I've been looking all over the net for the recommended Metabones EF to NEX adaptor without success. Looking on ebay I obviously found the good old dumb adapters, which have no use if you can't control your aperture. That being said, why not simply use one with an aperture ring integrated? I sure wouldn't mind settings up my aperture right on the adapter, I actually prefer lenses with aperture control. Am I missing something here? Does it not produce the same effect? Is the quality lowered? Or is it just a question of people wanting to control Iris with the camera instead of manually? Sorry for being the dumb one!
EF to NEX Dumb Adapters - Or Maybe I'm the Dumb One?
- Thread starter AlexBlais
- Start date
eheath
Well-known member
the EF dumb adapters that have "aperture control" actually just have a second aperture like device built in and its crap. It vignettes, it dones't really work that well. That is why people are buying the metabones adapter because it controls the aperture in the lens. Canon lens apertures can only be control by electronics, not manually like nikon lenses.
Chad Nikolaus
Active member
I take it that means if you want to go with Nikon lenses, pretty much any adapter would still allow you to control the aperture on the lens and it would work well?
eheath
Well-known member
As long as it's a nikon "G" adapter, it will adjust the aperture. I recommend the novoflex nikon adapter.
SergeSmArt
Well-known member
I have all adapters for Canon EF to NEX ...
Dumb one - >
Than I've got Kipon-adapter with build-in-aperture:
THIS ADAPTER WORK VERY GOOD!!! BUT ONLY WITH LENSES WITH MAXIMUM APERTURE F 1.2, F1.4, F1.8 ..!!! ( and maybe with F 2. but I don't test it ) IT DO NOT WORK WELL WITH LENSES F 2.8 !!!
I use it only with my Sigma 50mm F1.4 Lens ...
Than.. I've got METABONES adapter..
and it work well .. ..but .. I found that I don't actually want to make aperture less than F2.8.. and even need F1.4-1.8 lenses!! ..
So .. I sold my Canon 16-35 and 70-200/2.8 lenses ... Now only 24-70L left..
... and to keep $400 adapter for this seems useless, so I sold this Metabones here... ..and I've got Sony LA_EA2_adapter -->
To use it with autofocusing Sony-A lenses .. ... But only in situations when I don't need anything exept F3.5 but need autofocus
Not sure that I need it ..as I've got 50mm F1.8 Sony lens.. and it's work fine !
For WIDE -ANGLE I need to get ROKINON 24mm F1.4 lens or 35mm F1.4 lens ... and they don't need any adapter, exept the DUMB ONE !!
So.. ? WHAT DO I NEED ALL OF THAT $$$ ADAPTERS FOR ?? :huh:
:cheesy:
Last edited:
Serge, not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying you dont like to use your lenses wide open? Hence you just kept your favorite zoom and sold all the other lenses? And you feel you don't need the adaptors?
But then, say you set your Canon L zoom to 4.0 and mount it to your fs100 with a cheap dumb adapter, how are you correctly exposing your shot without iris control? Gain suffices? Or you compensate with shutter?
Just sounds like you would be limited and lack control on your image. No?
But then, say you set your Canon L zoom to 4.0 and mount it to your fs100 with a cheap dumb adapter, how are you correctly exposing your shot without iris control? Gain suffices? Or you compensate with shutter?
Just sounds like you would be limited and lack control on your image. No?
Andrew Luczenczyn
Active member
I'm using all manual nikons with aperture rings on them with the novoflex.
For dramatic shoots I use the f/ numbers and a light meter
For eng I lock the rings and use the novoflex rings and the histogram for smooth aperture pulls.
For dramatic shoots I use the f/ numbers and a light meter
For eng I lock the rings and use the novoflex rings and the histogram for smooth aperture pulls.
SergeSmArt
Well-known member
NO!!! ..You've got me wrong..!!
Completely opposite: What I'm triyng to say: I WANT TO USE ANY LENS ONLY WIDE OPEN !! - to get VERY NARROW DOF !! and I'm not intend to set my lenses even to F 2.8..
.... what I want is - Rokinon 24mm F1.4 I don't need to use aperture to control the exposure - I have set of NiSi Fader ND 2-400 filters:
..they are VERY GOOD and I like to use them, instead of aperture and shutter speed..
So.. if I need something simple, with autofocus - I have Kit Lens and 50mm F1.8 ( and maybe later - some other E-mount lenses )
When I need better quality and narrow DOF - I will use my Sigma and Rokinon lenses with F1.4 aperture... it's 24mm 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm and all of them work with my dumb adapter..!!!
This is WHY I sold my Metabones and my F2.8 lenses.. and ORDER SONY FS-700!!!
We talk a lot about "film-look-like".. but how we able to get is without chances to SET as much DOF as needed?? -->
..so .. ??
