Brevis + Cheap Nikons

stephen_nugent

stephen_nugent

Well-known member
Have been leaning towards the brevis but wondered what happens to the image quality apart from that supposed 35mm look, by adding a cheap ($150-$300) second hand AI/AIS NIKON lens from say KEH? Is the image acceptable enough even after addding more glass infront of the HVX optics and essentially then recording a projected image? Anybody made such a comparison with and without the brevis?
 
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you HAVE TO HAVE a lens on the front of a 35mm adapter for it to work. Nikon lenses are, IMHO, the best glass to put on an adapter short of PL or OCT19. If the adapter is set up correctly there should be very little if any diference resolutionwise. KEH is a great place to buy cheap optics from. I have bought from them before and they do good business.
 
Depends on the lens...you can get a cheap 50mm 1.4 that's not really cheap no what I mean? Now if you buy a cheap quantaray your gonna know immediately that your trying to polish a turd. $300 is not cheap to me, it might mean its not new. Just do some digging because there's a standard list of primes that everyone seems to use and they can ususally be had on ebay for a bargain if your patient.
 
kyle.presley said:
If the adapter is set up correctly there should be very little if any diference resolutionwise.
Click to expand...

just wandering if there were any tests done comparing image degradation with/without the brevis (equipped with a standard photographic lens).
 
cinebuddy said:
there's a standard list of primes that everyone seems to use and they can usually be had on ebay for a bargain if your patient.
Click to expand...

any more info on that? i noticed people usually tend for the nikon AI/AIS 28-35-50-85 with speeds ranging betw 1.4 & 2.8
 
thanks zak, already been on the forums of cinevate and i cant see any answers to resolution tests (panasonic stock lens with/ without brevis)
 
I do remember seeing resolution tests with the brevis, although I'm not sure if they covered with/without the unit scenarios. Of course you'll loose both light and resolution, but that is true of any adapter...but what I have seen with the right setup and right circumstances is an increase in "perceived" resolution, because the shallow DOF makes the in-focus subject seem sharper by comparison...this is all in your eye of course, but slapping a 35mm adapter on your cam won't make it a film camera, but it will get you a stand-out look...
 
You can get a brand new Nikon 50mm f1.4 D for 279. from authorized dealers with a 5 year warranty.

No adapter footage can really compare to bare camera footage in terms of resolution. It's the nature of the beast. An additional 8+ optical elements, focusing an image on a GG the size of a postage stamp. However, it's amazing to see what some of these guys have been able to accomplish. Is it good enough? For now I think the answer is yes.
 
i see your point krummi, i was wondering also if in the end outputting say a job on an SD DVD might just cover up that resolution loss, tho i guess the finer image you start with, the better the result. I dont question the creative possibilities of the brevis, just concidering all aspects before investing.
 
Last edited:
Krummi said:
I do remember seeing resolution tests with the brevis, although I'm not sure if they covered with/without the unit scenarios. Of course you'll loose both light and resolution, but that is true of any adapter...but what I have seen with the right setup and right circumstances is an increase in "perceived" resolution, because the shallow DOF makes the in-focus subject seem sharper by comparison...this is all in your eye of course...
Click to expand...

I would think the recorded resolution of the HVX200 would be exactly the same with or without a 35mm adapter.

Detail, on the other hand, is where it (or any camera fashioned as such) would lose ground with a 35mm adaptor. That's why adaptor users tend to bump up the image detail within the camera's menu settings.
 
You might want to check out Phil Bloom's review of the Brevis, SGPro and M2 at http://www.philipbloom.net. He shot a few resolution charts on there. I'm awaiting my Brevis at the moment. And you can find some great glass cheap at KEH. I just picked up a 35 and 105 that were both given great reviews at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html. The resolution of a 35mm lens is way higher than what you're capturing on your video camera, so it's really a function of the adapter. (Other things like CA, distortion, color rendition, etc. do matter with the 35mm lens, of course).
 
I'd warn against turning up the detail with an HVX Brevis combo. You're walking a fine line with the grain/noise as it is and pushing the detail is asking for it. Good Luck.
 
JasonFox said:
. . . The resolution of a 35mm lens is way higher than what you're capturing on your video camera, so it's really a function of the adapter. (Other things like CA, distortion, color rendition, etc. do matter with the 35mm lens, of course).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, Jason.

I guess my point is this:

My HVX200 camera records video images at resolutions of 720x480 for NTSC, 960 x 720 for 720P mode, 1280 x 1080 for 1080i/p mode. This is all with or without a 35mm adaptor.


Disco Robo said:
I'd warn against turning up the detail with an HVX Brevis combo. You're walking a fine line with the grain/noise as it is and pushing the detail is asking for it. Good Luck.
Click to expand...
Good to know, thanks. It sounds like a subjective choice.
 
DC said:
My HVX200 camera records video images at resolutions of 720x480 for NTSC, 960 x 720 for 720P mode, 1280 x 1080 for 1080i/p mode. This is all with or without a 35mm adaptor.
Click to expand...

resolution can be a complex term often misinterpretted i guess. the initial post referred to image degradation, ie. reduction in quality caused by factors not associated with the sensor system.
 
nudge said:
resolution can be a complex term often misinterpretted i guess. the initial post referred to image degradation, ie. reduction in quality caused by factors not associated with the sensor system.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. That's why I suggested detail in an attempt to make it less confusing with resolution (of the sensor system, etc.).
 
yea, keep the detail low, you can always add edge enhacement... its a pain to get rid of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top