35mm adapters??

S

Seetukka

Active member
I´ve tried to read all threads and visited all websites but I´m still confused.

I´m planning to buy an 35 mm adapter, either micro35 or guerilla35, but I have so many questions.

1. What are the differences between the expensive mini 35 and the cheper(micro&guerilla). I know that the cheaper ones have picture upside down, but anything else.

2. What are the differences between micro35 and guerilla35?? Has someone tried both of them and can say which one is better to buy??

3. What lens mount should I get?? What differences there are in the picture if I use for example canon still lenses or PL mount 35mm cime lenses??

If some could help me even a little I would be very happy and much wiser on this matter... :thumbsup:

Thanks
 
I don't think any one person has used both yet. They are two different approaches to the same objective. The primary difference is that the Micro35 uses a spinning ground glass, the Guerilla35 uses a static (non-moving) ground glass.

For lens mount, it depends on what lenses you plan on using. PL mount would let you use cinema lenses, but have you priced PL-mount lenses? Expect to spend twenty grand or so for a lens. PL lenses are typically rented, and do you want to go renting lenses for $200/day every day you shoot?

I think most people will be using these adapters with still-camera lenses, and probably Nikon.
 
Are there any major differences between nikon and for example canon lenses in picture quality??
Why are so many people using nikon lenses?? are they cheaper??
 
Do you have to use xl2´s own lens between the micro/guerilla and camera or does the adapter go straight to cameras mount like mini35??
 
Yes, i'm kinda asking mysef the same questions also. Because the XL2 has the ability to swap lenses and soforth, is there a 35 adapter that butts right up to the camera and bypass the need for a lens in between? Or possibly a static lens that i won't accidently bump the focus on and throw it off? I looked at redrockmicro, but it seems the have the XL2 20x lense in the picture so, and the P+S Technik seems to have more what i'm looking for, but it seems a little pricey... Futhermore, say I did use a nikon or canon still camera lens, would these be complatible for a follow focus?

Thanks!
 
Brian H. said:
Yes, i'm kinda asking mysef the same questions also. Because the XL2 has the ability to swap lenses and soforth, is there a 35 adapter that butts right up to the camera and bypass the need for a lens in between?
Click to expand...
You can never bypass the lens inbetween. There must be a lens between the CCDs and the ground-glass image. However, on the removable-lens XL2 or JVC HD100, it's possible to replace the stock lens with a simple custom-designed relay lens, which is what the full-blown mini35 does.

Or possibly a static lens that i won't accidently bump the focus on and throw it off?
Click to expand...
Exactly what the relay lens does. The relay lens also has its own aperture control so you don't have to stop down on the mini35's lens.
I looked at redrockmicro, but it seems the have the XL2 20x lense in the picture so
Click to expand...
Yes, a relay lens is probably beyond the scope of any low-cost 35mm adapter. If you're looking at a G35 or M2 or something like that, they're likely going to rely on using the camera's lens.

Futhermore, say I did use a nikon or canon still camera lens, would these be complatible for a follow focus?
Click to expand...
Well, no, but a little bit yes. Still lenses are not designed to work with follow focus units, and still lenses are furthermore not designed to rack focus at all, really. They usually have a quite short throw, don't have gears, etc. Now, you could use something like the IndiFocus with a still lens, and it'll sort of work, but just recognize that a real cine lens that's been designed to be a cine lens is going to be in a whole different league, focus-wise, than a still-camera lens is. The cine lens is designed to be rack-focused, has a much longer focus throw, and follow focus units were designed to work with cine lenses.

So yes you could get it to work (after a fashion) but it won't be the same. As long as it's good enough for what you're trying to do, that's probably all that matters I guess.
 
Thanks for the quick reply Barry! I know a little more what to look for. Nice forum by the way.:thumbsup:
 
Just a quick thought on the "adapter craze". I owned and shot multiple projects with the Mini35. I've looked with interest at the progression of the small adapter development here and on DVinfo and here's my take.

