Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Birger Lens Mount Reservations

donatello said:
"As soon as we get a first production shipment of Imperos, we will send an email telling the existing owners what they need to know about the upgrade program."

isn't that like going to the end of the line ??

IMO i think it's about time you took care of those customers that have a mount that is not up to spec ...
Click to expand...

I made the decision back when we just started shipping again, and it looked like Impero shipments were just days away. At the time, the reasoning was to save people an extra shipping charge. I appologize for not rethinking the strategy sooner.

Anybody that wants their mount fixed now, can send it in. Email your tracking number when you ship it.
 
Joe Vinson said:
Erik, just out of curiosity, what was causing the problem of mounts not recognizing lenses?
Click to expand...

Camera was cutting power to the mount during the initialization sequence... over and over and over again... :ranting2:

We changed the initialization sequence to lower the power draw. But when you do something like this it can make a dozen lenses work right, at the same time it makes a different dozen lenses work even worse. A larger test group and a multi-pronged approach, gave a better result. Big thanks to Paul Cronin and Rodney Charters for helping out last weekend with the further testing of this.

Billy over at FilmStar Rentals, in Southie, is loaning us a bunch of lenses to do some more validation. Steve Sherrick is scheduled to come over on Sunday with the lenses, to do some testing and shooting.
 
Thanks for the updates and information Eric.
I'm putting Zantac away now. Not that I needed it ........

On another note....

Is the issue that Lowkus was having regarding the space between the camera and his mount resolved? I mean not just his issue, but does the mount fit snugly up against the camera or is it to be expected that there will be some space when collimating some lenses?
Seems odd if there is space.


Thanks,

Greg
 
Gregory Leno said:
Is the issue that Lowkus was having regarding the space between the camera and his mount resolved? I mean not just his issue, but does the mount fit snugly up against the camera or is it to be expected that there will be some space when collimating some lenses?
Seems odd if there is space.
Click to expand...

The collimation ring is supposed to sit flush with the front of the camera. This will result in a gap between the outer edge of the mount and the camera. The amount of this gap is somewhat variable, and a function of the tolerances with which the camera is built. This was the only way we could vary the thickness of the mount, and still work in all of the electronics and connectors. The gap is typically 0.5mm (or so I think).

At some point we will probably ship out a compressible gasket, and offer a shim kit for those that would prefer shims to the collimation ring. I want to see where the tolerances actually fall with the cameras before I do this. I think a customer poll of the thickness of the gap, will get us a large enough sample size, to make something people can actually use.
 
Dear Erik,

I am an almost happy customer of you that received your mount without knob
last October 2008.
I wrote to you and Amy 3 emails describing the issue I have with the mount
and had no answer but I now understand writing back to clients was not your priority.

Now I wish to receive the Perfect mount with the Impero remote as soon as it is available
and then I will send back to you the old mount.
This order of operations would suit me as well as others.

Please remember that I trust you since more than a year
and paid in full at the time of order end of November 2008
107.232142
so it is about time you trust me!

and let me first receive the New mount with accessories and then send the old one the day after I will receive the new one.

I hope you will agree with this decent proposition
and I thank you for your efforts that make us, users,
happy to work with a new great tool.

Best regards,
 
LEON said:
Now I wish to receive the Perfect mount with the Impero remote as soon as it is available and then I will send back to you the old mount. This order of operations would suit me as well as others.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Not going to be able to do this. We are upgrading your mount, not replacing it. We simply do not have enough materials to build and send out extra mounts. This is much the same as what RED chose to do with its cameras when they offered to upgrade all of the early adopters to the latest and greatest. This is not, as you suggest, an issue of trust. This is simply an issue of logistics.
 
ok,
you leave me no choice but

1-Red is not good example, they "upgraded" so nicely my camera and now there is dust on the sensor, they say it could happen during the shipping
and the camera has now to travel back from France to California (more shipping !)

2- Red is a good example: they pay for the shipping: Fedex took it on Friday, it came back on following Wednesday.


Anyway, good luck with your work, I love this mount so I can forgive a lot!

Best to Amy and you

jean-Luc LEON
 
Thom Steinhoff said:
Erik,

Please tell me I'm on that list. Originally I had wanted to wait for the Knob, but then I updated to send ASAP several months back.

Paid in full and my last correspondences with you guys confirmed it--but...

Please tell me I'm on that list!!!
Click to expand...

Same situation here. I too wanted to wait for the knob but sent an email to have the mount shipped in advance of the knob. Amy responded saying that would happen.

I look forward to getting this!
 
birgerEngineer said:
The collimation ring is supposed to sit flush with the front of the camera. This will result in a gap between the outer edge of the mount and the camera. The amount of this gap is somewhat variable, and a function of the tolerances with which the camera is built. This was the only way we could vary the thickness of the mount, and still work in all of the electronics and connectors. The gap is typically 0.5mm (or so I think).

