Ex3 And Nikon Lens Adaptor

Ofer Levy · December 30th, 2008, 01:23 PM

Hi Mick,
I have been using the Nikon to EX3 Mike Tapa's adapter for the last few months and I am extremely happy with the results.
Quality of the footage doesn't look inferior to what I am used to from my still photography.
Based on my experience my advice to you:
Use top quality lenses only. I mostly use the 300 f2.8 ED AIS, 400 f3,5 ED AIS, 500 f4 ED P and 600 f5.6 ED. All of them deliver stunning results when used properly:

I never use a teleconverter as it degrades the image way too much.
I only shoot in early morning or late afternoon light. No one should expect to get wonderful results in harsh light - this is not going to happen with any camera.
Avoid shooting wide open or too closed. I find that shooting at f8 - f11 delivers the best results with these long telephotos.
I mostly shoot at -3 gain.

Overall IMHO these are fantastic camera and adapter when used properly will deliver the goods - big time.
Good luck!
Ofer Levy Nature Photographer

Alister Chapman · December 30th, 2008, 01:28 PM

I would have said it's the other way around. The Curlew looks enhanced, esp the bill/beak while the Shovelers look smoother and more natural.

Steve Shovlar · December 30th, 2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

I would have said it's the other way around. The Curlew looks enhanced, esp the bill/beak while the Shovelers look smoother and more natural.

Hey, stop using my name in vain!
;)
Cheers
Steve Shovlar

Steve Phillipps · December 30th, 2008, 02:13 PM

Sorry Alister, must be going crazy, that's what I meant to say! Curlew massive detail/sharpness enhancement, more res in the shovelers. Just got back from 8 hour Scotland drive, excuse my brain being a bit tired!
Steve

Bo Skelmose · December 30th, 2008, 05:55 PM

Just found this thread still active. I have nothing material in full HD on the web. But as said in other posts there is no glass in the adapter and therefore I do not suspect it to degrade the quality of the lens. Anyway I think using a teleconverter makes the picture less sharp and the iris should be between 5,6 and 11 for great pictures. With heavy weigt lenses you should use a support for the lens or else the video would shake when turning the focus. The Nikon lens adapter is really a great thing for me because I use a lot of tele and a lot of macro. The TVstations love pans showing a spider and not just pictures showing a black spot supposed to show a spider....

Eric Gulbransen · December 30th, 2008, 07:18 PM

You guys are analyzing yourself silly. NEITHER the Shoveler nor the Curlew were/are detail enhanced - in the camera or in post. Actually I don't know this EX3 at all yet, so maybe by default it gets detail enhanced in camera (although not by my settings). But I know for sure that the HD200 image (Curlew) actually had it's detail set WAY down into the negative scale (ala Paolo Ciccone's True Color PP for the HD200). Both images however did get a quick 3-way color enhancement - including bringing down the blacks. Maybe that's what you guys see?

Here's the original, straight from the EX3 with 300mm Nikon & 1.4x extender, Shovelers (may God strike me down right now for misnaming them, by dropping a bucket load of Mallard poop on my windshield)

Here's the original, straight from the HD200 with 300mm Nikon, Curlew

I would not post a detail processed image - to show what a lens, an adapter, or a camera can do.

Alister Chapman · December 31st, 2008, 03:19 AM

The Curlew still shows lots of image processing. Even with detail turned down or off all cameras still do some image processing. The curlew has a very electronic or video look while the ducks look more organic, more like film or indeed real life. It's this natural, high resolution but without edge correction look that I love from the EX.

The curlew has a noticeable black edge to the front of it's breast and a white edge around the tail feathers there is also a lot less fine detail. More contrast perhaps but less detail. The ducks on the other hand show beautiful intricate detail to the feathers without any black or white edges.

I think the extender is spoiling the duck image it is quite soft and at first I thought the focus was off, but I think it's the extender softening the entire image.

Vincent Oliver · December 31st, 2008, 04:23 AM

On opening the files in Photoshop I see that the Curlew shots is 2.64mb or 1280x720 and the Shovlers is 5.93mb or 1920 x 1080. Resolution will appear sharper at the lower resolution. If you downsize the Shovlers shot to 1280 x 720 then you will more or less have the same degree of sharpness. Of course the two shots have their own good and bad points (technically speaking) The Curlew has a higher contrast so appears to be sharper, but in reality I don't think this is the case, I am assuming it is the same lens you have used. It would be interesting to see an identical scene under controlled/repeatable conditions

Apply an Unsharp Mask filter to the Shovlers picture after downsizing and the image jumps out - Amount 100, Radius 1.0 pixels, Threshold 0. This could be applied to your footage too

Eric Gulbransen · December 31st, 2008, 11:26 AM

Both those frame grabs are at the native resolution of the cameras/sensors that recorded them.

Same clip, seconds later GULLS, straight from the HD200. I can't wait to get the EX3 set up as well as we had the JVC.

Vincent Oliver · December 31st, 2008, 01:05 PM

Keep working at it Eric, you will get there and beyond with the EX3

Steve Shovlar · January 15th, 2009, 05:24 AM

Seriously considering the Ex3 Nikon Adaptor, but the price is............well not cheap to say the least!

When I look on Ebay at those adaptors from Hong Kong for a fiver and compare, this adaptor seems extortionate in comparison. There's a Nikon adaptor from Hong Kong which is an extention tube. Has a similar Nikon mount and tube rather than a flange where the EX3 attaches, but is £4.99. Of course its not the same thing but not a lot different.

And its 57 times cheaper!

I understand the EX3 adaptor is of limited demand. I understand that MTS have to make a profit. I understand that no one is twisting my arm to buy it. But at £285 +VAT its Zacuto/VF Gadgets prices plus some extra.

