Which has a better image: DSLR or Adaptors?
- Thread starter kodjo
- Start date
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I had almost no interest in 35mm to DVX100 adapters, and by extension, any other fixed lens camera. I was reminded of using add on 'dopter' lenses, because one didn't have the money for lens X. If it was absolutely necessary and one didn't have the money, one did what one had to...
Since I have no problem with 'deep focus', using the 35mm adapter really had no value to me.
When the 2 DLSR that were in my price range came out, I chose the GH-1, and bought an adapter to use with my Nikon lenses.
In consistent you say? Not really. The 35mm adapter for the fixed lens camera puts more glass in the optical path, and due to how the image is formed, there is an almost necessary 'degradation', ranging from higher effective f-stop, to resolution loss.
In the case of the Nikon mount adapter, nothing is added to the optical path, although for some manufacturers there could be alignment issues, or manufacturing quality which would cause problems. But that 'loss' I think is far less than putting more glass in front of an existing design.
What's more, the lens mount adapter is much cheaper...
The thing I'd buy for the DLSR would be the rail frame with focusing mechanism to allow for easier focusing, and a bigger lens hood, as well as some support for bigger lenses on the GH-1.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Despite crap compression, rolling shutter, aliasing issues, and other problems, I'd say the DSLR's are better for non-professional or beggining users, only because they have a penchant for not setting their adapter systems up correctly and ruining the image. I say this because many young filmmakers I encounter who use adapters, simply don't have the knowledge or skills to adjust their unit (and/or camera) to achieve optimum focus, edge to edge sharpness, and eliminate vignetting. Too often I see someone who has just slapped all the pieces together and the resulting image has all of the previous negatives I've listed. Adapters can be hard. I've messed up edge to edge sharpness many a times, back in the early days of adapters. Perhaps they are much easier now, but I still imagine knowledgable cameramen still have tips and tricks for a better image. I know I do.
The DSLR's however, despite their negative attributes, seem to be a simpler system to maintain and operate, hence not having the adapter issues, and giving the beginning or moderate cameraman a better image.
However. If I were to give the camera to a knowledgeable and professional camera team, I'd rethink my answer. I would personally go with an adapter system on the highest level, because that would still offer me a greater resolution, color space, and noise level. I think a professional and modern lens adapter on a clean 2/3" chip camera, calibrated by a professional would kick the ASS out of the DSLR market, as of this writing. And that is simply because the DSLR market isn't ready. Compression is horrible, making the HD signal resolute MUCH less, and the image still suffers from many issues listed above.
For instance, professionals who could calibrate and maintain a Cooke S4, on a P&S Technik Pro35 MK II 2/3" lens adapter, put on a super sensitive/clean 4:4:4 1080p HD camera such as the Panasonic Varicam HPX3700 would kick some DSLR ass, despite the added components an adapter brings.
That is a big and expensive example, I know. But I'd be willing to bet, those who have mastered properly setting and utilizing a lens adapter on something like the HPX-170 or Ex-1or3, and have nice glass, could have a nicer image than a DSLR. My opinion.
DSLR's advantages are obviously size, weight, low-profile, simple to maintain, fast moving, etc... but that is not what you were asking about. If you are simply asking about potential of the image quality.... until the compression issues are removed from DSLR's , I'd have to definitely go with adapters.
The DSLR's however, despite their negative attributes, seem to be a simpler system to maintain and operate, hence not having the adapter issues, and giving the beginning or moderate cameraman a better image.
However. If I were to give the camera to a knowledgeable and professional camera team, I'd rethink my answer. I would personally go with an adapter system on the highest level, because that would still offer me a greater resolution, color space, and noise level. I think a professional and modern lens adapter on a clean 2/3" chip camera, calibrated by a professional would kick the ASS out of the DSLR market, as of this writing. And that is simply because the DSLR market isn't ready. Compression is horrible, making the HD signal resolute MUCH less, and the image still suffers from many issues listed above.
For instance, professionals who could calibrate and maintain a Cooke S4, on a P&S Technik Pro35 MK II 2/3" lens adapter, put on a super sensitive/clean 4:4:4 1080p HD camera such as the Panasonic Varicam HPX3700 would kick some DSLR ass, despite the added components an adapter brings.
That is a big and expensive example, I know. But I'd be willing to bet, those who have mastered properly setting and utilizing a lens adapter on something like the HPX-170 or Ex-1or3, and have nice glass, could have a nicer image than a DSLR. My opinion.
