Does Letus Extreme lose more light than Brevis
- Thread starter Cinemano
- Start date
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
US Latin Content - I'm not sure what " hot spotting" you guys are talking about here. I haven't experienced this as a specific problem withe Brevis CF1L though maybe some have. I have seem some overexposure rendering I don't like in some adapter screens, but it really depends on exactly what kind of highlights you're worried about. I wouldn't call it hot spotting though.
I think one of the big differences between these different screens in addition to speed, is just how much softness you like and what kind of bokeh. None of them are going to screw you.
Certainly you can control contrast and color with any of them, that's a camera function or maybe i don't understand what you mean Kholi.
Lenny Levy
I think one of the big differences between these different screens in addition to speed, is just how much softness you like and what kind of bokeh. None of them are going to screw you.
Certainly you can control contrast and color with any of them, that's a camera function or maybe i don't understand what you mean Kholi.
Lenny Levy
Last edited:
Dennis Wood
DVXuser Sponsor
Douglas and Kholi, you are evidently happy with the adapter you are using, and based on your comments, using the Brevis with CF2Le or CF3Le would conform to your expectations. Until someone posts a test just like the one I did with a few other adapters, what are you basing your light loss and efficiency observations on? Everyone is assuming that the other options have been tested on a waveform monitor like we just did...and I've never seen those tests. Ask a guy like Patrick Moreau at stillmotion.ca (an award winning sponsored Canon Pro who uses no less than 5 Brevis adapters) about CF2Le or CF3Le and he'd reply..."No idea". Why? Because they do a lot of wedding and corporate work where light loss is a huge issue. He therefore has no need for CF2Le or CF3Le in his work.
There is no free lunch with adapters. Based on our testing, we believe that no solution can offer a perfect film match with anwhere under 3-4 stops of light loss. We tested head to head with film to come to this conclusion using the same lens on both adapter and film camera. An adapter that did this would be dismissed as a light hog. What we've done instead is offer interchangeable imaging elements so the light hog and light miser could be the same adapter...and give the shooter the choice. We've taken it to the next level and optimized performance with different cameras in the same package. Again, there is no free lunch with adapters.
Barry Green has stated quite clearly in this thread that the Brevis CF1Le test we did demonstrates virtually no hotspotting and a very flat response. I've tested several cams and found that the XH-A1 is very, very good with respect to even light response with it's bare lens. Research on 50mm lens options would demonstrate that you must baseline the lens by itself when used full aperture. For a person experienced with technical testing of cameras, lenses and maybe adapters, they would find these waveform monitor results surprising. Why? As Lenny explained earlier, few cameras and lenses show a line as flat as the one in our tests when tested in isolation. We've taken a typical camera + typical lens + adapter system and tuned the Brevis system to that response..and this is no small feat.
US, I'd direct you to our website, specifically the online catalog for detailed descriptions. For cams like the HV20 we have CF1, CF2, CF3 and for the larger cams u p to HPX500, we have CF1Le, CF2Le, and CF3Le.
Cheers
There is no free lunch with adapters. Based on our testing, we believe that no solution can offer a perfect film match with anwhere under 3-4 stops of light loss. We tested head to head with film to come to this conclusion using the same lens on both adapter and film camera. An adapter that did this would be dismissed as a light hog. What we've done instead is offer interchangeable imaging elements so the light hog and light miser could be the same adapter...and give the shooter the choice. We've taken it to the next level and optimized performance with different cameras in the same package. Again, there is no free lunch with adapters.
Barry Green has stated quite clearly in this thread that the Brevis CF1Le test we did demonstrates virtually no hotspotting and a very flat response. I've tested several cams and found that the XH-A1 is very, very good with respect to even light response with it's bare lens. Research on 50mm lens options would demonstrate that you must baseline the lens by itself when used full aperture. For a person experienced with technical testing of cameras, lenses and maybe adapters, they would find these waveform monitor results surprising. Why? As Lenny explained earlier, few cameras and lenses show a line as flat as the one in our tests when tested in isolation. We've taken a typical camera + typical lens + adapter system and tuned the Brevis system to that response..and this is no small feat.
