Letus 35a vs. Redrock Adapter
 

Ok, I have spent hours looking over all the archived posts on this board...I still cannot determine which one of these is better for my setup (dvx100b).

The Letus 35a with all the options puts it at almost exactly the same price as the Redrock adapter. I really have no interest in trying to build my own at this point, just don't have the time.

My question is has anyone here tried both of these adapters and how do they compare directly to each other?

I have so much info on both but I just can't decide on one over the other. They both seem to have some shortcomings but that is to be expected in this price range.

The micro35, from what I understand, is about a $1000 investment. At that point, I'd forget both the Letus and the Micro35 and wait until the Guerilla35 is available ( www.guerilla35.com ) . It's made from machined aircraft aluminum, is sturdy, static, and virtually grainless. Its release has been long-anticipated, and, although it is expensive, its all-metal construction eliminates the need for rod support. I think preorders will be available within a few weeks.

If you're speaking of getting the micro35 without the rod system and extra gizmos (meaning a $600 or thereabouts investment) I'd invest instead in the Letus35 with the "metal mount" option, and then buy a Cavision rod support for $150.

The main difference between the Micro35 and the Letus that makes the Letus more superior is that the focusing screen in the Micro is plastic, while the Letus sports a glass GG that doesn't sacrifice light.

Guerilla35 (now called Cinemek?) ain't expensive! If you add up the costs of an adapter with Nikon D-type screen (or even more expensive, Beattie), top notch achromat and/or condensor(s), metal lens mount, and all the labor, hassle, time, and frustration (especially learning how to do microwax), a G35 is cheap. If I were shooting video to make money, I wouldn't even contemplate dicking around trying to build my own.

My Nikon D adapter cost $350 max to make, and basically all screwed together. The Guerilla35 is almost three times that. I'd say they're two completely different levels.

The G35 looks like they are going to a moving GG, at least this thread:

http://www.cinemek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=208 sure sounds like it.

Again, I really have no interest in making one. If it costs me $300-400 in materials and hours of time to tweak it, I would rather pay the extra to get a more professional product.

Can the Cavision system be used with the micro35?

I was leaning towards the letus but there are a lot of complaints about it here on the boards. This is to be expected from a new product but makes me wonder if it is worth it.

On the DVX boards I see a lot of letus footage with bad vinneting and halos, kind of made me look at the micro. Also people have trouble with the vibrating GG ending up in their shots.

Yes, you've proved my point. One's cheap and grainy. The other bridges the gap to a a virtually grainless, no-brainer solution, for not a lot more.

Oh, getting smarmy are we? ;)

The G35 guys seem to leave out specific details and many of the same questions get asked on their forums over and over...without answer.

yes, their footage looks really nice. But of course when you are selling a product you always put yourself in the best possible light- nothing wrong with that.

I would just love to see what it can do in the hands of the average user before I set aside $1000 for it.

just curious, but what makes you think the plastic threads on your camera can handle the weight of an adapter and bigger lenses without the camera getting out of align with the GG? since the weight of the lens would make the adapter sag a bit, the GG would not be completely level, so it could be possible that the image could be partly of out focus and such. personally i have not used the G35, so this is just theory talk here. but saying because an adapter is made of metal and therefore it doesnt need rod support is kind of an odd statement right? i mean metal is obviously better than plastic for this purpose, but that doesnt mean metal doesnt weigh more than plastic.

the P+S technik adapter, Redrock micro's adapter, and the G35 Cinemek adapter are all made of metal and all use metal mounts and are bolted together (to my knowledge).

i'm not trying to start a big debate here, but just like everyone else, straight up facts always gives the clearest answer.

I'm just quoting what John (creator of G35) said on his website. Besides, have you ever felt aircraft aluminum in your hand? It is extremely light. I have a feeling the G35 plus a lens puts no more stress on the threads of the camera than, say, a large telephoto lens. Who knows. It's natural to be skeptic about an adapter that's so clouded in secrecy as the G35. Time and testing will tell the truth.

"just curious, but what makes you think the plastic threads on your camera can handle the weight of an adapter and bigger lenses without the camera getting out of align with the GG?"

What camera has plastic threads? I'm pretty sure they're all metal, even if they don't look like it.

I e-mailed Brian V. at RedRock some weeks ago with the same question. He said the RedRock Micro (M2) will indeed work with the Cavision rod system. "Work with" in my case meant that I wanted to know if the rod mount holes in the adapter slid over the Cavision rods. It appears they do. There appears to be some sort of standard in place which makes sense as most rod support systems utilize 15mm rods.

So is this thread about Letus versus Micro?

Which are both out to be compared....or is it G35 and Micro35?

From the footage on Jonathan website...I like the footage they post.

I personally have the RedRock Micro and been happy with the footage I've gotten out of it. I don't intent to get rid of it.

I am curious between G35 and M2 myself....hopefully someone does put it to the pepsi challenge. If not...one of these days I'll probably end up doing it.

