Micro 35 First Test

Taylor Moore

Taylor Moore

Veteran
Click on pix for full frame.



Camera: Sony Z1 focus on camera set to minimum.
Lens: Nikon 50mm 1.4

Hi Guys,
Got my micro 35 rig kind of up and running.
On assembling the adapter to the rails, I noticed there was a serious height issue between the adapter and the camera lens with achromat lens. Contacted the Micro guys, and I guess Bogen had changed the baseplate height(thanx), so that has created some temporary issues. The Micro guys are sending me a new plate by FEDEX, should have it monday. THanx

So the above image is shot at the correct zoom length on the Z1, so in essence the correct setup, once the new baseplate arrives it will lower the camera where the GG fills the complete frame, and all should be good.

Things of note:
1. It definitly gives film depth of field.
2. Vibration of spinning GG transfers through tripod handle...feels weird.
3. Getting the correct setup can take a little work.
4. Working with an upside down image has it's challenges, and using an ICAN monitor is ok...but definitly require the expanded focus to get true sharpness in you eyepiece.
5. From the pix you can get an idea of the lightloss...to me, I can live with it.(Wrong) see following posts...
6. The Micro guys have been a big help with some of the issues I was having.

Once the baseplate comes in I will do a more formal test, but thought this would give you guys something to think about. I will also post some video once I find my damn FTP password....
 
thisiswells said:
There shouldn't be any light loss presuming the objective lens is at the same f/stop as the Leica.
Click to expand...

That is a good point, once I get my baseplate, I will do more concise tests....
based on people's input.
 
Actually, the lower part of the image that's off of the gg is brighter than the actual image coming from the 35mm lens. What you're seeing is the DCX lens spreading light and brightening 'intensifying' the image so the image captured buy the image receiption area in the M2 is the same brightness as the 35mm lens.

So don't let the image fool you. ;)



Also, and this is just a hunch, but I don't think this thread was intended to watch the G35 and the M2 boys duke it out.
 
Jonathan -

Here are the photometric tests for our adapter (excerpt from our website). I'd love to hear about the photometrics for yours:



...we hear from DP Larry McKee who had a chance to run photometrics on the adapter.

"While shooting a series of commercial spots for The Discovery Channel with the M2, I was astounded to realize that there was no light loss introduced by the adapter. The only loss was caused by the 35mm lens in front of the M2. My F1.4 lenses only added 1 F-Stop. Whatever Redrock is doing, it's simply amazing."


The technical details and setup: a Redrock M2 adapter mounted with a 75mm T1.6 (F1.4) lomo lens without the Panasonic DVX100. A gray card was set about 6 feet directly in front of the lens and lit with a 500 watt lamp set in a Mole Richardson bell light.

Using a trusty Sekonic L-507 Cine meter set to 320 ASA at 1/30th of a second (because that is how the Discovery spots were to be shot), 30fps progressive at 1/30/sec. Then a reading was taken of the gray card with the spot meter through the M2. The result was F2.8 and 1/10th.

The gray card was then read just to the side of the M2 and we got an F4 and 2/10ths. Just for grins, the meter was set back to dome and took an incident reading. It came out to F4 1/10th.


So, the conclusion is, the M2 only looses about 1 stop with an F1.4 lens as opposed to the "industry standard" adapter's 2-4 stops of loss. In other words, is not absorbing any light.
 
redrock said:
Actually, the lower part of the image that's off of the gg is brighter than the actual image coming from the 35mm lens. What you're seeing is the DCX lens spreading light and brightening 'intensifying' the image so the image captured buy the image receiption area in the M2 is the same brightness as the 35mm lens.

So don't let the image fool you. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanx for clarifying that, I will revise my first post. Bad me....
 
bvalente said:
Jonathan -

Here are the photometric tests for our adapter (excerpt from our website). I'd love to hear about the photometrics for yours:

...we hear from DP Larry McKee who had a chance to run photometrics on the adapter.

"While shooting a series of commercial spots for The Discovery Channel with the M2, I was astounded to realize that there was no light loss introduced by the adapter. The only loss was caused by the 35mm lens in front of the M2. My F1.4 lenses only added 1 F-Stop. Whatever Redrock is doing, it's simply amazing."

The technical details and setup: a Redrock M2 adapter mounted with a 75mm T1.6 (F1.4) lomo lens without the Panasonic DVX100. A gray card was set about 6 feet directly in front of the lens and lit with a 500 watt lamp set in a Mole Richardson bell light.

Using a trusty Sekonic L-507 Cine meter set to 320 ASA at 1/30th of a second (because that is how the Discovery spots were to be shot), 30fps progressive at 1/30/sec. Then a reading was taken of the gray card with the spot meter through the M2. The result was F2.8 and 1/10th.

