I don't have a rail system or baseplate for my XL1s either so I can't help you out with demensions. I am interested in helping out with this idea though. Do you think it's possible to devise an inexpensive way to use an Agus35 style system without having to mount it on the end of the cameras existing lens or would it have to be mounted to the end of the cameras XL lens? Would it also be possible to make something similar to the Aldu35 GL1 from this site....

http://ideaspora.net/aldu35/

I know the owner of that site posts here, but i'm not sure what his name is. It should be possible to do something like that with just 72mm threads instead right? I know it defeats the purpose of having interchangeable lens, but it's alot more cost effective. Has anyone had any luck with the XL1's doing something like that? It seems like every plan that involves using different lens really starts to add up. I like the adapter that Dino made, but the parts start to add up fast. Too bad no one could come up with something for the relay (i think that's the right name) lens for the camera to attach it to these 35mm adapters that didn't cost a fortune.

The P&S Mini-35 _IS_ an Agus35 type device. A spinning ground glass that gets the image from the 35mm lens and a macro lens on the other side to read that image off that spinning GG.

Yeah, I think it's possible to do this but honestly, I just don't have the mechanical skillsets to figure it all out.

Yeah, Jim's site is fantastic. Gives some great advice and shots on building an adapter.

There are a lot of people here who have done amazing things and made real progress but the XL1S doesn't seem to have a simple (i.e.: relatively easy and not expensive) solution.

Okay so the big problem we have here is basically we need to find something to use as a relay lens, that doesn't cost a fortune. I like Dino's design, but there has to be a way to find a lens to use as a relay without having to use a 35mm lens and adapter. I noticed on the relay lens thread that there was talk of using 16mm or c mount lens like the ones from edmunds, has anyone found one that works? Using a c mount attached to a XL body cap might work, but I just wish we could come up with some type of lens that we could attach to the camera with the XL mount then to the 35mm adapter. It sure would cut the length down on the camera expecially if you then used the agus35 set up.

I'd like to start working on this some very soon, so any adive anyone has would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Okay, I decided to try and build a agus35 style adapter for my xl1s. I was thinking of trying to adapt relay lens set up like Dino used. I'm looking for a 24mm, f2.8 (as he suggested) lens. I'll prob. go for a Canon EOS lens, since I already have a Rebel Ti and hope to get a digital rebel sometime in the future. I know the lens will set me back more than a Nikon or something like that, but I figure then I can get more uses out of it then just using it for the adapter. My question is with that set up what type/magnification macro lens will i need between the relay lens and the GG? I know some of the ones I saw using GL1s and such were using like a +7. With the XL1 and a 35mm still lens will I still need something close for magnification?

I'm still experimenting with the relaylens. I can't believe that it should be so complicated. All you need is the right piece of glass and a mount. I'm having trouble making one because I get all my knowledge of lenses from experimenting. I basicly don't know anything about lenses. I took an old photocamera lens apart an held one of the several pieces of glass in front of the camera CCD and it shoved a nice picture (though not wide enough). So it should be possible with a single piece of glass...or??? I really need help from somebody who know lenses!

Can anybody tell my which glass I should get a hold of???

Thanks!

Anders, I am also trying to figure out a relay lens for my camera. So far it seems like the easiest way it's been done was with a 35mm still lens and an adapter, but there has to be a better way. If anyone has any ideas of what type of glass we might need to accomplish this please give us some advice. I know I sure could use some. Is there a better/cheaper way to do this other than using an adapter and 35mm still lens?

To : Christoph Hopf

I found this on the net:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/product/46335/SC2595X/REG/3662

Is that what you are referring to?

Shouldn't we just keep the xl-1 relaylens discussion in this thread instead of having to keep up with two identical threads?

sorry folks,

somehow i didn`t noticed that there is a allready a existing thread about this subject.
i am quite sure that p&s technik use this schneider xenonlense for the relay lense.

now i am thinking about to order only the relay lense from p&s Technik. maybe it`s possible??

