I do know one way they can advertise this:

"Give your APS-C Mirrorless camera extra speed to make all your full frame lenses work just how they would on their full frame DSLR counterparts...and even get a brighter aperture!"

Oh...and negate ALL the size advantage that caused you to get a mirrorless camera in the first place

Nicely put Jordan!

Well, luckily for them some of us dont have or want mirrorless for size advantage.

I always liked mirrorless for what they can do, that its lighter or smaller is just side effect for me. Besides, you dont have that adapter glued on..

sebboh wrote:
Beni wrote:
At the end of this blog post is a solution, just a week old.

http://verybiglobo.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/sony-nex-7-firmware-101-metabones.html

cool

Yep, sorry wasnt aware of update. Glad they sorted it out.

Jman13 wrote:
Oh...and negate ALL the size advantage that caused you to get a mirrorless camera in the first place

Hyperbole

The size (packing volume) of NEX 5N with adapter is about 1/3 of the smallest FF DSLR. It will still go into a coat pocket with a small FF lens on.

Jman13 wrote:
Oh...and negate ALL the size advantage that caused you to get a mirrorless camera in the first place

What?!?! Why would you do that? You can get a small APS-C camera and your FF lenses will do what they do on FF, albeit with a (hopefully) minor IQ loss.

Edit: I mean, most 35/2 FF lenses are smaller even with the adapter, than the Zeiss 24/1.8.

Jman13 wrote:
I do know one way they can advertise this:

"Give your APS-C Mirrorless camera extra speed to make all your full frame lenses work just how they would on their full frame DSLR counterparts...and even get a brighter aperture!"

Oh...and negate ALL the size advantage that caused you to get a mirrorless camera in the first place

It's not a total waste. For lenses longer than ~50mm, there is generally no size advantage for an "equivalent" mirrorless design (since longer lenses don't need extra complication to clear the mirror) --- so if you already have 80/1.4, 100/2, etc. lenses that you like, there's not going to be a more compact "equivalent." Also, it's a great way to transition to mirrorless without having to re-buy an entire lens collection, while allowing you to add new, compact, small-sensor-specific lenses in addition.

I've been holding off on buying new cameras for a long time now (with the exception of a DP2M), waiting for an affordable high-quality mirrorless that I can use with my large 35mm-format lens collection. If this adapter really works well, I might change my mind on waiting for full-frame. From the evidence so far (e.g. examples in the previously posted adapter white paper), it looks rather good at wide apertures --- where some aberrations would be hidden under the already typically lower performance of extra fast glass. What remains to be seen is how well it keeps up with top-quality lower speed lenses (will, e.g., a CY 21/2.8 or Leica 100/2.8 still perform reasonably well?).

Lots of interesting stuff in the white paper.

"Another nice benefit of the Speed Booster is that it moves the exit pupil further from the image plane for any objective lens. In other words, it actually improves the telecentricity of the lens system. This helps to improve corner illumination and reduce sensor artifacts such as color variations caused by pixel crosstalk."

That really sounds too good to be true. Why didn't then anyone use these principles to design faster, better native E-mount lenses in the first place?

alundeb wrote:
That really sounds too good to be true. Why didn't then anyone use these principles to design faster, better native E-mount lenses in the first place?

Because then the native lenses would be as big and expensive as SLR lenses plus extra elements in a fancy adapter. In general, you can always make a higher spec lens if you're also willing to make it bigger, heavier, and more expensive --- this adapter doesn't include any "free lunch" technology.

Makten wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Oh...and negate ALL the size advantage that caused you to get a mirrorless camera in the first place

What?!?! Why would you do that? You can get a small APS-C camera and your FF lenses will do what they do on FF, albeit with a (hopefully) minor IQ loss.

Edit: I mean, most 35/2 FF lenses are smaller even with the adapter, than the Zeiss 24/1.8.

That's because the Zeiss 24/1.8 is stupidly large. Look at the Olympus 12mm f/2 or the Olympus 17mm f/1.8, and you'll see super compact. True, if you're going for FF equivalent DOF in your crop mirrorless, you're still going to need large lenses, but that's not needed for most people (or desired in some instances).

Anyway, my point was: while mirrorless bodies are much smaller than a big pro DSLR, the biggest savings for my kit is in the lenses. I went from carrying an 18 lb shoulder bag to carrying a 6 lb shoulder bag, with the same range and speed of lenses. Yeah, 2 lbs of that was the camera body, but a reduction from 18 lbs to 16 lbs isn't that significant. If you're using all your DSLR lenses with just a smaller body, you might as well just use your FF DSLR.

