Why no love for the M2?

Will Clegg said:
I have an M2 also. I think there are probably plenty of us on the boards, but there isn't a lot to talk about, you know? The M2 has been around for a quite a while, whereas Letus, SGpro, Brevis, and others are producing new or upgraded products quite often.

Those of us that have the M2 know that it can produce spectacular images when used properly. Like Ryan, I think a lot of us avoid the fruitless "which adapter is better" arguments, as we are settled in with our M2s already.
Click to expand...

Makes sense.
 
dan said:
I hope you mean the footage looks great.....
Click to expand...

Haha. The M2 does look like a birdfeeder or something. But really, none of these adapters are too good-looking. I like the term Tim Naylor used in another thread - "franken-cameras."
 
Haha, franken-cameras. But isn't that what it's all about? Making our cameras extensions of our egos!

Who takes a sleek, unencumbered camera seriously?
 
I like my M2 and have shot some great looking stuff with it, but the only reason I am keeping it now is that I just payed off my setup. I now wish I would have gone with the brevis or letus. The M2 is a good adapter, but redrock is definitely behind in the 35mm adapter race. Sure they have the micro x and they are busy with the matteboxes right now, but it just seems like they have fallen wayyy behind. They could be cooking up something brilliant right now, who knows. I just know that at this very moment, if I had to buy an adapter over again, I would definitely go with someone else. Every other adapter company out there has announced a new adapter, redrock has yet to do so.
 
I like my M2... I used only my M2 and the Movietube, which I didn´t like the result.

Yes, the M2 might be older... but if used wisely, provides some beautiful images (and I bet that any SGpro, Letus, Brevis, etc... also provides beautiful footage with different properties due to different specs).

Examples: shot with M2 and Z1U (No color corrected).-

jaimenm3.jpg


mandarinadr1.jpg
 
I picked-up an M2 used (very reasonable) as I'm new to the adapter stuff (and I could use all my old nikon glass!). I seem to be able to get really nice looking images out of it...without too much trouble at all. I didn't have any instructions, so I just figured it out on the fly (it isn't rocket surgery).

Now... I look at all the other adapters and to be honest, I can't see much of a difference....I imagine they are all good if used with care & the proper lighting.
 
Popsiclestand said:
Wow, that's quite a review! Thanks for your candor. When you tried the M2, were you using the new acromat that ships with the MicroX? That has increased sharpness a great deal from what I've seen.

Before getting the M2, I was in the market to get the Letus Extreme (for one thing it's cheaper), but the vibrating ground glass was what threw me off. The light loss I can deal with because when I don't use lights I'm outside with the sun and reflectors. When I'm inside, I'm pouring light into my scene anyway. I'm from the film side of things so I'm used to it. I find the M2 comparable to trying to get an image on 16mm..
Click to expand...

16 mm reversal perhaps. How can you make such a general statement when you got film ASA's from 50 to 800? An HVX with an M2 and Nikon has an ASA no more than 80. Light loss adversely affects budget with adaptors. If I'm using a tweenie with a Letus, I'm using almost a 2k with an M2. That being said, the one thing that still may have me consider an M2 are the amazing images I've seen from them. I don't think my Extreme or Brevis (Old version) could compare. My SG, was close.

The above example makes a strong case.
 
Well Tim, I can make such a general statement because when shooting 16mm using whatever ASA film stock is necessary (or just what I can afford at the time), I plan accordingly for my light requirements. If I wanted to shoot 50D indoors (don't know why I would, but just for the sake of an example), then I would get a large light package plain and simple. I wouldn't look at the camera or lenses and say, `Dammit! Why are you so useless? Why can't you give me an f 4 with only a 2k?!` I would either change my film stock choice or light it more. Since using the M2 (or whatever 35mm adapter of your choice) in conjunction with your HDV cam is equivelent to choosing a film stock, then you have the option of changing your cam and adapter setup (not an option for most of us) or...lighting the crap out of your scene.

Thus, it is very similar to shooting 16mm (or 35mm for that matter). You get the main tools you need (cam, lenses) then you work around their limitations to get the image you want (mainly lighting in this case).
 
A little addendum...

I have shot on 16mm in situations where because of whatever restraints (in one instance the producer got a great bulk deal on some slow film stock and wanted me to use it because it was basically free for him) and had to do exactly what I described in the post above. I gave him the option (since I wasn't allowed to choose the film stock that would have better fit the shooting situation) that I would have to rent a huge ass lighting package to compensate during this mostly indoor shoot. He shrugged at the lighting package cost, citing the savings for the film.

Anyway, what I was trying to say (and realize that I didn't say it as clearly as it was in my mind) is that you are correct Tim that light loss does affect budget. However, when assessing the costs, you have to take into account that in some areas, depending on the adaptor you have, you will have to spend more. For the M2, it looks like you may need to pay more for lights. For the Letus, you may have to spend more time/pay more money to refine the image in post. I'm not a `run and gun` type so maybe I don't share the same concerns as those who are. But I can honestly say that in my time of using the M2 (I am fairly new to adapters compared to most of you) I have never sat back and said `dammit, this thing sucks because I can't get a usable image out of it` But then again, I pour a shi* ton of light into my scenes, just as I did when I shot on film. Hence my comparison to 16mm.

PS. I rarely shot interiors with anyting above 320.

Great looking stuff by the way killamill!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top