US, I'd direct you to our website, specifically the online catalog for detailed descriptions. For cams like the HV20 we have CF1, CF2, CF3 and for the larger cams u p to HPX500, we have CF1Le, CF2Le, and CF3Le.
Cheers
Last edited:
Douglas Villalba
Well-known member
Hi Dennis,
You don't have to defend your product with me. I which that my Letus had some of the features that your have. Like I said before I like the back focus and centering adjustments.
What I have problem is the way when you talk about the linearity of the GG in question from f 1.4 to f 4.0.
You ask what I base my test? Simple, you agreed that there is light loss. If you take a light meter and for sake argument at f 4.0 your ASA rating is 200 (200 is just an easy number and since 320 is a common ASA rating with 1/3 CCD HD cameras without an adaptor) and without changing anything but the aperture on your meter your ASA had dropped to 25.
In other words you don't gain anything by using a fast lens.
Let me put it to you this way. If your meter calls for f1.4 and you set your lens at f1.4 you would be under exposing by 3 stops since there is no change from 1.4 - 4.0.
Like you said I don't own the Brevis so I can't make a video to show what I am saying.
Why don't you tell us what the ASA rating is at f4.0?
I just had a problem with words that could be misunderstood as the Brevis gaining light instead of loosing just a little light.
I am not being a spokesman for any manufacturer. I paid and own a Letus EX and if Aaron who I bought mine from tell me that you can use speed of over 1/250 sec. or that you could close the lens more than 3 stops and not see noise I would also be speaking my mind.
Just post you ASA with and without the adaptor for us numbers guys.
Dennis Wood
DVXuser Sponsor
Douglas, if you searched back over a year's posts and read all the incredulous responses to the Brevis (using CF1, CF1L, or CF1Le) claims of light efficiency (now demonstrated clearly in the clip) you'd understand the defensive tone It's hard sometimes not to take the grief personally...but the lesson learned is that next time we'll post footage to support these claims. I don't own, use, or test with a light meter as we feel that the waveform monitor and vectorscope readings are much more relevant. The system does not perform according to convention, making a calibrated light meter of questionable value. With regard to light efficiency at wide open apertures, you will find that the same test repeated with any other adapter on the market will show less base efficiency when compared to CF1, CF1L, or CF1Le...I guarantee that.
What we do know is that pretty much every NLE can provide the waveform and vectorscope values, and users can compare/test based on grabs that are analyzed this way, even if they don't have OnLocation etc.
I've been strongly suggesting for a long time that adapters should not be tested without a lens attached as we feel the results can be misleading. HienLe used an equation similar to the following in a discussion on this very forum last year. Assume "x" is the adapter loss.
Total system loss = Adapter loss + 35mm lens loss
Using a 50mm f1.4 lens as the example (the most common 35mm adapter lens?) which has a 1 stop loss at f1.4, and knowing the Brevis flip system in the clip loses .5 stops with a 50mm f1.4 lens affixed:
-0.5 = x (adapter loss) + (-1)
therefore: x = 0.5
In other words, if you use this equation, the Brevis adapter must be represented as a .5 stop gain as a baseline...and we've shown it's not linear at all. That is why I've always rejected quoting adapter loss, and we've always quoted our light loss at .5 stops with a 50mm f1.4 lens attached. I agree completely that it is impossible for any system to create energy passively beyond what is input...and the equation results are misleading. In other words, conventional wisdom does not apply, and the equation needs to more sophisticated to predict light loss in an adapter. A simple graph of the taking lens aperture vs system light loss would work much better IMHO.
