Dumb newbie question re: Lens Adaptors

D

daveswan

Well-known member
Ok, don't laugh and please don't flame me, but can someone either explain the point of putting a 35 mm lens onto the end of a video cam's fixed lens, or else point me in the direction of threads / articles that may offer an explanation?
I just worry about multiplying lumps of glass!

Thanks in hope
Dave
 
Jeremy, many thanks for the concise explanation! I still have my reservations about the wisdom of sticking more glass in front of a carefully computed lens system, but that's just me.

Regards,
Dave
 
dave, go into the DIY section and read up. You have over 20 adapters out there all with their plusses and minusses.

Check em out, i got one coming in the mail and it was in no way a rush dicision. there are some goods.
 
Ok, sorry to resurect an old thread, but the question may still sound dumb.
I see the point of adaptors as such, and may budget for the M2. Butttt... to what extent does the ground glass level down the prime lens quality, ie to what extent is it worth going to cine lenses eg Cooke S4's rather than good 35mm stills lenses eg Nikkor. BTW I am only a newbie wrt cinematography, I've been a photograher since i could pick up a camera say age 8. I am now 50, so I've been photograping 42 or so yrs. Everything from Box Brownies to 10x8 monorail view cameras.
 
from my understanding the 35mm (good ones) can look as good if not better then cookes - this is because they have a larger image to capture from and therefore have more information in the picture. This Basically equals the playing field with the far superior cooke lenses. There are some things that cookes will have though such as not breathing when focusing (image changing size) and less or no lens travel when focusing.

All of this assumes good glass in the 35mm - if its bad glass all bets are off
 
Many thanks. I can probably afford s/h Nikkors but cine lenses even s/h are probably out f my budget for the moment.

Cheers,
Dave
 
I own an M2 but have yet to be convinced of its virtues.

It's a pain to set up and configure, it's heavy, and it appears to soften focus quite a lot.

If you know how to use your camera, you can achieve shallow DOF without an adapter. (f-stop 2.8, ND filters to ration light, Z99, etc.) Not every time and in every situation, but it works pretty well outdoors.

So far, the primary upside of the M2 for me has been to achieve shallow DOF in indoor, close situations. And you can use it to rack focus.

If you are just starting, I would put other equipment (nice tripod, wideangle lens, camera stabilization) higher on the shopping list.
 
seaqn - excellent post i agree wholeheartedly

the m2 will not make you a good filmmaker - but it wil give you something else to make mistakes with.
 
As I said, I DO know my way around cameras of one type or another, I've been using them since before a lot of the folks on this forum were even born. I' ve also used video cams for ca 15 yrs in my work at school so the technical side is no problem at all, DoF, angles, exposure etc. Screenwriting now, thats another matter, but I expect to be techie rather than writer, however, you never know!
BTW, since 35mm stills lenses measure from the focal plane, do adaptors in general, and the M2 in particular have an equivilent to the film plane mark to show the position of the focusing screen? I couldn't see any info on the RedRock site.

Regards to all,
Dave.
 
Ya. sean, you shouldnt be having that much of a problem with the M2, the included universal baseplate, is the bulk of the weight, but who cares how much that weighs? The M2 i found to be very easy to use and is a pleasure! Setup for me is to about 5 to 10 minutes max , then im ready to go.
 
Thanks Brian... I will drop you an email explaining my specific issues with the M2. As another poster put it, I feel like I'm "doing voodoo" when using the M2. I would really like to improve my skills with the adapter. My results have been inconsistent at best.
 
Last edited:
Hello, folks, again.
A 35mm adaptor is just one option on my shoping list, a cost-effective alternative to P2 cards is another, and an NLE that can handle 720/25PN, yet another! (M2, Cineporter, Canopus Edius 4 Broadcast, in that order!).
But even higher in priority is repairing the hole in my bank-balance caused by buying an HVX 200!

Cheers to all,
Dave
 
I agree that an M2 really isn't all that high on the neccesity scale. First off, I should point out that I'm biased since, being a fan of Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa, and John Frankenhiemer; I love deep focus and the composition options it offers. That said, I also like to have a shallow DoF but, as others metioned, you can get some really nice DoF by simply using F 2.8. Much of the stuff I've seen with the M2 looks rather odd. The background is WAY out of focus, far more than in any professional films I've seen, and it looks like the DP considered the M2 a new toy that they had to get the most out of. I also wouldn't even consider using it if you plan to project your footage. The HVX200 is a fanastic camera but it is a little soft compared to pricier HD ones. The M2 adds even more softness that simply isn't worth it unless you are just going strait to DVD.
 
I visit a lot of online forums and this is one of the ONLY ones where people are pretty much down to earth about everything and don't flame or shoot down your posts for no reason :)
 
^
There are still people who flame and shoot others down. What tends to be the case here though is that the people who know the most (Barry for instance who literally wrote the book on the cameras we're talking about) tend to be the nicest and most helpful. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top