Thanks Christian! The meteor is a great lens, I like it too. I didn't mention the Zenitar 16 and 8mm on the video because I don't have them, but I used to have a Zenitar 16mm and it was great for wide angle shots.
Thanks! I tried using an extension tube and even the shortest one converts the lens in a super macro lens. I tried unscrewing the lens a bit, something like half a millimeter and the lens focuses at a shorter distance, yes. You always have to pay a price. In this case you lose the parfocal capabilities of the lens, the witness marks are obviously not even close to where they should be and the smallest change to the focal length (zoom) throws everything out of focus. The lens can be used that way if you are patient.
Great video! I have a K3 I haven't used in 25 years or so but I need to use it to teach a class coming soon. I was thinking about finding a couple M42 lenses and this video confirms I can do that - thanks! I will add one thing - there was a filter (F-1734) that came with mine that allows for shooting closer than that 2m distance. I tried it last night and it works well. There are a few available online if you look around but I also like the idea of going with a prime photography lens.
Nice, good to know you are using the K3 to teach a class. It's a basic camera, but it is similar in many ways to professional cameras. I got one of those filters with a K3 once. I no longer have it, but that is a diopter. A diopter allows you to focus at closer distances, but like everything else in photography there is a price to pay. Diopters introduce softness, chromatic aberration, they are prone to lens flare and they distort the image causing the edges of the image to be blurry. It depends on the intensity of the diopter and gets worst if you stack more than one. In my case I look to get clean images, for that reason I avoid filters of any kind specially old ones. I ordered an adapter to mount the lens of the K3 on my Sony camera. I'll post a video analyzing the lens at different apertures and focal lengths. I'll include some filters in front of the lens to see how it responds.
great video! what is the front filter size of the 5-1 zoom lens? if the 3m MFD is an issue, you could attach a close focus diopter, no? just curious what the filter thread size is please
Thanks! The filter size is 77mm. I could thread a close focus diopter, yes. Every element you put in front or in some cases behind the lens is going to affect the quality of the image. The diopters I have tried put a lot of distortion, soft edges and tons of chromatic aberration in the image. That wouldn't be a big deal in a super sharp digital image, but that is something I personally don't want on 16mm film. 16mm is a format that already has certain amout of "softness" caused by the size of the format, lenses from the 70's are not exactly sharp compared to modern lenses and mechanical cameras especially the ones that haven't been properly serviced have issues with the flange focal distance and the distance of the focusing screen which can cause soft images. It's a chain and the image will look as bad as the worst of the components. I try to avoid bad links, but adding a diopter is a possibility indeed.
Thank you! I recently ordered a K3 and requested them to convert it and suggest lenses for m42, for wide, tele, portrait, anamorphic, fish. I'm very new to practical experience, since I've only seen videos for a while and can't wait to have an actual experience, so this video really helps understand. I don't mind distortions (my favorite is convex, not concave, i prefer the image curve outward) and i dont mind blue aberrations. The only thing I really hate is the breathing when focusing, its very distracting.
Congrats on your new camera! One of the most important things you have to know is 16mm and even S16 have a big crop factor. The crop factor of S16 is around 3X. Crop factor is always calculated using a still photography format known today as "full frame" which is the same as the 24x46mm still photography format known as 135. This is important because you have to multiply by 3 when you think about focal lengths. A 50mm lens which is considered normal on "full frame" will have a 150mm± field of view on a S16 which makes it a super telephoto on the K3 and so on. I used to have a Zenitar 16mm f2.8 and I never noticed any distortion. If you calculate the field of view you may imagine why there was no distortion. Zenitar makes an 8mm lens f3.5 I don't know if it the same as the Peleng 8mm, but looks the same to me. That lens can be considered a wide angle lens. It may show some distortion, but not much really. I have seen wide angle or fish eye lenses for S16 cameras, but those are rare and very expensive. We are talking about 3,4 or 6mm lenses. Good news.. The Peleng, the Zenitar and pretty much any M42 lens will cover Regular, Ultra and Super 16.
@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks I'll print screen this info for future. The seller sent me test video using of non converted K3 trying out: Meteor 17-69, Helios 44-2, Mir 37mm, Takumar 35mm, Peleng 8m, Takumar 135mm, Meteor 17-69mmm. I noticed in the presentation that they were greenish in tint for open and magenta when closed. I personally liked Helios, Takumars, and Meteor and Peleng only when closed.
@@TheCinematographyLab I know your video and comment is more about still photography lenses so I'll keep the crop and other info in mind if I want to use them and I did previously think about trying them. Thanks again 🙏🏼
@@DethronerX It's nice that the person was able to provide that video. I assume the video was taken using some sort of camera attached to the viewfinder. You can expect way better results of the image on the film itself. Crop factor applies to any lens including the Meteor or any cinema lens. As they say "A fifty is a fifty" physically the lens doesn't change at all, but the field of view changes depending on the format (R16, U16 or S16) A 50mm doesn't look the same on a 35mm camera and on a 16mm camera.
@@801ruben1 I'll keep that in mind. The video they sent were actual full scans, showing the sprocket holes on the left and the end had light flashing as red and stuff and had grains. I dont know why it was changing as green on aperture open and magenta on stopped down, on all lenses. They were also using an ND. The quality itself was good, it was just that tint thing happening so I dont know why.
great video. the meteor is infact a parfocal lens but a lot of those cameras were converted to super 16 in an unprofessional way, which made them behave unexpectedly
Thanks Etai! I agree with you. I didn't want to assure the lens is parfocal because I couldn't find any documentation to prove it, but it performs like such under the right conditions for sure.
Hi! thanks for the video! I'm trying to convert my camera to ultra 16mm. I already have the gate. Do you have videos where you explain how to replace the matte from the viewfinder? Do you sell this?
Thanks for watching Daniel! I don't have any videos about replacing that matte. Nothing on the K3 is complicated really, but changing that matte is not easy neither. I may sell the matte in the future and make a video about the process, but it cost me 2 cameras or 2 viewfinders to learn how to do it. There are some fragile parts on the viewfinder that break easily and it's almost impossible to find parts. I'm not sure this is something most people can do.
