35mm adapter options
- Thread starter morgster
- Start date
Dino
Veteran
I have an HPX170 and HDX900 and use the Letus Ultimate DOF adapter with both, now that I have the Letus B4 Pro relay lens for 2/3" cameras. Currently, the only options for 2/3" cameras are the P+S Pro35 and the Letus adapters with B4 Compact or Pro relays.
All DOF adapters lose some light, but the Letus adapters only lose 1/2 stop. My experience with the Pro35 is that it loses 1 1/2 stops, plus it is only usable with 2/3" cameras. The Letus adapters, Extreme, Elite, Ultimate, allow you to use one adapter with 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" cameras for maximum flexibility. Plus, a Letus setup costs a fraction of what a $27K USD Pro35 costs and much less than the mini35.
Edge to edge focus with the HPX170 is excellent using the Letus achromat, as is edge to edge with the B4 Compact and Pro relays on 2/3" cameras. The Pro will have superior low light capability, with a maximum aperture of f1.5, so a Letus adapter, relay and fast 1.2-1.4 35mm taking lens will be the fastest option on the market for DOF adapters, and the only one you can use for all of your cameras.
Of the three Letus adapter options, the Ultimate is best for being able to stop down without worry of seeing the ground glass. Pricing for the Extreme is around $1200 USD, Elite which offers better back focus control is around $2K USD and the Ultimate is $4.5K USD. The B4 relay lenses are $3.5K for the Compact and $6K for the Pro.
If I were using the HPX3000, I would opt for the Ultimate/Pro combination, which is still a whole lot less than a Pro35, and usable with all your cameras, as already stated.
Joseph Stunzi
Veteran
Morgster... if you want... send me an email with your phone number and a convenient time and I'll give you a ring and walk you through the all of your different options.
Get off the flipping mirrors.
Rent Canon EJ or FJ Digi Primes. They're made for 2/3 B4 HD cameras.
I even saw a used EJ set for sale online. Four lenses for $20,000. That's a bargain!
You'll sink over $12,000 alone at Zacuto buying lenses, rods, focus gear, Letus parts and mattebox only to be disappointed with image quality and set up time.
Rent Canon EJ or FJ Digi Primes. They're made for 2/3 B4 HD cameras.
I even saw a used EJ set for sale online. Four lenses for $20,000. That's a bargain!
You'll sink over $12,000 alone at Zacuto buying lenses, rods, focus gear, Letus parts and mattebox only to be disappointed with image quality and set up time.
Joseph Stunzi
Veteran
I disagree. Zacuto is worth the investment. I find my HVX200 DOFA setup easy to assemble and disassemble. Not only that but zacuto makes great foam inserts to keep it all assembled during travel. That's just me but the lifetime warranty is what sealed the deal on my purchase a year or so ago.
Dino
Veteran
Not to mention that 2/3" primes won't offer the DOF or FOV of 35mm SLR lenses or the wide range of choices in focal lengths and brands. If you don't shoot wide open with the 2/3" primes, the image just looks like typical video footage, sharp with too much depth of field. There is also no guarantee that the 2/3" primes will be sharp in the corners, especially the wide lenses, even if sharpness is what is being sought.
You would probably still invest in rods, follow focus, handles and matte box for a 2/3" prime set, so the dollars are similar, other than needing an L-riser for a DOF adapter, with a 2/3" camera setup.
You would probably still invest in rods, follow focus, handles and matte box for a 2/3" prime set, so the dollars are similar, other than needing an L-riser for a DOF adapter, with a 2/3" camera setup.
martin kunert
Member
I was as guilty of the 35mm DOF obsession as the next guy. Slapping a Brevis35 onto my HPX500 mounted Fujinon, I'd waste too much time fiddling with the 35mm contraption, justifying to myself the the loss of sharpness and optical quality, all in the name of that holy grail - the blurry 35mm "film" look.
Now, I've learned better.