That would really be awesome! I think the list price is about 1500 euro or something for the whole connection kit. I wonder would the lens alone would cost?

I don't think that you should mention what you want to use it for! The only way they would sell the lens alone would be if you already had bought the adaptor but you had broken the lens!??

Give it a try (tell them you have broken 2 ;-)

my aunt lives in munich, and works for arri. maybe she know one of the p&s guys. i will call her. next week i should know if i can buy the relay lense alone

That sounds really nice! I have been considering buying one from the start but haven't because of the price. So if it's possible for you to buy it seperately I really want to buy one as well.

you needn't call her it is possible.

Part No. 18770 Mini35Digital connecting kit for Canon XL1 / XL1s, incl. Intermediate lens, plate for fixing the video camera, adapter for Canon battery , ergonomic holder for color finder.
Price: 1530,00 EUR

source: www.pstechnik.de

maybe this will help some people who are making their own lenses

http://www.dinoreyes.com/images/lensadapter.html

cheers!

To Christoph Hopf: Have you talked to your aunt?

To Dietmar Zonewicz: I'm interested in buying the lens and only the lens(not the rods etc.). I think 1500 is pretty expensive!

Does anybody know if that xenon lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/product/46335/SC2595X/REG/3662

would work with the xl-1 and homebuilt adaptor??????

Thanks

I phoned PStecnik and it seems that the relay lens alone will cost 1000 euro. Pretty much!

If I bought that lens - could I just mount a GG and a lens - and then start shooting? or would I still need to get an achromatic adaptor and stuff???


Thanks!

I phoned PStecnik and it seems that the relay lens alone will cost 1000 euro. Pretty much!

If I bought that lens - could I just mount a GG and a lens - and then start shooting? or would I still need to get an achromatic adaptor and stuff???

You're going to need an achromatic adaptor, or some other method of getting the relay lens to focus onto the GG without vignetting the image.

Its a shame that little progress has been shown on building an adapter for an xl1. I have tinkered around since june of this year, with little success. My lack of success is mostly because of not knowing where to start, as following what others have done with other cameras isnt exactly applicable.

I have made some progress tho.
Started out with a shoebox, discovered that I could get an image on my makeshift gg.
Moved up to pvc pipe as my second prototype. Works well for fidgetting around. I have a 50mm as my primary lens, Im using holywood frost sandwhiched between 2 uv filters as my makeshift gg. What I'm trying to figure out at this point is:
1. What focal length lense I need as my relay lense (im limited since I dont own anything wider than a 50mm)
2. What is the best method to produce a quality gg (can I buy one? or do I have to make one, and if so, how?)
3. what elements do I need between the relay lens and gg? There is so much conflicting info out there I dont know what to believe. Also, I dont know where to get these things.
3. What is the best permanent housing for my setup?

On another note, if I ended up wanting to make a setup that had an oscilating gg, what materials do I need etc.

My suggestion to anyone trying to discover what they need to make things work is this:
1. drill a hole in a 2x4 you can mount your camera to to keep it stationary
2. create "stands" for your relay lens and your gg and primary lens housing that you can easily slide back and forth and mount your relay to the 2x4 whenever you find your correct flange depth (of course i have found that it will change based on how far away your gg is, so try to make it adjustable).

youll notice very quickly that trying to hold your relay lense with one hand, and your primary lens housing in another, keeping them in line with each other AND your ccd is difficult and ultimately FRUSTRATING.
Finding flange depth in my experience isnt an exact science. What I've found easiest is to focus on infinity and place your lense wherever you get sharp focus on distant objects, trying to place the lense at what the measurements you got online say ends up not working the way you would hope it would.

My next step is to obtain a quality GG, as Im pretty sure I can get the gg image with a 20mm lens (which i may be able to borrow from a friend to test)

Dino Reyes seemed to have a functioning adapter, but he seems to have disappeared.

