View Full Version : MTF 1/3" Nikon "G" Adapter


Stefan Immler
April 26th, 2009, 01:09 AM
Hi there --

I am in need to add a telephoto lens to my JVC and am intrigued by the new MTF Nikon G Lens to 1/3" Adapter. In addition to accepting the "no iris ring" Nikon G lenses, this adapter seems to be compatible with virtually all Nikon lenses.

Nikon G to 1/3" bayonet adaptor (http://www.mtfservices.com/mtf-products-list/mounts-and-adaptors/82-nikon-g-to-13q-bayonet-adaptor.html)

In particular, the Nikon 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 telephoto zoom could be a great addition due to its small price tag, size & weight, constant length and non-rotating front lens element (perfect for attaching a matte box on rails).

Has anyone experience with the new MTF G -> 1/3" adapter and that Nikon lens? (JVC, Sony, or Panasonic)

Cheers

Steve Phillipps
April 26th, 2009, 04:18 AM
You have to be very careful using stills lenses on small chip cameras, whatever their quality, but I'd be very wary about using anything but the absolute top of the line models (like Canon L series or Nikon EDIF) or you'll likely get iffy images.
With that in mind, for a lot of people you'd be better off just getting the standard Nikon adapter and a secondhand manual focus lens - they are cheaper and they tend to have better manual focus controls, and an iris on the lens.
Steve

Brian Standing
April 26th, 2009, 09:23 AM
You have to be very careful using stills lenses on small chip cameras, whatever their quality, but I'd be very wary about using anything but the absolute top of the line models

Really? I would have thought exactly the opposite. If you're looking at an SLR lens with a 1/3" CCD, you're cropping out the exact center portion of the lens, which in most lenses, is the sharpest, most optically pure part of the lens. I have always understood that one of the biggest difference between cheap SLR lenses and expensive ones is the edge-to-edge sharpness. If you're throwing away the edges by cropping out the center, who cares how sharp they are?

Is there something else here I'm missing?

Steve Phillipps
April 26th, 2009, 09:34 AM
Yeah, you would think so, but it doesn't work that way. Because the pixels on these chips are so small the lenses need massive resolving power, and you'll find that the line per mm of a 1/3" Fujinon lens will be many times greater than even the best 35mm stills lens ever made.
In practice the results rarely are as bad to the eye as the science suggests they should be, but it's definitely there.
Steve

Stefan Immler
April 26th, 2009, 10:00 AM
I don't think this is an issue with Nikon glass. Nikon makes some of the best lenses. I wouldn't use Tamron or Sigma lenses on my JVC, but original Nikon glass should give excellent results.

Steve Phillipps
April 26th, 2009, 11:25 AM
I don't think this is an issue with Nikon glass. Nikon makes some of the best lenses. I wouldn't use Tamron or Sigma lenses on my JVC, but original Nikon glass should give excellent results.

Not neccessarily, with most brands there are tiers of quality, and some are definitely better than others, and a good Sigma like the 120-300 will well-outperform the cheaper Nikons.
Steve

Bill Ravens
April 26th, 2009, 11:58 AM
I'm using an MTF adapter to mount older(with aperture rings) Nikon 35mm glass on my HD110. I achieve image qualities with the Nikon zooms that FAR exceed the images I get from my Fujinon 17x zoom lens . No, absolutely NO CA problems, which, in my mind, is a huge step forward. Considering the 7x magnification factor of a non-optical adapter, the smaller Nikon zoom is a 36-72mm effectively yielding the equivalent of 242-504mm. Incidentally, I paid $15 US for this lens from B&H used lens department. A pretty significant cost savings over the Fujinon 18x.

Steve Phillipps
April 26th, 2009, 01:08 PM
I'm using an MTF adapter to mount older(with aperture rings) Nikon 35mm glass on my HD110. I achieve image qualities with the Nikon zooms that FAR exceed the images I get from my Fujinon 17x zoom lens . No, absolutely NO CA problems, which, in my mind, is a huge step forward. Considering the 7x magnification factor of a non-optical adapter, the smaller Nikon zoom is a 36-72mm effectively yielding the equivalent of 242-504mm. Incidentally, I paid $15 US for this lens from B&H used lens department. A pretty significant cost savings over the Fujinon 18x.

