Chris,
I asked this question before and you moved it to alternative imaging forum. I would appreciate it if you would keep it here because I feel it is a reasonable topic to discuss here and all the feedback I get in the alternative imaging section is slanted and from DIYs who are not objective. I am a mini35 owner.

What are the real world differences between the P+S Technik Mini35 and the lower priced G35 M2 etc. In terms of image quality, construction of adapter, and other factors. Has anyone tested both systems and if so please give me your thoughts on both systems.

Dan I don't think asking the same question here is really going to offer the objectivity you're after... after all we're mostly mini35 owners here.

But fine I'll try and play along :)

Price aside, if I was in the market for a brand new 35mm contraption what would likely matter most to me is the system with the best ground glass producing the most noise free (ground glass free) image for HD resolution. There should be no question that 35mm cine lens are always going to resolve enough lines for our CCD's, but I wonder about the glass and how it will impact the HD image. Most everyone has reported a softer look when using these devices, it'd be nice to not have that softness as one of the attributes. In this sense, I'd like to know what other adapters offer and how they compare to P+S mini35.

Construction of the unit is something else I might consider, the mini35 adds a lot of weight - does it matter? Probably not always, but something lighter overall would definitely be appreciated in certain shooting environments. The mini35 however does flip your image for you so you don't have to in post.

Light loss is most certainly something I think the mini35 is a clear loser in. I dread most mini35 indie productions because directors are like "what do you mean you need 2500 watts of lighting for this scene". Those directors however also believe that shooting DV under normal lighting conditions offer enough cinematic appeal to begin with.

What are some other differences? How about "sorry we're not accepting orders at this time due to filled orders". Give me a break, it sounds like everyone is trying to jump on the 35mm adapter wagon and make some money. P+S Technik has been around for years - this is what they do, they will always have units for sale.

Unfortunately for people like you and me finding out the real answer is only going to come from testing it yourself, not watching clips on the web which may have been altered, graded, cc'd, resized, noise reductioned, etc.. etc.. etc..

I like my mini35, it's worked very well for me and surely I'd be UNABLE to pull off the same level of cinematic appeal shooting without the added DOF. I'd just like to see a few improvments in some of the areas I've mentioned.

Good Point! However it seems the Mini35 users are more likely to be professional with their answers providing real evidence, stats etc., than the typical answers from alternative imaging crowd.

I have recently ordered an M2, but have used a mini35

I found a major advantage of the Mini35 to be that the image is registered right-side-up resulting in easier shooting and less post production. But there is the draw back of more light being soaked up in the process.

I really can't say which I liked using more. I honestly don't think the Mini is worth it's price point, at 12,000 for an XL2 setup compared to $1000 for an M2 and $400 for an SG35, it seems like a bit of a watse of money.

It all comes down to how much you want to spend and if you want that big P+S logo on your stuff.

My 2c

By the way, I too am going to start up my own business selling 35mm adapters and am taking preorders for the low price of $99. Finally the whole world can now afford a 35mm adapter device for their home cameras. One size fits all!

Here is the prototype...

http://www.starcentral.ca/dvinfo/newmini35.jpg

Does the camera come with it, or is it extra?
Is it available in black?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Hopefully that Kleenex willl be available for P+S users when they see footage from my $99.99 adapter.

im happy with my footage from my letus35.. only paid $300 and it works great with my xl1s. I would also like to know what you guys are getting after spending that much more money.

Andrew.


I think the keywords would be along the lines of :-

Predictability, reliability, interchangeability, consistency and most importantly, product support.

It is a serious product made in relatively low volumes, hence the high cost.

I haven't got one, do not make enough product to sustain the cost of buying or hiring one, but given the opps or the need, would buy in or hire one.

I suspect you are not likely to be able to buy lost time insurance for equipment breakdowns if you declare you are using anything else.

So far, it seems most of the alternatives have quality/reliability issues or attributes which affect high volume workflow which has to meet deadlines.

