If this has been answered already just point me to the post. Appears the search function is down for service.

A friend is getting a new LS300. I still own my $16K Fuginon 15X SD zoom. Probably one of the last generations prior to the HD's. I use it as a paper weight : )

What is the low down on using one of these on this camera with an adapter strickly for shooting 1080I... no 4K work?

1) this camera can adjust its scan electronically so will it cover the full frame with no vignetting at WA?

2) how bad does it look and am I way better off getting an B4 HD... will it make that much difference?

To those using this... which adapter are you using?

Thanks!

I have an F3 with some B4 lenses. The SD lenses aren't as sharp as their HD counterparts, especially at the edges.

Another drawback is that your camera has no way to power the lens. You will either need an external battery just for the lens, or an adapter cable from P-tap if you already have an external battery solution.

Since you can adjust the scan electronically, you can use an adapter with no glass, so you won't lose any light. I use an IBE Optics HDx35 adapter, which means I lose about 2 stops, but I also can cover S35 with no crop.

I owned the Fujinon 17x low-end HD lens (on my HPX500). It was fine on that camera, especially at the native 720p.

But I sold it after borrowing an adapter and trying it on my AF100. It just isn't sharp enough, even for that camera.

On the LS300 I think you'll be very disappointed, especially since there are excellent native MFT mount zooms available new or used for under $1,000. They aren't parfocal, but the Fujinon wouldn't be on the LS either (sensor thickness I'm told).

Steve what are a couple of MFT zoom lenses that you think would operate as close to that Fuji 17x for shooting fast moving sports from long range?

I don't shoot sports (although I did shoot surfing and motorcycle racing eons ago, in the 60's)... I mostly work intimate and handheld now, so you need to ask others... But I will say that the Canon EOS long zooms are reputed to be winners in that area. With a Smart adapter they'd work well on the LS. Also adapted vintage S16 and 35 zooms are worth looking into, but good ones like Canon and Zeiss are very pricey...

Another option to consider is a relatively long vintage telephoto from Canon or Nikon (like 135 or 200mm). With the Prime Zoom on the LS you can turn it into a 2x1 zoom when shooting 1080. That would be my choice.

Going from a tight zoom 70 yards away to a wide shot 5 yards away in a second or two is the trick to shooting sports for me Steve, so a long telephoto even with the prime zoom wouldn't perform like a B4 ENG in that regard because you could't get the wide shot when the action is right in front of you.

Something like the Panasonic 14-140mm seems similar to me, I've read it's not great in low light but that's one thing about shooting sports, the lighting is usually pretty good.


And I don't want to hijack your thread George, I have an old FUJI ENG 14x for my JVC LS300, bought a cable and external battery on eBay for about 50 bucks that powers the lens.

The 14-140 is a decent lens, especially at 5.6.. It's relatively inexpensive and the auto functions should work with the LS300. (Auto exposure won't work in J-LOG)

I should mention again that the 14-140 won't be parfocal, as I said above, no zoom, even the best legacy S16, is parfocal on the LS300, so you'll need to be ready to quickly refocus when you zoom back. After years of shooting S16 and later with cameras like the DSR300, XL H1, and HPX500 I find it difficult and extremely annoying to have to deal with non-parfocal lenses.

I have a question about the cine-zoom lenses that lose par-focal capabilities on the LS300, are these lenses with adjustable back focus? Or are they fixed back focus?

I should mention again that the 14-140 won't be parfocal, as I said above, no zoom..

My whole purpose for considering a B4 lens is so I'd have the parfocal capability. This is not possible because of something to do with the thickness of the sensor?

Can someone please explain?

As a long time shooter I have to say I truly hate using these "kit" cameras. I do not feel I do my best work with them. I find I'm always fighting with the camera to get the shot. Never had to do that with the old one piece cameras.

Give me a full size HD camera with a Fujinon or Canon servo zoom lens and a B&W viewfinder and I'll give you great footage and plenty of it.

Just one persons opinion.

George, I can't answer the sensor question personally, it was suggested here to me over a year ago...