In the words of Scotty from Star Trek, that's certainly bending the laws of physics Captain! Unless the Fujinon is an absolute dog. Even the most expenive stills lenses on even 2/3" HD cameras don't look as good as video lenses, so on 1/3" they should really suffer. But as I said the results never seem to be as bad the science would suggest.
Steve

Stefan Immler
April 26th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Even the most expenive stills lenses on even 2/3" HD cameras don't look as good as video lenses, so on 1/3" they should really suffer.
There are plenty of videos on this and other sites that prove the exact opposite. From what I have seen, high-quality Nikon lenses outperform most video lenses.

I decided to get one of the MTF Nikon -> 1/3" adapters and check it out.

Mike Tapa
April 26th, 2009, 01:24 PM
In the words of Scotty from Star Trek, that's certainly bending the laws of physics Captain! Unless the Fujinon is an absolute dog. Even the most expenive stills lenses on even 2/3" HD cameras don't look as good as video lenses, so on 1/3" they should really suffer. But as I said the results never seem to be as bad the science would suggest.
Steve
This issue has always been a bit of a paradox.
However, over the years, I have carried out MTF measurements on many lens systems whist working at Optex and even though the benchmark for, say 2/3" HD, is around 90% at 56LP/mm in zone 1, I have found that any half decent lens can resolve 140 to 200 LP/mm.
Actual MTF at those resolutions will be well down, but the resolving power is nonetheless there.

Bill Ravens
April 26th, 2009, 01:40 PM
Many a techie has been fooled by the obvious, thinking the equations(academic wisdom) show all, while a little empirical evidence(street smarts) show otherwise !!
I stand by my comments. Chromatic Aberration on the Fujinons(at least the ones that come with the HD110) are absolutely hideous. yet the 35mm lenses perform wonderfully. I doubt it's the coatings, since the same coatings can be put on a video lens. I suspect it's because the 1/3 inch sensors only use the center of the 35mm optic. Or, perhaps, CA is influenced by a 3D sensor(RGB being on different layers) that some lenses are more sensitive to than others. Regardless, the point is that the physics models are flawed and don't represent reality.

Resolving power, aside, Mike, I wonder how optimized the 35mm lenses are for minimum CA, using more corrective optics than video lenses?

Steve Phillipps
April 26th, 2009, 01:54 PM
Many a techie has been fooled by the obvious, thinking the equations show all!!
I stand by my comments. Chromatic Aberration on the Funinons is absolutely hideous. yet the 35mm lenses perform wonderfully. I doubt it's the coatings, since the same coatings can be put on a video lens. I suspect it's because the 1/3 inch sensors only use the center of the 35mm optic.

Resolving power, aside, Mike, I wonder how optimized the 35mm lenses are for minimum CA?

AFAIK Lateral Chromatic Abberation should be consistent across the frame, it should make no difference whether it's the centre or edge, nor should aperture make any difference - but again, we seem to going outside the laws of physics and optics!
I agree though that the CA on a lot of HD lenses is very bad, even on the Canon HJ40 it's horrible, but I believe it's to do with the extra resolving power in the design, it's a trade-off.
I'm surprised by Mike's finding as I know other engineers have certainly seen the opposite, and I've done my own tests that have also shown that stills lenses fall short of HD ones - though often fairly close. For example I tested the Canon 150-600 and 300 f2.8 against the HJ40 and even when the HJ40 had the 2x extender on it was sharper than the stills lenses! Also tried the Nikon 55 micro and 105 2.5 - two of the sharpest lenses Nikon has ever made, no question - and they were significantly less sharp than the stock lens on the EX3.

Steve

Brian Standing
April 26th, 2009, 07:28 PM
Argh. My head is swimming. At some point, doesn't the resolving power of the medium have some influence? A 35mm lens is designed for 35mm photographic film, which is a higher resolution format than any but the highest HD video format.

Would a 1/3"-chip at 720p even notice the difference between a good and a poor 35mm SLR lens? (Let's just talk about resolution, here, instead of chromatic aberration.)

