XL2 Full Moon Shot

TingSern Wong · January 3rd, 2005, 10:40 AM

Hello deLange, I am curious how good the Optex adaptor is. Usually, a lens manufacturer don't optimise their lenses on 3rd party cameras! Never heard of anybody boasting about quality of a Nikkor lens mounted on a Canon EOS SLR and vice versa. Unless that fellow is a dedicated 3rd party like Sigma, Tamron, etc.

I have lots of AFS Nikkor lenses with me - but the Canon EF system is dedicated only to my XL1 and XL2. I do have 2 Canon 35mm zoom lenses which I brought specifically for use on XL1 and XL2. Using EF convertor and EF lens on manual focus (but auto aperature), I found that it is possible to obtain a very sharp image. On XL1, I can't focus using that camera's LCD monitor - had to resort to using Nebtek's external LCD monitor. XL2 improved LCD monitor is much sharper and can actually be used as focusing aid. Still I confirm the focusing using external LCD monitor ....

If the Optex is okay, I might consider getting one myself to optimise my usage of my Nikkor lenses collection.

TS

A. J. deLange · January 3rd, 2005, 12:41 PM

TS,

As there are no optics involved all that is necessary is to machine a piece in which the front (lens) and back (camera) sides are very parallel and to make it thick enough that the back focus plane of the Nikkor lens falls on the CCDs. It's no different in concept from the Canon adapter except that the Canon adapter carries the electrical connections through to the lens and the OpTek adapter does not. As the Nikkors have good resolution and as the CCD's are small relative to a 35mm frame you are only using the best part of the lens's coverage (near the axis) and the results are quite good. There is a sample at
http://homepage.mac.com/ajdel/FileSharing5.html
This is uncompressed DV right out of an XL1s of a Tiger Swallowtail butterfly shot with a 105 mm Macro Nikkor which is, I think, the sharpest lens I have ever owned for any camera at any time. The file is big (138 mbyte) but I didn't want compression to get in the way.

So for $265 (US) I was able to take thousands of $ worth of old glass out of mothballs and start using them again. A good investment to my way of thinking.

Slight change of subject: I called ZGC to order the Ronsight today and was told that at the moment it's only available for the XL1s but that the XL2 version is in the works and will be available soon. So as I know Ron reads this thread my message to him is "Hit the milling machine!" I'm most anxious to try this out.

A.J.

Ron Armstrong · January 3rd, 2005, 01:24 PM

You are right on about the parallax in the RONSIGHT. However it is of minimum concern unless you are shooting at less than 50 yards( depending on lens power). Even at close distances it only requires minimum adjustment, and is easily compensated for. You will find it invaluable in wildlife videography. For my use, it has decreased the lock on time by as much as 20 seconds or more. A grizzly bear can do a lot in that amount of time!!!
The RONSIGHT does work with the XL2 with the removal of the clip that holds the viewfinder cable. I'll cover that more thoroughly with ZGC. They are good people and will take care of you.
I have friends that use Nikon lenses with the XL cams with excellent results. Some well known photogs that you would recognize use 400 2.8 lenses with the OpTek converter, available from ZGC. I machined my own for Canon FD lenses, but don't recommend anyone trying it!
There's a lot of good glass out there, that is relatively inexpensive and gives some excellent results. You may have to put up with manual focus and zoom,but it may be worth it. I use a 50 - 300 mm FD lens, often with a 1.4 converter for wolves, grizzlies and general wildlife. It works great!!

Brian Gauthier · January 4th, 2005, 05:40 PM

Nice work from a fellow Hawaiian surf photographer...

Terence Reis · January 4th, 2005, 05:53 PM

Mahalo Brian!

Still learning how to use the XL2. Just a rookie here.
I bring it out with me on my shoots. I'm a bit torn between
using XL2 shooting video, and using my SLR's. Enjoy
shooting both still shots and video. It would be great if they could
put both of these worlds in one camera that I could afford.

-Terry

Chris Ward · January 5th, 2005, 04:03 PM

I think you overlit the moon. I'd try less key light.

Clint Grant · July 20th, 2005, 07:27 PM

Awsome footage all around! I really, REALLY liked the surfing stuff! But that moon was amazing. When you were filming the moon, did you have the lens at full telophoto? (Just curious of HOW close that moon was....) I wish the moon was that close where I live.....

Clint Grant

TingSern Wong · July 20th, 2005, 08:07 PM

Moon is 250,000 miles away from Earth (more or less - by plus or minus 20,000 miles). As I write today, the moon will be at its closest approach to Earth this year. However, in terms of actual size, the difference we can see is only half a second - hardly any difference in terms of naked eye viewing.