In my case, I have three legacy zooms, a std16 Canon 12-20, an S16 Angenieux 15-150, and an S16 Cooke 10.4-52. These have all been true parfocal lenses on all of my film cameras (three Eclair ACLs and an Aaton). They currently are parfocal on my two Black Magic Pocket cameras and my Micro.

The Canon,which I have always liked, vignettes slightly on the corners at mid-ranges, but I use it regularly because it has a "romantic" quality. On the LS300 it will not ficus to infinity at 12mm - in fact it's WAY off... Oddly, the 15-150 (a lens I don't care much for) will focus to infinity at 15mm, but will not hold focus if you adjust it at 150 and zoom back... The Cooke never seems in focus, but because the diaphragm is stuck at T8, I haven't been able to test it much.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a B4 lens will exhibit the same kind of issues - but you need to try it to be sure...

One thing I will say is that when I put a Mosaic OLPF on the Pocket's sensor the result is similar to what I've experienced with the JVC... I don't want to adjust the back-focus on any of my lenses, so I use native MFT zooms and Rokinon primes on the LS300.

Hope that helps...

As a long time shooter I have to say I truly hate using these "kit" cameras.
I'm just getting started on a "kit", so the hatred isn't there yet but I know exactly what you mean. I could take my ENG shoulder form with full confidence in getting whatever shot needed to be captured. and I know the first wedding or whatever I shoot with this rig isn't going to feel the same way at all, but it's just evolving past tiny sensors.

And the thing is if they could just drop a larger sensor into a shoulder form ENG cam I couldn't afford it anyway so I'm gonna try and make a rig that works for me. I bought a second baseplate that has the shoulder pad directly under the camera, not behind it like many seem to be where all the weight is forward on your arms, am combining that with a side mount viewfinder and it's getting there.


/This may be a dumb question but what is about an old ENG lens that makes it "SD" or "HD"? Seems it would be as much about the sensor as anything, like how the old Canon L lenses are considered "HD" or even "4K" and that stuff didn't exist back when they were made but they shot on a big sensor.

A HD lens is usually much sharper than an equivalent SD lens. The quality of the glass is higher so there's less blooming, chromatic aberration and other artifacts from the increased resolution. Some SD lenses work well for HD, others are near useless. I had an expensive wide angle from a friend's SD Ikegami that I tried to adapt to HD and the result was like looking thru a prism on every high contrast edge. A lot of blooming on whites as well. The lens worked great in SD. Some people like the decrease in harshness that some of the SD lenses bring to the image, sort of like putting a soft filter on a regular lens. Some SD zooms work well in limited part of the zoom range, can't get too wide and/or can't get too zoomed in. The VSM in the LS300 can help with the wide part. I have explored the video zoom adapter options for my GH LUMIX cameras and decided that it wasn't worth the trouble for the work I have.

William, I just noticed your post asking about back focus, sorry I missed it before..

All cine zooms have "adjustable" back focus, but it's not a rotating collar as on some adapters. You remove the rear collar (with screws) and add or subtract very thin shims made specially for the particular lens. It's a job for a lens technician with a jig for testing focus... For the layman, it's trial and error, which is mostly error...

As an experiment I attempted it on my Canon 12-120 after I added an OLPF to one of my Pocket Cameras... I was very careful to make note of the several shims that were already in place, then added and subtracted shims that came with the lens when I bought it with my first ACL in 1974.

I was never able to reach a satisfactory combination of shims. I either had no infinity focus, or I had infinity focus before the barrel reached the stop...

BTW, that particular Canon lens was promoted as having "flourite elements" back then, and sometimes temperature variations would change its infinity setting. But I'm aware of that, and it wasn't the cause of my problem.

A HD lens is usually much sharper than an equivalent SD lens. The quality of the glass is higher so there's less blooming, chromatic aberration and other artifacts from the increased resolution. Some SD lenses work well for HD, others are near useless.
Thanks William, on that same line- When you shoot with an old SD ENG lens on a modern "HD" setting what is the actual resolution? Is it still 1080? Is it considered 'upscaled' to 1080, but it's it's not really 1080?

