PL to JVC GY-HD100/250

[Eric Gulbransen]

From the builder of the nicest (in my opinion) Nikon to JVC lens mount, Mike Tapa of MTF Services Ltd, came a very interesting email to me this morning. Apparently Mike's been busy working on a PL mount for our JVCs. Looks to have no glass so it'll be far less expensive than the JVC PL mount, and it will introduce a 5X magnification factor.

[Tim Dashwood]

Yes this should work without issue since there is plenty of back flange to work with.

The "5X magnification factor" you mention is misleading and confusing because no reference frame is given (Super-35, 35 academy, S-16, 16mm, 135, etc.) I prefer to use the term "cropping factor" to avoid the confusion Canon started all those years ago with the EOS to XL adapter.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: "Focal length is focal length" when it comes to direct adapters. A 50mm PL lens will render the EXACT SAME FIELD OF VIEW as a 50mm 1/3" bayonet mount lens when used with the suggested adapter. All of the optical characteristics will be exactly the same... including depth of field.
There are no extenders or magnifiers in play.

It actually makes a whole lot of sense to build a direct PL to 1/3 adapter because there are many 16mm primes available that would still be wide enough to render a suitable wide shot in 1/3". (3.5mm T1.8 or 5.9mm T1.8) The only thing is that since these lenses are considered "fisheye" on 16mm they don't have focus rings.
8mm & 9.5mm might realistically be the ideal wide PL lenses for 1/3".
Canon, Angenieux, Zeiss & Cooke have some nice 16mm wide zooms that can be rented for anywhere between $50 and $300/day, but considering the small splitting prism and possible CA I wonder if there would be any advantage over a quality ENG zoom?

[Eric Gulbransen]

Yeah, you're right Tim. Once I got past the year it took me to finally, really, understand why the "X" factor exists and what it actually refers to, well I guess the term had already become second nature. Sorry if I confused anyone.

Here's a question for you Tim - do you think using this PL mount will also introduce "The Phantom Red Flare" problem that sometimes occurs when using the 35mm bayonet lens mounts for Nikon to JVC? I don't remember you ever chiming in on that issue. I think because many of us discussed these issues, and trying to solve them, while you were going through your quiet time a while back. I put a lot of frame grabs up here on DVinfo, and tried a lot of suggested fixes. Never did solve it though. Best avoidance tactic I came up with was stopping down to avoid blowing out any highlights. I tried tiny 16/9 masks inside the adapter, masks in front of the lens, I even dressed like a chicken once. Nothing worked.

I know it's not what you typically shoot, but for some applications the X factor (crop factor) actually helps you reach some subjects you might never get. So solving the flare issue, or at least understanding what exactly it is, could actually be helpful to those using Nikon lenses on these JVCs.

[John-Paul Bonadonna]

Can someone explain to me the differences between these mounts and the $4000 JVC mount in terms of quality?

Thanks!

jpb

[Edward Tomecko]

Eric are you using the Nikon to bayonet adapter on an HD 100? If so, How does it compliment your shooting? Does it give you a narrow DOF albeit shooting from a distance? How far away do you have to shoot to compensate for the &X factor. Thanks

[Eric Gulbransen]

John-Paul, the JVC adapter is longer (and more expensive) because it has glass in it. That glass takes the the whole image of whatever lens you're mounting to it, then "re-sizes" it from what it was designed to be, and now sends it to your much smaller JVC HDxxx 3ccd sensor. This way when you want to shoot your girlfriend at the piano next to the Christmas tree, you can use your 24mm PL lens. Whereas if you were to mount a 24mm Nikon lens onto your JVC, with a bayonet mount, all you'd probably see is your girlfriend's back, her head, and a few keys of the piano - because like Tim pointed out, without glass inside the adapter, all your JVC 3ccd sensor is going to do is "crop" a small portion of what that 24mm lens actually projects toward the sensor. It's confusing, and it's not. Put a different way, the JVC adapter lets you use the entire 24mm image. The nikon bayonet adapter only lets you cut a small portion of that 24mm image out.

