tupp Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Sony are the OEM. They built it FOR Hasselblad. It's not licensed to Hasselblad so that Hasselblad can then go and make the camera under licence in their own factory. Any off-the-shelf Sony technology that Hasselblad used is likely licensed so that Hasselblad can sell it. On the other hand, neither of us know the language of the clauses in the Sony-Hasselblad agreement, so until somebody produces the contract, it is sort of futile to go back and forth any more on the matter. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Quote I am not so sure about that, for the reasons I stated earlier. You have not made that case. Yes I have ... for the reasons I stated earlier. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: It's not an E mount if you can't use an actual E mount lens. Isn't that obvious ? Isn't that relevant to the topic ? You're claiming E mount, you're claiming it's easy to get around and yet, you actually can't use an E mount lens on the Kinifinity despite the fact it has an E Mount option (unless it's some aftermarket E mount lens that doens't have comms) E mount lenses require electronic comms for iris and power for IS. If you don't supply that then no native E mount lens with work on Kinifinity's E-mount. The ONLY reason Kinifinity have been able to get away with saying it's an E mount is because it's not an E mount. It's only mechanically an E mount I think that most people would say it's an E-mount, even though the contacts are apparently not active. When you buy the mechanical portion of the mount, what do you call it? On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Give me some examples with costs please. By the way you know Clairmount went bust ? I have know idea how much Clairmont spent to make their adapters. They were a rental house, so they didn't sell them. I heard that Denny Clairmont merely retired and sold his company to Keslow Camera -- not that Clairmont "went bust."' On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: I guarentee you the cost of a squishy lens was many thousands to manufacture. (Clairmount were like Panavision, mostly rental only) I mentioned Clairmont Camera merely to demonstrate that the use of adapters is not always considered a "pain" nor "amateurish." Rental cost of the adapters is immaterial. Yes. Panavision is another company that produces adapters happily used by pros. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: You should edit this and say... "I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just can't change exposure or use the IS or record any metadata when using Native E mount lenses." I would agree with your wording, as long as the E-mount lens is an electronic lens -- not a manual lens. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Quote At any rate, Kinefinity already has a "non-native" E-mount, and that's all that matters. As long as you're OK with not being able to change exposure, use IS or use metadata with E Mount lenses. I am okay with that, as I would probably never need to use such an electronic lens. I suspect that there are a few others who are likewise okay with it, as it being offered on a couple of cameras. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: How ? By making a "plate" that magically doesn't cost extra ? You're being foolish. Right. It's required. You agree. It costs 700 bucks. You want to add 700 bucks to the cost of a 1200 dollar camera for a feature few will use. I am not sure you understand the implications of native lens control or market economics mean to a camera design. Of course it does. I will try another way to explain how making the front end of a camera with a shallower mount costs no more than making the front end with a greater FFD. Lets say that a camera manufacturer wants to make two cameras, each having a removable front lens plate: one camera has a lens plate that mount at an FFD greater than that of say, a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "X" and camera body "Y"; the other camera has lens plate that mounts 12mm closer to the sensor than FFD of a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "A" and camera body "B." Lens plates "A" and "X" are identical, except that "A" is 12mm longer than "X." Camera bodies "B" and "Y" are identical, except that "B" is 12mm shorter than "Y." The tooling on the respective parts are identical, except for the difference in these single dimensions. Thus, it costs the same to make "A-B" as it does to make "X-Y." Got it? On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Yes. Tokina made a lens that some copies couldn't hit infinity at the standard Canon FFD. Okay, If Tokina was the one to blame, I am not sure why you brought up the problem. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Quote 99% percent of the don't have to know anything about shimming if the shims are captive. Until they change over time or aren't right.Which is what happens when you make something user-changeable. 99% of the EF users will never change anything. People who want to change mounts will largely be able to do so, and, of course, will have to accept any risks (which are almost nil). On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Show me some detail about how you shim your EF mount ? I wouldn't shim my EF mount (and I hardly ever use it). However, if I had to shim it on the adapter to which it is mounted, I would have to unscrew it, put the shim(s) in place and screw the mount back on. Of course, there needs to be enough male and female threads to do so securely and the shim/spacer needs to be positioned so that it comes between the adapter body and the mount material. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: I am not sure you understand the implications of native lens control or market economics mean to a camera design. I think that I have made it clear that having a shallow mount doesn't preclude the use of a popular mount, and that such a configuration could be designed so that most users would be aware that the popular, fully-functional mount is actually removable. I have addressed how the design of such a camera would not affect it's "market economics." On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Quote Nobody is going to notice 1-2 degrees of skew, unless they are shooting flat art or they are using a very narrow lens wide open (or if they are focusing with lens marks). You're saying you accept a mechanically induced optical problem. I am saying that it usually is not a problem with cheap adapters, especially if one is using rails and a lens support. Certainly,one tries to avoid skew, unless it is intentional (which, sometimes, it is). On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: I think you're alone in thinking that everyone will be fine with the compromise that goes with that. That is not what I think, but there are obviously a lot of people using cheap adapters. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Quote Manufacturers have already shown that such an EF mount can be default, while retaining the versatility of shallower mount, with no complaints from the clueless EF users. Yep. At substantial cost. It can be done. I agree. You just don't want to pay for what it would take to do this. No. It doesn't actually cost that much, even with precision. Standard manufacturing/fabrication tolerances often start at +/- 0.003 inch (in the USA). Of course, optical tolerances can be higher. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: Quote In addition, there is no extra cost to do so in some cases, and in other instances the additional cost would be low (maybe 8 more simple machining operations). Can you elaborate ? Have you made lens mounts ? Lens adaptors ? Are you a manufacturer ? can you share some examples of your work ? I know one or two things about manufacturing. The eight additional machining operations are tapping four threads in the camera body and drilling four corresponding holes in the lens mount. These eight machining operations could be reduced down to two -- as I recall, the Eclair NPR had a turret that was attached with a single threaded knob (tap one thread in the NPR body and one hole in the lens plate). Some fabricators count tapping threads as a separate operation from drilling the thread hole. Nonetheless, it is not that much more expensive than those who group such operations as a single procedure. Before anyone goes on about the extra cost of dealing with a separate piece (lens plate) in comparison with a body that includes the front end as a single piece, there are complications that one has to deal with in regards to larger molded/die-cast items, which can drive the cost higher. On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said: But it's a 700 dollar item. Round and round we go. You keep saying it won't cost anything extra. It's 700 bucks ! If you buy a theoretical camera with two plates, that's 700 bucks a pop. Or at least and extra 700 bucks for the EF version and you can make some homebrew e mount adaptor for 100 bucks, but it's still added 700 bucks to everyone else's camera for a feature they'll never use. It's not more expensive, as I have explained in the "A-B/X-Y" example, and it is not much more expensive to go from a one-piece design to a two-piece design as I described directly above. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.