Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Sigma?
- Thread starter Rolland
- Start date
- Status
Tai Wah Lim
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2007
- Messages
- 652
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Rolland, why not - this is an open forum - the moderators will remove if not appropriate
Christian Edwards
Frontline Infantry
i had mentioned the mysterium was actually a cannon sensor ....i was shut down pretty quickly .it did however spark an interesting discussion.good luck with your theory
Mitch Gross
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 3,657
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Why not? And how would we know based on what you have said?
Mitch
Mitch
- Thread starter
- #5
ok then,
Last week a Red camera we rented had a 18-50mm lens that dropped off a 12 foot concrete bank, needless to say it wasn't pretty. But the insurance claim afforded us an opportunity.
I took the lens to a local lens repair facility that was able to compare the internal parts to a Sigma canon mount 18-50mm they were servicing, and it does look like they share several pieces, specially the Iris blades and the front baffle. But there was a big surprise, the Red lens had 2 extra elements in it compared to the sigma.
I was also shocked to see just how complicated a lens is internally, specially the /i lens data system.
Last week a Red camera we rented had a 18-50mm lens that dropped off a 12 foot concrete bank, needless to say it wasn't pretty. But the insurance claim afforded us an opportunity.
I took the lens to a local lens repair facility that was able to compare the internal parts to a Sigma canon mount 18-50mm they were servicing, and it does look like they share several pieces, specially the Iris blades and the front baffle. But there was a big surprise, the Red lens had 2 extra elements in it compared to the sigma.
I was also shocked to see just how complicated a lens is internally, specially the /i lens data system.
Christian Edwards
Frontline Infantry
Ok. so where do we goto from here?
- Thread starter
- #7
Gabriel Beaudry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Do you have pictures of the inside of the lens?
Shawn Nelson
Well-known member
Yes, pictures please! Detailed ones, I'd love to see this
- Banned
- #10
- Moderator
- #11
Jeff Kilgroe
Well-known member
Interesting. Seems to confirm my theory that the RED 18-50 isn't simply a re-housed Sigma, but something more. It does seem highly likely (even before the info posted here) that the RED 18-50 is using glass elements and other components from Sigma. I never bought into the "re housed" theory -- that doesn't make sense for an item that will need several thousand produced.
jbeale
Well-known member
If it has more elements, it's clearly not "just" a rehoused lens. Iris and baffles might be generic components reused in various different lenses.
Stephen Webb
Well-known member
I never bought into the "re-housed" theory either. I always thought it more likely that Red were buying elements from a third party and having them assembled to their own design.
Of course, whilst this information is certainly interesting at the end of the day it's down to the end-user to decide whether they're happy with what the lens gives or not. Precisely how, where and from what it's manufactured isn't all that important (IMVHO).
Of course, whilst this information is certainly interesting at the end of the day it's down to the end-user to decide whether they're happy with what the lens gives or not. Precisely how, where and from what it's manufactured isn't all that important (IMVHO).
Denis Buhot
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
just can't figure
just can't figure
where all this is heading to.. Sigma are excellent, sometimes really top lenses... Sigma has all its energy focused on optical design, and has moved to a leading position in that market these days. I myself sold a 500 mm nikon and bought a sigma 500mm instead, much to my benefit. Besides, rehousing and checking lenses after higher standards makes all the difference with a "regular" lens. And, if you found two more pieces of glass added, it seems they're not quite the same lenses at all... And considering the price, what kind of miracle can one reasonably expect in excess of what seems the very good value of red lenses, whatever they're made of ? I can't get the point.
Same with the mysterium sensor... what's the big deal here ? Technology's one thing, for sure, but I'd feel even more secure knowing that Red added value is much more than the technology in reliable components. If these can be obtained from experienced firms, at reasonable price, and if delivery is granted in the long term...all the better, and all the more reliable will the red one be. Did you really expect a firm to be set up from scratch, achieve what has been achieved already, and master optics, optronics, etc. in addition of its very specific contribution ? (Very) clever management, imagination, vision, small size, dedication, software expertise, end user friendly tech guys and innovative marketing can make something totally new out of separately bought and smartly assembled components, I guess. Something new, highly effective and affordable.
Did I miss something here ?
just can't figure
where all this is heading to.. Sigma are excellent, sometimes really top lenses... Sigma has all its energy focused on optical design, and has moved to a leading position in that market these days. I myself sold a 500 mm nikon and bought a sigma 500mm instead, much to my benefit. Besides, rehousing and checking lenses after higher standards makes all the difference with a "regular" lens. And, if you found two more pieces of glass added, it seems they're not quite the same lenses at all... And considering the price, what kind of miracle can one reasonably expect in excess of what seems the very good value of red lenses, whatever they're made of ? I can't get the point.