Gabel
Well-known member
Filmlike does not come from shallow DoF... Real productions usually want to have aperture stops of 4-5.6, with 2.8 often being the maximum they use. Then lenses are sharper and you get more depth to keep people in focus, instead of getting "nose-focus". And using Fader ND instead of the aperture is not a great solution, as they introduce color casts and other effects...
frankkinen
Member
I disagree about problems with Fader NDs. Sure they MIGHT give you trouble on SOME shots(bright lightsources pointed straight un lens etc), but like with everything you learn how to work it pretty fast. For documentary work my experiences are positive with fader NDs.
legrevedotcom
Veteran
OFFTOPIC:
I hope this doesn't get me fined for being personal... but... Serge, I want to offer you some advice: Your posts are really really annoying to read. Your excessive use of exclamation marks, font size and colors, makes me skip every single post you write. I'm saying this because I think you actually have some useful info here and there, but it gets lost in bad typing. I'm not talking about your english capabilities, but the way you format the text.
Last time I wrote like that myself I was 17 and flaming someone on Counterstrike...
Sorry, didn't mean to be personal, but in a forum where text is the way of communication it has to be "readable"....
ONTOPIC:
I had the Kipon myself sold it instantly after one test due to the already mentioned vignetting.
If I'm using Canons I'll go by the dumb adapter and set for F 3.5 or 4. Canons rarely are truely sharp wide open. It's a tradeoff... and quality comes at a price.
I guess it all boils down to what you are doing 95% of the time. If you're doing short films or the likes then you proabably have a little time to put your canon lens on a canon camera and stop it down and lock it there.
If you're doing run & gun I would never get caught with an adapted lens... too much hazzle. Then the current Sony lenses would be fine.
For music videos, I guess a mix since you'll have some shots that are more or less stationary and some that are tracking shots.
And... then again... if you're doing productions where there's enough money or goodwill to bring about an assistant then why bother with adapters, you have someone to pull your focus.
I was on a short film shoot where everyone was there for free.... litterally, including the DP and the assistant. It was a welcome addition to have someone pull focus, then you don't have to worry about aperture, you just keep the mark.
Ofcourse it's harder when the camera is moving, but definitely possible... (PROPS TO JEFF DOBSON! I know you're lurking in here
)
And since you have a focus pull... Arri master primes are sexy
I hope this doesn't get me fined for being personal... but... Serge, I want to offer you some advice: Your posts are really really annoying to read. Your excessive use of exclamation marks, font size and colors, makes me skip every single post you write. I'm saying this because I think you actually have some useful info here and there, but it gets lost in bad typing. I'm not talking about your english capabilities, but the way you format the text.
Last time I wrote like that myself I was 17 and flaming someone on Counterstrike...
Sorry, didn't mean to be personal, but in a forum where text is the way of communication it has to be "readable"....
ONTOPIC:
I had the Kipon myself sold it instantly after one test due to the already mentioned vignetting.
If I'm using Canons I'll go by the dumb adapter and set for F 3.5 or 4. Canons rarely are truely sharp wide open. It's a tradeoff... and quality comes at a price.
I guess it all boils down to what you are doing 95% of the time. If you're doing short films or the likes then you proabably have a little time to put your canon lens on a canon camera and stop it down and lock it there.
If you're doing run & gun I would never get caught with an adapted lens... too much hazzle. Then the current Sony lenses would be fine.
For music videos, I guess a mix since you'll have some shots that are more or less stationary and some that are tracking shots.
And... then again... if you're doing productions where there's enough money or goodwill to bring about an assistant then why bother with adapters, you have someone to pull your focus.
I was on a short film shoot where everyone was there for free.... litterally, including the DP and the assistant. It was a welcome addition to have someone pull focus, then you don't have to worry about aperture, you just keep the mark.
Ofcourse it's harder when the camera is moving, but definitely possible... (PROPS TO JEFF DOBSON! I know you're lurking in here
)And since you have a focus pull... Arri master primes are sexy
Last edited:
Gabel
Well-known member
Fader NDs do have their place (especially for documentaries), but the way Serge is using them is bad. Leaving a lens wide-open and using a Fader ND instead of the aperture is not good. With heavy ND filtration you start to get a lot of issues with the image, the largest being color, that's why with more than three stops you need an IR filter not to get color casts, plus he will always get a pola effect (which looks rather bad on wide-angles) and long lenses have a lot of issues with Fader NDs. While you can use them, their not a replacement for aperture. And to use them to be able to have a super large aperture for film look makes me sick. Real films rarely (if ever) use an aperture above 2.8 (and if so, only during night scenes) as anything below that gives actors almost no room to play on and is hell on your AC. Plus it makes everything very soft. As I said, try shooting at F4-5.6 and you'll see you still have the film look, together with much higher performances from lenses and more depth of field for the actors to play on. It still won't look video, as it will still be shallow when going from a 50mm and up. Real film look is not about shallow DoF, it comes from good lighting, blocking and camera movement, together with good production design, make-up and costumes.