As good as my gadget may be for my purposes, if I was hiring a cast and crew for a serious commercial project within a fixed timeframe, I would not put this all on the line for the sake of an appliance which might fail when the hire cost for the MINI35 would be a relatively small part of a larger budget.

What our home-mades enable is customisation to personal preferences. In my case, I want images more consistent with video so the adaptor footage and direct to camera footage is more easily integrated. So the finish of my gg has been adjusted accordingly. That flexibility (and lower cost) over reliabilty is the current trade-off for me.

For me it's a few things, the mini35 is extremely rugid. The camera actually gets mounted to it, rather then the adapter getting mounted to the camera. This makes for a big difference which I think is often overlooked in comparisons, the mini35 is definitely a device that will withstand the rigors of a film set. The mini35 comes with and supports industry standard 15mm extension bars which means industry standard matte boxes and follow focus units can be added (not all DIY 35mm adapters do this, if any).

Image flipping. For professional film production this is just not acceptable. I understand there are a lot of work arounds to this whether it be sticking magnets on LCD flip screen sensors, flipping in camera or in post.. but the bottom line is what happens when you want to run feed to an external monitor - which is what you expect to see if there is a separate camera man, DOP and director.

A wide variety of cine primes can be used with the mini35 depending on what lens kit you own/rent. This means you're getting the full advantage of shooting with high speed cookes, etc.. which I won't get completely into the advantages of but will quickly add that better glass = better image and of course means no breathing of lenses and once again support for industry add on systems.

Friends that won't laugh. Okay this point is completely senseless I agree. But let's face it, show up with a mini35 and suddenly everyone is your friend. It just looks kick ass.

At the end of the day is the mini35 expensive? YES. Can most afford it? NO. Is it a rip off? DEPENDS WHERE YOU'RE SITTING. The truth is when I'm not shooting my own films I'm renting out the mini35 and optional camera package so these points are all very important for me. I know many guys who shoot on film all the time who are in the industry and occassionally when they're looking to work on a small and independent project they love the mini35 because it emulates their world so perfectly. If I offered use of a letus, micro, kleenex box 35 (see above picture) or any other device for FREE they'd probably say no thanks. There are just too many limitations and perhaps constrictions from a professional standpoint.


So perhaps the real difference is between the users of the technology, not the technology itself. I'm Jerry Springer, thank you and good night.

I find the majority of home grown solutions tend to be a tad long in length and you need arm extensions to operate the focus also they do not lend well to hand held operation.

On sharpness I was discontent with all the solutions and have built my own, see a clip here

http://s31.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2MSWHIE5HQT2P03M7UHQEHU300

best watched on a CRT (f=70mm F=3.5)


I suppose the main advantage of a home grown is that it can be optimised, I doubt very much whether Mini35 owners would have the balls to take one apart for tweaking purposes for risk of trashing a $10K gizmo.

Another advantage with a homegrown is you can shoot Vista Vision 16:9 as in the example above instead of Academy gate size

Dennis.

There are a few of the home-mades which do actually erect the image before the camera as does the Mini35, my own included.

In a production environment as you correctly point out, the Mini35 is rugged and is not going to develop a fit of the shakes like a home-made when a disk runs out of true balance.

I have shot 5 student workshop scenes, 3 with my device and 2 without.

The two without the device worked better even if the images were not always as pretty, for one reason - less distraction through not having to closely shepherd my added low rent technology.

You could get a call from Barry Levinson if you own the Mini35:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article84.php

I had a chance to check out the two main competitors to the Mini35 with Taylor Wigton as he was using one of my mini35 for comparisons he'll point out in the second part of his Showreel article.

I have NOT tried out any of the one-of-a-kind homemade versions.

That being said, my opinion is much like the others - fit, finish, support, reliability and overall quality.

I wanted to consider the others to purchase for my rental fleet, but I decided not to. In my opinion, the Mini35 is the ultimate, no-trade-off option available. You pay a premium for it, but as a rental house, for most of my customers it becomes a negligable cost in comparison to the remainder of the production.

