With many adapters now on the market what separates them from one another. MINI35 and MOVIEtube are both robust, have 15mm and 19mm rod support, battery mount for supply to adapter, power out to external devices (viewfinder, LCD etc), BNC, robust carry handle, shoulder support, FF support and are built like a tank, well the MOVIEtube anyway, MINI35 is a little delicate for my liking. (inspected one this week)

On the otherhand the MINI35 requires a different £1,250 camera support for each camera and no universal battery mount (differs with each mount, many be a good thing for some but then there is the expense of a different battery for each mount)

One major flaw for both is the price £8,000+ for each, then there are the add ons and different mounts.

Then there are the DIY adapters: SG Pro, M2, Letus, Brevis, GO-35. These are very popular, great value for money as they offer the same quality images as the MINI35 and MOVIEtube plus they offer universal camcorder mounting (almost) but like the MINI35 and MOVIEtube they have their disadvantages; robustness, no additional connections, no adequete battery support.

Most of the people who buy the DIY adapters are probably film making enthusiasts and not production companies (although not for me to say).

With the 35mm adapters become more and more popular is it time for the DIY adapters to step up and move closer to the MINI35 and MOVIEtube pedigree?

What makes the perfect 35mm adapter, besides low cost? Your thoughts please.....

This thread is in no way a put down for commercial DIY adapters, but by people stating what they think would make the perfect 35mm adapter may assist DIY designers help improve their current products. Keep up the good work DIYers.

One that doesn't absolutely EAT light.

Light loss seems to be the hate for all that use 35mm adapters but when filming shouldnt professional lighting be used anyway? Using redhead, brunette or blonde lighting should help this in some way. Are people using 60w light bulbs from their table lamp or something?

For the DiGi35 I am looking to incorporate a V-mount, Viewfinder out, Fischer 2 Pin, 2 x 4 Pin, BNC and also a DC to DC convertor to enable 18-36v down to 12v

The problem with light loss is serious in that it may prevent the use of practical lighting. For instance, many digital camcorders can get a decent image of a nightime city skyline. If you want that skyline in your background with a 35mm adapter that loses two f-stops, you are out of luck. All the studio light in the world won't bring back a city skyling, or any such background, that an adapter gobbled up in the ground glass.

I used the Sony FX1 that has decent light sensitivity on a night shoot and not even a half stop of light loss would be acceptable. Fortunately, a 35mm adapter may not be necessary in these circumstances since it is easy to throw a cityscape out of focus. On the same shoot, we wanted to throw the businesses across the street out of focus but it wouldn't work. The trick of moving the camera backwards and zooming in had the double hit of reducing the angle of view and closing the lens down as we zoomed. We had to frame our shot in such a way that it almost was ruined.

Sometimes, good light sensitivity and shallow depth of field must be used together...

Just a quick question about the Nikon BR-3 mount. What the cheapest but good lens to use with this? A friend of mine is making a DIY adapter after reading about them on DVinfo. I havent actually really tested the nikons so dont know what works well, Ive been using ARRI T1.3 zeiss lenses. He has a small budget for the lens, any advice?

My Lowell DP kit isn't exactly top of the line, but I wouldn't compare it to a table lamp either.....

Blasting the subject with light in a music video shoot, I still had to have the iris wide open, and then my range of what could be in focus was nil. Just not ideal in my opinion.

Granted, this one of the DIY adapters, and I thought the image was spectacular, but the light loss was just too great at this point.

Wade, that's precisely why the Brevis is designed for multiple diffusers, swapped by users. The standard diffuser has extremely low light loss (.5 to .7 stops with an f1.4 50mm attached), while diffuser option 1 and now, diffuser option 2, go up from there.

I just did my first tests with diffuser option 2 which I'm completely ecstatic about. Light loss is the greatest, (1.5 stops or so) but the emulation of film bokeh at those wide open apertures is going to make a lot of people very, very happy. I was expecting a hit in terms of sharpness, but this one may actually be right on par with the standard diffuser...which is very crisp. I'll wait until the xh-a1 shows up (this week?) to post some HD clips. Based on what I'm seeing, the combination of option 2 diffuser, XH-A1, and the Lomo 85mm cinema lens in front of me, is going to drop some jaws.

Most important factors:

1:Sharpness
2:Light loss
3:Build quality

So far the letus35 FE let me down very badly, failing in all of the major three. My Redrock M2 has impressed in all of the above areas. I hear quotes of .5 stop light loss, but I think it is a little more than that. My Brevis from Dennis arrives this week and I cannot wait. I have heard that all the three points are very well served plus it has a great 20hr rechargable battery built in, is lightweight and can be used without rods making handheld more possible.

Today I shot 3 interviews for a doco series for Channel 4 and also some nice sequences and shots to go with them on the M2. Outside was nice and easy, but inside the House of Lords with limited space, time and a very large dark hallway it was tough. DOF was down to about 2 inches on my nikon f1.2 stopped down to about f1.4 and 9db gain. I was focusing pulling the entire way through it. Fortunately it looks great. I am having to use my XDCAM for more spontaneous stuff, especially inside as the need for light makes the adaptor nearly impossbile with strong lights.

How far have you got Tony with your design, when do you think i will be able to meet up with you to have a look? Are you still planning to make the image flip? It would be nice but as light loss is so important perhaps you should go down Dennis' route of making it a screw on addition rather than built into it so you can take it off if you need that extra stop, which inside you invariably do! As you know London right now is bloody dark and any natural light that was coming into windows a couple of months ago is long gone!!!