You footage looks excellent! I see SO MUCH terrible 16mm from enthusiasts on RUclips, I think they do more harm for the medium than good. I know 16mm and S16 can look excellent and you've shown that here. Thank you. I'm actually about to start a series of tests comparing objective resolution of the Meteor 5:1 vs. M42 prime lenses, including a Zenit 16mm and Asahi SMCs.
Thanks! Well, I've been working as a camera guy for a long time and I have studied for a long time. I guess that helps. Some enthusiast just want to shoot without learning much and some others want to enhance the imperfections of film. Not my thing, but I think we see a lot of that "I used film and I have the grain ans scratches to prove it" on films out there. Sounds like good test. I'll be checking your channel in the future to see the results.
@@TheCinematographyLab I FINALLY got it uploaded to my channel. It's a bit crude but it at least gives people an idea of what to expect. I'll let you post a link if you so desire.
@@wado1942 Excellent! Very good and detailed information. Thanks for sharing and yes, I can ad a link to the description so people researching the topic can have more information about the lenses.
Thanks for your insights. So will the Meteor be better or as good as a Beroflex 2.8/24mm on the K-3 Super 16? And first, according to your video the Meteor will not cover Super 16 in 24mm but only from 27mm. The Beroflex has a very short focusing throw of just a few millimeters from infinity to 2m.
Thank you for watching the video. I have never used the Beroflex so I can't tell if it's better or worst. Primer lenses were superior than zoom lenses specially in the 70s when they were just being developed. As I mention on the video one of the biggest problems I see with the Meteor is the distance at which it focus which is something like 5 or 6ft. Any prime lens will beat it in that regard. Now any lens designed to be used as a still photo lens will cover the S16 gate just fine. Wide angle lenses are more difficult and expensive to manufacture that's the why lenses like the Meteor were designed to cover the R16 area only.
@@TheCinematographyLab My K-3 S16 still produces a scratch at the widened gate and I can see a spot at the gate. Will have to sable / polish it I guess. So at least your guess is that the prime lens might be better than the Meteor. And it certainly is smaller. Forgot to check how wide I could get when shooting the first clip. You say 27mm, some say even close to 20mm...
@@michaelpetersenfilm Yeah you have to polish the gate and maybe the rolls to get rid of scratches. Prime lenses used to be better than zoom lenses. I have had good experience with prime lenses, they are easier to work with and they are not expensive. I tested the meteor lens with a ultra 16 camera and film and I didn't get vignette at the 21mm position, but the Super 16 gate is bigger than the U16 one. Testing is the only way to know for sure.
That's a possibility. Every time you insert an object between the film and the subject other than the lens itself that object is going to affect the quality of the image to a certain extent. I don't think it's a big problem with modern lenses and digital cameras, but I believe it has a major effect on old zoom lenses and film which are kind of soft to begin with. It would be a matter of testing and seeing if it's acceptable for the user and the product.
hello ! super video. I m buying a k3 super 16 mm.. and I don `t know what choose , m42 or canon ? which one do you recommend me ..about more possibilities of lenses and the quality ?? thank you
Thanks Andy. I really like the idea of having the Canon mount on a film camera and taking advantage of the good quality and availability of modern lenses. I'm working on converting other more professional 16mm cameras to Canon mount too, so I think it's a great idea. There are several brands selling lenses, they are way sharper and way better than lenses from the 70s so I thinks that's a good idea. My concern with the K3's they are selling converted to Canon mount and S16 is the construction quality and reliability. A lot of people have been reporting cameras that they bought on eBay from one of those guys and the cameras have a lot of issues. As I mentioned on this video the flange focal distance of a camera has to be extremely precise, and I don't know if the guys are doing the job right. If you go with M42 lenses you will be limited to the kit lens or lenses that you can buy here and there that are going to have a different look, soft image and in many cases chromatic aberration issues. There is an 8mm lens for M42 which is the lowest you can get on Canon mount. I think the Canon mount is a great idea, but I would have to see and test a camera before paying for it. Since I've seen videos of those guys working on the cameras with no respect and knowing that lots of people have issues with theri cameras I'd think about it twice. The problem with the S16 cameras is can't see what you are filming. I have some K3s and I converted one to U16 myself and I did extend the viewfinder matte so I can actually see what I'm capturing on film, but that's not a possibility with S16, so you won't see like 25% of the image you are actually capturing.
really good videos a big compliment to your work, very informative and interesting. I read in your comment that you hate modified your field of view to u16, do you hate simply filing the sides with a dremel? i would like to have it aswell but in s16
@@cosimotassone748 Thanks for your kind comment. I modified this camera to Ultra 16 which is slightly bigger on the sides than R16, for that reason I was able to remove a matte that is in the viewfinder path, and I replaced it with one that I made. I completely replaced the matte, so I didn't have to file the part, but that's an option. Is this possible with S16? As I always say: If you have the money and the knowledge you can do whatever you want. I have seen videos of cameras that have been modified so you can see the S16 are on the viewfinder, but that would involve re-centering the prisms (3) and modifying the matte and the viewfinder. Is it an easy thing to do? No, that's the why I decided to go with U16 and have a more functional camera.
There is no simple answer to that question. In my opinion cameras are tools. There are tools for different jobs, some tools are more expensive, more durable, nicer and better than other, but continue to be just tools. I see the K3 as a nice entry level camera. They used to be cheap and they have a lot to offer, but they are limited. You cannot synchronize sound with the K3. The camera is loud and it has a wild wind up motor that let's you shoot for 30 seconds. I would not put an expensive PL lens on a camera that has those limitations. If I can afford expensive lenses I rather buy or rent a nicer camera. Traditionally the K3 has been an affordable yet good camera. Using M42 lenses makes sense because they are not expensive or hard to find. Those lenses are from the 70s and 80s and they have a lot of imperfections, but this is an entry level camera, so that's expected. The EF mount is very cool. If you already have some lenses with an EF mount getting that mount makes a lot of sense. Those are much better, modern lenses. They are not super expensive and they can be fixed if needed. I think the EF is a good investment if you already have lenses. Finally I think Super 16 and U16 are great. Personally I'm not fan of squared aspect ratios. You also get more resolution especially if the idea is to have a wide image at the end. Most conversions are kind of sketchy. The posts on eBay say they re-center the viewfinder. If that's the case and it's done properly that's great. I think it comes down to your budget and your needs. You can put super cool rims on a 1999 Geo Metro. You can install a cool stereo, an alarm, carpet, paint it and stuff but it will continue to be a Metro. Or you can buy a newer Elantra that will be better just the way it is. People want to shoot movies and music videos using Bolexs and K3s just because that's what they know or because they are cool. If you keep your eyes and your mind open you'll see there are more capable cameras that you can buy for similar prices. It's a good idea to get them serviced, but that's another topic.