First, these 35mm adapters are huge time suck to operate, and no matter what you do, they simply cannot match the optical quality of a basic HD broadcast lens.
Second, people's mania for that 35mm look is a self-imposed crutch. You have to step back a realize that "the look" is based on happenstance that 35mm was a standard for a few decades. It won't be the future. It's time for us to get over it. Getting a brilliant image doesn't require a 35mm DOF. One of the best proofs is Chase Jarvis' blog. - a talented professional action photographer shoots on any equipment he fancies. For fun on his blog, he posts lots of images he shot with an iPhone. Yeah - with that piece of crap imaging chip of an iphone. Jarvis' images put most people with hasselblads and D3's to shame. If he can make stellar images with an iphone, why shouldn't we make good ones with insanely better imaging systems like the HPX500.
Third, to people who say that 35mm adapters give the "film look", I say as one of you once, yeah... the film look like Citizen Kane? Or most Kubrick films? (They all use deep focus)
Fourth, when we had little control over the film image, DOF was used to control where the audience looks. These days, what DOF used to do, we can accomplish in post with vignetting, desaturation, blur, and countless other innovative techniques. Time to move our craft forward rather cling with a death-like grip to the limited techniques of our analog forebears.
Last, 2/3" cameras already have a narrow DOF. Is the small DOF difference between 35mm and 2/3" worth the costs adapters exact? Isn't the fiddling time better spent shooting? You can guess where my opinion now lays.
Needless to say, I sold my Brevis and dumped that whole adapter pursuit.
... just wanted to throw in my unsolicited 2 cents into this thread. Hope you don't mind.
Now, I've learned better.
First, these 35mm adapters are huge time suck to operate, and no matter what you do, they simply cannot match the optical quality of a basic HD broadcast lens.
Second, people's mania for that 35mm look is a self-imposed crutch. You have to step back a realize that "the look" is based on happenstance that 35mm was a standard for a few decades. It won't be the future. It's time for us to get over it. Getting a brilliant image doesn't require a 35mm DOF. One of the best proofs is Chase Jarvis' blog. - a talented professional action photographer shoots on any equipment he fancies. For fun on his blog, he posts lots of images he shot with an iPhone. Yeah - with that piece of crap imaging chip of an iphone. Jarvis' images put most people with hasselblads and D3's to shame. If he can make stellar images with an iphone, why shouldn't we make good ones with insanely better imaging systems like the HPX500.
Third, to people who say that 35mm adapters give the "film look", I say as one of you once, yeah... the film look like Citizen Kane? Or most Kubrick films? (They all use deep focus)
Fourth, when we had little control over the film image, DOF was used to control where the audience looks. These days, what DOF used to do, we can accomplish in post with vignetting, desaturation, blur, and countless other innovative techniques. Time to move our craft forward rather cling with a death-like grip to the limited techniques of our analog forebears.
Last, 2/3" cameras already have a narrow DOF. Is the small DOF difference between 35mm and 2/3" worth the costs adapters exact? Isn't the fiddling time better spent shooting? You can guess where my opinion now lays.
Needless to say, I sold my Brevis and dumped that whole adapter pursuit.
... just wanted to throw in my unsolicited 2 cents into this thread. Hope you don't mind.
Last edited:
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Pretty strong opinion Martin - personally i like the idea of being able to explore a whole range of F mount lenses, each with their own cute qualities. I accept the compromises to time though (its a killer) and with an hvx200 it was a bummer. (I used the Brevis too though and it was to its credit a much faster set up than most!)
The brave new era we hear about in cinematography i think is a bit of a exaggeration. Its not so much a whole swathe of new digital stylisations (making old film styles redundant) but more a much wider diversification.
now digital is used to resemble some archaic film forms - in others its creating flexible new visual styles that would itself be harder with film (especially for indies.)
The brave new era we hear about in cinematography i think is a bit of a exaggeration. Its not so much a whole swathe of new digital stylisations (making old film styles redundant) but more a much wider diversification.
now digital is used to resemble some archaic film forms - in others its creating flexible new visual styles that would itself be harder with film (especially for indies.)