Moan over. I want one but flippin' eck!!

December 30th, 2008, 01:23 PM	#16
Ofer Levy Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney-Australia Posts: 443	Nikon adapter Hi Mick, I have been using the Nikon to EX3 Mike Tapa's adapter for the last few months and I am extremely happy with the results. Quality of the footage doesn't look inferior to what I am used to from my still photography. Based on my experience my advice to you: Use top quality lenses only. I mostly use the 300 f2.8 ED AIS, 400 f3,5 ED AIS, 500 f4 ED P and 600 f5.6 ED. All of them deliver stunning results when used properly: I never use a teleconverter as it degrades the image way too much. I only shoot in early morning or late afternoon light. No one should expect to get wonderful results in harsh light - this is not going to happen with any camera. Avoid shooting wide open or too closed. I find that shooting at f8 - f11 delivers the best results with these long telephotos. I mostly shoot at -3 gain. Overall IMHO these are fantastic camera and adapter when used properly will deliver the goods - big time. Good luck! Ofer Levy Nature Photographer

December 30th, 2008, 01:28 PM	#17
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	I would have said it's the other way around. The Curlew looks enhanced, esp the bill/beak while the Shovelers look smoother and more natural. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

December 31st, 2008, 03:19 AM	#22
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	The Curlew still shows lots of image processing. Even with detail turned down or off all cameras still do some image processing. The curlew has a very electronic or video look while the ducks look more organic, more like film or indeed real life. It's this natural, high resolution but without edge correction look that I love from the EX. The curlew has a noticeable black edge to the front of it's breast and a white edge around the tail feathers there is also a lot less fine detail. More contrast perhaps but less detail. The ducks on the other hand show beautiful intricate detail to the feathers without any black or white edges. I think the extender is spoiling the duck image it is quite soft and at first I thought the focus was off, but I think it's the extender softening the entire image. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com Last edited by Alister Chapman; December 31st, 2008 at 07:10 AM.

December 31st, 2008, 04:23 AM	#23
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	On opening the files in Photoshop I see that the Curlew shots is 2.64mb or 1280x720 and the Shovlers is 5.93mb or 1920 x 1080. Resolution will appear sharper at the lower resolution. If you downsize the Shovlers shot to 1280 x 720 then you will more or less have the same degree of sharpness. Of course the two shots have their own good and bad points (technically speaking) The Curlew has a higher contrast so appears to be sharper, but in reality I don't think this is the case, I am assuming it is the same lens you have used. It would be interesting to see an identical scene under controlled/repeatable conditions Apply an Unsharp Mask filter to the Shovlers picture after downsizing and the image jumps out - Amount 100, Radius 1.0 pixels, Threshold 0. This could be applied to your footage too __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

December 31st, 2008, 01:05 PM	#25
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	Keep working at it Eric, you will get there and beyond with the EX3 __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

December 30th, 2008, 02:13 PM	#19
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Sorry Alister, must be going crazy, that's what I meant to say! Curlew massive detail/sharpness enhancement, more res in the shovelers. Just got back from 8 hour Scotland drive, excuse my brain being a bit tired! Steve

December 30th, 2008, 05:55 PM	#20
Bo Skelmose Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 495	Just found this thread still active. I have nothing material in full HD on the web. But as said in other posts there is no glass in the adapter and therefore I do not suspect it to degrade the quality of the lens. Anyway I think using a teleconverter makes the picture less sharp and the iris should be between 5,6 and 11 for great pictures. With heavy weigt lenses you should use a support for the lens or else the video would shake when turning the focus. The Nikon lens adapter is really a great thing for me because I use a lot of tele and a lot of macro. The TVstations love pans showing a spider and not just pictures showing a black spot supposed to show a spider....

December 30th, 2008, 07:18 PM	#21
Eric Gulbransen Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Palo Alto, California Posts: 520	You guys are analyzing yourself silly. NEITHER the Shoveler nor the Curlew were/are detail enhanced - in the camera or in post. Actually I don't know this EX3 at all yet, so maybe by default it gets detail enhanced in camera (although not by my settings). But I know for sure that the HD200 image (Curlew) actually had it's detail set WAY down into the negative scale (ala Paolo Ciccone's True Color PP for the HD200). Both images however did get a quick 3-way color enhancement - including bringing down the blacks. Maybe that's what you guys see? Here's the original, straight from the EX3 with 300mm Nikon & 1.4x extender, Shovelers (may God strike me down right now for misnaming them, by dropping a bucket load of Mallard poop on my windshield) Here's the original, straight from the HD200 with 300mm Nikon, Curlew I would not post a detail processed image - to show what a lens, an adapter, or a camera can do.

December 31st, 2008, 11:26 AM	#24
Eric Gulbransen Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Palo Alto, California Posts: 520	Both those frame grabs are at the native resolution of the cameras/sensors that recorded them. Same clip, seconds later GULLS, straight from the HD200. I can't wait to get the EX3 set up as well as we had the JVC.

January 15th, 2009, 05:24 AM	#26
Steve Shovlar Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Dorset UK Posts: 697	Seriously considering the Ex3 Nikon Adaptor, but the price is............well not cheap to say the least! When I look on Ebay at those adaptors from Hong Kong for a fiver and compare, this adaptor seems extortionate in comparison. There's a Nikon adaptor from Hong Kong which is an extention tube. Has a similar Nikon mount and tube rather than a flange where the EX3 attaches, but is £4.99. Of course its not the same thing but not a lot different. And its 57 times cheaper! I understand the EX3 adaptor is of limited demand. I understand that MTS have to make a profit. I understand that no one is twisting my arm to buy it. But at £285 +VAT its Zacuto/VF Gadgets prices plus some extra. Moan over. I want one but flippin' eck!!