35mm Adapter Links/Questions

ggoerl

ggoerl

Active member
Here are some of the links about making a 35mm Adaptor

http://home.comcast.net/~wauhkies/adapter/index.html
http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index2.htm
http://ideaspora.net/oldskool ]http://ideaspora.net/oldskool
http://www.marlathemovie.com/bonus/justfacts.pdf

Unfortunately I do not own a dvx I own a vx2100. and was wondering what is the best made adapter I can make from one of these guides unless theres a better one out there that I do not know about. cause I will have to port all the sizes to my camera. So what is the best looking adapter out there that I could make? Thanks for the help.
 
Ignore mine for now (the first link) I'm trying to totally redo it now that I have my hands on some microcrystalline wax, a real nikon mount, and some condensers (all coming in the mail). Same basic design, a little more work, but hopefully a lot better results. Hopefully.
 
Well Im actaully trying to get help also cause I have vx2100 and everyone else has a dvx100 so I was wondering what is the best homemade adapter. also which is better a clear uv filter or a waxed uv filter which makes it look better?
 
A clear UV filter wouldn't work unless you grind it into ground glass. You need a material that's translucent, but when you look through it at an object more than a couple inches away makes everything seem completely blurry. I'm pretty sure adapters using PVC pipe work just as well with 58mm threads which I htink is what the vx2100 has, you just need different pipe. I far prefer wax and other "grainless" focusing screens to ground glass, but they are much harder to work with.
 
In my opinion, the image is worse but it's much, much easier than getting really good results with wax. You can always switch later, so starting there would be a good idea, especially since that guide is designed for cameras with 58mm threaded lenses.
 
Is 72mm the maximum focal length or the filter size that the lens takes? I always thought it was something other than 72mm, could be wrong, though.

Anyhow, if you have 58mm threads, use a 58mm macro +10 (or +7) and 1.5'' tubing (I think), if you have 72mm threads, use a 72mm macro +10 (or +7, just make sure it's at least +7) and 2'' tubing. I think they should fit together okay in both cases.
 
so what is the bestlooking adapter. the home depot 35? the depth of field machine? that pvc gl one? or that marla one where they used the 35 film camera to look through.?
 
Im pretty much 50% done with gathering the materials for the 35 static adapter. However, What type of tube options are out there? Theres PVC, Anything else? something thinner, lighter weight?

Also, I would like to know some of the attempted 35 adapter makers that quite didnt make it, the ones that didnt work initially but worked out the kinks later. What were your problems and solutions?

Im pretty close people! but...yet so far, so far.
 
also regarding what I said here.

so what is the bestlooking adapter. the home depot 35? the depth of field machine? that pvc gl one? or that marla one where they used the 35 film camera to look through.?
Click to expand...

Can I still get that look (if I made one) as if I bought a micro35 or g35?

I mean whats the difference if you buy one or make one. since ps technik is like $10,000 what makes that $10,000 adapter so special?

The fact is im scared of buying/wasting my money on something and finding out that it isnt that great. and theres something better out there on the market.
 
You won't get results as good as any professional product without a lot of tweaking and testing. Beyond this, you'll need better parts than most of these adapters use. If you have the cash and it's important to you, splurge.

The mini35 is expensive because of the optics inside which flip the image (other adapters give you an upside down image) and also because it's a "professional" product targeted towards people who can afford it.
 
so whats the best adapter at a good price? the g35? are there any other companys that are out there besides micro35, Ps Technik and Guerilla35.
 
Hi,

Brief note on one of your links above: http://ideaspora.net/oldskool should be what a redirect sends people to, instead of the 2nd page in the tutorial. I say this because I recently updated the index page with a few notes that are key in creating the best looking adapter with the materials listed in the rest of the tutorial, so now there's both the Home Depot parts if you're strapped for cash, and an update including a link to a part list if ThorLabs tubing that will result in a pro looking rig (if that's your thing) that is reasonably more expensive.

Otherwise, it seems to m that the micro35 is the sweet spot between cost and look; while the G35 is more to my tastes provided money is not a concern (hah hah). However, the G35 seems to be cost-prohibitive, especially when considering the price/difficulty of building a similar adapter using ThorLabs parts and either a microwax glass or a glass ground with grit smaller than 3 microns. Oscar Spier over at dvinfo has developed a consistently proven method of creating microwax glass and for myself I'm looking into 1 or 1.4 micron grit to see if that offers comparable results. Links concerning both of these kinds of experimentation are on the oldskool site :)

- jim
 
yea. I woudlve updated it but part 1 wasnt working until now. wait so the micro35 is better than the g35?
 
No one knows.

But from what I've heard and from knowledge from building a home build adapter I personally think the guerilla 35 will provide considerably better images than the micro35.

But the m2 (new version of micro35) may provide the best images of all.

That's assuming the patents don't conflict and each actually finds its way to market. Just my opinion, too, and not a very educated one either.
 
I know this was long time ago. but wait so the order goes macro + pvc tubing + 35mm lense? what about the uv filters now are those supposed to be the gg? whats the order of things?

Im also curious how much of a difference would the look of the mage change if I change the gg.

1. what would just 1 waxed uv filter and one non look like?

2. what would just a waxed?

3. what would just a clear?

would you really be able to tell much of difference between the 3? of the look it has on the camera?

oh and one more thing. what along with the size of the macro I know that the difference between the +7 and +10 is that the 10 is much more closer. but whats the advantage if there is any to have a higher number macro?

thanks for any help.
 
I think you're misinterpreting the wax thing, I know, I made the same mistake and had to re-read the tutorials a few more times. You're basically waxing the inside of one UV filter by pouring wax in and covering it with another UV filter, but not too tightly as to mess with the wax. The macro depends on your camcorder type, I'd recommend a +10 just to be safe. With a 72mm threaded camera, like XL-line/DVX/FX1/ect., I'd recommend a +7 and a good quality one, maybe not the $200 Century Optics one unless you can afford it, but a good one nonetheless. But I'm currently debating building my own or going with a M2 or even the Letus35, the Guerilla35 should be out later this year but then you'd have to wait a bit for tests and reviews. Right now, I'd say try to build one and if it goes poo, don't pour any more money into it and just buy one of the premade ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top