I don't know what you refer to as the "SIF" other than source documents
for the eSIF that I don't have. But the eSIF does reference the user's
manual for the Handy Copy Stand which does show the 3 adapters available
for it. One of those is the 49/55 and, as you stated, the drawing shows
the 49mm side as threaded whereas the other two adapters are not
threaded on both sides. I agree. It must be an error.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/18/2013 4:00 PM, piers@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> The 55-49 adapter appears in the SIF (not eSIF, where it is said to be
> optional) as part of the Handy Copy Stand set, for just the same
> application, and the illustration is consistent with your description,
> except it has a thread on the 49mm end. I think that's an error, as
> the smaller adaptors don't have a thread.
>
> Piers
>
> On 18/05/2013, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The next question is whether the 49/55 adapter was originally supplied
>> with the bellows. Does anyone actually have one of these and does it
>> look as I described that I think it must look? Searching the eSIF
>> (briefly) did not reveal such a part to me.
>>
>> I've got to think about how to replicate a part like that for reversing
>> my 90/2.5 Viv S1 macro which a 58mm filter. If there's a 49 to 55mm
>> filter adapter that would work. You'd need the ring from the 49mm
>> filter to make a 51mm diameter attachment point for the bellows.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 3:03 AM, piers@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Splendid stuff, Chuck, it all does now make sense in a way that eSIF
>>> and SIF (which I also reviewed) don't even approach. It was late, I
>>> didn't follow my own advice to just try it!
>>>
>>> Piers
>>>
>>> On 18/05/2013, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> You're inferring stuff rather than actually measuring the bellows. I
>>>> have done my due diligence and discovered that the eSIF is perfectly
>>>> correct. The reason that a Series VI is used is that hole is supposed
>>>> to take a filter... a Series VI size filter... which Wiki tells me thus:
>>>> Series number Filter size Adapter ring
>>>> VI 41.3 mm 44 mm
>>>> My handy dandy millimeter rule tells me that the thread on the back of
>>>> the lens board is (whaddya know) 44mm. I discovered that very quickly
>>>> since no 49mm filter would fit there. That threaded hole is
>>>> specifically for a filter and not for reversing lenses.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, the bellows manual tells you nothing about that filter
>>>> provision. Your confusion about reversing lenses I think comes about
>>>> from assuming that it's done the way you would on a camera body by
>>>> attaching two lenses together joined by a male threaded ring with
>>>> threads on each side to match the lenses to be joined. You've assumed
>>>> that the 49/55 adapter is one of those rings... but it is not. It has a
>>>> totally different function and isn't really 49mm on one end.
>>>>
>>>> Once you turn the front lens board around you don't need any sort of
>>>> threaded adapter since the OM lens mount on the lens board is now facing
>>>> the camera. Just install the lens on the normal lens mount and it, like
>>>> the lens board, is now reversed. Where the 49/55 adapter comes in has
>>>> to do with attaching the bellows itself to the lens. The attaching ring
>>>> normally attaches to a ring on the back of the lens board that is about
>>>> 51mm diameter... or the outside diameter of a lens having a 49mm filter.
>>>> When you reverse a lens having a 49mm filter the bellows attaching
>>>> ring fits over the lens in the same way as it does the ring on the back
>>>> of the lens board. But when you use a lens with 55mm filter the lens is
>>>> too large. It needs a step-down ring. Now, since I have never seen one
>>>> of these step-down rings I can only conclude that it has a 55mm thread
>>>> on one end and a 51mm unthreaded ring on the other such that it presents
>>>> the same diameter to the bellows attaching ring as the ring on the back
>>>> side of the lens board.
>>>>
>>>> Or something like that. If you know something else correct me.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 6:23 PM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>>>>> Without looking at the Bellows manual I would opine that it would be
>>>>> surprising to find that Olympus did not use the 49/55mm thread there,
>>>>> as
>>>>> it
>>>>> is intended for reversing OM lenses on the (reversed) front standard.
