From f2.4 to f2.8 is half a stop
from f2.8 to f5.6 is 2 stops (f2.8 - f4 - f5.6)
It's 2.5 stops together with 50mm f1.8 lens? (I assume Cory84 uses 50mm f1.8 lens)
SLR lens light loss is: from 1- 1.4 is 1 stop, from 1.4 to 1.8 is half stop.
So total for SLR lens light loss is 1.5 stop.
Adapter's light loss = total light loss (2.5) - SLR light loss (1.5) = 1 stop
I wonder if this make sense to you? Thanks.
Few quick questions on your Santa pics. Did you re-white balance after you put the adapter on?
How far away is the plant from Santa?
Also could you post an uncompressed tiff of the Letus still?
We are looking at getting a Nikon 1.4. Does anyone know how much, if any, the faster lense will make and is there much difference in the two brands as far as light loss and color?
Quyen's assesment is of course spot on. What it belies, is the need for some kind of a standard in assessing light loss. My preference is to quote total light loss with an F1.4 50mm as the standard. In other words, if you strap an adapter on the camera, what is the total light loss of the system? Calculating loss in the adapter is precisely correct, but I don't think most people understand the concept that well. It gets interesting when calculating light loss on the Brevis as a typical total light loss will be something like F2.8 to F3.4 as indicated by the camera. So the calc would look like this assuming an F1.4 lens and one of my "standard" indoor scenes that I use for testing.
f1 to f1.4 = 1 stop loss (50mm f1.4 lens)
f2.8 to f3.4 = 1/2 stop loss (total light loss as indicated by camera)
Adapter's light loss = total light loss (.5) - SLR light loss (1 stop) = - .5 stops (in this case a negative value is a good thing)
By that calculation, the adapter shows an increase of .5 stops. Advertising that would simply open the floodgates of skepticism. Posting that the camera sees .5 stops of loss with an f1.4 50mm attached does make more sense to most folks.
and about the santa pic, could you get it in any better focus or is that the best you could do? It looks great, but not G35 razor sharp. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
I didn't re-white balance or anything... i just set the camera on the bar, had the Auto-White Balance and Auto Iris on, filmed about 20 seconds, and then screwed the adapter on, fixed the zoom and focus and shot another 20 seconds.
The plant was about 9 feet away from my wonderful plastic santa.
I am also in the market for a Nikon 1.4, I want to compare and see how much a difference there is between a Nikon 50mm 1.4 and a Canon 50mm 1.8
I probably could have got Santa infocus a little better, but I don't have an external monitor and it looked good to me on the little LCD of the DVX... better lighting also might of helped on getting perfect sharp focus.
My detail level was actually set at 0. Do you think if I bumped it up the image would be sharper? Or do you think that it would make the GG more visible? I've heard that turning off the OIS helps with the visibility of the vibrating GG...
The letus is amazing... I shot it through a 50' widescreen TV and it looked AMAZING... nothing like HD, but definitely holds up. This is all with the beta copy too. Not sure if the new ones give out better detail
yes there's grain, yes there's light loss, yes there's vignetting, but oh it's still so sweet.
The song was from the London soundtrack... The Crystal Method is performing the song London