My main concern with the G35 is the focal flange. If I can't go in there and adjust it...how can I be sure that the lens focus is the same as the distance from the subject. Any discrepancies means I have to send it back to Seattle. So hopefully when they send it...each one has been tested to the mount. BEcause Back focus is not an option...if you mount it on the camera.

Okay, I finally got my Letus35A back from Quyen. My camera has no problem focusing on the GG now at all. He sent it quickly for me so I could use it on a recent job and he says he stayed up until 3:30 fixit it. The Letus35A may not be perfect, but the support is. I think the modifications he has made lately had unexpected consequences. I see it as a hassle that I have to be a guinea pig on the one hand, but on the other I get to have the latest upgrades if I am a bit patient. This is the nature of custom equipment and this usually has a higher price tag.

How my story specifically addresses the recent thread is this: I had a slight backfocus issue with my adapter. I heated the GG assembly up with a hair dryer to soften the hot glue and repositioned the GG about 1.5mm farther from the 35mm lens. Now, I have perfect focus at infinity and close-up. I guess I like the simplicity of the design and don't mind that it has a bit of a DIY quality. I plan to paint mine black and eventually get a rod support system. I also like that I am not forced to pay for a rod support immediately and can space my investments out while still using the adapter on some projects.

The Letus35A has these advantages:

Simple design (allows easy modifications)
Low cost
Useable without rod support (at least with light lenses for a while)
Light weight
Low power requirements (left mine on all day and still works fine on 2AA rechargeables)

Disadvantages:

Plastic mount (I plan to replace with metal some day)
Advanced DIY engineering can mean build errors
Aluminum tube looks funny

I think with a little TLC that the Letus35A is probably just fine. It is affordable and does not absolutely require other costly equipment to be useable. It's biggest problem, the plastic mount, can be fixed with a bit of elbow grease and a used $20 broken Nikon that is sold on ebay for parts. I would love a rod support system and follow-focus, but I can't afford it right now. Regardless, I can start paying for those options since I can use the adapter today.

Thanks for the update Marcus. Is there an option to get a metal mount on the Letus or is that a strictly DIY upgrade?

Yes Luke, it is an option for a new Letus to have metal mount, for an extra $100, thanks.

Hehe...i sound like quyen

G35 attaches via bayonet mount...just to clear that up. I believe it also has a thread option.

Ben says to you what you need to know, thanks.

I plan to buy a used Nikon SLR that is trashed and extract the metal mount someday. For now, my new plastic mount is working fine.

Ben, is the $220 Century Optics +7 achromatic diopter really worth the money? I am satisfied with the Letus35 image as it is, but I wouldn't mind trying something new if the benefit was significant.

If you're experiencing increasing abbheration as you approach the edge of the image, a better achromat would definately solve the problem--if you watch my One Headlight video, chromatic abbheration from the old stock Letus35 macro is very apparent in some shots. I think the bridge scene in particular (can't quite remember) shows how it gets worse as the bright areas near the edge of the image. This was my motivation to find a better one like the Century Optics. However I don't think the Century Optics is absolutely neccessary, there's got to be a cheaper solution--I just got it because I was able to nail it on ebay for $70. Ask Quyen for what model achromat he's shipping with the 35A, and that should probably work for you.

In your video was the abberation with or without the achromat?

Oh, sorry, I reread my post and realized it wasn't very clear which achromat I'm referring to. I shot the One headlight video with the stock Letus35 achromat. I don't have any footage available online demonstrating the Century Optics achromat.

Lots of good info here...I still haven't made a decision.

I have a rod system that is supposedly compatible with the redrock adapter so that is a plus, however I think I am handy enough to adapt a support to work with the letus.

Most of the redrock M2 footage I've seen looks a lot softer than the letus with either more flicker or possibly just noticable grain. The letus stuff seems to have more vinnetting (sp?) overall but seems to be a bit sharper. Also, I hear reports that there is a constant hum that is more noticable with the M2 over the letus.

Also, a wait time of anywhere from 4 weeks to 12 weeks (according to some) on the M2 is really discouraging.

Anyway, I'm still considering both so if anyone has hands on experience with both it would be great.

Oh, also there seems to be more chromatic abberation even on the letus "A" model than on the M2...not sure why.

The G35 has also yet to materialize. Their demo footage looks good as I said but I want to hear from someone who has actually used it before buying. Also, the first gen of anything is bound to have some bugs that need to be worked out.

Just as an add-on to this thread, I wanted to mention that I see a lot of people asking this same question with no good answers. Most of the time the reply is "look at the footage" but that is not really a good measure of a product because the user's skill plays so much into the final result.

It would be really great if some of the more experienced posters here were able to get ahold of some demo units from the 35mm adapter makers and do a side by side "shootout" of them on some common cameras like the dvx100, xl2, etc. I think it would be invaluable to a lot of people.

Hey Ben,

How about a primer on how to put a new macro lens in the Letus35? I think alot of people are becoming interested in a new macro for it...

Just a suggestion...

shhh! okay: chromatic aberration. :)

You are some smart guy for someone who just pastes up bills or placards on walls or billboards, hey Bill Poster?

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ll%20Porter%20

Ha ha ha

If I were smarter I could think of a funny comeback!