Sorry to hear that Phil.

I have just had some bad news myself, my grandmother passed away last night. She helped me so many times in my life, always thinking of others. She will be greatly missed.

Phil, Wayne . . . condolences to both of you.

its amazing how such a litte thing can become so competely part of your family. He was in all but name a dog. Totally dependent on us, couldnt look after himself, played fetch, ate anything he could get his hands on. The house is very quiet without him!

Really sorry to hear about your nan Wayne. I hope you are OK.

With regards to the shootout. I will finish it during the week

Best

Phil

I am very sorry to hear that Phil, sometime love is such an as wonderful yet as difficult thing...

I hope you have taken some video of Arnie, it would be a treasured memory...

Hello,
I have been lurking here for a while waiting for the results as many others...
was compelled to post to let you know I was sorry to hear about Arnie the cat. Mine is over twelve years old and still jumping around.

Kitty Crack was great.

Regards,
Tom

My condolences Phil. I myself have 8 dogs in my small home=) And my girlfriend, she likes cats very much. I cant imagine how it's going to be if we're getting married=)

cheers Ian. That's a lot of dogs, think your girlfriend will need to get 8 cats to even it out!

Hello Phil,

Do you think we can see something on page 2 soon ?

I'm sorry for your cat, I lost my big Bouvier des Flandres last fall. There is an empty space in the house.

Best.

Yves

Hi Philip, you say in the shootout that there was someone who came up to you in Covent Garden and asked you if the Breivs was a 35mm adapter, I have a brief memory of talking to someone just before Christmas in Covent Garden who had a 35mm adapter on an HXV and I doubt there could have been two people, so, that's odd.
I also saw someone in passing in Spitalfields market with something that looked like an adapter, maybe on a z1, but I can't remember, could that have been you as well?
Eh, feck, I hope I don't sound like a stalker.
John

Hi John

That must have been me. i was filming a big issue guy, part of my homeless portraits video. I gave the guy I spoke to my business card...I have also done some stuff in Spitalfields too, both on the HVX with the Brevis!

Yves...Doing page 2 now. For some reason I have identified each clip verbally as I should have done so there are a couple of shots that I dont have a clue what they are!!!

Whoops!

Phil

Hey Phil,

Will there be any mention to which adapter is best for use with really fast shutter speeds?

Cheers mate,
Dennis

yes there will be Dennis. Although no test was done for this. Both the m2 and SGpro can handle very fast shutter speeds without a problem. The Brevis can too, although you need to have the newer model or get Dennis Wood to update your old one and then change the frequency of the vibration, otherwise you see the GG. So not as easy as the m2 and sgpro, but it can be done.

Phil, I’m sorry for your loss.

Good review so far. Having used a M2 on several shots now I have to say I really hope never to have to use one again. I’m just sick of messing with it and trying to get it to focus sharp and to get edge to edge sharpness. It’s a pain to set it up. Specially the first time you get it or when you change lens mounts. The fact that you have to adjust the GG yourself is a real design flaw and actually feels lazy from their part. “Let’s let them customers have the trouble to make the adapter work”. Although I’ve never used a Sgpro, I know you don’t need to mess with the GG. So I can’t see how could you possibly set a M2 up as fast as a SGPro. I have no idea if you need to mess with the Brevis GG to set it up but if you do, bugger! That’s what I love about the Mini35. Pretty much plug and play!

Edge to edge with the M2 is a nightmare. First the rubber hood thing is really a homemade solution and it should come with a hard mount. The rubber hood is useless. You just can’t get E to E sharpness with it. You may think you got it, but if you shoot a rez chart and play it back on a large HD monitor you will see it’s still soft. So when considering the M2 one needs to factor in the need to buy and assemble some sort of hard mounting system. But even hard mounted, E to E is painful. The adapter is just not well thought out at all in my opinion. The battery mounting system, the GG adjustment mess and the rubber hood for mounting shows that.

I have never used the Brevis or SGpro so I’m not sure about E to E with them, but based on what I have seen, you can see the GG grain on the Brevis at higher shutter speeds and the pattern looks pretty ugly. Much worse then IF you see the grain on the M2 (which is very hard to happen. The M2 is great on this respect). That’s just the downfall of vibrating type of adapter.