It's hard sometimes not to take the grief personally...but the lesson learned is that next time we'll post footage to support these claims. I don't own, use, or test with a light meter as we feel that the waveform monitor and vectorscope readings are much more relevant. The system does not perform according to convention, making a calibrated light meter of questionable value. With regard to light efficiency at wide open apertures, you will find that the same test repeated with any other adapter on the market will show less base efficiency when compared to CF1, CF1L, or CF1Le...I guarantee that.What we do know is that pretty much every NLE can provide the waveform and vectorscope values, and users can compare/test based on grabs that are analyzed this way, even if they don't have OnLocation etc.
I've been strongly suggesting for a long time that adapters should not be tested without a lens attached as we feel the results can be misleading. HienLe used an equation similar to the following in a discussion on this very forum last year. Assume "x" is the adapter loss.
Total system loss = Adapter loss + 35mm lens loss
Using a 50mm f1.4 lens as the example (the most common 35mm adapter lens?) which has a 1 stop loss at f1.4, and knowing the Brevis flip system in the clip loses .5 stops with a 50mm f1.4 lens affixed:
-0.5 = x (adapter loss) + (-1)
therefore: x = 0.5
In other words, if you use this equation, the Brevis adapter must be represented as a .5 stop gain as a baseline...and we've shown it's not linear at all. That is why I've always rejected quoting adapter loss, and we've always quoted our light loss at .5 stops with a 50mm f1.4 lens attached. I agree completely that it is impossible for any system to create energy passively beyond what is input...and the equation results are misleading. In other words, conventional wisdom does not apply, and the equation needs to more sophisticated to predict light loss in an adapter. A simple graph of the taking lens aperture vs system light loss would work much better IMHO.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Guys, here's the thing -- the Brevis is not behaving according to how we would all expect adapters to behave. That's what led to the aghast reaction to some of these claims.Here's what's going on: hold up a 35mm lens and look through it. Now change the aperture. Does the image through the lens get darker? No. It's supposed to, that's the whole point of having an aperture, but it doesn't. You're looking through the lens and it looks just as bright regardless of aperture.And, are you seeing shallow depth of field? No you're not. Look through that lens and you'll see that everything is in focus.Now, we know that this is indeed "nuts"; stopping down an aperture should produce a loss of light. Stopping down an aperture should produce deeper depth of field. But it doesn't, if you just look through the lens.This is my current theory for what the Brevis is doing. It's using a highly transparent ground glass to just look through the glass, to a degree. Obviously there's some image being trapped there by the ground glass (or else we'd be seeing the image upside down).There are tradeoffs in any situation. There are always going to be drawbacks, there is no "free lunch". So far I haven't spent any time with a Brevis so I don't know what those tradeoffs would be -- I would have guessed that there'd be significant hotspotting, but the waveform doesn't show that, so -- I don't know. It's curious.I'm tempted to say Dennis has created the "pixel shift" of adapters -- whereas pixel shift creates resolution higher than the native pixel count, the Brevis may have created sensitivity. I'm sure there are tradeoffs, but the question is: has the Brevis walked the line fine enough that any tradeoffs just don't matter to most people? If so, well done.
Dennis Wood
DVXuser Sponsor
Barry, if you're interested in playing around with a rig for a few weeks, I'd be happy to send you a full rig/rails in flip/non-flip config with a full set of imaging elements in both the CF, and CFL range Just pm your address/phone number and email, and it'll be there in 2 days.
Cheers
Just pm your address/phone number and email, and it'll be there in 2 days.Cheers
Douglas Villalba
Well-known member
You don't understand a simple point. If your system looses as you say 0.5 at f4.0 and you open to f1.4 and still have the same result, what is the use of having a fast lens? It won't even change DOF since the GG only sees f4.0 and up.
You are provably a great engineer, but you need to know some basic laws of photo (light) to see why it helps a DP.
I don't have anything to prove , so if you think that you proved me or Barry wrong with the video. I can't speak for Barry but it just proofed that their is no benefit to using fast lenses with this particular Brevis GG.
We will just agree to disagree.
I JUST TAKE TO LONG TO WRITE
You are provably a great engineer, but you need to know some basic laws of photo (light) to see why it helps a DP.
