HD200, Zork, Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED fitment

[Sean Adair]

My assumption Eric, is that you'll find this rig useful ONLY for extended telephoto shots beyond the range of your camera's native lens. It's true that the 16x loses quality in the telephoto range, but this rig will have it's foibles too, and isn't the quickest thing to change over I'm sure. You will be able to get some amazing long shots though, although steadiness and movement at ultra telephoto is a challenge. A very good tripod and head will be important for anything but a lock-off.

But, it is definitely best to learn by doing, even though a few assumptions to test out don't hurt!

[Eric Gulbransen]

This is getting interesting...

With a little help, the HD200 brings you.... Mars


0-db gain
1/6th shutter
f2.8

[Eric Gulbransen]

Mounted the 300mm and headed to the ocean today. Mavericks - which I don't know a whole lot about, is a "gnarly" surfing spot off the rocky shoreline of Half Moon Bay - about a half hour south of San Francisco. I wanted to see if I could follow a subject without shaking all over the planet. Climbed a cliff to get to this spot, with the tripod, camera, backpack, three lenses, etc. etc. Up wasn't so bad. Down was horrible - solo.

The day was hazy, dark, foggy, windy and cold. Definitely not ideal conditions to peer through a mile of air - which is about how far the subjects that I planned on shooting (fumbling) were. But then a hawk landed itself on a fence post about 35 feet away, so I swung the rig around and here's what we got. I thought 35' would be far too close, and a mile would be WAY too far. You be the judge

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

Mounted the 300mm and headed to the ocean today. Mavericks - which I don't know a whole lot about, is a "gnarly" surfing spot off the rocky shoreline of Half Moon Bay - about a half hour south of San Francisco.

HI Eric, good work! I've done surf vids too.What tripod head are you using?

A bit south of Maverick's is a place called "Ghost Tree". Equally evil. A guy died there last week during the big swell we had. Ghost Tree however breaks much closer to shore. You can get much better footage there. Both spots are known as "tow-in" spots--when it's huge--really only surfable being slung in on a Jet ski and using a small board with foot straps--which would be kinda like you putting training wheels on one of your superbikes.

http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/cg2007

[Eric Gulbransen]

Brian, I'm using a Sachtler hotpod with an out-dated fluid head on top that does not boast it's model #. I'll attach a photo of it to this post. For the record the lens is out-dated too - as am I. Old, rules!

I have been expecting somewhat of a horror trying to steady the camera in fluid shots, and in tracking a moving subject, but I have to say it's not really so hard - with this tripod and head. I still need practice but I can tell this might work. Surely this is not the setup to use if you're doing what I'm trying to do because it'll break your back (ironically mine is already broken in three places) on a hike. But it is actually very easy to set up on uneven ground and it steadies the camera quite well (as long as you don't extend the neck too far). Plus, this is the only tripod that I own.

Thanks Brian. The journey continues

[Eric Gulbransen]

Hey just wanted to update you guys with the latest progress.

1 - In my first go at this Zork adapter/Nikons experience I noticed that the adapter-to-Nikons union wasn't so tight. This is why no doubt, I needed rods. There was slight play. When I mentioned this to them in my feedback, I was quite surprised at their reaction. They revised the adapter design and sent me a new one. The new one even fits tighter than my Canon to Canon still camera connections. Very nice work, and great customer care. No need for rods now, unless you're using heavy glass - in which case same still camera rules apply here.

2 - Color differences. I use Paolo's settings with my 16X and I love the color. But the Nikons produce color very differently. I spent three hours tweaking settings using two charts - one about thirty feet away, the other right next to the Marshall monitor. (I know this isn't the proper way to do it, but it's the best I can do right now, so I did it). I am very happy with the results. Now my memory card has Paolo's settings for daylight with the 16x, Dashwood's settings for low light, and now a setting for the Nikons. And by the way, each Nikon lens seems to produce colors very much the same (thank the lord).

3 - I also purchased an old 300mm Nikon AFI 2.8 ED. What a moose this thing is. I love how far it can see. But following while focusing on a moving subject takes practice. And I still need more. But it IS possible. Here are a few fun frame grabs to prove it.


4 - Happy New Year!!!


By the way, there's something I'm not getting right here (another thing I'm not getting right?). For some reason when I take a frame grab from my timeline and save it as a jpeg, the jpeg looks so much darker and duller than the same frame in FCP. Then compared to what the monitor displays? COMPLETELY lame in comparison. wtf?

[Eric Ramahatra]

did someone try a 20mm lens ? like the nikkor 20mm f2.8 ? is it the same point of vue as the fujinon set to 20mm ?

[Paolo Ciccone]

Eric, your observation about the lenses rendering color differently is another reason to own your own DSC chart. That is exactly why using the pre-made "recipes" found on the Net has limitation that should be understood and that is exactly why I didn't just post the numbers for TrueColor but explained the process so that anybody can reproduce it with their own chart.