DSLR's advantages are obviously size, weight, low-profile, simple to maintain, fast moving, etc... but that is not what you were asking about. If you are simply asking about potential of the image quality.... until the compression issues are removed from DSLR's , I'd have to definitely go with adapters.
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Well, for $20K + $60K for just the camera plus adapter(*)... not to mention the lenses and digitizer for 4:4:4... I'd expect miracles...
(Just read your Cook post, so add $18K for the Cook lenses to the package...)
Even for the 'rental' prices... I, digital enthusiast that I am, might be inclined to go with a film camera and the Cook lenses...
*I wasn't able to find really 'clear' pricing on these... it sort of like going to the Ferrari lot, and if you have to ask the price... you can't afford it...
I'll also note, you had quite a few 'provisos' in there, relative to the ability to set things up...
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Yes. But he was asking about quality and pretty much said to set other attributes aside. But that being said I also said,
The fact is, adapters can look amazing or horrible. It depends on what you use, and if you are experienced enough to set it up to optimal quality. The ability to set up the camera properly isn't a direct reflection of the technology, but it is a factor that directly links to the way it will look, and often is the Achilles' heel for those who are not accustomed to maintaining such a camera setup.
If you have a good camera, a good adapter, some nice glass and you know what you are doing, I'd say the camera adapter will have better quality over the DSLR... which suffers from more compression, aliasing, rolling shutter and etc. A redrock encore, HPX-170, and Zeiss Nikons is a setup I used to rock, and with proper exposure, I'd favor it over the DSLR's.
Of course if you are shooting on a very old adapter, you've not worked with them much, and you are shooting on the original HVX200 with super cheap nikkor af lenses, you are most likely going to see far worse results.
So what is the question?
Which is better quality? DSLR's or Adapters? I thought that is what it was. But there are only really about 4-5 popular models of DSLR video cameras,( 3 of which ridiculously similar (5Dm2, 7D, 1Dm4)) but there are many different adapters for a just about a countless number of cameras. With so many adapter-camera combinations, there isn't a real definitive answer. Unless you compare the top DSLR's to the top adapter combo... or one specific rig to another, I can't say. Compared to all adapters, I listed the top adapter camera/combo I could think of, and yes it's expensive... but it's an adapter.
The fact is, adapters can look amazing or horrible. It depends on what you use, and if you are experienced enough to set it up to optimal quality. The ability to set up the camera properly isn't a direct reflection of the technology, but it is a factor that directly links to the way it will look, and often is the Achilles' heel for those who are not accustomed to maintaining such a camera setup.
If you have a good camera, a good adapter, some nice glass and you know what you are doing, I'd say the camera adapter will have better quality over the DSLR... which suffers from more compression, aliasing, rolling shutter and etc. A redrock encore, HPX-170, and Zeiss Nikons is a setup I used to rock, and with proper exposure, I'd favor it over the DSLR's.
Of course if you are shooting on a very old adapter, you've not worked with them much, and you are shooting on the original HVX200 with super cheap nikkor af lenses, you are most likely going to see far worse results.
So what is the question?
Which is better quality? DSLR's or Adapters? I thought that is what it was. But there are only really about 4-5 popular models of DSLR video cameras,( 3 of which ridiculously similar (5Dm2, 7D, 1Dm4)) but there are many different adapters for a just about a countless number of cameras. With so many adapter-camera combinations, there isn't a real definitive answer. Unless you compare the top DSLR's to the top adapter combo... or one specific rig to another, I can't say. Compared to all adapters, I listed the top adapter camera/combo I could think of, and yes it's expensive... but it's an adapter.
Last edited:
Finnegan
Well-known member
I think they're different aesthetics, and difficult to compare on any measurable terms other than what looks pleasing to your eye for the project you're shooting. To me, neither of them replicates film's aesthetic well - HDSLRs look like moving stills to me and often the depth of field is too shallow for my liking, and adapters have this sort of forced, mechanical, poser-grain image quality that also bugs me. I think the resulting image from an adapter combination is more due to the camera, and not the adapter.
Having said that, I think Canon and Panasonic know that the compression is what is holding back the potential quality from HDSLRs and once that's fixed, I don't see adapter rigs sticking around. With adapters, in my experience, since you're shooting through so much glass, it's impossible to achieve that "sharp HD look" - if that's what you're going for.