I don't have anything to prove , so if you think that you proved me or Barry wrong with the video. I can't speak for Barry but it just proofed that their is no benefit to using fast lenses with this particular Brevis GG.
We will just agree to disagree.
I JUST TAKE TO LONG TO WRITE
Last edited:
You are provably a great engineer, but you need to know some basic laws of photo (light) to see why it helps a DP.
I don't have anything to prove , so if you think that you proved me or Barry wrong with the video. I can't speak for Barry but it just proofed that their is no benefit to using fast lenses with this particular Brevis GG.
We will just agree to disagree.
I JUST TAKE TO LONG TO WRITE
Very good idea to just let people do as they will. We've learned mostly why it happens, when Barry gets his hands on it he'll confirm whether the theoretical cons are accurate or not.
No sense in botherin' about it!
I don't have an adapter to test, but I've observed something similar with my pentax dslr.
I shoot a lot with a 50/1.4 Supter Takumar m42 adapted onto my K100d. This lens can be done in either auto-stop down mode (which won't work with adapter) or manual where I close the iris myself. I locked down the shutter speed on the camera and took three successive shots at 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0 with it. The results showed the shots getting progressively darker.
But when I look through the ground glass in the viewfinder as I move the aperture ring from 1.4 to 2.0 I see almost no change in brightness. It's only when I take the pictures and compare them that I see the difference. Note: since the lens is in manual stop-down mode, when I adjust the aperture it actually changes it doesn't stay wide open until just before the shutter is released.
I'm wondering if this is a function of the ground glass in the viewfinder. Maybe it responds to changes in light levels logarithmically while my camera's sensor is linear?
I don't have my lightmeter with me but if I did I'd try holding it in front of the camera and taking a reading and then holding it right where my eye would go behind the viewfinder. It's a kludgy test but I'd turst it more than my eyeballing.
If this is completely wrong I'll edit out my post since the thread is already long and I don't want to fill it up with noise.
If anyone else feels like trying this with more modern lens, try setting a 1.4 lens at 1.8 or 2.0 entering DOF preview mode. The stock ground glass in my k100d offers no discernable change in brightness between these apertures
I shoot a lot with a 50/1.4 Supter Takumar m42 adapted onto my K100d. This lens can be done in either auto-stop down mode (which won't work with adapter) or manual where I close the iris myself. I locked down the shutter speed on the camera and took three successive shots at 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0 with it. The results showed the shots getting progressively darker.
But when I look through the ground glass in the viewfinder as I move the aperture ring from 1.4 to 2.0 I see almost no change in brightness. It's only when I take the pictures and compare them that I see the difference. Note: since the lens is in manual stop-down mode, when I adjust the aperture it actually changes it doesn't stay wide open until just before the shutter is released.
I'm wondering if this is a function of the ground glass in the viewfinder. Maybe it responds to changes in light levels logarithmically while my camera's sensor is linear?
I don't have my lightmeter with me but if I did I'd try holding it in front of the camera and taking a reading and then holding it right where my eye would go behind the viewfinder. It's a kludgy test but I'd turst it more than my eyeballing.
If this is completely wrong I'll edit out my post since the thread is already long and I don't want to fill it up with noise.
If anyone else feels like trying this with more modern lens, try setting a 1.4 lens at 1.8 or 2.0 entering DOF preview mode. The stock ground glass in my k100d offers no discernable change in brightness between these apertures
Barry, if you're interested in playing around with a rig for a few weeks, I'd be happy to send you a full rig/rails in flip/non-flip config with a full set of imaging elements in both the CF, and CFL range
Cheers
AHA!!! I think I am sold! ;-)
I was hoping you'd do this... I thought you would as you've shown great faith on your product and openness about it. Now that you did I am only hoping that the tests that Barry performs on the CF3Le shows linear response on par to an M2 or Letus. And that the 1080p image doesn't show too much resolution loss above and beyond other adapters, and all the other quircks and trade-offs are as small as they seem to be on the significantly compressed 720p .mov's I've seen but it seems we are soon to find out.
