p + s technic mini 35 on HVX

H

hopalongmedia

Member
So I'm thinking of using the mini 35 adapter from pstechnic on the HVX. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so I've got a few nice lenses for that.

Anyone have any thoughts about using the oscilating adapter with nikkor lenses on the HVX? What kind of issues might I not be forseeing. Loss of clarity? Vignetting? I'm just wondering because I think it could be a pretty cool setup.

Thanks

Dave
 
If you can deal with the 82mm lens via an adaptor there should be no reason for the HVX not to create a fine picture. Of course, the HVX is not out yet so, wait! I'm personally thinking of the G35 static adptor with the HVX. with nikkor lenses. That will run around $1000 vs $6,000 for the mini 35.
 
The only thing *I think* you may be overlooking is the price. I will elaborate. HVX200 with 2 8GB P2 cards will be 10 Grand. The Mini35 is is $7455 + $2500 for a "camera adapter kit" which is necessary. .... it quickly escalates into a $25K camera package which is more than many/most realize. Adapters do soften the picture a bit, of course. While it's definitely a cool idea, it's more often considered a rental item rather than a purchase item.. at least in my little club.
 
The mini35 is an $11,000 prospect, once you get all the necessary components. An HVX/mini35 combo would start at $17,000 and go up from there. Hence rental... (and also the impetus behind sub-$1000 products coming to market, like the G35 and Micro35).
 
thanks...

thanks...

Thanks for the input. Yeah, after sitting and doing the math I realized I was coming up on the SDX 900 price.

I didn't realize there was a cheaper adapter alternative. I will have to check it out.

So just out of curiosity, what would happen if I put a Nikkor 80-200mm zoom lens on the HVX. I know the HVX is supposed to have like a 12x zoom (or is it 14?) how do you approach the math on this.

thanks a bunch

dave
 
The HVX has a 13x zoom. What do you mean by putting a Nikkor 80-200m on it? Do you mean adding it through the use of a mini35, or do you mean "hacksawing" the lens off the HVX and custom-mounting the 80-200m zoom onto it (for reference, see http://www.eidomedia.com/hdve/index.php).

If you mean the hacksawing variation, you would effectively end up with a camera with such a telephoto effect that it would result in a practically useless zoom range. 80mm on a 1/3" chip is about equivalent to 600mm on a 35mm camera. So you'd have the equivalent of 600-1500mm. Not too useful in general purposes.

But if you meant attaching it through the use of a mini35 (or micro35 or G35), well, then you'd be talking about the same zoom range as on a 35mm camera (i.e., 80mm-200mm). Still quite telephoto, and with a very, very, very shallow DOF, but it might look great...
 
The "zoom numbers" for video equipment are generated this way: lens on a DVX100a is 4.5mm - 45mm, hence a "10x" zoom. The HVX200 is a 13X zoom with the wide end of the lens also at 4.5mm, so 13x4.5 would come to 58.5mm on the telephoto end. This is also protocol for broadcast television lenses which refer to the HVX200 lens as simply, "13x4.5" instead of 13x. The reason is to convey accurately the focal lengths of the lens without any waffling, so to speak. In photographic terms, the HVX200 would be, "4.5-58.5mm."

When Barry says an 80mm lens on a video camera with a 1/3" (8mm film) size imager would be "like a 600mm lens on a stills camera" is referring to the equivalent "angle of view." There are very good descriptions helpful in forming an understanding, if you aren't already aware, of what exactly "angle of view" means in reference to lenses and imagers here.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a motion picture 35mm frame is roughly half the size of a stills 35mm frame because the film is run through the camera vertically on a motion picture camera vs. horizontally on a stills camera. I say, "roughly" because it varies, depending on which of the 35mm camera formats (4-perf, 3-perf, anamorphic, super35, 2-perf....) used for cinematography or the more standardized projection format with soundtrack space. The lens adapters typically use a Super35mm sized frame in 4:3 or the equivalent of a 1.78 matted S35 frame in 16:9. In any case, the angular field of view is cut in half for a Mini35 adapter vs. the same lens on a stills camera...

... Which roughly means there is about a 1.5 "crop factor" much in the same way using a D-SLR introduces a "crop factor" when using a 35mm lens. I truly hopes this forms a path for understanding and doesn't confuse things further.

best-
Brian
 
Barry_Green said:
(for reference, see http://www.eidomedia.com/hdve/index.php.
Click to expand...

That one was new to me.
Could we talk about this real quick? :laugh: :engel017:

I couldn't find a page that tells me, what they did and
how. Did they actually saw the original lense off?
Isn't there a lot of electronic stuff connected from
lense to camera, i.e. AF, Shutter-stuff, etc?

In comparison, the original Sony lense (Zeiss) sucks quite a bit.
So this looks like an interesting option, probably to any camcorder(?)
Has noone else ever done this?

regards,
Oli
 
If I can profane this serious subject, I just can't not think of the captions I would put onto those open surgery pics . . . . like . . .

"ok just hold the panic face off for a minute and try and smile for this pic then we'll figre out where that bit goes back on, damn I knew we should have never started this extreme makeover!"
 
videoteque73 said:
If you want to experiment with lenses, it doesn't make more sense to start with an XL2 or HD100???
Click to expand...
Where's the challenge in that? :)

Seriously, some people like to do it themselves, for one thing -- when they first did this, there were so many people screeching at them saying "how dare you do that to this camera", etc. This was pretty much right when the FX1 first came out, and I guess there were some wannabe purchasers who were bemoaning the idea that they couldn't get their hands on one, yet these Italian gents had sacrificed one...

... of course, that was before they saw the results...

And, to your second point, this was long before the HD100 had even been announced, IIRC. So the only way to get a 1/3" HD camera with an alternate lens was to employ a hacksaw... :evil:
 
Thanks Thanks..

Thanks Thanks..

Hey Brian, Thanks so much for the lens info. It's hugely helpful. I started with the DSLR so I could develop an understanding of lenses. I'm psyched about the idea of using my Nikon lenses on the HVX because there's no way I'd be able to afford real cinematography lenses.

The JVC camera bums me out cause it's HDV. It looks sexy, but I do alot of post and GFX stuff so The compression freaks me out.

I'm not sure I understand the horizontal to vertical thing. But your saying that the focal length ratio is the same conversion as for a DSLR? Is this because the 1/3" chip is farther back in the video camera? Hope these aren't stupid questions. I'm just trying to understand the relationships.

Thanks again.

This info is great.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top