Whenever I watch someone's video shot with just about any brand 35mm adaptor I only come away with one impression. The picture looks very soft, even degraded in most examples.
IF we are regarding HV20/30 as the holy grail for HD sharpness, it astounds me the first thing many users do is add a DOF adaptor which, IMO, muddies its pristine image quality.
I mean, if the HV or any other camera, were to shoot as soft an image as some of these adaptors produce, those of us demanding image sharpness wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. We'd all be looking at putting our money into a better camera not something that makes a great camera average, at best. It just doesn't make sense to me.
As an artist, I understand about DOF control and reason for it but to sacrifice the one thing the HV's are known for, image quality, for that control seems like a big tradeoff.
I've seen some footage lately that looks so bad my old VHS tapes would put them to shame.
So what's the deal? Why get a nice, sharpshooting camera like the HV and saddle it with a contraption that degrades it's picture quality? And I'm not even talking about the vignetting that occurs, sometimes to the point of distraction.
I get it that going for the ethereal film-look quality is cool but it seems it should be applied more as an effect rather than a permanent, costly fixture. Couldn't the money spent on something that reduces image quality be better spent on something more beneficial?
And to the point of spending hundreds to thousands more for the adaptor, lens, rails and so on? Is this just an elitist case of the "Emperor's New Clothes" or what?
Or do I just not get it? If so, someone please, enlighten my dumb ol' ass. I'll be forever indebted....well, for awhile anyway.