Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
hi,
How many f/stops are "lost" in the process when using the mini35 ?
thanks
How many f/stops are "lost" in the process when using the mini35 ?
thanks
Question to mini35 users
- Thread starter Antoine_Fabi
- Start date
Z
Zoomforce
Guest
Re: Question to mini35 users
We found about the same, 2-3 stops.
We found about the same, 2-3 stops.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Re: Question to mini35 users
thanks for the info
thanks for the info
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Question to mini35 users
It depends on what you mean by "lost". The thing is, the mini35 requires you to use maximum telephoto (Z99), and when you zoom in to Z99, you're already "losing" 1.5 stops (because the maximum aperture at wide-angle is f/1.6, but at full telephoto it's f/2.8). But you'd lose that anyway if you were shooting full telephoto without the mini35, so is it really "lost"? Depends on what you would have been shooting.
Then the next thing to consider is how fast the lens you're attaching to the camera is. If you're using an f/1.0 lens, no additional light would be lost there, but if you're using an f/1.8 lens, that's another 1.5 stops "gone". If your lens is f/2.8, that's another 1.5 stops. So how fast your lens is determines how much you "lose".
Finally, there's the process with the ground glass itself, which results in some light loss, and this is the only loss you can truly attribute directly to the mini35.
What I found when using the mini35, vs. the anamorphic, is that I needed about 4 stops more light. Factoring in the 1.5 from zooming in, and the f/2.4 lens I was using, I'd say that the mini35 ground glass itself costs about 1 stop. The rest is determined by how you use it, or how you would have used the camera without it. It's safe to say you're going to need probably 3 to 4 stops more light when shooting with the mini35, when all factors are considered.
It depends on what you mean by "lost". The thing is, the mini35 requires you to use maximum telephoto (Z99), and when you zoom in to Z99, you're already "losing" 1.5 stops (because the maximum aperture at wide-angle is f/1.6, but at full telephoto it's f/2.8). But you'd lose that anyway if you were shooting full telephoto without the mini35, so is it really "lost"? Depends on what you would have been shooting.
Then the next thing to consider is how fast the lens you're attaching to the camera is. If you're using an f/1.0 lens, no additional light would be lost there, but if you're using an f/1.8 lens, that's another 1.5 stops "gone". If your lens is f/2.8, that's another 1.5 stops. So how fast your lens is determines how much you "lose".
Finally, there's the process with the ground glass itself, which results in some light loss, and this is the only loss you can truly attribute directly to the mini35.
What I found when using the mini35, vs. the anamorphic, is that I needed about 4 stops more light. Factoring in the 1.5 from zooming in, and the f/2.4 lens I was using, I'd say that the mini35 ground glass itself costs about 1 stop. The rest is determined by how you use it, or how you would have used the camera without it. It's safe to say you're going to need probably 3 to 4 stops more light when shooting with the mini35, when all factors are considered.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Re: Question to mini35 users
ooops...
that's a lot of light...
If the XL2 proofs itself to be good, then it could become a vicious combo. easy to use...dont you think ?
what would be the "ready to use" total cost ?
ooops...
that's a lot of light...
If the XL2 proofs itself to be good, then it could become a vicious combo. easy to use...dont you think ?
what would be the "ready to use" total cost ?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Question to mini35 users
The XL2 with mini35 seems (operative word, "seems") to be an ideal combination. It wouldn't have to zoom in like the DVX does, so it'll be at least 1.5 stops more light sensitive. Also, with the in-camera 16:9, you could actually get anamorphic footage with it. That's not really possible with the DVX, you either have to use squeeze mode and lose resolution, or you try to use the panasonic anamorphic adapter, but with the astigmatism it would probably be accentuated by the longer focal lengths used with the mini35, and would probably prove impractical.
Total setup is going to be around $14,000 for an XL2/mini35 combo.
The XL2 with mini35 seems (operative word, "seems") to be an ideal combination. It wouldn't have to zoom in like the DVX does, so it'll be at least 1.5 stops more light sensitive. Also, with the in-camera 16:9, you could actually get anamorphic footage with it. That's not really possible with the DVX, you either have to use squeeze mode and lose resolution, or you try to use the panasonic anamorphic adapter, but with the astigmatism it would probably be accentuated by the longer focal lengths used with the mini35, and would probably prove impractical.
Total setup is going to be around $14,000 for an XL2/mini35 combo.