HDR-FX1 hack: lens disassembly pics

Ignacio Rodriguez · January 4th, 2005, 10:20 PM

Is the sensor size similar to that of 16mm film? It would make sense if the mount could use lenses intended for 16mm cameras, perhaps. Just a thought straight out of my head... I have never even used a 16mm camera myself!

Joel Corral · January 4th, 2005, 10:51 PM

you fricken psycho. i don't under stand why anyone would want to do that but..... ok

John Gaspain · January 5th, 2005, 01:43 AM

friggen psychos

Joonas Kiviharju · January 5th, 2005, 01:47 AM

If you are using 35mm lenses, all your lenses are going to be really tele. As with the XL2, they will be ~7 times more tele than what it says on the lense (in comparison to view angle.) So you will not have a wide angle at all. Using video lenses is a better idea, but they'll also be somewhat tele. So I would suggest anyone wanting to do this, think twice if you need a wide angle!

But, great work. Looking forward to some more modifications.

Evan Estay · January 5th, 2005, 02:13 AM

I salute your creativity....but you really did this only for a telephoto option? Century optics 1.6 Tele-converter, anyone? I tried to enlarge the example pic where you were focusing on the keyboard, i saw no zoom level marker on the LCD, am i correct?

I am not really an expert cameraman/AC but why are you switching out a Zeiss for a Nikon? It seems to me the only thing I would rather have in front of the CCD is some glass produced by panavision (again, only speaking from my limited exp).

Anyways, I again tried out the .4 fisheye from century optics on my FX1 today, century makes some great glass, really professional. Im brabbing the .32 fisheye and the 1.6 later this month.

I guess what Im saying is it seems more reasonable to me to just grab an adapter, but whatever floats your boat.

One thing i was wondering from this experiment...is there a way to easily and cleanly remove the on board microphone without any kind of gaping hole? that might be something I would be interest later on.

<<<-- Originally posted by Filip Kovcin : i will do the same the very next day when my camera finally arrives!!!!!
-->>>

yeah somehow i doubt that your first urge after buying an the camera will be to break it open. you have no experience in operating the camera, why would you change out one of (if not the) most important acccesory from day 1?
that just strikes me as a little ignorant. Sometimes I wish we could have an FX1 forum for hearsay, "my friend told me..." stories and general rubbish spouted by people who do not own the camera. Not to sound harsh, but I have had to sift through a lot of blatantly false information, misstated facts and garbage from people who were just talking out of their ass. It really is detrimental to someone who is looking to research this pricey investment.

Filip Kovcin · January 5th, 2005, 02:47 AM

sorry Evan, but with your permition - i WILL do whatever i want to do with my camera.
even to throw it thru window if i wish. (but i will not :))

if you do not beleive - sorry. that's your opinion. i do not want to push anyone to beleive me.

if you need to now why i'm so entusiastic about that - it's because with this dissasembling you can do whatever you want - to use 35mm still lenses, to use 2/3" video lenses, to use aldu/agus adapter more easier, to "glue" mini 35 directly to ccd without fighting with normal - already connected with the camera body - lenses (it will short all unit), and probably you can put CCD upside down to have instantly proper image when using aldu/agus adapters etc.

and this is fantastic.

but if you want to see my dissasembling - i'm kindly invite you to poland to dissasemble Z1 together.

all the best,

filip

Steve Crisdale · January 5th, 2005, 04:20 AM

I guess for some people it's just like customizing a car.

Some mod their stock standards with fairings or mags, while some go way out....dropping in new blocks and all!!

I just have the quezzie feeling that doing this to a FX-1 or Z1 is a bit like customizing something like the Mazda RX-8....

Sony may not realize it yet, but I feel this camera is a piece of classic technology, and the gains you get from messing with classic technology are usually of very minor consequence.

Matteo Ricchetti · January 5th, 2005, 05:15 AM

just to explain why: I own this camera and I am very happy of the quality of it. I work with BetacamSP and DV and I am used to digital betacam as well. This is far better of all of them.
The weakness of this camera is indeed the lens: not too bad but not as good as the electronics. The main defect is a color fringe (red/gren) that sometimes appears and a little soft focus when not used at totally wide or tele zoom (mid tele is not so good).

If you make nature documentary you need to switch to serious telephoto lens and the add-on converters are not so good. The same for macro...

I have always made lens adapters for my cameras since an old Hitachi 3 tubes in the '80.. Hope in a few day to put some images talken with this modification.. bye, Matte

Filip Kovcin · January 5th, 2005, 05:20 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale :
Sony may not realize it yet, but I feel this camera is a piece of classic technology, and the gains you get from messing with classic technology are usually of very minor consequence. -->>>

steve, i agree on this what you said, i also beleive that this peace is again THE classic. like many other sony models.

but if you can do something WITOUT destroing (at least i beleive that nothing will be destroyed durnig that process) there is no problem.

you stil have the camera, you have the all parts around - you can use it the way you like it. and if you can and know how to put it back when needed and your camera still works... who cares.

anyhow - i beleive that every owner of the camera can do whatever he wants to do with it - if this is not dangerous for other people's healt (and his own fo course).

just a thought

all the best,

filip

Filip Kovcin · January 5th, 2005, 05:24 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Matteo Ricchetti : I work with BetacamSP and DV and I am used to digital betacam as well. This is far better of all of them.
-->>>

matteo,

will you use B4 2/3" mount on your unit or what?