Having said that, I think Canon and Panasonic know that the compression is what is holding back the potential quality from HDSLRs and once that's fixed, I don't see adapter rigs sticking around. With adapters, in my experience, since you're shooting through so much glass, it's impossible to achieve that "sharp HD look" - if that's what you're going for.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Well, I interpreted the question as 'which one would you choose to give the 'best' look'.
And for me, a 'personal' choice is always conditioned on what I can do, or afford. So that's why I tend to see VDSLR's as a 'solution' for me, and some of that reason also includes the skill required to setup a optical system that doesn't introduce more error than not.
As a note, when one uses the HDMI live output from a DLSR, can one achieve better image sampling? It seems that one of your negatives on the DLSR is the compression technique and loss of resolution thereby. So, would acquiring the image via the HDMI path mitigate that negative. (For those DSLRs that have a 'real' HDMI live output path.)
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Thus far, all 'output' options on the VDSLR's seem to be unsuited for recording... they are nothing more than an image preview, not a better signal from the chip able to be recorded. In the future, I see the cam companies wising up and offering non or less compressed image via tethered HDMI to computer or recorder.
That would at least eliminate the compression issues. We would see the 1080 image resolve more detail and sharpness... giving way to a better image, better keying, and better color space most likely. Ironically we would see the noise of the chip a bit more, since the compression isn't softening it... haha. So goodbye insanely high iso/asa shooters. Although I'm sure by that time, the sensitivity of the chips will be even higher, so hey.
That is my understanding anyhow.
DSLRs. We are talking about 35 adapters with projection screens right?
DSLRs capture an aerial image. Pure light from subject to sensor. You don't add caviar to tartar sauce to make tartar sauce taste like caviar. Adding quality glass before cheap glass doesn't negate the quality of the cheap lens.
Not to mention that extra generation created by that littile screen.
Eyeballing it, I'd say DSLRs put adapters to shame. Isn't what we see what's important. And we are talking about 1/3" to 1/2" prosumer cameras aren't we? You don't need a 35 adapter on a Varicam.
DSLRs capture an aerial image. Pure light from subject to sensor. You don't add caviar to tartar sauce to make tartar sauce taste like caviar. Adding quality glass before cheap glass doesn't negate the quality of the cheap lens.
Not to mention that extra generation created by that littile screen.
Eyeballing it, I'd say DSLRs put adapters to shame. Isn't what we see what's important. And we are talking about 1/3" to 1/2" prosumer cameras aren't we? You don't need a 35 adapter on a Varicam.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Although the majority of adapters are used on hvx200's or ex-1's, an adapter is only as good as it's camera and calibration. Hence it would be unfair, in my opinion, to compare adapters and vDSLR's without taking into account the higher-end adapter-camera combos.
If the main purpose of an adapter is to achieve similar FoV thus DoF characteristics to 35mm or S35mm, than even though a 2/3" inch is much closer to that goal, (than say 1/2" or 1/3")... it's still no where near 35mm.
(although I wish this was S35mm, and not full-frame. Few lenses hit FF35mm)
Thus, if a cinematographer wishes for such characteristics, but is shooting on a 2/3" camera, he/she would probably go for a 2/3" adapter. On the flip side, if I wanted to shoot on an adapter, and it was in my means, the best results from an adapter/camera setup would be from a 2/3" camera... because they:
1) Can have removable lenses, thus eliminating many unnecessary optical elements the light has to pass through (ie the fixed zoom lenses of an HVX200/HPX170, EX1, etc).
2) 2/3" chips are larger in size, thus usually have larger photo sites, thus are more light sensitive and have cleaner signals. This helps negate light loss and noise, which plague many adapter users.
3) Depending on the 2/3" chip camera, the image controls and compression is superior. Color space can be 4:4:4, and other nice features, otherwise not found on smaller cameras.
So, again, you are right in the fact that MOST people use adapters on smaller, cheaper cameras, but I don't think that is a way to judge 35mm adapters for their best quality. Of course, 2/3" chip cameras were much more popular and feasible about 1-2+ years ago, before RedOne's were flooded all over the market, but many cinematographers who bought an HPX-300, 500, varicam or etc... can use their cameras with adapters for certain projects which desire the look.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, but the sensor in a video camera will actually capture all the image, unlike the DSLR which line-skips. It's not an open-and-shut case, at all.
Yes you do, it's called the Pro35. 2/3" DOF is okay, but it's nothing like 35mm sensor DOF. There's about as big a gulf between 1/3" and 2/3", as there is between 2/3" and 35mm.
7D or Adapter?
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Adapter!
haha, but I get your point Timur...
haha, but I get your point Timur...
Last edited: