Jump to content

Tim Sessler

Basic Member
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tim Sessler

  1. Hi Michael - Interesting one. I did also test at infinity against my FD and found very similar results to the closer focus (though just a tad less extreme). I finally heard back from Kipon but they have not been super helpful trying to resolve this. See text exchange attached. According to them its Mamiya focal length x diagonal ratio x 0.7. That being said all the calculations that I could come up with did not make any sense at all. They unfortunately could not answer what exactly they meant with 'diagonal ratio'. Though according to them the TLS rehoused ones are actually correct focal lengths, while the standard non-rehoused ones are not. Adding more confusion and unfortunately not properly clearing things up. Let me know if any of this makes any sense. Cheers! Tim
  2. Both very valid points, Dom! That being said - from what I understand - lenses are typically rounded up or down to get to even numbers but should not have a significant difference. E.g. a 80 might actually be a 79.xx or 80.xx but wouldn't be a 90mm. As far as the breathing that is also spot on - and especially accurate for the Mamiyas as they breath A LOT! That being said I tested both the 55 FD and 80mm Mamiya at infinity today and they are still FAR from a match. Hope this makes sense.
  3. Hi everybody - I recently bought a Kipon Baveyes 0.7x focal reducer for my Mamiya Sekor C 645 lenses. The 80mm was the lens I was most excited about as with the speedbooster it should match one of my all time favorite lenses: a Canon FD 55mm. Funny enough all the Mamiyas felt much longer than what I would have expected. The 35mm should match a 24, the 45 a 32 and the 80 a 55. To verify my suspicion I used a PL to LPL adapter, which would allow me to quickly swap from the LPL Kipon focal reducer to my rehoused Canon FDs. Here is what I found: As you can see the Mamiyas are significantly tighter. In fact the actual crop factor/focal reduction seems to be closer to 0.8x. Which means the 80 isn't matching a 55 but rather 64mm and the 35mm isn't as wide as 24mm but much rather matching a 28mm. Here is a full write up with more samples (both from me and also shots from other lens tests): http://brooklynaerials.com/blog/2022/8/7/calculating-kipon-baveyes-true-crop-factor This seems to be a pretty big deal and very misleading advertising on Kipon's end. I am surprised nobody else has pointed this out (at least I could not find anything along those lines). I'd be curious if this is the same for the other KIPON Baveyes adapters like the LPL to Hasselblad V Mount or the Baveyes focal reducer made for RED DSMC2. Let me know what you think and if you've seen similar discrepancies with focal reducers. Cheers!
  4. I don't think you can compare an 18K and a 175W Laser light in any way. I'd compare it more to a Leko as thats the intended use (focused light). Interestingly the unit does not seem that bright at 100% in a fairly dim scenario (Cinegear). And keep in mind once you bounce the light into a CRLS 2 or 3 (to really get the spread) you will lose most of your punch. Very curious to test the light in person but I'd keep expectations in check. This wont replace a 18K, M90, M40 or even M18.
  5. Stunning work - some really beautiful frames in there, Jarin! Curious to hear more about what you used for the Petzval sequences - really lovely look and wild falloff!!
  6. I blew it out before using - but might have to do a deeper clean. The odd thing is there wasn't anything noticeable. Thanks for the input though, really appreciate it!
  7. Now looking at it frame by frame that makes a lot more sense. Where does it come from and how can I minimize it? Thanks, Tim
  8. Hi everybody - I just started testing two Beaulieu 4008s - in one I shot a roll of 7266 Tri-X and in the other a roll of 7203. Both were developed and scanned at Cinelab in MA. The Tri-X came out pretty clean but the 7203 shows a lot of scratches. As this is my first dabble into shooting Super 8 and on top using those cameras for the first time, I was wondering where this is coming from. Given that one camera produced completely clean results and the other produced lots of scratches, I assume it would be an issue with the gate/feed or something else physically scratching the film. Is is possible that the film could get scratched during the scanning? Here is an example of what it looks like: Curious to hear your input so that I can get more out of the next roll ? Thanks! Tim
×
×
  • Create New...