Guerilla35 Commercial...

you sure? it seems too expensive. micro35 will be selling around $850, comes with the rails and is not static.
 
Not expensive when the next option up is the P+S Technik Mini35 adaptor, which retails for about 10,000 dollars. Seems like a pretty good deal when you compare it to that.
 
gumonstro said:
you sure? it seems too expensive. micro35 will be selling around $850, comes with the rails and is not static.
Click to expand...

Some consider static solution superior to moving one. I would surely pay $999 for a properly built static solution that doesn't require rails... I am wanting to use this system on my steadicam rig (glidecam 4000 - kind) that is why it is important to me that it functions without rail support.
 
can you use faster shutter speeds with a non-static adapter? i built my own using a cd player motor and a blank cd, and with the faster shutter speeds it just froze the grain on the image.
 
You can use faster shutter speeds. You can't stop down past f2.8 without a bit of grain showing up (though apparently f5.6 is possible in some cases with only minor grain.)
 
Brody you're a bot.... and very negitive, it appears... This adapter should cost, with
materials and light weight construction, $200.00 dollars, at best. I'll probably buy it,but,
it is for sure a gouge of greed. :thumbsup:
 
Agreed, but they're using good quality components from what I hear. Boss screens cost like 200, century optics achromats cost 300 or so, plus mounts are sold at rip off prices, plus some machining shop is probably ripping them off to make these things. Chances are they're not paying this much, but I doubt the things are cheap to make. A slightly cheaper one probably would cost half as much, and I bet the difference in quality would be nominal, but who knows. Factoring in R+D, $999's a rip off, but an understandable one. It's not wholly unfair, just minor price gouging.
 
How can you say that without having ever seen it, or knowing what type of materials are used in its construction?

From my brief time with it I was *amazed* that the footage was as grainless as it was. I've seen footage from several "do it yourself" static adapters, and every one of them has always had perma-grain all over it. The G35 doesn't. Seems like they may be using some very expensive, very high-quality components in there.

(EDIT: looks like Policar beat me to it...)
 
What's cheap? Do you know what components they're using? I mean, you can get a close-up diopter lens off ebay for $10, or you can get a Century Precision Optics Achromatic Diopter for $400. There's a huge, huge difference in performance.

Let me rephrase it: it would be possible to build a static adapter out of cheap junk parts, yes. However, I don't believe that's what the G35 guys are doing, I think they're probably using high quality parts, and as such, those cost more.

You know the old adage: premium oats are expensive. If you want oats that have already been through the horse, well, those are cheaper.
 
So Barry, if I could make the same static adapter for right around 110 bucks, same image quality,
possibly less weight, would you say it was cheaper? I'm confused... Aren't you endorsing this product?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top