Jag35 VS. Twoneil - 35mm adapters

[punkandska66]

Hey guys, I have some questions for anyone who either has the Jag35, or Twoneil 35mm adapters. I have looked into both, and I'm really torn between the two. The Jag is more expensive, but it's a vibrating adapter. The Twoneil doesn't vibrate, but still puts out some awesome images. Of course, the vibrating can also be a hassle and cause some problems so, it can go both ways.

Well anyways, here's my situation. If I get the Twoneil, I'll need rails, and a lens ($500 all together). If I get the Jag, I'll also need some support, but Jehu makes his own support system which is cheaper. But his adapter is more expensive, so in the end it's about the same amount of money (Well, the Jag would be like $30 more, but that's not that much). So my question is: If they're going to be about the same amount of money, what should I get? I can get 1) Twoneil (w/achromat) + Indirails + Nikon lens, or 2) Jag35 + Jehu's support system + Nikon lens.

I've seen both of them produce stellar images so at this point, I really can't decide. Up until a while ago I thought I would get the Twoneil for sure, but Jehu added some new videos, he added a new achromat and the video is just as good as the Twoneil.
Which one do you guys think would be better?

I know Trsp's got the Jag, and I don't know for sure if anyone has the Twoneil on here, but if you do please help me out. I just don't want this to turn into an argument about which is better, please.

[koala_kacho]

[Deleted by user.]

[nooneimportant77]

I was just on the site for the JAG 35, and saw something interesting.

If the ground glass set up he's using is the same as the DIY set up he offers-

http://web.me.com/jehug/Products/DIY_files/Picture%202.png

Then it has an imaging surface larger then 35mm film, and the DOF will be shallower, because you'll be seeing more of the image circle from the lens. That isn't really a good or bad thing, unless you're doing precise depth of field measurements, which you'd be doing with a real large format camera.

I chose not to go with a vibrating adapter, and it saved me quite a bit of money and trouble. The mic on my camera is right near the lens (like most consumer cams), and I can use an external mic, but I don't really want to carry that around all the time.

I haven't really run into any issues with the non vibrating adapter, you just have to use a blower on it frequently to be sure it's clean.

[punkandska66]

I don't know. That's a lot of money.

I built my own "Twoneil" (same plans), knowing I could upgrade to a vibrating gg-holder if not satisfied with the static adapter.

Instead of rails, I bought a telephoto lens support off eBay. It works great on the tripod, but I'm starting to worry about stability as I tinker with handheld stabilizers. If my current support tilts too far forward or to the side, it could put too much stress on the threads. So I'll probably upgrade to a "box" type rail system (rails above and below).

For a lens, I'd just go on eBay. You can get Canon F mount or Pentax lenses for crazy cheap; and some of the older lenses have manual aperture control, which I'm told is helpful for shooting video. You can get adapters from any camera to any lens for less than $20.

Thanks for the reply. I can understand building your own, and how that would be cheaper. I trust myself when building with wood and metal, but not with something so presise like this. But it's a thought, I guess.

The telephoto support is something to think about. It's a good idea.

As for the lens, I was just saying $100, because that lens is suggested by Jehu and Neil, and it's got manual focus and aperture. But I could always go for something cheaper. Thanks for your suggestions!

I think I'll look into telephoto supports, thanks for the idea.

[punkandska66]

I was just on the site for the JAG 35, and saw something interesting.

If the ground glass set up he's using is the same as the DIY set up he offers-


Then it has an imaging surface larger then 35mm film, and the DOF will be shallower, because you'll be seeing more of the image circle from the lens. That isn't really a good or bad thing, unless you're doing precise depth of field measurements, which you'd be doing with a real large format camera.

I chose not to go with a vibrating adapter, and it saved me quite a bit of money and trouble. The mic on my camera is right near the lens (like most consumer cams), and I can use an external mic, but I don't really want to carry that around all the time.