(BTW i'm also working in beta world)

filip

Penfold Plum · January 5th, 2005, 05:59 AM

Evan I understand that you wouldn't want to experiment this way with your camera, but people are free to do whatever they want with theirs. And I personally think it's rather interesting.

Evan Estay · January 5th, 2005, 06:00 AM

Matteo...

Sorry I am not following you quite all the way. Your saying a flaw of the stock Zeiss has something to do with the way it renders red/green colors? I can kind of follow you on the soft focus in mid tele (but again, keep in mind im not really a DP/AC)

Have you been able to shoot any sample clips with the new lens? If you could post a clip or two I know the entire community would be grateful. Also, what particular Nikon lens are you using?

edit:
penfold: that wasnt neccesarily a comment on this thread but this forum in general. I mean....this is actually one the of the best explained, documented and techinical threads with real world results I have seen! :P

Shannon Rawls · January 5th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Everybody is calling them crazy and insane....

Why?

How do you know they don't have a $750,000.00 budget to shoot a horror film in March 2005???

And they told their Exec-producer that they will use $3500.00 of their $750,000.00 to make some non-destroying experiments to get that perfect shot...and if it works, they will buy 5 of these cameras and do the same if its a success? (Spike Lee used 20 brand new minidv cameras on Bamboozled).

Everybody is not a wedding videographer who has to beg their wife to dip into the savings account to buy gear, guys! *smile*

- Shannon W. Rawls

Joel Corral · January 5th, 2005, 12:17 PM

ok......... did you find pee pee in your cheerios?

Steven Gotz · January 5th, 2005, 12:17 PM

Well, Shannon, of course you are right.

But as a prosumer, it still rattles me right down to the bones to see something I worked many hours to buy, treated that way. Yes, they probably know what they are doing. But it is a fearful thing to see.

I used to rip things apart when I was a kid. When I went into the Army, I learned to put stuff back together.

Now, I pretty much use things they way they came from the factory.

January 4th, 2005, 10:20 PM	#16
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Is the sensor size similar to that of 16mm film? It would make sense if the mount could use lenses intended for 16mm cameras, perhaps. Just a thought straight out of my head... I have never even used a 16mm camera myself! __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

January 5th, 2005, 01:43 AM	#18
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	friggen psychos __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

January 5th, 2005, 02:47 AM	#21
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	to Evan sorry Evan, but with your permition - i WILL do whatever i want to do with my camera. even to throw it thru window if i wish. (but i will not :)) if you do not beleive - sorry. that's your opinion. i do not want to push anyone to beleive me. if you need to now why i'm so entusiastic about that - it's because with this dissasembling you can do whatever you want - to use 35mm still lenses, to use 2/3" video lenses, to use aldu/agus adapter more easier, to "glue" mini 35 directly to ccd without fighting with normal - already connected with the camera body - lenses (it will short all unit), and probably you can put CCD upside down to have instantly proper image when using aldu/agus adapters etc. and this is fantastic. but if you want to see my dissasembling - i'm kindly invite you to poland to dissasemble Z1 together. all the best, filip

January 5th, 2005, 04:20 AM	#22
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	Re: to Evan I guess for some people it's just like customizing a car. Some mod their stock standards with fairings or mags, while some go way out....dropping in new blocks and all!! I just have the quezzie feeling that doing this to a FX-1 or Z1 is a bit like customizing something like the Mazda RX-8.... Sony may not realize it yet, but I feel this camera is a piece of classic technology, and the gains you get from messing with classic technology are usually of very minor consequence.

January 5th, 2005, 05:20 AM	#24
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	to Steve <<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : Sony may not realize it yet, but I feel this camera is a piece of classic technology, and the gains you get from messing with classic technology are usually of very minor consequence. -->>> steve, i agree on this what you said, i also beleive that this peace is again THE classic. like many other sony models. but if you can do something WITOUT destroing (at least i beleive that nothing will be destroyed durnig that process) there is no problem. you stil have the camera, you have the all parts around - you can use it the way you like it. and if you can and know how to put it back when needed and your camera still works... who cares. anyhow - i beleive that every owner of the camera can do whatever he wants to do with it - if this is not dangerous for other people's healt (and his own fo course). just a thought all the best, filip

January 4th, 2005, 10:51 PM	#17
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	you fricken psycho. i don't under stand why anyone would want to do that but..... ok

January 5th, 2005, 01:47 AM	#19
Joonas Kiviharju Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 52	If you are using 35mm lenses, all your lenses are going to be really tele. As with the XL2, they will be ~7 times more tele than what it says on the lense (in comparison to view angle.) So you will not have a wide angle at all. Using video lenses is a better idea, but they'll also be somewhat tele. So I would suggest anyone wanting to do this, think twice if you need a wide angle! But, great work. Looking forward to some more modifications.

