|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 12th, 2005, 10:34 AM | #1 |
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 15
|
affordable solution for lenses?
Hello there,
I have been reading about lenses for xl2 and I understand there are Mini35, XL to PL mounts, etc and I also understand that to get a movie quality, as many people say, you might just get a film camera. I got an XL2 and I am just trying to get the best of it with a really low (or almost none) budget. Since I can’t afford the expansive adapters and expansive lenses, I wonder what’s the best solution. I wonder if getting an EF adapter (400 bucks) and buying some reasonable Canon Still lenses (700 bucks) will allow me to get a better depth of field and who knows a better quality picture. (I can’t seem to get much depth with the 20x original lenses) Is this the best solution for a guy in my situation? Is there an affordable price for getting 16mm lenses to my camera? (I wont ask about 35mm cause I know they are expansive) Thanks a lot! Paulo |
December 12th, 2005, 12:56 PM | #2 |
Century Optics
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 20
|
Dear Paulo:
Buying an EF adapter and using EOS lenses will not decrease the depth of field unless you are using a lens whose focal length is outside the range of you zoom lens or is faster than your Canon 20x zoom (lower F number) at the focal length you are shooting. Since the range of the zoom (5.4mm to 108mm) will cover all the needs of a typical shoot except for extreme wide angle or super telephoto I would recommend sticking with your zoom. You can do a few things to get less depth of field, tho you will not be able to mimic what can be done in 35mm. Use the camera's built in ND filters, and maybe even some add on ND filters in front of the lens to force the iris open. Shoot at the longest focal length and closest distance you can and still get the shot you want. These things reduce depth of field. Personally, and it is just my opinion, I think too much emphasis is put on depth of field. It can be a useful tool but is not a substitute for a well shot, good story, only an enhancer. Concentrate on good lighting, proper exposure, framing etc and use the camera's zoom to its full potential. Good luck with your project.
__________________
Bill Turner Century Division Schneider Optics |
December 12th, 2005, 01:18 PM | #3 |
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 15
|
Thanks!
Ok, so I believe I am just not familiar enough with the camera. I thought getting still camera lenses would help me to deal with that effect better.
I rely appreciate your time, thanks for replying! Paulo |
December 12th, 2005, 01:29 PM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ponca City, OK
Posts: 61
|
Paulo-
I have an XL2 that I use in conjunction with the RedRock M2 Cinema Lens Adapter. All together it costs about $850 and with some cheap nikon lenses off ebay you can achieve that DOF you're looking for. The footage takes a little extra work in post because it has to be rotated 180 degrees, but the shots are quite nice. Go to www.redrock.com/forum/ to see some sample footage from other users. |
December 12th, 2005, 02:24 PM | #5 |
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 15
|
Thanks Andrew,
That looks like the best path so far. (for a low budget like mine) What Nikon lenses did you get? Are you happy with your results? What software did you use to flip the footage in post? |
December 12th, 2005, 09:01 PM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 208
|
I've been saying this a lot lately (apologies if anyone's noticed), but if you're techinically minded and would rather spend more on a lens than an adapter, you might consider making your own mini35... the alternative imaging methods board is a big help with that.
Depth of field is something everyone seems to want... I was just looking at some screen grabs taken with some consumer JVC cam or something that had a homemade DOF adapter on it, and some of them actually looked like 16mm! I see Bill's point to a degree, but this is something that's just too great not to want or have. It can be the difference between a good video look and a film look, and while things like composition and lighting matter, what's the point if it doesn't look great? Even when shooting with a small aperture so the DOF is deep anyway, the ground-glass element seems to soften the image enough to make it look great without necessarily having anything out of focus... that alone makes it worth it -- Like the Tiffen soft/fx3 filter, but sharper and without that terrible (very video-like) "dream-glow-soap-opera" look that can plague contrasting shots. Canon, listen up now! You wan't to be the maker of the BEST SD camera in the world in the current price range hands-down, no contest? It's very obvious... make an XL2s with a built in mini35, and give it to us at a reasonable price!
__________________
~Justine "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka) Last edited by Justine Haupt; December 12th, 2005 at 09:33 PM. |
December 13th, 2005, 10:26 AM | #7 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ponca City, OK
Posts: 61
|
My mistake...the link above should have been www.redrockmicro.com/forum/
or you can access their product page at www.redrockmicro.com |
| ||||||
|
|