About looks, quite honestly, I’m not sure why having a square box or a pipe mounted in front of your camera lens would look any professional, but that may be just me. If any thing, anybody who is used to cameras can see that it must be some sort of work around thing. The Mini35 although much better designed to integrate with the camera and basically looks like a bigger camera still looks odd. The MovieTube is the one that has the best integration. But between the Sgpro, M2 and Brevis, I don’t think the M2 looks the most professional. Since it’s the bulkiest of the three and looks basically like a brick, I would put it last for looks. A logo doesn’t make anything look pro IMO and I actually always found the huge bright blue M2 logos quite cheesy and at least 2 too many. One logo would have been enough to give it some character. No need for a huge logo on “every” side of the box. But then again that may be just me and is a minor thing really. I actually like the Sgpro slim profile much better. Also its hard mount seems to be much better than the M2 rubber thing. The Brevis seems to work well with small cameras like the Z1 or DVX100. But I think it would look pretty silly on a HD100 or XL-H1 because they already have long lenses and the Brevis tube would make it look really look and awkward. The M2 and Sgpro at least break it down with the box shape. Also, while with still lenses the Brevis seems to be ok, with heavier PL or OCT-19 lenses it just doesn’t seem it would be very solid. Even with rod support. Just to much space between the poor lens mount and the support. The box type of adapters seem to provide a much better and solid solution than the telescope aspect of the Brevis system. Now again I don’t have any of these adapters, but I have used the M2 extensively on several shots. I have also used the Mini35 for several shots. But I haven’t come across any Sgpros or Brevis. I’m just basing my opinions on what I have seen online and on how the adapters work. If I would buy an adapter today I would go for the Sgpro with a PL mount. Because it’s the sharpest, has the nicest bokeh, I know you don’t need to mess around with the GG, I like the slim profile better than the M2 and it’s hard mounted and seems to be pretty solid. The M2 is a pain to set up, too bulky and has too many compromises for my tastes. The Brevis design just doesn’t feel solid enough (for my camera, which is a HD100) and seems it would put to much pressure on my camera’s mount. It just doesn’t fly with me. After have tried the 2 high end adapters (Mini35 and Movietube) and the M2, I grew to like a more solid, stable and integrated set up when doing feature work and the Brevis doesn’t fall on that category for me. It just seems to add more length and nothing to stabilize it. It's really a run and gun adapter best suited to handycams than for feature production. On the top of that, I’m finding I’m not really fond of the vibrating breed. The Sgpro is solid enough yet not too bulky. I love the boken it produces too. Of course, if I had the money I would just go with the Mini35 and forget all the headaches of the low-end adapters. But among the affordable ones, the Sgpro seems to have the least of compromises and to make the nicest images, which in the end of the day is what really counts.

Michael, thanks for your extensive (and most honest) expressed opinion. It's nice to see someone actually tell the truth and speak up with their thoughts.

Having said that I have an M2 I just ordered and need to list on ebay.

; )

With the M2 and the later comers, there is a bit of a leapfrog thing going on. If the Redrock team devise and build a revision, like as not, the Dennis and Wayne's projects may be overtaken.

Once stuff starts getting sold, standardisation of components occurs for reliable repetition, otherwise it is handbuild of everything and there is little profit in that.

That's when you get locked into a fixed design. With low volume production runs, design revisions can mean very expensive component redundencies if they are custom for the product. Unless you can resell them, they make for a very expensive roadside collection or garage sale.

Changing a design mid-stream can be a bankrupting decision but failure to come up to market expectations can be equally disastrous.

If the Redrock people as the first players decide to revise, this may well put the newer designs behind, so a familiar game of evolutionary leapfrog may occur. This may not be economically sustainable for everyone.

Meanwhile, if P+S decide there is profit in making one more major revision before all groundglass based image relay is made obsolete by RED and lower cost clones, their new product will be very interesting and perhaps set a impossible benchmark for home-builders.

Yes Bob, I'm totally interested in seeing what PS Technik has up their sleeve - if anything at all however.

Somehow I doubt it. It seems to me their market exists because everyone who already owns a DVX, HVX, XL1, XL2, HD100, PD150/170, etc.. goes out and rents an adapter for $250/day so it's the rental houses buying the mini35 units not necessarily hundreds of individuals.

I own a mini35 but that's just because for me it was easier to offer flexible services to potential clients as well cut deals when necessary.

The PS Technik mini35 will be around for quite some time and it's unlikely RED will put any dent in their market. It's hard to say.