Same with the mysterium sensor... what's the big deal here ? Technology's one thing, for sure, but I'd feel even more secure knowing that Red added value is much more than the technology in reliable components. If these can be obtained from experienced firms, at reasonable price, and if delivery is granted in the long term...all the better, and all the more reliable will the red one be. Did you really expect a firm to be set up from scratch, achieve what has been achieved already, and master optics, optronics, etc. in addition of its very specific contribution ? (Very) clever management, imagination, vision, small size, dedication, software expertise, end user friendly tech guys and innovative marketing can make something totally new out of separately bought and smartly assembled components, I guess. Something new, highly effective and affordable.
Did I miss something here ?
Poi Boy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,786
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
no suprise here.
Aloha
-A
Aloha
-A
M.Halsell
Well-known member
A simple rehoused Sigma? I think Jim + team is better than that. Matter of fact I am sure of it. At least it helps put to rest the sizeable speculation camp.
Sanjin Jukic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,929
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Vienna, Austria
- Website
- www.sanjinjukic.com
Guys,
there are significant differences between GLASS and SENSORS.
At first GLASS you have to produce, to coat and to T E S T properly.
Then you have to design your optical wishes and desires in a piece of
item that is called one LENS.
Also there are PHYSICAL "L E N S" limitation that you cannot "cross" without
sacrificing to get more CA, purple fringing or a different type of distortion.
About sensor is everything about mathematic and physic.
You do your sensor "FORMULA" and then you realize/make it
with your camera inner CHIP and
then make a picture with a RAW developer algorythm.
The lens designs are almost and already all DONE but sensor designs are just at the BEGINNING.
there are significant differences between GLASS and SENSORS.
At first GLASS you have to produce, to coat and to T E S T properly.
Then you have to design your optical wishes and desires in a piece of
item that is called one LENS.
Also there are PHYSICAL "L E N S" limitation that you cannot "cross" without
sacrificing to get more CA, purple fringing or a different type of distortion.
About sensor is everything about mathematic and physic.
You do your sensor "FORMULA" and then you realize/make it
with your camera inner CHIP and
then make a picture with a RAW developer algorythm.
The lens designs are almost and already all DONE but sensor designs are just at the BEGINNING.
Michael Hastings
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 4,191
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Florida
- Website
- www.aquavideo.com
Still think it is essentially correct
Still think it is essentially correct
I still think there is truth to the sigma connection. I don't think any of us were saying it was "just" a rehoused lens - obviously more was being done. But the coincidences of EXACTLY the same close focus distances along with the focal length and f number were telling, and in some ways the coincidence of mechanical parts convinces me more.
This whole thing reminds me of the old Seinfeld show where someone "accused" him of being gay and Jerry kept repeating "I'm not gay - not that there's anything wrong with that."
I have promoted the Sigma theory but also have also always related the story of the Arri/CSC lens techs putting it on the projector and proclaiming it as optically excellent. And also pointed out that it is an excellent price for a - let's call it converted or remanufactured lens - as Century gets about $15K for their similar conversions - and they don't provide I data.
If you need PL mount and cine style manual focusing, RED lenses are the best deal around. My point has always been that many still lenses ARE on a par optically with cine lenses and for many purposes UNCONVERTED SLR lenses offer some great capability. Whether it be manual Nikons or Birger mounted Canon EF lenses - which we are counting on because the $1450 Birger plus $700 for an EF-S 10-22 is a phenomenal quality solution for our underwater work and gives us motorized focus and iris like we are used to on high end video lenses thereby eliminating costly cine motors or gears. Cine motors and gears, besides being costly and a pain in the a** to develop, also severely limit the variety of lenses you can use becuase of the need to physically align everything. Whereas by controlling internal motors we can use any lens from a 3" long prime to a 6" inch long macro or zoom (or even the 600mm if there was a purpose) - simply by changing ports. And this is just a specialized example that works even if Birger is not particularly smooth - we just need to set focus we don't really rack it around a lot.
But if Birger creates a smooth focus drive - which I fully expect given the precision of the internal lens motors on top quality canon lenses - then we have a follow focus solution that can match the precision of cine lenses and allows even more precise presets and such.
I don't think any of us really thought RED was buying 500 sigmas and dismantling them rather than just buying components from Sigma. RED is buying enough to probably allow them to even get some minor custom mods. I still suspect the primary components are Sigma and that the additional elements in the RED are not a major part of the overall optical design. I'm guessing they are essentially either flats or some minor adjustment optics to aid in this specific redesign. But I suspect if you projected a RED and the 18-50 Standard sigma they would be essentially identical. This is just MHO - my humble opinion, which very well could be wrong, but I don't think it is just a WAG (Wild ass guess). And again, as Jerry said, "not that there is anything wrong with that".
