Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

de-clicking lenses for video
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:49 pm    Post subject: de-clicking lenses for video Reply with quote

Is this not simply removing the bearing out of the aperture ring???

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2010/12/27/the-lens-doctor-de-clicking-in-the-uk/


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The bearing ball has no purpose other than click.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:05 pm    Post subject: Re: de-clicking lenses for video Reply with quote

stingOM wrote:
Is this not simply removing the bearing out of the aperture ring???


"Simply" is subject to interpretation. Wink Not all lenses have easily removable aperture rings...

Also, depending on the lens design, you might also want/need to remove the spring to keep it from snagging in the detents.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Removing the ballbearing detent will often result in the aperture ring becoming too loose and easy to move if touched even lightly. Usually it's not damped with grease like the focus ring.

I don't get why it's necessary, though, as most lenses have half stop clicks, some even at a third of a stop. I've never shot video but is geater control than this really needed? Perhaps they're worried about the sound the clicks make.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The sound should not matter - if you are using the on-camera microphone for even vaguely professional video lens clicks will be your least problem. Camera shake and non-constant aperture pulling will matter though.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I imagine they would want the bearings out to adjust the aperture while recording. With the bearing in place it would be too notchy and it would show in the video.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must laugh but never mind Smile

tf


PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why not buy a continuous aperture lens? There are many of excellent quality, like nearly all Soviet lenses and nearly all old Meyer and Zeiss Jena lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Why not buy a continuous aperture lens? There are many of excellent quality, like nearly all Soviet lenses and nearly all old Meyer and Zeiss Jena lenses.


that's a good point and moreover - the aperture ring is often in the front which is even better IMHO

....but people usually looking for fast lenses for video -
I mean modern lenses they usually have clicking aperture control..


PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trifox wrote:
I must laugh but never mind Smile

tf


laughing is good for the soul, so don't ever stop laughing.

The reason why we like our lenses declicked is simple. To get the best filmlike quality out of a (dslr) camera there are a couple of rules to abide to.

One of them is to shoot with a shutterspeed of double the framerate. So if you shoot 25 fps (Frames Per Second) your shuterspeed wil be 1/50th.
That is constant that you will have to work with. So everything else is adjusted to the shutterspeed. Lights, aperture are all slaves to the shutterspeed.
I some situations, dark and moody shots f.i., it is imperative to be able to control the aperture as best as you can. And 1/3, 1/2 or 1 stop increments just doesn't do it. That is why we prefer to declick the lenses.

I have a set of Contax's. The aperture is selected in 1 stop increments. That is to crude, so I declicked them.

Try it out for yourself at home. Set up for a shot and then slowly turn the aperture ring to the next stop and see what difference that makes while turning.

Taking a picture is different alltogether to filming. With photography you have 3 variables you can use, in filming just the 2.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Why not buy a continuous aperture lens? There are many of excellent quality, like nearly all Soviet lenses and nearly all old Meyer and Zeiss Jena lenses.


+1.

My Jupiter 37A and Mir 1B have replaced some rather expensive Canon L's at work. Much more natural than turning a clicky wheel.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great lenses I am sure.

Another difference between filming and photography is that in filming one usually use more than 1 lens in a production.
It is preferable to use lenses that have the same or similar characteristics. I started with a set of CZJ and Meyer Zebra's. I found that, although great lenses, these were too different from each other so I changed to the Contaxes. These not only all have the same feel optically, mechanically they are also the same.

The focus rings go the same way and approximately the same distance, the aperture goes the same way, etc. I can use them in the blind.

There are dedicated Zeiss cinelenses available for the Canon mount , but these are so expensive that it is impossible for me to buy these.
Zeiss CP.2, 2.900,- a piece

That is a lot more then what I paid for my lenses.......

Declicking the MM Contax lenses takes 5 minutes per lens and it is a reversible process.

Next up are Leitax mounts for all of them.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi propellor - -I am not laughing at de-clicking of course ..

I have done recording with high sensitive mic - condensed microphone

Regarding Contax lenses -- yes -- they are all the same but not boring --

just PERFECT - I ma afraid that the story Contax never happens anymore !

oh!! but be careful! do not do the de-clicking in your own! you must send the lens to the lens doctor! Smile

tf


Last edited by trifox on Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, I didn't mean you were laughing about declicking. I mean to never stop laughing. Period.

Do you happen to know a good lens doctor...?


PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

propellor wrote:
Great lenses I am sure.

...
That is a lot more then what I paid for my lenses.......

Declicking the MM Contax lenses takes 5 minutes per lens and it is a reversible process.