I haven't really run into any issues with the non vibrating adapter, you just have to use a blower on it frequently to be sure it's clean.

Yeah, I figured that the non-vibrating ones are exactly the same, you just need to use a blower on it. But I heard that with an achromat on it, you hardly ever need to clean it anyways, because dust can't even get into the adapter. Obviously, you'd clean the achromat, but you'd do that with a virbating adapter too.
Jehu (Jag) used to make static adapters, and they were like $140. I saw that and I was like "Perfect!", but turns out he stopped making those. Now he only make vibrating adapters.

I use an external mic, so the noise of a vibrating one won't cause me much trouble.

[Fplus]

I had the same decision to make.
In the end I took the Twoneil, because it has the same picture quality and I thought i would forget it if the battery is empty and so on.

I just took the Twoneil, because I thought it will work best for me.:)

[nooneimportant77]

The adapter I use can be bought from here-

http://jjdofadapter.com/

Thats even some of my footage at the top of the page there. I think it's cheaper then the twoneil.

[TiE_Shepherd]

Then it has an imaging surface larger then 35mm film, and the DOF will be shallower, because you'll be seeing more of the image circle from the lens. That isn't really a good or bad thing, unless you're doing precise depth of field measurements, which you'd be doing with a real large format camera.

Even with the larger GG, you still would zoom in to the same 35mm frame. If not you'd have tons of vignetteing since 35mm lenses are not designed to fill a larger that 35mm frame size. Only way that would work is if you were using medium format lenses.

[Hunterr]

I am in the market for a DOF adapter as well. I already know what I am going to buy, and it will be in about a month or two.

I've chosen a Twoneil for a few reasons. The first being the image quality. It is fantastic. Jehu recently uploaded some great footage, but that's after a long time of improvements, which leads me to my second reason. Twoneil doesn't release a new adapter every 2 months. Jehu released new upgrades every so often, and granted: it is for the good, but I would rather have a solid product that I can be happy with without "keeping up with the joneses". My last reason is that I have never gotten one bad review on Neil's adapter. Everyone says "Flawless...pleasure to buy from...etc." While I hear quite a few reviews about Jehu's adapter that makes me not want to buy one to begin with.

And Noone...I get what you're saying about the circular GG, but the area visible by the camera is only X amount of space, so why would it matter? I was looking at it and wondering exactly what was so "good" about it.

-Hunter

EDIT: Dang, Tie beat me to the kill about the larger GG.

[nooneimportant77]

Even with the larger GG, you still would zoom in to the same 35mm frame. If not you'd have tons of vignetteing since 35mm lenses are not designed to fill a larger that 35mm frame size. Only way that would work is if you were using medium format lenses.

Yeah, but you're not going to zoom in to precisely 35mm. Adapters that use a focusing screen from an SLR camera will provide exact results, consistent every time. Something like the circular ground glass will not, depending on how far you zoom that day.

It's a minor detail, and it wouldn't really bother me if I had to choose between that and something with a focusing screen. However if it's custom made, how fine is it?

[punkandska66]

Bumpity bump?

Hunterr, I see what you're saying about good and bad reviews. I have only ever seen one bad review for a Twoneil, and that was because the buyer was a whiney prick...
But I think you're stronger point was how Jehu changes every couple of weeks. I'll take that into consideration, although the Jag is still pretty good, and I'm still considering it.

[Hunterr]

Yea, that was the main concern of mine.

You could build your own...it's actually easy. (Or so it seems.)

I found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW9wkv5fkBg&feature=related) link on youtube for jetsetmodels (http://jetsetmodels.info/) and it seems like it can't be that hard. It comes to about 150ish (w/ out lens) for a nice vibrating adapter that has some pretty good results.


Once I get my money, I am going to make a choice. I will either build one, or find a used Twoneil/lens combo. I've seen them go for decent prices. When I say I prefer Twoneil over a JAG, I don't mean that there is no way that I'll get one...if I found one cheap enough I would pick one up, but the problem is: the JAG's are more expensive to begin with, so for the price of a used JAG/lens combo, I could get a nice Twoneil/lens combo NEW, and if I found one used, I could pick up an Opteka or a Twoneil+.