Lets get this figured out so that we can all have working 35mm adapters and continue to improve them with each others input.

My setup produces a pretty poor image (my gg is crap), but perhaps next weekend I can capture something and try to get it uploaded somewhere to view. (if anyone knows how to get files hosted on dvinfo.net, let me know)

Stephen

I just finished a gig where they rented a Mini-35 for 5 days to use with my XL1S and I have to say the combo between it and the 35mm lenses has made me want one more then ever!! ---- but the XL1S progress on an alternate to the P&S one seems to be at a stand-still.

I don't mind the idea of a spinning or vibrating ground glass, don't mind if it has to have a relay lens---- but I can't help but think that if all of us XL1 (and 2) users got together on this we could figure out some group purchase or at least spur each other into moving forward on this (or at least those of us with little mechanical skills could find someway of supporting the cause) and get this moving ahead.

The footage out of an XL1S using 35mm lenses and a mini-35-like device is INCREDIBLE. My DP sat there watching dailies saying over and over again "man, I thought we could get it to look like film before--- you can't tell this isn't film...."

What can we do? How can we help each other? I know there are some people that have had machinists make adapters for other lenses to fit an XL camera, if we bought a bunch together can we get a great (cheap) price?

Keith Kline, I've been reading all of these XL1 threads too, trying to understand what's to be done - and I agree it's kinda hit a dead end, hard. As I'm not mechanically skilled most of my imaginings have to do with "inventive" ways of using the parts that I have available. Not even owning a camera makes my ideas even more dubious. I don't have the stuff infront of me to tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, such as when I thought of using the 3X canon lens as the relay lens.

The 3X lens has the minimum focus (something like .5 cm at widest zoom) and the fov (maybe even too wide) to capture an image projected on a ground glass....maybe not. I don't know, but I haven't heard of anyone who has tried making an Agus35 for the 3X lens/XL1.

If you're willing to pay for it, I don't think it would be that hard to machine an XL-1 mount adaptor with a macro (or achromatic diopter, or whatever you want to use) in it.

Have a another mount machined on the other end and then attach some sort of Agus35 device at the right distance from the macro.

Wouldn't that work? The X factor is the correct distance of the macro from the sensor, and the ground glass from the macro.

An idea. What if every XL1/2 user reading this signed a petitioned to a company like Sigma. It would outline that we want them to build a lens for the XL1/2 that contained a ground glass element inside it. Something close to the size of a 35mm frame. Behind that a relay lens. A single lens solution.

It still wouldn't solve the viewing problem but that could be temporarily solved by flipping an external LCD.

Josh, this is the sort of thing we need to get rolling---- I'm like Roger and not too mechanically minded but there are people here on this board who are geniuses in this area. Just read some of the other threads in this area, it makes my brain hurt these guys understand this stuff so well.

From what I gather it would take a VERY FEW number of people together to get a machined adapter made very inexpensively.

Ok let me explain this idea in better detail since I just kind of touched on it earlier.

It seems to me that of all cameras the XL series has the greatest advantage to being a system that can obtain 35mm DOF characteristics. Which is probably why the Mini35 was first presented with the Xl1.

Now the mini35 is one solution which allows you to attach nearly any kind fo 35mm lens to it. It then rotates ground glass and the image and send it through a relay lens to the CCD's on the camera.

In this regard its a great camera for a professional engieer to build off of. But for every day folks like us here it's a problemchild since the native lenses are so large and finding a relay that can hook up to it would also need to be engineered.

This idea is to petition a company like Sigma to build a single lens solution. Where the front of the lens is your standard 35mm lens elements that then hit a static ground glass element of a certain size. Say 24mmx18mm. Then a small relay lens to bring that image into the cameras CCDs.

All of this within a single lens barrel as if it was just a lens itself.

There are two benefits to this that I can see.

