Adapter paired to a DSLR?

R

Ryan-Guy

Well-known member
I'm wondering if anyone has tried pairing a DSLR to a 35mm adapter? Has anyone done this?!

Before the flames start on why would I be crazy enough :-Dum(DBG): to think that this may give a better picture, let me inform you that I have a 5d, AF100, and an HV40 with a static (non-spinning, non-vibrating) 35mm adapter, and as much as a like my large sensor cameras, hands down, my simple $600 rig HV40 creates the most pleasing picture. There is something magical about it. The highlights are handled with care on the adapter, due to the diffusion effect.

My thought is, with the lowlight capabilities of the DSLRs, paired with the highlight handling of the GG adapters, this may be alchemy for 24 carat cinema gold.

True that the DR isn't actually increased on the sensor with an adapter, but the DR of reality is compressed to a more manageable level for sensors to work with, and the 5d has the best DR of the DSLRs, all the way up until you hit Red One territory. And... the GG grain is just plain sexy.

A little while back, I filmed a 20 minute short film, and while I had the 5d and af100, we opted for the HV40 and it hands down looks like 16mm film.

Thoughts?
 
Here's a home movie I shot one afternoon on a Redrock Micro M2 (original not m2e) on the front of a GH1(3):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppCKGyTpoQI

Compare with my feature shot on the same M2 with a HV20 on the back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiInJOD5X6I
http://vimeo.com/18601719

The results using a dslr on the back are fairly similar to what you'd be getting now with a small chip cam on the back. Getting the right zoom level on the ground glass is a little harder, but the increased bitrate is advantagous for post work.
 
Putting and adaptor on a DSLR is absolutely ridiculous. The DSLR already has shallow depth of field. All the adaptor does is ad weight. This makes no sense at all.
 
Ryan-Guy said:
My thought is, with the lowlight capabilities of the DSLRs, paired with the highlight handling of the GG adapters, this may be alchemy for 24 carat cinema gold.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're actually just getting the worst of both worlds. You're taking cameras that aren't exactly high-res to begin with an putting an adapter in front of it, softening the resulting image even more. You're also introducing artifacts like edge softness, CA from the adapters that weren't there to begin with. And any low light performance goes right out the window because a) the lens that you have on a DSLR is probably already slow and b) the adapter costs you a bunch of light and c) the lens on the adapter costs even more light. There's really no purpose to putting an adapter on a large sensor camera; it's the equivalent of putting a piece of cloth over the lens, you're just making the image looks worse.
 
Amadou said:
Putting and adaptor on a DSLR is absolutely ridiculous. The DSLR already has shallow depth of field. All the adaptor does is ad weight. This makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Ok please tell me where I said I wanted to add DoF? Did you even read my post or just the title? I was speaking solely on the "PERCEIVED" dynamic range and highlight characteristics of the ground glass, as I find it more pleasing to the eye. I spoke nothing about the DoF of the DSLRs.

Huy Vu said:
Nope, you're actually just getting the worst of both worlds. You're taking cameras that aren't exactly high-res to begin with an putting an adapter in front of it, softening the resulting image even more. You're also introducing artifacts like edge softness, CA from the adapters that weren't there to begin with. And any low light performance goes right out the window because a) the lens that you have on a DSLR is probably already slow and b) the adapter costs you a bunch of light and c) the lens on the adapter costs even more light. There's really no purpose to putting an adapter on a large sensor camera; it's the equivalent of putting a piece of cloth over the lens, you're just making the image looks worse.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you actually read my post, this is an actual reply with a thought out rebuttal. Thank you. And I did think about this after posting regarding the lower resolutions of DSLRs and it is a very valid point. I think that the image would be much softer. But perhaps if it were paired to a AF100 or FS100, with higher resolution than the 5dIIs, 7ds, etc, it may be decent.

But regarding the light loss, you speculate that I would use slow glass on the DSLR, but one could use a f1.4 or even f1.2, which is going to be in reality much faster than any stock zoom lens on a small sensor camera, even if it states that the zoom lens is f1.4, the actual t-stops of a zoom lens are always going to be higher than that of a prime lens. This is my whole reasoning for the DSLR to adapter theory. These larger sensor cameras have proven to have higher DR than smaller chip cameras.

True that you will loose ~3 stops of light from the adapter, but you will also gain ~1-2 stops in the shadows from the DR of the DSLR, loosing a total of about 1.5 stops, but at the same time also gaining the highlight characteristics of the GG, so why not use that advantage?
 
Last edited:
Amadou said:
What do you mean by "highlight characteristic"?
Click to expand...

Somehow, with very bright lights, such as clear skies, reflections, etc., GG seams to pull them down to a manageable level, or at least makes them "bloom" with a very organic film quality, where as straight to sensor has very ugly clipping that we all know is a common digital camera quirk. I'm not saying that GG actually increases DR, which wouldn't make sense, but to my eyes it does give bright light sources a much softer "bloom." I'm open to other opinions on this "highlight characteristic," but from other threads I've read and from my own experience this does seam to be the case.
 
I may be wrong here but I think the "bloom" you are speaking of is softness from passing though so much glass and everything s going to have that softness. If this is your goal try vasoline on the lens or using lenses that have fungus in them.
 
I have seen someone shoot with a dslr and dof adapter. It made a neat effect, but thats about it. Not something you would want to shoot with on a regular basis. I don't understand why your not able to manage your highlights on the 5d, or the af100. Perhaps spending some time tuning it in. You may also ask other af100 users what settings their using, because I agree the af100 has a tendency to blow highlight, when the camera is tuned in it creates beautiful images. Or you may just be a fan of the way the camcorder dof adapter looks, in any case you may be happier selling off the af, 5d, and getting a camcorder dof combo. I would stay away from a ststic though, their rather ugly in my opinion. But thats just me, I like a spinner.
 