With edge-to-edge sharpness, isn't that a matter of the right achromat/pcx? Wouldn't it be simple just to change that to better the m2? I noticed with macro lenses that it is sharpest in the center and tends to get more blurred as it moves to the edges. Is this the problem that the m2 is having? I guess that the Brevis and SGpro have figured that part out and how to avoid it, but it surprises me that redrock hasn't...

My imagining on the Mini35 is that they might lengthen the crank throws to move the GG a little more and that they might experiment with very fine optical fibres in a coherent bundle sliced off as a wafer as a substitute for the traditional groundglass.

I understand Photonis have got the res of their GenII+ night vision tubes up to 80 line pairs per mm, so that potentially represents 1760 lines of resolution on a 22mm wide groundglass area.

If my math is correct this would put P+S ahead of the game HDV wise if the fibres used on the NV tubes could be made to work with low loss. It would be a little short in horizontal res in the true HD realm unless the groundglass area is made bigger.

But I failed math from grade 5 onwards so I could be way wrong.

I have never seen grain on my Brevis lens stopped down or no, on my Panny HD monitor, or my plasma/lcd televisions from my HVX Brevis rev1 combo. The one thing i've learned having owned a couple of different adapters is there is no way in hell to judge the image on the web with compression. I use to think I was seeing way more noise on my HVX until I broke down and bought a real monitor. The Brevis puts no strain on the lens...its Carbon fiber and ultra light nothing like the Letus or the flip and there is lens support for it. I love how people qualify they've never owned something and give qualitative in depth reviews based off of what? I know Michael...we've had these discussions before, i just remember how much you touted the M2 and the G35 against everything being made, and now you're trashing it. Steve Dinkins loved the MPIC, now he has an M2. Cassidy Bisher shoots some of the most inspired footage i've seen from the Motivity site and they use the M2. Bob Gundu's footage has always been awesome with the Brevis, as well as Phil's for his documentary. Point is get what you can afford, because if you don't have skills with the camera these adapters won't help you polish a turd.

I have never seen grain on my Brevis lens stopped down or no, on my Panny HD monitor, or my plasma/lcd televisions from my HVX Brevis rev1 combo. The one thing i've learned having owned a couple of different adapters is there is no way in hell to judge the image on the web with compression. I use to think I was seeing way more noise on my HVX until I broke down and bought a real monitor. The Brevis puts no strain on the lens...its Carbon fiber and ultra light nothing like the Letus or the flip and there is lens support for it. I love how people qualify they've never owned something and give qualitative in depth reviews based off of what? I know Michael...we've had these discussions before, i just remember how much you touted the M2 and the G35 against everything being made, and now you're trashing it. Steve Dinkins loved the MPIC, now he has an M2. Cassidy Bisher shoots some of the most inspired footage i've seen from the Motivity site and they use the M2. Bob Gundu's footage has always been awesome with the Brevis, as well as Phil's for his documentary. Point is get what you can afford, because if you don't have skills with the camera these adapters won't help you polish a turd.

I completely agree with you, if you never had the adapter in your hand and tried it, how can you give qualitative review.

I don't know brother but Phil started this thread weeks ago, and there are people on here waiting, salavating like their very creative lives depend on it. Its kind of...I don't know annoying...like damn if you don't own one get one and shoot something. If you don't like it sell it and get a different one just because I like the Brevis means squat, some people don't like the M2 but DP's on 24 sure liked it.

Hi Phil, did I miss out something ? I see only one picture in the page2 ?? or you are still working on this ?

many thanks

What frame size does each of these adapters use? i.e.. full frame being 36X24mm, I remember some adapters have a smaller usable imaging area. Giving you a smaller FOV which is makes getting real wide angle more expensive; Kinda like digital SLR's their smaller sensors.

If these three all use a 36X24mm imaging area, then there is no issue. Just checking.

Can anyone say why it necessary it to use 36x24mm over 24x18mm (such as what the RED CCD sensor uses?)

all done. hope at least one person finds it useful!!

Best,

Phil

P.S. Watch Channel 4 this friday at 1930. My first doco for the insider goes out. partly shot with the M2

Hi Phil,

Not getting anything from page 6 onwards...

Been really looking forward to reading this though - its a tough choice!! Anyone know if there are any adapters avaliable in the classifieds section? I'm not allowed in there yet!

Thanks for your work on this though Phil, and ill remember to tune in for your documentary!

