Not to start any flames here, but seriously why are there so many M2's for sale on DVinfo & DVXusr?

Is the market "saturated"? Are they not living up to people's "expectations"? Do people just buy this stuff for "fun" then decide they don't need it?

So what's the deal? Anyone have any ideas....... .

I noticed this as well - on a few message boards the M2 is selling, but so is the original Letus - as a side not, it seems the Canon XL2's seem to be going out of style in the camera department...

I noticed this as well - on a few message boards the M2 is selling, but so is the original Letus - as a side not, it seems the Canon XL2's seem to be going out of style in the camera department...

No guff.

The ramp up to HD everything is getting interesting ... I can't wait for the final chapter in the distribution war to happen; right when burners get cheap along with the media and the players ... then watch the price of my XL2 drop...

If only we had faster broadband.... where the faheck is wimax? .... it would make the "disk" obsolete. Apples on track with distribution.... where's the pipe?

I tinkered with the dof adaptors.... found it to fragile and awkward to use as a "professional" piece of gear. It's stressfull enough keeping the lightstands and mic booms out of view with a bare camera.

I don't know about you guys.... but I try to squeeze every bit of resolution out of my hdv setup.... I'm sure if I won the lottery, I'd by a f950 or a red for the bigger chips. I'm 75% a still shooter, with hassleblad and 4X5 mated to a 22MP back.... and even then finding myself wanting more.

Speaking of XL2, wanna buy mine?

Maybe because they look fake?

Replying to the original poster.... for me personally - I need one (commercials/image clips) but resorted back to renting a Mini35 because of "my expections not being met" (to put it friendly) ... the Brevis/Cinevate is my last hope now... we'll see how it works out...

Soeren, anything specific you can comment on? ie. overall size, dealing with upside down image, etc..

Maybe because they look fake?

Could you possibly be any more helpfull than that?

Dennis... I have no problem with upside down shooting.. you can always find a solution for monitoring and in my HD(V) workflow it doesn't make much difference if I've got to add a combined mirror/flip ;) ... this is to be expected from the cheaper alternatives.. no problem there.

Points that were pretty problematic: ease of use/setup, pretty cumbersome setup with too many variables (things that would accidentely/unintentionally change and mess up your image) ... hotspot/vignetting/light falloff/corner (un)sharpness (these were the major problem points) ...
And high light loss (when you're interested more in a run & gun approach of filmmaking this is esp. critical) ... but vignetting/light fall off and corner softness are the biggest problems I encountered and that made it unusable in the end.
And the often read solution to "just zoom in a little more" - well if you either already have the full 35mm frame covered you wouldn't want to zoom in more and most of the time you just couldn't! Because of the combination of optics used and distances etc. you couldn't get sharp focus when you zoomed in more on the GG.
Another big point: flange focal distance... 1) this wasn't set up correctly to begin with in the pre-assembled adapter so you hat to fix this first 2) fixing or changing it meant that you would basically _disassemble the whole adapter_ basically screwing all the fine tuning setup you already had done.. you would have to do this over and over again if you'd ever change the GG for example.
If you'd mess up any of the numerous variables that came into play you were having fun for half a day or even more.

Regarding high f-stops: I really couldn't care less.. normally you'd never use a 35mm adapter with a lens stopped down more than lets say f5/f6 ... testing for f11/f22 is pretty pointless and ridiculous. It would look bad on a Mini35 too and why bother with all the added glass/groundglass etc. when the DOF doesn't differ much anymore and all you get is another coloring because of the 35mm lens used.
I guess most of these tests are done because people who get inexpensive adapters and inexpensive matte boxes etc. (or none at all) don't want to spend even more money on quite expensive 4x4" ND filters and such. But this is the way to go.

So my experience: maaaaaaaaaany wasted hours of tuning until you'd finally get an "ok" image (at least for a few runs) ... sorry but in the end this calculation simply doesn't work. At least if you're on an commercial endeavour... then I'm better off simply renting an Mini35 that "just works".
(of course it's overpriced, but it works and is damn sturdy.. that's why it's still that expensive and I guess this will not change until there's an alternative that really works too)

The newest SGPro (Rev2 I believe) and the Cinevate both seem to be quite good... I'm looking forward to check these out as well (especially the Cinevate seems promising).

Cheers

Well at least someone is honest about sharing their experiences.

