Lens for my Sony DXC M3

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Rampart SLO, Mar 3, 2004.

  1. Rampart SLO

    Rampart SLO Guest

    I have a Schneider lens that I would like to use on a Sony DXC M3
    camera, but the connector seems to be a different size. Is there some
    sort of adapter I can get to make this work, or do I have to buy a
    lens that is made for the Sony connection? It is a bayonette mount
    lens, and fits the camera, but I can not connect the zoom to the
    camera.

    I also need to find out if there is a power supply other than the CMA
    8 that can be used to power the camera. I am looking for a lens and
    power supply to be able to use this camera, but our organization does
    not have a budget for this. We would prefer to be able to adapt what
    we have, or find something really cheap (or donated for tax deduction
    ;-)) for our work. It is even tough to find an affordable tripod for
    our work, too. Please contact me directly at rampartslo at aol.com.
    Thank you.
     
    Rampart SLO, Mar 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rampart SLO

    Steve Guidry Guest

    Print and show this note to your administrator, or whomever is making you
    "do more with less".


    First off: Don't try to rescue this camera. The M-3 was a only a so-so
    camera even in its day (which was in 1983 or so). AND it's a tube camera,
    so the tubes are probably worn out anyway. Not to mention the capacitors.
    My guess is that it was given to you BECAUSE it was worn out, and someone
    got a decent tax write off. And since it's a tube camera, you will be
    forever dealing with registration issues. AND you still need some kind of
    deck to record on. Unless you're a real engineer (which you're not, because
    you're asking basic questions), you don't have any business with this camera
    in the first place. You should buy a $500 DV camera, and a beachtek
    adapter, and enjoy life. Heck, the deck alone will probably cost you this
    much. AND you can take the firewire output of teh camera direct to your
    computer to edit.

    However, if you are determined to ignore this good advice, here's how to do
    it :

    For the PS :

    There is a 4-pin input for the power. Buy a Radio Shack or other Power
    supply of at least 3 amps (more if you want to run a deck). Then get a
    4-pin XLR from your local electronics supply house. Wire pin 4 hot and pin
    1 ground. Leave the other 2 empty, they're not used.

    For the Lens :

    Buy a 1/2" lens with a sony 6-pin connector. It should be about $100. Post
    your need in rec.video.marketplace, or look on eBay.

    OR Buy an adapter. Check with Horst at Alpine Electronics in FL. I think
    Orlando, but I'm not sure. It should be about $200. Before you do try the
    lens with the camera, and make sure it all works. Even if the picture looks
    fine, you have no way or testing the zoom motor. I don't know about the
    Schneiders, but the Fuji's of that era were notorious for developing sticky
    zooms.

    Again, don't do this. Buy something more modern. It will COST you less. I
    promise.

    Steve
     
    Steve Guidry, Mar 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rampart SLO

    Steve Guidry Guest

    Oh yeah - - that power supply should be rated at 12v - 15v, regulated.

    Steve
     
    Steve Guidry, Mar 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Rampart SLO

    MSu1049321 Guest

    Sorry to come in on this late, but I have to agree, having used them, you are
    throwing good money after bad trying to refurb and use this M-3.

    In low light or what we think of in 2004 as existing light, it's performance
    is right up there with Stevie Wonder. Heck, we replaced our M3's with M7's
    years ago, and we wouldn't use an M7 now for anything but keeping the bass boat
    from drifiting out of position. i doubt you can even find a new imaging tube
    for it, and it's a sure bet the one in it is burned or worn out. They weren't
    all that good new: when we lost an Ikegami 77, the insurance replaced that one
    Iki with three m-3s, full studio configs, same cost as the one iki... That's
    the difference in value.