Phil, we're certainly not perfect, but a ton of effort goes in to keeping everyone happy :-)

Phil.

There was a UK Channel 4 crew out here for the 2006 Red Bull Air Race final. I was fortunate enough to be on the outside of the fence where they shot a to-camera with rapidly approaching aircraft as a backdrop.

I don't know whether they worked a deal with the pilots or not, but I was lucky to harvest the low fly-towards and sharp pull-ups with the 500mm end of a zoom lens - sweet.

Cant seem to find a decent Nikon Nikkor 50mm f1.4 anywhere. Anyone got one to sell or know where to get a decent one? Tried eBay but no good (statches and dust).

it looks like jvc is about to release their 35mm lens mount adapter for the HD100/110/200/250. I think this adapter uses mirrors rather than ground glass focusing screens. If this is true, the light loss should be minimal. The only problem will be adapting to the 1/3" lens mount used by JVC.

Anyone got the web link for this JVC 35mm lens mount adapter?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78280

I seriously doubt that JVC`s 16mm PL lens adaptor will be as good as even the DIY adaptors offering bigger than 16mm image circle.
JVC`s S16 lens adaptor is completely static and designed for Super16 lens image circle. I wonder how can image from such a small image plane be grainless and produce proper bokeh...
Also this adaptor is designed for HD200 that has vignette correction and image flipping capabilities built in so it doesn`t flip the image and will possibly vignette on other ProHD camcorders.
One interesting thing is that this adaptor opically converts 16mm image circle from GG directly to 1/3" CCDs thus allowing no secondary iris control.

Also the $4300 price isn`t that good.

T

For $4,300.00 I could spec out and have machined the "perfect adapter" in answer to the question :D

I think everyone's got good ideas here...

As for light loss, I think it has a direct corollary in bokeh quality, so while I understand the gripe (from a shooter's perspective), I accept the limitations as just part of the reality of designing a good diffuser - as light loss goes down, bokeh quality changes (often for the worse).

Tony,

I have a 50mm f1.4 if you are interested. It's very clean etc...

Cant seem to find a decent Nikon Nikkor 50mm f1.4 anywhere. Anyone got one to sell or know where to get a decent one? Tried eBay but no good (statches and dust).

Tony,

Go to www.keh.com. I picked one up while in Atlanta last week for around $100.

I may well be wrong as to the technology but in general terms at least, this would not be the first time JVC has visited this idea.

There were two cameras, heads only, not camera/recorders, Model KY-F50 which enabled a 1/3" CCD to see a "C-Mount" lens as if it was a 2/3" CCD, Model KY-F32 which enabled a 1/3" CCD to see a B3 mount lens as if it was a 1/2" CCD.

From the lens mount to CCD block there is a long metal tube about 100mm long. These cameras produce the correct fields of view of these lenses as if they are attached to 2/3" or 1/2" CCD cameras. On the surface at least, the system looks like it is an aerial image relay.

My imagining is that the 35mm system wll do something similar, offer a genuine 35mm motion picture camera field-of-view, but not the same shallow depth-of-field options of GG image relay or film imaging.

The lens focal plane co-incided almost with the front glass element of the tube.

I found dust and metal flakes from the mounts getting on the glass could be troubling when tight apertures were selected on Nikon SLR lenses mounted to the system via a Nikon to "C-Mount" adaptor.

By the way, these cameras were offering a flavour of 25P in 1996. with output options of component, RGB, S-Video, composite, selections of black levels, sharpness, gamma and many others.

I would love to know what Jim's "perfect" tailored made adaptor would be. Still cheaper than a mini 35!

I want to test the various focal lens with Nikon lenses. What would be the best all-in-one lens to buy that has all the focal lengths (eg: 28 - 100mm) or something close. There are many AF lenses out there but are there any suitable MF ones (new) available?? If so where?

Tony.

If you intend to use a wide-ranging zoom lens to test or make demos with your adaptor, you will be doing yourself and your project no favours.

Zooms are mostly softer than prime lenses and can have inferior contrast. If you use an inferior lens while developing the product, something may creep through which only surfaces when somebody puts a really sharp lens on it.

There is a straight boundary CA in my own adaptor, I think due to slight misalignment of prisms opposing faces. The only lens which shows it up is the Nikon f1.8 85mm prime at about f4.

In something destined to go to market it would be a shame for something like that to get by undetected because the humble public whilst eager for the bargain still bites unforgivingly when it doesn't measure up, expecting to get a Rolls Royce instead of a Bambino.

The zoom is desirable for quick testing to see if SLR to GG back-focus of the mount is correct, providing the zoom lens itself is good.

My personal preference is to have the SLR lens flange to GG distance adjustable to make that small alllowance for lenses wich are slightly off due to wear etc..

If you don't want to invest in a lens set, you might instead hire a good stills photographer in for the day to bring his professional kit with him, put your adaptor to the test in all the creative compositional and lighting situations he or she can imagine.

You may be an optical egineer so ignore my comments as I am not.

Many who develop their own GG based relay systems are going through two levels of learning, that of basic optical theory engineering on the run and the actual process of research and development.

In this regime, many more mistakes are going to be made and great results might be more serendipitous than planned.

I'm not clear if the lens is imaged/captured, or just relayed through? If relayed, normally the DOF properties would be those of the CCD, not the lens.

When I first saw the KY-F50 I thought it was a groundglass based solution as there were fixed grain artifacts in the image. It turned out to be dust and stains on the glass.

Now if JVC could solve the problem of colloids cracking (breaking down) under pressure whilst inside a 3 micron or so space between two glass wafers, they would have the fluid groundglass nailed.