I don't want RED to confirm or deny - it doesn't matter. I just want people to objectively consider modern SLR lenses, without sneering at them as somehow optically inferior. Many people on my (the video) side of the universe hear comments that cine lenses are so much superior, but don't necessarily realize that many of the things the cine people are talking about: integral gearing, smooth and long focus throws, breathing, very fast T numbers, etc. may or may not matter to them. Most documentary, nature, travel, corporate, etc. videographers never have to worry about breathing, rarely shoot wide open, don't use focus pullers, etc. Yet some of my customers have resolution needs beyond even big budget movie producers - i.e. their producing for Jumbotron and similar huge displays, and others will switch to true 4K for large corporate events when those projectors become available. For me, when I go shoot those tiger and great white sharks - I want my footage in 4K too.
If pointing out the optical origins of the RED lenses, Panavision lenses, Bourne Ultimatum use of Nikons, etc. furthers that understanding then it is all to the good.
--------
As far as sensors, I'm skeptical that Canon would supply it to RED, and it isn't necessary - there are very good sensor manufacturers that are happy to custom design extremely high quality sensors in 1000 piece quantities or even much smaller, and if you were creating a camera there would be a lot of other advantages in terms of your other engineering development to simply creating the sensor to your own specs rather than convert somebody elses design.
-------
Gibby, there you have it - it's a new month and I think i'm in the lead for longest post of the month.
Still think it is essentially correct
I still think there is truth to the sigma connection. I don't think any of us were saying it was "just" a rehoused lens - obviously more was being done. But the coincidences of EXACTLY the same close focus distances along with the focal length and f number were telling, and in some ways the coincidence of mechanical parts convinces me more.
This whole thing reminds me of the old Seinfeld show where someone "accused" him of being gay and Jerry kept repeating "I'm not gay - not that there's anything wrong with that."
I have promoted the Sigma theory but also have also always related the story of the Arri/CSC lens techs putting it on the projector and proclaiming it as optically excellent. And also pointed out that it is an excellent price for a - let's call it converted or remanufactured lens - as Century gets about $15K for their similar conversions - and they don't provide I data.
If you need PL mount and cine style manual focusing, RED lenses are the best deal around. My point has always been that many still lenses ARE on a par optically with cine lenses and for many purposes UNCONVERTED SLR lenses offer some great capability. Whether it be manual Nikons or Birger mounted Canon EF lenses - which we are counting on because the $1450 Birger plus $700 for an EF-S 10-22 is a phenomenal quality solution for our underwater work and gives us motorized focus and iris like we are used to on high end video lenses thereby eliminating costly cine motors or gears. Cine motors and gears, besides being costly and a pain in the a** to develop, also severely limit the variety of lenses you can use becuase of the need to physically align everything. Whereas by controlling internal motors we can use any lens from a 3" long prime to a 6" inch long macro or zoom (or even the 600mm if there was a purpose) - simply by changing ports. And this is just a specialized example that works even if Birger is not particularly smooth - we just need to set focus we don't really rack it around a lot.
But if Birger creates a smooth focus drive - which I fully expect given the precision of the internal lens motors on top quality canon lenses - then we have a follow focus solution that can match the precision of cine lenses and allows even more precise presets and such.
I don't think any of us really thought RED was buying 500 sigmas and dismantling them rather than just buying components from Sigma. RED is buying enough to probably allow them to even get some minor custom mods. I still suspect the primary components are Sigma and that the additional elements in the RED are not a major part of the overall optical design. I'm guessing they are essentially either flats or some minor adjustment optics to aid in this specific redesign. But I suspect if you projected a RED and the 18-50 Standard sigma they would be essentially identical. This is just MHO - my humble opinion, which very well could be wrong, but I don't think it is just a WAG (Wild ass guess). And again, as Jerry said, "not that there is anything wrong with that".
I don't want RED to confirm or deny - it doesn't matter. I just want people to objectively consider modern SLR lenses, without sneering at them as somehow optically inferior. Many people on my (the video) side of the universe hear comments that cine lenses are so much superior, but don't necessarily realize that many of the things the cine people are talking about: integral gearing, smooth and long focus throws, breathing, very fast T numbers, etc. may or may not matter to them. Most documentary, nature, travel, corporate, etc. videographers never have to worry about breathing, rarely shoot wide open, don't use focus pullers, etc. Yet some of my customers have resolution needs beyond even big budget movie producers - i.e. their producing for Jumbotron and similar huge displays, and others will switch to true 4K for large corporate events when those projectors become available. For me, when I go shoot those tiger and great white sharks - I want my footage in 4K too.
If pointing out the optical origins of the RED lenses, Panavision lenses, Bourne Ultimatum use of Nikons, etc. furthers that understanding then it is all to the good.
--------
As far as sensors, I'm skeptical that Canon would supply it to RED, and it isn't necessary - there are very good sensor manufacturers that are happy to custom design extremely high quality sensors in 1000 piece quantities or even much smaller, and if you were creating a camera there would be a lot of other advantages in terms of your other engineering development to simply creating the sensor to your own specs rather than convert somebody elses design.
-------
Gibby, there you have it - it's a new month and I think i'm in the lead for longest post of the month.
- Status