Next up are Leitax mounts for all of them.


Hi Propellor.

I'm new to this forum. I also have a set of 5 Zeiss Contax lenses which I am looking to de-click. I was prepared to do it myself after much reading etc, but one professional camera technician has told me that....

"there is a forward and return spring (...) that actuates the Iris Blades within the aperture. what holds these springs from wanting to return to there rest position is the Click device, remove that and you are 100% guaranteed that your iris will slip, and generally back to the resting position .. Fully Open ... it is a common problem that I have had to address with many lenses that have been de-clicked, by Technicians who believe that pulling the click device out is all that is needed.. "

I am sure that I have read of people doing just what you did with the Zeiss Contax's and having no problems (not removing any springs).

How did thigns work out for you? Just remove the ballbearing (and spring holding it?). Are your lenses working fine?

Many thanks for any info you can provide.

PS. my lenses are AE


neil


PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

De-clicking AE lenses seems to be a little bit more complicated. MMJ versions of the lenses have screws that you can take out at the rear mount, while AE lenses' design is different. You might want to bring these lenses to your local lens tech who most likely know more about removing the bearings and then greasing them properly so that the aperture ring doesn't become too 'loose'.
These are good lenses, and I personally feel it's too risky to do it yourself. Also, if you de-click all 5 lenses, you can probably ask for a substantial discount Smile


PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it really worth to deface beautiful old lenses beyond repair, just for video?
In my personal experience, even with HD video, the low resolution (compared to still photos) and the fact that the images are in motion
pretty much zeroes the differences between the best (and expensive) lenses, and normal average good lenses
(that can be defaced without too much worry).
In other words, while it's likely that one can tell a 20 Eur Pentacon 50mm from a 250 Eur Planar 50mm judging on still photos,
it's very unlikely, if not downright impossible, that one can tell them apart by looking at videos.
So why deface the 250 Eur Planar instead of a much more common and cheaper, but surely up to the task, Pentacon lens?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So why deface the 250 Eur Planar instead of a much more common and cheaper, but surely up to the task, Pentacon lens?


As a person who makes his own living on videomaking, and as a mf user, I feel to completely endorse this statement.
Many cheap lenses are absolutely good enough for hd video shooting: character (and some typical flaws) is what I mostly look for when choosing a lens to shoot video with.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neilpercy wrote:
propellor wrote:
Great lenses I am sure.

...
That is a lot more then what I paid for my lenses.......

Declicking the MM Contax lenses takes 5 minutes per lens and it is a reversible process.

Next up are Leitax mounts for all of them.


Hi Propellor.

I'm new to this forum. I also have a set of 5 Zeiss Contax lenses which I am looking to de-click. I was prepared to do it myself after much reading etc, but one professional camera technician has told me that....

"there is a forward and return spring (...) that actuates the Iris Blades within the aperture. what holds these springs from wanting to return to there rest position is the Click device, remove that and you are 100% guaranteed that your iris will slip, and generally back to the resting position .. Fully Open ... it is a common problem that I have had to address with many lenses that have been de-clicked, by Technicians who believe that pulling the click device out is all that is needed.. "

I am sure that I have read of people doing just what you did with the Zeiss Contax's and having no problems (not removing any springs).

How did thigns work out for you? Just remove the ballbearing (and spring holding it?). Are your lenses working fine?

Many thanks for any info you can provide.

PS. my lenses are AE


neil


Sorry for the late reply, I completely missed your post.

The only Contax lenses that can be declicked (easily) are the MM ones. I have no problems with iris whatsoever. You only need to take out the ball bearing and tiny spring. I used lithium grease (a little bit !!!) to make the aperture ring a little bit stiffer. Remember; the ball bearing gives resistance to the ring. Once removed it moves freely and to easily, that's why the grease.

Quote:
Is it really worth to deface beautiful old lenses beyond repair, just for video?
In my personal experience, even with HD video, the low resolution (compared to still photos) and the fact that the images are in motion
pretty much zeroes the differences between the best (and expensive) lenses, and normal average good lenses
(that can be defaced without too much worry).
In other words, while it's likely that one can tell a 20 Eur Pentacon 50mm from a 250 Eur Planar 50mm judging on still photos,
it's very unlikely, if not downright impossible, that one can tell them apart by looking at videos.
So why deface the 250 Eur Planar instead of a much more common and cheaper, but surely up to the task, Pentacon lens?


