Buying a lens adaptor now. Dumb?
- Thread starter Damodt
- Start date
thekreative
Veteran
if you mean 35mm adapter or DSLR , I sold my Letus and got a 5D and never looked back. Sold my HVX later cuz I never used it over the 5D , but boy do I miss the slo-mo.
Yes, 35mm adapter. We shoot a little bit of everything, and nothing particular. I'll probably still get the new D700 cause I have several Nikon lenses, (and I have a feeling they will one-up Canons 5d) I know the DSLR can provide the same effect and better low light video, and easier to pack around. Will it replace the 170? Or just make for a nice B cam?
Jimmy Moss
Well-known member
The DSLRS are cool, but I have yet to have anyone request it by name for a professinal gig. Their still asking for HVX200's/170's and 35mm adaptors. Honestly, DVCPRO HD is a professinal codec and AVCHD is not. Not that you could really tell the difference....
For my own short films thought.... I would get a DSLR for the low light features, and thats about it.
For my own short films thought.... I would get a DSLR for the low light features, and thats about it.
wgzn
Veteran
depends on how you work and what you shoot. but no. a 35mm adapter is not dumb. nor will it be for at least another couple years. a DSLR is STILL not a VIDEO camera.
if i were a gambling man id say that the eventual arrival of the red scarlet will have more of an effect on the adapter game than all this DSLR silliness.
if i were a gambling man id say that the eventual arrival of the red scarlet will have more of an effect on the adapter game than all this DSLR silliness.
One vote for dumb here. Live with the shallow depth of field you can accomplish with the stock lens or 1.6x or 2x telephoto attachments or rent the camera that will get you there.
Consider how users of the 35 attachment have to downgrade footage shot with the stock lens to better match footage shot with the attachment. You're losing resolution shooting the image off the internal screen on the adapter. Essentially you're shooting an image of an image instead of an image of an object. It's not a pixel for pixel transfer.
Sorry, but people have been hoodwinked. Lower image quality just to attain shallow depth of field? You're already starting with a 1/3" chip. Do what you can with a wider aperture, longer lens, composition, zone lighting et al.
Consider how users of the 35 attachment have to downgrade footage shot with the stock lens to better match footage shot with the attachment. You're losing resolution shooting the image off the internal screen on the adapter. Essentially you're shooting an image of an image instead of an image of an object. It's not a pixel for pixel transfer.
Sorry, but people have been hoodwinked. Lower image quality just to attain shallow depth of field? You're already starting with a 1/3" chip. Do what you can with a wider aperture, longer lens, composition, zone lighting et al.
Hmmm, interesting! I've seen very nice videos posted here and most seemed to have used the adpater and the quality looks great. Did not realize it downgraded the image, something to think about again.
So can I get a 2x telephoto attachment for the 170? And would that increase the shallower depth of field with out having to shoot from across the street zoomed all the way in? When I'm zoomed all the way in and an open iris it's not bad, but even at half way it's too video looking.
tony240sx
Well-known member
I don't think anyone using an adapter has been hoodwinked. There is a softer image that comes from using an adapter but the resolution is still the same. The camera is recording whatever it's chip is capable or regardless of filming a groundglass or the object itself. The look of shallow depth of field and the softness to the image is exactely what some users are looking for and a 35mm adapter achieves that look.
The resolution on the ground glass is not 1080 or 720. The ground glass is not an LCD or CRT that renders pixels. Sure the camera itself is capturing 1080 or 720 but only of an image projected on the screen.
The resulting shallow depth of field distracts the viewer from the resolution loss. I'll take high resolution over shallow dof any day.
The resulting shallow depth of field distracts the viewer from the resolution loss. I'll take high resolution over shallow dof any day.
tony240sx
Well-known member
It is a preference. I prefer a better looking image overall and resolution to me is just part of the equation. Personally I do not see a severe drop in resolution and with the Letus Extreme I am getting extremly sharp in focus images. To say that adapter footage distracts the viewer and that users of adapters have been "hoodwinked" for purchasing them is a little naive.
Euan
Member
Really? I'm reasonably sure that ground glass when vibrated out-resolves a 1080 sensor by many times. Besides, the eye is not a techie - you're not going to perceive a loss in quality, instead you'll see a nicer image.
Forgive me for saying so, but you sound like you're saying that the adapter has a display inside - it doesn't. It's not a 'screen' in the electronic sense, it's a bit of glass. Adapters don't have pixels, they have optics. Yes you're shooting an image of an image, but it's not much different to using a multi-element lens in that sense.
Last edited:
tony240sx
Well-known member
Exactely. The camera is not recording an electronic projection of an image but a reflection in a way. The camera itself is still recording at it's full capabilities and resolution.
And in regards to the original post, I think it is obvious what my opinion is. It is not stupid to buy a 35mm adapter. DSLR's are great and I am thinking of picking one up to mess with also, but they are not video camera's. They are an excellant option for a lot of situations but the better image quality achieved with an HPX,HVX,HMC and adapter along with full manual control over the image are more important to me for most shooting situations. As DSLR's grow in features and performance, which they already are, they will be quite a force.
