Birger Lens Mount & Follow Focus

[underachiever]

Right on Gibby... The most silly thing about the auto-functions = unpro attitude is, that the people who make the comments are the same people that needs to employ an assistant to pull focus... LMAO

 

[Michael Hastings]

Pros and auto functions

Pros and auto functions

The notion that someone who uses an auto function on a camera, or for that matter uses a camera system that has some auto-function capabilities, is somehow not a professional...

I didn't mean to suggest that using autofunctions was unprofessional, I agree with pretty much everything you said. My point was that the RED with no autofocus isn't any different than the highend video cameras.

I think the truth is it has been just too difficult/expensive to incorporate autofocus into large B4 type lenses and the video camera heads that use them - but I can remember talking to a Sony product manager that used the excuse that "real professionals" wouldn't use autofocus.

Personally, I shoot with both broadcast cameras and with "prosumer" cameras - and I am happy to use autofocus and autoiris anytime it will work as well or better than manual. I know good videographers that use autoiris 80% of the time (often in conjunction with the + or - halfstop override) and others that are almost always manual.

BTW I suspect people coming from the video world will initially miss autoiris a lot more than they miss autofocus.

PS Think about the fact that none of the broadcast/EFP shoulder type cameras e.g Varicam, F900, etc. have autofocus. I think these cameras should have autofocus by now, but the thinking seems to be that a professional is supposed to be anticipating focus so wouldn't want AF since it is normally reacting rather than anticipating.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I’m singing to the choir here Mike. My last post and this one are not pointed at you, but rather at industry attitudes in general.

Auto functions have distinct uses in the image capturing process. Being one of the guys who works in acquisition workflows that range from old school all-manual (film, some 2/3” work) to convergence school part manual/part auto (2/3”, ½”), up to pure run ‘n gun all auto (1/3”), I’ve learned to match the equipment and style of shooting to the project, segment, or scene at hand, and go get the images. I simply match the tool and the style of using it to the task at hand, without prejudice toward equipment or styles of shooting. If everyone in the image generating industry had this same attitude, there would be a lot less time spent judging others equipment used, and a lot more time spent opening our minds to the possibilities that convergent technology enables.

If someone wants to concentrate their shooting to an all-manual field workflow, I say go for it. Conversely, if someone feels moved to concentrate their shooting to an all-auto field workflow, I say go for it. The caveat being – make sure your shooting style matches the style needed for the projects you do. I have no script running in my head that tells me “You can’t shoot auto-functions”, but rather a script running that says “Use auto-functions when it makes sense”. If ego or peer pressure is keeping a shooter from spreading their skill sets and shooting in an ever wider collection of genres and styles, and that keeps him/her from reaching their full potential as a shooter, and consequently also limits his/her revenue generating potential, then IMO they should reconsider their attitudes and approach.

I work along side with, and employ cinematographers, videographers, and still photographers who capture amazing images! I’ve developed a healthy respect for all of their skills, craft expressions, and equipment choices – and I’ve learned from all of them. In the process, I’ve learned that in each discipline there are shooters who can do some incredible things with camera systems - which their critics on the others side of the judgment fence couldn’t do unless they swallowed their pride and learned those skills. Respect should be a two-way street, but for some reason many old school guys seem to feel that all respect should flow to them from everyone else, and new school guys readily buy into that scenario for some reason.

As the formerly separate film, television/video, and still photo industries converge, it’s age-old industry attitudes, traditions, prejudices, and pride that created the “If you shoot any auto functions, you aren’t a pro” attitude, and those same factors that are prolonging it. I’ve personally moved way beyond that paradigm, to a “Match the tool, and how I use it, to the project at hand” mode of operation. I give respect for others equipment and creative choices – and I ask for respect for mine in return.

What does all this have to do with RED One? RED One was conceived and has been developed as a D-cinema camera that was also intended to be able to be used in a wide variety of EFP genres. RED has chosen to make their camera an all-manual camera because of its primary target of D-cinema use. For non-hardlined and hardlined EFP use of RED One there are necessarily workarounds to smooth out the field acquisition workflow for certain genres and styles. Some of those workarounds will involve 3rd party accessories, and some may be developed by RED. Either way, I support the development of those workarounds that enable an easier EFP acquisition workflow. If Birger, View Factor, RED, or anyone else can engineer a way to get increased auto functions with RED One, with the camera or lenses, I think that will simply enable more acquisition and genre options with an already amazingly utilitarian camera system. I say, “Go for it!”

Side note: I think the combination of zebra and histogram available on RED One, viewable in the periphery of both the EVF and LCD, and quickly adjustable, will seriously smooth out the learning curve for traditional video shooters who are used to the occasional or frequent use of auto iris.

