redrockmicro VS canon lens???

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Kelly,

You should see an "upload" link at the top of this page...

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/browseimages.php?c=3

Let me know how this works for ya...

<< There are some important things you need to keep in mind if you want to get an M2, especially if you are using an XL2. I'd be happy to expand more and answer questions. >>

Heck, please expand at your convenience, maybe we should turn it into an article for the XL2 Watchdog? Just a thought,

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Hi Kelly,

You should see an "upload" link at the top of this page...

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/browseimages.php?c=3

Let me know how this works for ya...

<< There are some important things you need to keep in mind if you want to get an M2, especially if you are using an XL2. I'd be happy to expand more and answer questions. >>

Heck, please expand at your convenience, maybe we should turn it into an article for the XL2 Watchdog? Just a thought,

Chris, I have been meaning to write an article about the M2 and my experiences with Redrockmicro for a while. I'll put something together this weekend as I finish editing some of my footage. Perhaps I'll have some stills then also.

On a side note, sorry about not getting you an article on the 24p/24pa issue, but in researching it, I discovered that everything we were saying was out there on the internet already.

Thanks,

Kelly

[Robert Luke]

how much was your tripod head?

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Robert Luke

how much was your tripod head?

Robert, the head (Bogen 516 pro fluid) and the legs (Bogen 3246 legs) were purchased as a package from BH Photo for $706.95. You could look them up individually. I really like them and would definitely purchase them again.

Chris, I'll be editing all weekend, so I'll write the article early next week. It will be very comprehensive with pictures and footage.

For now, if you are thinking about getting the M2 with the XL2, you need to know the following:

You picture will be recorded upside down. You will need to flip it in post.
You can turn your EVF on the XL2 upside down by mounting it from the other side.
You will need a larger monitor (I use a 7" widescreen LCD) to focus the image properly. Since the image is upside down, you either will need to mount the monitor that way or get one with a "flip" capability.
The camera baseplate of the M2 will have to be adjusted (this is easily done) to make up for the offset XL2 lens.
You will not be able to use autofocus or image stabilization. Real film cameras usually don't have this either, so don't complain.
Although you will receive a very nice foam cutout to store the M2 and rails, you will need to disassemble the rails and baseplate assembly to store (this only deals with the XL2 for reasons I will explain later).

Now don't let any of that get you down. The M2 is totally worth it and is 1/10th of the price of the next solution (the Mini35). The limited DOF is astounding and you won't work without it again if you are trying to emulate film.

Once again, I will put together a very comprehensive article next week. Until then, I will be happy to answer questions as time permits.

Thanks,

Kelly

[Andrew C. Stewart]

Hey Kelly...I just got my XL2 and the M2 should be here next week (according to good ol' Valente). I may have lots of questions for ya since I too will be shooting my very first shot with and XL2 and the M2 (have used a GL2 some but not extensively).

Thought there might need to be some shimming on the adapter for the height of the camera...hopefully that's not a big issue. Also still trying to find the best solution for an on camera monitor. Did you buy the Ikan 7"? How is it (or whatever you have) holding up in terms of color or focus requirements.

Hope you'll be around to answer my Q's. I'll catch you on this board or the M2 board.

EDIT: Sorry just noticed you're using the panasonic monitor. I'm on a bit more of a budget but it's not too far out of the range. So how it it worlking?

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Andrew C. Stewart

Thought there might need to be some shimming on the adapter for the height of the camera...hopefully that's not a big issue.

Actually, it is an issue. If you plan on ever using a standard mattebox to mount on the rails, you will need to shim the rods up where they attach to the camera base plate. When you do this, you will no longer be able to move the rods all the way back without disassembling the rods/baseplate and removing the shims. This isn't a big deal for any reason other than storage...the rod assembly won't fit in the packaging foam (or case if you got that in your bundle) with the rods as forward as they need to be with the shims in. You will need to disassemble them every time you store them/put them in the case...kind of a pain.

If you don't plan on using a mattebox on the rails, then you can just shim the element up and everything will work fine for storage.

The shims need to be 3/8 to 7/16 of an inch thick and must have holes drilled through them. They need to be fairly strong if you are shimming the rods up since they hold the weight of the rods, M2, lens, etc.

Originally Posted by Andrew C. Stewart

EDIT: Sorry just noticed you're using the panasonic monitor. I'm on a bit more of a budget but it's not too far out of the range. So how it it worlking?