Dino
Veteran
Martin,
Your point of view is certainly worthwhile and valid. Shallow DOF is just another tool for an image maker, not THE tool. However, one could argue that using prime lenses vs. zooms is a time suck. Lighting is a time suck. Good audio is a time suck. Art direction is a time suck. Shooting coverage in a given scene. Just a matter of priorities and on-set realities, ultimately.
The future of cameras, at least in the high end is 35mm size sensors, last I checked. Are you really expecting that future cameras will be about small sensors and cheap glass?
I don't find the DOF difference between 2/3" video and 35mm film, even Academy size, to be small. Your mileage may vary.
Attachments
Last edited:
martin kunert
Member
Dino, in all due respect, you're mixing quality issues with stylistic choices. Poor audio, lighting, and art direction may kill your projects chances at distraction (or even passing QC). Not having a shallow DOF, won't.
DOF is a stylistic choice. Kubrick and Kane prove that choice isn't a necessity.
Have you checked the 3700?
I wrote that 35mm won't match the quality of broadcast lens, so I don't know where you get the cheap glass statement from.
As for small sensors - economics will always win out. Look at the history of "sensors" downsizing in still photography: large format, to medium, to 35mm, to Nikon's new smaller sensors. In film, three strip process gave way to a single strip. 70mm is in the dust bin outside of specialty films. The question is how small will film sensors get, and as 2/3" is a viable alternative, I don't think bigger sensors will win out in the long run.
For you, it's not small. For 99% of the audience, they don't have a clue. There are photographers out there who only shoot on medium format for its DOF (which I happened to love, btw), but 99.99% of people can't tell if a photo's medium format or 35mm.
If 35mm shallow DOF rocks your boat and you're willing to put the time and money into getting it - all power to you. My point is that its not a necessity as many consider and if you don't have a 35mm camera, then looking at alternatives to 35mm DOF is liberating and creatively often better.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Well your talking a bit like an optimistic producer fresh from the Rebel DV guide Martin hehe.
With all due respect I don't entirely agree with some of your statements, but sure i think your right certainly in terms of productions exercising by their chosen style - the standards they require - and that no specific style is itself a requirement. I just don't think you probably realise what a non-issue and how fairly self evident that is already to most here.
Also in fairness you should remember that this thread is obviously for enthusiasts of the style these tools provide - specifically for the hpx500. So its a bit much to come in with a polemic against this perception that this 35mm dof type look is a requirement and to rail against it.
With all due respect I don't entirely agree with some of your statements, but sure i think your right certainly in terms of productions exercising by their chosen style - the standards they require - and that no specific style is itself a requirement. I just don't think you probably realise what a non-issue and how fairly self evident that is already to most here.
Also in fairness you should remember that this thread is obviously for enthusiasts of the style these tools provide - specifically for the hpx500. So its a bit much to come in with a polemic against this perception that this 35mm dof type look is a requirement and to rail against it.
martin kunert
Member
Really? I'm far from it, actually.
Well, I just stating my opinion and often hear people shooting low-budget features that the 35mm DOF is required. If I came across too preachy, my apologies. That wasn't my intention all.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Oh I don't doubt it - yep just a little bit preachy
that said i do agree with the pov that we should'nt be held or pressured into certain styles for sake of 'qualification' over say artistic freedom. Just that this thread hardly represented a kind of fascist dof ultimatum
Dino
Veteran
I'm not saying bad lighting, just taking lots of time to light, or taking time to shoot lots of insert shots in a given scene vs. available light or using a master shot for most of the scene--stylistic choices vs. time. Ditto a 35mm DOF adapter.
martin said:Have you checked the 3700?