1. The lens can be designed to fit the ground glass. Which means the flange to focal plane distance could be shorter, better optimized, ect.

2. The company in question could sell multiple prime/zoom lens at various lengths/prices. It wouldn't be a one adapter fits all solution but and entirely new series of lenses. All they would need to do is start with one prime lens to test the market. If It sells well, if they already knwo there are people wanting to buy it, then they could find themselves in business making a variety.

Now I don't know whether it's possible for a company like Sigma to do this or not. It would certainly take some R&D funding. It would also mean you would have to find your own way to flip and image. That is an easier to solution then the lens itself as it can be done electronically with various LCD screens. But the XL mount has been around for close to 8 years now and carried over 3 cameras. If the trend is for Canon to stay in the 1/3 chip range on future XL cameras then there are more cameras to come that support this lens mount. Plus an existing market of people over the last 8 years.

The way I look at it is like this. Even if it cost me $600-700 dollars for a single 50mm prime that can do this then it's worth the money. Because it's still a tenth or so the cost of a Mini35. And for people like me a mini35 is not an option with that much money that needs to be put down at one time.

Here is the petition I am about to start. Please correct or help me clearify if need be.

---------------

To Sigma

We the undersigned seek you out as the world's largest independent manufacturer of lenses. We are owners and users of the Canon XL series of digital video cameras. The XL1, XL1s and XL2. All of which contain the same lens mount.

We are seeking you out in the hopes you will build for us a lens or series of lenses which can display the depth of field characteristics of a 35mm camera onto a digital video camera.

This would be a lens that contains a fine ground glass element inside it. This finely ground glass then acts as a screen for the larger image coming from the first series of lens elements. An image that would then be focused onto the XL series 1/3 inch CCD imaging block via a second series of lens elements.

We understand this would require us to rotate our footage 180 degees for proper playback and viewing. But this is insignificant in comparison to the task of engineering our own lens system.

We are professional and independent videographers, filmmakers and hobbists. We need your help.

Thank you

---------------

I don't think it is a bad idea, although I would form the letter a bit different.

Instead of saying you want them to do the R&D, you could say that this had already been achieved. What we are looking for is a manufacturer who can pruduce uniform lenses with precision and high quality components. Something that would improve on an already successful design. That way, we are contracting them for their manufacturing abilities, not for their engineering (the most expensive part of a lens).

Explain specifications of the lense generally, don't necessarily mention its purpose or application:
a lense with the xl lens mount, a "relay" lens that is capable of focusing on a 36x24mm frame at a very close distance (under 3 inches, the closer the better) with a pcx condesor lense between relay and gg, then a nikon or canon lens mount at the correct flange depth from the gg, if the gg was considered the film plane.


Include that we would be willing to pay up front, and buy in bulk.

We don't need them to manufacture prime lenses for us, we can use nikon or canon lenses. OR pl mount, using cine lenses

cine lenses are something I personally don't want to use at this point, mostly because of cost, but possibly in the future.

I think it would be important to write it in a way that makes them think this is feasable and simple for them to do, and a way for them to make a profit. Exclude information they don't need to know ie: flipping the image, pleading for help etc... approaching them as professional clients expecting a professional response is important, we want the manufacturer to take us seriously.

their costs=
xl mount
relay lense
condensor lens
ground glass
nikon mount
construction costs
if they make them in 100 or so quantities, i bet it wouldn't be too expensive.

Since they make lenses, not much R&D is required. This is a simpler process than making an slr, as there are no mirrors involved.

I think we need to keep the xl 35mm threads in once place to get the momentum moving again.

I feel like my creativity has been stifled since I got it in my mind the idea of achieving 35mm dof, now I don't want to shoot, but I haven't gotten a functioning adapter (mostly because of lack of funds and time)

my 2cents
stephen birdsong

oh yeah, lets hear who would want to do it and how much its worth to you.

What you are suggesting is for them to build us mount like a mini35.