Ryan-Guy said:



Glad to see you actually read my post, this is an actual reply with a thought out rebuttal. Thank you. And I did think about this after posting regarding the lower resolutions of DSLRs and it is a very valid point. I think that the image would be much softer. But perhaps if it were paired to a AF100 or FS100, with higher resolution than the 5dIIs, 7ds, etc, it may be decent.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't understand why you would want to do this. The whole purpose of a camera like the AF100 is to get rid of the inconveniences associated with a 35mm adapter. Not having to worry about knocking the back focus out, or having the adapter battery die midshoot, or being limited in term of shutterspeed and f-stop, those are invaluable features. Not to mention the resulting rig will requires more setup time and will be harder to balance due to the awkward rail combination.

Ryan-Guy said:

But regarding the light loss, you speculate that I would use slow glass on the DSLR, but one could use a f1.4 or even f1.2, which is going to be in reality much faster than any stock zoom lens on a small sensor camera, even if it states that the zoom lens is f1.4, the actual t-stops of a zoom lens are always going to be higher than that of a prime lens. This is my whole reasoning for the DSLR to adapter theory. These larger sensor cameras have proven to have higher DR than smaller chip cameras.
Click to expand...

I would love to see a zoom lens for large sensor camera that holds at f1.4 or f1.2 throughout the entire zoom range. It doesn't exist and if it does it'll be so expensive that you might as well use a better camera like an F3 or a RED. And just because a lens is capable of shooting at f1.2 doesn't mean you should use it at that f-stop. Opening up a lens all the way tends to introduce nasty highlight blooming, fuzzy DOF rendition, CA and will softens the image significantly. Even with a regular camera it's advisable to close the stock lens slightly to improve the resulting quality of the image. The "adapter on a large sensor camera" suggestion just doesn't make any sense from a cost/benefit standpoint.
 
Alrighty, i think your guys' points are valid. I was just trying to be creative and think of some new possibilities. Better to think of it and conclude its a dumb idea than to not think at all.
 
You know what? Deere's video does exhibit a lot of the characteristics ryan-guy was looking for when he came up with this wacky idea. it does look organic and unique. i say go for it, whatevs.
 
vaseline was actually one of the materials tested in early adapter gg's way back in 2004-5. ;-) Anyway, its era has passed. I built 3 myself using spinning gg's, first with a mid format lens and then a 35. Advantages of the midformat was a bigger gg image area thus having finer grain noise.

This thing about putting a gg infront of a dslr will just produce a degraded source image. Using post to achieve the faded unsharp look and specular characteristics is better.

I included our adapter in our photography museum now, together with plate glass view cameras we used in the late 20's. Its era has passed.

edit;

I have to add that the OP having thought about it was not a dumb idea for it is through constant curiosity that people invent and discover. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Amadou said:
Putting and adaptor on a DSLR is absolutely ridiculous. The DSLR already has shallow depth of field. All the adaptor does is ad weight. This makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Get yourself a monorail 4x5 view camera and lenses for that mega-DOF look.
 
Ryan-Guy said:
Before the flames start on why would I be crazy enough :-Dum(DBG): to think that this may give a better picture, let me inform you that I have a 5d, AF100, and an HV40 with a static (non-spinning, non-vibrating) 35mm adapter, and as much as a like my large sensor cameras, hands down, my simple $600 rig HV40 creates the most pleasing picture. There is something magical about it. [..] A little while back, I filmed a 20 minute short film, and while I had the 5d and af100, we opted for the HV40 and it hands down looks like 16mm film.
Click to expand...
I can tell that a DOF adapter on a Canon HV40 can give excellent results. I've used to shoot short films with a similar setup and I enjoyed the results. In certain cases, it can can give a closer look to actual "film" as some DOF adapter creates a more organic look compared to a more sterile one when using DSLRs. I know, I've tested it as I own an HV40 and a T2i. I also agree that there's something nice about that camcorder! Here's some of my work:

Here's a quick comparison between both the HV40 + DOF adapter and a T2i:

Here's one shot entirely using the T2i, for a film-noir short contest:

Here's a test using a simple static Twoneil adapter, with the Canon EE-S focusing screen washed with some paint thinner (after some scratches):

Finally, here's a video I've shot using the bare HV40 with a Raynox wideangle:


And to add to what Ted said, it would only degrade the picture to add a DOF adapter in front of a DSLR camera. I'd rather prefer to "degrade" it in post to match the look instead.
That's my point.
 
drapeama said:
I can tell that a DOF adapter on a Canon HV40 can give excellent results. I've used to shoot short films with a similar setup and I enjoyed the results. In certain cases, it can can give a closer look to actual "film" as some DOF adapter creates a more organic look compared to a more sterile one when using DSLRs. I know, I've tested it as I own an HV40 and a T2i. I also agree that there's something nice about that camcorder! Here's some of my work:
Click to expand...

Yah after looking at your hv40+adapter vs t2i i personally think the hv40 looks much better imo. Also your last video with the bare hv40 looked great too. Maybe its just a magical camera where everything happened right. I'm just sick of the DSLR look to be honest. Pasty skins, horrible clipping, etc. They all look the same to me.
 
Ryan-Guy said:
Yah after looking at your hv40+adapter vs t2i i personally think the hv40 looks much better imo.
Click to expand...
It simply looks more organic (or less sterile) due to the spinning GG and the macro lens (adds some nice Chromatic Aberration).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top