Stopping down slightly for shaper images

[cardmaverick]

Were talking about sharpness here. If you want really sharp images via an adapter, you need to have a MUCH larger lighting package, generally speaking. Shooting wide open creates a soft image because of longitudinal CA at those apertures.

 

[Kholi]

Were talking about sharpness here. If you want really sharp images via an adapter, you need to have a MUCH larger lighting package, generally speaking. Shooting wide open creates a soft image because of longitudinal CA at those apertures.

That's pretty much it. Thankfully the better cameras get in lowlight situations and the better adapters are at light efficiency translates to a smaller camera package. It was pretty cool, this weekend, comparing the light efficiency of the 200A and Ultimate directly to the RED ONE in a properly lit situation. I've always said that the RED was pretty fast, the 200A and Ultimate setup matches the RED for speed as well @ 320ISO.

Ideally, though, indoors you're going to have to light in a way that allows you to stop both camera and lens down to a sharper point. It's all about optimizing the image when possible.

 

[arno]

I'm gonna have a set next week and planning to just do a comparison of my own in aesthetic regards against a set of Zeiss standard speeds and Zeiss Contax.

I suspect that they wont be as sharp but "different". They also have a reputation of warming the image up noticably.

Hello Kholi,

I'm curious about the tests.
You know about the new Zeiss Contax Lex mount?
It's the same mount as the improved Nikon.

Arno

 

[Kholi]

I'm going to assume that it's the same quality as the Imrpoved Nikon and Canon mount. Guess I'll know this week! Won't be able to put my hands on some Lomos til later though.

I think it'll be the first time I make an attempt at shooting "charts" but it won't be extensive. Just want to see how the sharpness of the three compare. For anything more extensive I'll have to bow out to Leni who's got WAY more patience with that stuff than I could ever hope to have.

I'll post up the charts and some field stills from all three in the Ultimate thread as soon as I get the chance.

 

[Dennis Wood]

The adapter plays a very large role in terms of edge to edge, and what apertures work. Our light loss clip shows that you can stop the 35mm lens down 4 stops and only see 1 stop total loss to the camera with CF1 or CF1Le. In other words, don't assume that 35mm adapters are created equally because clearly they're not. Leni's charts demonstrate that quite well. Testing with charts is incredibly time consuming but we feel the only way to give test results that can be compared properly to other systems. Our considerable investment in this department was made specifically because it's impossible to test, quantify or improve anything without solid data using professional tools. To my knowledge, we're the only company actually publishing our results.

I witnessed a professional AC spend 3 full days last week with his own test set of charts to ensure focus marks, collimation and aperture settings were appropriate...and the results speak for themselves. For Scott, showing up on set not knowing exactly what each lens could and couldn't do was simpy unaccepatable. To identify a .125mm collimation difference in one lens, and then actually adjust for it on set is something I've never seen before. The LOMO 50 and 80mm we have are sharp, but not nearly as sharp as the Nikon f2.8d series lenses. That said, the DP for the Undertow shoot we're co-producing has mounted up the Nikon 17-35mm as an option for the tight shots, and then removed it based on multiple converging opinions, to use the 28mm Lomo. They Lomo look has a very warm, organic vibe and with very little breathing.

I could kick myself for sorting the OCT19 mount 2 years ago for our adapter...the good glass is very hard to find these days.