Just some food for thought.

-Hunter

[punkandska66]

I know this is a really old thread, I'm sorry to bump it. I was just wondering though, if I got either one of the 2 adapters (Jag or Twoneil), could I use lenses from my Nikon SLR. It's a 35mm camera, and I just don't see the point in buying a new lens if I don't have to. Except the lenses I already have are pretty long and kind of heavy, and if I used them I might need to get longer rails, which will actually be more expensive. So maybe it would be good to just get the small one?

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s195/punkandska66/Photo208.jpg

[KMProductions]

I know this is a really old thread, I'm sorry to bump it. I was just wondering though, if I got either one of the 2 adapters (Jag or Twoneil), could I use lenses from my Nikon SLR. It's a 35mm camera, and I just don't see the point in buying a new lens if I don't have to. Except the lenses I already have are pretty long and kind of heavy, and if I used them I might need to get longer rails, which will actually be more expensive. So maybe it would be good to just get the small one?


On most 35mm adapters, when you order them you pick what lens mount you want. So just make sure you order the same lens mount as those Nikon lenses and you will be able to use them.

[Koolpenguin89]

My Twoneil came with a Nikon mount. I think you have to pay extra to get a Nikon mount on a Jag35. Please note that if those lenses aren't fully manual, you will not be able to control your aperture with your 35mm adapter, so, depending on the lens, your aperture will be set to fully open or completely closed (this can be fixed by sticking part of a matchstick into the aperture mechanism on the lens). Also know that all 35mm adapters are going to eat up a lot of light, so zoom lenses, which usually aren't all that fast, are not ideal. Most people prefer prime lenses with fast apertures (f/1.8 or faster). You can usually find some fast prime lenses for pretty cheap, I have a manual Nikon 50mm f/1.8 that Im selling for $40.

Dylan

[punkandska66]

Thanks you guys. These lenses are fully manual, so that should be alright.

I'm going to need your help here. I feel really stupid asking about this, but I kinda need like a "lens 101" class.
These lenses can both zoom, so does that mean they are not prime lenses? I'm resorting to Wikipedia here (I know, it's kind of sad), and it says that it's a lens whose focal length is fixed, as opposed to zoom lens. And also, if it's focal length is fixed, wouldn't that mean you can't focus it to your needs? That doesn't make sense to me.
And also, my lenses are pretty slow (2.8 and 4. The one with f/4 is telemacro, the other is general purpose). So it would be better to just get a faster lens in general?

Also, if I ever end up saving enough money, I think at this point I want to go with the Twoneil.

[KMProductions]

Thanks you guys. These lenses are fully manual, so that should be alright.

I'm going to need your help here. I feel really stupid asking about this, but I kinda need like a "lens 101" class.
These lenses can both zoom, so does that mean they are not prime lenses? I'm resorting to Wikipedia here (I know, it's kind of sad), and it says that it's a lens whose focal length is fixed, as opposed to zoom lens. And also, if it's focal length is fixed, wouldn't that mean you can't focus it to your needs? That doesn't make sense to me.
And also, my lenses are pretty slow (2.8 and 4. The one with f/4 is telemacro, the other is general purpose). So it would be better to just get a faster lens in general?

Also, if I ever end up saving enough money, I think at this point I want to go with the Twoneil.

Zoom lenses are not primes but nowadays they are just as good. It used to be that zoom lenses were a little less quality. By "focal length" it means you can't adjust how shallow the DOF is. You can focus to different distances, you just can't increase or decrease you DOF. As apposed to, on a zoom lens, where the more you zoom in the shallower your DOF gets.

