Junior
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Junior
-
-
-
On 09/05/2016 at 4:33 AM, Ian Edward Weir said:
Hello, I'm not sure what you mean? Here is an article on the Recilux 3FF-W. http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/01/27/real-anamorphic-for-less-the-rectilux-3ff-w-single-focus-adapter-reviewed/
I have the Core DNA, which has a 75mm thread and can take lens of that size or smaller by locking down with grub screws. I also have a 3FF-S for baby anamorphic lens but I don't know much about the 3FF-W. All the Recilux adapters are very nice and have made shooting with any anamorphic lens I choose look good! Worth the money for me. Super sharp and no loss of image quality and no silly blue blobs. Unless your into that sort of thing
You posted an eBay link to "M3/M4 Stainless Steel Nylon Head Grub Screw Plastic Brake Buffer Bolt Screws Hex".
This eBay product has different diameters. What I am asking is what diameter should I buy to replace 3FF-W screws.
Thanks. -
On 29/02/2016 at 3:40 PM, Ian Edward Weir said:
1. M3/M4 Stainless Steel Nylon Head Grub Screw Plastic Brake Buffer Bolt Screws Hex
This is so you don’t scratch up the coating of your anamorphic lens or housing.
Hello Ian,
Very nice topic you made here, thanks!
Can I ask you please what diameter should I buy for my Recilux 3FF-W?
Have a nice day.
-
Panasonic,
just do it
and we just buy it!
(…and 5 axis stab please?)
-
My understanding is they are all share the same optics from the sizes told. The difference might be coatings.
Good point!
-
I can provide you infos about Elmo II if you need.
I agree housing of 8Z / B&H is different, and rear sizes too. But I guess that's all. According to Andrew Reid "The Bell and Howell anamorphic by Kowa, then, is a Kowa Prominar in a sleeker chassis." ( http://www.eoshd.com/2011/02/kowa-anamorphic-lens-review/ )
That's an interesting triangle we have here: Elmo has same rear size as 8z/16h but looks like a B&H. B&H is lighter and wider than 8z/16h. 8z/16h is more common but cheaper with similar optical results (I guess but I'm not sure). Elmo and B&H are supposed to have more drastic glass tests than 8z/16h.
What do you think about it?
-
You mean follow focus to use with both lenses?
No, FF to use on a single focus adapter (Rectilux here, or others.)
-
Very very nice work! Thanks a lot, it's a treasure for all of us anamorphic diggers!
By the way, I have two questions if you don't mind:
- did you remove Elmoscope II from database?
- it looks like you think there's an optical difference between Kowa 8-z/16H & Kowa Bell & Howell. But they are both Prominar labelled. Is this "B&H quality control" a web legend or not? I mean Kowa is Kowa, japanese handmade excellence (still today). I really try to understand this price difference. For me they optically look same, don't they?
Thanks!
-
-
Alright, thanks Boldy!
I think it would be more "on the shoulder fiction", dialogs but with a "run & gun" docu style.
I was lookings at RJ, Fotga, and Camtree. (D/Focus too but it's already more expensive…)
I don't know if somebody already tried those different FF: which one would have less play?
I'm looking for hard stops solutions if possible at this price.
Thanks!
-
My criterias are:
Budget between 100$ and 300$. It's to use on a Rectilux (I already have a Focus Gear from Helicopter Sean), and a GH4 rigged on Letus Talons K1 Shoulder Mount. It's narrative.
Thanks.
-
FOLLOW FOCUS ON A BUDGET - SUGGESTIONS PLEASE?
-
Is there a SUPER 35 MODE?
(FF is cool but sometimes the "35 look" feels more cinematic for some of us)
-
Is there a SUPER 35 MODE?
(FF is cool but sometimes the "35 look" feels more cinematic for some of us)
-
Over this cool EF Metabones, what M42 adapter can functionnaly and securely be used please?
On the official page they say "some improperly-made M42 screw mount adapters may short the electronic contacts of the Speed Booster and cause damage to the Speed Booster and/or camera body."
I have a Fotodiox - is it good enough? Which ones work or don't? Do you guys have some references please?
Thanks.
-
What I early said in this wild forum:
What the specialised guys told me yesterday is that even if it doesn't stay around your neck or on your chest for hours, (or under your bed), it's still dangerous because of lost dusts. One of the main risks is to let it fall and break it for example. Vacuum cleaner wouldn't help you there…
Once ingerated (accidentally of course), Radium 232 is known to stay on bones and in liver for life!
&
I'm only here to prevent (...)
