M2 or not the price of the Matte box and filters is still there!

Stills lenses are not optimal for video or film either, focus travel is too short and they breathe. We'd been looking at the P+S Techniks rehoused Nikon F glass. Sounds a good deal at $2,200 per prime except the focus works counter to normal cine lenses. That'd drive a camera operator nuts. You can get FF gear with an extra cog to cope with this but that's another thing to add backlash.

Don't know how much this has to do with the M2 but an interesting bit of input from the local broadcasters. 16mm film is a bit of a no no for DVB HD broadcast, the grain doesn't sit too well with the mpeg encoding. Make of that what you will.

Bob.

Edit: BTW how much light does the M2 loose?

Bob, I think many individuals don't understand your reference to "breathing". Breathing is usually a byproduct of heat expansion or cooling plus vibration issues with the lens and their housing. But most high-end glass housing today have less than the old pre 90's models, if I remember correctly. The fact that most cameras will have more problems with electronics experiencing "noise" from heat build up that a high-end 35 lens breathing, but for a pro, any problem is money lost.

Breathing is when the lens changes focal length as you adjust focus. I'd guess the term comes from what would happen if you were racking focus between two people in a conversation, the image would appear to "breathe" in and out.
Outside of very expensive lenses all lenses do it to some extent, certainly the lens on the Z1 does it.

Let me first state that I LOVE the final image created by all these 35mm lens adapters.
But in the same breath - man I have come to love and rely on autofocus, particualarly in fast-action situaltions.
And the very thing that makes the Red Rock and others so wonderful, i.e., the limited depth of field yielding out-of-focus backgrounds - makes follow focus a bear - it's hard!

If you are regularly working in any kind of controlled environment - theatrical, commercial, interview and/or industrial - go for it. You will get amazing results that really do NOT look like "video". But if you're shooting sports, weddings or any "in-the-field" stuff, you might want to at least "try-it-out" before you commit to the entire system.

v

Just a response to Bob about filters and matte box requirement. The filters for 35mm Nikon lens that you can screw on are very much cheaper than good Matte box 4x6.5 filters. Also, I believe that if using Nikon film glass all you need is the lens's own hood. I don't see why with the M2 you need a matte box and that is why I included it in my price comparison.

Both Spot and Vic mentioned the lack of AF but I for one who doesn't shoot sports never use AF anyway. The cost of going to 35mm adapters still looks very attractive to me. Another example, I need a 2x converter for the FX1. The Century tele for the FX1 is $1500, and I can get a used Nikon 185mm lens on eBay for about $250 and the whole Redrock package is just $1250. The Century wide adapter is about $800 and a used Nikon fish-eye I saw for under $100. It still seems to me you can have your cake and eat it too! To go 35mm is cheaper than staying stock video!

My shooting is slow and often alone in the outback with birds and plants. I agree that I would not want to run around a weeding reception dance floor with a M2, 15mm bars, an Nikon 200mm and a matte box on the end.

16mm film is a bit of a no no for DVB HD broadcast, the grain doesn't sit too well with the mpeg encoding.

The BBC refuses to accept even Super 16 footage for that reason.

You'd think that a bit of post processing would eat that grain, but apparently not (or they just don't want to deal with it).

So we have to wait for the new Aaton camera out shortly, that converts between 2-perf and 3-perf 35mm in minutes...

When you shoot 2-perf 35mm, you have immediately cut the shooting cost in half, and with an immediate DI you do all the rest on your computer...

:O)

Boy, Vic's comments are exactly what I've been thinking about. I was all set to purchase a couple lower end HDV cameras and then put the funds toward two Brevis 35mm adapter sets. But I sat down with the gentleman last night that I'll be putting together a Holocaust survivor documentary on, and we talked about getting his children/grandchildren together and taping the meeting, taping him in his tailor shop as he works with the muckie-mucks that frequent his shop. I'm not sure I could capture that level of action with the 35mm adaptors. I love the DOF look from them, but I wonder if what I would gain with that look I would lose when I'm out of focus half the time and can't use that portion of footage.

As far as I know all the Century Optics WA and tele converters have a thread on the front to accept filters. Just my opinion here but their glass seems better than Sony's. I'd question the value of a 0.8 WA adaptor too, Century deliver a 0.65 for the V1 that's zoom through. Not certain if they do the same for the Z1. Also factor in that the Century glass looses less light than the Sony and it's a bit of no brainer which way to jump.