Jim

Aww crap, just remembered im in New York this week... ill have to get someone to tape it!

Do James! It should be available on Channel 4 on demand too.


Check again now...it was probably still publishing. You were probably the first to check!

Phil

Dear Phil

Nice review. Thank you for all of your efforts.

Great work Phil, nice to see the finished report!

Looking at the stills you provided it becomes clear that with the Brevis you gain 2 stops over the M2 and you gain 1/2 to 1 full stop with theSGPro over the M2. It seems there's been some speculation as to the amount of light loss by the M2 - now we know for sure!

My favourite image from all the stills you provided is the SGPro 50mm set @ f4 and camera set @ f3.4.

To me this still looks most natural and life like. I have to be honest and say that the M2 also pleases my eye with much of the same natural color reproduction. Although not "exactly" the same I find the SGPro and M2 stills closest to one another and the Brevis images most different from the two.

The Brevis images seem to have a disturbing amount of more color or saturation? It could be a simple matter of preference I suppose.

One question: Why was the field of view wider with the SGpro ?

Thanks, again great work Phil!

I love how people qualify they've never owned something and give qualitative in depth reviews based off of what? I know Michael...we've had these discussions before, i just remember how much you touted the M2 and the G35 against everything being made, and now you're trashing it.

Greg, I think you are talking by the elbows. Please dig the post where I praised the G35. I actually always criticized the hype with no product and I was actually right. Where is it now?
About the M2, it makes good images. If you don't analyze it on a real monitor it's hard to catch the lack of edge to edge sharpness. I was basing my opinion on what I saw online. Now that I have used the M2 extensively I see the real performance and I can and have the right to criticize it. About the Brevis and SGpro I'm just basing it on what I have seen online and on the laws of physics and I clearly state that on my writing. I never claimed to be an expert on Sgpro or Brevis usage. Who said that was a review? Yes, it was a review of the M2 which I have used several times on real world shooting. About the Sgpro and Brevis, it was my personal opinion. So what's your problem?
By the way, the ugly grain pattern I saw on the Brevis high shutter clip wasn't compression artifacts, but whatever. About not adding strain to the lens, I never said it adds strain to the lens. I said it adds strain to the lens mount! Quite a different deal. Of course, you wouldn't know it, you use a fixed lens camera, right?

First, of all, thanks for putting all that work into your review! Is there any chance of grabbing similar shots using CF3, and your new adapter with new drive/Nikon mount, and adding them in? It would be a great comparison shot if you can reproduce at least the framing again. I'll fire one out to you....you'll like the bokeh.

Definately Dennis. Would love to try it out.

With regards to the warmer tinge to a couple of the Brevis shots I think that is more to do with some of the shots being a tad over than the Brevis itself making it look warmer. It's only on the F8 setting that it looks warmer, the other adaptors were well under on that fstop.

Phil

With regards to the field of view being wider...the m2 wasnt that well set up and we zoomed in a bit more than the others as we could see the motor a little. With more time we could have got it a bit wider. The brevis is zoomed in the correct amount to get past the vibrating GG edges and the SGPro actually needed to be zoomed in a bit more as there was a bit of vignetting. But it still is a bit wider, best if Wayne could answer that! Wayne?

Thanks Phil for your comments. With a little tweak in post I was able to tone down the brevis image down to where the others were - or alternatively tweak the other two a little to where the Brevis was.

Good stuff!

Thank you so much for your quick review and dozen of images.

Now I am in a deeper loop of making a good decision.

Your test has just confirmed what I have been wondered long time:
SGPro is good for outdoor due to the way it handles midtone & exposure better yet Brevis is just the clear winner in low light or indoor situation.

I love the nature light & exposure of SGPro yet I love the versatile and flexibility of Brevis.. I disappoint to SGPro can't make the setup faster with flexible len mount (as I have both Nikon & Canon len) yet I regret Brevis can't keep the explosure & color as nature as possible...

All are lovely products but I have spent too much money over last two months, perhaps I have to clam down myself for another month before I decided to buy in both of them.

Any chance Wayne & Dennis can work together so that Wayne's achromat can fit with to Dennis adapter to achieve greater edge-to-edge sharpness ? Phil, what is your thought in this ?

Thanks a lot again for your lovely review.

Oh yes, as Dennis mentioned to make another test with the latest CF3.