@@TheCinematographyLab I can't thank you enough for such an insightful answer! It all makes sense and your analogy of the Geo Metro is perfect. I was indeed looking at the Canon mount as an option but realized I would have to look at EF mount lenses with an aperture ring, which negates almost all Canon lenses and I would have to look at wide angle third-party manual/cinematic lenses. I believe you're right in that it's best to accept the K-3 for what it is and utilize it in its stock form with minor modifications such as Super 16.
@@lenhister Good to hear the information was useful. Rokinon & Samyang "Cinema" lenses have manual aperture. They offer good wide angle options. They are not super cheap, but not super expensive. EF mount assuming that it's properly done is a good option. Once againm it comes down to your budget. Keep up the good work. Good luck with the camera you decide to buy. Let me know if you have more questions.
So I have a stock m42 mount krasnagorsk. Standard 16 gate. I bought a 200mm still photography lense. I haven't shot with it yet but will it work? It mounts correctly and looks ok through the view finder. But what impacts might it have?
It should work fine. The crop factor of the regular 16mm format is 3.4X compared to the full frame still photo format which is used to compare formats. So you are going to get a field of view of 680mm. If you are planing to shoot things that are away from you that would be great, especially if they are far, far away. Other than that, I don't see any issues. The depth of focus behind the lens is deeper when you use telephoto lenses, so images should be in focus. You can close the iris down a bit if possible to avoid issues most old lenses present like a soft image and chromatic aberration. Other than that you shouldn't have any problems.
I enjoyed your videos on the K 3 and Bolex cameras and subscribed to your channel. I am interested in buying a Bolex and using my M 42 primes with adapters. I understand the issue attached to the use of RX lenses. I like the look of the M 42 primes with my GH5. Some of these old lenses are better than others. My idea is to buy the Bolex and shoot a test roll with all my lenses and see what I get. What is your opinion of using the adapted M42 primes on a Bolex?
I'm glad you found the videos useful, and thanks for subscribing to the channel. Something I really like about the K3 is it works in the same way professional cameras do. That is, it has a rotating-mirror shutter and for that reason at the exact moment the film is exposed there is nothing but air between the lens and the film. Now I've seen great quality on films shot with the Bolex and now that we have great film stocks and great scanners the image quality could get even better. You can mount tons of lenses on Bolex cameras and yes, lenses that are not RX are going to display some "aberrations" I know lenses that a have a focal length of 50mm or more don't show those issues at apertures of f2.8 or above. So looks like the shorter the lens and the bigger the aperture (low f stop number) the more aberrations you get. That's what happens with most vintage lenses anyways. I think the only way to know for sure is to actually test the camera with some lenses and document the process. Now since you mentioned your GH5 I have to say I like the way vintage lenses look on digital cameras, because they compensate in some ways for the "clinical" look that some cameras have. But when I shoot film, I try to use lenses that are very sharp and clean and they compensate for the lack of sharpness and detail of small formats like 16mm. As you mention "Some lenses are better than others" and my idea here, is if the prism of the Bolex is going to introduce aberrations then it would be a great idea to start with a lens that doesn't have big issues like softness and chromatic aberration. You just gave me an idea for another video. I have a Rex4 that I can use to test it with some nice lenses all the way down to 10mm. I guess that's the only way to see how bad or usable footage can be. I'd like to see your footage if you get a Bolex and shoot with the M42 lenses too.
@@TheCinematographyLab Thank you very much for the detailed reply. After a bit more thought following your message, the K3 seems like a better choice. I will begin the search for this camera today. I will be using the camera for documentary filmmaking to accompany the GH5. I'm making a mid-career change from geography professor and will start my MFA program Fall 22. I started turning my favorite lectures and stories into short films during the quarantine, and I found that I loved every aspect of filmmaking. I look forward to seeing the lens tests you mention and learning more from your channel. Thank again!
@@JR-lw8yu No problem and good luck with all your projects! Just to clarify, I don't have anything against the Bolex. But I have to say the viewfinder of the regular H16 and even the Rex 4 is dark and then you have the prism which will cause some issues. I just watched a video on the Midwest Film Co channel. I remembered seeing something shot with the Bolex and Canon FD lenses and it was there. The guy shot some footage with the Bolex and a Canon FD 20mm and the footage looks great. At the same time I think the K3 is a great camera, you can find one for less money, they have a rotating-mirror shutter and the shutter angle is 150° equivalent to 1/60th of a second. The one on the Bolex is 1/80th of a sec. So a bit less light too, but great cameras for what they are.
@@TheCinematographyLab More great advice. For me the K3 is the best choice. The K3 is a fraction of the price of the Rex cameras. I have the M42 lenses and know they will work well. Adding the Bolex prism to my CZ Jena 20mm does not make sense for me. I also have an anamorphic adapter that I like using with a Mir-1b. I want to try this combo with the K3. The K3 seems like the most practical entry into 16mm for me. I appreciate the input you provided.
Hi, I'm about to buy this camera to shoot a medium-length film but as I don't have the original lens, which photographic lens do you recommend for shooting even in tight spaces? Thanks
You can use any lens that has the M42 mount. Still photo lenses work just fine, as you mention it's going to be kind of a problem to shoot in tight spaces. I would recommend getting some affordable prime lenses like a 50mm and a 28mm just because they are not expensive and most of the time they are fast. For tight spaces the Peleng or Zenitar lenses are the best option. They offer an 8mm lens and a 16mm. The 16mm lens has the field of view of a normal lens. The 8mm would be a decent wide angle.
Hello again. Im looking for FD to M42 adapter for K3, to use FD lenses. I haven't found any online so far, so if you know any place, please do let me know, thanks!