I've owned and been using my mini35 (series 300) with the Canon XL1se (PAL version to get 24p back in the day) since 2004 and now XL2 and it's been great but I find it hard to shoot f4 - f5.6 under most lighting conditions.. but I don't mean it in the sense that I don't ever use lighting! My best work has been, and always will be with use of lighting!

If you read any of my posts regarding 35mm shooting you'll see that I'm an advocate of shooting in the neighbourhood of f4 - f5.6. Anything much lower in my opinion is no longer "film like" in terms of 35mm adapter use (or film) and technically becomes extremely challenging for a film style production. F2.8 is not bad either but your DOF becomes very small.

So in my prospect of moving into the HVX and chosing a new 35mm adapter has me plagued. I'm spoiled having worked exclusively with the mini35. A sturdy piece if equipment which is by no means is finicky or has ever produced unpredictable results as Soeren has somewhat indicated. It also offers industry standard support rods so follow focus, remote focus, matte boxes, etc.. all work with it without fail. Built in flip image means no external monitor, this makes everything about run'n gun production easy, especially steadicam use.

My last shoot was up in Bancroft, Ontario for a 3 day shoot towards the end of December. All outdoor, extremely cold and my mini35 held up without ANY issues whatsover. I was extremely impressed!

Since a new mini35 series 400 is costly (mine is currently series 300 and won't work with HD) and still has the light loss issue I've considered an alternative 35mm adapter for the time being. I noticed a lot of M2's for sale which is why I started this thread, I'm not sure what I think of the Letus HD version except I think it loses as much light as the mini35 and I'm more a fan of spinning or rotating GG's because you can stop higher and not see any visable GG grain in your image.

This leaves the M2 or SGPro r2. I'm eager to try both but there is no real "try before you buy" option out there.

Anyway I'm leaning more towards the SGPro and Wayne has been extremely helpful providing information about his unit.

I hear what you're saying and can fully understand the position you're in - I'm basically in the same boat. If you absolutely want a rotating ground glass then I'd say go with the SGPro in its newest incarnation. If a vibrating GG is ok too then I'd give the Cinevate a try. I hope you get the point and I won't need to get more "explicit". ;o)
Of course you won't get the same level of sturdyness and compatibility with 3rd party accessories with any of the cheaper ones. But at least you should make sure to get a good picture. ;)

Soeren I never asked, what camera have you been using with the M2 and what camera do you intend on using with the Brevis?

Did you ever manage to work out an "effective ASA" when you were using the M2?

I was using (or tried to use ;o) the Panasonic DVX100A and the Sony Z1 with it. I intend to use the Brevis on the DVX, HVX and the Canon XH A1 ...

No ASA sorry.. but I'd say there was a loss of about 2 f-stops at least... of course also depending on which groundglass you were using (they all had their pros and cons).

Btw did you see the test video from Richard Darge?
http://gearbrain.blogspot.com/

It's by no means a "scientific" review or "experiment" but to me it really sums it up quite nicely. It really shows the problems I mentioned...

I read the gearbrain article/review a couple weeks ago as well as a lot of other posts regarding 35mm adapters and their amount of light loss. There seems to be a lot of discrepancy about the amount of light loss between users of them and the specs issued by the makers (ie. Letus, Brevis, M2, SGpro, mini35). This is likely why:

When calculating the light loss of an adapter the taking lens (or 35mm) lens should not be factored into the equation when determining the light loss of the adapter! You have to subtract the lens when making your calculation. I think many people are looking at their camera's f-stop rating before and after they put on the 35mm adapter and calling the difference their adapter light loss. This is wrong.

Overall light loss is one thing (still a usefull thing to know), but asking "how much light loss is that adapter" is another.

The article on gearbrain is a perfect example this discrepancy. It states the Brevis is 1.5 to 2.5 stops brighter than the M2 but in the video the first scene shot at 28mm yields f2.8 on the M2 and f4 on the Brevis. Sorry folks but this is ONE stop (see chart below) not 1.5 to 2.5.

And if M2 claims a light loss of 1 stop and the Brevis is in fact 1.5 to 2.5 brighter than the M2, then the Brevis is actually amplifying light - wow, that's cool where can I get one?

Handy F-STOP Chart

1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22

eg. going from f4 to f5.6 is one stop
going from f5.6 to f8 is one stop

You most certainly NEVER subtract f-stops from each other to determine the f-stop difference. The difference between 5.6 and 8 is not 2.4! It is ONE f-stop.