Even when it is a large portion of the cost, they know that when they pick it up, it's mounted, cleaned, tested and supported and the premium they pay offers assurance that they have the best they can get of that type of equipment when they're on set.

If you shoot with these one weekend a month or less, financially it usually makes sense to rent. If, however, your shooting style is to use an adapter once a week or more, buying makes sense - then it should basically be a budget decision for you. I'd suggest either saving money and going Micro35, or getting a more rugged, quality image and fit out of the Mini35 if you can and want to afford it.

if my letus breaks i fix it myself.. its a simple design that i can find easy replacements for. i refitted it with new parts yesterday.. a trip to the craft store and hardware store and i had all i needed. the flip function is now available with the letus but i really dont have a need for it.. i shoot with the xl1s viewfinder reversed on the right hand side and the image is flipped for easier framing.. and in post its not a hard thing to do. The issue between the homemade adapters and the mini comes down to what you can afford. if i had the money id be using the mini with some cine primes.. but then again id probably be shooting film if i had the money too.

letus35xl with a relay lens coming out soon. the gap is getting smaller.

letus35xl with a relay lens coming out soon. the gap is getting smaller.

How is it getting smaller? Do you mean the length of the rig? Because quality-wise I can't believe a homemade relay lens will be even as good as the stock Canon. So is the quality gap getting smaller or just the looks gap? Is there a real point to that?

i mean in comparison to the mini35 which uses a relay lens... which for cheaper alternatives to the mini35 is a first.

Again the gap is not closing in terms of a relay lens. The Mini35 relay lens is professionally made by an experienced optics company, not home made. That lens alone costs $2,000. How will a homemade lens, which will sell with a whole system for most likely half of what the P+S relay sells for, match it in quality? Optics is a more complex matter than the mechanics of these adapters. I doubt a homemade relay will be better than the lenses that come with the XL2, XL H1 or HD100, so what’s the point? Looks? Making the rig shorter(a really silly one, if the case)? At cost of quality? Pointless if you ask me. Besides, judging by the quality of the ground glass in the Letus35 and all the complains about it (and in other homemade adapters), one can only guess how good a home made relay lens can be. Remember a lens is a much harder thing to design and produce than a ground glass.

i have the older version of the letus and i am extremely happy with the results, and the savings i have in my pocket. There's no use in speculating what the quality will be. ill post footage once i get it.

Quite simply, the mini is not worth 10-12k. I own a micro35 and its absolutley awsome. I can use cine lenses to and old manual nikon lens. I would rather put more time and money into making sure I have the right lighting, solid script, sound, effects ie(make up, and costume; the list can go on on. The mini is just not the only kid on the block anymore. You get the same quality if not better with an adapter much less expensive. Having said that truly the price needs to come way way way down. Because for 12k it better not be any compromises in anything. Only the ones for less money should have trade offs. Besides 12k is still not getting your footage to look exactly like film any. Here is an expert opinion. http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172

I can still tell a difference in fit, finish and quality. Not to mention flipping (for the micro35). In fact, I was there the entire time Taylor (from the article you linked to) tested the mini35 - which received much less testing (and no on-set tests) in comparison to the micro35, movietube and guerilla.

I'm not saying the test wasn't thourough - but I think it was his first time with the mini, and he only played with it at my office for an hour or so.

As for pricing, I agree the price difference makes for an interesting equation of quality to price.

For instance - you CAN buy a follow focus for a few hundred dollars, or you can buy one for $3500.... They both do the same thing, but one, perhaps only slightly better is much more expensive. There are uses and markets for both.

That's why, if you're renting or buying a huge package of lights, sound, camera, lenses, etc... The price of the mini35 vs. alternatives becomes much more understated. For instance, some of my rental packages that go out at $5k+ only have about $550 dedicated to the mini35. And, when you're putting that much behind a production, you want to have that minute amount of extra bulletproofing in your equipment. P+S Technik has been around for decades... You know they put out quality equipment.