Hello, an FD to M42 adapter is not possible without glass. The flange-to-focal distance of the FD mount is shorter than that of the M42 mount. That's why you won't find adapters for FD, EF, or Nikon lenses. If you find an adapter for any of those lenses, the adapter will have an optical element inside that messes with the nature of the lens, or the lens will behave as a macro lens. The port of the camera could be modified; some people have been putting EF mounts on the K3 for some time. FD? I doubt it. It has a shorter depth distance than EF.
@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks. If Fotodiox or K&F make one with the glass/dippter, ill get it, otherwise I'll find another wide for it and use FD where it can work
I don't think it's a bad idea to want to use good quality lenses with the K3. Unfortunately in the case of the Leica M system it would be pretty much impossible. Obviously the mount is different, which could be changed, but because of the flange focal distance of the Leica M system lenses would not perform as normal lenses. I don't think they would focus at all.
You can mount the lens on the camera, and the lens will perform as expected, meaning it will focus at all distances, including infinity. The focal length of the lens is fixed, but the crop factor of 16mm will change what you see. Regular 16 has a crop factor of 3.4X. A Helios 44 that has a focal length of 44mm will have the field of view of a 197mm lens on a full-frame camera. You can shoot movies with a telephoto lens, but it's a limitation in many cases.
I totally agree. I tried several still photo lenses before and not surprisingly the Meteor was the one that performed the best. As I mentioned on the video the biggest downside for me is the minimal focus distance which makes it pretty much unusable in small and not so small places like houses.
Hi, are you resided in Los Angeles? I've just bought a K3 and would like to ask you some questions. Let me know if there's any place around here we could meet! Thanks
I live in Utah. I studied in LA for some time and I go there once in a while. There is a lot of infon online about the K3. If you haven't found the answers to your questions I may try to help here.
I purchased a zenitar 16mm lens which is labeled MC zenitar-K2 is this comparable with the K3 without an adapter? I did see there are three variations of this lens. And I’m guessing the M2 version is what you need
I think you are talking about the Zenitar 16mm f2.8, if so the lens works fine with the K3. Pretty much any lens with an M42 mount will work fine. I don't know anything about the M2 version. I used the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 to film a couple of shots in Santa Monica, California. The video is on my channel. The lens performed well.
@@jiving0078 I cannot comment on your lens. I'm not seeing the lens and I'm not even sure which lens is the one you have. I can tell you some M42 lenses have an "Auto" mode. The auto mode works in the same way modern still photo lenses work. It keeps the iris open all the way so you can see a brighter image on the viewfinder and it only closes to the aperture you selected the exact moment when the camera takes the picture. Obviously this mode is not a good idea on movie cameras. There is a pin at the bottom of the lenses. When you push the pin in and open or close the aperture the lens responds as expected. When I had my Zenitar 16mm lens I did glue the pin down using crazy glue and I kept the lens on "manual" mode. It worked just fine. I did exactly the same with the one you saw on the video. I'm not telling you to glue the pin. You can try and see if that solves the problem. If so you can ask a technician to make the lens manual or you can try another solution.
Unfortunately you can't, if you want the lens to perform normally. The flange focal distance of the Canon EF mount is 44mm while the one of the M42 mount is 45.46mm that means that the physical distance to the focal plane exceeds that of the Canon mount, and you still have to add the thickness of the adapter. The lens can be mounted, but it will behave like a macro lens. It's the same principle as adding extension rings on your Canon system. The K3 is great because you can machine mounts for Canon, Nikon, PL and many other mounts, but machining a mount and making it work is not cheap or easy. Is it possible? Yes. With the right amount of money everything is possible.
The problem it to find wide angle lens for M42. There is only two options Zenitar 16mm/f2.8 and peleng 8mm. They are both is not perfect. It is better to change mount. 50mm lens is not usable, because it 50x2.88=144mm on your super 16mm. You can shoot an eagle eye but can't shoot your dog beside you. It's quite enoyng me. Meteor is useless lens, loosing focus when you zooming. It's starting focusing from 2 meters.
I totally agree, crop factor complicates things with 16mm cameras. I used to have a Zenitar 16mm f2.8 and it was a good lens. It's difficult to focus those lenses when you can't see the image clearly and I agree, the 2 meters minimal focus distance is a downside of the Meteor for sure, but with those limitations it is still possible to use the camera and lenses for not super important stuff.
@@TheCinematographyLab According to my experience all lenses made in Russia and USSR are unique. They can be quite good, but also can be absolutely crap (compare to german or japanese lenses) :) Krasnogorsk it's AK-47 in camera world, not perfect, but it works in any case. My K-3 is 38 years old, I bought it almost new. If we look at the PL-mount lenses you have a huge range of different focal distances. But you can't use adapter for m42 mount. In m42 distance between camera sensor and lens is almost longest distance among other mounts, it means you can't use any other lens on your camera using adapters, but m42 lenses fit to any other cameras. It's hard to find peleng 8 m42, even in Russia. They made a lot peleng lens for Nikon and Canon, but not for m42. I higly recomend a Vivitar, old japanese lenses for M42. The quality is amazing. I use Vivitar 24mm f2,8. It sharper than Zenitar 16 , also you can find Tamron 17mm, expensive and rare lens on Ebay.
Grest Video with a lot of insight and hands on information! I love the Meteor zoom. For wide angle I use the Zenitar 16, which I like very much.
Thanks Christian! The meteor is a great lens, I like it too. I didn't mention the Zenitar 16 and 8mm on the video because I don't have them, but I used to have a Zenitar 16mm and it was great for wide angle shots.
Nice Video! Great close ups
Grate video!
Maybe you can use a M42 extention tube to becrease the minimum focus distance on the standard zoom lens?
Thanks!
I tried using an extension tube and even the shortest one converts the lens in a super macro lens. I tried unscrewing the lens a bit, something like half a millimeter and the lens focuses at a shorter distance, yes. You always have to pay a price. In this case you lose the parfocal capabilities of the lens, the witness marks are obviously not even close to where they should be and the smallest change to the focal length (zoom) throws everything out of focus. The lens can be used that way if you are patient.
Awesome video man! What kind of battery did you use to power it? Is that a 3-pin XLR cable?
Thank you! I'm not sure I understand your question. To power the K3? The K3 doesn't require a battery. It is a windup camera.
