Help me choose?
P+S Technik MINI35 PL vrs JVC’s HZ-CA13U‏ vrs Letus Extreme C/Y Zeiss


Im going to shoot with HD200
any help would be great!

Thanks,

The major image difference between the two is that the HZ-CA13U is not a 35mm adapter. You can use a 35mm lens but it will be cropped since the frame size is only 16mm.

Here is a good article: DV Info Net -- JVC HZ-CA13U Cine Optical PL mount Lens Adapter (COPLA) review by Tim Dashwood, Part One (http://www.dvinfo.net/prohd/hz-ca13u-review1.php)

Yes, I have ready the article, I am wonder what is the best look and quality?
Thanks

It will be helpful for us if you could describe your project and intended shooting style.


For some things a 35mm adaptor is undoubtedly the way to go, opening up a whole new palette of creative options for a small-format videocamera operator and can help to reduce some CCD sensor camera bads in the process.

For others an adaptor adds risk, weight, complexity, inhibits spontaneous camerawork or is impractical due to lighting demands or high-speed shutter work.

Hello Bob, The project is a full length feature film I am shooting this Aug. I am planning to shoot most of it 10 ft or less from subject. I would like to film in ow light as well..I currently have the HD200 /Letus Extreme/Zeiss lenses. I have been happy with the adapter but since I seen the PL mount that is able to use the full frame of 16mm film lenses I thought it would look more cinematic and better quality of glass and better in low light?

Your help is greatly apriciated..
-S

The HZ CA13U should be fine. Just watch general cleanliness around the front optics and at back of the rear optic. With Super16mm superspeed lenses I guess you will be going wide aperture much of the time for selective focus. If you intend to use your existing 35mm primes from the Mini35, you may fall short on results depending on how fussy you are.

Without good Super16mm lenses, you may be simply crippling your camera's potential but my guess is having invested in the HZ CA13U, you will already be going the rest of the extra mile in adding quality. 35mm PL-Mount lenses may not be as sharp as Super16mm glass and wider fields-of-view may not be available from your 35mm lens selection.

You may find you need to mix and match Mini35 footage with your other footage either with the HZ adaptor or direct-to-camera with its own lens. If you take the time and trouble to set the Mini35 relay backfocus with the motor running on a large HDTV monitor and a resolution chart which has blocks of bars, not tapered radial lines, you can gain around about 50 lines of apparent resolution over focusing on the groundglass texture alone.

You still set up relay focus with the relay lens iris opened wide, same as for the stopped motor front lens iris almost closed method.

You might be lucky enough to get a little more light gathering capability using the HZ adaptor but I don't know enough about the system to do more than just speculate.

The KY-F50 and KY-F32 compact standard definition camera heads I understand use a basically similar optical technology. I may be misinformed here so don't pay too much heed to my comments which are based on experiences with the KY-F50 which is a 1/3" 3xCCD sensor hooked up to what seems to be a 2/3" aerial image relay system. Whatever, - it works.

If you go with a lens iris of about f11 - f16 for any reason, you might see some strange small newtonian ring looking artifacts.

If you do experience these, they may be fine bits of dust on the front optic of the HZ CA13U adaptor. This will be obvious against a bright blue sky if it is there at all. As you widen the iris they might simply disappear then become very faint smudges at a wider iris setting. As with the Mini35, it will be best if you can also fit up a good sharp monitor for focus checks, for dust spots and hot pixels.

Since the KY-F50, JVC may well have engineered this trait out of their new S16 optical adaptor.

I have a mini35c on a HD200 with zeiss SLR lenses. The mini35c is quite brighter than the 400 version, has almost the same loss of light (around 0.5f) as the HZ, though far better dof. I used to work with the 400 version along with zeiss cine lenses from a rental. I cannot understand any other differences between the two setups except the light loss on the 400, and the 'pumping' when you do rack focus on the SLR lenses which is something that I can absolutely live with, as with a weeks rental for the cine lenses I bought the whole (usable) SLR range. I was not happy with the footage I have seen from the JVC converter so I went on for the mini35c which I knew it would do the job. I also wouldn't go for an 'adapter over my crappy stock lense' option either. hope I've helped.