[punkandska66]

Zoom lenses are not primes but nowadays they are just as good. It used to be that zoom lenses were a little less quality. By "focal length" it means you can't adjust how shallow the DOF is. You can focus to different distances, you just can't increase or decrease you DOF. As apposed to, on a zoom lens, where the more you zoom in the shallower your DOF gets.


Ohhhhh, that makes a sense.

Yeah, my lenses are from 1980 something, so I don't know if they would still be up-to-par with a newer prime lens.

But anyway, I CAN use my lenses if it is the right mount?
So do you think it would be worth just getting the adapter and using my lenses, and if I like it, then so be it. And if it sucks, just save up for a prime?

[Koolpenguin89]

By "focal length" it means you can't adjust how shallow the DOF is. You can focus to different distances, you just can't increase or decrease you DOF. As apposed to, on a zoom lens, where the more you zoom in the shallower your DOF gets.

Whoa, don't go giving explanations when you don't know what your talking about. Do some research about the subject your speaking about, and then answer questions about it if you feel the need to. Here, this should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length.

Dylan

EDIT: Punkandska, he is wrong, that is not what focal length is. Check my link, especially the photography section. With a fixed focal length lens, you can still control DOF through your aperture settings.

[punkandska66]

you can still control DOF through your aperture settings.
So just like any other lens, the more open the aperture is, the shallower DOF field you can get. But you can't zoom in and make it shallower.

So then, if you're using a prime lens with a 35mm adapter, you zoom with the digital camera (HV30 in my case), not with the lens?


Alright, I should probably look into this waaaay more before I buy anything. I just got excited, haha.

[TiE_Shepherd]

So then, if you're using a prime lens with a 35mm adapter, you zoom with the digital camera (HV30 in my case), not with the lens?

You shouldn't really zoom with the camera either. In some situations you can maybe do a slight zoom with the camera and there are some people that say it works in a pinch. Ideally you would just change lenses to change focal lengths or use a zoom lens.

[Koolpenguin89]

Actually, when using a prime lens, you don't zoom at all, not with your SLR lens, not with your camcorders lens. For this reason, most people own a set of lenses. A basic set would be something like a 35mm for wide angles, a 50mm for in between, an 80mm for portraits, and 105mm+ for telephoto shots. And of course you can have super wides (<24mm) and super telephots (>200mm) for special situations that call for them. This may seem like a lot of work just to get the same capabilities that one or two zoom lenses can give you, but in my experience, you really can't beat the sharpness and quality of a good prime lens.

That being said, you shouldn't have any problem using your two zoom lenses on a Nikon mount 35mm adapter. You will need a LOT of light in order to avoid vignetting, and you might struggle to get your DOF as shallow as you want it with those slow apertures, but it is definitely doable.

Dylan

[punkandska66]

You shouldn't really zoom with the camera either. In some situations you can maybe do a slight zoom with the camera and there are some people that say it works in a pinch. Ideally you would just change lenses to change focal lengths or use a zoom lens.

But I thought you shouldn't use zoom lenses because they are slow.

But yes, getting a lens with a longer range seems like it would work.

[punkandska66]

Actually, when using a prime lens, you don't zoom at all, not with your SLR lens, not with your camcorders lens. For this reason, most people own a set of lenses. A basic set would be something like a 35mm for wide angles, a 50mm for in between, an 80mm for portraits, and 105mm+ for telephoto shots. And of course you can have super wides (<24mm) and super telephots (>200mm) for special situations that call for them. This may seem like a lot of work just to get the same capabilities that one or two zoom lenses can give you, but in my experience, you really can't beat the sharpness and quality of a good prime lens.

That being said, you shouldn't have any problem using your two zoom lenses on a Nikon mount 35mm adapter. You will need a LOT of light in order to avoid vignetting, and you might struggle to get your DOF as shallow as you want it with those slow apertures, but it is definitely doable.

Dylan


AHHHH TOOO MUCH MONEYS!