 

[Friedrich Moser]

BTW I suspect people coming from the video world will initially miss autoiris a lot more than they miss autofocus.

I for myself can say that I am much more comfortable with shooting all manually - because it gives me the feeling of "having all under control". But I have to admit that I learned shooting on Beta SP, which is quite reverse the way most of the non-filmschool-cameramen came into the job. I just don't feel secure of having made the right choices, if - like on my HDV - something is set to "auto". So, basicly it's a psychological thing.

What I am anxoius to know instead, is the performance of the EVF and the LCD in certain conditions: Do I have focussed well? Are the colours reliable? But that is something I'll check out at the IBC. In general I can say for me (and for me only): the more manual, the better I feel about it.

PS That's also the reason why I really hate M$-Word!

Regards, Friedrich

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

I dont know what to get for the RED:
- EOS mount
- Nikon F mount

If i get the nikon mount i will buy the 17-55 and 70-200 mm lenses for sure which i think are superb.
But EOS lenses are a bit cheaper and might work better with the birger mount?

I allready have theses lenses but i could sell them easily to buy new ones (either Canon or Nikon) so i dont want to decide upon the lenses i allready have:

Nikon: 17-35 f2.8, 50mm, 105 f2.5, 180 f2.8 and 300 f4
EOS: 28 f2.8, 50mm, 85 f1.8 and 70-200 f2.8

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Macgregor,

What do you mean?

- EOS mount
- Nikon F mount

"Ordinary" Nikon F mount (for manual lenses only) you could get from RED

EOS Canon automatic focus mount you could get from Birger.

What you can do: With Nikon F mount from RED keep all A, AI-S and AF Nikon lenses to work in manual mode.

EOS-Birger is MOSTLY for Canon EOS lenses (AUTO FOCUS)
BUT it is even more when you could attach adapters for the other mounts like
M42 lenses, Leica R lenses, Hasselblad-Zeiss lenses, Rollei lenses QB SL 35 2000, Olympus OM Lenses,
Contax/Yashica CO/Y Lenses.

ALL MANUAL LENSES.

Impressive.

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

As far as i understand Birger will deliver an electronically controlled Nikon F mount (same as EOS?) and then we can use the latest Nikon lenses,which dont have iris ring and also are DX format developed.

WHy do i prefer the Birger Nikon F mount to the standard RED Nikon mount even when i allraedy have some nice Nikon lenses? Because for example the nikkor 70-200 VR delivers much better quality than the 80-200 for example. Same with the 17-35 being replaced by a new DX lense too.

 

[Darwin]

Being a Nikon guy myself, I must say the quality of the 80-200 is top notch stuff. I sold my 80-200 and got the 70-200mm for the VR. And the replacement for the 17-35mm in the DX is the 17-55mm. And I would say not so much being replaced as I would say the 17-35mm was ment for FF and the 17-55 was made for the DX size chip.

 

[Chris Burket]

When the assistant glances at the camera, how will they know what distance the lense is focused at? Will there be some sort of LED readout that comes from the lense, displaying the distance? I know the lenses are marked, but the markings are on top of the lense and very tiny. Or will you need to use a marking ring for each lense? The marking ring wouldn't be bad, as long as there is zero play in the FF unit. If its an LED readout of some kind, I would make it adjustable so it can be calibrated with a tape as I'm sure the focus marks on the lenses can be slightly off with time and use.

 

[Gregory Karydis]

OK, I know this may sound like a straightforward decision but for me it isn't.
If I get the NiKon mount then I'll have to buy all kinds of glass (the 17-35 being among them)
If I get the EOS Mount I can use my existing:
16-35 f2.8L
50 f1L
85 f1.2L
70-200 IS f2.8L
MPE 65 f2.8

Now the question is; has anyone had any experience with the MPE 65 lens on film?
this is canon's site for it http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7325
I'd love to be able to use it (even just for fun)

On the other hand, if I buy a Nikon mount I won't have to get into all the trouble os setting the IRIS and stuff.

 

[chuck colburn]

When the assistant glances at the camera, how will they know what distance the lense is focused at? Will there be some sort of LED readout that comes from the lense, displaying the distance? I know the lenses are marked, but the markings are on top of the lense and very tiny. Or will you need to use a marking ring for each lense? The marking ring wouldn't be bad, as long as there is zero play in the FF unit. If its an LED readout of some kind, I would make it adjustable so it can be calibrated with a tape as I'm sure the focus marks on the lenses can be slightly off with time and use.

Hi Chris,

It's fairly easy to make a mechanical or an electrical follow focus unit with next to zero backlash. Except for the housing most of the componets are off the shelf items. Where the problem lays is that most still camera lenses (there are exceptions but they are pricy) have inherent slop in their mechanics as it is not such a critical parameter for still photo use.

