Guerilla35 vs. Micro35

S

scenedirector

Well-known member
I know these are two VERY NEW products.
One is still in beta testing and the other one is just now getting off the production line, but what are the advantages, disadvantages and differences between these to great products?

I love the fact we aren't just subjected to P+S Technik's astronomically priced rig. Competition is GOOD!
 
i believe barry green will be doing a comparision soon including the mini 35. im sure hell post the results here as soon as they are available.. it will likely be a while yet.
 
I can't wait to get a review about these products. I've been a big supporter of the micro35, but the g35 seems to deliver more of a professional look.

From the footage that has been released from both, the micro35 has a distinct look, although there is no vignetting, the footage is slightly softened and seems to be a higher contrast in bright and dark spots. It reminded me a lot of 8mm footage. Which could be used for lots of archive-looking footage and stuff.

I may end up just buying both for different needs. The g35 seems to have the upper advantage on quality, because it doesn't actually pass through ground glass. But what it will come down to is how much you are willing to spend for high quality results...
 
While the Guerilla35 does not use actual ground glass, it still uses an itnermediate screen which might as well be ground glass.. It's probably more like ground plastic or plastic with wax coating, etc. The only way these adapters work is to have some sort of intermediate screen. One way to think of it is a SLR still camera. They all have focusing screens a.k.a. intermediate screens a.k.a. ground glass regardless if it is actual glass or not for the viewfinder assembly. To get an idea of how these products kind of sort of work in the most rudimentary form, take a good look at a SLR viewfinder; it's pretty much the exact same principal. Though, the larger viewfinders made for video cameras (G35, Micro35) lack the roof pentaprism required to "flip" the image like the SLR viewfinder has. A roof penta that large would cost about $5400 each (I actually looked into this at one point and that is the quote I recv'd) Hope this helps.
 
The main difference appears to be that the G35 is a "static" solution, and the Micro35 is a "spinning" type. The mini35 is also a spinning type. The spinning ground glass is designed to minimize/eliminate the grain pattern of the ground glass -- for example, when shooting with the mini35, there's a switch to turn on the spinning (or oscillating) motor. If you have the switch "off", so that the ground glass is stationary, then depending on your f-stop it's possible to see the grain pattern on your shot. You have to turn the motor on to spin or oscillate the ground glass and make the pattern invisible.

Other "static" solutions discussed on DVInfo.net have displayed a fixed grain pattern, which made them inferior in quality to the spinning type. The G35, however, seems to have somehow eliminated the visibility of the pattern inherently! As such, it doesn't need (or use) a motor, which means it can be smaller and quieter. You can still cause the pattern to show up if you "stop down" the 35mm lens, so as a practical matter, you don't stop down the lens -- you leave it wide-open, and instead use the camera's iris to control exposure.

I can't say whether the G35's image is sharper or softer, more filmlike or less filmlike, or better or worse, than the mini35 or Micro35, without shooting them side-by-side (something I plan on doing when all three products are on the market). I am quite impressed by the image quality possible from the G35. The image quality possible from the mini35 is addicting. I expect that the Micro35 will be competitive as well, but as of yet I have no direct experience with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top