Given the upside down issue with them (which is a bit more than a slight inconvenience), the potential for some image degradation and the fairly cumbersome nature for the average shooter without focus pulling expertise, follow focus etc.
How many people have pushed there technique with the XL2 to get shallow DOF?

The fact is that the 20x lens with the XL2 is a wonderful self contained DOF tool in and of itself.I've just finished two shoots where I have DOF every bit as good as what I got with the Mini35 and Zeiss primes. In fact I was thinking of doing a little post with some sample clips regarding techinque versus adapters for people who might want to get a great look without the above limitations.

Now of course there are limitations here as well, but they aren't technical, they're environmental and logistical. That is you need to work with tighter frames often as well as more separation etc. However the results are stellar, with the full clarity that the camera and 20x lens provide and as I said, the look is beautiful and you can get bokeh every bit as good as with the Mini35 and likely better than with any of the less expensive adapters.
 
Howdy,

jimagine, I've gone as far technically as my camera will allow. I've dropped my f-stop all the way to f/1.8 and zoomed in to get a shallower dof. Half the time I don't want shots that are flattened due to my zooming in. I would love to have a shallower dof at a wider angle. The 35mm adapter will allow me to do this and get a wider picture from my 35mm lenses. Thanks for you effort. Should still be interesting.:thumbsup:
 
Same here!! I would be very interested to hear some other techniques to create shallow depth of field with out adapter than zooming in and using open iris...
 
See tukka said:
Same here!! I would be very interested to hear some other techniques to create shallow depth of field with out adapter than zooming in and using open iris...
Click to expand...


Well it's not rocket science, but it's a technique that's well worth developing. And it's not just about using the long end of the lens and compressing the image, although that will get you the softest background and most 35mm feel especially for one and two shots in most instances.

You can certainly work close to the subject with a wider lens/shorter focal length. Of course, as with film cameras and the Mini35 etc. the more open the iris the more bokeh you'll get, however everything is not about a complete blur.

Softening the detail in foreground and background layers creates great dimension which is usually what we're refering to when we talk about the film look versus flat video.

Using a shorter focal length in close comes down to knowing your foreground background subject relationship and working with them to tweak DOF. I can shoot 3 or 4 feet from a subject with the XL2 and get a nice soft background as long as I position my subject with a good deal of separation from the background (oviously this isn't for car interiors or tiny rooms...that's why I said there are compromises on both fronts).

But it's a bit more than what Brian boiled it down to. Obviously using the right combination of foreground, subject and background lighting is as important as any adapter or technique to get a more cinematic look (I like that term better because it's not about film).

What we're talking about is separation and dimension...the ability to draw the eye to subjects and away from them in way that you wouldn't see in typical video. But as it's been often said before, a good deal of the inherent video look is due to it's flatness AND because video shooters have rarely lit like a film shoot.

You can certainly shoot an interior close up...even medium close, in a room with say, a 24 foot depth and get great separation with the XL2. If the subject is in the center. If you put an object in the immediate foreground of the camera it can pop even more, use a little creative background lighting and separate the subject with light. You can work from 12 feet away and move closer while maintaining anything from a totally blurred back ground to a nice out of focus look.

You absolutely don't need to be wide open outdoors or at maximum focal length to get great results. You're only able to get around f/3.4 in those situations anyway, so there's a clutch point of controling the light with ND filters, moving in and widening the lens, and opening the iris.

In other words, at the point at which you can fully open to f/1.6, you can get in much closer to the subject with a less compressed background but with a nice shallow if not blurred DOF...again depending on how you setup your shot with background distance, any foreground subjects and lightening.

Last week I did an opening scene with the camera maybe 2 feet from a rotating object and I had nothing but a blurred back ground. You've just got to put in the woodshed time to maximize this potential, but it's there, and when done right will look better than anything you'll do with an inexpensive spinning glass setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top