SUMMARY: This is not your old M2. With more features and a streamlined operation, the M2e sets back focus accurately and easily, lets in more light and now lasts all day on one battery charge.
TARGET APPS
Independent filmmakers/producers who need the look of film on a video budget
WHAT IT COSTS YOU
$995; $545 (the M2 to M2 Encore upgrade kit)
WHAT’S COOL
There’s virtually no light loss with this model. Love the new extended battery life and the fact that you no longer have to move the CineScreen to adjust your back focus. This upgrade is also much quieter than the previous version.
WHAT’S MISSING
Nothing. The M2e rocks.
SPECS
Cinema lens adapter, choice of SLR lens mount, AC adapter
Watch Scott's footage from the M2 Encore shoot here.
When Redrock announced major revisions to its already amazing M2 35mm adapter I was a bit skeptical. I had just upgraded to the new version of the CineScreen, improving my light by a few stops, and had bought a microX flip unit (www.studiomonthly.com/10158.html). I thought, this better be good or I’m not going to waste my time with it.
At first glance, the M2 Encore, or M2e, system looks the same, but let me tell you this is not your old M2. The M2e is much meatier with features and is a dream to operate. First of all, you no longer have to move the CineScreen to adjust your back focus. This was one of my biggest pet peeves with the original M2. With the M2e you can accurately set back focus with a quick and easy adjustment — this alone is worth buying the unit.
The M2e also has an improved housing that is quieter than the M2 and a vastly improved battery that now lasts all day.
Testing, Testing
My first test with the M2e was on my kitchen table, using a Panasonic HPX 170 with an EOS 50mm f1.8 and six overhead 65-watt bulbs pre-installed in my kitchen. BAM — immediately I could see a crisp image with no additional light needed! I checked the onboard scope in the HPX170 and I was at 90 percent IRE, the image sharp and clean. I placed the bottle at three feet, measured three feet with a measuring tape and slightly adjusted the back focus with a focus chart to makes sure it was set.
Next I tested the M2e outside in my back yard. It had snowed that morning and I was hoping to capture the beauty of the fresh snow on the trees. The M2e allowed me to shoot at 4.0 on the HPX170 and f4 to 5.6 on the lens. I was able to get crisp images with decent depth of field. In the past I would have to go 2.8 or wider on the camera and open the lens, but the new M2e allowed me to have less than a spot of light loss. As a volunteer firefighter I have access to a fire station and headed there to test it with shots of fire trucks and other gear. The only light in the bay was natural light coming in from the windows and garage door. With the M2e, I could easily work without additional light or reflectors. I was able to keep the camera at f4 for most shots and the result was sharp shots with clean edges.
When I first got my microX I kept my M2 on my camera for a few months. Now that the new and improved M2e has virtually no light loss, I will leave it on permanently. The Panasonic HPX170 is rated at an ASA of 500 and with the M2e, it can still fulfill its potential.
You can tell that the crew at Redrock spent a lot of time on this and listened to their customers to help them improve an already amazing product. I highly recommend the M2e to anyone sitting on the fence; this is the adapter you have been waiting for.
Comments (10) for "ROI Reviews: Redrock Micro M2 Encore"
1.
Kudos to Redrock! Quieter, easier and lets in more light! A great tool just got even better! Highest praise!
Posted by rees candee on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 @ 11:14 AM
2.
We recently performed some tests with the M2 encore as well. Love the new adapter. It is awesome. Here is a final test scene we shot:
http://exposureroom.com/members/burmoco.aspx/assets/737c2e838781464a8763613915b471b7/
As well as some stills from the shoot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32175165@N03/sets/72157617568865530/
Enjoy!
Posted by Burmoco on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 @ 12:32 PM
3.
Appreciate the review, but instead of telling us how good the output looks...let's see the footage!
Posted by alex on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 @ 01:53 PM
4.
No doubt, Redrock is one of the best 35mm adapters in the market if compared to SGPro, Brevis or Letus. But the recently jacked-up price for the M2 may be prohibitive to some classes of indie filmmakers.(I think)
Posted by frank Anore on Thursday, May 7, 2009 @ 07:39 AM
5.
Frank - The new M2 Encore is only $200 more than the previous M2 (including baseplate, flip, rods, and quick release system), and outperforms the Letus Ultimate which costs $4500 for just their unit.
Posted by Brian Valente on Thursday, May 7, 2009 @ 05:10 PM
6.
If i replace my original cinescreen with the new cinescreen II is it gonna work like M2e in terms of ligh loss?
Posted by David on Monday, May 11, 2009 @ 08:19 AM
7.
see clips i shot for this article here http://vimeo.com/4468613
the M2e comes with a new better screen.
Posted by scott on Monday, May 11, 2009 @ 05:27 PM
8.
I am interested in Brian's comments about the M2E "out performing the letus ultimate", I am thinking of purchasing this unit, but if the m3e is better at half the price i will go with this,
in what way does it out perform the ultimate, the ultimate can be used at any shutter speed, any f stop,
I will have an ex3 camera.
steven lyons
Posted by steven lyons on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 @ 07:37 PM
9.
Steve
Drop a line to our sales folks and ask for the Encore vs Ultimate whitepaper. They'll send it to you. Written by a third party comparing the two. In short: better light performance, better angle of view, Encore has no noise issues, and is sharp!
Posted by Brian Valente on Monday, June 22, 2009 @ 06:43 PM
10.
The "better angle of view" is false. I've seen the RR whitepaper and the setup of the Ultimate was obviously incorrect making the entire comparison invalid. The Ultimate has a variable FOV that can go even wider than 35mm full frame. I'm actually surprised that RR is putting their name on something so obviously flawed in the testing procedure.
Posted by Thomas on Friday, January 15, 2010 @ 04:28 PM