So Phil & Wayne, Is it possible for me to join you both if you decide to make another test sometime in March (as I away from UK at Feb) ? I am not expert in anyway and I have no gear to help the test with too (as all my stuff are at Malaysia) but at least I can treat you a drink & meal, it is just nice to learn from Pro & see how thing is actually done :-).

thank you~

I'm studying in Brighton this semester (and was just in London last weekend--loved it!) I don't have my Guerilla35 with me, but if you want I can try to get my family to ship it down for testing, or maybe I can bring it for summer term.

I'll give away the conclusion, though:
Significant light loss.
Excellent, excellent bokeh and "organic" response to light.
Great resolution but much less so at f2.4 than f2.8 and above (on the dvx's relay lens).
More static grain than you'd ever believe, even occasionally visible at f1.4.
Set up time: 20 seconds. Brilliant edge to edge sharpness with relay lens past f2.8, even at wide open way above average. Calibrated quite well to focus on infinity accurately, etc. etc. and needs no adjustment. (But, of course, it can't be adjusted.)

It's static grain (and a bit of light loss) away from being truly phenomenal. It has a 52mm achromat, which is of the highest quality and performs wonderfully and I agree that the smaller achromat is a generally excellent choice. Too bad the project apparently went nowhere.

Ing, one of the major issues/tradeoffs here is compactness. We could use a weaker/smaller achromat, but we'd end up with a much longer lead-in tube, and at shorter lengths, potential vignetting due to the smaller achromat. The 72mm achromat is definitely better in our application, which is why we abondoned the 58mm alternative.

Phil has two units now, one with the new drive system/Nikon mount, and one without. The review was done with the old unit, which would not have been my preference, however that's all Phil had at the time. Had I been there to tune up the unit for the review, the old one would have been fine...however our goal in making the design changes/new drive was to reduce the requirement for fine tuning to near zero.

I'm long, long overdue to do a shoot with the three imaging elements, so I'll be posting that up shortly.

I've just seen four episodes of the new series that I have been shooting for Channel 4. It's not been graded yet, but it's so depressing to have spent such a long time crafting something to find they have stuck in some interviews shot on a z1 by the director because they couldnt pay for another crew day.

There is one film that is about Co-habitation rights that has a huge amount of M2 shot stuff in it. It is going out in about 4 weeks or so. I am very pleased with how it looks. Stupidly shallow DOF at times for interviews!

PLEASE don't take this shootout as gospel. There were so many mitigating factors that made it as unscientific as "Integlligent Design"!!

I have got much better images with my Brevis at other times, same with the M2. Wayne has a great adaptor and by having him there did give his SGPro an advantage over the others. A really fair comparison would be to get all the makers together with three identical cameras shooting the same scene side by side, this of course is probably never going to happen. So your best bet is still to just read what I have said, read what other people think and make your mind up from that. If you buy any one of these adaptors you have made the right choice. They are all brilliant. Watching the doco that I half shot on the M2, and half on the XDCam showed just how lovely the M2 is.

I havent seen the full Homeless doco that I have shot with the Brevis/ XDCam with the odd interview on the M2. The one that goes out this Friday I have just seen. It has very little M2 stuff in it. Just two sequences inside a Mosque, the rest was XDCAM and Z1 second camera.

I really want to shoot a whole doco using my Brevis, but it has to be a project that I can take my time with, and preferably not handheld. You need a monitor with the HVX, less so with the Z1. I would be creating a huge amount of work for myself doing this but it would be worth it. The more you use them the more you can adapt to the change in shooting styles. When I go back to my full size camera I forget how easy shooting with a nice big zoom lens with low light is!!!!!

Dennis, I will go to the same location when I get the new diffuser and do the same shots again to show the guys here that the Brevis Bokeh is top notch too.

By the way Dennis. My achrmoat has managed to get stuck to the 72mm to 82mm ring and the the ring that steps down to the adaptor. Any idea how I can get them off? If I do I will stick a bit of vaseline on the thread so it doesnt happen again. What is the step ring for the adaptor to the achromat, is it 58 to 72mm?

Phil, thanks so much for your work and for sharing the results with us. Very much appreciated.

Thank you very much Dennis, now I understand why Brevis is shorten then other adapters because of the use of bigger achromat.

But I have a question about the handling of exposure & midtone with Brevis, I remembered I have asked you before and your suggestion is to use more ND to prevent over-explosure.

Phil, please can I know how much ND you have applied to Brevis when doing the test ?