I understand what you're saying though. If only I wasn't broke... Thanks for the info, though. I actually understand this stuff better now.
So I guess if I wanted to get this, I would start off just getting the adapter and use my lenses. Then over time, add some more lenses to the collecton. The two I've got are 70-210mm (telemacro) and 28-70mm for all around. If they were a bit faster they would be pretty nice, I guess.

[TiE_Shepherd]

But I thought you shouldn't use zoom lenses because they are slow.

But yes, getting a lens with a longer range seems like it would work.

Yeah zooms are generally slower. You can get faster zooms, but the price starts jumping drastically. That's why most people just shoot with a set of primes to cover different focal lengths.

[elscottomagnifico]

The 35mm adapter is setup so that the light passing through your attached lens is projected onto the ground glass. So your camera captures that image as it is resolved on the ground glass - The whole idea behind the adapter is that you're separating your own cam (and a small sensor - smaller sensor = deeper DOF) from initially resolving what the lens gives you. So zooming with your camera is going to have a totally different effect on the image than just putting another lens in front of the camera without an adapter.

Your own camera has to be zoomed enough to fit the ground glass and remain in focus. Because the ground glass is pretty close, you really don't have much leeway to zoom without throwing the whole image out of focus. So if you absolutely need to zoom (even though zooms are used very infrequently within a shot - which is why having various primes that you switch between shots is an option) you have to use a zoom lens or go without the adapter to use the camera's own zoom lens.

Zoom lenses are less desirable for adapters because you lose a bit of light getting the image on the ground glass and zoom lenses don't usually have that wide an aperture unless you spend quite a bit. The aperture on zooms also tends to vary depending on the focal length you're set at (zooming in closes down the aperture more) unless you get a nice one. So you'll most likely end up just using the zoom at its widest focal length and widest aperture, which is usually the range that zooms are their softest (not that it's enough of a change to care much about in many newer lenses), unless you have tons of light.

Primes are easier and often cheaper to get ahold of with wider apertures, easier to design so you don't have to deal with as many compromises a lens manufacturer made (with zooms they have to deal with things like where the picture might soften, where it'll be sharpest, where and how distortion starts to come in) or at least the issues are more predictable.

[elscottomagnifico]

Between your lenses, you'll have an easier time going with the 2.8

It's actually not too terrible an aperture to use on an adapter, though it will most likely stop down as you zoom in - not ideal, but still usable so long as you light your scene correctly.

Also, the TwoNeil (static or vibrating) only comes in a Nikon mount. The Jag35ST (the static one) comes in an FD or Nikon mount and I think it's the same option for the rest of the Jag adapters. Just so you know, you can get an adapter for an FD mount to accept a Nikon lens, but not the other way around. So if you get a Jag, it might be a better idea to get the FD with a Nikon mount adapter if you plan (or think you might) to get other lenses in the future and aren't dead set on only using Nikon glass.

[punkandska66]

The 35mm adapter is setup so that the light passing through your attached lens is projected onto the ground glass. So your camera captures that image as it is resolved on the ground glass - The whole idea behind the adapter is that you're separating your own cam (and a small sensor - smaller sensor = deeper DOF) from initially resolving what the lens gives you. So zooming with your camera is going to have a totally different effect on the image than just putting another lens in front of the camera without an adapter.This part I knew already, haha.

Your own camera has to be zoomed enough to fit the ground glass and remain in focus. Because the ground glass is pretty close, you really don't have much leeway to zoom without throwing the whole image out of focus.I have a macro, which is what a lot of people do for this, to make it easier for the camera to focus (You already know this, probably). So I guess in my case I shouldn't zoom at all (on the HV30), because with a macro it'll be even more sensitive. But this part clears up a lot. I get why you couldn't zoom with your camera now.
So if you absolutely need to zoom (even though zooms are used very infrequently within a shot - which is why having various primes that you switch between shots is an option) you have to use a zoom lens or go without the adapter to use the camera's own zoom lens.Understood :)

