Alternative to using a 35mm adapter

M

mk23

Member
I own an hvx and m2 adapter, I'm sometimes happy with the picure I get out of that setup, but not that often. I can only ever get good focus and a good overall picture in daylight outdoors, or if inside with a ton of light . Also I hate putting the m2 together and setting the back focus every setup.

I searched and browsed around but couldn't find an alternative that would give me control over the D.O.F like with the 35mm adapter setup.

So my this is my n00b question to you guys... do all digital cameras really have such deep dof, are there even options that are (a bit) more expensive than your typical prosumer cam with 35mm adapter but work out of the box and give a consistent and solid performance without all that hassle?
 
You can always just zoom in as far as you can and open up to f/2.8. On an HVX it should get pretty shallow. You might also consider getting a new adapter. Brevis, Letus, and the SGpro all seem to have blown the M2 out of the water.
 
nudge said:
A lot has to do with the size of the sensor. News is that RED might be coming up with something affordable but we won't know till NAB 2008. Its all speculation till then. Might not even serve as a pro-sumer sized camera. For now, here's an alternative to setting your back focus without the hassle of gaffer tape
Click to expand...

hey nudge,

I never gave the RED too much thought cuz I thought it is still way too early for it, also I maybe wrong but from poking around the red forum I kinda got the feeling that besides it being a work in progress, if I wanted one the wait would probably be too long for me.

your link is pretty cool, definately something worth saving, but still,I think with this setup,the camera with the adapter plus accesories, you don't get a reliable field camera setup that would give a consistent performance, certainly not a package that would do what I want done, which is pretty much point and shoot.
 
William_Robinette said:
You can always just zoom in as far as you can and open up to f/2.8. On an HVX it should get pretty shallow. You might also consider getting a new adapter. Brevis, Letus, and the SGpro all seem to have blown the M2 out of the water.
Click to expand...


hey William_Robinette,

I think an adapter is just that, an adaptation or mod on the camera that is the closest thing you'll get but not the real thing.
This is all from my limited experience and knowledge so ofcourse I could be way off, and I might be hoping for something that isn't even out there with this question, cuz til now other than the RED Iv'e found nothing.
 
mk23 said:
if I wanted one the wait would probably be too long for me.
Click to expand...

Ye, seems that ordering a Red One now would probably be delivered sometime early-mid summer but anyway buying into RED is a long-term sort of commitment..

mk23 said:
your link is pretty cool, definately something worth saving, but still,I think with this setup,the camera with the adapter plus accesories, you don't get a reliable field camera setup that would give a consistent performance, certainly not a package that would do what I want done, which is pretty much point and shoot.
Click to expand...

Well there are always trade-offs. ENG style shooting doesn't necessarily call for shallow DOF. And 35/16mm film cameras are not usually all that comfortable for handheld either if you compare. The adapter/pro-sumer combo is a mod i agree, but many people on this forum managed to get decent enough images
 
Last edited:
mk23 said:
hey William_Robinette,

I think an adapter is just that, an adaptation or mod on the camera that is the closest thing you'll get but not the real thing.
This is all from my limited experience and knowledge so ofcourse I could be way off, and I might be hoping for something that isn't even out there with this question, cuz til now other than the RED Iv'e found nothing.
Click to expand...

Aside from RED, the higher end Sony cams, and an actual 35mm film camera you are not going to get what you want without some sort of adapter or "faking it" in some way. Not today anyway.
 
What's the purpose of shallow DOF in a point and shoot usage? I see shallow DOF as being an artistic touch that adds meaning and focus to a composition in a film or sequence meant to evoke emotions or send a message. I don't know why you would want it for a point and shoot style.
 
"Super 35mm cine sized (24.4×13.7mm)"

there would not be a need for an adapter. The sensor is as large as frame of 35mm film.
 
SeanEmer said:
What's the purpose of shallow DOF in a point and shoot usage? I see shallow DOF as being an artistic touch that adds meaning and focus to a composition in a film or sequence meant to evoke emotions or send a message. I don't know why you would want it for a point and shoot style.
Click to expand...


The way I see it, control over depth of field would give me a whole new world of shooting to explore. Also I don't necessarily agree with you when you say point and shoot automatically means your typical news like look situation. I travel a lot, and heavy as it is I take my HVX everyhere, and when I play around with it I always start thinking that if I had precise control over depth of field, then I would enjoy shooting so much more than I do. Also since having tried the 35mm adapter, I can't stand the digital everything is in focus look(most of the time).
 