Thanks William, on that same line- When you shoot with an old SD ENG lens on a modern "HD" setting what is the actual resolution? Is it still 1080? Is it considered 'upscaled' to 1080, but it's it's not really 1080?

Well, here we go. Optical resolution vs video resolution. A good lens test chart will tell you loads about the optical resolution of any lens... but good or bad... the video resolution of the camera will remain the same.

"Optical Resolution v Video resolution"

Yep I'm curious about how that works, it seems the lens being the first thing in line would count the most, but if the camera shoots 4k it may make it look retro cool or something.

I tested my old FUJI 14x SD ENG lens today, can answer a couple of questions-


1) this camera can adjust its scan electronically so will it cover the full frame with no vignetting at WA?

2) how bad does it look and am I way better off getting an B4 HD... will it make that much difference?

To those using this... which adapter are you using?

Thanks!
1) Yes. I set the VSM at 43% and there is no vignetting. Also I've read that people use the doubler x2 when using these lenses, but on this camera at 43% you don't have to use it so the image is clearer, and you can use it to get even closer and lose some more light.

2) I shot a little bit today on it, I'll post a sample clip tonight or tomorrow. It seems like an HD version would make a difference, but I thought those things were crazy expensive. My plan was just to use it in good light if I need long range zoom at a game. .

3) The adapter I'm using is a simple dumb adapter that a guy included when I bought the lens on ebay, looks like maybe $40 variety.

Great if you can post some clips. I'm very interested in seeing the results.

BTW: Can you post the full model # off your lens, please?

As to using the X2... for cameras that do not have a way of adjusting the scan size like the LS300 the doubler is needed to fill up the frame. Appears, from your tests, using it is not needed. Just as well.

I also expect (correct me if I'm wrong) once you come off that full 4K frame scan to adjust for any lens you are no longer shooting at true 4K (4096 x 2160 pixel) resolution. You have cropped in from the full size of the 4K sensor. It may still output something called "4K" but not at the original resolution of the full frame.

William, I just noticed your post asking about back focus, sorry I missed it before..

All cine zooms have "adjustable" back focus, but it's not a rotating collar as on some adapters. You remove the rear collar (with screws) and add or subtract very thin shims made specially for the particular lens. It's a job for a lens technician with a jig for testing focus... For the layman, it's trial and error, which is mostly error...

As an experiment I attempted it on my Canon 12-120 after I added an OLPF to one of my Pocket Cameras... I was very careful to make note of the several shims that were already in place, then added and subtracted shims that came with the lens when I bought it with my first ACL in 1974.

I was never able to reach a satisfactory combination of shims. I either had no infinity focus, or I had infinity focus before the barrel reached the stop...

BTW, that particular Canon lens was promoted as having "flourite elements" back then, and sometimes temperature variations would change its infinity setting. But I'm aware of that, and it wasn't the cause of my problem.
\
Thanks for the answer. My experience has been exclusively with rotating back focus collar lenses, I remember just one zoom lens that absolutely refused to back focus properly on a specific Ikegami tube camera when switched with the other model of Ikegami camera's original lens. The original lens adjusted fine on the other camera when switched. I think we were switching them due to a bad tube registration alignment error that cropped up on one camera and we wanted the better zoom lens on the good camera. This was before automatic registration could be done. Anyway it didn't work and I ended up drawing a registration chart (the kit chart was left behind) and manually registering the camera.

Shims make sense to me, but wow. That's a job I am glad I missed.

Thanks William, on that same line- When you shoot with an old SD ENG lens on a modern "HD" setting what is the actual resolution? Is it still 1080? Is it considered 'upscaled' to 1080, but it's it's not really 1080?

A photo of one hundred same color marbles arranged neatly next to each other on a table. You can see and count them all if the photo is composed right (example: the lens is wide enough) and the resolution of photo media (film or digital) and the lens is high enough not to blur the edges between the touching marbles. A higher resolution in the media or lens will not change the subject of the photo. You still clearly have 100 marbles. Now let's say that the lens can't clearly resolve the marbles, you might be able to tell it's a lot of marbles but an accurate count is impossible. That's a pretty bad lens but all we have available, like an old flip phone camera. A better camera resolution will not get us an accurate count of the marbles. The lens can't do it. A better camera might get us better color and luminance captures but that's it.

