I'm concerned too now.... I ordered one last week.....

I don't think the distortion problem is camera related or at least not that much. I believe the SLR lens that Kyle shot with is 18-55mm lens and it has some degree of distortion on it's own because of wide angle. I don't say my adapter has no distortion but if you have problem with distortion, when placing the order, you should say distortion is your concern, then I will make it to the minimum for you. Thanks.

Quyen

Great news Quyen , for those people out there. I think we forget that out of all of the adpaters so far, Quyen seemed to have produced the best image for the lowest price which is something awesome. Again, Quyen is just beginning the foray in the world of DIY 35 - give him 6 months and he'll be P+S direct competition!

I agree, and I still have high hopes for it. Even with its' problems I still think most (not all) of the footage I've seen looks way better with the adapter than with out it (specialy the one shot with the vx2100).

Yes, the shots with the lens at 18mm has major distortion because that is just how the lens is at that mm.

But even when the lens is at 55mm there is some. Right off the bat Letus35 has minor distortion. I'm going to do more tests when I get the time and sun. Hopefully I can get to it this week.

I may have a way around the distortion and I will keep the lens at 50/55mm.

Where are you seeing most of the distortion?

Sorry guys - n00b here, what exactly is distortion?

I'm not a fan of diopters or condensers, most of the diopters ive seen produce a lot of chromatic abberation and condensers produce barrel distortion. Seems like probably any cheap ones (or any available retail at all?) will have that problem? I dont think ive seen a homemade adapter yet that didnt have pretty heavy abberation.

wow ben, whats wrong with yours? that picture looks terrible, looks pretty soft, perhaps you arent focused on the ground glass correctly? or maybe its just not focused well?

Oh yeah, distortion is... when the image comes out distorted? most of these adapters probably have some barrel distortion, where lines that are really straight look curved, bent outwards toward the edge of the screen. I guess the biggest sources of distortion in 35mm adapters are the condenser lens, and in general, wide angle lenses?

I bet chromatic abberation can be corrected in post too. distort the blue channel maybe? (diopters seem to give blue abberations toward the edges i think) or rebuild the scene in maya and render out new chroma channels? :P

youd likely lose resolution correcting distortion in post, since pincushioning would change the shape of the frame and youd have to digitally zoom the image so your frame didnt have weird curved edges.

Noah

wow, that looks pretty good for a relatively slow lens at 3.5

New lens, Nikkor 50mm 1.8

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7845/0306wt.jpg

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/305/0506xb.jpg


With Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7426/0405on.jpg

W/O Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/5884/0700hd.jpg

With Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/5742/0902hg.jpg

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7913/1005td.jpg

W/O Adapter
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/8115/0806fb.jpg

The last shots have the HDR-FX1 zoomed out a bit. It was easier for the camera to focus on the GG. It seems the GG is a tad too close to the camera for a sharp focus. I'll play more with this theory. Also the images are gamma corrected (quickly) and slightly sharpened.

The major distortion is gone, it definitely was the DX lens I was using. Next is to figure out how to get rid of the unfocused edges because of the macro filter.

It's sure much sharper without the adapter. I like it much better without.

Then kiss DOF good-bye.

hii
 

Hello!
I don't think using a Nikon DX lens will work with a Letus. DX lenses were made for digital cameras and not for Full frame digital or film cameras.

For instance, say you fitted a DX lens to a film camera, you would get the same distortion. A DX camera takes the photo more from the middle of the frame. For instance, you would expect massive distortion with my 12-24mm DX lens, but there isn't because a digital camera crops the image off.

I checked out my Letus35 with my Nikon lenses and it appeared ok. The fast primes looked wonderful. Don't even try it with Nikon macro lenses. The depth of field is razor thin with my 105mm micro nikkor.
Jimi

I just meant it looks really soft for my tastes. It seems that the adapter basically converts your footage back to SD resolution, since it's so soft in those shots. But I have seen sharper Letus35 footage, so it might be something with your particular set up. I know it's not a thing from DOF adapters in general, since the P+S Mini35 looks really sharp with HD.

I wouldn't say SD resolution but yes it does soften the image alot. Watching the footage on my TV the footage looks pretty sharp, compared to the computer that is. I'm not sure what it is about the softness. The Letus35 footage on a PD150 looked really sharp. It could be the focusing of the FX1 to something that close or could be the GG used in my adapter. I know that the GG stops down the light a decent amount but as far as sharpness, I'll have to do other tests. Like I said before too, could be my macro filter. Too many factors involved right now to decide right away.

I know, that is what I was saying. The DX distorts the image. I forgot at first about those lenses being made just for DSLRs.