alundeb wrote:
I was just about to shell out for the CV Ultron 21 1.8.
Now I might try this instead, with some good old pancakes on the NEX 5N to see if it can be a poor man's RX1.
Do expect increased corner problems on the NEX 7.
Yea I think you are right. It will be very interesting on Ricoh tho. NEX-7 and especially after last FW, it might be quite useless.
Still, one wonders why it took so long. Quite eager to see how it will work..
it lacks dmf focusing which is really unfortunate. the autofocus is supposed to be very slow, and its a bit expensive. however it provides and interesting option for using lenses such as 35 f2/IS, 40 2.8 STM, 85 1.8, and maybe tamron 28-75 2.8. there is no good equivalent midrange fast zoom for example for nex.
Sony apparently forced RAW corner correction with FW 1.01, at least if you are using smart adapter ala Metabones.
ah, i didn't know they were applying it to non sony lenses. i have to say, i'd much prefer this adapter if there was an option without the electrical contacts and AF electronics (and was $200 cheaper because of it). i don't own or plan on owning any EF lenses.
I was just looking, there is also an ALPA adapter available which can be converted to m42. Of course by that point you are spending a ton on adapters. I really hope they come out with a M42 native adapter so I can use my mirex adapter though EF also kinda works.
Strike what I said, there isn't enough of a discount to justify using the ALPA version over the EF+m42adapter.
sebboh wrote:
ah, i didn't know they were applying it to non sony lenses. i have to say, i'd much prefer this adapter if there was an option without the electrical contacts and AF electronics (and was $200 cheaper because of it). i don't own or plan on owning any EF lenses.
That link doesn't say anything about non sony lenses.
Sony apparently forced RAW corner correction with FW 1.01, at least if you are using smart adapter ala Metabones.
sebboh wrote:
ah, i didn't know they were applying it to non sony lenses. i have to say, i'd much prefer this adapter if there was an option without the electrical contacts and AF electronics (and was $200 cheaper because of it). i don't own or plan on owning any EF lenses.
With the electronics we also get Image Stabilization with the lenses that have it. The Canon 35 mm F2 IS now looks even more interesting. The RX1 doesn't have IS, nor a tilting LCD, two of my main complaints about that fabulous camera.
alundeb wrote:
With the electronics we also get Image Stabilization with the lenses that have it. The Canon 35 mm F2 IS now looks even more interesting. The RX1 doesn't have IS, nor a tilting LCD, two of my main complaints about that fabulous camera.
Yep, or a Sigma 35mm f/1.0 that's sharp wide-open.
Was happy to see it myself, was rather annoyed to read of the problem as I'm seriously thinking of a Nex 7 now due to this adaptor, I've always liked the files.
snapsy wrote:
Yep, or a Sigma 35mm f/1.0 that's sharp wide-open.
A side effect of this adapter will be a new round with discussions about how to name the real and effective focal length and aperture of the lenses mounted on a crop camera
My suggestion is that we get a Caldwell Sigma 24 mm f/1.0 that on APS-C is equivalent to 35 mm f/1.4 on FF.
Could someone help me understand this technology better? If you attach, say, a full-frame 35 1.4 to it:
- I assume it will have the field of view and Dof as if you had attached it to a full frame camera?
- Does using the Speed Booster actually result in more photons of light striking the NEX APS-C sensor than without the SpeedBooster? i.e, is it actually "faster" (from a light gathering perspective) than using that lens on NEX without an adapter?
- Is that number of photons essentially the same amount that would strike the sensor if you attached the lens to a full-frame camera? So from a light-gathering perspective, it's not "faster" than a full-frame f1.4, it's the same?
Huh, interesting. I guess you could consider the analogy of molecules of water in a hose vs. photons in a lens. If the water enters a nozzle (a "water concentrator") it results in increased pressure. If the photons enter this "light concentrator" it results in a brighter image.
To this micro four thirds guy, if this really works as it appears to, it is a revolutionary development!
alwang wrote:
Could someone help me understand this technology better? If you attach, say, a full-frame 35 1.4 to it:
- I assume it will have the field of view and Dof as if you had attached it to a full frame camera?
Yes! You will get use of the full image circle, that gets diminished to only cover APS-C.
- Does using the Speed Booster actually result in more photons of light striking the NEX APS-C sensor than without the SpeedBooster? i.e, is it actually "faster" (from a light gathering perspective) than using that lens on NEX without an adapter?
Yes! The converter shortens the focal length while the entrance pupil stays the same.
- Is that number of photons essentially the same amount that would strike the sensor if you attached the lens to a full-frame camera? So from a light-gathering perspective, it's not "faster" than a full-frame f1.4, it's the same?
Yes! You will get as many photons in total as if you used the lens on FF. Which means about one stop more on APS-C than usual with the same lens.
What you get is a device that makes up for the smaller sensor, but at the cost of some optical aberrations, I presume. Could be very well worth it since there are no FF alternatives to a NEX with manual focus lenses for example.
Edit: A tele converter works the same but in the other direction. Instead of using a smaller sensor, the image circle is enlarged by extending the focal length, and thus the aperture gets smaller since the entrance pupil stays the same. This thing does the opposite.
Quite eager to see how it will work..
how come after the last FW?