The idea above is for them to build us a lens or series of lenses specifically for the XL1. Where the ground glass is embedded inside each lens sold. Since they are lens builders I would think this is something more along their lines then just a generic mount convertor with ground glass element.

But I'm willing to be open minded about it. If an adapter would be ultimately more successful and easier for them to produce, then that is the route to take. Perhaps we should suggest to them they use their proprietary Sigma mount on the other end rather then a Canon or Nikon mount. After all they are trying to sell their Sigma lenses on their own mount. If they knew they could tie us in with their lenses on our video cameras then we'd be more likely to buy their Sigma SLR cameras for our still work.

I do think we should tell them what it will be used for. After all they need to know what the goal is or how would they test that it is working properly.

I don't think this should be approached as a one time deal for a limited order. I think it should be approached as an entirely new product to be sold to the general public.

Ok, check out the post by mike tesh, lets put our heads together on how to arrange manufacturing and see how many people would be interested in going along with it.

This is something I might be willing to spearhead if need be.

I'm going to try and get a sample of my progress up today..
We shall see if it is successful, I have to assemble my set-up again outdoors and my gg substitute is of pretty poor quality.

but its something, I figure we gotta start where we are and move on from there.

stephen birdsong

Big problem, they (Sigma or whomever) would have to license the lens mount and other technology from Canon. Canon is very, very, unlikely to grant another company license to their mount etc.

ok, so I threw something together. funny thing is, after setting up for bout an hour trying to get it to work properly, right when I start rolling, my roomate walks in the door, so thats what you get to see.

here is it is:
http://sbirdsong.greatnow.com/35mm test/35mm test 1.mp4
be sure to have some sort of pop up blocker, because this web host blows.

there is some weird green discoloration, thats because there was alot of open air between lenses, and it caused a real hazy lens flare.

Anyway, its super soft because of many reasons, the first being that my gg isnt really gg, its hollywood frost and just isnt sharp enough.

the chair was about 72 in from the film plane, and I have no idea how much of the "gg" i captured. It is pretty narrow though.

my "prime" is 50 mm, and my relay is 50mm (not even close to being wide enough) but thats all i have at the moment, so thats what we get.

stephen birdsong

Jeff how is it that Sigma gets by making lenses for the EOS system? Or for that matter how did that 14x Fujinon lens get fitted to an XL mount or the relay lens for the mini35? All of which have been sold commercially to fit the XL series cameras.

I'm not saying you are wrong by any means. You would know more then I.
I guess if worse came to worse we could petition Canon themselves. I justed figured that since they already had XL lenses on the market they would want to sell those first.

Sigma licenses the EF mount from Canon. However, they choose not to buy the chips in the lens from Canon. That is why Sigma lenses at times need to be "re-chipped" in order to stay compatible with Canon EOS camera bodies. The Fujinon lens was modified after market by Optex if I remember correctly. The mini-35 is probably an after market modification too. You can buy the mount, but the chips are more of an issue. Too small of a market to spend the R & D to make your own and Canon probably wouldn't sell their chips.

Well that certainly makes sense. But it's still worth a try. I'm not after an AF lens myself.

Stephen, can you post some pics of your unit as well???

Don't know where that green cast is coming from--- but you can see the DOF happening.

Considering that not only the XL1 but now the XL2 would use the same adapter I'm absolutely positive we can get some people together to go in on a group buy.

yeah, tomorrow I shall try again. I ran out of sunlight, so tomorrow I will start earlier. Ill take pictures too.

the green haze is coming from stray light mixing between lens stages. you'll see what I mean when you see pics.

Stephen

ok i did an expirement, a little better done this time.
pictures of setup, and comparisons with normal lens.

im adding some text to the pictures and I gotta figure out a good way to show them, maybe throw together simble html file...

will be up soon..

stephen birdsong

http://sbirdsong.greatnow.com/35mm%20test/35mm%20test%20web.html
again, make sure you have use pop up blocking (safari, firefox) cause this webhoster is crap.