Barry, please test the Flip. And PLEASE do a shoot-out including LeX and others. Please compare them on all fronts, resolution, edge to edge, and all the other stuffs besides light loss. But I am 200% that your test will be twice as good as I can think of how to test adapters. Please gather a few others before testing! Definitely the top dogs, SGpro and Lex and all the others that may have advantages my humble understanding doesn't discern.
You don't understand a simple point. If your system looses as you say 0.5 at f4.0 and you open to f1.4 and still have the same result, what is the use of having a fast lens? It won't even change DOF since the GG only sees f4.0 and up.
You are provably a great engineer, but you need to know some basic laws of photo (light) to see why it helps a DP.
I don't have anything to prove , so if you think that you proved me or Barry wrong with the video. I can't speak for Barry but it just proofed that their is no benefit to using fast lenses with this particular Brevis GG.
We will just agree to disagree.
I JUST TAKE TO LONG TO WRITE
Douglas, I see your point. If the adapter makes no use of your investment on great glass that's kind of a horrible thing to have happen to you. But don't you think it may be that this adapret allows slower glass to be used instead of not giving you even greater unexpected benefits that you would expect to see on even faster glass?
Also, if it confuses the heck out of you... well this can be far worse than anything an adapter might do to your image cause if it messes at all with your schedule, or even worse with your exposure in a significant way to only find out when watching dailies... well no need to explain how bad that is. But given proper on-set monitoring, or under good lighting conditions, switching to an element that makes the Brevis behave more like a Letus and company should be the way to deal with this.
I don't know much, but I think this might be a way to give a few things up (waiting for Barry's test to find out what) in order to allow people to use slower glass and get the same speed as a fastest adapters out there when using the fastest glass available. I also think that if not already achieved to it's highest expression possible on the CF3Le, then the guys will put out that GG soon enough that will give the best the Brevis will have to offer on the opposite end of the spectrum.
While this may not make the Brevis the best picture in everyones eyes as there are some sick adapters out there producing stunning imagery that the Brevis will likely never be able to reproduce with any GG you drop it... I personally think that the Brevis may not only give me the highest ability to express myself though imagery by providing me with options as some GG's may produce different color and contrast curves when I certainly cannot afford multiple adapters like you guys... but it may also allow me to get unlimited focal lengths with a relatively small investment on 2.8f Nikon zooms... I just have to see how bad the draw backs are at 1080p.
Dan Vance
DVXUser Sponsor
Sorry if this is old info, but this thread is unwieldy...
A diffuser, such as a GG, scatters light--that's how we're able to see an image on it with the camera. But unless diffusion is 100%, some light makes it through the diffuser without being scattered. That's what creates the "hot spot" that is an image of the exit pupil when you look "through" the ground glass. (There are other reasons for the "hot spot," but for adapters, that's the main one.) With a GG, the image is a combination of diffused and direct light. Note that the image of the exit pupil is something that only exists when you look *through* a GG. It's an image that is *created* by the eye (or the imager of the camera with an adapter). Also note that the camera is focused ON the GG, which mitigates the hot spot to an extent, because the image of the exit pupil is not ON the GG, but BEHIND it (within the lens). The location of the exit pupil (lengthwise along the lens) varies with the particular lens, so the intensity of the hot spot varies accordingly. Also its appearance is also going to vary somewhat depending on the F-stop of the CAMERA's lens--the increased DOF of the camera lens at higher f-stops will increase the visibility of the hot spot. And of course the exit pupil gets smaller as you stop down on the TAKING lens.
I think the ratio of diffused to undiffused light (fineness of the GG) can explain at least part of the observation of changing f-stops seemingly without affecting light thruput.