Everywhere on Earth, we see the Moon as the same size (really). No difference where you live in. Even if you stay on top of Hawaiian volcanoes, 11,000 feet up, the size of the Moon is probably bigger by only 1/4 arc second - no way we can tell the difference.

If you use the XL2 and its standard Canon zoom lens, a full moon actually overlaps the top and bottom sides of the video frame (at maximum zoom). Use a 35mm SLR (Canon EF) lens like 300mm on XL2, you get 3000mm (nearly), and you find that it moves too fast to capture it properly ...

Unless you have access to a sideral motor drive (which rotates its platform in lock step with Earth's rotation) ... great for CCD still pictures of stars and planets, but, I haven't heard of one for motion picture cameras.

TS

Jay Gladwell · July 20th, 2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

If you use the XL2 and its standard Canon zoom lens, a full moon actually overlaps the top and bottom sides of the video frame (at maximum zoom).

Not in Miami it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to overlapping the frame edges.

Jay

TingSern Wong · July 20th, 2005, 09:50 PM

Hmmm, I am surprised. Singapore is 1 deg N Latitude. Nearly sea level mostly. I shoot my XL2 with Canon XL zoom (20X - the lens that comes with XL2 standard) and it does overlaps top and bottom by a little bit. Are you sure you are not using the older 16X Canon XL zoom then?

TS

Jay Gladwell · July 21st, 2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TingSern Wong

Hmmm, I am surprised. Singapore is 1 deg N Latitude. Nearly sea level mostly. I shoot my XL2 with Canon XL zoom (20X - the lens that comes with XL2 standard) and it does overlaps top and bottom by a little bit. Are you sure you are not using the older 16X Canon XL zoom then?TS

I may be getting old, but I do know the difference between the 16x and the 20x lens. ;o)

We're at sea level. Our coordinates are:
Latitude: 25° 47' North
Longitude: 80° 13' West

Jay

TingSern Wong · July 21st, 2005, 08:31 PM

I am thinking - what aspect ratio are you shooting on your XL2 then? 16:9 or 4:3 - the magnification you get at 4:3 is higher than 16:9 - because of the way XL2 screens its CCD. If I shoot the moon using 16:9, it won't overlap the frame edges - unless I use the 20X zoom with XL teleconvertor as well. Setting the aspect ratio to 4:3 - I can see the moon touching the top and bottom of the frame on my 20X zoom.

Jay Gladwell · July 22nd, 2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TingSern Wong

I am thinking - what aspect ratio are you shooting on your XL2 then? 16:9 or 4:3 - the magnification you get at 4:3 is higher than 16:9 - because of the way XL2 screens its CCD. If I shoot the moon using 16:9, it won't overlap the frame edges - unless I use the 20X zoom with XL teleconvertor as well. Setting the aspect ratio to 4:3 - I can see the moon touching the top and bottom of the frame on my 20X zoom.

Shooting in 4:3.

Jay

January 4th, 2005, 05:40 PM	#34
Brian Gauthier Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: honolulu, hi Posts: 54	! Aloha ! Nice work from a fellow Hawaiian surf photographer...

January 4th, 2005, 05:53 PM	#35
Terence Reis New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Waipahu, Hawaii Posts: 24	Mahalo Brian! Still learning how to use the XL2. Just a rookie here. I bring it out with me on my shoots. I'm a bit torn between using XL2 shooting video, and using my SLR's. Enjoy shooting both still shots and video. It would be great if they could put both of these worlds in one camera that I could afford. -Terry __________________ Shredder

July 20th, 2005, 07:27 PM	#37
Clint Grant Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 125	Awsome!! Awsome footage all around! I really, REALLY liked the surfing stuff! But that moon was amazing. When you were filming the moon, did you have the lens at full telophoto? (Just curious of HOW close that moon was....) I wish the moon was that close where I live..... Clint Grant

January 3rd, 2005, 10:40 AM	#31
TingSern Wong Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore, Rep of SINGAPORE Posts: 749	Hello deLange, I am curious how good the Optex adaptor is. Usually, a lens manufacturer don't optimise their lenses on 3rd party cameras! Never heard of anybody boasting about quality of a Nikkor lens mounted on a Canon EOS SLR and vice versa. Unless that fellow is a dedicated 3rd party like Sigma, Tamron, etc. I have lots of AFS Nikkor lenses with me - but the Canon EF system is dedicated only to my XL1 and XL2. I do have 2 Canon 35mm zoom lenses which I brought specifically for use on XL1 and XL2. Using EF convertor and EF lens on manual focus (but auto aperature), I found that it is possible to obtain a very sharp image. On XL1, I can't focus using that camera's LCD monitor - had to resort to using Nebtek's external LCD monitor. XL2 improved LCD monitor is much sharper and can actually be used as focusing aid. Still I confirm the focusing using external LCD monitor .... If the Optex is okay, I might consider getting one myself to optimise my usage of my Nikkor lenses collection. TS