When you use the bayonet adapter and a 24mm Nikon lens on your JVC, you end up capturing only 14% of the 24mm image that the lens is designed to send to the camera. That's why people refer to the 7x multiplication factor. If you wanted to use a lens that captured only your girlfriend's shoulder and piano keys, like your Nikon 24mm did on your JVC, taken from the same spot, on a full frame (35mm) DSLR, it would have to be about a 170mm lens. 24 x 7 = 168



Edward, I owned a 200 for a year and a few months. I used the MTF bayonet adapter and Nikons all the time. Mostly for shooting wildlife because I'm afraid of people. Problem is Great Blue Herons don't pay so good. Shooting birds (or as Brian Luce refers to anything with feathers "Ducks") there's just about no other way to get the job done (well). Using the stock lens, or even the 17 and 18x lenses, you'll always push them to their telephoto limits and their limits will rarely be enough (shooting wildlife, or sports, etc.). Plus, at these telephoto limits any number of bad things begin to happen to your image. Using the stock lens your image really suffers beginning at 55mm, and only gets worse the farther you reach. I've seen purple teeth, green hair, and nothing's crisp anymore. But with the bayonet mount and Nikons? Suddenly 88mm is no problem. Hell you're just beginning to have fun at 88mm. And now your image is NOT suffering. In fact it's pretty damn crisp. You will run into more problems holding your camera steady with a 300mm Nikon mounted than you will with the optics. Trust me.

For reference, I have a 28-70, an 80-200, a 300, and a 400mm. The lens I use most often is the 300mm. Birds at 30 feet to 50 yards, depending on the frame you're after, works great. I've shot surfers almost a mile away, literally, at Mavericks. I could get two guys on one (BIG) wave at that distance - but not the whole wave bottom to top. Then I could turn around and shoot a hawk on a fence post at 30 feet. I've shot kiteboarders from 75 yards - you just get the water below the board and sky just above their heads.

Practically speaking, if you want shallow dof, these adapters are not your answer. You'd need a radio to talk to your subjects. Or they'd have to be real small.

Here's some footage I shot a few months ago. All 300mm, or 13X (only two shots with the 13x). Distances varied from 25 feet to 50 yards. No story, no purpose. Just random clips I shot while hiding from my wife.

DUCKS


Here's another one, almost entirely shot with the 300mm. Few establishing shots with the 13x, few mid range shots with the 80-200.

CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS

[Stuart Nimmo]

Beautiful shots Eric, thanks for sharing.

[Edward Tomecko]

Eric, Thanks, that sure explains a lot! Awesome footage. Was that shot 720-30p? Thanks again.

[Eric Gulbransen]

Yes it was Edward. 720p 30. At first I shot everything in 60p. Eventually I shot almost nothing in 60p.

[Brian Luce]

Hey Eric, the duck stuff is great! What were you settings? Or did you use auto?

[Stefan Immler]

Nice duck shots, Eric! What tripod/head are you using for these shots?

[Eric Gulbransen]

Brian. I don't know what to say. I'm crying so hard my eye shadow's running.

To anyone concerned, yes there is someone in this community that shoots in auto mode.

And it's not me.




Stefan, Sachtler Vdieo 20 head, Oconnor carbon legs. Had I to do it again I might have spent the extra cash on a gym membership, met a few girls, then got aluminum legs instead. It's a lot less disgusting carrying carbon legs on a long hike, but they do flex a bit (I find).

[Stefan Immler]

Do I understand this correctly that the PL or Nikon JVC lens mounts give footage that is upside down (as opposed to the expensive JVC PL mount)? The HD100 cannot flip the footage, right?

[Edward Tomecko]

Couldn't you just use an external field monitor and mount it upside down during shooting and flip the footage in post?

[Stefan Immler]

Yes, that should work.