Yeah I know, there already were quite a number of threads on this issue.
I was already talking about the pure adapter light loss.. it's simply more than only 1 stop... and certainly the cinevate is at least 1 stop "brighter" (of course for both models its different when you use another GG).

Or if you want to see another good example of the problems I spoke of have a look at this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=83013

The barrel distortion while present in every grab is especially unpleasent in the below-85mm-grabs... on the first grab (20mm) it gives me instant headaches (together with the edge unsharpness)...

Well it's definitely SGpro or Brevis then to own... and mini35 to rent for more professional shoots!

Soeren,

Just to be fair to M2 (in regards to the images you make reference to above), I am an EXTREMELY inexperienced user. This was my first attempt at the M2 with the new V1U (which I was also very inexperieced with). I didn't use a focus chart nor did I do any adjustments between lens changes. My total setup was approx. 10 min. Perhaps I shouldn't have 'jumped' to the forums with my results, but my excitement is/was obvious.

It was near sunset, and I used almost every lens wide open. I know of the problems with the 20mm (especially the CA and the edge softness). This isn't to say that their aren't issues with the M2, but to completely dismiss it and to use my sample clips to do so is unfair. Many users have had extremely pleseant results and I'm sure the other 35mm adaptors have their pros/cons too. I'm not making excuses for the M2 but there is a good chance that the quality of the stills that you point out could be more user error as opposed to what the M2 can really do.

Every new tool to our business should require patience and have learning curves. If one 'tool' doesn't work as you wish, we are fortunate that others have made different 'tools' as alternatives.

Again, the stills I posted should not be used as "this is what you will always get". Once I've put the proper time into learning the ins/outs of my system, I'll post more stills and clips; then feel free to critique my images.

Todd

In the 20mm shot, there is a bit of concentric CA evident in the corners top left and top right.

If all the other camcorder zoom and focus settings are correct, this then hints that there might be possibility of improvement if the dioptre lens can be placed closer to the camcorder's own lens.

Another solution might be to use a less powerful dioptre and set the dioptre and camcorder furthur back from the groundglass.

What zoom setting in millimetres do you use to get your image framed? It looks to me like you might be trying to take too much area off the groundglass as there is a slight brightness falloff to the corners and that should not be happening with the M2 groundglass as I know it.

Check with the Redrock people. You may find that their setup is optimised for a groundglass area of 22mm wide. The Mini35 I understand, maybe incorrectly, to be 21mm.

I'm using the same Sigma and I do not get corner falloff with this lens at all. I'm using two size areas off the groundglass, about 26mm with a 4+ dioptre and about 22mm - 24mm with a 7+ dioptre. This is with my own adaptor, not the M2, but the basic rules are similar across some adaptors.

Sacrifice a little of the groundglass area, say about 4mm less width by going in a bit closer with the zoom if you can. You may lose a bit of resolution but you may recover some with sharper focus across the whole of the smaller image.

I also understand that setting up and fine-tuning the M2 takes a bit of effort. If the SLR lens backfocus is off, the wides are not going to focus right. They might even CA in the corners but I don't know about this.

The zoom relay wth in-camera lens type camera is a handy composition tool if you have dark areas or even just plain soft areas on edges of the image.

Centre axis of SLR lens relative to centre axis of camcorder seems to be off to the left by about 1.5mm. (to the right as viewed in the image.)

This could also be caused by a bending force on the camcorder/adaptor junction if you have it set up on a bridgeplate and rods and have tightened the baseplate screw down a bit hard or forced a fit if it has been a bit baulky

Is the dioptre mounted direct to the camera or mounted in the adaptor in such a way that the centre is correct for the camera lens centre.

Also it could be an offset of the centre of the imager relative to the camcorder lens optical centre. This is more common than you might believe and optical steadyshot fluid prisms at rest among other things. Its not a big deal.

A fourth cause could be SLR lens centre axis not being coincident with the camcorder centre axis. Because your image is not conveyed direct to camera from the SLR lens, this is not a big deal.

Don't take much notice of me on the offset comment because it might also just be a naturally darker area in left of the image.

Anyone dare to rank in order of best to worst for all 35mm adapters?

I'd say PS Technik mini35 is at the top. Yeah it eats light, but it's robust, no flip, no tweaking needed and it works everytime - on a steadicam, tripod or shoulder without any external LCD needed or flip tricks.

