FORUMS: list search recent posts

canon EF adaptor vs. redrock micro/mini35

COW Forums : Canon Cameras

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Todd VanSlyck
canon EF adaptor vs. redrock micro/mini35
on Sep 8, 2005 at 1:27:31 pm

For those of you who have the EF adaptor, which allows you to mount canon still photo lenses to the XL-2, how is this in comparison to the converters that allow you to basically do the same thing? (redrock micro, mini-35). I've been doing research on both these products to try to attain the coveted Depth of Field with my xl-2. Doesn't the EF adaptor do the same thing? Why shoud I spend $7000 plus lenses (for the mini 35) when I can get virtually the same thing for $450? Am I totally off base?


Return to posts index

David Jones
Re: canon EF adaptor vs. redrock micro/mini35
on Sep 8, 2005 at 6:11:29 pm

What do you mean by "coveted Depth of Field" .... Shallow?
The results of using the EF adapter is the equivalent of having a 7.2 time multiplication factor with the EF lens you use.
In other words, if you were to use for example a Canon 35mm EF 24mm lens,
it would give you the equivalent look of a 172mm telephoto lens.
A rotating glass system like the P+S Technik mini35 allows you to take advantage of the true focal range of the lens attached. For example a Cooke S4 14mm prime lens will act as a 14mm with no multiplication factor, and give you the equivalent depth of field as it would on a 35mm camera.
The negative side of using the Mini35 is that the system causes a 2 f-stop loss of light, so you have to use very fast prime lenses in order to get a shallow depth of field.
With the redrock micro 35 you use your standard mounted lens, as well as the adapter, and the 35mm lens.
Also depending on the 35mm lens used some vignetting may occur.

I think the biggest factor is what kind of a budget do you have,
and what kind of quality would you be satisfied with.
Also what are your lighting capabilities, as that will factor into lens choice.

Some will just purchase a mico35 indie bundle for $850.00
and add a Nikon 35mm SLR lens for $800.00 and that will be fine for them.

Others because of cost, will rent the P+S mini35
and a set of super speed primes, as they don't have the extra $15k setting around for a used lens set.

Still others, when they have a project that needs a high quality look
will step up from 1/3" CCD cameras like the XL2, and rent a pro camera along the lines of an SDX900 with a nice HD zoom lens to give them the results they are after.

There are ways to achieve a shallow depth of field using your stock 20x Canon XL2 lens by adjusting your shooting style, and placing the camera, subject, and background at different depths.

Good Luck!

Return to posts index

michael webb
Re: canon EF adaptor vs. redrock micro/mini35
on Sep 14, 2005 at 2:44:43 pm

Depth of field:

Depth of field in the XL2 and other mini DV cameras have less to do with lens choice than the size of the imaging surface. The size of the imaging surface and the "circle of confusion" is one of the most important factors in creating shallow depth of field. Adapters like the red rock micro and the mini35 both project the image from attached lens to a larger imaging surface and the resulting image is then "sent" to the smaller CCD via some sort of relay lens. In a hyper simplified statement: Smaller imaging surfaces require smaller focal lenghts, smaller focal lengths create smaller apertures which creates smaller circles of confusion which result in deeper depth of fields.

wikipedi has a discussion on this on their web site under "Depth_of_field"

Michael Webb
Training / Support
Apple Certified Technician Digital Video / Xsan for Video
Microsearch, Houston Texas
Michael Webb
Post Squared

Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 All Rights Reserved