I do know that there is a screen onto which is projected the light from the 35mm lens. It is not a sensor which resolves a 1080 or 720 image. It is naive to think that there is no loss of resolution when shooting off a screen. Ever hear of flying spot tele-cines?
There is plenty of talk about how there is about a %20 difference in quality between 1080 and 720. The eye can preceive a lot. I see the difference in quality between using a 35 adapter and a bare lens. Shallow depth of field might be important enough for some to lose picture quality, but not for me.
There is plenty of talk about how there is about a %20 difference in quality between 1080 and 720. The eye can preceive a lot. I see the difference in quality between using a 35 adapter and a bare lens. Shallow depth of field might be important enough for some to lose picture quality, but not for me.
Euan
Member
Well now I'm feeling even more confused. If the screen which you are shooting an image from is a piece of glass without any pixels at all, only grain that is vibrated as to minimise its visibility, how can it be accurate to say that it has a 'resolution' below that of a 1080 sensor? It surely out-resolves it by many times.
I'm at a loss to make the connection with flying spot telecine.
You raise the interesting issue of how we define picture quality; I personally would dispute that picture quality is about resolution over other factors, but that is down to personal priorities. If you are using you camera for scientific purposes for example, it might be argued that the sharpness and depth of field of the stock lens would be most desirable. If you wish to use your camera to create mood and meaning, it would be fair to say that a DOF adapter is an essential accessory and in that way, produces an image of far higher quality.
What is missing from this conversation is some actual data on what is gained and lost at a pixel level when shooting with an adapter. It's useless to say that 'by eye' there is a 'loss of quality' as the images are so different. To my eye, the image from a camera with an adapter is vastly more pleasing.
To return to the OP's question, you can achieve a far greater range of outcomes with a DOF adapter, as you're able to shoot with it or without it depending upon what is appropriate to the needs of your shoot.
You really aren't thinking it through. And I understand that you have a lot invested in your stance. But it's very simple, you are essentially making a copy of a copy. A digital copy (final image on the 200's chips) from an analog copy(projected image on the adapter's screen).
What users of the adapters are blown away by is the pleasing bokeh. I get it.
Resolution makes a difference if say you had the choice to shoot in 35mm film versus 16mm. You can't deny that. I'd choose 35, and I choose the crispest image from the stock lens on the HVX200.
What users of the adapters are blown away by is the pleasing bokeh. I get it.
Resolution makes a difference if say you had the choice to shoot in 35mm film versus 16mm. You can't deny that. I'd choose 35, and I choose the crispest image from the stock lens on the HVX200.
Euan
Member
I'm sorry to bore you with a point-by-point, but I feel a need for clarity;
Have I not demonstrated a great deal of thought in this conversation? If not, I'm sorry. However I believe I've invested nothing but accuracy in my stance. It's not like I'm a Letus employee.....
That's misleading. By such thinking, every element in a lens assembly should be regarded a 'copy'. In terms of resolution, the first 'copy' (the ground glass element) is of sufficiently high resolution that it would be difficult to argue that it reduces the resolution of the final image collected on a 1080 sensor. If we were talking about 4k, then I might entertain that the sensor out-resolves the ground glass.
'Pleasing bokeh' falls well short of describing the qualities of using a DOF adapter with a good collection of lenses. Your analogy between the difference between 16mm and 35mm and the difference between and HVX200 with stock lens and an HVX200 with a DOF adapter is again extremely misleading.
I'm sorry that we appear to be so emphatically disagreeing over this, but your assertion that using a DOF adpater = loss of resolution appears to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about optics and digital sensors.
Have I not demonstrated a great deal of thought in this conversation? If not, I'm sorry. However I believe I've invested nothing but accuracy in my stance. It's not like I'm a Letus employee.....
That's misleading. By such thinking, every element in a lens assembly should be regarded a 'copy'. In terms of resolution, the first 'copy' (the ground glass element) is of sufficiently high resolution that it would be difficult to argue that it reduces the resolution of the final image collected on a 1080 sensor. If we were talking about 4k, then I might entertain that the sensor out-resolves the ground glass.
'Pleasing bokeh' falls well short of describing the qualities of using a DOF adapter with a good collection of lenses. Your analogy between the difference between 16mm and 35mm and the difference between and HVX200 with stock lens and an HVX200 with a DOF adapter is again extremely misleading.
I'm sorry that we appear to be so emphatically disagreeing over this, but your assertion that using a DOF adpater = loss of resolution appears to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about optics and digital sensors.
Well, if we're gonna go that route. There is no way that you can compare an aerial image(light reflected from a subject, trasmitted through a lens and contacting a chip/film emulsion) to a projected image(meaning projected onto the adapter screen). You actually think they're equal in resolution. You don't understand simple physics.