Ok, so as you can see through the pics, this is done pretty shoddily, but it proves the concept.

I did a comparison between what I was capturing through my setup (50mm) and what 50mm (1/3 inch equivalent) through the 16x would be.
http://sbirdsong.greatnow.com/35mm%20test/movies/35mm%20test%202%20low%20res.mp4

That gives us 2 things:
it gives a comparison of dof, and it also shows that I am not actually getting the proper size frame off the gg, Im getting a much smaller frame, which tells me I need a wider relay lens than a 50mm (duh, I coulda told you that).

Wish I woulda thought to get a comparison of the actual framing, then I would know a % of what I am getting, then I could use that percentage and get a wider lens based on that percentage.

The front element (everything besides my relay lens) is very far from the camera. This is bad. It is because I'm using a 50mm lens, thats just the closest I can get it in focus.

Drop me any questions, I'll be watching the thread.

stephen

There is absolutely no need for any chips, or any adjustability either.

Your going to have a big "No Lens Attached" icon constantly blinking in the viewfinder. This was a big complaint about the Fujinon/Optix lens by some users.

I had the 14x manual, which to the best of my understanding had no chips, and the "no lens" never blinked. I *think* that as long as something is in the xl mount, it can sense that.

thanks Stephen.

Man, that GG you are using is like a quadruple fog filter but you can see the DOF and know you are on the right track.

Actually, the "check the lens" warning only comes up when you first power on the camera and quickly goes away.

At least that is the way it works with the real Mini-35.

yeah, now that you mention it, thats true. I was messin with my cam today, and realized that it did go away.

im ordering:
http://www.optosigma.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=OS&Product_Code=pg211&Category_Code=Filters+%26+Apertures
a 50mm gg from this website, so this should greatly improve on the image quality (maybe now I can actually get an image to seem in focus).

and I'm going to try to find a used camera store where I can purchase a cheap 20mm lens.

stephen

Stephen, if you put a '[' and then 'URL]' and then the link followed by a '[' with '/URL]' with your link in the middle (had to write it like that so it doesn't think I'm trying to do HTML and pick it up as a link) it will be clickable.

Steven.

Perhaps try drawing several concentric (each inside the other) rectangles on clear plastic (stiff sock or business shirt wrapper).

You might have to scribe the lines first with a pin or compass point before the ink will take.
Make sure the rectangles are on the same centre, maybe join the corners through the center with diagonal lines.

Place the compass point in that centre then draw a circle the size of your groundglass internal diameter, cut out the circle and stick this piece of clear plastic up against your groundlgass.

Two of those retangles should be the still-camera image frame the size which I don't know and the 24mm x 18mm motion picture 4:3 image frame.

Hope this helps.

Bob, good idea, ill give that a try in my next round.
Along with it, I will also do a comparison of the actual framing, with the regular 16x lens. It will be interesting to see the dof/compression difference while achieving the same framing.

It will probably have to wait untill next weekend, as I get home from work and the sun is down. If anyone has any suggestions, I will try more things.

Trying to order the real gg, maybe it will come before sat. wishful thinking.

stephen birdsong

This is a promising idea, but I would petition the cheapest manufacturers that will give us the same quality system.

As the differences in various camera formats and mounts relate to size of image plane and flange distance from image plane, and on the video side, relay lens for cameras, then it is possible to make a universal adaptor for not much more cost (and as it has universal sales volume can decrease costs). It would go:

Lens, to quickly connect/disconnect any lens, each one would have a:
------
Lens Mount/Flange distance Adaptor (LMFDA) (this modifies to the correct flange distance for each different lens).
------
A static MF sized film plane/condenser with universal LMFDA connector to take 16mm, 35mm, SLR and MF lens.

