Differences between the Mini35 and M2 etc.
 

Could any here please elaborate on what are the differences in the P+S Technik Mini35 adapter and the M2 and others. I am very interested in terms of image quality. Please no speculation I would like to hear from those who have tested both systems.

sure, it's the cost that's the big diff.

Mini 35 registers an upright image... M2 is upside down.
Mini 35 loses more light but runs off camera batteries.
M2 has AA batts, but is smaller and lighter.

Both can have the same lens mounts, etc.

Not sure about the GG

the M2 runs on a 9v battery or an ac adapter. people have also adapter portable batteries to it as well that seems to work. the M2 is very robust like the P+S technik adapter, so its REALLY hard to break it. its a modular design as well, so instead of buying a whole new adapter, there are upgrades. as of now the only upgrades have been the imaging element (now the cinescreen, which rocks!). also, the bokeh on the M2 is really good with the cinescreen, which comes with the adapter (in my opinion).

as far as image quality goes, every adapter has its own feel, and thats something you will have to decide on. i just cant tell you whats the best and whats the worst, because its all subjective. another thing to keep in mind is if its a static (stationary ground glass, which can result in more visible grain that doesnt move [grain in film moves]), vibrating, oscillating, and rotating designed adapters. redrocks M2 rotates the cinescreen, which results in a blurred grain.

if you are curious about footage of the M2, visit www.redrockmicro.com/forum/

i've only had the M2 and homemade adapters, so i cannot speak of other adapters.

matthew, i believe you are thinking of the DIY version of the micro35. the M2 is very different. just thought i would point that out.