January 3rd, 2005, 12:41 PM	#32
A. J. deLange Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: McLean, VA United States Posts: 749	TS, As there are no optics involved all that is necessary is to machine a piece in which the front (lens) and back (camera) sides are very parallel and to make it thick enough that the back focus plane of the Nikkor lens falls on the CCDs. It's no different in concept from the Canon adapter except that the Canon adapter carries the electrical connections through to the lens and the OpTek adapter does not. As the Nikkors have good resolution and as the CCD's are small relative to a 35mm frame you are only using the best part of the lens's coverage (near the axis) and the results are quite good. There is a sample at http://homepage.mac.com/ajdel/FileSharing5.html This is uncompressed DV right out of an XL1s of a Tiger Swallowtail butterfly shot with a 105 mm Macro Nikkor which is, I think, the sharpest lens I have ever owned for any camera at any time. The file is big (138 mbyte) but I didn't want compression to get in the way. So for $265 (US) I was able to take thousands of $ worth of old glass out of mothballs and start using them again. A good investment to my way of thinking. Slight change of subject: I called ZGC to order the Ronsight today and was told that at the moment it's only available for the XL1s but that the XL2 version is in the works and will be available soon. So as I know Ron reads this thread my message to him is "Hit the milling machine!" I'm most anxious to try this out. A.J.

January 3rd, 2005, 01:24 PM	#33
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	You are right on about the parallax in the RONSIGHT. However it is of minimum concern unless you are shooting at less than 50 yards( depending on lens power). Even at close distances it only requires minimum adjustment, and is easily compensated for. You will find it invaluable in wildlife videography. For my use, it has decreased the lock on time by as much as 20 seconds or more. A grizzly bear can do a lot in that amount of time!!! The RONSIGHT does work with the XL2 with the removal of the clip that holds the viewfinder cable. I'll cover that more thoroughly with ZGC. They are good people and will take care of you. I have friends that use Nikon lenses with the XL cams with excellent results. Some well known photogs that you would recognize use 400 2.8 lenses with the OpTek converter, available from ZGC. I machined my own for Canon FD lenses, but don't recommend anyone trying it! There's a lot of good glass out there, that is relatively inexpensive and gives some excellent results. You may have to put up with manual focus and zoom,but it may be worth it. I use a 50 - 300 mm FD lens, often with a 1.4 converter for wolves, grizzlies and general wildlife. It works great!!

January 5th, 2005, 04:03 PM	#36
Chris Ward Contributor Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: New England Posts: 68	I think you overlit the moon. I'd try less key light.

July 20th, 2005, 08:07 PM	#38
TingSern Wong Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore, Rep of SINGAPORE Posts: 749	Moon is 250,000 miles away from Earth (more or less - by plus or minus 20,000 miles). As I write today, the moon will be at its closest approach to Earth this year. However, in terms of actual size, the difference we can see is only half a second - hardly any difference in terms of naked eye viewing. Everywhere on Earth, we see the Moon as the same size (really). No difference where you live in. Even if you stay on top of Hawaiian volcanoes, 11,000 feet up, the size of the Moon is probably bigger by only 1/4 arc second - no way we can tell the difference. If you use the XL2 and its standard Canon zoom lens, a full moon actually overlaps the top and bottom sides of the video frame (at maximum zoom). Use a 35mm SLR (Canon EF) lens like 300mm on XL2, you get 3000mm (nearly), and you find that it moves too fast to capture it properly ... Unless you have access to a sideral motor drive (which rotates its platform in lock step with Earth's rotation) ... great for CCD still pictures of stars and planets, but, I haven't heard of one for motion picture cameras. TS

July 20th, 2005, 09:50 PM	#40
TingSern Wong Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore, Rep of SINGAPORE Posts: 749	Hmmm, I am surprised. Singapore is 1 deg N Latitude. Nearly sea level mostly. I shoot my XL2 with Canon XL zoom (20X - the lens that comes with XL2 standard) and it does overlaps top and bottom by a little bit. Are you sure you are not using the older 16X Canon XL zoom then? TS

July 21st, 2005, 08:31 PM	#42
TingSern Wong Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore, Rep of SINGAPORE Posts: 749	I am thinking - what aspect ratio are you shooting on your XL2 then? 16:9 or 4:3 - the magnification you get at 4:3 is higher than 16:9 - because of the way XL2 screens its CCD. If I shoot the moon using 16:9, it won't overlap the frame edges - unless I use the 20X zoom with XL teleconvertor as well. Setting the aspect ratio to 4:3 - I can see the moon touching the top and bottom of the frame on my 20X zoom.