@@TheCinematographyLab Ah I apologize, I meant to comment this on a different video related to the Kinor-16CX-2M ahahaha
@@breadsticat6264 Hahaha makes sense.
Great video!
I have a K3 I haven't used in 25 years or so but I need to use it to teach a class coming soon. I was thinking about finding a couple M42 lenses and this video confirms I can do that - thanks!
I will add one thing -
there was a filter (F-1734) that came with mine that allows for shooting closer than that 2m distance.
I tried it last night and it works well. There are a few available online if you look around but I also like the idea of going with a prime photography lens.
Nice, good to know you are using the K3 to teach a class. It's a basic camera, but it is similar in many ways to professional cameras.
I got one of those filters with a K3 once. I no longer have it, but that is a diopter. A diopter allows you to focus at closer distances, but like everything else in photography there is a price to pay. Diopters introduce softness, chromatic aberration, they are prone to lens flare and they distort the image causing the edges of the image to be blurry. It depends on the intensity of the diopter and gets worst if you stack more than one. In my case I look to get clean images, for that reason I avoid filters of any kind specially old ones.
I ordered an adapter to mount the lens of the K3 on my Sony camera. I'll post a video analyzing the lens at different apertures and focal lengths. I'll include some filters in front of the lens to see how it responds.
great video! what is the front filter size of the 5-1 zoom lens? if the 3m MFD is an issue, you could attach a close focus diopter, no? just curious what the filter thread size is please
Thanks! The filter size is 77mm. I could thread a close focus diopter, yes. Every element you put in front or in some cases behind the lens is going to affect the quality of the image. The diopters I have tried put a lot of distortion, soft edges and tons of chromatic aberration in the image. That wouldn't be a big deal in a super sharp digital image, but that is something I personally don't want on 16mm film. 16mm is a format that already has certain amout of "softness" caused by the size of the format, lenses from the 70's are not exactly sharp compared to modern lenses and mechanical cameras especially the ones that haven't been properly serviced have issues with the flange focal distance and the distance of the focusing screen which can cause soft images. It's a chain and the image will look as bad as the worst of the components. I try to avoid bad links, but adding a diopter is a possibility indeed.
Thank you! I recently ordered a K3 and requested them to convert it and suggest lenses for m42, for wide, tele, portrait, anamorphic, fish. I'm very new to practical experience, since I've only seen videos for a while and can't wait to have an actual experience, so this video really helps understand. I don't mind distortions (my favorite is convex, not concave, i prefer the image curve outward) and i dont mind blue aberrations. The only thing I really hate is the breathing when focusing, its very distracting.
Congrats on your new camera! One of the most important things you have to know is 16mm and even S16 have a big crop factor. The crop factor of S16 is around 3X. Crop factor is always calculated using a still photography format known today as "full frame" which is the same as the 24x46mm still photography format known as 135. This is important because you have to multiply by 3 when you think about focal lengths. A 50mm lens which is considered normal on "full frame" will have a 150mm± field of view on a S16 which makes it a super telephoto on the K3 and so on.
I used to have a Zenitar 16mm f2.8 and I never noticed any distortion. If you calculate the field of view you may imagine why there was no distortion. Zenitar makes an 8mm lens f3.5 I don't know if it the same as the Peleng 8mm, but looks the same to me. That lens can be considered a wide angle lens. It may show some distortion, but not much really. I have seen wide angle or fish eye lenses for S16 cameras, but those are rare and very expensive. We are talking about 3,4 or 6mm lenses.
Good news.. The Peleng, the Zenitar and pretty much any M42 lens will cover Regular, Ultra and Super 16.
@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks I'll print screen this info for future. The seller sent me test video using of non converted K3 trying out: Meteor 17-69, Helios 44-2, Mir 37mm, Takumar 35mm, Peleng 8m, Takumar 135mm, Meteor 17-69mmm. I noticed in the presentation that they were greenish in tint for open and magenta when closed. I personally liked Helios, Takumars, and Meteor and Peleng only when closed.
@@TheCinematographyLab I know your video and comment is more about still photography lenses so I'll keep the crop and other info in mind if I want to use them and I did previously think about trying them. Thanks again 🙏🏼
@@DethronerX It's nice that the person was able to provide that video. I assume the video was taken using some sort of camera attached to the viewfinder. You can expect way better results of the image on the film itself.
Crop factor applies to any lens including the Meteor or any cinema lens. As they say "A fifty is a fifty" physically the lens doesn't change at all, but the field of view changes depending on the format (R16, U16 or S16) A 50mm doesn't look the same on a 35mm camera and on a 16mm camera.
@@801ruben1 I'll keep that in mind. The video they sent were actual full scans, showing the sprocket holes on the left and the end had light flashing as red and stuff and had grains. I dont know why it was changing as green on aperture open and magenta on stopped down, on all lenses. They were also using an ND. The quality itself was good, it was just that tint thing happening so I dont know why.
great video. the meteor is infact a parfocal lens but a lot of those cameras were converted to super 16 in an unprofessional way, which made them behave unexpectedly
Thanks Etai! I agree with you. I didn't want to assure the lens is parfocal because I couldn't find any documentation to prove it, but it performs like such under the right conditions for sure.
Nice tips, Thanks a lot!
Thank you for watching!
Hi! thanks for the video! I'm trying to convert my camera to ultra 16mm. I already have the gate. Do you have videos where you explain how to replace the matte from the viewfinder? Do you sell this?
Thanks for watching Daniel! I don't have any videos about replacing that matte. Nothing on the K3 is complicated really, but changing that matte is not easy neither. I may sell the matte in the future and make a video about the process, but it cost me 2 cameras or 2 viewfinders to learn how to do it. There are some fragile parts on the viewfinder that break easily and it's almost impossible to find parts. I'm not sure this is something most people can do.
You footage looks excellent! I see SO MUCH terrible 16mm from enthusiasts on RUclips, I think they do more harm for the medium than good. I know 16mm and S16 can look excellent and you've shown that here. Thank you. I'm actually about to start a series of tests comparing objective resolution of the Meteor 5:1 vs. M42 prime lenses, including a Zenit 16mm and Asahi SMCs.