One other thing that is getting in the way in this discussion is the misunderstanding of F#. A lens that is "F1.4" for example, does not "lose one stop." F# is the ratio of focal length to diameter--by definition. If a 50mm lens has a maximum aperture diameter of 35mm, its F# is 50/35 = F1.4. If the lens happened to be made from ND glass and only allowed 10% of light through, its F# would still be 50/35 = F1.4. Same as before. The F# gives an indication of RELATIVE light thruput, but it can't be used to claim any particular light loss. It's useful for relative measurements on the same lens at different F-stops. Other than that, it's not an absolute.
Thank you so much for pointing this out to me. I would have not thought about this if you didn't mentioned it! Thank you! I guess this is because the hot-spot would become more visible with smaller apertures on the camera itself because the image behind the pane on which which we are focused on the GG also comes into focus as the depth of focus becomes greater and then also includes the length of the "opening" though the whole barrel of the taking lens. Did I get that right?
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Davide and Dan Vance's posts above ( especially Davide's observations) I think are capturing the essense of this phenomena.
Some of you guys are right. If you work with a CF1L there is no point in spending extra money on the fastest lenses. Though a fast lens stopped down to f2.8 should perform better than a 2.8 lens wide open at least in theory.
My observations wer that even at 2.8 the Brevis was a bit afster than the others art 1.4 but I'll let you run your own tests.
Dennis, I got to admit the business of rating an adapter without a lens is just c9nfuysing to me and my brain lglasses over reading it. I'll try it again, but I'm leery of theory in general on this and just want to know waht practical tests show. I think you sghould get yourself a lightmeter even if to just understand how the rest of are measuring this.
Comparing the trade-offs of the Brevis to the other adapters should be done with care. there are a lot of variables that affect sharpness and bokeh. Use a FOCUS CHART Please and when looking at bokeh look at overexposed objects at different f stops - a lamp, a window etc, a light bulb - you will see things that could surprise you.
- Lenny
Some of you guys are right. If you work with a CF1L there is no point in spending extra money on the fastest lenses. Though a fast lens stopped down to f2.8 should perform better than a 2.8 lens wide open at least in theory.
My observations wer that even at 2.8 the Brevis was a bit afster than the others art 1.4 but I'll let you run your own tests.
Dennis, I got to admit the business of rating an adapter without a lens is just c9nfuysing to me and my brain lglasses over reading it. I'll try it again, but I'm leery of theory in general on this and just want to know waht practical tests show. I think you sghould get yourself a lightmeter even if to just understand how the rest of are measuring this.
Comparing the trade-offs of the Brevis to the other adapters should be done with care. there are a lot of variables that affect sharpness and bokeh. Use a FOCUS CHART Please and when looking at bokeh look at overexposed objects at different f stops - a lamp, a window etc, a light bulb - you will see things that could surprise you.
- Lenny
I am personally hoping that Barry will do a shoot-out instead of just testing the Brevis. Such a test before I got to purchasing my adapter would most definitely be a blessing.
The zooms I am looking at take a significant dive when stopped to 2.8... the differences between the other stops ate not as pronounced.
28-70mm http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nik...-70mm-f28-d-if-ed-review--test-report?start=1
80-200mm http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nik...ikkor-af-80-200mm-f28d-ed-review--test-report
I already can agree that a better lens will still be better one way or an other... this purchasing glass thing is as complicated as I was hoping it wouldn't be when I first set out to do it myself hehe...
The zooms I am looking at take a significant dive when stopped to 2.8... the differences between the other stops ate not as pronounced.
28-70mm http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nik...-70mm-f28-d-if-ed-review--test-report?start=1
80-200mm http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nik...ikkor-af-80-200mm-f28d-ed-review--test-report
I already can agree that a better lens will still be better one way or an other... this purchasing glass thing is as complicated as I was hoping it wouldn't be when I first set out to do it myself hehe...
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I am someone who does shotouts and tests, how much are guys going to pay Barry for his days, possibly weeks of time to do this?
I am all for finding out a lot of these answers but for all of the items you ask for Roberto, this will take Barry a considerable amount of time and effort. Luckily I have a website that pays me to do these, not my regular day rate, but if Barry is doing this for free, we should be thoughtful about bombarding him with requests unless we are willing to pay him for his valuable time.
