micro35 questions

[Ben Sliker]

maybe i sound like an idiot, but when using the micro35, (say with a zoom 35mm SLR lens), would you leave the DVX alone, or use a combination of the DVX's lens and the SLR lens to achieve the look you want?

Secondly, there has been discussion about SLR lenses and it seems the big price matter is the f-stop rating, is there any other difference worth noting between lenses, other than you have to use more light with the cheaper ones? And is there a f2.8 zoom telephoto that doesn't cost $1000? (or do you just have to deal with the 4.0 ones that are 150 bucks?)

thanks alot to whoever responds with help.

 

[Shaw]

You would use the DVX to focus on the GG and then you would leave its focus alone, focusing with the SLR lens. You can control the amount of light getting into the camera with either the DLR or DVX iris (or both).

Generally the more expensive lenses also tend to be sharper and have a higher contrast as well as being faster. You get what you pay for. My father recently purchased a constant aperture f2.8 70-200mm zoom and it cost him about 2300 USD (and it kicks royal ass). Like I said, you get what you pay for

 

[Policar]

You can adjust exposure using either lens, but the only one that affects the depth of focus is the SLR lens. Think of the dvx's lens (the "relay" lens) as an infinitely adjustable neutral density filter, almost. It serves a similar purpose. Unfortunately, you can't adjust the SLR lens past f4 (you can go down to f5.6 maybe, but that's pushing it) because grain will become a huge, huge issue.

There are other things which matter: the quality of the lens, the smoothness of the focus (old manual focus lenses are best, actually), and such things as "tilt/shift" lenses and defocus control lenses. But, honestly, the f stop is most important, assuming it's a decent lens. You probably don't want that big telephoto zoom. You'll need a bigger tripod and a nice big rail mount system. Opt for a 85mm, 135mm and 200mm set of lenses, and you'll save money and have lighter lenses.

Also, the f-stop and t-stop may vary, meaning that zoom lenses often let in less light (although that $1000 one is so high quality it may not be an issue). Primes are usually "faster" than zooms even at the same f-stop because zooms have more optical elements.

To be honest, f2.8 at 200mm is incredibly hard to use. But f4 may cause some grain. The answer to your question is: it's a pain and no one has tested the micro35 enough at f4 (which may really be more like t5.6!) to know for sure. Or if they have, they haven't shared their results.

(f-stop is the physical ratio, t-stop is the effective amount of light let through, or what the f-stop would be if the glass were perfectly transmissive. Basically, lenses aren't perfect and f-stops don't account for this, t-stops do.)

 

[Policar]

Contrast may vary-that's another good point.

Then again, with video, sometimes you don't want so much contrast. It lowers dynamic range. The 70-200mm lenses (both Nikon and Canon) can be found used for 650-700 or so and they are truly amazing. If you can afford it....well....you'll probably love it.

 

[Ben Sliker]

thanks alot guys, I know a lot about lenses and such, just didn't quite grasp the concept of how the Micro35 worked (that is until i extensively searched their sight and found the DVX to basically be a relay). I think the best thing for me to do is try to scam some used Nikkor primes ... which will be way less expensive than a zoom.

Too bad my anamorphic adapter becomes useless if i get a Micro 35. (I own a 100 ... so no squeeze mode) Looks like post matte for me.

Have to get my hands back on a manual focus Nikon camera but what size lens do you think i would want for a nice rack focus (like anywhere from 2-3 ft to 2-20 ft?)