At some point we will probably ship out a compressible gasket, and offer a shim kit for those that would prefer shims to the collimation ring. I want to see where the tolerances actually fall with the cameras before I do this. I think a customer poll of the thickness of the gap, will get us a large enough sample size, to make something people can actually use.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks.

Just so I'm clear, when you say "the outer edge of the mount" are you are referring to surface of the mount that is closest to the camera as indicated by the arrow in this photo? And that at some point you are thinking of creating a gasket that would go here?... or do I not understand this correctly.
 
And... thanks to all who..

And... thanks to all who..

..talked me out of jumping off the ledge.

I haven't had much chance to post or reply to PM's but have read everything related to this thread.

I'm hanging on (by my fingernails!) and waiting for the Birger/Impero combo to arrive.
 
Sorry if i missed it but is there an issue with recieving your mount early with no controller? Essentially those that recieve them early have to send back to get an update/fix? Or is this just for mounts in older batches?
 
LEAKED: Birger & the 3rd Man revealed! 1st Vienna red-chaos club meeting

LEAKED: Birger & the 3rd Man revealed! 1st Vienna red-chaos club meeting

Hi red fans!
yesterday we had a small meeting in my place to test the mentioned new birger mount. On the photos you see also one of the famous polish cinematographers, aka "the smoker". the 3rd man combined the birger test with extended test for the clap on iphone. (would be great to sync it with the cam by usb..hahah)

we are happy that the mount actually works pretty well but this doesn't mean we didn't have difficulties ;)

best from vienna,

yours nudelaug :spidy:
 
Gregory Leno said:
Ok thanks.

Just so I'm clear, when you say "the outer edge of the mount" are you are referring to surface of the mount that is closest to the camera as indicated by the arrow in this photo? And that at some point you are thinking of creating a gasket that would go here?... or do I not understand this correctly.
Click to expand...

There's a dial inside the mount, and as you turn it the collimation structure (a threaded internal cylinder) can be moved to protrude out the back of the mount. The cylinder, though, is firmly set against the camera. So the front of the mount (and the outer ring) are forced to move away from the camera body. This results in a small gap between the mount's outer ring and the camera body.

A rubber gasket would be a nice addition to fill the gap. It would look aesthetically pleasing, and more importantly it would seal the mount from dust and moisture. Maybe two or three thin gaskets, stacked, would be a good option to accommodate different gap widths.
 
Some observations

Some observations

Made tests with various Canon L-series lenses and teleconverters. Some observations:

i) Canon EF 400m 1:2.8 L II Ultrasonic does not function at all. Can't initialize the lens or focus it nor does it send any lens data to the camera. Has anybody tried the big teles, such as EF 500mm, 600mm or 800mm 1:4.0 L II Ultrasonic so far? I wonder whether this is a power or software issue.

ii) Canon 1.4x and 2.0x extenders work out just fine. At the first glance the image quality with say the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L Ultrasonic lens seems to be just fine. A minor issue is that the zoom length does not come through to the LCD when using the extenders.
 
nudelaug said:
actually we tried to collimate the mount with a 10-22mm and later with a 20mm 2.0. the zoom lens was loosing focus when zooming. we couldn't fix that.

the focus distance scale on the lenses was ca 40% off to the real distance...

unfortunately we didn't have time to check all things like the collimation ring on the mount, because it was sharp since we put the first lens on....missed something?

AND FINAL: we checked the newest canon primes, not the l-primes. these lenses are RAZOR sharp, we didn't see any difficult abberations (maybe on the 80mm 1.8 only)
Click to expand...

10-22mm does not hold focus with zoom in the macro range. If you are going to use this lens for collimation you will need to put the chart out two to three meters. If the focus scale was off 40% your collimation is no where near correct. Hence the zoom over focus problem. You might be happier with the 85mm/1.8 once the collimation is set. I will let others help you with this. Jay's video will be out next week, and I have walked enough people through the process, I am sure there is a kind soul out there that will talk you through it. Maybe someone wants to start a new collimation thread.
 
Lauri Kettunen said:
Made tests with various Canon L-series lenses and teleconverters. Some observations:

i) Canon EF 400m 1:2.8 L II Ultrasonic does not function at all. Can't initialize the lens or focus it nor does it send any lens data to the camera. Has anybody tried the big teles, such as EF 500mm, 600mm or 800mm 1:4.0 L II Ultrasonic so far? I wonder whether this is a power or software issue.

ii) Canon 1.4x and 2.0x extenders work out just fine. At the first glance the image quality with say the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L Ultrasonic lens seems to be just fine. A minor issue is that the zoom length does not come through to the LCD when using the extenders.
Click to expand...

If this is with 19x, please post in the other thread, and I will look into it. If it is with an earlier 19u release I am not surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top