Knowing how Barry is, he will probably do it anyway but we should not take advantage of his good will.
Dan
I am all for finding out a lot of these answers but for all of the items you ask for Roberto, this will take Barry a considerable amount of time and effort. Luckily I have a website that pays me to do these, not my regular day rate, but if Barry is doing this for free, we should be thoughtful about bombarding him with requests unless we are willing to pay him for his valuable time.
Knowing how Barry is, he will probably do it anyway but we should not take advantage of his good will.
Dan
Dennis Wood
DVXuser Sponsor
We are expanding our collection of charts etc. with a set from DSC labs...so we'll have some better numbers for you guys based on a few other important considerations shortly. Lenny, we chatted a while ago about light meters, and yes, I should have one...but given where we're going in product development, we'll never use it other than for this application.
In our field tests comparing an identical 50mm f1.4 lens on both film and the Brevis adapter throughout the aperture range, we did see a difference in DOF between f1.4 and f2.8. Being that is what many are using adapters for, the faster lens makes perfect sense...regardless of application. Certainly these lenses are highly recommending for use with our CF2/Le and CF3/Le imaging elements.
In our field tests comparing an identical 50mm f1.4 lens on both film and the Brevis adapter throughout the aperture range, we did see a difference in DOF between f1.4 and f2.8. Being that is what many are using adapters for, the faster lens makes perfect sense...regardless of application. Certainly these lenses are highly recommending for use with our CF2/Le and CF3/Le imaging elements.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Dennis, your offer is very generous and I'd love to take you up on it, but I can't do so for a while, I'm booked solid until February. I'll send a PM with an alternate idea.
US, this is the type of thing I'd like to do -- a complete adapter comparison. But as Dan points out, I do all this stuff outside of my regular jobs (usually to *avoid* doing my regular jobs, heh) so I'm not sure how extensive I could get. In comparing cameras I found that accurately testing one is rational, trying to compare two is exponentially harder, and trying to compare three is astoundingly more difficult. It's not just 3x the work, it's more like 30x the work. Keeping track of every variable and testing for all conditions... it's absolutely intimidating. And heaven forbid that you forget something, because then you invalidate your test results, so all that work for nothing...
But yes, we tried to set up an "adapter shootout" about a year ago, IIRC. And at that time, Dennis was the only manufacturer who responded saying he'd do it. Of course, a shootout of a Brevis against -- nothing else, well, that wouldn't have been much of a shootout, would it? So we didn't do it.
It is encouraging to get some progress on understanding these issues. I apologize for using words such as "impossible" before; I should have said "I cannot see how this is possible." That statement would remain true until I was enlightened, at which point we could then say "ah, so THIS is how you're doing it..." Then we can spin down a whole different path of trying to understand the implications of the chosen method.
US, this is the type of thing I'd like to do -- a complete adapter comparison. But as Dan points out, I do all this stuff outside of my regular jobs (usually to *avoid* doing my regular jobs, heh) so I'm not sure how extensive I could get. In comparing cameras I found that accurately testing one is rational, trying to compare two is exponentially harder, and trying to compare three is astoundingly more difficult. It's not just 3x the work, it's more like 30x the work. Keeping track of every variable and testing for all conditions... it's absolutely intimidating. And heaven forbid that you forget something, because then you invalidate your test results, so all that work for nothing...
But yes, we tried to set up an "adapter shootout" about a year ago, IIRC. And at that time, Dennis was the only manufacturer who responded saying he'd do it. Of course, a shootout of a Brevis against -- nothing else, well, that wouldn't have been much of a shootout, would it?
So we didn't do it.It is encouraging to get some progress on understanding these issues. I apologize for using words such as "impossible" before; I should have said "I cannot see how this is possible." That statement would remain true until I was enlightened, at which point we could then say "ah, so THIS is how you're doing it..." Then we can spin down a whole different path of trying to understand the implications of the chosen method.