A matte box is more than just a way to hold a filter, even though it does a way better job than anything that screws onto the lens. The good ones do a much better job of stopping extraneous light from hitting the lens. That does make a difference to the image.

Another thing that troubles me is putting a 2x on a HDV camera. I'd suspect unless you're very careful with rock solid sticks and clean air you could get some grief from the HDV encoder. Anyone tried this on any HDV camera yet. Only reason I ask is the ugliest HDV footage I've seen was caused by serious heat haze.

Bob.

What I like about this thread is that it is ALL about what tools to achieve a look, not ONLY what a tool can do.

I'm not sure I could capture that level of action with the 35mm adaptors

Excellent! Already the narrative is coming front and centre - where it belongs.

If you wish, CC, please email me.

Bob:
Yes, the Century do have threads and I now believe they are better. I do have Sony wide adapter for the FX1 already which I bought on the advice of someone here as being better. Then I did not know the Sony adapters have no threads. B&H will likely buy the wide back from me as it is unused.

But whether the Century is better than the Sony or not is mute because neither give the look of 35mm lenses. My point is only that the Sony recommended attachments, adapters and filters are expensive and make a 35mm adapter where I can use old manual lenses look attractive. Where I thought the M2 would cost me $2000 I can see now that if I want it, it will be almost free.

Regarding the matte box, my little brain still cannot see why I should pay $1500 for a good sunshade when using 35mm SLR lenses! With the Nikkor lenses and screw on filters and the Nikon sunshade that's just as good, surely, for very little money. If I'm wrong in my thinking please tell me as I'm thirsty for knowledge here.

Regarding the matte box, my little brain still cannot see why I should pay $1500 for a good sunshade when using 35mm SLR lenses! With the Nikkor lenses and screw on filters and the Nikon sunshade that's just as good, surely, for very little money. If I'm wrong in my thinking please tell me as I'm thirsty for knowledge here.

There's nothing wrong with your thinking, we're all on a budget!
Thing is though screw on filters only fit one lens size, you keep on having to buy the same thing over and over. That's why decades ago I bought into the Cokin system for my stills camera.
Buy a matte box and good 4x4 or Panavision sized glass filters and you've got an asset that'll outlive many generations of cameras. On top of that I don't know how you go with any screw on grad filters and they can be the most useful filters of all.

Bob.

Thanks Bob. I'd forgotten about the grads. Of course for wide angle with the FX1/Z1 I think I would need 4x6.5 filters, no? Anyway, thanks for your input.

Just to update, I found today Nikon 28mmf2, 50mmf1.4, 80-200f4 for total of $750. I need an 85mmf1.8 and I've got what Redrock recommends. And the Sony adapters to give all this cost over $2000! That's my point.

I would rent a Redrock system for evaluation before thinking of buying for the work you describe. I'd be concerned about losing 2 stops unless your subjects are always in good light and the viability of the system in the field. A fixed lens camera isn't ideal for wildlife videography and perhaps your cost analyses should include trading for another camera.

>>>>Breathing<<<

Bob, I think this (in relation to focus) is limited to zoom lenses. Maintaining focus as focal length is changed is critically dependent on precise relative movement of optical elements. Cheap zooms for still cameras make no attempt to hold focus (relying on auto focus or user to adjust) while intermediate quality (such as on the Z1) make a pretty good but not perfect stab at it. A fixed focal length lens (such as those Michael is listing) focus by moving the lens assembling within its mount, so focus or focal length breathing cannot occur

Im absolutely with Serena on this one. 2 stops doesn't sound that bad until you workout that what you could light with a 500W light now needs 2,000W. Not that 2Ks are that expensive however more than one and you're likely outside what a domestic power point can handle and then factor in the heat .
Also keep in mind that the cheaper long lenses are anything but fast in the first place so loosing another 2 stops....

Bob.

Actually there is another point to consider: the FOV. The RedRock (and similar) provides a 35mm sized frame for the video camera to shoot (I'll assume that to be the standard still 36 x 24mm, although may be the 22 x 16 cine frame). So the FOV is that of the Nikon lens on a 35mm camera. To do better than the built-in lens on the FX/Z1 you need to use (on the RedRock) lenses shorter than 32mm or longer than 390mm (the still camera equivalent). 500mm f/2.8 lenses cost much more than a new camera.

