best 35mm adapter?
 

hi there, just wondering if people would like to give their opinion as the the bast 35mm out there - taking into account value for money as well as image quality-thanks

www.dandiaconu.com
www.cinemek.com
www.micro35.com
www.letus35.com
www.movietube.com
www.cine-one.com
www.magicine.com
www.indie35.com
www.pstechnik.de

So many to choose from. So difficult to decide. It's possible it could take a year to answer the question. :P Get ready for a potential barfing of opinions and hollering. Yie! Yie! Yie!

So far I would say the SG35 and Letus35 are the best bang for the buck. I can’t tell the difference in image quality between them and the more expensive ones.

That www.cine-one.com link doesn’t work, what type of adapter is that?

That Z-box looks good and well crafted, I wonder why there isn't more talking about it?

Barry, I own a Letus but I don't recommend it to people who don't want to tinker around with it a bit to get optimal results--the stock Letus I received from Quyen had grain issues because it didn't vibrate in a large enough area (the sticks holding the GG were mounted too stiffly). If the Letus/SG35 is your price area, go with the SG35 at this point, unless Quyen has fixed that problem.

I have Letus35A with PanaGS400+ 3 SLR Nikon lenses:
I have used this for about 2 months with out any rod support and carrying it in just some plastic bag. I have not encountered any issues so far. What I like in Letus is the light weight pipe, which is just like another attachment infront of lens. I have not opened the adaptor even once to either clean or to change the lens gg distance. Quyen's customer support has been exemplary.Though I have not used SG35, it's like a box with rod support which I do not like. If I were to buy an adaptor from 10 odd commercial versions, I will buy Letus hands down. This is just my opinion. If someone is talking about image quality, then test footage is required to compare different adaptors.I guess we already have a post comparing SG35 & Letus35.
Thanks.
Madhav Yerella

How is the Micro35?

Nice thread, I asked about the difference between the Micro35 and the G35 in another thread, but people overlooked the post a bit (normal seeing it was a pretty heat discussion about something else) so it would be nice if people could come here and post their different experiences and maybe even do comparisons!

I have the SG35 adapter for the XL2 and the results are excellent. Comes with it's own rod support system as well.

It's well built, low light loss, and sturdy.

The SG35 website is below:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wayne.kinney/sg35.htm

declan what type of lens are you using with the xl2(nikon, canon, etc) and do you have any sample shots, freeze frames or uploaded things of what you shot. im interested in how the combination looks.

thanks.
jason

Please forgive my levity.

Pringlecam - yes definitely Pringlecam - The only 35mm video adaptor which will sustain you even before you start building it.

(Pringle chips can - short one - origin europe - lid is clear with frosted coating - may not be the case any more as some time has passed since I used one for initial experiments over two years ago.

With a pinhole in the metal base, these are a readymade means of demonstrating the camera-obscura principle to your kids.

I am using canon FD lenses. 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and a Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 (as can be seen from the picture below).

http://www.madpanic.net/sg35/IMG_1655.JPG
http://www.madpanic.net/sg35/sg35_xl2_1.JPG

For some sample clips:
http://www.madpanic.net/sg35/sg35_xl2test2.wmv
http://www.madpanic.net/sg35/sg35_2.wmv

Note that the clips were shot very quickly and was hard to frame and keep in focus (due to the inverted image). I've since learned to put the XL2 viewfinder on the right hand side which help tremendously with framing as the image is the rightway up!!

Sorry, I have a rudimentary understanding of filmmkaing at the moment; been absording it all in, though.

I have a question. Here it is: What is the purpose of a 35mm adapter? Does it simulate the film look, or help create a better depth of field? It'd be great if somone could answer my question; be much appreciated.

Thanks a lot.

The primary reason for using adapters is that an adapter gives a shorter depth of field. A consumer videocamera almost has infinite depth of field. The image from adapters are generally much softer than video, and some of the adapters also adds diffusion.

A lot of people argues about what filmlook really is. I think that film look isn't just the picture quality, but also the way you film.

When it comes to software (like Magic Bullet) simulating "filmlook", it's often about adding diffusion, brightness/saturation/levels.