The shift in the framegrabs is probably caused by FCP shifting the gamma settings in that occasion. You can try to use VLC with its own frame grab feature (ONG) or export a portion of the timeline to a sequence of Targa files. I think the majority of people here know how to handle TGA files.

Good shots BTW, I'm really getting tempted to get one of those adapters. If you had to summarize the downsides of the Zoerk, what would you say?

[Eric Gulbransen]

Paolo, you are right. I need a DSC chart. And you are why I understand that. It's coming.

As for downsides of the Zoerk adapter, I am currently still facing only one. There used to be two:

1 - (solved) - Initially the adapter did not fasten any of three Nikon lenses as securely as I had hoped it would. I actually sent Joshua (US contact) links to the posts I have put up here and he inquired about the issue of loose-fit. I had expected that the excessive weight of the 2.8s would stress any adapter ring so when I found play I was not surprised, but still I was a bit disappointed. Joshua asked if I could provide him with images and more detailed feedback, so I made him THIS

In less than five minutes from my sending him this, Joshua had already contacted Zoerk in Germany, and promised me that they would send a new adapter because this one must have been out of spec. He also said that not one user had ever mentioned a loose fit. In a week and a half the new adapter arrived with a note attached, saying this was their latest version made to much tighter tolerances. They weren't kidding either. This new adapter is actually a better/tighter/more solid fit than that of any of my original equipment Canon lens-to-camera mounts. I give it a stand out A+

So if you do order an adapter from Zoerk, Paolo, tell them you want the latest version.

2 - (not solved yet) - The Zoerk adapter is machined from aluminum which is coated with some type of matte black finish. This is fine, but as you will see in my attached image, not all of what you get is finished in matte black. The actual Nikon mounting ring, which quite nicely is replaceable, is raw aluminum. I took this shot of it using a flash, so you could tell how differently the two surfaces reflect light. It is this raw aluminum ring which I both have been told, and do believe, is the source of a reddish flare that shows up sometimes near the bottom of the frame. I'd say it shows up about 10% of the time on average - and only when you are shooting at a certain angle from your light source.

I remember reading on this forum, somewhere (but I can't find the thread), that another Zoerk adapter user solved this issue quite simply. Apparently there exists some matte black "metal dye" which is used in the gun world, that once brushed on completely eliminates this problem. I have been in contact with a gun shop near here and have not yet found this dye. By the way simply coloring the ring with a black magic marker doesn't solve the reflecting problem. I tried that on the original adapter.


Other than the red flare, I see only good things happening here. Since I got this adapter I have left this house every day of every weekend, hours before sunrise - and I like to sleep. For me, being able to capture images that we just can't see otherwise is completely thrilling. Email me Paolo, I'll bring down all the appropriate gear and you can experiment (and I can learn).

* Pelicans were shot at 150 yards, from the top of a cliff.


Eric, I have tried the Nikon 28-70 2.8 ED. And yes, 28mm on the Nikon equals 28mm on the Fujinon.

If that sounds interesting, you should see what the 105mm Micro looks like. Talk about shallow depth of field..?

[Jeffrey Butler]

Eric, great stuff...thanks for taking the time to post all of it!

[Earl Thurston]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

I had asked them about E"OS" lenses a while ago...

The EOS back focus distance is too short for the HDxxx's. So, even they licensed (or reverse-engineered) Canon's electronic controls for the EOS lenses, a simple adapter wouldn't be enough to do the job. It would also require extra optics.

[Eric Gulbransen]

Earl, thanks for the explanation. Might you have any idea how to get the specs for the exact measurements of say, the Nikon lens mount surface to the Nikon sensor. And then perhaps the JVC lens mount surface to it's sensor? I have searched using my delinquent vocabulary but get nothing.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Flange to focal plane distance is 44mm for Canon EOS and 46.5 for Nikon, which makes it possible to create an adapter to mount Nikon lenses to a EOS body, for example. The adapter is a simple metal coupler with no optical element, similar to the Zoerk adapter for the HD100/200

[Eric Gulbransen]

What I'm after then, is to calculate an exact measurement from the JVC 'flange to sensor', plus JVC 'flange to proper distance of Nikon flange' in order to confirm that this Zoerk adapter is truly landing the Nikon's focal plane on the optimum spot for the JVC. I read a few days ago on Ken Rockwell's site that a Nikon to EOS adapter that he used was off .75mm and all his images were compromised as a result - until he caught on. I think there might be more in these Nikon lenses than I am able to capture just yet.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

I read a few days ago on Ken Rockwell's site that a Nikon to EOS adapter that he used was off .75mm and all his images were compromised as a result - until he caught on. I think there might be more in these Nikon lenses than I am able to capture just yet.

One thing that helps to avoid that problem is to replace the EOS viewfinder screen with a traditional split-circle one, the style used by several SLR cameras in the past. In fact I'm going to order one for the 350D soon. I was used to it from the film days and I think it's still the best way to judge focus by eye on a still camera. Regarding the focus on the HD200, let's remember to test it on Thursday. I have a large Fiddleheads chart, that should give us a good idea if the lens focuses properly across the band.