Thanks! Well, I've been working as a camera guy for a long time and I have studied for a long time. I guess that helps. Some enthusiast just want to shoot without learning much and some others want to enhance the imperfections of film. Not my thing, but I think we see a lot of that "I used film and I have the grain ans scratches to prove it" on films out there.
Sounds like good test. I'll be checking your channel in the future to see the results.
@@TheCinematographyLab I FINALLY got it uploaded to my channel. It's a bit crude but it at least gives people an idea of what to expect. I'll let you post a link if you so desire.
@@wado1942 Excellent! Very good and detailed information. Thanks for sharing and yes, I can ad a link to the description so people researching the topic can have more information about the lenses.
@@TheCinematographyLab Ah thank you kindly! I'll link mine back here since this video lit a fire under my butt to get it done.
Really interesting.Cheers!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for your insights. So will the Meteor be better or as good as a Beroflex 2.8/24mm on the K-3 Super 16? And first, according to your video the Meteor will not cover Super 16 in 24mm but only from 27mm. The Beroflex has a very short focusing throw of just a few millimeters from infinity to 2m.
Thank you for watching the video. I have never used the Beroflex so I can't tell if it's better or worst. Primer lenses were superior than zoom lenses specially in the 70s when they were just being developed.
As I mention on the video one of the biggest problems I see with the Meteor is the distance at which it focus which is something like 5 or 6ft. Any prime lens will beat it in that regard. Now any lens designed to be used as a still photo lens will cover the S16 gate just fine.
Wide angle lenses are more difficult and expensive to manufacture that's the why lenses like the Meteor were designed to cover the R16 area only.
@@TheCinematographyLab My K-3 S16 still produces a scratch at the widened gate and I can see a spot at the gate. Will have to sable / polish it I guess. So at least your guess is that the prime lens might be better than the Meteor. And it certainly is smaller. Forgot to check how wide I could get when shooting the first clip. You say 27mm, some say even close to 20mm...
@@michaelpetersenfilm Yeah you have to polish the gate and maybe the rolls to get rid of scratches. Prime lenses used to be better than zoom lenses. I have had good experience with prime lenses, they are easier to work with and they are not expensive.
I tested the meteor lens with a ultra 16 camera and film and I didn't get vignette at the 21mm position, but the Super 16 gate is bigger than the U16 one. Testing is the only way to know for sure.
What about using the Meteor zoom with some good quality macro diopter lens to reduce the minimum focus distance ?
That's a possibility. Every time you insert an object between the film and the subject other than the lens itself that object is going to affect the quality of the image to a certain extent. I don't think it's a big problem with modern lenses and digital cameras, but I believe it has a major effect on old zoom lenses and film which are kind of soft to begin with. It would be a matter of testing and seeing if it's acceptable for the user and the product.
does anyone know where to find how to change the focus flange on the meteor lens? I seen someone share a link recently but cannot find it! thanksssss
hello ! super video.
I m buying a k3 super 16 mm.. and I don `t know what choose , m42 or canon ? which one do you recommend me ..about more possibilities of lenses and the quality ?? thank you
Thanks Andy.
I really like the idea of having the Canon mount on a film camera and taking advantage of the good quality and availability of modern lenses. I'm working on converting other more professional 16mm cameras to Canon mount too, so I think it's a great idea. There are several brands selling lenses, they are way sharper and way better than lenses from the 70s so I thinks that's a good idea.
My concern with the K3's they are selling converted to Canon mount and S16 is the construction quality and reliability. A lot of people have been reporting cameras that they bought on eBay from one of those guys and the cameras have a lot of issues. As I mentioned on this video the flange focal distance of a camera has to be extremely precise, and I don't know if the guys are doing the job right.
If you go with M42 lenses you will be limited to the kit lens or lenses that you can buy here and there that are going to have a different look, soft image and in many cases chromatic aberration issues. There is an 8mm lens for M42 which is the lowest you can get on Canon mount.
I think the Canon mount is a great idea, but I would have to see and test a camera before paying for it. Since I've seen videos of those guys working on the cameras with no respect and knowing that lots of people have issues with theri cameras I'd think about it twice.
The problem with the S16 cameras is can't see what you are filming. I have some K3s and I converted one to U16 myself and I did extend the viewfinder matte so I can actually see what I'm capturing on film, but that's not a possibility with S16, so you won't see like 25% of the image you are actually capturing.
really good videos a big compliment to your work, very informative and interesting. I read in your comment that you hate modified your field of view to u16, do you hate simply filing the sides with a dremel? i would like to have it aswell but in s16
@@cosimotassone748 Thanks for your kind comment. I modified this camera to Ultra 16 which is slightly bigger on the sides than R16, for that reason I was able to remove a matte that is in the viewfinder path, and I replaced it with one that I made. I completely replaced the matte, so I didn't have to file the part, but that's an option.
Is this possible with S16? As I always say: If you have the money and the knowledge you can do whatever you want. I have seen videos of cameras that have been modified so you can see the S16 are on the viewfinder, but that would involve re-centering the prisms (3) and modifying the matte and the viewfinder. Is it an easy thing to do? No, that's the why I decided to go with U16 and have a more functional camera.
If you could do it all again, would you choose a K3 super 16 with the stock mount, m42, canon, or pl mount? I'm a bit torn in deciding what to choose.
There is no simple answer to that question. In my opinion cameras are tools. There are tools for different jobs, some tools are more expensive, more durable, nicer and better than other, but continue to be just tools.
I see the K3 as a nice entry level camera. They used to be cheap and they have a lot to offer, but they are limited. You cannot synchronize sound with the K3. The camera is loud and it has a wild wind up motor that let's you shoot for 30 seconds. I would not put an expensive PL lens on a camera that has those limitations. If I can afford expensive lenses I rather buy or rent a nicer camera.
Traditionally the K3 has been an affordable yet good camera. Using M42 lenses makes sense because they are not expensive or hard to find. Those lenses are from the 70s and 80s and they have a lot of imperfections, but this is an entry level camera, so that's expected.
The EF mount is very cool. If you already have some lenses with an EF mount getting that mount makes a lot of sense. Those are much better, modern lenses. They are not super expensive and they can be fixed if needed. I think the EF is a good investment if you already have lenses.