Jason Davis
April 26th, 2009, 07:34 PM
Stefan, I own an MTF adapter, I am currently using nikon nikkor 80-200 the picture quality is fantastic and I am sure you will not be dissapointed. I am not using the "new" G adapter. The image is much better than my 16x fuji lens.

Bill Ravens
April 26th, 2009, 08:34 PM
Brian...

I'm afraid you're wanting to simplify things to the point of reducing the discussion to a meaningless level. It is not a simple subject. Chromatic aberration and resolving power are two different parameters that partially describe optical performance. While one can keep the discussion to one or the other, it's simply burying ones head in the sand to ignore the other. And there are other parameters such as coma and astigmatism, which haven't even been brought up.

Good 35mm lenses, at the sweet spot, are designed to resolve to the level of film grain size. It has nothing to do, per se, with the format size, since film grain doesn't change size as the format size changes. When working with digital imaging, one has to consider the number of pixels and format size as the limit to resolving power. At what point do pixel sizes begin to approach film grain sizes? The z direction depth also will effect the apparent resolving power. I would guess a 2k digital image on a super 16 film format is approximately the same resolution as a fine grained 35mm film. RED cameras deliver 4k performance in a 35mm format size. At this point, the use of a 35mm optic resolving power will begin to bump up against the resolution available from the sensor.

And again, resolving power has nothing to do with Chromatic aberration.

Steve Phillipps
April 27th, 2009, 02:31 AM
There was a thread on another forum ages ago about this, and this was the scientific explanation from BBC technical expert Alan Roberts:

"JVC have adaptor rings to fit larger format lenses, particularly 1"/2 and 2"/3 format. BUT, you must beware of fitting odd lenses, because these adaptors have no glass, they are just adaptors. This means that even a top-notch HD lens may well look soft on it, simply because the lens is computed for a larger format. This camera has pixels spaced 3.33 microns apart while a 2"/3 HD camera has pixels at 5 microns. So, a 2"/3 HD lens like a Zeiss prime (4 micron disc of confusion) will probably be pretty good on the HD100, but any lesser lens (i.e. any zoom) is going to look a bit on the soft side. Bear in mind that the limiting resolution of the HD100 is 300 lines/mm, that should tell you what makes sense in terms of fitting other lenses (e.g. a 35mm still lens making that resolution would produce 10,800 lines/pic width, and I know of no lens that will do that). A decent 2"/3 SD tv lens will have a disc of confusion of 15 microns or so, so can produce only about 66 lines/mm, a lot less than the camera wants."

This is the science I'm basing my comments on and that I'm not qualified to say myself!

Steve

Bill Ravens
April 27th, 2009, 07:47 AM
I came across an interesting article I'll share here:
Grain aliasing (http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm)

The point of the article attempts to relate film grain size to pixel size. The author makes the point that apparent and actual resolving power is influenced by the aliasing that occurs between the discrete photon sites. It may well be an explanation of why a 35mm lens looks "better" than a 1/3 inch lens.

Steve Phillipps
April 27th, 2009, 08:05 AM
Well I don't have a 1/3" camera to test it with, but as I said, I tested the EX3 stock lens against some of the world's best ever Nikkors and the EX lens won in terms of sharpness and CA (although there was little CA in either). Once again, the science tells us that it should be even more prevelant with the smaller 1/3" chip so I am surprised at what you're finding.
Steve

Bill Ravens
April 27th, 2009, 08:17 AM
A quick calculation shows that for the HD110 with a 1/3 inch(diagonal) dimension and 1,110,000 pixels, the vertical pixel size is on the order of 8 micrometers. The result of a Kodak study of 35mm film grain size shows grain can vary from .8 to 3 micrometers in size. On this basis, alone, I would say the JVC resolving power is about 3x worse than 35mm film. Again, on this basis, the film lens should be higher resolution than the videocam lens.