But each one is free.
That's all folks!
But what I didin't explain too is that if let it fall and break it would be the worse situation, just have it near (getting old and disaggregating) is near the same, but slower. Once you get some inside of you it's forever. Really risky isn't it?
So if I continue to argue here, it's because I'm afraid that a guy reading your last positive posts finds the wrong reassuring sentences he would be looking for and gets less carefully being less informated.
-
Viewfinder eye-pieces made of Thorium? Now that a entirely different topic.
The viewfinder info is just a part of the article, as an example. It's not the only subject of this, so it's not "an entirely different topic". It's full of infos about Takumar. So read full text before answering "Mr Saadwi the physician"…
-
If the viewfinder isn't made of thorium glass, which it won't be, everything bolded is not correct about what you actually are getting. Why? Because alpha particles aren't penetrating the lens barrel to radiate you through the side of the lens and they aren't penetrating through the camera and coming out the back or through the camera and through the eyepiece optics. It's not happening.
If alpha particles can't penetrate a piece of paper they aren't passing through multiple layers of metal, plastic and glass.
You really don't understand what you read Cunningham.
-
Check this:
http://petapixel.com/2012/10/11/a-look-at-the-radioactivity-of-old-manual-lenses/
It says:
"If you want to learn more about the health effects of this radiation, check out this article by the Health Physics Society. Based on that data, Matthew Miller writes"
[...] Or to put it another way, in that year. Not completely trivial, but not something people normally stress about. And .
This puts the “6hrs/day for a month†usage at about the same as getting a chest X-rayusing the lens six hours a day for a year would be the same as taking three round-trip flights from one US coast to the otherthat’d be really heavy usageThe articles indicate that , particularly if you happen to have thorium in an eyepiece [...] So you might decide to spend a little less time holding the camera right to your eye than you might otherwise.
exposure to the eye might be a greater concern than overall dosageAssuming (based on the reading) that looking through the viewfinder is very roughly an order of magnitude greater exposure than the general usage, .
looking through the viewfinder for an hour is about 1µSv — equivalent to getting an arm x-ray -
I'm only here to prevent, I've seen so much Taks & Mamiyas on eBay…
But each one is free.
That's all folks!
-
Rubbish thread. When my house is burning down I'll call for a fireman. I won't call upon one to carry out careful experimentation relating to things beyond their capabilities.
Who ya gonna call when your face is burning down? Bobby the UK cop?
In France cops have guns and specialised firemen are specialised.what about the glow in the dark dials on my wrist watch ...shall I stop wearing that now?
I'm going to build a Fariday Cage in my house to shield me from all the Wifi signals in my road .......COS THAT IS CONSTANT 24/7
unlike the old lenses that are all locked away in my lead lined cabinet.
I've stopped using a cell phone too , oh and my tablet ...
Stop wearing your grand father's wrist watch glowing in the dark if it lasts more than 2 days. It'd be more radioactive than a Takumar; this time it wouldn't be thorium but radium.
http://www.andra.fr/producteurs/download/site-principal/document/objets_radioactifs.pdf -
Funny thing is I've been a physician for 40 years, with a PhD in Radiology for about 30, so I know a thing or two about radioactivity, and the extent of danger on us...
Technically, are there risks? Yes. Just like there are risks of getting hit by a bus everytime you're walking down the street,
like there are risks of getting poisoned everytime you get an x-ray,
just like there are risks of getting rejected everytime you ask her out :)
Just don't eat your hundred year-old lenses everyday for next 20 years, and you'll be fine, happy shooting people!Ebrahim, you're just a student from Mansoura, Egypt (at the faculty of Dentistry). Too bad I know you from other websites…
SO, you're not physician for 40 years (with a PhD in Radiology for about 30) cause you're 18 years old. SO you don't "know a thing or two about radioactivity, and the extent of danger on us..."
Anyway I believe you about risks of getting rejected everytime you ask her out. -
You're so shielded...
-
...yes but radiation acts accumulatively, so travel to japan+daily radition from all electronic devices+a few trips with an airplane and x-ray
add a few radioactive lenses lying around the house..equals who knows what
dont know about you but if you have small kids or any pregnant ladies around, i wouldnt be so keen on keeping them.
and i think people should know which ones are radioactive...please add more in the list if you know any.
When the geiger became noisy yesterday, firemen asked me first if I had kids or animals. They're really vulnerables.
Anyone selling a kowa b&h/Kowa 8z?
In: Cameras
Posted
Kowa B&H.
1200€ + shipping from France.