Finally I think Super 16 and U16 are great. Personally I'm not fan of squared aspect ratios. You also get more resolution especially if the idea is to have a wide image at the end. Most conversions are kind of sketchy. The posts on eBay say they re-center the viewfinder. If that's the case and it's done properly that's great.
I think it comes down to your budget and your needs. You can put super cool rims on a 1999 Geo Metro. You can install a cool stereo, an alarm, carpet, paint it and stuff but it will continue to be a Metro. Or you can buy a newer Elantra that will be better just the way it is. People want to shoot movies and music videos using Bolexs and K3s just because that's what they know or because they are cool. If you keep your eyes and your mind open you'll see there are more capable cameras that you can buy for similar prices. It's a good idea to get them serviced, but that's another topic.
@@TheCinematographyLab I can't thank you enough for such an insightful answer! It all makes sense and your analogy of the Geo Metro is perfect. I was indeed looking at the Canon mount as an option but realized I would have to look at EF mount lenses with an aperture ring, which negates almost all Canon lenses and I would have to look at wide angle third-party manual/cinematic lenses.
I believe you're right in that it's best to accept the K-3 for what it is and utilize it in its stock form with minor modifications such as Super 16.
@@lenhister Good to hear the information was useful. Rokinon & Samyang "Cinema" lenses have manual aperture. They offer good wide angle options. They are not super cheap, but not super expensive. EF mount assuming that it's properly done is a good option. Once againm it comes down to your budget.
Keep up the good work. Good luck with the camera you decide to buy. Let me know if you have more questions.
doing gods work brother
Haha thanks bro. I love your work.
So I have a stock m42 mount krasnagorsk. Standard 16 gate. I bought a 200mm still photography lense. I haven't shot with it yet but will it work? It mounts correctly and looks ok through the view finder. But what impacts might it have?
It should work fine. The crop factor of the regular 16mm format is 3.4X compared to the full frame still photo format which is used to compare formats. So you are going to get a field of view of 680mm. If you are planing to shoot things that are away from you that would be great, especially if they are far, far away. Other than that, I don't see any issues. The depth of focus behind the lens is deeper when you use telephoto lenses, so images should be in focus. You can close the iris down a bit if possible to avoid issues most old lenses present like a soft image and chromatic aberration. Other than that you shouldn't have any problems.
I enjoyed your videos on the K 3 and Bolex cameras and subscribed to your channel. I am interested in buying a Bolex and using my M 42 primes with adapters. I understand the issue attached to the use of RX lenses. I like the look of the M 42 primes with my GH5. Some of these old lenses are better than others. My idea is to buy the Bolex and shoot a test roll with all my lenses and see what I get. What is your opinion of using the adapted M42 primes on a Bolex?
I'm glad you found the videos useful, and thanks for subscribing to the channel. Something I really like about the K3 is it works in the same way professional cameras do. That is, it has a rotating-mirror shutter and for that reason at the exact moment the film is exposed there is nothing but air between the lens and the film. Now I've seen great quality on films shot with the Bolex and now that we have great film stocks and great scanners the image quality could get even better.
You can mount tons of lenses on Bolex cameras and yes, lenses that are not RX are going to display some "aberrations" I know lenses that a have a focal length of 50mm or more don't show those issues at apertures of f2.8 or above. So looks like the shorter the lens and the bigger the aperture (low f stop number) the more aberrations you get. That's what happens with most vintage lenses anyways. I think the only way to know for sure is to actually test the camera with some lenses and document the process.
Now since you mentioned your GH5 I have to say I like the way vintage lenses look on digital cameras, because they compensate in some ways for the "clinical" look that some cameras have. But when I shoot film, I try to use lenses that are very sharp and clean and they compensate for the lack of sharpness and detail of small formats like 16mm. As you mention "Some lenses are better than others" and my idea here, is if the prism of the Bolex is going to introduce aberrations then it would be a great idea to start with a lens that doesn't have big issues like softness and chromatic aberration. You just gave me an idea for another video. I have a Rex4 that I can use to test it with some nice lenses all the way down to 10mm. I guess that's the only way to see how bad or usable footage can be. I'd like to see your footage if you get a Bolex and shoot with the M42 lenses too.
@@TheCinematographyLab Thank you very much for the detailed reply. After a bit more thought following your message, the K3 seems like a better choice. I will begin the search for this camera today. I will be using the camera for documentary filmmaking to accompany the GH5. I'm making a mid-career change from geography professor and will start my MFA program Fall 22. I started turning my favorite lectures and stories into short films during the quarantine, and I found that I loved every aspect of filmmaking. I look forward to seeing the lens tests you mention and learning more from your channel. Thank again!
@@JR-lw8yu No problem and good luck with all your projects! Just to clarify, I don't have anything against the Bolex. But I have to say the viewfinder of the regular H16 and even the Rex 4 is dark and then you have the prism which will cause some issues. I just watched a video on the Midwest Film Co channel. I remembered seeing something shot with the Bolex and Canon FD lenses and it was there. The guy shot some footage with the Bolex and a Canon FD 20mm and the footage looks great. At the same time I think the K3 is a great camera, you can find one for less money, they have a rotating-mirror shutter and the shutter angle is 150° equivalent to 1/60th of a second. The one on the Bolex is 1/80th of a sec. So a bit less light too, but great cameras for what they are.
@@TheCinematographyLab More great advice. For me the K3 is the best choice. The K3 is a fraction of the price of the Rex cameras. I have the M42 lenses and know they will work well. Adding the Bolex prism to my CZ Jena 20mm does not make sense for me. I also have an anamorphic adapter that I like using with a Mir-1b. I want to try this combo with the K3. The K3 seems like the most practical entry into 16mm for me. I appreciate the input you provided.
Hi, I'm about to buy this camera to shoot a medium-length film but as I don't have the original lens, which photographic lens do you recommend for shooting even in tight spaces? Thanks
You can use any lens that has the M42 mount. Still photo lenses work just fine, as you mention it's going to be kind of a problem to shoot in tight spaces. I would recommend getting some affordable prime lenses like a 50mm and a 28mm just because they are not expensive and most of the time they are fast.
For tight spaces the Peleng or Zenitar lenses are the best option. They offer an 8mm lens and a 16mm. The 16mm lens has the field of view of a normal lens. The 8mm would be a decent wide angle.
