MICRO 35's quality a myth or reality?
Posted 28 June 2006 - 06:24 PM
im not far away from preproduction for my next project and still i have a huge dilemma which unfortunately i cant solve. this short film is supposed to look like a 1950 horror/kitchen sink flick and our budget is absolutely low, 7 grand. now, id love to try out this "so much renoun" micro 35 adapter on a Z1E, geared up with some nice nikon primes and telephotos, the only problem is that there is no rental house around bonnie scotland i can get it from and TEST IT, so im kinda stuck. yes i read the nice reviews here and there but im not convinced yet. has anyone tried it shooting in bw? should i go for it or id rather use 16 mil? if that adapter works it would save lots of money we would spend on film...
let me know
Posted 28 June 2006 - 06:44 PM
1. When using the Z1 you tend to pick up the whole rig by grabbing the cameras handle. This mess ups the very delicate spacing between the adapter and the lens. There is a handle on the actual rig that you should use, but it's much smaller and not as convenient to grab.
2. As stated above, the cameras lens is actually pointing into a diopter that's focusable and then relays the image of the ground glass. This means that any slight misalignment (like picking it up by the handle) will not only screw up the focus, but also the centerline. Results being that the image is out of focus AND starts to vignette in one corner (because it's not pointed straight down the center). You MUST check focus and alignment every time you'e about to turn over, which becomes tedious real fast.
3. If you're using the Z1's onboard monitor, it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell if the adapter is focused properly, so you do need a bigger monitor.
4. Very easy to forget to turn the vibrating groundglass on, which makes the image look like poop. And if it's a bright exterior, that LED lamp supposed to tell you it's running is impossible to see unless you black it out. This is where most mistakes happen, 'cause the sun reflections in the LED globe looks like it's lit up and on, when in fact it isn't.
5. Nightmare to handhold and not very user-friendly.
Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:01 PM
it would be the red micro 35. what do you reckon, is it worth saving a bit on film and being more careful and well prepared whilst shooting or would you rather shoot in 16 mill...once again its in bw so im sure the difference between video and film wont be as dramatic as if it was in color. i hate when i cant test things myself but i really dont know what else i can do.
Posted 28 June 2006 - 11:24 PM
Dunno if you NEED to shoot with it, but I have always loved to use DOF, and personally I like the DOF 35 provides. If you use a lot of DOF work in your photography, it might add a nice touch to it, and if you like to use Deep Focus techniques more often, then I would skip the adaptor and just rent a high quality lens.