January 5th, 2005, 02:13 AM	#20
Evan Estay Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hollywood Posts: 28	I salute your creativity....but you really did this only for a telephoto option? Century optics 1.6 Tele-converter, anyone? I tried to enlarge the example pic where you were focusing on the keyboard, i saw no zoom level marker on the LCD, am i correct? I am not really an expert cameraman/AC but why are you switching out a Zeiss for a Nikon? It seems to me the only thing I would rather have in front of the CCD is some glass produced by panavision (again, only speaking from my limited exp). Anyways, I again tried out the .4 fisheye from century optics on my FX1 today, century makes some great glass, really professional. Im brabbing the .32 fisheye and the 1.6 later this month. I guess what Im saying is it seems more reasonable to me to just grab an adapter, but whatever floats your boat. One thing i was wondering from this experiment...is there a way to easily and cleanly remove the on board microphone without any kind of gaping hole? that might be something I would be interest later on. <<<-- Originally posted by Filip Kovcin : i will do the same the very next day when my camera finally arrives!!!!! -->>> yeah somehow i doubt that your first urge after buying an the camera will be to break it open. you have no experience in operating the camera, why would you change out one of (if not the) most important acccesory from day 1? that just strikes me as a little ignorant. Sometimes I wish we could have an FX1 forum for hearsay, "my friend told me..." stories and general rubbish spouted by people who do not own the camera. Not to sound harsh, but I have had to sift through a lot of blatantly false information, misstated facts and garbage from people who were just talking out of their ass. It really is detrimental to someone who is looking to research this pricey investment.

January 5th, 2005, 05:15 AM	#23
Matteo Ricchetti Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Italy Posts: 39	just to explain why: I own this camera and I am very happy of the quality of it. I work with BetacamSP and DV and I am used to digital betacam as well. This is far better of all of them. The weakness of this camera is indeed the lens: not too bad but not as good as the electronics. The main defect is a color fringe (red/gren) that sometimes appears and a little soft focus when not used at totally wide or tele zoom (mid tele is not so good). If you make nature documentary you need to switch to serious telephoto lens and the add-on converters are not so good. The same for macro... I have always made lens adapters for my cameras since an old Hitachi 3 tubes in the '80.. Hope in a few day to put some images talken with this modification.. bye, Matte

January 5th, 2005, 05:24 AM	#25
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	to matteo <<<-- Originally posted by Matteo Ricchetti : I work with BetacamSP and DV and I am used to digital betacam as well. This is far better of all of them. -->>> matteo, will you use B4 2/3" mount on your unit or what? (BTW i'm also working in beta world) filip

January 5th, 2005, 05:59 AM	#26
Penfold Plum New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: London England Posts: 15	Evan I understand that you wouldn't want to experiment this way with your camera, but people are free to do whatever they want with theirs. And I personally think it's rather interesting.

January 5th, 2005, 06:00 AM	#27
Evan Estay Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hollywood Posts: 28	Matteo... Sorry I am not following you quite all the way. Your saying a flaw of the stock Zeiss has something to do with the way it renders red/green colors? I can kind of follow you on the soft focus in mid tele (but again, keep in mind im not really a DP/AC) Have you been able to shoot any sample clips with the new lens? If you could post a clip or two I know the entire community would be grateful. Also, what particular Nikon lens are you using? edit: penfold: that wasnt neccesarily a comment on this thread but this forum in general. I mean....this is actually one the of the best explained, documented and techinical threads with real world results I have seen! :P

January 5th, 2005, 11:55 AM	#28
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	Everybody is calling them crazy and insane.... Why? How do you know they don't have a $750,000.00 budget to shoot a horror film in March 2005??? And they told their Exec-producer that they will use $3500.00 of their $750,000.00 to make some non-destroying experiments to get that perfect shot...and if it works, they will buy 5 of these cameras and do the same if its a success? (Spike Lee used 20 brand new minidv cameras on Bamboozled). Everybody is not a wedding videographer who has to beg their wife to dip into the savings account to buy gear, guys! smile - Shannon W. Rawls

January 5th, 2005, 12:17 PM	#29
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	ok......... did you find pee pee in your cheerios?

January 5th, 2005, 12:17 PM	#30
Steven Gotz Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Clermont, FL Posts: 1,520	Well, Shannon, of course you are right. But as a prosumer, it still rattles me right down to the bones to see something I worked many hours to buy, treated that way. Yes, they probably know what they are doing. But it is a fearful thing to see. I used to rip things apart when I was a kid. When I went into the Army, I learned to put stuff back together. Now, I pretty much use things they way they came from the factory.