I do think the adapter has good use for certain circumstances, when you really want a certain look for one lens (for many, it's the 35-50mm large aperture look that they can't really get from a smaller sensor.) Put a 35/1.4 in the bag with this and now you've got that look. But I don't think this is going to be particularly useful for those looking to not buy any mirrorless lenses.

Yes, the 5D2 has tiltable LCD, touch point magnification, takes M mount lenses etc.

mpmendenhall wrote:
What remains to be seen is how well it keeps up with top-quality lower speed lenses (will, e.g., a CY 21/2.8 or Leica 100/2.8 still perform reasonably well?).

I will try to make some comparisons with various lenses when I get mine. But don't expect too much (in quantity ).

Distortion will start looking ugly with the Distagon 21 (~1.2% barrel added from the adapter).

Jman13 wrote:
That's because the Zeiss 24/1.8 is stupidly large. Look at the Olympus 12mm f/2 or the Olympus 17mm f/1.8, and you'll see super compact. True, if you're going for FF equivalent DOF in your crop mirrorless, you're still going to need large lenses, but that's not needed for most people (or desired in some instances).

Anyway, my point was: while mirrorless bodies are much smaller than a big pro DSLR, the biggest savings for my kit is in the lenses. I went from carrying an 18 lb shoulder bag to carrying a 6 lb shoulder bag, with the same range and speed of lenses. Yeah, 2 lbs of that was the camera body, but a reduction from 18 lbs to 16 lbs isn't that significant. If you're using all your DSLR lenses with just a smaller body, you might as well just use your FF DSLR.

I do think the adapter has good use for certain circumstances, when you really want a certain look for one lens (for many, it's the 35-50mm large aperture look that they can't really get from a smaller sensor.) Put a 35/1.4 in the bag with this and now you've got that look. But I don't think this is going to be particularly useful for those looking to not buy any mirrorless lenses.

Your perspective is very different from mine. In a perfect world, I would use only 3 lenses, lets say 35, 50 and 100 mm. If I choose small ones, the FF body will weigh more than all of them together, or at least in the same neighbourhood. So, being able to use a NEX instead of a FF SLR would be a huge benefit, even with the same lenses.

Jman13 wrote:
Makten wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Oh...and negate ALL the size advantage that caused you to get a mirrorless camera in the first place

What?!?! Why would you do that? You can get a small APS-C camera and your FF lenses will do what they do on FF, albeit with a (hopefully) minor IQ loss.

Edit: I mean, most 35/2 FF lenses are smaller even with the adapter, than the Zeiss 24/1.8.

That's because the Zeiss 24/1.8 is stupidly large. Look at the Olympus 12mm f/2 or the Olympus 17mm f/1.8, and you'll see super compact. True, if you're going for FF equivalent DOF in your crop mirrorless, you're still going to need large lenses, but that's not needed for most people (or desired in some instances).

Anyway, my point was: while mirrorless bodies are much smaller than a big pro DSLR, the biggest savings for my kit is in the lenses. I went from carrying an 18 lb shoulder bag to carrying a 6 lb shoulder bag, with the same range and speed of lenses. Yeah, 2 lbs of that was the camera body, but a reduction from 18 lbs to 16 lbs isn't that significant. If you're using all your DSLR lenses with just a smaller body, you might as well just use your FF DSLR.

I do think the adapter has good use for certain circumstances, when you really want a certain look for one lens (for many, it's the 35-50mm large aperture look that they can't really get from a smaller sensor.) Put a 35/1.4 in the bag with this and now you've got that look. But I don't think this is going to be particularly useful for those looking to not buy any mirrorless lenses.

If you are going to discuss equivalence, and I am fine with that in this thread, I will just point out for the umpteenth time that with FF you don't need lenses of the "same speed" to get noise equivalence. On FF (and APS-C with this adapter) you can get away with lenses about two stops slower for full DoF and noise equivalence to u4/3.

mpmendenhall wrote:

I've been holding off on buying new cameras for a long time now (with the exception of a DP2M), waiting for an affordable high-quality mirrorless that I can use with my large 35mm-format lens collection. If this adapter really works well, I might change my mind on waiting for full-frame. From the evidence so far (e.g. examples in the previously posted adapter white paper), it looks rather good at wide apertures --- where some aberrations would be hidden under the already typically lower performance of extra fast glass. What remains to be seen is how well it keeps up with top-quality lower speed lenses (will, e.g., a CY 21/2.8 or Leica 100/2.8 still perform reasonably well?).

I think if you wanted to use lower-speed speed lenses stopped down for maximum detail, you could just use a regular adapter, so now you have the best of both worlds. Of course, you may not find a good solution for a wide field of view, like 21mm, which doesn't have a great APS-C equivalent. Still, my guess is this adapter is going to have problems with very wide lenses anyway.

