cinema products 16mm

[mattias]

How can you reconcile these two things?

by using a wider lens of course.

/matt

[Justin Lovell]

this is the email i got back from the guys @ Whitehouse Audio Visual


Hello Sir,

I would not recommend purchasing a Nikon mounted CP16R.
The lenses will not be wide enough, and you will lose the ability to pull
focus and zoom without the possibility of image shift and focus shift.
A CP16R single-bladed shutter camera is the better reflexed CP type of
camera to convert to super 16. We do not do this conversion at this time,
however, we can get it done for you for around $2,000. Add to this the fact
that you will also need a super 16 motion picture lens at from $1,500 to
$2,000 for starter lenses.

Best regards,

Ken

----

jusetan

[Nigel]

As I stated...Whilst S16 is a much better format with this camera it is simply not worth the money.

Good Luck

[discs of tron]

i think they may be sending it off to the guy in the uk who does these mods. someone help me with the name...

also, i don't understand the bit about the lens not being wide enough. a nikon bayonet mount is much bigger than a c-mount. not to mention it's designed to cover 35mm film. am i missing something or is this guy full of shit?

[MovieStuff]

i think they may be sending it off to the guy in the uk who does these mods. someone help me with the name...

also, i don't understand the bit about the lens not being wide enough. a nikon bayonet mount is much bigger than a c-mount. not to mention it's designed to cover 35mm film. am i missing something or is this guy full of shit?

He's not talking about the COI at the film plane. He is talking about focal length for wide angle shots. Remember, a 25mm Nikon lens would be numbingly expensive, if you can find one, and will only appear as "normal" on the CP16. Probably 28mm is going to be the closest you can get, anyway, in Nikon mount. Anything wider in a Nikon mount is going to cost you a ton of money. If I may make a suggestion, go to a M42 thread conversion, like I did. There are a multitude of cheap, razor sharp Takumar lenses on ebay (which were originally cine lenses anyway) and there are less expensive (but still very sharp) 8mm and 17mm Russian M42 thread mount lenses available. You could buy both of them for less than a Nikon fisheye, which is the only way you'll ever get wide angle with a Nikon on a CP16.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Ian]

"Remember, a 25mm Nikon lens would be numbingly expensive, if you can find one, and will only appear as "normal" on the CP16."

24mm is a common focal length for 35mm still cameras and there are plenty of 24mm manual focus Nikkors available on the used market. They are hardly "numbingly" expensive. I have used one on my CP16R with good results.

"Probably 28mm is going to be the closest you can get, anyway, in Nikon mount."

Obviously, 24mm is closer to 25mm than 28mm, and they're easy to find. A 28mm will do in a pinch.

Anything wider in a Nikon mount is going to cost you a ton of money. If I may make a suggestion, go to a M42 thread conversion, like I did.

Why would you do this? A 24mm Takumar will be harder to find than a 24mm Nikkor. The 28mm Takumars are plentiful but slow at f3.5. The Nikkors can be found with f2.8 and f2.0 maximum apertures (both the 24mm and 28mm lenses).

"There are a multitude of cheap, razor sharp Takumar lenses on ebay (which were originally cine lenses anyway)"

I don't believe that the Takumars were originally cine lenses - that just doesn't make sense. Again, there are a multitude of cheap, razor sharp Nikkors too, in a better lens mount than the Pentax M42 screw. The vast majority of the manual focus Nikkors take a common 52mm filter, whereas the Takumars vary from lens to lens.

"and there are less expensive (but still very sharp) 8mm and 17mm Russian M42 thread mount lenses available."

You must mean the 8mm Peleng and the 16mm (not 17mm) Zenitar. The Peleng is almost always sold with an included Nikon mount that you can attach permanently to the lens, effectively making it a Nikon mount lens. The Zenitar is available in a variety of mounts, including Nikon.

"You could buy both of them for less than a Nikon fisheye, which is the only way you'll ever get wide angle with a Nikon on a CP16. "

I just told you can get the same 8mm Peleng in a Nikon mount. Sigma sells an 8mm too if you prefer Japanese glass. Both are much cheaper than the Nikon 8mm.

There are other wide angle lenses you can fit to a Nikon mount CP16R. There are 13mm, 15mm, 18mm, and 20mm rectilinear (non-fisheye) Nikkors, as well as lenses from other manufacturers such as Tamron (14mm). These lenses may not be ideally suited to cine use (neither are the Peleng or Zenitar), but they exist and certainly disprove your claim that the Nikon fisheye is the only way you'll ever get wide angle with a Nikon on a CP16.

My feeling is that if a person finds himself with a Nikon-mount CP16R, all is not lost. I wouldn't mind having one. Personally I would recommend the Peleng 8mm in combination with a Nikkor 24mm, 50mm, and 105mm for maximum versatility at low cost. Nikon's 17mm-35mm f2.8 is also an interesting lens.

[MovieStuff]

24mm is a common focal length for 35mm still cameras and there are plenty of 24mm manual focus Nikkors available on the used market.
They are hardly "numbingly" expensive.

Well, I guess "numbingly" is relative. Anything made by Nikon is going to be more expensive than an M42 thread, in my experience.

I don't believe that the Takumars were originally cine lenses - that just doesn't make sense.

Well, certainly not the specific lenses you put on an old Pentax. That isn't really what I meant. I was simply referring to the quality. According to an old book I have on motion picture equipment history, after WWII, Japan was rebuilding its motion picture industry. Richo (I believe) was given the task of making knock-offs of Mitchell motion picture cameras and Takumar was given the task of making the lenses for them. They took the easiest route for mounting, which was an M42 screw mount. I have some of the early Takumar Cine Lenses and they will fit any M42 camera perfectly. The later Takumar lenses for the Pentax are virtually identical (with some minor physical changes) and I know from the book that the quality of the optics (before the later Asahi bayonet versions) was identical. Very sharp. I was simply trying to point out that using a Takumar as a cine lens was a good choice, based on its history.

You must mean the 8mm Peleng and the 16mm (not 17mm) Zenitar. The Peleng is almost always sold with an included Nikon mount that you can attach permanently to the lens, effectively making it a Nikon mount lens.

Good point. I wasn't trying to exclude the use of a Peleng or Zenitar in a Nikon mount; only showing that you can get cheap, sharp lenses in 8mm and 16mm M42 mount.

In all, if you can find Nikon lenses in the various focal lengths needed for 16mm cine work, then that is a good deal. But my experience is that they are always much more expensive than M42 lenses simply because of the Nikon name. The Taks are plenty sharp with nice contrast and can be a good value if one has a tight budget.

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

With the ever increasing improvements in film stocks, I too believe it entirely feasible to shoot regular 16mm with masking for 16:9 for Hi-def video post. This can breath new life into the incredibly cheap, yet stout Auricon line of cameras for ultra-low budget film making. 8)

David M. Leugers

[audadvnc]

And of course some lenses originally designed for R16 also fit the Super16 frame. Test yours to find out.