new cheaper PL Mount for micro 4/3

I have a Canon FD from him and the built quality is excellent.
I hope that one day he will have a OCT-19 mount as well.
 
Have one. Fantastic. Still want the hotrod mainly for the grips and to help mr friedman out. but ryszard of ciecio is great, and pieces are solid.
 
On a related note

don't a lot of these PL mount Cinema lenses really protrude in toward the sensor?

looking around on ebay and some of them look like they would really hit the sensor?

anyone have any experience?

thanks
John
 
The support bracket on the hot rod system is ESSENTIAL. Most PL lenses are HEAVY and you'll want to use a mattebox with them anyway.
 
Having PL mount lenses on a GH1...is this really necessary? I thought Barry basically disproved higher quality optic lenses on the GH1 as to its inability to resolve their extra resolution.
 
john deaver said:
don't a lot of these PL mount Cinema lenses really protrude in toward the sensor?
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why they can't be used on most SLRs without hitting the mirror.

looking around on ebay and some of them look like they would really hit the sensor?
Click to expand...
No, because the PL mount adds additional distance away from the sensor. The point of the mount is to position the lens at the right place so that it focuses properly onto the sensor. You won't have a case of it hitting the sensor.

However, if you're talking about an SLR with a mirror, yes, they will hit the mirror.
 
Revsta said:
Having PL mount lenses on a GH1...is this really necessary? I thought Barry basically disproved higher quality optic lenses on the GH1 as to its inability to resolve their extra resolution.
Click to expand...
There are many reasons to go with PL lenses anyway. No, the camera cannot resolve any additional resolution that might be there, but still the color, contrast, and operational characteristics of the lens will be much better, integrating into a cinema environment would be much easier, etc., etc. Plus you could use anamorphic lenses (such as Fat Monster did with "Dispatch").

But if the goal is to get sharper imagery, yes -- PL glass is wasted on any DSLR.
 
Barry_Green said:
There are many reasons to go with PL lenses anyway. No, the camera cannot resolve any additional resolution that might be there, but still the color, contrast, and operational characteristics of the lens will be much better, integrating into a cinema environment would be much easier, etc., etc. Plus you could use anamorphic lenses (such as Fat Monster did with "Dispatch").

But if the goal is to get sharper imagery, yes -- PL glass is wasted on any DSLR.
Click to expand...

Dispatch?
 
Barry_Green said:
But if the goal is to get sharper imagery, yes -- PL glass is wasted on any DSLR.
Click to expand...
The sharper glass you have, the sharper results you get. In HD DSLR (or ILDC -- Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera for GH1) realm too. PL glass is not sharper than still photography glass, though.

E. :-)
 
Emanuel said:
The sharper glass you have, the sharper results you get. In HD DSLR (or ILDC -- Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera for GH1) realm too.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Test it for yourself, you'll be surprised.

The cameras are only capable of resolving so much. Any additional sharpness in the lens is wasted. This has been tested and proven. Once a lens is "sharp enough", any additional sharpness doesn't help. Of course, if we're talking about a very soft lens, then yes there's a difference -- but any reasonably decent SLR lens is going to deliver an image equally sharp to the very best, highest-cost, best-engineered cinema glass, when used on an SLR, because the SLR itself is not capable of resolving the sharper image that the better glass is relaying.
 
Barry_Green said:
This is not true. Test it for yourself, you'll be surprised.

The cameras are only capable of resolving so much. Any additional sharpness in the lens is wasted. This has been tested and proven. Once a lens is "sharp enough", any additional sharpness doesn't help. Of course, if we're talking about a very soft lens, then yes there's a difference -- but any reasonably decent SLR lens is going to deliver an image equally sharp to the very best, highest-cost, best-engineered cinema glass, when used on an SLR, because the SLR itself is not capable of resolving the sharper image that the better glass is relaying.
Click to expand...

How come Barry? I don't understand... how come cinema glasses are "better" than top quality still glasses?
 
Sharpness is not everything. There is also Contrast, Color Reproduction (as a function of contrast, sharpness, coatings, flare reduction/accentuation), lens formula and many many other factors that determine the difference between glass that is "good enough" for what a sensor can resolve, and what truly brings an image to life.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Yes, which is why they can't be used on most SLRs without hitting the mirror.


No, because the PL mount adds additional distance away from the sensor. The point of the mount is to position the lens at the right place so that it focuses properly onto the sensor. You won't have a case of it hitting the sensor.

However, if you're talking about an SLR with a mirror, yes, they will hit the mirror.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much

I also see there is a very wide range of PL mount lenses available for rent on a per-project basses (lenses i could never afford outright) in a much broader range than using older SLR lenses. from very wide 9mm all the way up to very fast telephoto.