I am happy to step-down aperture and add more ND filters but my concern is whether the image will still look as nature as SGPro ? Please see my attachment for what I am concerning...

Sorry to Phil, as I alter your image without your permission first ;p. As you can see, even Brevis have aperture closed down 1 & half stop but the image still over-exposure...

Phil, if you are going to make the test with CF3 soon, please can you try to make the image without significant over-exposure, I just wonder how much ND & aperture-closing will Brevis need and how would the image look like ?

many thanks again.

Ing, the overexposure is NOTHING to do with the Brevis...it's to do with a tired and cold camera operator.

No ND was used in any of the tests. Yes if using the Brevis in a bright day outside with the standard diffuser ND on the 35mm lens is recommended.

Ing I will try not to overexpose in the future!!!!! What it does show is I am able to overexpose the Brevis at F8 when the other adaptors I couldn't even get the correct exposure!!

Phil, yes, 72-58. Any camera shop should have filter wrenches like these: http://www.amazon.com/Adorama-Filter-Wrench-46-58mm-Filters/dp/B00009R8I4 to remove them if you need some extra grip. Rather than oil based lubricant, I'd suggest a very light touch of graphite (dry lube). That way there's no chance of lens coating contamination, or getting lube on the outside of the ring! Graphite also has the advantage, as a dry lube, of not attracting dirt. A pencil is a cheap source, or you can purchase graphite lube in any hardware type store. Just make sure you blow off the threads before assembling.

Thank you Phil for your confirmation, so overexposure is nothing to do with Brevis... I saw many sample footages from Brevis users (including Dennis own sample), most of them have a lot of "over-exposure" here and there, Dennis told me that makes more filmic look while I really don't like that look and feel (as real film has more lattitude even in over-exposure image).

That is why I keep wondering can Brevis make a good outdoor image without over-exposure ?

Since you confirm it is nothing to do with Brevis, please can you tell me based on your experience, what f-stop and ND would be required for the same image you took in the test which would prevent over-exposure ? will it make even darken then SGPro in a very un-nature look and feel. Yes, another thing I find out about many Brevis footages are, either a lot of over-exposure or simply too dark, another filmic ? Like a recent footage from Brevis user: Christopher Barry at www.siliconcine.net, he got the similar problem in handling exposure in his latest outdoor test (test 3, Brevis with Nikon 85mm F2.0), either too bright or the front-object is too dark to see...

I am really worrying that the range of mid-tone from Brevis is far too less comparing to SGPro & M2.

Or trying to keep good image without over-exposure is just as difficult as trying to keep minimun light lost in M2 & SGPro ?

Or it is the trend of filmic from everyone ?

mm.. next time please call me out too, I will make sure you will get very comfortable in making test, such as bring extra jacket and some hot drinks.. or some asian-curry :p.. And I can carry heavy stuff for you, that might help a bit :D.

thanks Ing. To be honest until Spring/ Summer comes I couldnt really advise about daylight stuff outside, most of the stuff I have shot has been indoors or crappy winter grey light outside.

I would recommend a selection of ND filters, probably best to get them for a matte box otherwise you need to get different sizes for different lenses.

Thanks a lot again Phil, especially the tips of matte box...

Yes I am looking closely to Dennis' FF & matte box, just wonder when will it be available on sell and the total cost of Brevis + CF3 + FF + Mattebox + Rod support + ND...

Other then saving money, I really don't know what else I can do these days.. ha.

honestly...quite a lot. you no longer in blighty?

Since you confirm it is nothing to do with Brevis, please can you tell me based on your experience, what f-stop and ND would be required for the same image you took in the test which would prevent over-exposure ? will it make even darken then SGPro in a very un-nature look and feel. Yes, another thing I find out about many Brevis footages are, either a lot of over-exposure or simply too dark, another filmic ? Like a recent footage from Brevis user: Christopher Barry at www.siliconcine.net, he got the similar problem in handling exposure in his latest outdoor test (test 3, Brevis with Nikon 85mm F2.0), either too bright or the front-object is too dark to see...

Using the same lens f-stop you would use a ND4 (also known as .6) to stop down by exactly 2 stops and get the approximate same exposure level.

It would make it darker for the SGPro or M2 so you would not use the ND filter in that case.

Hope that helps.

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. I don't see where the review is. Are the comparison photos in this thread, or on Phil Bloom's website? I can't seem to find anything.