Metabones Speed Booster
/forum/topic/1181879/2

1       2      
3
       4              47       48       end

kj_vogelius
Registered: Aug 30, 2011
Total Posts: 57
Country: Sweden

This looks seriously interesting.

Very cool that it decreases the necessary flange focal distance. Should make the balance better overall when using SLR glass.



alwang
Registered: Sep 02, 2011
Total Posts: 967
Country: United States

Makten wrote:
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.


Thanks! The optical quality would seem to be a balancing act. On the negative side, you have the optical aberrations of the adapter. On the positive side, the aberrations of the lens itself are compressed in the image. Then on the negative side again, you're using more of the periphery of the lens' image circle, which is likely lower IQ than the center. It'll be interesting to see how all this balances out in practice.



ISO1600
Registered: Jul 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4388
Country: Korea, South

Man, and I had JUST started looking into the NEX 6 last week. This could really shake things up.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4035
Country: Sweden

alwang wrote:
Thanks! The optical quality would seem to be a balancing act. On the negative side, you have the optical aberrations of the adapter. On the positive side, the aberrations of the lens itself are compressed in the image. Then on the negative side again, you're using more of the periphery of the lens' image circle, which is likely lower IQ than the center. It'll be interesting to see how all this balances out in practice.


You will of course not win anything compared to using the same lens on FF, except if the APS-C sensor is more modern technology. But until there is a small FF camera with interchangable lenses, this is a very nice product if it works alright.
The exit pupil will of course get closer to the sensor, so whatch out for corner smearing and/or color shift because of the microlens array and stuff like that. I suppose it will work reasonably equal to M lenses in that respect.



Gary Clennan
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Total Posts: 4608
Country: Canada

Makten wrote:

Could be very well worth it since there are no FF alternatives to a NEX with manual focus lenses for example.



M9... What a cool idea though.. I would love to see some feedback from FM members.



Beni
Registered: May 31, 2005
Total Posts: 8059
Country: United Kingdom

Makten wrote:
alwang wrote:
Thanks! The optical quality would seem to be a balancing act. On the negative side, you have the optical aberrations of the adapter. On the positive side, the aberrations of the lens itself are compressed in the image. Then on the negative side again, you're using more of the periphery of the lens' image circle, which is likely lower IQ than the center. It'll be interesting to see how all this balances out in practice.


You will of course not win anything compared to using the same lens on FF, except if the APS-C sensor is more modern technology. But until there is a small FF camera with interchangable lenses, this is a very nice product if it works alright.
The exit pupil will of course get closer to the sensor, so whatch out for corner smearing and/or color shift because of the microlens array and stuff like that. I suppose it will work reasonably equal to M lenses in that respect.


Will we end up losing bokeh characteristics and a lenses drawing style including dreamy halation, etc due to this adaptor? Will my 50mm Super Tak look the same wide open as it does on a 5D?



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4035
Country: Sweden

Gary Clennan wrote:
M9... What a cool idea though.. I would love to see some feedback from FM members.


Good luck focusing non rangefinder-coupled lenses on the M9. Not to mention the M9 is huge compared to the smaller NEX cameras.

Beni wrote:
Will we end up losing bokeh characteristics and a lenses drawing style including dreamy halation, etc due to this adaptor? Will my 50mm Super Tak look the same wide open as it does on a 5D?


Probably not, but maybe close enough to be more satisfied with an APS-C camera than you normally would be.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1361
Country: Norway

Interesting. Would be nice if the C/Y 35/1.4 could be used on my 5n with FF look. The advantage over the 5D2 is a lot - lighter, tiltable lcd, touch to magnify, peaking, nicer colors etc. But I don't believe this until I see it.



molson
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Total Posts: 10152
Country: Canada

gee3749 wrote:
Surprised there's no thread here about this yet.

Pretty revolutionary if it does what it claims, the way it claims.


Telecompressors are very old optical technology, but this is the first time I've heard of one being designed for modern photographic applications.



ISO1600
Registered: Jul 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4388
Country: Korea, South

From reading the Phillip Bloom post, it seems like a 35/1.4 used with this adapter on a NEX SHOULD be very close, if not essentially the same, look as on FF. Maybe only a marginally-noticeable hit on DoF?



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4196
Country: Norway

gee3749 wrote:
Surprised there's no thread here about this yet.

Pretty revolutionary if it does what it claims, the way it claims.

molson wrote:
Telecompressors are very old optical technology, but this is the first time I've heard of one being designed for modern photographic applications.