So using a working SD lens in HD that doesn't resolve to HD but is sharp to the best of it's abilities will give you a look that might work well dramatically to enhance an atmosphere in a scene. Like I said before, some optical lens filters do similar functions, for example skin tone softening filters target the red spectrum to blur blemishes and wrinkles. Most decent lenses are rated above the capture resolution of the camera they are designed for. Sometimes they are just below.

What passes for an attractive look is highly subjective. Resolution, DOF, color accuracy and frame rate all play into it. Sports, news and some documentaries like high details, wide DOF, higher frame rates and accurate color. Drama goes all over the place, lower details, shallow DOF, odd color balances, nothing higher than 24f, artificially added grain, etc. So what do you expect from an SD lens on a HD camera? It might work for sports, it might work for documentaries, it might work for drama. If you are trying to duplicate a decent HD video zoom lens for a client, it might work, but I wouldn't set my hopes too high. Better to be surprised than depend on it.

"So what do you expect from an SD lens on a HD camera? It might work for sports, it might work for documentaries, it might work for drama. If you are trying to duplicate a decent HD video zoom lens for a client, it might work, but I wouldn't set my hopes too high. Better to be surprised than depend on it."

That's well said, and really how I am approaching it, just to see if I'd be surprised, not counting on it at all. The B4 lens I bought was about $300, just an experiment thing while I was researching lenses.


Great if you can post some clips. I'm very interested in seeing the results.
BTW: Can you post the full model # off your lens, please?
I shot some standard dog running around footage and birds, zooming in and out, I'll post it here in a bit.

The model # I bought is FUJI A14x9BERM. It's 14x B4, 9mmm-126mm 1.7. The guy included the dumb adapter with it, I don't know the model but it works well no play at all. I did remove that little bracket, it rubbed the ND filter and wasn't long enough to do anything anyway.

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/172349750179-0-2/s-l140/p.jpg

http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa342/calhounmonster/B4adapt/B4_RJ_001.jpg

The model # I bought is FUJI A14x9BERM. It's 14x B4, 9mmm-126mm 1.7.

That looks to be an older 2/3" tube camera lens from the late 1980's. I had one on my Sony BVP-3. Frankly, that lens was bad by SD chip camera standards let alone using it on an HD camera. It just did not hold up.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a later version internal focus type lens made for the CDD's specifically, which had a fixed optical block... no adjustment of individual pickup tube focus position.

Still, an HD version would probably blow the doors off even a lens such as that.

That makes sense for couple hundred bucks, I didn't know it was that old or anything about it, was looking for something old and greasy like I used in the 90s, but maybe I overpaid haha. I'll call it establishing the low base line. :) For sure your more current lens should look better, or certainly an HD one, but be expensive.

Here's a couple pics on camera with adapter, the blue battery pack powers the servo.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b345/KaCopics/JVC%20LS300%20FUJI%20ENG%20lens%201_zpsttnk72ed.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/KaCopics/media/JVC%20LS300%20FUJI%20ENG%20lens%201_zpsttnk72ed.jpg.html)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b345/KaCopics/JVC%20LS300%20FUJI%20ENG%20lens%202_zpsanqrp0mx.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/KaCopics/media/JVC%20LS300%20FUJI%20ENG%20lens%202_zpsanqrp0mx.jpg.html)

The rig is a work in progress.

Jay, as a word of caution.. B4 mounts were designed to be strong enough that you could use the lens as a handle (which, as an old film guy I could never get used to) - but typically MFT mounts are not that strong.

The LS300, despite what some have said, has a pretty well-made inner structure, but with a lens that long and heavy I'd want some sort of support.

Yep thanks for the heads up Steve, I've worried about that too, have ordered one of those 'y' lens supports in case I use this lens, but it will most likely end up a paperweight when I get used to what I'm doing on the new form. It hasn't been on the camera much, but I have been aware of not wrenching it around. And that mount does feel real solid, I haven't felt any play at all in it.

