Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Dragon Lens Coverage Information

Phil, if you get a chance, I'd love to know coverage of some of the older sets. It's obvious the wider ones will vignette, but nice to know about the medium focals and what resolution the wides work on.
Specifically, S2/3 Panchros and Lomo Standard Speeds.
Thanks!
 
Samir Patel said:
Anyone shooting the Leica-M's shorter than 50 on the Dragon? I remember hearing that the lens port had more clearance to accommodate this. Anything on that? Wondering how that 21/1.4 performs on Dragon.
Click to expand...

problem is not with the lens not covering the sensor , but rather the camera doesn't physically allow a short flange distance, which the lens requires. An odd problem for a mirror less camera to have.
 
charles, are you sure?
I always thought DSMC Leica-M mount had standard flange, but just in the MX cameras there weren't enough clearance between the mount and the sensor plane...
not a collimation issue....
 
Tommaso Alvisi said:
charles, are you sure?
I always thought DSMC Leica-M mount had standard flange, but just in the MX cameras there weren't enough clearance between the mount and the sensor plane...
not a collimation issue....
Click to expand...

I was under impression they had flange length shallower than standard full frame glass...as these are rangefinder lenses, which are designed to work w/out a mirror...giving them room to sit closer to negative, and presumably print a bit sharper/cleaner to negative (this, at least, has always been my understanding of why rangefinder glass/systems are deemed "superior" at times to their mirror based cousins, this proximity to the negative).

Then again, this is just my understanding...I certainly could be wrong!
 
yeah nick, of course shallower than reflex lens mounts...rangefinders and now mirrorless lenses are much closer to the sensor.

I was saying the DSMC is a standard Leica-M mount, in fact in DSMC Brains you get infinity focus no problem with Leica-M lenses that FIT.

So it's NOT a focal flange problem like charles said, it's a clearance issue of wider lenses (especially retro-focusing ones).

that's what I was sayin'...
 
RED 17-50 doesn't cover 6k at any focal length. It barely covers 5.5k at the long end.
 
i believe Phil H tested the M glass and found that 24mm is the safest distance on the new mounting plate. i am a leica M user and have 21lux, 35 lux and 50noct. the 21 is far longer than the shorter focal length lenses. i have yet to receive dragon but will report back as soon as i do. another workaround could be macro tube extensions, which would eliminate the ability to focus to infinity, but would allow much wider glass (down to the 16-18-21 tri-elmar).
 
joey richey said:
i believe Phil H tested the M glass and found that 24mm is the safest distance on the new mounting plate. i am a leica M user and have 21lux, 35 lux and 50noct. the 21 is far longer than the shorter focal length lenses. i have yet to receive dragon but will report back as soon as i do. another workaround could be macro tube extensions, which would eliminate the ability to focus to infinity, but would allow much wider glass (down to the 16-18-21 tri-elmar).
Click to expand...

The 21mm fits. However, that's not the whole story. Due to the retrofocus design and mainly where the rear element sits and how light exits it it can cause "smearing". Same thing happens with the 21mm f/1.8 Voigtlander actually. This has more to do with microlenses and angle of incidence. What you will see is especially near the edges of the frame is a rather interesting loss of detail due to light rays not filling up individual "buckets" appropriately as these lenses were indeed designed/optimized for an entirely different type of imaging plane.

The 24mm f/1.4 Leica M however works and is sharp as a tack.

Randomly I just picked up the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 today and that thing is pin sharp. Here it is sitting on my Dragon via Instagram today:



The Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 "just fits" and has these bloody rear fins that lightly touch the plastic OLPF bushing/shade donut thingy. I'm going to keep this lens and have Duclos Lenses chop off those fins.

I'm still chugging away on my list of M glass to test, but I'm pretty sure the 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar will fit just fine. Performance is what needs to be tested.

The Leica M Mount is a really wonderful thing. I mean, in terms of making your rig small with extremely tiny lenses, it's hard to argue with what it can do. However, not everything will be perfect. Dragon does indeed prefer more telecentricity when it comes to how light exits a lens. There's certainly a lot of glass that works well for it, but there's going to be a few extremely like the 21mm that won't perform wonderful.

Myself, I'm interested in a nice compact kit of super speed glass in M mount. Tiny. Fits in a shoulder bag. Fairly discreet and useful for a variety of applications.
 
thanks for the clarity PH!

the 21mm softening could be a neat treatment?

i see some edge softening/detail falloff on my M240 with that lens as well(example attached).
 

Attachments

  • tumblr_n7fhioYju71qju0ivo1_1280.jpg
    tumblr_n7fhioYju71qju0ivo1_1280.jpg
    101.5 KB · Views: 0
joey richey said:
thanks for the clarity PH!

the 21mm softening could be a neat treatment?

i see some edge softening/detail falloff on my M240 with that lens as well(example attached).
Click to expand...

It's possible. I know the M240 has "more peaky" microlenses to help combat this, but I'm sure some extreme axis light is difficult to deal with. Stopped down of course it gets better, but the smearing is pretty visible when it arises. It's like you go from rendered accurate detail right into a surreal painting.

The lens itself is pretty badass. I would chop off that fixed lens hood for motion use.

M Mount for motion work is more about what you can do with it as it's clearly a system not designed for moving pictures. There's a few gems in there though. And they are small and light weight. There's so much potential in terms of their portability and light gathering. That's primarily why I think this is fun and interesting. It's not replacing my PL glass anytime soon though :)
 
Red pro primes and the dragon sensor

Red pro primes and the dragon sensor

Many RPP for sale now and I have the opportunity to buy this lenses with a epic dragon. And I am now very curious about how the new 6k sensor deals with primes? I really like the look of the RPP...
 
Nice work Phil :D
I just test a Primo zoom with the Dragon this morning. It's not really good for the 6K... It's just cover it at 55mm...


@55mm - 6k FF covered
@50mm - 6k HD covered
@35mm - dont cover 6k, ok in 5k
@24mm - 5k soft vignette
@17,5mm - hard vignette in 5k, ok in 4k


Hope it will help :)
 
Hi all! New test :


------------------------------------------------


Cooke Varo-Panchro 20-60mm T3.1
@20mm covers 5K 2:1
@32mm covers 5K
@40mm covers 6K HD but soft vignette
@60mm covers 6K WS with soft vignette


Note : soft vignetting all the time (because of the lens technology)


------------------------------------------------


Cooke Varotal 20-100mm T3.1
@20mm covers 5K HD
@25mm covers 5K 2:1
@42mm covers 6K HD but soft vignette, covers 5K
@60mm covers 6K WS with vignette
@75mm covers 6K FF with soft vignette


Note : soft vignetting all the time (yeah, old lenses...)


------------------------------------------------


Cooke 25-250mm T3.7
@25mm covers 5K HD
@75mm covers 5K with vignette
@150mm 6K vignette, covers 5.5K
@250mm covers 6K FF


Note : soft vignetting from 40mm to 150mm and hard vignetting when 75mm


------------------------------------------------


ARRI/Zeiss LWZ-1 15.5-45mm T2.6
@15.5mm covers 5.5K,covers 6K HD with soft vignette
@24mm covers 6K WS
@28mm covers 6K with vignette, clear at 42mm


Note : because their is not just Cooke in my life...


------------------------------------------------


Well... Old Cooke don't really work with 6K...
 
Did someone try with rokinon cine lenses ( samyang lenses) is working ok with them? Thank you
 
Does someone know how the RPZ 18-50mm works? Same as the 17-50mm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top