You can get a 0.7 x TC in various modern camera mounts for the Kowa Prominar 500mm 5.6 FL.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4196
Country: Norway

sebboh wrote:
another exciting point it seems to be thinner than the normal eos to E-mount adapter?


Wonder if they did it because they could (without sacrificing corner performance too much),
because they would (the smaller the better, but sacrificing corners),
or because they had to (best optical solution).



mpmendenhall
Registered: Aug 09, 2008
Total Posts: 2034
Country: United States

alundeb wrote:
sebboh wrote:
another exciting point it seems to be thinner than the normal eos to E-mount adapter?


Wonder if they did it because they could (without sacrificing corner performance too much),
because they would (the smaller the better, but sacrificing corners),
or because they had to (best optical solution).


This is a side benefit of the "best optical solution." In the crudest sense, a telecompressor is just a positive lens, focusing the image closer (so shorter overall length) and over a smaller region (similarly, a teleconverter is a negative lens). I suppose a really horribly complicated telecompressor, with many internally cancelling groups to minimize aberrations, could end up longer, but the "natural" starting place is a reduction in overall length.



Beni
Registered: May 31, 2005
Total Posts: 8059
Country: United Kingdom

Makten wrote:


Beni wrote:
Will we end up losing bokeh characteristics and a lenses drawing style including dreamy halation, etc due to this adaptor? Will my 50mm Super Tak look the same wide open as it does on a 5D?


Probably not, but maybe close enough to be more satisfied with an APS-C camera than you normally would be.


What can I expect to be different?



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4196
Country: Norway

mpmendenhall wrote:
alundeb wrote:
sebboh wrote:
another exciting point it seems to be thinner than the normal eos to E-mount adapter?


Wonder if they did it because they could (without sacrificing corner performance too much),
because they would (the smaller the better, but sacrificing corners),
or because they had to (best optical solution).


This is a side benefit of the "best optical solution." In the crudest sense, a telecompressor is just a positive lens, focusing the image closer (so shorter overall length) and over a smaller region (similarly, a teleconverter is a negative lens). I suppose a really horribly complicated telecompressor, with many internally cancelling groups to minimize aberrations, could end up longer, but the "natural" starting place is a reduction in overall length.


Thank you!

I love their attention to detail. The tripod mount is removable and Arca-Swiss style.



CalW
Registered: Mar 26, 2005
Total Posts: 1985
Country: United States

In theory it should be the identical image with the photons packed more densely together. In practice... We'll see!



hiepphotog
Registered: Aug 19, 2009
Total Posts: 824
Country: United States

So let me make sure I get this right. For the same set of shutter speed, aperture, ISO value, and FOV, this would give you a much less noise in the overall picture compared to the "uncorrected" since you gain more light. If it is so, that would be exciting.

I will definitely wait and see what sort of compromises we have to deal with. But this looks good so far.



Jman13
Registered: May 02, 2005
Total Posts: 9828
Country: United States

This might be very nice for micro 4/3....I have visions of coupling this with my Rokinon 85/1.4, which would yield a 60mm f/1.0, equivalent in DOF to a 120mm f/2 lens on full frame - would love to have that.

Then again, I also have a Hexanon 57mm f/1.2, so I already have the equivalent of a 114mm f/2.4, so really, is the half stop worth the $600 for the adapter? Eh....probably not.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4035
Country: Sweden

Beni wrote:
What can I expect to be different?


More CA and SA because of added lenses.

hiepphotog wrote:
So let me make sure I get this right. For the same set of shutter speed, aperture, ISO value, and FOV, this would give you a much less noise in the overall picture compared to the "uncorrected" since you gain more light.


No, for the same FOV you will not gain anything since you'd have to use a different lens or a larger sensor without the adapter. You will collect the same amount of light per time (with some loss in the added glass of course) as if the sensor was twice as large and also get the same FOV.

You have to compare apples to apples. A 35/1.4 on FF is equivalent to a 24/0.9 on APS-C, and that's what you get when you use the adapter.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4196
Country: Norway

hiepphotog wrote:
So let me make sure I get this right. For the same set of shutter speed, aperture, ISO value, and FOV, this would give you a much less noise in the overall picture compared to the "uncorrected" since you gain more light. If it is so, that would be exciting.



No, you don't gain more light. You just pack it more densely together.

If you compare with the same lens uncorrected on the small sensor, you don't get the same FOV.

If you compare with the same lens uncorrected on the large sensor, you just use a higher ISO there to gather the same total amount of light and get the same signal to noise ratio.



1       2      
3
       4              47       48       end