Nikon G to Sony PMW-EX3 adaptor

Ofer Levy · June 18th, 2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

The stock lens is pretty good IMHO. When you start putting $30k broadcast HD lenses on the EX3 and find you can tell the difference in image quality for the majority of shots it says a lot about the EX3/EX1 lens. Sure it's not perfect, but it does a good job for the money.

When the NanoFlash arrives (not long now) this will be the final piece in the jigsaw. While the FlashXDR is a great piece of kit, it's just too big for my liking, I think the Nano is better suited to the EX. The availability of adapters for various lenses, whether it's 2/3" HD or 35mm lenses direct or via the large number of 35mm DoF adapters now tailored for the EX. The EX3 can be the core of a remarkably flexible camera system at a price/quality point never seen before.

I agree the Flash XDR is a bit big to mount on the EX3 but I always use a tripod and mount the Flash XDR on the tripod so there is no problem. The NanoFlash would be the ideal solution for most users in the field.I can see a significant difference in quality between the stock zoom lens and all my Nikon lenses, however, I don't know whether there is an alternative which is wide enough to replace the stock lens.
I consider getting the Nikon 12-24 f4 or Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for wide angle shots but with the 5.4 crop factor it won't be that wide.
I also agree with you that the image quality/price of the EX3 is exceptional. Using it with the Flash XDR/NanoFlash which gives you 100 Mbs and even more as opposed to a max of 35Mbs of the EX3 - takes it to the next level IMO.
Cheers,
http:Ofer Levy Photography

Vincent Oliver · June 18th, 2009, 08:20 AM

Try to borrow a 12-24mm lens to try it out first, or just pop into your local camera store and ask to mount it on your EX3. I think you will be dissapointed with the results.

IMHO lenses from 85mm through to 300mm work best. I will post a review of Mike's and Steve's adaptor shortly. Both have their good and bad points and both do an excellent job with Nikon lenses.

Steve Phillipps · June 18th, 2009, 12:25 PM

I have to agree with Alister re the stock lens, I think it's really good.
I tested it against some of the best nikons ever made (55 f2.8 micro, 105 f2.5 and 17-35 f2.8AF) and the stock lens was better than all of them - much to my surprise.
It also handles superbly with the manual focus, zoom and iris all being smooth and sweet
Steve

Vincent Oliver · June 18th, 2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

I tested it against some of the best nikons ever made (55 f2.8 micro, 105 f2.5 and 17-35 f2.8AF) and the stock lens was better than all of them - much to my surprise.
Steve

I would get your Nikon lenses seen to, the 55 and 105 should totally outperform the stock lens - at least my lenses do. Especially when it comes to Chromatic aberations.

I also agree that the stock lens is superb and obviously it is far more versatile than a fixed focal lenght lens.

Steve Phillipps · June 18th, 2009, 12:36 PM

Nothing wrong with my stills lenses AFAIK, they're great on my DSLR. Again, I was really surprised, I assumed the Nikons would be better, just a question of by how much.
Can you do some side-by-sides for us to see? I may have mine somewhere still.
Steve

Vincent Oliver · June 18th, 2009, 12:41 PM

Here is a short clip using a variety of Nikkors (Old series). I will be posting a full review of Mike's and Steve's adaptors asap.

Sony EX3 Nikon mount

Ofer Levy · June 18th, 2009, 03:35 PM

Hi Vincent, this is an interesting clip. I feel it is not that easy to get the right impression by watching it though. I believe the way to do this kind of comparison is to show the two images side by side on a split screen. In some of your shots the exposure wasn't the same so it is really not easy to judge the picture quality (I assume this is what you were trying to show? )
Another point which is worth mentioning IMO is that the mentioned Nikon to EX3 adaptors dont effect the picture quality in any way as there is no glass in them.
Last thing is that you can easily eliminate the vibrations seen in some of the clips by using a rubber band attached to the handle. I use the Nikon 600 f5.6 and even the Nikon 800 f8 on the EX3 and there are no vibrations as I never touch the fluid head's handle with my hand - always throught the rubber band. Check out this clip Lesser Kestrel, Sony PMW EX3, Nikon 600 f5.6 on Vimeo
Cheers,
Ofer

Vincent Oliver · June 19th, 2009, 12:07 AM

Ofer,

This clip was put together in a couple of hours when I got the first version of Mike Tapa's EX mount. I now have the second version of both Mike's and Steve's mounts and will do a side by side comparison (filming over the weekend). You are quite right there are no optics in the mounts, so the results will be identical. However, there is a world of difference in the way the two mounts handle, both have their good and bad points - as usual my reviews are based on the product's capabilities, without influence from the manufacturer.

I will also include some frame grabs comparing the Stock lens agains the Nikkors.

I used a fixed aperture of F8 for the exposures on the clip, I too was surprised how much variation there was. I will test for this again, maybe I just got it wrong (at least I hope that's the case).

Thanks for the tip on vibration reduction, I will give this a go.