I like it a lot. It works great, but does not have flip mode. I turn it upside down with the israeli arm I have. It also does not have underscan but it does change aspect ratios and has a black and white mode.

[Michael Guarino]

Kelly, I'm real interested in trying out the Mircro35 on my XL-2, what 35mm lens or lenses would you recommend using for optimal results?

(Sorry if you answered this already)

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Michael Guarino

Kelly, I'm real interested in trying out the Mircro35 on my XL-2, what 35mm lens or lenses would you recommend using for optimal results?

(Sorry if you answered this already)

Michael, I can only answer from my limited experience. I don't know a lot about lenses to begin with. There are others who can talk about all the technical aspects of lenses for days.

There are different mounts you can get from the M2 to fit different lenses. I went with the Nikon because Nikon hasn't changed their mounting system in 50 years and there are a lot of used Nikons out there really cheap.

I picked up a Nikon 50mm 1:1.4 lens, a Nikon 135mm 1:2.8 and a Nikon 28mm 1:2.8. I am having some problems with the 28mm that I haven't determined if the fault is the lens, the M2 or me. I will have to get back with you on that. However, the 50 and 135 work great. I used the 50mm for 90% of all of my shots...it just seems to capture the right framing for most interior shots. Plus, at 1.4, it doesn't lose much light. The 135mm was used for closeups, but was quite a bit darker at 2.8. I really need to get an 85mm.

So, I guess I'd recommend Nikons at 50 and 85 and try to get the fastest lenses possible. You'll probably do fine with 1:1.4 to 1:2.8.

If you want more detailed info, I'm not the one to ask. There are a lot of individuals with a lot more information on the forums at redrockmicro.com. I would strongly recommend you go there and ask again. They will give you more info than you know what to do with.

Remember, I only started doing this so I wouldn't say I am an authority on anything.

Thanks,

Kelly

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

I dont understand the obsession with matteboxes, mini35, etc. Those products were originally created for DPs that had an array of 4X4 filters and 35mm lenses already in their arsenal. If you dont have that gear already, you are looking at an XL2 that costs about $15k - $25K in total set-up. A 2/3" CCD camera will give you a similar look at higher resolution for about the same money.

I've wondered the same thing myself--everytime I read a thread like this one.

The only thing I can imagine is that it boils down to "image." The thinking, admitted or not, must be "I've got a mattebox on my video camera, this will help my video look more like film."

The truth (bottom line) is the more glass and other crap you put between the subject you're video taping and the CCDs will degrade the image. The footage on the site textbook example.

Ash has the right idea.

Jay

I agree that if you're going to spend $15,000 to $25,000 on a video camera set-up, then one should consider getting a $15,000 to $25,000 video camera instead, but I'm not sure where the $15,000 to $25,000 figure came in for Kelly's set up.

Now I may be biased here, because I have an XL2 and should have my M2 within the next few weeks. But my total cost was around $5,200 to $5,500 for the XL2, M2, and a Nikon 50mm 1.4.

Of course that figure does not include the tripod, fluid head, montitors, etc., but the way I see it, you will need all of that other equipment regardless the video camera you have.

If this was the Mini35 we were talking about, then sure, you'd be in between $15,000 and $25,000 easily... but it's not, and the price for an M2 is just one of the several advantages it offers, with the main advantage being able to achieve better DOF more easily.

As far as the image they produce, I've seen some pretty nice stuff. The last footage that I saw with an XL2+M2 combo actually made me forget that I was even looking at digital - no kidding. Which is great, as that's one of the reason's I decided to buy an XL2 over other cameras in the first place. I think between now and Christmas we'll have plenty of footage from various users on different cameras to judge the overall quality of vidoes shot with various camera/M2 combinations.

Personally, all of the footage that I've seen so far, has me thinking the M2 is a great product at an unbeatable price, and is just another tool that will allow me to achieve my goal of the film look. Of course, if you don't feel that way, no problem, everyone has their own opinions and that's just ONE of the factors that makes this forum so great.

Brian, looks like your original question regarding the Canon lenses vs. the M2 was answered quite well.

And to your original statement of -

"I"m just learning about this great sounding M2 at www.redrockmicro.com. I downloaded a few of the tests they did there and the footage looks great!!! .... I'm looking to shoot with a small DOF and the red rock micro looks great for that."