What's at the bottom of the list... ?

(we'll figure out the middle later)

Dennis.

You have a mischievious nature.

I concur with the Mini35 comment.

Not everybody who has spent their best and only on a turkey and has sung its praises here until they found its wrinkles is unlikely with few exceptions to post a rebuttal.

However as a starter, here is mine. My very first fixed GG adaptor which I named the Pringlecam, (2 x pringles packs, opaque lid for GG, 5-stop light loss, about 200 TV lines of resolution, rolled-up toeless sock in one end to hold the X-Fujinon f1.8 50mm ( a good lens actually ), backfocus rearwards, - finger push, backfofocus forwards, wire hook in sock, another toeless rolled up sock to hold the Pringlecam on front of the camcorder along with some gaffer tape. First modification was letterbox slots in sides of Pringlecam and 600 grit grind on microscope slide for GG. )

Spell "Dennis" backwards and you'll see why we're such a mischevious bunch :-) Dennis H, you're also a fellow Canuck...even worse! We specialize in self-deprecation and potent beer.

Soeren, I would agree...4x4 filters and a mattebox are very, very nice when you're in rails mode.

Dennis H, the Brevis with a 50mm f1.4 attached will see about .5 to .7 stops loss (that's total loss to the camera). That doesn't make sense in a conventional argument on optics and apertures..but adapters are not conventional optics as there is an imaging element involved. Certainly, calculating f stops using plain old subraction is a common mistake out there...done it myself a few times :-) Many users with the CF1 element installed claim "no light loss" which is not the case...they're seeing at least .5 to .7 (calculated properly). There's usually a huge discussion on why this is impossible, but as always, I defer to the users of the device. Cf2 and CF3 see a bit more loss, but not as much as I would have predicted.

Hi Dennis, it's Dennis. :P

You've got me all figured out with the beer thing... had a couple pints last night in fact.

Listen what's the ETA on a brand new fresh off the mill/press Brevis? I got my HVX this week and my mini35 is series 300 so it's for SD only. I've been leaning every which way with a second 35mm adapter to tinker with at home inbetween renting mini35 series 400 for more commercial type work.

I've been leaning towards the SGPro r2 but looks like I missed the February shipments so it would be sometime in March and I can't wait that long. I have no patience. I've even considered the M2 to tinker with for a bit since they're readily available (and can always be sold) but now I'm on the Brevis path to light again (no pun intended).

What's the highest I can stop down before seeing and any GG grain? I typically shoot no lower than f2.8 and no higher than f5.6 and at very rare occasion f8. Are there any online samples of still frame grabs at various f-stops to demonstrate this?

I will likely continue some discussion with you offline via email.. cheers!

Yep, a few jugs of Rickard's Red met their fate at our throats last night too :-) Drop an email and I'll fix you up with the info you're looking for. The Brevis with CF1 is happy (with the appropriate light) at up to f16, however no one looking for max image quality or any kind of DOF typically shoots that high. At f1.2 to f8 you would certainly be OK. CF2 and CF3 are less flexible in terms of very high f stops. I will have comparison footage of CF1, 2, and 3 up soon, at a range of f stops. We just finally got all the CF3 equipment etc in place, something we've been waiting for, to do the test shoots with production versions. There's a few other Torontonians with units, so you're in potentially good shape for a test.

The Mini35 series 300.

What is the HD limitation with this, ie., groundglass too coarse/too small area used/optics. If it is just the groundglass, there might be home-improvement options there.

The Mini35 series 300.

What is the HD limitation with this, ie.,

I honestly have no idea. I've only ever read that it's the grain from the spinning GG on a series 300 that shows up on HD. (The series 400 has a vibrating GG element not spinning.)

If it's only the GG as you suggest then definitely some home-improvement might be possible. Interesting thought...

The grain should not be visible if it is working right but the ratio of the grain size versus the image size may have been altered to improve resolution to acceptable HD levels.

Two ways this can happen, larger image area on the groundglass or finer grain texture.

If spare spinning disks could be had from P+S for dressing to a finer texture or Wayne's source in the UK could make them with a finer texture than the originals, it would be an interesting hack which might extend the useability of the series 300.

I think P+S may have erred on the cautious side with their GG in the series 300 to eliminate edge fall-off or hotspots. They suggest no tighter than f5.6 for SLR lens aperture but I have seen acceptable images from f11 against a bright sky with a series 400.

