Anybody rig up a 35mm SLR lens onto a 16 or S16 camera? How much did the converter cost you? Problems with vinetteing?
No, rilly, don't no one be 'fraid tah tell it, holmes! Honestly I have no idea how to rig or price such a lens configuration. Please help me.
Believe me, sir, I would tell if you I knew!
Only type of converter I've used was a Letus 35mm Extreme with a Sony EX1:
http://www.letusdirect.com/cart/letus35-extreme.html
Results looked great, although I ended up with some grain issues and it's tricky to properly backfocus. Manufacturer said this was because of the prism possibly beign misaligned...not sure if a 16 to 35 adapter might have similar problems.
Suffice to say 35mm make a big difference and are worth the investment.
With 35mm adapters you are getting 35mm depth of field but not resolution -- that's a big difference right there.
How would the lens effect resolution? Wouldn't that still be determined by the grain of the film?
I believe that is what md means--the resolution is not increased by the lens.
Ahh, gotcha. I wonder if there's people out there who actually think that a longer focal length somehow magically crams more information onto the negative? 'Course there's probably plenty of dumbshit things I have misconceptions about too, so I probably shouldn't poke fun.
Its not 16mm, but I once shot something with a Brevis and SLR lenses on a Panasonic HVX-200. One lens, IIRC the 35mm, gave big headaches with vignetting. They weren't the best lenses, though. Racking focus during a shot can be difficult with SLR lenses (compared to cine 35mm lenses and a focus puller), and they tend to breathe if you do rack focus.
Thanks for the reply.
Yeah, I played around with a 35>HVX200 rig that poorly build, it was essentially a nightmare. Flipped image, vignetting, lens didn't actually fit properly, ground glass didn't vibrate consistently. The well made ones range from about $1,500 to $6,000. Pretty much why I decided t'was better not to fake video as film and just use an ARRI.