Here's some video I shot with the old Fuji B4, in cinema and a little J-log. I don't know what i'm doing on color correction yet, I just clicked FCP's "balance the color" button and some a contrast filter on a few shots.

The VSM was at 43% for no vignetting, and you can make regular use of the doubler, really cuts down the light I gained up when I used it.

https://youtu.be/84Qy__ZaIu8

I think it looks kinda funky, might be good for a retro look sometime.

Yep thanks for the heads up Steve, I've worried about that too, have ordered one of those 'y' lens supports in case I use this lens, but it will most likely end up a paperweight when I get used to what I'm doing on the new form. It hasn't been on the camera much, but I have been aware of not wrenching it around. And that mount does feel real solid, I haven't felt any play at all in it.

I believe the LS-300 manual specifies 800 grams as the max unsupported weight on the lens mount.

Well that's not ideal, that old Fuji lens is probably twice that. I did consider it, didn't see it in the manual, but haven't read it all. My thinking was it's made for adapters and heavier EF lenses and the mount seems strong. Hope it's okay, there wan't any play in it but a lens I ordered should arrive today, I'll mount them and take a look, thanks again for the heads up.


I wouldn't use that old Fuji for anything other than a retro look if needed, but I'd be curious to see what a more modern HD version would look like, although in the 4-5k range don't know it would be worth the surprise.

I think it looks kinda funky, might be good for a retro look sometime.
To be honest, I think that looks pretty good all things considered. Better than I would have anticipated.

That makes sense for couple hundred bucks, I didn't know it was that old or anything about it, was looking for something old and greasy like I used in the 90s, but maybe I overpaid haha. I'll call it establishing the low base line. :)

I was not suggesting you made a mistake. In fact, I paid $4500 back in 1986 for that exact same lens, new. It was state of the art then.

I also think it does not look all that bad. That said, perhaps you can do another test at some point that might show us more. If you have a city nearby or at least a decent brick building, these always work well for testing image detail from corner to corner. Try to shoot square on and fill the frame. Even lighting all over. Locked off shot with different focal lengths (stop and hold the shot for 5 seconds, then move to another FL) so we can see if focus holds throughout the zoom range. Keep the F stop around F4 to F5 and forget that 2X extender. It's worthless. Too much light loss and it shades in the corners to be of any real use.

$300 for what was a $4500 lens is still a deal.

Not at all, I appreciate the info, I figured it was an old CCD lens but kinda cool it's an old tube deal that's still working. I might try the brick test, I could tell it was worse on the edges at full wide and looked better as it zoomed, whatever that means, figured something about being made for the 2/3" sensor.

And "funky" is a positive take, it looked better than I thought it would too, will take it to soccer practice in a few weeks and see what humans look like running around, it might make for a change of pace or promo type thing.

If you shoot some on the nicer ENG lens you have I'd be curious what it looks like too. I haven't used 'DSLR' type zooms yet, still don't know how they match the function of that old school ENG type servo, but i also don't need it often either, just such an ingrained habit to punch in close.

...I haven't used 'DSLR' type zooms yet, still don't know how they match the function of that old school ENG type servo...

It may seem like "old school" to have servo zoom but if you grew up shooting that way, like me and some others here, I'm sure, it's a hard thing to give up in the name of progress. Especially when it really is, IMHO, the correct way to shoot.

My later version 14X Fujinon SD zoom had a snap zoom function. Press a button and it fully zooms to maximum telephoto in less than as second. Focus up and release and it pops right back to the exact focal length position is was before you hit the button. Adjust your framing and keep shooting.

Fujinon has their new Cabrio series "large sensor format" servo zoom lens selling for something like $40k. Used it and like it but it rents for more than most HD cameras it goes on.

As I said, "Be surprised".

That looked much better than I anticipated. I would be interested in how it looks filming at 24p instead of 60p. The close-ups of the birds and the dog running had an interesting feel to them. The wide shots seemed to flatten out as if the black levels were rising up along with the exposure when you zoomed out. Is that happening? You should check with the waveform monitor in FCPX.

There are no DSLR zooms that function as well as this Fuji you have adapted. Image wise the DSLR zooms have the Fuji beat.