I agree with you 100%.

[Eniola Akintoye]

Kelly,
Can you please post some footage using the Canon XL2 with the M2?

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Jay Gladwell

The only thing I can imagine is that it boils down to "image." The thinking, admitted or not, must be "I've got a mattebox on my video camera, this will help my video look more like film."

Jay, I'm really not sure why you would say that. Do you mean I'm just trying to "cool" by putting stuff on my camera?

My philosophy about 24p and limited DOF is that these are characteristics you can actually see when you go the the movie theater and watch a major motion picture. The 24p characteristic can be see in the way motion occurs and the limited DOF can be seen in the overall image. Over the years, this has created a culture that associates 24p and limited DOF with a higher standard of quality.

I'm not saying that it truly IS higher quality. There is no doubt that it is NOT. If anything 24p and limited DOF create a LESS accurate image. But I am not trying to get the most accurate image. If I were, I would have gone with an HD camera that couldn't shoot 24p or I would shoot at 30p.

This is about emulating a standard the our culture associates with what they think is a higher standard. There is no doubt that the 24p and limited DOF help you emulate that standard.

The same goes with audio recording. For years people recorded only with analog equipment. When digital first came around, it was clearly superior. Digital created a more accurate recording of the sound. However, digital recording did not have the same inaccurate characteristics as analog tape. And for years, people associated "quality" with those inaccurate characteristics. Therefore, a lot of equipment was produced that tried to make digital recordings sound like analog recordings. There was no doubt that you were "degrading" the audio in a way. However, the objective was not to get perfectly accurate audio. It was about emulating a standard the people equated with quality.

Don't take my footage as a completely representative sample. This was my first time shooting anything ever. As Derek said, pretty soon you will see footage from people who really know how to shoot.

Thanks,

Kelly

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Eniola Akintoye

Kelly,
Can you please post some footage using the Canon XL2 with the M2?

I will as soon as I get finished editing this weekend. I should have something up by Wednesday.

[Meryem Ersoz]

woo hoo! kelly wilbur and jay gladwell in a cage match! these are the dvinfo moments we all live for!

seriously, though, this is one of the most interesting links i've read in a while, the type that has me returning to my computer to see who is saying what....

i've been pondering these very issues for awhile, trying to decide what my next Big Purchase should be and wondering if it is time to spend Really Big Money on entering the world of 35mm lenses, so this discussion is really fabulous. it is a huge financial investment, between lenses adapters, etc., and i'm just finally adjusting to the XL2 itself--haven't really explored its parameters fully after owning it for a full six months or so.

actually, i really just want to be lauri ketunnen when i grow up, who is my dvinfo.net idol, so i don't know if the redrock adapter is for me, but it is always tempting to load up on the Next Greatest Thing.

i don't think jay was saying, kelly, that you're trying to be cool, but just that the impulse to have all the coolest toys is ubiquitous among People Like Us.

i'm sitting here trying to organize my video gear closet (miserably, i might add, i need a garage sale) and am realizing that i am a living testament to the thrill of video gear acquisition.

what we really need is a link how How Many Stupid Purchases I Have Made Along the Way. subtitled The Big Thrill. for true addicts only. i think the four (yes, four) different bags i bought in the effort to lug my XL2 around would qualify.

anyone need an unused lowepro photo trekker aw II? if i can offload it, maybe i could squeeze in that redrock adapter! i bet i could squeeze one in thisyere closet if i just rearrange a few items....

[Brian Doyle]

Originally Posted by Kelly Wilbur

Now don't let any of that get you down. The M2 is totally worth it and is 1/10th of the price of the next solution (the Mini35). The limited DOF is astounding and you won't work without it again if you are trying to emulate film.

Wow, did I start a fire storm with my first post or what!?!? Kelly, thanks for all the info. I'm really interested in seeing more footage over the next few weeks and learning more. At first I was on the fence about if this product was for real. Sound like it is. My one question about the quote above is -- isn't the mini35 the product we were talking about? Isn't that the same as the M2? On the red rock site I see the micro35 Digital Cinematographer Bundle for $1300. Is that the M2? Is that the Mini35? A little behind here. Also do you have to buy a new len mount for each type of lens you put on it? How much did you pay for each mount, how much fr each lens?