Which 35mm adapter?
 

Hey, I've just discovered this forum, and it seems to be the forum I've been looking for in a long time... Looks like a great place for me to get answers to my question and to help others. Anyway...

I am a proud owner of a Canon XL2. Last year I produced a short movie with it. A project I worked almost a year with. Trailer for the movie can be seen here:
Quicktime 7 (h.264)
Windows Media

Anyway, one of my conclusions after finishing the film, was that I wanted to achieve less depth of field in the next film I should produce, to get a more filmatic feel to it.

Now I've started to write the script on my next project and I have therefore started to look around for a way to achieve this goal.

I've been looking on both the Letus35XL and the micro35. Which of these adapters will suit me best? And with which lenses? Anyone who can help me here?

Hi.
And can't Compare because i never tried the micro35. But i recieved my Letus35XL last week. We did some test shooting. I will post some material next week. I own a XL2 as well and I am very impressed so far by the adapter. More details later.


by the way: I really like your trailer! :-)

Thanks :=)

You wrote you wanted to achieve 'Less' DOF. Then you're better of just using your zoom and opening your aperture.

This is all well and good if you don't mind 'squeezing' your background and you can get far enough away from your subject. In order to acheive film-like DOF, the larger effective sensor size (equiv to a 35mm frame) made possible by using one of these adapters is currently the only way to go.

The LetusXL attaches directly to the camera and flips the image so that it is right side up in camera, so there is no need to do this in post. However, due to the more elaborate design of the adapter it needs a good amount of light.

The M2 will need rod support and the image will need to be flipped in post.You do get a good image in low light conditions with the adapter. All adapters ,need a little more light than usual, but the m2 seems to handle low light situations the best.

Both are good adapters. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's just a matter of which process appeals to you more.

Thanks, it seems to me, after reading this, and other threads at the site that for me, the m2 is the way to go. But for one who want to make short films, which lenses would you think would be the best for me?

It looks to me like for example the Canon FD lenses is a good choice, but which lenses (in focal-size) would be the best choice? Would I need more than one (I know it will be better with more than one), but if you had to buy one by one, which lense would you by first? And which as number second and so on?

And if I buy the M2 with the rod support they offer at they're site. How will this affect the possibility of using my exicting tripod? It seams to me that the rod's is placed at the same place as my tripod is?

And how important is it to have a follow-focus with this gear?

FD mounts are good. They allow mounting up with near zero play at the flange...something most mounts don't do.

Look for fast lenses, and consider starting with a 50mm F1.2 or F1.4. Beyond that, try and purchase lenses at F2.8 or faster. Zoom lenses are obviously not as good as primes, but they do allow a lot of flexibility for framing. What focal lengths you get are pretty much a function of your needs.

Rod systems, mine, M2's, etc. will mount to your tripod/plate just like a camera.

Follow focus units will move you away from the end of the camera, and to the side. They generally have hard stops so you can set focus points for your shots, and are thus easier then the old "twist of the wrist" on the lens itself. If you plan on doing a lot of shooting with an adapter, you'll likely be very happy with an FF setup.