Yes I was surprised, I think the bird CUs have some interesting 'texture' to them. You think those wide shots would be improved a bit in the settings? Still learning histograms, never used them either. Yep I should have shot some at 24p, slipped my mind.

And yep the DSLR's have the picture, but man that servo handgrip does have the performance if necessary.


It may seem like "old school" to have servo zoom but if you grew up shooting that way, like me and some others here, I'm sure, it's a hard thing to give up in the name of progress. Especially when it really is, IMHO, the correct way to shoot.
I'm right there with you on 'old school', I'm ingrained from shooting 10 years on an ENG lens in the 90s, took some time off then got back into event stuff with the shoulder form JVC HM700, a drone and a go-pro on a gimbal. I've never shot on the camcorder style large sensor.

On the modern ENG cameras with modern zooms, I don't understand where the money goes, didn't understand it back then and don't now. 1/3" chip is 2k and a 2/3 is 40k, but they can sell a full frame sized chip for 3k.

And it's been said before, but I don't understand the barrier to dropping the LS300 chip into the HM850 body. I guess the big zoom lens would be too expensive, but I don't know.

Different strokes for different folks - I hated the servo-zoom and removed it from my Fujinon on my HPX500 so I could have tactile control of the lens, zoom and iris... In fact it cost me $400 to have it re-mounted when I sold the lens..

I dislike any auto function that takes away from the practiced skill of the cinematographer, but that's just me, I'm old school,...

Yep variety is the spice of life. I can't imagine removing the servo motor from an HPX500, that is different strokes. Depends on what you need to use the tool for I guess. I shot news and football games for years, would have been tough to near impossible to produce good results without a servo drive, using it correctly for the best results is another sort of skill.

Steve when you use a lens like your Olympus 12-40mm you manual zoom it? It may be a dumb question but does that lens have a power zoom or is it manual zoom?

No, the Olympus 12-40 doesn't have a power zoom - it doesn't even have stabilization... but it's a terrific lens for the money - it's very sharp and holds the maximum aperture through the zoom range, a big deal with any lens that was originally intended for still work.

I shoot intimate documentaries, almost totally handheld, and don't use servos for a variety of reasons.
1) I shot for 40 years on film cameras that don't have servos, so I learned how to zoom manually.
2) I generally don't like zooms in shots, I find them distracting - the exception is a slow move into a person's face at an emotional moment, and I'm capable of doing that manually.
3) On ENG cameras, I could never get used to using the lens as a grip, it's ergonomically all wrong - I always employ rails and remote grips from my film cameras (like Aaton). Consequently I removed the servo on the HPX 500 (and DSR300 years before) to have easier manual control of the lens.
4) I can start and stop a zoom better manually if I chose to use one... Some servos jerk noticeably at the head to tail of a zoom.

It is interesting the different approaches and what you get used to, and I understand what you're saying about not using zooms in a shot too, I'm not a big fan of that either, except like you said for a slow push in to an emotional interview moment. For me it's just the habit of going in for the CU on the servo, not so much using the zoom in the shot.

Then there is shooting sports at a high professional level, using that servo all day to get in tight at high speed then back out again quick and in focus is an art in itself. And a servo can be used without the jerking stop/start motion, like anything it gets better with practice, I can get that superslow, almost imperceptible zoom with the servo too.

Funny how muscle memory works, I keep reaching for the phantom handgrip.

[QUOTE=George Odell;1927942
What is the low down on using one of these on this camera with an adapter strickly for shooting 1080I... no 4K work? [/QUOTE]

Back in 2015 I had a test run with the 300 and an SD B4 lens running an MTF adapter. If it's of any help you could download and have a look at his file to give you an idea of how the combo performed. The clip can be downloaded from here:

https://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/wwej5r

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

On location in the UK... Brrrr!

Ended up with a different lens, similar to the one previous but with a longer range, 19x instead of 14x, and in a little better condition.

FUJI A19x8.7, with the "Y" type rail support, possible use for long-zoom sports or a different look effect.

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17098312_1588852747809496_2942088233199415475_n.jpg?oh=966b0984e9d7b6522259604b2fa415a9&oe=59672874