Letus 35a vs. Redrock Adapter at DVinfo.net

Luke Brown · December 4th, 2005, 03:55 PM

Ok, I have spent hours looking over all the archived posts on this board...I still cannot determine which one of these is better for my setup (dvx100b).

The Letus 35a with all the options puts it at almost exactly the same price as the Redrock adapter. I really have no interest in trying to build my own at this point, just don't have the time.

My question is has anyone here tried both of these adapters and how do they compare directly to each other?

I have so much info on both but I just can't decide on one over the other. They both seem to have some shortcomings but that is to be expected in this price range.

Ben Winter · December 4th, 2005, 04:19 PM

The micro35, from what I understand, is about a $1000 investment. At that point, I'd forget both the Letus and the Micro35 and wait until the Guerilla35 is available ( www.guerilla35.com ) . It's made from machined aircraft aluminum, is sturdy, static, and virtually grainless. Its release has been long-anticipated, and, although it is expensive, its all-metal construction eliminates the need for rod support. I think preorders will be available within a few weeks.

If you're speaking of getting the micro35 without the rod system and extra gizmos (meaning a $600 or thereabouts investment) I'd invest instead in the Letus35 with the "metal mount" option, and then buy a Cavision rod support for $150.

The main difference between the Micro35 and the Letus that makes the Letus more superior is that the focusing screen in the Micro is plastic, while the Letus sports a glass GG that doesn't sacrifice light.

Bill Porter · December 4th, 2005, 05:02 PM

Guerilla35 (now called Cinemek?) ain't expensive! If you add up the costs of an adapter with Nikon D-type screen (or even more expensive, Beattie), top notch achromat and/or condensor(s), metal lens mount, and all the labor, hassle, time, and frustration (especially learning how to do microwax), a G35 is cheap. If I were shooting video to make money, I wouldn't even contemplate dicking around trying to build my own.

Ben Winter · December 4th, 2005, 06:07 PM

My Nikon D adapter cost $350 max to make, and basically all screwed together. The Guerilla35 is almost three times that. I'd say they're two completely different levels.

Luke Brown · December 4th, 2005, 06:30 PM

The G35 looks like they are going to a moving GG, at least this thread:

http://www.cinemek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=208 sure sounds like it.

Again, I really have no interest in making one. If it costs me $300-400 in materials and hours of time to tweak it, I would rather pay the extra to get a more professional product.

Can the Cavision system be used with the micro35?

I was leaning towards the letus but there are a lot of complaints about it here on the boards. This is to be expected from a new product but makes me wonder if it is worth it.

On the DVX boards I see a lot of letus footage with bad vinneting and halos, kind of made me look at the micro. Also people have trouble with the vibrating GG ending up in their shots.

Bill Porter · December 4th, 2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Winter

My Nikon D adapter cost $350 max to make, and basically all screwed together. The Guerilla35 is almost three times that. I'd say they're two completely different levels.

Yes, you've proved my point. One's cheap and grainy. The other bridges the gap to a a virtually grainless, no-brainer solution, for not a lot more.

Ben Winter · December 4th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Oh, getting smarmy are we? ;)

Luke Brown · December 4th, 2005, 09:14 PM

The G35 guys seem to leave out specific details and many of the same questions get asked on their forums over and over...without answer.

yes, their footage looks really nice. But of course when you are selling a product you always put yourself in the best possible light- nothing wrong with that.

I would just love to see what it can do in the hands of the average user before I set aside $1000 for it.

Cody Dulock · December 5th, 2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Winter

It's made from machined aircraft aluminum, is sturdy, static, and virtually grainless. Its release has been long-anticipated, and, although it is expensive, its all-metal construction eliminates the need for rod support.

just curious, but what makes you think the plastic threads on your camera can handle the weight of an adapter and bigger lenses without the camera getting out of align with the GG? since the weight of the lens would make the adapter sag a bit, the GG would not be completely level, so it could be possible that the image could be partly of out focus and such. personally i have not used the G35, so this is just theory talk here. but saying because an adapter is made of metal and therefore it doesnt need rod support is kind of an odd statement right? i mean metal is obviously better than plastic for this purpose, but that doesnt mean metal doesnt weigh more than plastic.

the P+S technik adapter, Redrock micro's adapter, and the G35 Cinemek adapter are all made of metal and all use metal mounts and are bolted together (to my knowledge).

i'm not trying to start a big debate here, but just like everyone else, straight up facts always gives the clearest answer.

Ben Winter · December 5th, 2005, 08:43 PM

I'm just quoting what John (creator of G35) said on his website. Besides, have you ever felt aircraft aluminum in your hand? It is extremely light. I have a feeling the G35 plus a lens puts no more stress on the threads of the camera than, say, a large telephoto lens. Who knows. It's natural to be skeptic about an adapter that's so clouded in secrecy as the G35. Time and testing will tell the truth.