Hello again. Im looking for FD to M42 adapter for K3, to use FD lenses. I haven't found any online so far, so if you know any place, please do let me know, thanks!
Hello, an FD to M42 adapter is not possible without glass. The flange-to-focal distance of the FD mount is shorter than that of the M42 mount. That's why you won't find adapters for FD, EF, or Nikon lenses. If you find an adapter for any of those lenses, the adapter will have an optical element inside that messes with the nature of the lens, or the lens will behave as a macro lens.
The port of the camera could be modified; some people have been putting EF mounts on the K3 for some time. FD? I doubt it. It has a shorter depth distance than EF.
@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks. If Fotodiox or K&F make one with the glass/dippter, ill get it, otherwise I'll find another wide for it and use FD where it can work
I’d like to use my Leica M and screw mount lenses on it, I’m sure they are too small though. Bad idea?
I don't think it's a bad idea to want to use good quality lenses with the K3. Unfortunately in the case of the Leica M system it would be pretty much impossible. Obviously the mount is different, which could be changed, but because of the flange focal distance of the Leica M system lenses would not perform as normal lenses. I don't think they would focus at all.
So you can use Helios 44 lenses with the K-3 and the focal will not be affected?
You can mount the lens on the camera, and the lens will perform as expected, meaning it will focus at all distances, including infinity. The focal length of the lens is fixed, but the crop factor of 16mm will change what you see. Regular 16 has a crop factor of 3.4X. A Helios 44 that has a focal length of 44mm will have the field of view of a 197mm lens on a full-frame camera. You can shoot movies with a telephoto lens, but it's a limitation in many cases.
@@TheCinematographyLab Thank you so much for the detailed answer! I love the K-3 content you've made, I just subscribed to your channel :)
@@braccc2640 My pleasure. Thanks for subscribing!
The Meteor still looks to be the best in terms of picture quality. Is it just me?
I totally agree. I tried several still photo lenses before and not surprisingly the Meteor was the one that performed the best. As I mentioned on the video the biggest downside for me is the minimal focus distance which makes it pretty much unusable in small and not so small places like houses.
that lens is so underrated its not funny. from what eve experienced and seen its close to a cinema lens in my mind. its gorgeous glass
Hi, are you resided in Los Angeles? I've just bought a K3 and would like to ask you some questions. Let me know if there's any place around here we could meet!
Thanks
I live in Utah. I studied in LA for some time and I go there once in a while. There is a lot of infon online about the K3. If you haven't found the answers to your questions I may try to help here.
I purchased a zenitar 16mm lens which is labeled MC zenitar-K2 is this comparable with the K3 without an adapter? I did see there are three variations of this lens. And I’m guessing the M2 version is what you need
I think you are talking about the Zenitar 16mm f2.8, if so the lens works fine with the K3. Pretty much any lens with an M42 mount will work fine. I don't know anything about the M2 version.
I used the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 to film a couple of shots in Santa Monica, California. The video is on my channel. The lens performed well.
@@TheCinematographyLab thank you, after modifying my lens, removing the lever. I noticed when opening and closing the aperture rings, they do not move
@@jiving0078 I cannot comment on your lens. I'm not seeing the lens and I'm not even sure which lens is the one you have. I can tell you some M42 lenses have an "Auto" mode. The auto mode works in the same way modern still photo lenses work. It keeps the iris open all the way so you can see a brighter image on the viewfinder and it only closes to the aperture you selected the exact moment when the camera takes the picture. Obviously this mode is not a good idea on movie cameras. There is a pin at the bottom of the lenses. When you push the pin in and open or close the aperture the lens responds as expected.
When I had my Zenitar 16mm lens I did glue the pin down using crazy glue and I kept the lens on "manual" mode. It worked just fine. I did exactly the same with the one you saw on the video. I'm not telling you to glue the pin. You can try and see if that solves the problem. If so you can ask a technician to make the lens manual or you can try another solution.
Do you have any social media so I can send photographs over, thank you for your time
Cant you just use canon lenses with m42 adapter?
Unfortunately you can't, if you want the lens to perform normally. The flange focal distance of the Canon EF mount is 44mm while the one of the M42 mount is 45.46mm that means that the physical distance to the focal plane exceeds that of the Canon mount, and you still have to add the thickness of the adapter. The lens can be mounted, but it will behave like a macro lens. It's the same principle as adding extension rings on your Canon system.
The K3 is great because you can machine mounts for Canon, Nikon, PL and many other mounts, but machining a mount and making it work is not cheap or easy. Is it possible? Yes. With the right amount of money everything is possible.
The problem it to find wide angle lens for M42. There is only two options Zenitar 16mm/f2.8 and peleng 8mm. They are both is not perfect. It is better to change mount. 50mm lens is not usable, because it 50x2.88=144mm on your super 16mm. You can shoot an eagle eye but can't shoot your dog beside you. It's quite enoyng me. Meteor is useless lens, loosing focus when you zooming. It's starting focusing from 2 meters.
I totally agree, crop factor complicates things with 16mm cameras. I used to have a Zenitar 16mm f2.8 and it was a good lens. It's difficult to focus those lenses when you can't see the image clearly and I agree, the 2 meters minimal focus distance is a downside of the Meteor for sure, but with those limitations it is still possible to use the camera and lenses for not super important stuff.
@@TheCinematographyLab According to my experience all lenses made in Russia and USSR are unique. They can be quite good, but also can be absolutely crap (compare to german or japanese lenses) :) Krasnogorsk it's AK-47 in camera world, not perfect, but it works in any case. My K-3 is 38 years old, I bought it almost new. If we look at the PL-mount lenses you have a huge range of different focal distances. But you can't use adapter for m42 mount. In m42 distance between camera sensor and lens is almost longest distance among other mounts, it means you can't use any other lens on your camera using adapters, but m42 lenses fit to any other cameras. It's hard to find peleng 8 m42, even in Russia. They made a lot peleng lens for Nikon and Canon, but not for m42. I higly recomend a Vivitar, old japanese lenses for M42. The quality is amazing. I use Vivitar 24mm f2,8. It sharper than Zenitar 16 , also you can find Tamron 17mm, expensive and rare lens on Ebay.