The gray card was then read just to the side of the M2 and we got an F4 and 2/10ths. Just for grins, the meter was set back to dome and took an incident reading. It came out to F4 1/10th.

So, the conclusion is, the M2 only looses about 1 stop with an F1.4 lens as opposed to the "industry standard" adapter's 2-4 stops of loss. In other words, is not absorbing any light.
Click to expand...

Good point. My apologies.

Jonathan-
 
Regarding "no light loss" -- I haven't used an M2 or any Micro35 product yet, but I think people should be aware of something: using any of these adapters (or the mini35) WILL mean needing substantially more light.

On the mini35, it requires you to zoom in to Z99. That means a loss of 1.5 stops of light, as opposed to being wide-open.

Then there's light loss in the adapter itself. Redrock is claiming zero light loss, which would be very nice indeed.

But then there's the objective lens itself. Unless you're using F/1.0 lenses, there's going to be light loss from the lens too. If you're using a lens with a maximum iris of F/2.0, that means you're losing two more stops (in addition to the 1.5 earlier), meaning 3.5 stops of light are gone. That means you'd need 12 TIMES as much light to get the equivalent exposure that you'd get without the adapter at all.

And it may even be more, depending on how accurate that f-stop is. You may be looking at an f-stop of 2.0, but an actual light transmission of f/2.4 or something. Which means you need even more light.

I don't know what zoom setting the M2 requires; maybe it operates at a wider angle and thus loses a bit less light. I applaud Redrock for developing an adapter that loses no light, that's spectacular -- but users should keep in mind that they very process of using one of these adapters *is*, unquestionably, going to require a lot more light than just the bare DVX lens would.
 
As usual Barry, very well put.
Once I get my modified baseplate from RR, I will be providing a more comprehensive test.

Barry_Green said:
Regarding "no light loss" -- I haven't used an M2 or any Micro35 product yet, but I think people should be aware of something: using any of these adapters (or the mini35) WILL mean needing substantially more light.

On the mini35, it requires you to zoom in to Z99. That means a loss of 1.5 stops of light, as opposed to being wide-open.

Then there's light loss in the adapter itself. Redrock is claiming zero light loss, which would be very nice indeed.

But then there's the objective lens itself. Unless you're using F/1.0 lenses, there's going to be light loss from the lens too. If you're using a lens with a maximum iris of F/2.0, that means you're losing two more stops (in addition to the 1.5 earlier), meaning 3.5 stops of light are gone. That means you'd need 12 TIMES as much light to get the equivalent exposure that you'd get without the adapter at all.

And it may even be more, depending on how accurate that f-stop is. You may be looking at an f-stop of 2.0, but an actual light transmission of f/2.4 or something. Which means you need even more light.

I don't know what zoom setting the M2 requires; maybe it operates at a wider angle and thus loses a bit less light. I applaud Redrock for developing an adapter that loses no light, that's spectacular -- but users should keep in mind that they very process of using one of these adapters *is*, unquestionably, going to require a lot more light than just the bare DVX lens would.
Click to expand...
 
thisiswells said:
There shouldn't be any light loss presuming the objective lens is at the same f/stop as the Leica.
Click to expand...

Barry is right on the response.. There is a tremendous amount of light loss with most adapters, Taylor is lucky cause he is using a very fast lens for testing. Put a f3.8 on that puppy and your gonna need to lighten it up.

The only way for there to not be any light loss, is if the ground glass was in essence not a ground glass but crystal clear, and the cine-lens in front of it has an F-stop of.. well.. F0. Dont know who makes those yet but that would be very cool.

so.. Taylor, hows it feel?

Im coming to Kelowna Saturday, we should hook up so i can check it out.
 
Jarred Land said:
so.. Taylor, hows it feel?

Im coming to Kelowna Saturday, we should hook up so i can check it out.
Click to expand...

Hey J,
So it feels pretty damn good, a cross between 16 and 35 to my eye.
Once I get the new baseplate, I will do more formal tests.

For sure on the Kelowna visit, give me the details, can you bring you reflectm and ring as I would love to do some tests with that.

Do you want me to set up a meeting with Tom and Robert, as things are getting serious traction...maybe some lunch or dinner?
 
yes set up the meeting for friday, i will be there around 1pm. good to hear things are moving forward :)

Will bring the ring, but i need it back for a shoot in 2 weeks, if thats cool.
 
Good points on light loss. Clearly any setup has to consider the overall light situation, including the 35mm lens aperture/light loss as well (since there are no f0 lenses, unless you are telling me you have one Jarred, in which case I want to see it :) )

Our point is that our adapter does not *contribute any light loss*, which is a great advantage over other alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top