Orio, removing 4 screws, lifting off the rear ring, taking out the ball bearing and spring, is not going to "deface beautiful old lenses beyond repair". I have this nice little box with plastic zip lock bags. each bag holds a ball bearing and spring and a sticker with the name of the lens they came out of. It takes 5 minutes to restore the beautiful old lenses to it's former glory. So please don't worry about these lenses being "destroyed" just for video.


Quote:

Quote:
So why deface the 250 Eur Planar instead of a much more common and cheaper, but surely up to the task, Pentacon lens?


As a person who makes his own living on videomaking, and as a mf user, I feel to completely endorse this statement.
Many cheap lenses are absolutely good enough for hd video shooting: character (and some typical flaws) is what I mostly look for when choosing a lens to shoot video with.


Throw away point and shoot camera's also make pictures, so why buy Leica?
Maybe you should give Hollywood a call and tell them they are doing it wrong with all their fancy equipment. They can use a consumer videocamera in stead to make films.

"Good enough" is not good enough for some people. Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

propellor wrote:

Throw away point and shoot camera's also make pictures, so why buy Leica?
Maybe you should give Hollywood a call and tell them they are doing it wrong with all their fancy equipment. They can use a consumer videocamera in stead to make films.
"Good enough" is not good enough for some people. Wink


Hmmm... no.
If your videos are going to be recorded at extra high definition (7,6804,320 pixels) like Hollywood does, and projected on screens the size of big cinema screens, then maybe it could make a visible difference.
But I challenge anyone to notice any difference in common HD videos of 1,9201,080 pixels seen on a computer monitor ot home tv.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do mean by difference?


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

propellor wrote:
What do mean by difference?


Visible difference. A difference that can be noticed visually by looking at the video in normal view.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course you can see the difference. Contrast, color, sharpness, CA, edge sharpness, distort and of course bokeh give each lens its specific character. Whether its' cheap or expensive doesn't matter.

The Contax lenses give me the look I like. The Zeiss look maybe? And for me it is important that my lens set has the approximate same look and feel, both mechanically as in character. The Contax range was designed that way and that gives these lenses their appeal for DSLR shooters.

Furthermore These lenses are also suitable for the next generation videocamera's with 4K resolution. Many cameramen use Contax and Leica glass on RED One, Arri Alexa and other high end camera's These lenses are an investment for the future. I am not talking financially but in terms of usability. A camera body has become a "disposable commodity", glass is glass, also in the future.

Sure you can use a simpler and cheaper lens to shoot 1080 video. It al depends on what you shoot. If you just want to capture what is happening, just stick something up front. If you try to make something good looking, lenses become more important.

LBA plays an important role as well Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

propellor wrote:
Of course you can see the difference. Contrast, color, sharpness, CA, edge sharpness, distort and of course bokeh give each lens its specific character. Whether its' cheap or expensive doesn't matter.


Contrast, colour are what mostly matter in a video and they are easily software adjustable.
As for bokeh, that's not what Contax SLR lenses are really famous for. And there are lenses much less expensive that can produce outstanding bokeh.
Old Meyer lenses, for instance, which do not need declicking because they have continuous aperture.
And... are you seriously saying that edge sharpness is an important feature in a motion picture video? Laughing Wink

Photos are static, they let you observe them for as long as you like and as close as you like.
Videos are in motion. Sharpness in a 1080i/1080p motion video is a totally irrelevant factor.


PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
propellor wrote:
Of course you can see the difference. Contrast, color, sharpness, CA, edge sharpness, distort and of course bokeh give each lens its specific character. Whether its' cheap or expensive doesn't matter.


Contrast, colour are what mostly matter in a video and they are easily software adjustable.
As for bokeh, that's not what Contax SLR lenses are really famous for. And there are lenses much less expensive that can produce outstanding bokeh.
Old Meyer lenses, for instance, which do not need declicking because they have continuous aperture.
And... are you seriously saying that edge sharpness is an important feature in a motion picture video? Laughing Wink

Photos are static, they let you observe them for as long as you like and as close as you like.
Videos are in motion. Sharpness in a 1080i/1080p motion video is a totally irrelevant factor.



I am not going to argue about this, especially about your last sentence.
Finding lenses to use for video based on the premiss that you don't need to declick them and not deface any precious glass is the wrong way to go.
Lenses, camera's, tripods,etc. are just tools. I am not a collector in the sense that I put my lenses in a glass cabinet and look at them lovingly. If I need to remove 4 screws in order to get to a ball bearing and tiny spring to get the lenses to do what I want/need them to do, I have no trouble doing that. Especially in the Contax case. It is so easily reversible, that it is a no brainer to worry about destroying said lenses.
I know you are opposed to any change made to a lens, like filing off fins, etc. Well, I am not.