2/3 Scarlet Fixed vs 2/3 Scarlet Price Comparison

[David Rasberry]

Typical full service on good zoom is going to be $500-700 or more, a full day's work for an optical tech. Complete disassembly/reassembly of the lens. That's if it doesn't have any damage or wear issues. A couple of mine will also need to be converted to PL mount.
I plan to do extensive tests, both lab and field, and post the results for people to judge for themselves. Some of these lenses I know will perform quite well, the Cooke 9-50mm for instance, others maybe not so well but they are often available cheap enough to serve the purpose until you can afford something better. For 2/3" Scarlet I expect most will outperform all but the most expensive 35mm still lenses as they are optimized for the image area of 16mm vs 35mm film.
But older lenses designed to perform well on film don't necessarily perform so well on digital cameras, so it is a bit of a gamble. I have been encouraged by the results I have seen from old C-mount cine lenses adapted to Lumix G1/GH1 cameras though. Some do spectacularly well. Good glass is good glass. Here is a sample from my Taylor Hobson 8-24mm f1.6 taken by the guy I bought it from.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38716963@N04/3559987472/sizes/l/

 

[Jay Voutour]

Typical full service on good zoom is going to be $500-700, a full day's work for an optical tech. Complete disassembly/reassembly of the lens. That's if it doesn't have any damage or wear issues.

That's actually not that bad considering the alternatives (buying new). It does sound a bit nerve-wracking though to wonder what, if any, unknown "damage or wear issues" there might be unseen in the body.

A couple of mine will also need to be converted to PL mount.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I thought most 16mm lenses had a C-mount?
________
Masturbation fingering

 

[David Rasberry]

That's actually not that bad considering the alternatives (buying new). It does sound a bit nerve-wracking though to wonder what, if any, unknown "damage or wear issues" there might be unseen in the body.



Maybe this is a stupid question, but I thought most 16mm lenses had a C-mount?

Many of the better lenses were made for Arriflex cameras and have Arri standard or bayonet mounts. These are much stronger and more stable than C-mount and can be adapted to PL pretty easily. Some more recent models for S16 are already PL mount, but also more expensive.

 

[Jay Voutour]

But older lenses designed to perform well on film don't necessarily perform so well on digital cameras, so it is a bit of a gamble. I have been encouraged by the results I have seen from old C-mount cine lenses adapted to Lumix G1/GH1 cameras though. Some do spectacularly well. Good glass is good glass. Here is a sample from my Taylor Hobson 8-24mm f1.6 taken by the guy I bought it from.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38716963@N04/3559987472/sizes/l/

I like it. For clarification, this is a still shot with a G1, correct? 3:1 is an interesting zoom range, is it a constant aperture? Can't seem to find the specs on the web...

Many of the better lenses were made for Arriflex cameras and have Arri standard or bayonet mounts. These are much stronger and more stable than C-mount and can be adapted to PL pretty easily. Some more recent models for S16 are already PL mount, but also more expensive.

Thanks for that.
________
Cheap Herbal Vaporizers

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I won't be fooled into thinking the Scarlet will produce equivalent images to the Epic... you just know the old "You get what you pay for" & "compared to what other product" arguements will likely be slung around...

At worst we speculate the Red Scarlet will likely be better than the Canon offerings by a generation or so in the recorded image quality and frame rate

Equivalent images? In sensor characteristics they'll be the same, same sensor, just smaller (for the 2/3"). As Jim said, "looks great, just smaller...".

And the only downside of 35mm Scarlets will be frame rate limitations.

You won't be using Master Primes with the 2/3" Fixed so, well, you can't expect TOP optical performance, but I wouldn't expect anything less than great.

Now... Beat by a generation or so?

The video from HDSLRs are gimmicks at best, line-skipping, aliasing, no overcranking at full res... I'd say it beats it by 10 generations, unless some company releases something groundbreaking (related both to the industry and to their own product line) which is not likely.

 

[David Rasberry]

I like it. For clarification, this is a still shot with a G1, correct? 3:1 is an interesting zoom range, is it a constant aperture? Can't seem to find the specs on the web...

Yeah the picture was shot with a G1. Cine zooms are constant aperture and constant focus through the zoom range with rare exceptions. This one would be roughly equivalent to a 28-85mm zoom on a 35mm still camera. This is apparently quite a rare lens, I have never seen another one, nor have I ever seen any literature on it. The front element is a whopping 95mm diameter! It was French manufactured by Sopelem to a Taylor Hobson design in the 60's-70's. Sopelem made lenses were used mostly on the French Beaulieu and Eclair 16mm cameras.