I'm actually already very happy with how my NEX with current adapters handles stopped-down detailed scenes with great glass (though of course the DP2M is even better). This would give me an option for wide-aperture shallow DoF when I need it.

On the one hand, this sounds really exciting.

But on the other... Let's say I'm a resolution junkie (because I am). I'm going to ignore bokeh and drawing style, which I know is not fair, but it's not what I'm interested in talking about right now. I want high resolution and high MTF and low CA. Imagine taking a really good lens that covers FF, say perhaps a Contax 50/1.7 used at moderate apertures.

Assume two contemporary sensors of identical quality (I know, not strictly possible, but bear with me) but different sizes: a hypothetical modern 24mp full-frame sensor and an equivalent-as-possible modern 24mp aps-C sensor in a mirrorless body. The point of this design is to make the image circle smaller, the detail finer, and the CA narrower. Yes? But then you'd be projecting it onto a sensor of proportionally-denser pixels and... everything would come out the same, yes? Except that the glass of the adapter would add some of its own distortions/abberation (no matter how high the quality or who the manufacturer is).

Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, it seems like the primary benefit is to photographers who already own a mirrorless APS-C or m4/3 body. For them, this new idea for adapters lets them use legacy lenses at something close to those lenses' focal length and quality.

Please (no sarcasm), enlighten me if I'm wrong.

mhespenheide wrote:
On the one hand, this sounds really exciting.

But on the other... Let's say I'm a resolution junkie (because I am). I'm going to ignore bokeh and drawing style, which I know is not fair, but it's not what I'm interested in talking about right now. I want high resolution and high MTF and low CA. Imagine taking a really good lens that covers FF, say perhaps a Contax 50/1.7 used at moderate apertures.

Assume two contemporary sensors of identical quality (I know, not strictly possible, but bear with me) but different sizes: a hypothetical modern 24mp full-frame sensor and an equivalent-as-possible modern 24mp aps-C sensor in a mirrorless body. The point of this design is to make the image circle smaller, the detail finer, and the CA narrower. Yes? But then you'd be projecting it onto a sensor of proportionally-denser pixels and... everything would come out the same, yes? Except that the glass of the adapter would add some of its own distortions/abberation (no matter how high the quality or who the manufacturer is).

Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, it seems like the primary benefit is to photographers who already own a mirrorless APS-C or m4/3 body. For them, this new idea for adapters lets them use legacy lenses at something close to those lenses' focal length and quality.

Please (no sarcasm), enlighten me if I'm wrong.



You are completely right.





This doesn't make your 50/1.4 a 33/0.93, this makes that, on an APS, which is the same as a full frame 50/1.4.





This adapter is a bit puzling, you can buy an APS-C NEX + this adapter.

But when a FF NEX comes, then you can buy just the FF nex for the same price...




But this is real fun, imagine all the lenses you can try, EF lenses, and with adpters for EF mount!


Too bad they didn't made an Medium Format lens adapter to NEX!

mhespenheide wrote:
Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes you are. This adapter would not be interesting at all if there was an (affordable) interchangeble lenses mirrorless FF camera. You're not gaining anything, but you can get sort of the same thing as FF with a smaller sensor. That's it.

Tanegashima wrote:
This doesn't make your 50/1.4 a 33/0.93...

Oh yes, it really and technically does. But the image circle is reduced to APS-C.

ISO1600 wrote:
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.....

If this really works out as Metabones claims how can anyone here not be excited about this?

Using a NEX sized body with my C/Y 28 2.8, 50 1.7, 85 2.8 and Oly 21 3.5 while maintaining the FF perspective and DOF?!! That is seriously amazing.

Jman13 wrote:
I do know one way they can advertise this:

"Give your APS-C Mirrorless camera extra speed to make all your full frame lenses work just how they would on their full frame DSLR counterparts...and even get a brighter aperture!"

Oh...and negate ALL the size advantage that caused you to get a mirrorless camera in the first place

More like half the size advantage, if that much. My beef with DSLR's and FF DSLR's in particular is far more in the excessive body size than in the lens size. My FM2 with a 50/1.4 is entirely reasonable in size, and I'd be getting a smaller package still with my NEX-7, the Speedbooster and the same 50/1.4 lens. But a D600 with that 50/1.4 remains a FAR larger package than either that FM2 or the NEX-7 with the same lens.

Sure, a NEX-7 with a speedbooster and a 14-24/2.8 is still going to be a beast, but I'm not going to match that package with any other option on my NEX-7.