Ofer Levy · June 19th, 2009, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Oliver

Ofer,

This clip was put together in a couple of hours when I got the first version of Mike Tapa's EX mount. I now have the second version of both Mike's and Steve's mounts and will do a side by side comparison (filming over the weekend). You are quite right there are no optics in the mounts, so the results will be identical. However, there is a world of difference in the way the two mounts handle, both have their good and bad points - as usual my reviews are based on the product's capabilities, without influence from the manufacturer.

I will also include some frame grabs comparing the Stock lens agains the Nikkors.

I used a fixed aperture of F8 for the exposures on the clip, I too was surprised how much variation there was. I will test for this again, maybe I just got it wrong (at least I hope that's the case).

Thanks for the tip on vibration reduction, I will give this a go.

Thanks Vincent, well done, looking forward to see your findings.
Regards,
Ofer

Patrick McLoad · January 11th, 2011, 08:05 AM

These adapter rings are quite interesting. Has anyone used one on a PMW-350? Is back-focus not a concern since there is no zoom-through? I am personally more interested in macro capabilities as opposed to 1,000 mm shots.

Patrick McLoad

Steve Phillipps · January 12th, 2011, 05:39 AM

Back focus is not really relevant if you meaning holding focus while zooming, as with stills lenses they never hold anyway as they're not designed to. You'll always just use a zoom as a variable prime.
Steve

Patrick McLoad · January 13th, 2011, 07:42 AM

Thanks Steve.....I was thinking along those same lines. But as you know, strange things begin to happen the further away the back element is from the image sensor. But if it was problematic, then I guess they wouldn't be selling these either.

Patrick McLoad

June 18th, 2009, 08:20 AM	#32
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	Try to borrow a 12-24mm lens to try it out first, or just pop into your local camera store and ask to mount it on your EX3. I think you will be dissapointed with the results. IMHO lenses from 85mm through to 300mm work best. I will post a review of Mike's and Steve's adaptor shortly. Both have their good and bad points and both do an excellent job with Nikon lenses. __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

June 18th, 2009, 12:41 PM	#36
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	Here is a short clip using a variety of Nikkors (Old series). I will be posting a full review of Mike's and Steve's adaptors asap. Sony EX3 Nikon mount __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

June 19th, 2009, 12:07 AM	#38
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	Ofer, This clip was put together in a couple of hours when I got the first version of Mike Tapa's EX mount. I now have the second version of both Mike's and Steve's mounts and will do a side by side comparison (filming over the weekend). You are quite right there are no optics in the mounts, so the results will be identical. However, there is a world of difference in the way the two mounts handle, both have their good and bad points - as usual my reviews are based on the product's capabilities, without influence from the manufacturer. I will also include some frame grabs comparing the Stock lens agains the Nikkors. I used a fixed aperture of F8 for the exposures on the clip, I too was surprised how much variation there was. I will test for this again, maybe I just got it wrong (at least I hope that's the case). Thanks for the tip on vibration reduction, I will give this a go. __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

June 18th, 2009, 12:25 PM	#33
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	I have to agree with Alister re the stock lens, I think it's really good. I tested it against some of the best nikons ever made (55 f2.8 micro, 105 f2.5 and 17-35 f2.8AF) and the stock lens was better than all of them - much to my surprise. It also handles superbly with the manual focus, zoom and iris all being smooth and sweet Steve

June 18th, 2009, 12:36 PM	#35
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Nothing wrong with my stills lenses AFAIK, they're great on my DSLR. Again, I was really surprised, I assumed the Nikons would be better, just a question of by how much. Can you do some side-by-sides for us to see? I may have mine somewhere still. Steve

June 18th, 2009, 03:35 PM	#37
Ofer Levy Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney-Australia Posts: 443	Hi Vincent, this is an interesting clip. I feel it is not that easy to get the right impression by watching it though. I believe the way to do this kind of comparison is to show the two images side by side on a split screen. In some of your shots the exposure wasn't the same so it is really not easy to judge the picture quality (I assume this is what you were trying to show? ) Another point which is worth mentioning IMO is that the mentioned Nikon to EX3 adaptors dont effect the picture quality in any way as there is no glass in them. Last thing is that you can easily eliminate the vibrations seen in some of the clips by using a rubber band attached to the handle. I use the Nikon 600 f5.6 and even the Nikon 800 f8 on the EX3 and there are no vibrations as I never touch the fluid head's handle with my hand - always throught the rubber band. Check out this clip Lesser Kestrel, Sony PMW EX3, Nikon 600 f5.6 on Vimeo Cheers, Ofer

January 11th, 2011, 08:05 AM	#40
Patrick McLoad Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 52	These adapter rings are quite interesting. Has anyone used one on a PMW-350? Is back-focus not a concern since there is no zoom-through? I am personally more interested in macro capabilities as opposed to 1,000 mm shots. Patrick McLoad

January 12th, 2011, 05:39 AM	#41
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Back focus is not really relevant if you meaning holding focus while zooming, as with stills lenses they never hold anyway as they're not designed to. You'll always just use a zoom as a variable prime. Steve

January 13th, 2011, 07:42 AM	#42
Patrick McLoad Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 52	Thanks Steve.....I was thinking along those same lines. But as you know, strange things begin to happen the further away the back element is from the image sensor. But if it was problematic, then I guess they wouldn't be selling these either. Patrick McLoad