Marco Leavitt · December 5th, 2005, 10:22 PM

"just curious, but what makes you think the plastic threads on your camera can handle the weight of an adapter and bigger lenses without the camera getting out of align with the GG?"

What camera has plastic threads? I'm pretty sure they're all metal, even if they don't look like it.

Eric Brown · December 6th, 2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke Brown

Can the Cavision system be used with the micro35?

I e-mailed Brian V. at RedRock some weeks ago with the same question. He said the RedRock Micro (M2) will indeed work with the Cavision rod system. "Work with" in my case meant that I wanted to know if the rod mount holes in the adapter slid over the Cavision rods. It appears they do. There appears to be some sort of standard in place which makes sense as most rod support systems utilize 15mm rods.

Jun Tang · December 6th, 2005, 01:03 AM

So is this thread about Letus versus Micro?

Which are both out to be compared....or is it G35 and Micro35?

From the footage on Jonathan website...I like the footage they post.

I personally have the RedRock Micro and been happy with the footage I've gotten out of it. I don't intent to get rid of it.

I am curious between G35 and M2 myself....hopefully someone does put it to the pepsi challenge. If not...one of these days I'll probably end up doing it.

My main concern with the G35 is the focal flange. If I can't go in there and adjust it...how can I be sure that the lens focus is the same as the distance from the subject. Any discrepancies means I have to send it back to Seattle. So hopefully when they send it...each one has been tested to the mount. BEcause Back focus is not an option...if you mount it on the camera.

Marcus Marchesseault · December 6th, 2005, 02:20 AM

Okay, I finally got my Letus35A back from Quyen. My camera has no problem focusing on the GG now at all. He sent it quickly for me so I could use it on a recent job and he says he stayed up until 3:30 fixit it. The Letus35A may not be perfect, but the support is. I think the modifications he has made lately had unexpected consequences. I see it as a hassle that I have to be a guinea pig on the one hand, but on the other I get to have the latest upgrades if I am a bit patient. This is the nature of custom equipment and this usually has a higher price tag.

How my story specifically addresses the recent thread is this: I had a slight backfocus issue with my adapter. I heated the GG assembly up with a hair dryer to soften the hot glue and repositioned the GG about 1.5mm farther from the 35mm lens. Now, I have perfect focus at infinity and close-up. I guess I like the simplicity of the design and don't mind that it has a bit of a DIY quality. I plan to paint mine black and eventually get a rod support system. I also like that I am not forced to pay for a rod support immediately and can space my investments out while still using the adapter on some projects.

The Letus35A has these advantages:

Simple design (allows easy modifications)
Low cost
Useable without rod support (at least with light lenses for a while)
Light weight
Low power requirements (left mine on all day and still works fine on 2AA rechargeables)

Disadvantages:

Plastic mount (I plan to replace with metal some day)
Advanced DIY engineering can mean build errors
Aluminum tube looks funny

I think with a little TLC that the Letus35A is probably just fine. It is affordable and does not absolutely require other costly equipment to be useable. It's biggest problem, the plastic mount, can be fixed with a bit of elbow grease and a used $20 broken Nikon that is sold on ebay for parts. I would love a rod support system and follow-focus, but I can't afford it right now. Regardless, I can start paying for those options since I can use the adapter today.

Luke Brown · December 6th, 2005, 01:19 PM

Thanks for the update Marcus. Is there an option to get a metal mount on the Letus or is that a strictly DIY upgrade?

December 4th, 2005, 03:55 PM	#1
Luke Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 31	Letus 35a vs. Redrock Adapter Ok, I have spent hours looking over all the archived posts on this board...I still cannot determine which one of these is better for my setup (dvx100b). The Letus 35a with all the options puts it at almost exactly the same price as the Redrock adapter. I really have no interest in trying to build my own at this point, just don't have the time. My question is has anyone here tried both of these adapters and how do they compare directly to each other? I have so much info on both but I just can't decide on one over the other. They both seem to have some shortcomings but that is to be expected in this price range.

December 4th, 2005, 04:19 PM	#2
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	The micro35, from what I understand, is about a $1000 investment. At that point, I'd forget both the Letus and the Micro35 and wait until the Guerilla35 is available ( www.guerilla35.com ) . It's made from machined aircraft aluminum, is sturdy, static, and virtually grainless. Its release has been long-anticipated, and, although it is expensive, its all-metal construction eliminates the need for rod support. I think preorders will be available within a few weeks. If you're speaking of getting the micro35 without the rod system and extra gizmos (meaning a $600 or thereabouts investment) I'd invest instead in the Letus35 with the "metal mount" option, and then buy a Cavision rod support for $150. The main difference between the Micro35 and the Letus that makes the Letus more superior is that the focusing screen in the Micro is plastic, while the Letus sports a glass GG that doesn't sacrifice light. __________________ BenWinter.com

December 4th, 2005, 06:07 PM	#4
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	My Nikon D adapter cost $350 max to make, and basically all screwed together. The Guerilla35 is almost three times that. I'd say they're two completely different levels. __________________ BenWinter.com