>>>>> Why
>>>>> would they use a thread incompatible with all and any of their own
>>>>> lenses?
>>>>> And in place of reading a secondary source (useful as the eSIF is), why
>>>>> not
>>>>> try it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So I did look at the 12/81 edition of the Auto Bellows manual, and
>>>>> guess
>>>>> what?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so is the eSIF, only more wronger (!)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a 49mm thread, as "The adapter ring 55-49mm is needed to reverse
>>>>> the
>>>>> Macro 55mm F1.2 on the bellows" (p 14). Granted, they described the
>>>>> 55/1.2
>>>>> as a Macro lens, which it isn't, but it does have a 55mm filter thread,
>>>>> from
>>>>> which I conclude the bellows has only a 49mm thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Piers
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: 17 May 2013 22:26
>>>>> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OM] Oly 4/3 vs m4/3 lens mounts and adapters
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried the focusing stage since Wayne said he'd gotten such an
>>>>> arrangement
>>>>> to work with his Pen and, if it worked, would require nothing more than
>>>>> what
>>>>> I already have.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't come up with your solution since I've never completely read
>>>>> the
>>>>> bellows description in the eSIF which is, I think, the only place that
>>>>> tells
>>>>> you that the back of the lens board is threaded. But it looks like you
>>>>> need
>>>>> to re-read it yourself :-) since the thread is for a Series VI filter
>>>>> and
>>>>> is
>>>>> not a 49/55 filter thread. Nevertheless, your solution should work
>>>>> given
>>>>> the right bits and pieces.
>>>>>
>>>>> But re-reading the eSIF to understand what you had written caused me to
>>>>> think about reversing the lens which might provide a bit more room to
>>>>> maneuver since it moves the thick base of the lens board to the back
>>>>> side.
>>>>> Maybe. Thanks for the memory jog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:35 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>>>>>> I may have missed something obvious, but why are you using the
>>>>>> focusing stage? Remove the rear standard (camera mounting board) and
>>>>>> bellows from the bellows rail, and use the 49/55mm filter threads on
>>>>>> the back of the front standard (lens board) to mount the OM-D. You'll
>>>>>> need a 55mm m4/3 reverse adaptor such as 271191801433 on the auction
>>>>>> site, and a female-female filter adaptor such as this:
>>>>>> http://www.camera-filters.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4
>>>>>> 31&pro
>>>>>> ducts_id=7214
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may also need a blank filter ring to get extra separation, but I'm
>>>>>> sure you'll work that out!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Piers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>>> Sent: 16 May 2013 18:04
>>>>>> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OM] Oly 4/3 vs m4/3 lens mounts and adapters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm removing the grain of salt. I mounted the E-M5 on the focusing
>>>>>> stage, installed the OM adapter and some OM extension tubes and then
>>>>>> put the OM body mount from the bellows onto the end of the tubes.
>>>>>> Running the body mount into the bellows connector resulted in the E-M5
>>>>>> setting in a non-level position on the focusing stage. I think my
>>>>>> guess of 3mm (maybe 2mm) vertical misalignment may be about right but
>>>>>> it's not the height of the body or lens center lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had assumed that the OM body was lower and would align properly.
>>>>>> Nope, the two camera's lens centers appear to be at the same height so
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> OM-1 on the focusing stage doesn't align either. The problem of
>>>>>> vertical misalignment is caused by the height of the focusing stage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/15/2013 11:15 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>>>>> A quick and very rough measurement looks like the vertical centerline
>>>>>>> of the E-M5 is about 3mm higher than an OM body. But take that with
>>>>>>> a grain of salt. Also, like the E-P1 the tripod thread is off center
>>>>>>> from the lens center by about 9mm. That, however, could likely be
>>>>>>> solved by drilling and tapping a new hole in the focusing stage.
>>>>>>> I'll take a better measurement later since this has some promise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/15/2013 8:17 AM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
>>>>>>>> G'day Chuck,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something like this should work:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.structuregraphs.com/RandomStuff/15-May-20
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|