Steve Phillipps
April 27th, 2009, 08:26 AM
Certainly getting beyond my scientific expertise now! But I do know there to be problems when relating film grain to pixels, it's not quite as straightforward as one set of number vs another. Otherwise Super 16 film would be many times more higher resolution than HD, and it isn't.
Steve

Bill Ravens
April 27th, 2009, 08:35 AM
Last year, I was involved in a film to digital project , in which super 16 film was digitized to Avid DNxHD. We went thru several digitizations(don't ask why) including DNx175 and DNx220. The improvement in image quality at DNx220 was approaching the images available from the raw film stock when projected. This is a VERY empirical conclusion, but, I would say 2K resolution is fairly equivalent to super16. THerefore, I would also assume 4K resolution is equivalent to 35mm film. Admittedly, there's many, many factors involved, here(production monitor quality, aliasing from the digitization process, etc., etc). I draw my conclusions on what my eyes tell me, not the physics.

One more caveat...I have fairly old eyes....whatever that may mean.

Steve Phillipps
April 27th, 2009, 09:38 AM
I'm sure I remember a seminar where the guys from Kodak were trying not to get swamped the the HD revolution and were quoting 35mm film as having a resolution equivalent of something like 30 million pixels (can't remember exactly). Then the next seminar by Sony would show how much more resolving power there was on an F900's 2mp sensor than 35mm filmstock.
Steve

Alex Humphrey
April 27th, 2009, 10:41 AM
interesting thread, I was going to comment earlier, but i've been under the weather. We are totally off subject by this point. The thread was started off asking about focal ranges from 70mm to 300mm with a MTF and Nikkor lens combo and NOW we are on comparing (assumed?) the same focal range comparing 3rd party lenses and video lenses (meaning does a Nikkor with MTF set at 40mm compare to the Fujinon 16x or 17x lens at or around 40mm?). There is a lot to be said for testing.

Anyway since the 16x is fairly useless beyond 50 or 60mm and worthless at 88mm unless you have it stopped down to f11, and the 17x should be much more servicable at the same focal length, but neither function 88-300mm. For that there are few options. The results of the MTF by several users (not mine) have been extremely good. a Nikkor 80-200 was as good as, or maybe better than a 17x at 40mm at f4. That should be all you need to know.

Now I'll to add to the fire, I have a used Nikkor 300mm f4 (shipping to me from an ebay seller) and I'll order the newest MTF adapter this coming month and give it a whirl. Should be insane magnification. Nice views of a quarter of the moon filling the screen rising over a city scape is what I have in mind. I guess I'll need a better tripod and a wind break for that shot. I'll also throw on some of my nikon e and nikkor 28, 35, 50 and 100mm as well as zoom lenses and give them a whirl compared to the 16x lens I have at similar focal ranges. Now I'm not saying I would want to switch lenses in general practice, but it would be interesting. You have to remember, even the 16x isn't bad (6mm-50mm or so) I mean how many Canon and Nikon lenses do you see that are 5.5-88mm f1.4 with electronicly driven zoom? Not many.

Now if I only had a resolution test chart other than printing out a page of periods. Well maybe someone in northern california can meet me for coffee one saturday next month and we can try out some of these ideas and post the pics.

Bill Ravens
April 27th, 2009, 12:04 PM
Alex...

I use that 300mm Nikon lens for wildlife videography. It gives an excellent, hi-contrast image that I find very acceptable, with no CA. Again, my subjective opinion, but, to my eyes, it looks sharper than the Fujinon 17x lens images. My only complaint is the thermals/shimmering in the air really distort the images at long distances. Not much a lens maker can do to fix this...;o). For anyone who knows what strehl is, some days are better than others.

Steve Phillipps
April 27th, 2009, 12:11 PM
Anyway since the 16x is fairly useless beyond 50 or 60mm and worthless at 88mm unless you have it stopped down to f11, .

Now that's another interesting optical kettle of fish, it should start to deteriorate in sharpness past about f5.6 due to diffraction, and on a 1/3" chip f11 is well well below the diffraction limit. One conclusion to draw from this is that the lens is a real dog, and is so bad at the lower apertures that it looks better at f11 despite the massive diffraction problems.
Steve

Stefan Immler
April 27th, 2009, 01:24 PM
Now if I only had a resolution test chart ...
Try this one that I have just created:

http://giganova.com/Misc/test_chart.pdf (PDF, 2MB)
http://giganova.com/Misc/test_chart.tif (high-res TIF, 32MB)

It's not a scientific test charts but should do the job.