$60K 2/3" cameras is NOT the future.....see F23 vs. F35/RED ONE.
martin said:
Then why not just shoot everything with 1/4" sensors? You'll get that lovely deep DOF look for sure! IMAX is pretty popular. 35mm lenses are what professionals want to shoot with, have the best quality, most options.
martin said:
If your idea of "better" is desaturation/blurring/vignetting or other off the shelf plug-ins, then we have different cinematic tastes. I watch movies with a 100" screen/1080p projection system/anamorphic lens at home--the shaky, grainy,
de-sat look gets old pretty fast for me.
I totally agree, well said. And I think that you can only have that opnion when you're not the fresh dv rebel. I think you can only say this when you have thought a lot about all recording options. I'm a dp for a lot of years now and everyday I ask myself the question. Why do I love 'filmlook'. Is it beacause that's the 'standard' or is it really because I really like it. I think you can really asnwer these questions when you did a lot of shoots to decide what you really like. Half of the films doesn't even use that really narrow depth of field we all try to achieve here. I think Martin is right about a thing. Choose what you want, choose the look you like most that's very important, but don't make it a matter of life and death, because 99% just don't see what your'e trying so hard.
Last edited:
I would like to add an extra factor in favor of 35mm adaptors for use in 1/3 or 1/2" non interchangeable cameras, as well as 2/3 cameras: price vs quality of glass.
I've been shooting with a Brevis on an HVX for a while, and the gains I get with the combo VS the stock HVX aren't only in DOF, but in the "Bokeh" given by a quality lens. The 35mm Lens also contributes for a better non shallow DOF, adding layers and contributing in the overall "3D" of the whole picture, due to the glass and the way it reflects the subject. This particularly works best on moving shots and shots with different deph between the subjects in frame.
Of course, when using an adapter, one is adding more glass to the already "cheap" bundled glass of these cameras, but the pluses far outweight the limitations.
This sounds confusing, but anyone using a 35mm adapter should know what I'm saying.
I've been shooting with a Brevis on an HVX for a while, and the gains I get with the combo VS the stock HVX aren't only in DOF, but in the "Bokeh" given by a quality lens. The 35mm Lens also contributes for a better non shallow DOF, adding layers and contributing in the overall "3D" of the whole picture, due to the glass and the way it reflects the subject. This particularly works best on moving shots and shots with different deph between the subjects in frame.
Of course, when using an adapter, one is adding more glass to the already "cheap" bundled glass of these cameras, but the pluses far outweight the limitations.
This sounds confusing, but anyone using a 35mm adapter should know what I'm saying.
Joseph Stunzi
Veteran
I got you SPZ... I got you! I own 5 DOFAs.
Dino
Veteran
I had a 14mm SLR prime lens on my Ultimate/B4 Pro Relay/HDX900 today. Not a super shallow DOF look by any means, but the image had an organic, filmic feel that I can't get with a Fuji or Canon 4.5 or 4.7mm wide angle zoom lens. The image said the opposite of, "look at me, I'm a reality show!"
As SPZ posted, there's more to a 35mm DOF adapter than shallow DOF. I often shoot exteriors, especially long lens exteriors, at f5.6 or 8.0. It looks cinematic, not like sports on a long lens.
It's just one tool, but a powerful one. If I have a client that wants to add a Fuji wide angle lens to a 2/3" camera package, I can offer 35mm SLR wide angle options, the DOF adapter, 2/3" relay and a bunch of other lenses for a similar day rate. I know which choice will have more of a visual impact and make the project look less like a news magazine show and more like a high end film project.
As SPZ posted, there's more to a 35mm DOF adapter than shallow DOF. I often shoot exteriors, especially long lens exteriors, at f5.6 or 8.0. It looks cinematic, not like sports on a long lens.
It's just one tool, but a powerful one. If I have a client that wants to add a Fuji wide angle lens to a 2/3" camera package, I can offer 35mm SLR wide angle options, the DOF adapter, 2/3" relay and a bunch of other lenses for a similar day rate. I know which choice will have more of a visual impact and make the project look less like a news magazine show and more like a high end film project.