SergeSmArt
Well-known member
Are you sure you know HOW I gonna use them ?? .. Don't you READ what I say really ? Don't you notice that Rokinon lenses have an aperture?
I says: "We talk a lot about "film-look-like".. but how we able to get is without chances to SET as much DOF as needed?? " - I says: as much as NEEDED !
Don't you see the difference between DOF on 5D-II sensor and Sony Super-35 format sensor?
...did you actually SHOOT on Sony FS-100 ...even ONCE ??
WTF you are talking about ? ..when your OWN sample show the opposite?? !!!->
Please.... do not "teach" me about .... "good lighting, blocking and camera movement, together with good production design, make-up and costumes.... "
Last edited:
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I like the skin tones on "Screenshot_20.jpg" (first side of this tread).
What PP are you using there?
Frank
What PP are you using there?
Frank
SergeSmArt
Well-known member
Hi, Frank! Mostly I use two PP -
# 1 - ( PP-1 AB_RANGE )
Black Level: 0
Gamma: CinemaTone1
Black Gamma: Range = High / Level = +7
Knee: Point = 102.5% / Slope = -1
Color Mode: Type = Standard / Level =8
Color Level: -3
Color Phase: +1
Color Depth: R=-2, G=-6, B=-7, C=0, M=+2, Y=+5
WB Shift = All 0
Detail = Level = -3 / Manual Set = Off
--------------------------
and Alexander Oleinik PP ->
( PP-3 ( Alex Oleynik ) АC-LOG )
Black Level: +12
Gamma: ITU709
Black Gamma: Middle +7
Knee: Point = 80%, Slope =0
Color Mode: Type = - PRO, Level 8
Color Level: 0
Color Phase: 0
Color Depth: All 0
WB Shift = 0
Detail=0
-----------------
But tint depends of WB settings .. to make it less "cold" color tint I use WB card "Warm-1" or "Warm-2" in some situation.. instead of just "White" card ..
..Also.. Alexander Oleinik make some interesting way to work with DR of FS-100... he found the way to fix overexposed highlithgs in post production.. I have detailed instruction of it.. but need to translate it from Russian to English ..
It's not easy for me, sorry
Last edited:
Gabel
Well-known member
Are you sure you know HOW I gonna use them ?? .. Don't you READ what I say really ? Don't you notice that Rokinon lenses have an aperture?
I says: "We talk a lot about "film-look-like".. but how we able to get is without chances to SET as much DOF as needed?? " - I says: as much as NEEDED !
Don't you see the difference between DOF on 5D-II sensor and Sony Super-35 format sensor?
...did you actually SHOOT on Sony FS-100 ...even ONCE ??
WTF you are talking about ? ..when your OWN sample show the opposite?? !!!->
Please.... do not "teach" me about .... "good lighting, blocking and camera movement, together with good production design, make-up and costumes.... "
Serge, I didn't mean to offend you. That I apologize for.
First things first. A member above me said that the way you're writing is very annoying. With the chaining sizes in text, lots of bold and some letters being big makes it very hard to read.
The reason I'm mentioning it is because that caused me to misunderstand something. I thought that what you did is to set all your lenses wide-open and then use a Fader ND instead of the aperture to stop down. I use NDs when outside to control the camera too. I don't want to drop below 8, to avoid diffractions, so usually stick an ND9 or 1.2 depending on the weather.
Again, DoF does not set the film look. Our large sensor cameras (by that I mean larger than old video cameras) gives us shallower DoF by nature. This is why when we see a dialogue there will be nice separation from the background and is only natural. That creates depth and space. What I dislike is people shooting wide open on a 5D so that the nose goes out of focus during a mid-shot.
I have shot multiple times on the FS100, very nice camera. Often rent it for interviews and used it once for greenscreen. Works well.
Those two shots were done with a Panasonic GH2, which has a smaller sensor than the FS100 and as such less shallow DoF. The first one is of course shallower, because that is how DoF works: The closer the subject to the lens, the shorter the depth of field. In this case the lens was a 50 and as it was dark, I had to shoot at a 2.8, higher than I usually like. It was before I found out that the GH2s native ISO was 640, had I known that I wouldn't have had to drop below 4 at all.
I'm not going to do Citizen Kane (by that I mean complete depth of field), what I just mean is that going to 4-5.6 is usually what you want and believing that a large aperture and shallow DoF is all that creates a filmlook is wrong. It was much more a general rant against trends (where 5D users are the worst). I stand by my last point too. To get videos to look like film it's much less about the bokeh one gets at 1.4 and much more about contrast ratios, how to diffuse lights, where to put dolly and so on.