However, if you already own a small light package, some lenses and a camera, and the only thing you need is an adapter to get everything to work (which you want to own), you're probably best off buying one of these lower cost alternatives rather than saving up for a mini35.

as i said (typed) above, the gap is closing.. i have the letus35xl.. with relay lens.. and flipped.. quality is amazing. p+s technik have to realize that their monopoly on these devices is little by little coming to an end. i believe in the years to come that as the alternatives get better and better that p+s technik will have to start lowering their price. its what happens with every new product. $12,000 is not a realistic price for this adapter.. sure theres people that can afford it.. but that $11,00 difference is looking more and more silly by the day.

"Different strokes for different folks" But there is a major difference between the P+S and a cost effective option. If I had the budget that required a P+S and I couldn't buy it I would rent it over the choice of buying a inferior product. It's plain and simple, producing a quality production isn't cheap.

Last I heard the Letsus doesn't offer Cinelenes adapters? not including a host of small interfering issuses. On the other hand it's great that budget options are availabe but no matter how hard you try you can't make that Panasonic DVX-100 look or drive like a Panasonic AJ-HDC27 Varicam.

Just like to add my 2 cents on the adapters. Let me show you my adapter which is not a 35mm since I don't use 35mm lenses or 35mm groundglass. I am using medium format lenses and a 645 groundglass which is twice as large as a 35mm groundglass. I love to read all of the concerns about using prime film lenses. Lets consider what we re doing with these adapters. The camera is filming a groundglass I would like to see what the Zeiss or Arri prime lenses can do, no matter what they can do you are still filming a groundglass and the quality of a high quality lens might help but is not like shooting film. It's like copying a photograph with a very high quality lens. Do you think you are going to make the photograph look better than the original? I will be testing my adapter with a Canon HD in the next couple of days. Looks great on the DVX so let's see what happens with the HD. My theory is that the larger the area that one is filming the better the image. That's the reason for the larger groundglass.

take a look at the adapter...
http://www.bentonjohn.com/Adapter/Winston.html

There seems to be a problem with the server, at least today.. Let's hope it's OK tomorrow if not I will repost photos somewhere else.



For me it's a few things, the mini35 is extremely rugid. The camera actually gets mounted to it, rather then the adapter getting mounted to the camera. This makes for a big difference which I think is often overlooked in comparisons, the mini35 is definitely a device that will withstand the rigors of a film set. The mini35 comes with and supports industry standard 15mm extension bars which means industry standard matte boxes and follow focus units can be added (not all DIY 35mm adapters do this, if any).

Image flipping. For professional film production this is just not acceptable. I understand there are a lot of work arounds to this whether it be sticking magnets on LCD flip screen sensors, flipping in camera or in post.. but the bottom line is what happens when you want to run feed to an external monitor - which is what you expect to see if there is a separate camera man, DOP and director.

A wide variety of cine primes can be used with the mini35 depending on what lens kit you own/rent. This means you're getting the full advantage of shooting with high speed cookes, etc.. which I won't get completely into the advantages of but will quickly add that better glass = better image and of course means no breathing of lenses and once again support for industry add on systems.

Friends that won't laugh. Okay this point is completely senseless I agree. But let's face it, show up with a mini35 and suddenly everyone is your friend. It just looks kick ass.

At the end of the day is the mini35 expensive? YES. Can most afford it? NO. Is it a rip off? DEPENDS WHERE YOU'RE SITTING. The truth is when I'm not shooting my own films I'm renting out the mini35 and optional camera package so these points are all very important for me. I know many guys who shoot on film all the time who are in the industry and occassionally when they're looking to work on a small and independent project they love the mini35 because it emulates their world so perfectly. If I offered use of a letus, micro, kleenex box 35 (see above picture) or any other device for FREE they'd probably say no thanks. There are just too many limitations and perhaps constrictions from a professional standpoint.


So perhaps the real difference is between the users of the technology, not the technology itself. I'm Jerry Springer, thank you and good night.

Winston,

How did your tests come out? I'm curious if the medium format glass made a difference.