EDIT: the RedRock site gives examples using 35mm cine primes, so I presume the frame reference is the 35mm cine frame (22 x 16). So there is a factor of 0.6 to be factored in on FOV, so the FX built-in lens goes to 240mm equivalent.

Farss is right, teh fact that what up to now you could light with 500w now you need 2k -- huge difference. I happen to shoot a lot with 35mm adapters and each time i'm amazed how much light i need. Think that you are not only loosing 2 f-stops. On, say HVX200 you are shooting through the camera's lens (2.8f stop) and then through another 35mm lens (1.4 if it's a super speed). So your final f-stop count is 2.8 + 2 + 1.4 = 6.2..... Those 35mm adapters work wonders but there are situations where it's better to shoot without.

[sorry to drop this into this nice discussion]

Grazie,
Tried to email you by clicking on your name, but it doesn't give me that ability for some reason. If you send me an email, I'll reply. Thanks.

Regarding the light problem, I can see this in a the studio. The reason I'm not concerned by the light loss is that I find I'm always shooting with the FX1 on ND2. I always have too much light. This is because I shoot daylight in the west where the sun is usually strong.

Regarding the physics, if I have understood Serena's comments and the Redrock info I have, using 35mm still camera lenses (recommended) the image projected onto the screen is 35mm - 35mmx24mm. The FX1 (like most cameras) can not focus on the screen because it is too close and so the first step is to put a close-up lens on the camera, then zoom in to frame the 35mm image. from then on, all focal length and aperture control is with the 35mm lenses. I don't know this, but I assume you leave the FX1 at f4 as this is considered the best resolution, however as with 35mm adapters a soft look is part of the image, you may be able to open the FX1 up as far as you can.

For those courious about the results, rather than the mathmatics, go to the RR site: www.redrockmicro.com and check out their Samples page. Also, go to the forums and check out the Theater, Sandbox and DIY Footage.
It's scary on paper, but folk are coming up with spectacular results with this beast (I call it a beast because I own one and know how much bulk it add to my XL-H1).
I have yet to do anything more than minor tests with mine, but i'm looking forward the next steps.
So stop scaring me! ;-)

Michael, your primary interest in the M2 is in overcoming the restrictions of a built-in lens, driven by your activities in shooting wildlife and other aspects of nature. You find the FX lens goes neither wide enough or long enough for that work. Wide angle and tele extenders are available (you already have a wide) and the you need a matte-box for filters and light control. In this context the M2 looks like an economical way through these problems and the since you're shooting in bright daylight the 2 stops loss inherent in the M2 won't be a problem. You've observed that lenses for 35mm cameras can be bought cheaply on Ebay, or at least those in the 28mm to 135mm focal range. My point about the 35mm frame size is that the field of view of these lenses on the M2 is that you need a 35mm format lens of more than 240mm focal length to get closer than you can with the built in lens. If you're comparing the M2 rig with a 2x tele extender, then that means a 500mm lens on the m2 to match. This all assumes that the M2 "screen" is the size of a 35mm cine frame; if it is a 35mm still frame then multiply those focal lengths by 1.6 .

Noting, for those who haven't followed the thread, that you are not concerned with achieving shallow DOF (the usual reason for using the M2) but with finding an economical way to extend focal "reach" together with a matte-box cheaper than Chrosziel. Really I don't see the M2 as achieving your goals.

Further to what Serena is saying I'd be a bit worried about the practicality of this kind of setup in this shooting scenario. I find it all too easy to grab the wrong ring on a camera as it is, having two possible focus ring, two aperature rings and at least one zoom ring all of which have to be set correctly is the stuff that'd give me nightmares. I'm no great shakes as a cameraperson anyway so maybe I'm worrying unduly but all those that I are that I speak to always seem more interested in camera useability first and image quality second and this M2 approach would seem to work against both ease of use to get the shot in a hurry and image quality.

The other thing is I really wonder is if the Z1 is quite the right camera for the task. Probably a camera with interchangeable glass would be a better proposition and at a guess there might be a few second hand SD cameras coming onto the market at a very reasonable price. One of my client's cameras has a zoom with a built in doubler, when new this camera and lens was many times the price of a Z1, today down here at least the price of these cameras is dropping. They still take very good images, I'd say comparable to a Z1 that's been compomised by bolt on optics etc. Just something to think about.

Bob.