Note that shootout isn’t entirely definitive, as time constraints limited tweaking each adapter’s configuration. Phillip is careful to note this, and he appears to have approached the whole test as objectively as possible. Consider the shootout a comparative analysis to be taken with a grain of salt and some common sense. So which adapter won? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Here are a few highlights…
*Wayne Kinney’s SGPRO delivered pleasing bokeh and crisp edge to edge sharpness, easily visible in resolution charts on Page 5 of the review. It’s noted that complete image sharpness on both the M2 and Brevis may have been possible with a more careful setup or a improved achromat, unfortunately none was available for this test (there is a brand new achromat for the Brevis that is supposed to do just this).
*The Brevis is the smallest and lightest of the bunch, and suffers the least amount of light loss of the bunch.
*One of the criticisms of the M2 adapter is lack of a hard mount (Bloom’s unit mounts on rails and uses a rubber boot to attach over the camcorder lens. I understand that Redrock has an optional “hard mount” that would address this concern.
*SGPRO exhibits some corner vignetting, probably due to it requiring a longer zoom setting during setup.
*The Redrock was praised for it’s polished professional image and build quality.
*Brevis bokeh was noted as less pleasing than the other adapters. I know that Cinevate has just released new swappable imaging elements that addresses this concern (though at the expense of light sensitivity). I believe that the Brevis is the only adapter that can change out ground glass imaging elements at will.
There are plenty more notes and comments on each adapter, rez charts, and a ton of comparison images to boot. Read the full review for more details.
This FreshDV Classic article is licensed and republished at ProVideoCoalition with permission.