Ideally for guerrilla doco low light situations, you could mechanically flip this out of the way and flip in a large optic to squeeze the image down to camera format with lots of light.
-------
Camera mount for each camera, containing Macro/relay lens to suit camera used (for when you want upgrade camera).
--------
To reduce cost and complexity: Different Lens electronics/mechanics handled in the film plane component, which provides universal mechanical controls/pass through signals, that the LMFDA reroute to that lens format (the LMFDA is actually dumb but passively handles the mechanical and electronic rerouting to the lens).

All you do then is buy the right LMFDA for your lens (if you only use one type of lens, like EOS, then you only need one), the film plane, and the right matching camera adaptor. As it is MF film plane components are big enough for a high quality 35mm picture to sit inside without optical distortions. You just need to ask for good triplet lens (to totally correct chroma etc) and the best film plane (custom microlense, Beattie?? screen, etc) for HD+ resolutions.

Actually it would be good if it also included standard quality, 2*ND's, CPOL, IR/UV, and Skylight (maybe colour correction as well) filters (the bottom of the barrel containing a belly where they can be pivoted up in from).

This would give them the whole market to sell to.

How much, $1000-$300, and that should be much better quality then the custom jobs and at least as good as the mini-35.

If they want to stratify the market (as they ussually do), and make more money off the more expensive cameras and more expensive lenses, then they charge more for the adaptors for them, and less for those with cheaper cameras. Still that should mean that complete setups (with at least 3 cheap SLR lense adaptors) still range from $300 to $1000.

I'll leave you boys to your fantasy with one last thought. Sigma is unlikely to want to make a lens as you describe. They don't have any experience making video lenses for this type of camera. However, Tamron does make video lenses. But Tamron is probably not in a position to start a new market in their financial position. In fact most camera and lens manufactures are struggling financially right now (not Canon). Why would they spend R&D dollars on an entirely new market when they need those dollars to stay competitive in their core business?

Ahhm, I can answer that one, to make money. In business, when your up against the wall, having cast off all the excess baggage, cut wastage to the bone, not innovating is a good way to go down with the sinking ship. If there is too much competition and the ability to easily innovate conventional lines is stretched to it's limits, new sorts of "needed" products is a good way out. The old saying, that you have to spend money to make money. The question is, how "needed" is the product, if it is a small market then $5K+ will be the price, if it is a big market (like a universal adaptor, the only different items are very simple relay lens adaptor for each camera) then under $1K is possible. My suggestions are for mass market production cost advantages and for appeal to customers.

To say that a camera lens company can't make these lens systems, is to insult them and to accuse them of being dumb, as they are all optical lenses systems with modest differences in hookup that even home builders have worked out (Let alone compitent engineers). So give them a break, let them try, you never know what they can achieve unless they try.

..

First things first we all need to get on the same page with what we want.

If we are going to petition a company to build an adapter we need to specify what exactly it is. And it needs to be as simple to manufacture as possible. That will ensure a better possibility it will get made

Wayne although your idea of a two part adapter would be the grand resolution to all things, I'm not sure a company would want to support that many lens mounts. Especially when it comes to medium format lenses as well. I would think that would raise the cost a little more since it would require a larger piece of ground glass.

We may have to make some sacrifices. As I said in an earlier post if we petition sigma we know they have their own SA lens mount and lenses they build for it. If we approach them saying we want an SA to XL mount adapter with ground glass element to retain 35mm DOF then they would possibly be more inclined to build it. Knowing they would tie us in to their SA mount and hence when we bought a digital SLR it would possibly be a Sigma model because we already have the lenses. That would be a good business move for them.

Our sacrifice would be the purchase of Sigma SA mount lenses. I know this isn't the most optimal solution for those of us who already have a bunch of lenses for a different mount (I'm a Nikon user myself) but it would be a good route for them and solve our primary problem in turn. Which is DOF control for the XL1.

Does this make sense to the rest of you? I'm trying to think about it from the perspective of both the end user and company in question.