I'll agree with you on that, mk23. I was a bit too narrow in my statement; I apologize. Its still a shame that shallow DOF, thanks to Father Physics, remains a controllable style that can only be achieved in expensive or heavy rigs. I'm sure you are aware of all the ways to decrease the DOF using only the HVX, but that is not always satisfying enough... that's why I eventually got a Letus35 Extreme and a set of nikon primes. I haven't gotten to try it out on a shoot yet, but from my experimenting in setting it up, I found that the DOF control was really a big improvement, and I can't wait to put it to use.

If you don't want an adaptor, get a bigger camera, heh. The larger the CCD in the camera, the generally better control you have over DOF. Its one of those ever present trade-offs that plague our lives...
 
yeah :) I guess the answer to my original question can be answered more or less by looking at the price tags, huh? if your'e gonna pay only a few thousand, then you gotta struggle or "adapt" :)

I hope the RED turns out to be that missing link, and if it is user friendly and durable enough, than that would just be a blessing.
 
There are other HD cameras that have larger sensors that give that shallow depth of field. HOWEVER, they are all in the pro level. Just letting people know that the Red Camera isn't the only option, it's just the cheapest with the longest wait!
 
Last edited:
William_Robinette said:
You might also consider getting a new adapter. Brevis, Letus, and the SGpro all seem to have blown the M2 out of the water.
Click to expand...

What kind of statement is that? .... I very much disagree. I understand one's right to prefer an adapter brand more than another, we all have a preference. But you should know after all the posts here on dvxuser, all the tests, and all the sample footage that the M2 is not 'blown out of the water'. They (all leading adapter brands) all have their pro's and con's which makes them unique from each other. This is why we are flooded with "Which adapter is better?" threads.

I'm just defending lady M2, although I really shouldn't have to because her r'epertoire of past work should be defense enough.

-ryan
flame on:violent5:
 
Last edited:
The lack of DoF has NOTHING to do with the size of the sensors and EVERYTHING to do with the lens mounted on the camera. This is a misconception that just won't die.

Simply put, camera manufacturers at this price point want to maximize utility, so they mount a perminent zoom lens that is by its very design compramised. To get a shallow DoF requires circles of confusion be designed into the lens, and this requires light move through all parts of the various lenses in the assembly. To make the physics work in a zoom lens they must restrict the pathway through the center of the various lenses in the assembly, which is why zoom lenses have much higher F-Stops than primes.

The reason the larger imager on the Red Camera is so exciting is that it is roughly the same size as film and all of the many lenses on the market will work on it (cine and still). But if you mount a zoom on it and stop it down to F/5.6 it will look like F/5.6.

To maximise what the HVX can do to limit the D0F you should buy a set of ND filters to control the light entering the camera and run the iris wide open (or only a tick or two closed for a mid value). That's the best you will be able to do.

Bob
 
Bob Gruen said:
The lack of DoF has NOTHING to do with the size of the sensors and EVERYTHING to do with the lens mounted on the camera. This is a misconception that just won't die.
Click to expand...


There's a reason it won't die because there is some relationship between film/sensor size, angle of view and depth of field. The wider the actual recording area, the longer the focal length you need to produce the same angle of view. This is why formats with a larger recording area have a shallower depth of field for the same angle of view. So it's not a total misconception, but you are correct it is the longer focal length that will provide the shallower depth of field. All I'm saying is you can use a longer lens with 35mm then you can with 16mm and get the same frame with less DOF on the 35mm.

Gopher
 
No, it is a total misconception.

A big part of the reason for the misconception is that the only available modular lens assemblies are for 8, 16, 35, and 70mm targets (forgive me if I missed one or two), so building an understanding with those building blocks and mismatched targets it would seem that the size of the target is the problem, it is not.

Photons are small, really small. Think of the smallest thing you can, and reduce it by a million, they are smaller than that... The size of the imager and the bending abilities of glass are inconsequential when you consider the very nature of a photon.

It IS certainly possible to create a set of high speed prime lenses that would create a very good brokeh on 1/3" chips. In fact it would be an easier task than creating a zoom lens solution that fits everyone's needs, but since the zoom is the solution that 90% of the camera's buyers will want that is the assembly that is sold.

It has nothing to do with the size of the imager and everything to do with the lens assembly. The reason the RED ONE is such a great solution is not the shear size of the imager, but that the imager matches one of the commonly available lens sizes: 35mm.

Bob
 
Why are there no cameras with a built in 35mm adapter? ie a non-flip (camera would do it automatically) adapter, with the camera's lense being non-adjustable and set for focus on the GG. Seems like an easy way to get the desired DOF without paying for the full frame sensor, and not having a controllable lense built into the camera would seriously decrease the cost for those who were planning on buying 35mm lenses anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top