mount on the AF100 is wrong, then the only point of adjustment I have is the adapter - which I fully expect to adjust once, and not have to adjust after that unless it changes over time.

I'm certainly NOT advocating using this adjustment feature to 'Chase' maladjusted lenses, or to use this feature to adjust the mount on set. Nor am I saying that you adjust to a single lens from your kit that may be out of adjustment itself - other than a null lens or similar calibration device which will allow you to get the distance correct.



**** I'm still not associated with Ciecio7 and this mount ****
 
Last edited:
As the externally adjustable design from the copycats manufacturers in China and Poland are the largest departure from a traditionally professional design, I am of course eager to see what they have done with my invention- probably more than anybody else. Looking forward to NAB!
Click to expand...
You forgot about MTF Services, DENZ and a few others manufacturers who have also stolen your brilliant idea. What would they do without you IIiya?
 
I'm glad that it's been explained here by the experts....
Funny thing I noticed is that while film cameras had their FD specs published the manufacturers made it hard, virtually impossible in the field to change the flange.
Now the manufacturer's specs are secret but made easy to change in the field. Oh the irony.....
 
Well, looks like all the principles have chimed in! Glad we cleared things up.

A couple of little notes to add:
- Barry, you said none of the film cameras you used over the years allowed the lens mount to be adjusted. Actually ALL of them likely did, but only through the use of shims, making it strictly a shop operation, which is really where all this nonsense should be kept!
- Illya, you mentioned the inherent "danger" of an adjustable mount such as the RED One's threaded system. There is another issue with this system -- centering. Anyone who has ever set the depth on an R1 can easily see that the image shifts slightly as the depth is alterred. It has to have some play otherwise the mechanism would bind up. Not a big deal with prime lenses but it can be a real issue for zooms when discriminating ACs and DPs insist that the lens track zooms in and out precisely to the center as the focal length changes. In other words, one wants to put an object at the precise center of the frame at the wide end of the lens and have it remain there on the telephoto end, not drift off of center. Big problem on a collar-threading mount, but only if you really care about such things.

Barry, thanks for the warm welcome. I try to be a helpful imparter of knowledge and experience, and it can be enlightening to participate in such discussions.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I try to be a helpful imparter of knowledge and experience, and it can be enlightening to participate in such discussions.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what we want here. No more penis-measuring contests or testosterone-fueled posturing or my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad type posts that have cluttered up the forum this last few years, but please more words of experience and wisdom, and shared knowledge and building up and empowering. There are many veterans, and even new users with new approaches, who graciously share what they know with our members and we all grow from it, thanks to all of you who participate here to expand the knowledge base and help us all achieve better results from these products!
 
Mitch Gross said:
Well, looks like all the principles have chimed in! Glad we cleared things up.

A couple of little notes to add:
- Barry, you said none of the film cameras you used over the years allowed the lens mount to be adjusted. Actually ALL of them likely did, but only through the use of shims, making it strictly a shop operation, which is really where all this nonsense should be kept!
- Illya, you mentioned the inherent "danger" of an adjustable mount such as the RED One's threaded system. There is another issue with this system -- centering. Anyone who has ever set the depth on an R1 can easily see that the image shifts slightly as the depth is alterred. It has to have some play otherwise the mechanism would bind up. Not a big deal with prime lenses but it can be a real issue for zooms when discriminating ACs and DPs insist that the lens track zooms in and out precisely to the center as the focal length changes. In other words, one wants to put an object at the precise center of the frame at the wide end of the lens and have it remain there on the telephoto end, not drift off of center. Big problem on a collar-threading mount, but only if you really care about such things.
Click to expand...

Good point Mitch. I forgot about that one.

That did also remind me of one more- repeatability. Once one of the two mating thread starts wearing (as threads do, especially fine pitched threads expected to move smoothly and also lock and stay locked) repeatability becomes an issue.

Barring some wear to the adapter or mount, there is only and will ever only be a very small truly correct place for the mount to be adjusted to when it's engaged with the camera, it's not like the sensor is supposed to be moving in and out!

Assuming that everything is actually fine with the adapter and camera mount, the ability to loosen, check the FFD and lock back to the exact same place over and over will likely become problematic over time with an externally adjustable mount. Bottom line is, externally adjustable mounts are less desireable if you are concerned about repeatability.
 