Zoom lenses are less desirable for adapters because you lose a bit of light getting the image on the ground glass and zoom lenses don't usually have that wide an aperture unless you spend quite a bit. The aperture on zooms also tends to vary depending on the focal length you're set at (zooming in closes down the aperture more) unless you get a nice one.I get what you're saying, it's just like on digital cameras also (or at least the Rebel does that. It's annoying, trying to zoom in and keep the aperture below 5. It doesn't work :()
So you'll most likely end up just using the zoom at its widest focal length and widest aperture, which is usually the range that zooms are their softest (not that it's enough of a change to care much about in many newer lenses), unless you have tons of light.SOOO, in summary don't zoom at all, haha. Just get a lens with a longer focal range. Yeah, the 2.8 isn't a telephoto, but it still zooms. But normally when I'm taking pictures with it, I don't zoom in all that much. I just switch lenses if I want to zoom. So I guess it's the same deal here, except instead of switching to a telephoto, I'd switch to a prime with a longer range.

Primes are easier and often cheaper to get ahold of with wider apertures, easier to design so you don't have to deal with as many compromises a lens manufacturer made (with zooms they have to deal with things like where the picture might soften, where it'll be sharpest, where and how distortion starts to come in) or at least the issues are more predictable.Primes are cheaper? This is news to me, and I like it.

Between your lenses, you'll have an easier time going with the 2.8

It's actually not too terrible an aperture to use on an adapter, though it will most likely stop down as you zoom in - not ideal, but still usable so long as you light your scene correctly.
Got it.

Also, the TwoNeil (static or vibrating) only comes in a Nikon mount. The Jag35ST (the static one) comes in an FD or Nikon mount and I think it's the same option for the rest of the Jag adapters. Just so you know, you can get an adapter for an FD mount to accept a Nikon lens, but not the other way around. So if you get a Jag, it might be a better idea to get the FD with a Nikon mount adapter if you plan (or think you might) to get other lenses in the future and aren't dead set on only using Nikon glass.Pretty sure I'm just going to be using Nikon lenses. Because I've already got a few, and I heard you can use all Nikon lenses on all Nikon cameras (or mounts, to be more specific. Because a 35mm adapter doesn't really count as a camera...), so if I get a lens for the 35mm adapter, I can also do photography with it.

[elscottomagnifico]

Primes are cheaper? This is news to me, and I like it.Yeah, it generally works out that a zoom of comparable quality/ability to a prime is more expensive. Zooms do tend to be cheaper or at least similarly priced compared to a set of primes that cover the same zoom range though.

Everything you choose is a compromise though. So the prime over a zoom because the prime is cheaper loses the ease of a variable focal length. The zoom over a set of primes because you can find one cheaper starts adding its own problems - pincushion/barrel distortion can come in near the ends of the zoom range, the aperture can be variable along the zoom range (or if you're lucky and find one with a constant aperture, the maximum will still probably be a larger f stop than the primes - 2.8 instead of 1.8).

[punkandska66]

I see.
All this is "if", but "if" I were to buy some lenses, I would probably get primes. I know this whole discussion was pretty much started by asking about zoom, but I don't actually use zoom in my stuff all that often. I don't have a source of income except for sometimes babysitting and lawnmowing and stuff, so I would go with whatever is good at the cheapest price I can get (as in, not crap, but I don't have to have the best equipment). I don't need a super expensive 70-whatever mm f/1.0, you know?




This thread is a well of information, just want to say thanks again for all you smart people who took the time to post and help me out.

[KMProductions]

Whoa, don't go giving explanations when you don't know what your talking about. Do some research about the subject your speaking about, and then answer questions about it if you feel the need to. Here, this should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length.

Dylan

EDIT: Punkandska, he is wrong, that is not what focal length is. Check my link, especially the photography section. With a fixed focal length lens, you can still control DOF through your aperture settings.