December 4th, 2005, 08:47 PM	#7
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	Oh, getting smarmy are we? ;) __________________ BenWinter.com

December 5th, 2005, 08:43 PM	#10
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	I'm just quoting what John (creator of G35) said on his website. Besides, have you ever felt aircraft aluminum in your hand? It is extremely light. I have a feeling the G35 plus a lens puts no more stress on the threads of the camera than, say, a large telephoto lens. Who knows. It's natural to be skeptic about an adapter that's so clouded in secrecy as the G35. Time and testing will tell the truth. __________________ BenWinter.com

December 4th, 2005, 05:02 PM	#3
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Guerilla35 (now called Cinemek?) ain't expensive! If you add up the costs of an adapter with Nikon D-type screen (or even more expensive, Beattie), top notch achromat and/or condensor(s), metal lens mount, and all the labor, hassle, time, and frustration (especially learning how to do microwax), a G35 is cheap. If I were shooting video to make money, I wouldn't even contemplate dicking around trying to build my own.

December 4th, 2005, 06:30 PM	#5
Luke Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 31	The G35 looks like they are going to a moving GG, at least this thread: http://www.cinemek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=208 sure sounds like it. Again, I really have no interest in making one. If it costs me $300-400 in materials and hours of time to tweak it, I would rather pay the extra to get a more professional product. Can the Cavision system be used with the micro35? I was leaning towards the letus but there are a lot of complaints about it here on the boards. This is to be expected from a new product but makes me wonder if it is worth it. On the DVX boards I see a lot of letus footage with bad vinneting and halos, kind of made me look at the micro. Also people have trouble with the vibrating GG ending up in their shots.

December 4th, 2005, 09:14 PM	#8
Luke Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 31	The G35 guys seem to leave out specific details and many of the same questions get asked on their forums over and over...without answer. yes, their footage looks really nice. But of course when you are selling a product you always put yourself in the best possible light- nothing wrong with that. I would just love to see what it can do in the hands of the average user before I set aside $1000 for it.

December 5th, 2005, 10:22 PM	#11
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	"just curious, but what makes you think the plastic threads on your camera can handle the weight of an adapter and bigger lenses without the camera getting out of align with the GG?" What camera has plastic threads? I'm pretty sure they're all metal, even if they don't look like it.

December 6th, 2005, 01:03 AM	#13
Jun Tang Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: West LA Posts: 135	So is this thread about Letus versus Micro? Which are both out to be compared....or is it G35 and Micro35? From the footage on Jonathan website...I like the footage they post. I personally have the RedRock Micro and been happy with the footage I've gotten out of it. I don't intent to get rid of it. I am curious between G35 and M2 myself....hopefully someone does put it to the pepsi challenge. If not...one of these days I'll probably end up doing it. My main concern with the G35 is the focal flange. If I can't go in there and adjust it...how can I be sure that the lens focus is the same as the distance from the subject. Any discrepancies means I have to send it back to Seattle. So hopefully when they send it...each one has been tested to the mount. BEcause Back focus is not an option...if you mount it on the camera.

December 6th, 2005, 02:20 AM	#14
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Okay, I finally got my Letus35A back from Quyen. My camera has no problem focusing on the GG now at all. He sent it quickly for me so I could use it on a recent job and he says he stayed up until 3:30 fixit it. The Letus35A may not be perfect, but the support is. I think the modifications he has made lately had unexpected consequences. I see it as a hassle that I have to be a guinea pig on the one hand, but on the other I get to have the latest upgrades if I am a bit patient. This is the nature of custom equipment and this usually has a higher price tag. How my story specifically addresses the recent thread is this: I had a slight backfocus issue with my adapter. I heated the GG assembly up with a hair dryer to soften the hot glue and repositioned the GG about 1.5mm farther from the 35mm lens. Now, I have perfect focus at infinity and close-up. I guess I like the simplicity of the design and don't mind that it has a bit of a DIY quality. I plan to paint mine black and eventually get a rod support system. I also like that I am not forced to pay for a rod support immediately and can space my investments out while still using the adapter on some projects. The Letus35A has these advantages: Simple design (allows easy modifications) Low cost Useable without rod support (at least with light lenses for a while) Light weight Low power requirements (left mine on all day and still works fine on 2AA rechargeables) Disadvantages: Plastic mount (I plan to replace with metal some day) Advanced DIY engineering can mean build errors Aluminum tube looks funny I think with a little TLC that the Letus35A is probably just fine. It is affordable and does not absolutely require other costly equipment to be useable. It's biggest problem, the plastic mount, can be fixed with a bit of elbow grease and a used $20 broken Nikon that is sold on ebay for parts. I would love a rod support system and follow-focus, but I can't afford it right now. Regardless, I can start paying for those options since I can use the adapter today.

December 6th, 2005, 01:19 PM	#15
Luke Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 31	Thanks for the update Marcus. Is there an option to get a metal mount on the Letus or is that a strictly DIY upgrade?