The First

The First

I think we should reserve the judgement of the design itself and the execution until we have some field feedback. Also while I have a problem with anything user adjustable related to camera lenses we are yet to see if the users/owners will exersize restraint and not abuse this new feature.
Which brings another point- this is the FIRST adjustable adapter on the market. Props to the creator for that. Credit where the credit is due....
Also I hope this is the beginning of the technical innovation coming from Poland- the country of my origins. I know there are a lot of talented engineers with great ideas in Poland and hope we see more of their input in our industry. I must say I'm proud that the first adjustable mount adapter was
made in Poland:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
As said earlier in this thread, I've got a prototype of the Letus right now, and it works very well. There are some prototype issues with it that they will sort out before production, but the actual collimation collar is the same that they used on the Letus Ultimate, it's something they've been using for years, and it works fine.
 
I don't understand the fuss. I've used two different AF-100's with two different HotRod adapters that were spot on. Tested on many lenses (not that it matters) but it seems if your lenses have correct back-focus, a well machined adapter can be accurate. I suppose just make sure you aren't shooting in 130* weather... I suppose the mount could expand under super hot conditions. But then again, your camera would probably die first before you began to see the effects.

With that said, an adapter that can be adjusted easily is nice, if you need it that 5% of the time.

Just saying non-collar adjusting lens mounts have been around forever, and it wasn't a big deal because they were machined well and if the lenses had properly maintained back-focus, there wouldn't be an issue. On most film cameras, a set of shims is all you needed for the occasional off-lens or if the mount was made from a material that didn't handle heat expansion well. Just saying it was relative non-issue for the last 100 years. Not sure why the AF-100 is any different.
 
Last edited:
OK so this thread is completely derailed…

Here is a link to a Letus webpage that explains where they manufacture: http://www.letusdirect.com/letus-manufacturing-locations.html

If you're to lazy to click the link, I'll post here -
"Letus Manufacturing Locations
To be completely transparent, which Letus has no problem with, we would like to address the question of whether or not Letus products are made entirely in the United States. The short answer is no. We do everything we can here but production levels and specialized parts do, as with most companies, require us to source outside of the country.

Letus is based in Portland, Oregon. All products are designed in Portland by in-house Letus engineers. This includes the original founders/brothers Hien and Quyen. Everything is prototyped, tested, and built in the Portland office. All initial machining is done by local CNC shops that Letus has worked with since the beginning of the company. When production levels surpass the work capacity of local shops, we may send some parts to a CNC shop in Vietnam owned by a friend of Hien. This is strictly based on workload demands and is not a cost savings tactic.

We will never sacrifice quality to cut a few pennies off of manufacturing costs. Any piece we machine whether in the Portland or elsewhere is of the utmost quality and built from the highest grade materials we can source.

There are other components that may be sourced outside of the United states such as optical glass (Germany), lens spinning (Japan), relay lenses (Japan), electronic boards (China), but these are simply because we choose the best quality products and these countries happen to offer what we feel is best for the particular need it fulfills.

Letus is proud to be a US company owned by Americans. We do everything possible here in the United States. We have and will continue to stand behind every product we make. Letus does not compromise on quality to save a penny."

Seems fairly transparent to me. At this stage of the global economy parts will come from everywhere…

There are things about the way this thread has deteriorated that I don't understand, but I will PM the individuals and question their motivations in private.
 
Letus Corporation and its founders have been fantastic vendors to my company. They have gone above and beyond what could be expected from any manufacturer to make sure that my clients and I are happy with their products. They were able to deliver relay lenses for 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" cameras for their DOF adapters whereas other manufacturers promised but didn't deliver. These relay lenses were more of a labor of love and cost six figures in R&D, a lot of money for a small company. A big accomplishment, IMO.

Letus Direct has also provided excellent customer service to me the past few years and really listens to what filmmakers are looking for.
 
Complete and utter thread derailment has occurred, and will now be attempted to be restored.

This is a thread for discussing (primarily) the Ciecio7 adjustable PL-mount adapter for m43 cameras.
 
I actually have a question about it:
Yesterday I was in a meeting with a 3D production company and a sensor centering issue came up, can you adjust the lens (mount) laterally with the set screws that tighten the adjustment?
 
My thinking would be lateral offset would not be an issue due to the crop factor of the sensor. If the sensor is slightly off center, it wouldn't really matter with the amount of coverage the lens has. Does that make sense?
 
DeGrey said:
My thinking would be lateral offset would not be an issue due to the crop factor of the sensor. If the sensor is slightly off center, it wouldn't really matter with the amount of coverage the lens has. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
For primes, perhaps, but if you wanted to do a zoom you'd want the lens's center directly aligned with the sensor's center. Otherwise it'll shift when zooming.
 
On the pre-production model that I was sent there doesn't seem to be a provision for lateral adjustments.
 
Ah, right. Forgot about the zooms. I use primes almost exclusively so I get a bit locked into that mentality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top