Chris

Looks cool. What did you use for the viewfinder over the LCD?

Hy, I wanna say to you the Mini 35 its incredible. I shoot some commercials and some musical clips and it assome. Escuse my english. I am from romania , a own a mini 35 with a canon xl 2 , and i use a set of lenses arri high speed 1,4 and a wide lens Kinoptic 9,8mm. What ho you thing about the frames ?


thanks for your review

Looks great Marian. Welcome to the forums.

Image flipping. For professional film production this is just not acceptable.
It's often just not acceptable do not use EVF, especially You're after precise focusing, wich is definately matter by shallow DOF.

Hmmm... maybe we need a forum that reads "DOF adapters, both the P+S and all others".

I do truely understand things like the need for quality, reliability, support, etc. BUT, the one thing I care most about is quality (right, everyone?).

So, lets ignore everything else for a second and ask which has a better looking image. The P+S, or the best "other" brand out there?

I'm personally not convinced that the P+S actually looks any better.

I'm a DIYer, too, and a physics major... my adapter has erecting mirrors. My adapter has a CANON relay lens. It has adjustable flange focal distance and interchangeable lens mounts to which any lens can be attached. My adapter's image is SHARP. Very sharp... enough, that I still have to soften it in-camera, and there's no GG grain at all. It's made of solid aluminum on a rail support.

(I still having a vignetting and hotspotting isue, but I plan to have that completely resolved soon).

SO, my input is this... it all depends on one's abilities in optical engineering ;)

Admittedly, if I had the money I would consider the P+S, but even the new Letus v2 is a bit much for me right now, and it has a great image.

Even if the P+S were made from solid titanium and diamond, AND if it came with a new XL2, it would still be overpriced in my opinion. But if I could afford it, I just wouldn't care.

There probably won't be a truely subjective reply to this thread. Those that can not afford the P+S see how good the cheaper/DIY adapters can be. Those that can, can.

Justin.

My guess is that with the P+S products the keywords might be trust and confidence and a product that is now more than one generation of development in a production environment .

The DIY projects are emulations of a concept which P+S put the R & D hard yards into though I qualify that comment with the rider that many of us builders may be arriving at similar solutions via sometimes convoluted, probably mostly parallel R&D paths of our own.

P+S techs, if they follow the DIY projects, might well sit back with a bit of a chuckle and the thought that some poor wretch is on a hiding to nowhere following a particular path.

Occasionally though, a dead end sometimes yields a result through a happens chance the original researchers did not experience.

In my own travels I have gained an understanding of the principles and can now operate my own machine with some confidence.

In relation to vignetting, hot spotting and sharpness of image, these items all interact. Regret to say, once you have solved you vignette and hot spot problem either with better optics or adjustments to groundglass texture, you will find resolution becomes second best. The trick is finding the balance.

The moment you break through that barrier, please don't keep it to yourself. The solution is there somewhere, just that P+S and the home brew population just haven't found it yet, or if they have, are keeping it to themselves for now.

In meantime, aim for 850 TV lines of resolution. I know it to be possible.

A small update in regards to my adapter! Bob, I think I have something (it's good enough for me, at least!). After a condenser lens upgrade, my vignetting is either gone or as of yet unnoticeable, I've not noticed a hotspot, and I still have the sharpness I had before.

The only side affect appears to be slight distortion, but in that assesment I'm not even confident. I don't believe the distortion is noticeable, or if it's even there. I feel like it's slightly "pin-cusioning" (which doesn't make sense given the bi-convex lens I'm using as a condenor), but verticle lines seem to remain verticle on the edges of the frame (as well as the center, of course). About the condenser... in experimenting, I was getting much better results with a BCX (as opposed to PCX), spaced about a centimeter from the GG, which seems to contradict everyone elses findings.

I plan to post some test footage in the alternative imaging forum in the next week.

I also plan to publish the plans and parts list online, eventually. I'm VERY happy with it right now (though I haven't done much testing with the new config).