Chuck

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

With Birger Nikon F, Canon EOS or Sigma mounts we still have to see how it will work in a real world situation of 4K moving images acquisition.

I stay with manual option in the beginning even if I would have Birger EOS. Only in the case of wild life shooting for example with super telephoto lenses 300 mm and up, auto focus would help a lot.

 

[Michael Hastings]

No Autofocus!!!

No Autofocus!!!

With Birger Nikon F, Canon EOS or Sigma mounts we still have to see how it will work in a real world situation of 4K movie images acquisition.

I stay with manual option in the beginning even if I would have Birger EOS I will work with manual option. Only in a case of wild life shooting for example with super telephoto lenses 300 mm and up, auto focus would help a lot.

THE Birger mount does not do autofocus, what it does do is allow you to A) use Canon AF lenses that do not have any way to manually adjust iris, so the Birger mount lets you adjust iris through an electronic interface in the mount similar to what is on the SLR camera. and 2) manually focus the lens through the electronic interface, rather than directly turning the focus ring.

Hi Chris,

It's fairly easy to make a mechanical or an electrical follow focus unit with next to zero backlash. Except for the housing most of the componets are off the shelf items. Where the problem lays is that most still camera lenses (there are exceptions but they are pricy) have inherent slop in their mechanics as it is not such a critical parameter for still photo use.

Chuck

Chuck: since the birger mount and controller work by sending commands to the lens on where to focus and these (the AF lenses at least) lenses are made to accurately autofocus in milliseconds on a regular SLR body, I suspect with the birger mount it will be very accurate with very little slop. Erik could probably tell us more on that when he gets back from vacation, since that doesn't have anything to do with the RED camera.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

THE Birger mount does not do autofocus, what it does do is allow you to A) use Canon AF lenses that do not have any way to manually adjust iris, so the Birger mount lets you adjust iris through an electronic interface in the mount similar to what is on the SLR camera. and 2) manually focus the lens through the electronic interface, rather than directly turning the focus ring.

OK not a standard "autofocus" but something like below>>

Birger wrote for the EF232 adapter:
"The EF232 adapter allows the use of Canon EF-mount lenses without requiring the use of a Canon EOS camera body. With the Adapter, focus and iris functions of the lens are precisely controlled over the serial port. The beauty of the Canon EOS lens system is that all of the actuators for the lens are incorporated. But the difficulty is that many of the Canon lenses can not even be manually focused without being attached to a Canon EOS Camera body. That is of course, until now. The EF232 Adapter takes the place of the Camera body, giving functionality such as highly repeatable focus control, and iris control in ½ stop increments."
Link>>
http://www.birger.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=ef232_home

Birger FAQ:
"12. How do I determine the range of the focus and aperture on my lens?
Using the zero and infinity commands (mi and mz for focus, mc and mo for aperture) will read out the maximum and minimum values available for the lens in use."
Link>>
http://www.birger.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=faq

Birger wrote:
"EF232 Lens Interface Protocol Definition"
Link>>
http://www.birger.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=ef232_softintf#focus

 

[Erik Widding]

OK not a standard "autofocus" but something like below>>

Sanjin, Aquavideo did have it right. "auto" implies that the focus point is selected "automatically" by the system. This is quite simply not the case. The mount commands the lens to go to a preselected focus point. Our mounts simply use the actuators already inside the lenses (placed there for the SLR body to perform "automatic" features) to effect repeatable, fast and precise control of focus and iris.

"autofocus" is a feature we currently have in the concept phase. It will be an additional module to this system. No pricing, no release date, no announcement... yet. The announced mounts will work with this additional module if, and when, we release it.

I am back from holiday, and will get to a few more questions (including pricing) towards the end of the day

 

[Darwin]

Is there any support for lens stabilization?

 

[Erik Widding]

Is there any support for lens stabilization?

Yes. Stabilization works.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Erik, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Zane Roach]

These lens mounts, through a mechanical adapter, can also be used on a RedRock M2, and other 35mm adapters.

This is has my attention!

Through the viewfinder. The lens mount will report it to the camera, using either the Cooke or Fuji lens protocols. The RED camera supports these protocols.

But how will we know the set aperture on the Redrock M2 or other adapters?

Thanks

 

[Peter Kullmann]

The Birger adapter + Canon EOS L series lenses seem to be to be a worthwhile option, especially if you want / need to change lenses often and quickly and have no time for all the time consuming follow-focus hassle (not to mention the price difference to PL-mount lenses). But does anyone know, how these canon lenses perform against Cooke / Zeiss / Angenieux PL lenses?

tnx