Yeah, my bad, thanks for pointing that out. However I think I was half correct. Your focal length determines how how shallow you DOF can get because the light converges and crosses at a much shorter distance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[elscottomagnifico]

If you're looking for the best way to spread your money, then you might want to go with the Jag35ST (the static one) and a Canon FD to Nikon adapter ring. Then you can use your current lenses with the Nikon adapter ring, but you can also pick up a Canon FD 50mm on ebay (If you check around you should be able to pick one up for $20 or so).

With the Jag you'll want an achromat though - shouldn't run you too much for an opteka on Amazon.

[punkandska66]

If you're looking for the best way to spread your money, then you might want to go with the Jag35ST (the static one) and a Canon FD to Nikon adapter ring. Then you can use your current lenses with the Nikon adapter ring, but you can also pick up a Canon FD 50mm on ebay (If you check around you should be able to pick one up for $20 or so).

With the Jag you'll want an achromat though - shouldn't run you too much for an opteka on Amazon.

It seems like a nice idea, but I like the look of a Twoneil over the Jag. Not to say that the Jag35's are bad, because they're not. I was thinking maybe this: Twoneil HD static, Indirails Shrigg Rig, and I'll use my Nikon lenses to start.

The TwoneilHD as the option to get an achromat. I have a macro lens, so do I need the achromat?

[elscottomagnifico]

I have a macro lens, so do I need the achromat?It's going to depend on the macro lens.

Alot of the basic ones really aren't that great optically and can add more problems than they're taking away. With the macro you'll also want a decent amount of magnification so that you can frame the ground glass even closer to crop out the vignette.

[punkandska66]

It's going to depend on the macro lens.

Alot of the basic ones really aren't that great optically and can add more problems than they're taking away. With the macro you'll also want a decent amount of magnification so that you can frame the ground glass even closer to crop out the vignette.

Alright. I might just end up e-mailing Twoneil, he'll probably be able to provide me with specifics.
But thanks a lot for everything! I'll post back here if I'm confused again (so be expecting something...).

[Koolpenguin89]

However I think I was half correct. Your focal length determines how how shallow you DOF can get because the light converges and crosses at a much shorter distance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ya, I think that part is pretty much right. It was your assertion that a prime lenses cannot adjust their DOF that i disagreed with. You can still adjust your DOF with a prime lens, using the aperture.

Dylan

[sharpshooter]

Live thread...LIVE!

Quick question...what is the best option for reversing the flipped image you get while using an adapter?

[gonzo_entertainment]

Live thread...LIVE!

Quick question...what is the best option for reversing the flipped image you get while using an adapter?

On set, using a monitor. In post, an editor will pop up with an answer. I just write and shoot, I don't edit.

[punkandska66]

I use the Shrigg Rig which flips your camera but not the image. So it's still upsidedown when you shoot, but it's right side up when you edit. You can send your camera to Jehu, for a flip hack (http://web.me.com/jehug/Services/Flip_Hack.html) if you want. But it voids the warranty.

[sharpshooter]

Eh, flipping in while editing doesn't bother me...but trying to shoot while it's vertically flipped just isn't my cup of tea. I've seen a few people fasten a mirror to an LCD screen cover...but wouldn't the horizontal image be flipped...?

[gonzo_entertainment]

Eh, flipping in while editing doesn't bother me...but trying to shoot while it's vertically flipped just isn't my cup of tea. I've seen a few people fasten a mirror to an LCD screen cover...but wouldn't the horizontal image be flipped...?

Yep. Turn the camera upside down using one of the rigs discussed, or even better get some kind of monitor. It (a decent monitor) should be on people's "to buy" list WAY ahead of 35mm adapters and other gizmos IMO.

[sharpshooter]

Alright. I've purchased my adapter and lens but am more than lost on what to look for in a monitor. I'd like to keep it under $100...but still have all the necessary capabilities.

[grandadmiral]

I use a portable dvd player for my monitor. It works great and they're pretty cheap. You just need to make sure that it has av inputs. Also make sure it has a flip screen function.