Are there some lenses meant for 16mm and some meant for 35? or do users of 16mm cameras just know to add a conversion factor as we do with the gh1 (20mm = 40mm )

Thanks
John
 
jeracravo said:
How come Barry? I don't understand... how come cinema glasses are "better" than top quality still glasses?
Click to expand...
For one thing, we're talking about $5,000 lenses (for the cheapest primes) on up to about $100,000 zooms. Cinema glass is premium glass and it's designed for the task of being used to shoot moving footage. Still camera lenses aren't designed for shooting moving footage. Still camera glass is designed and engineered to shoot stills. So if the image "grows" or "shrinks" when you focus, it's no big deal on still glass, because you can't change focus during a still shot! But in cinema it's a very big deal, so proper cinema glass is optimized to prevent that "breathing".

Zooming is another issue. On a still-camera lens, you frequently will find that you can't zoom in, focus, and zoom back out -- they don't hold focus throughout the zoom range. Cinema lenses will, they're designed for that. Some still lenses do, but not all, and not even most of them do.

Then there's focus -- a still camera lens's focus ring is going to be usually a thin ring with short travel. On a cinema camera it's a huge ring that travels forever, usually around 300 to 350 degrees, giving very precise control over focus. And, the cinema lens is going to be precisely calibrated with focus "witness marks" so you know exactly at what point the lens is focused. Still camera lenses are pretty vague in that regard.

There's just lots and lots of things about cinema glass that make it better for shooting motion pictures. And the best cinema glass is really, really good. Which is another reason why a Cooke zoom might cost $80,000 or more.
 
john deaver said:
Are there some lenses meant for 16mm and some meant for 35?
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. And 16mm lenses would vignette horribly when used on 35mm. But 35mm lenses can be used on 16mm no problem.

or do users of 16mm cameras just know to add a conversion factor as we do with the gh1 (20mm = 40mm )
Click to expand...
16mm shooters know what a lens looks like on 16mm film. The conversion factor is about half, yes.
 
Ok, I got it,

But one more question if you allow me...

What about the optical quality? I mean, sharpness, contrast, color... are they sometimes, 100 times better than still glasses?

I understand now, the mechanical differences and how a cinema glass is better in usability.

Don't get me wrong, I never seen a cinema lens in my life, but I have still lenses around me since I'm a baby.

Thanks for answering my previous question.

Barry_Green said:
For one thing, we're talking about $5,000 lenses (for the cheapest primes) on up to about $100,000 zooms. Cinema glass is premium glass and it's designed for the task of being used to shoot moving footage. Still camera lenses aren't designed for shooting moving footage. Still camera glass is designed and engineered to shoot stills. So if the image "grows" or "shrinks" when you focus, it's no big deal on still glass, because you can't change focus during a still shot! But in cinema it's a very big deal, so proper cinema glass is optimized to prevent that "breathing".

Zooming is another issue. On a still-camera lens, you frequently will find that you can't zoom in, focus, and zoom back out -- they don't hold focus throughout the zoom range. Cinema lenses will, they're designed for that. Some still lenses do, but not all, and not even most of them do.

Then there's focus -- a still camera lens's focus ring is going to be usually a thin ring with short travel. On a cinema camera it's a huge ring that travels forever, usually around 300 to 350 degrees, giving very precise control over focus. And, the cinema lens is going to be precisely calibrated with focus "witness marks" so you know exactly at what point the lens is focused. Still camera lenses are pretty vague in that regard.

There's just lots and lots of things about cinema glass that make it better for shooting motion pictures. And the best cinema glass is really, really good. Which is another reason why a Cooke zoom might cost $80,000 or more.
Click to expand...
 
Barry_Green said:
This is not true. Test it for yourself, you'll be surprised.

The cameras are only capable of resolving so much. Any additional sharpness in the lens is wasted. This has been tested and proven. Once a lens is "sharp enough", any additional sharpness doesn't help. Of course, if we're talking about a very soft lens, then yes there's a difference -- but any reasonably decent SLR lens is going to deliver an image equally sharp to the very best, highest-cost, best-engineered cinema glass, when used on an SLR, because the SLR itself is not capable of resolving the sharper image that the better glass is relaying.
Click to expand...
This is not what my experience in field has noticed with these small cameras. Glass matters. You surely can have as same results as with superior glass. Just 'cause there are a lot of variables in any outcome. The glass is just one of them. Not always "the" 'game changer' or "wow factor".

However, taken the same circumstances and if the glass quality will have a role to be played, you'll get a sharper picture with a superior lens, cinema or still photography glass. You've tested differently, okay no problem. Me too :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top