This suggests to me that there might be some leeway with the series 300 groundglass to go finer with the texture. If the available image off the groundglass is small and the groundglass texture is already as fine as it can be, then there is not likely to be any available improvement here because the whole optical path would have to be revised.

I assume in all this that the seriess 400 groundglass is indeed a ground glass diffuser and not a wafer cut from a coherent fibre bundle, in which case I would be barking up the wrong tree.

Could be an after-market business opportunity for some skilled enthusiast artisans. Of course, no warranty of satisfactory performance either express or implied once the elves have had their run around inside.

Might also ruin it too.

I think the mini35 uses a full film frame although I have not actually tried to observe this. It is likely the screen grain is course, a spinning GG should not cause the issue under normal circumstances.

Past published info has suggested 21mm corner-to-corner for image size on the groundglass but I have not read up on latest revisions.

Looking at the Series 400, going by the focus mark which appears correct for Nikon, it seems there is no reducing optic to reframe the standard film frame to the smaller 21mm but that is not to say is has not been done this way and the focus mark is simply a user-guide.

They would only have had to make a finer groundglass or go slightly wider on the image off the groundglass to get to HD. I'm coming up to 850 TV lines horizontal res off my own gadget off 22mm wide and it is a lot less finessed than the Mini35.

I think there might be room for improvement on the Series 300. The motor might have to be altered for higher rpm if the so called "vortex from hell" issue with the slower surface speed of the inner area of the spinning disk is the problem for HD.

Not to shed any light on the matter, but I totally concur that with the older model P+S units there was sort of a vortex feeling in certain lighting situations, esp flat monotone fields. It may have been from a combination of GG grain, speed of the spinning disc, and shutter speed. But it was inconsistent (and the mini35 I was using was on rental) so I never figured it out. The 400 series did away with this problem, but God help you if you have any dirt on the diffuser: it would show up as very obvious oscillating circles in your frame (and it's about a half hour job to take apart, clean it, and get it back together--and don't tell the rental house you did it!).

To be honest, fear-of-the-spinning-disc-design is the main reason I am/was leery of the SGpro, but to date I have never seen anything like "the vortex" from it, although I think I've seen it from the M2. (I think Wayne K has a secret formula.) I believe the SGpro must have a finer grained diffuser or higher rotation speed or both. But I haven't had my hands on one yet, so I'm just speculating based on other people's footage.

Maybe Wayne could shed some light?

edit:I hadn't refreshed my browser, so I was responding to the earlier issue of grain (movement) on the 300. But it seems like we were on the same track. FYI the 400 seems to be full frame motion though there may be a little more room to play with than in earlier versions. Is it finer grained? It seems so, and I don't believe it's a much wider surface area. It is definitely not full still-frame FOV. I don't believe it reframes/reduces anything. You just have the smaller diffusion surface area to rephoto (ergo smaller FOV). That's what makes me think it's finer grained.

From my limited experience, adapting the 300 with a finer GG disc and higher speed rotation seems like it could work, but it still wouldn't be full frame (if that matters to you). Will Wayne sell those diffusers without the unit?

What chance there will now be a run on used Series 300 Mini35s and the traders and vendors wondering what the hell is going on.

P&S has definitely targeted the 35mm motion lens crowd (rental or big $$$) where Wayne and others (ourselves included) have targeted the SLR lens crowd which offers a much more affordable full frame (SLR film) solution. Wayne's adapter will not have any vortex/grain issues with HD or otherwise, as his spinning design is well sorted, and uses very modern technology for the spinning disc diffusion surface.

To be honest, fear-of-the-spinning-disc-design is the main reason I am/was leery of the SGpro, but to date I have never seen anything like "the vortex" from it, although I think I've seen it from the M2. (I think Wayne K has a secret formula.) I believe the SGpro must have a finer grained diffuser or higher rotation speed or both.

The mini35 does not spin in the same fashion as the SGpro or M2 from what I know. It's hard to explain this, but on the mini35 the image is projected onto a rotating GG where the spinning axis is actually the CENTER of the frame.

The M2 has the 35mm projected image onto outside area of a "larger" spinning disc. I think the SGpro works in the same fashion.

If for some reason my mini35 series 300 doesn't end up selling... I would definitely consider a mod to get it working with HD and possibly even improve on the light loss situation.