Robert Rogoz
April 27th, 2009, 03:34 PM
I'm sure I remember a seminar where the guys from Kodak were trying not to get swamped the the HD revolution and were quoting 35mm film as having a resolution equivalent of something like 30 million pixels (can't remember exactly). Then the next seminar by Sony would show how much more resolving power there was on an F900's 2mp sensor than 35mm filmstock.
Steve
Steve, I don't get it, why do you insist on ignoring the rules of physics. Of course, where the quality counts, film will win hands down. First of all pixels are squares and film is built with irregular multi-layer of grain (3D like). If you compare dynamic range and detail, film is still far superior to any digital imagining method. A new 24.5 MP Nikon D3X produces files about 75MB in size. On the other hand a drum scan of a slide will produce files about 80-120MB. This is the newest and latest camera from Nikon, costing 8K for the body. A medium format doesn't even compare as far as film and digital.
BTW, any Nikon or Canon 35mm lens will blow Fujinon 16 or 17 lens out of the water. You'll need good, external monitor for manual focus. Pure physics, that's all.

Steve Phillipps
April 27th, 2009, 04:13 PM
Steve, I don't get it, why do you insist on ignoring the rules of physics. Of course, where the quality counts, film will win hands down. First of all pixels are squares and film is built with irregular multi-layer of grain (3D like). If you compare dynamic range and detail, film is still far superior to any digital imagining method. A new 24.5 MP Nikon D3X produces files about 75MB in size. On the other hand a drum scan of a slide will produce files about 80-120MB. This is the newest and latest camera from Nikon, costing 8K for the body. A medium format doesn't even compare as far as film and digital.
BTW, any Nikon or Canon 35mm lens will blow Fujinon 16 or 17 lens out of the water. You'll need good, external monitor for manual focus. Pure physics, that's all.

On the whole, haven't got a clue what you're talking about really. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
BTW not true about the Nikon and Canon lens statement, don't know if you've got examples to show it, but my top-notch Nikkors didn't match the EX3's Fujinon.
External monitor for manual focus? Not in my game, we seem to do OK, can't carry monitors out in the hills.
I wish people wouldn't start posts with the likes of "why do you insist on...", there's no need for aggression in any of these forums, I thought we were all supposed to be just giving our observations and opinions to help each other?
Steve

Steve Phillipps
April 27th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Robert, just read your post again and it makes even less sense now. You start by saying that film wins hands down for quality then later say that medium format doesn't anywhere near compare to a DSLR. Make your mind up.
And did I ever say that film doesn't beat video for dynamic range? Don't think so.
And as for ignoring the rules of physcis, if you'll look at the posts it was actually me that wa quoting the physics and others were contesting it.
All in all one of the most baffling posts I've ever seen.
Steve

Matt Lehman
April 27th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Gentlemen (and ladies), the current thread is extremely interesting but I just wish no one would continue to point out the downfalls of my HD100 :)

Does anyone have footage, shots, stills, etc from this MTF adapter for the GY-HD series? I'm extremely curious about it and would love to have some advice about the adapter itself and the lens they have used with it.

Thanks!
Matt

Robert Rogoz
April 27th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Matt, there were some links to online videos and a couple of discussions on the subject in the past. Just search the site, there were some promos from some resort promo shots with Nikon lenses- looked really nice. There are some Nikon lenses (like 80-200 F2.8, 50 F1.8 and 28 F2.8) that no Fuji lens will ever be able to compete- period. Remember, you also are using the best part of the lens due to the cropping.