    If saving money and working on a budget is your aim, this M3 is a total rat
    hole: you need to unload it for whatever you can get for it immediately. Stat.
    pronto. Forthwith. And sever all ties with the con man who palmed it off on
    you. Any money you have or get should be put towards *any* kind of more modern
    Dv camcorder, refurbed ones can be had for less money than you'll spend just
    trying to adapt the lens and power supplies, hell, you will spend more for a
    tripod and quick release mounting plate for the M3 than you will on a brand
    spanking new Canon optura. WITH WARRANTY! Not to mention firewire, and thus
    access to truly inexpensive (even free) editing tools. I hate to be shrill
    about it but this is like watching a kitten walking into traffic, I HAVE to
    shout.

    DUMP THE M-3 NOW! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!!

    (there, i feel better now)
     
    MSu1049321, Mar 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Rampart SLO

    Derry Argue Guest

    (MSu1049321) wrote in
    Oi! Dump a cheap colour bar generator???<G>

    Derry
     
    Derry Argue, Mar 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Rampart SLO

    MSu1049321 Guest

    LOL, Derry. I'd take a portable chart over the M3 any time, actually more
    useful and lighter.

    My wife says I have a permanent curve in my spine from hauling the tripod, M3,
    with 2-barrel Frezzi light, anton baur brick, CCU cable, umatic portable
    recorder, and lead-acid bandolier for the light around all day single-handed.
    Heck, back in my 30's I could run and jog short distances with that lot draped
    all over me. Went thru three or four sound men, they all dropped like flies or
    surreptitiously disconnected my umbilical and left me running around with the
    camera and no deck... They make the gear smaller and lighter as I get older and
    weaker... so far, I'm just keeping pace with it, because even though my current
    gear is a fraction of the weight, the bag now also shares space with light
    kits and accessories... oi, indeed;-)
     
    MSu1049321, Mar 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Rampart SLO

    gothika Guest

    JEEES! I dumped my M-3's ages ago. Big, bulky and HEAVY.
    Not to mention a juice hog.
    How did we ever manage in the early days with all the tons of crap we
    used to have to drag around.
    If I had to do it now at my age I'd change professions.
     
    gothika, Mar 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Rampart SLO

    Derry Argue Guest

    (MSu1049321) wrote in
    Well, I have taken the DV plunge and now use one of those nasty
    little PD150's. Nasty? YES! I can't see the goddam buttoms
    without putting my glasses on and I am forever touching
    something which comes up with yet another function I'll never
    use!<G>

    The M7 and a couple of V08800's are still sitting in the corner
    of the office waiting for the day when the poisoned dwarf breaks
    down. And I am NOT giving up my old BVU900 suite for anyone!

    I suppose we ought to raise the old quality arguement next. I
    shot some footage on DVCAM the other day that was needed for
    court, then found my VHS recorder had gone on strike. I'd dumped
    the DV to BVU for editing, then recorded it back to DV so I took
    this tape along to a production house for a VHS copy.

    While dubbing my footage to VHS, their editor was sounding off
    about the wonderfully sharp quality of digital and the vibrant
    colours. I did not like to tell her it was DV to BVU to BVU to
    DV!<VBG>

    Derry
     
    Derry Argue, Mar 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Rampart SLO

    gothika Guest

    Well you do have a point about most DV cams being too small for easy
    use.
    I have a problem with the viewfinders of my smaller one's not being
    able to adjust the dioptic enought o compensate for my old eyes.
    I'm having to pack a pair of bifocals with me just to see the
    viewfinder well enough to compose.
    That aside I'm glad to get away from all the tons of gear I used to
    have to drag around just to get 230-300 lines of useable video.
    (I started out in film and cursed the day we had to swap "up" to video
    cameras. I liked working with 16/35mm mopic, it beat early video hands
    down for quality and all you needed was a camera and a mag or two of
    film)
    Time has marched on tho' and video has finally reached the level where
    film quality work can be achieved with equipment so small and light
    that we couldn't have dreamed of it even 20 years ago.
    There'll always be pro's and con's to any medium, I'm happy with the
    current state myself.
     
    gothika, Mar 5, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.