Alex Humphrey
April 27th, 2009, 11:36 PM
Now that's another interesting optical kettle of fish, it should start to deteriorate in sharpness past about f5.6 due to diffraction, and on a 1/3" chip f11 is well well below the diffraction limit. One conclusion to draw from this is that the lens is a real dog, and is so bad at the lower apertures that it looks better at f11 despite the massive diffraction problems.
Steve

yup.. Fujinon should have made it 5.5-60mm and then the stock 16x would have been just fine. at 80-88mm if one where making the mistake (such as me before I tested it) and thinking that the sweet spot on the 16x was f4 through out the entire focal length.... it isn't. Below are the f4 and f11 shots. f4 at 88mm is pretty much useless, center is in focus, edges are out of focus... so dropping the aperture to f11 or f16 it keeps the edges in focus at the expense of contrast and over all sharpness.... but it's still better.


http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachments/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/10881d1234650269-getting-most-out-16x-stock-lens-88mmf4.jpg

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachments/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/10882d1234650269-getting-most-out-16x-stock-lens-88mmf11.jpg

So in this regard I expect a 80-200 Nikkor ED/D or even a Nikon E would be far superior in the 80-90mm range than the stock lens at 88mm. I would like someone to post a test of their 17x at full tele for fun.

Alex Humphrey
April 27th, 2009, 11:49 PM
Gentlemen (and ladies), the current thread is extremely interesting but I just wish no one would continue to point out the downfalls of my HD100 :)

Does anyone have footage, shots, stills, etc from this MTF adapter for the GY-HD series? I'm extremely curious about it and would love to have some advice about the adapter itself and the lens they have used with it.

Thanks!
Matt

Here are a couple pics from another user (Mike? Steve? Paul? South Bay area (Nor-Cal) who was selling his MTF last I spoke to him a year ago...)

The Heron is with a MTF & Nikkor 80-200 and it looks about 200mm. The second pic is from a Fujinon 17x. No idea of focal length or aperture, but looks like it's near it's max and I could only guess on the aperture... probably near f11 I'm guessing.... oh and obviously click on the image to see the full size. Saved as jpg at 60% so the original footage looks slightly better.. not enough to worry about though.

Alex Humphrey
April 27th, 2009, 11:53 PM
Try this one that I have just created:

http://giganova.com/Misc/test_chart.pdf (PDF, 2MB)
http://giganova.com/Misc/test_chart.tif (high-res TIF, 32MB)

It's not a scientific test charts but should do the job.

KILLER! I thought I was trick with my page of periods.. :)

Stefan Immler
May 21st, 2009, 08:43 PM
I received the Nikon --> 1/3" JVC bayonet adapter today and tested it. Overall, the craftsmanship is top notch. Backfocus is perfect, and the lens sits tight inside the adapter which fits perfectly into the bayonet of the JVC. No wiggling, not too tight, just perfect.

Then I put a Nikon 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 lens on it. I couldn't believe how perfect the lens works. Look for yourself and inspect the screen shots below.

The 1st image is the Fujinon stock lens at 5.5mm (wide), f/5.6
The 2nd image is the Fujinon stock lens at 88mm (tele), f/5.6
The 3rd image is the Nikon at 75mm, f/5.6
The 4th image is the Nikon at 300mm, f/5.6

Overall, the Nikon gives perfectly sharp images over the entire field, well suited for HD. Even at 300mm, there is little chromatic aberration.

The Fujinon at tele (88mm) and the Nikon at 75mm have almost the exact same field of view. The Nikon is perfectly sharper across the entire field and lacks CA completely. In contrast, the Fujinon is not sharp across the entire field and has a lot of CA, making this lens useless at that range.

In short: The Nikon lens easily outperforms the Fujinon lens. Keep in mind that the Nikon costs only $150.- and it's not even a Nikon ED glass!

Also, look at the gigantic zoom range that I have now (images 1 through 4)!

http://giganova.com/Misc/Fujinon_5.5mm.jpg
http://giganova.com/Misc/Fujinon_88mm.jpg
http://giganova.com/Misc/Nikon_75mm.jpg
http://giganova.com/Misc/Nikon_300mm.jpg

Brian Standing
May 22nd, 2009, 12:07 AM
Here's some stuff I posted 8 months ago made with a JVC HD100, MTF adaptor and a Nikkor 80-200mm lens:
In the Tallgrass Prairie on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1680806)

The encoding is fairly dreadful, but I think you can get the idea.

Tom Koveleskie
June 22nd, 2009, 10:20 PM
Very interesting thread. Could this MTF adapter be used as a relay adapter for DOF adapters? I see that you use it for 35mm lens. Just wondering if it could replace having to string a DOF adapter to the front of the stock Fujinon lens of the HD110. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.