I just ordered the Leica-R to Nex adapter. If they come out with a Nikon-Nex version they'll get even more of my money. . .

mawz wrote:
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.


+1

Taylor Sherman wrote:
I just ordered the Leica-R to Nex adapter. If they come out with a Nikon-Nex version they'll get even more of my money. . .



Yep, my 45/2.8 AI-P will make a nice compact package on my NEX 7. I always really liked that lens and prefer the field of view to a 50. And it's a great design with the compact lens hood that stays on.

sour grapes m4/3 camp napoleon complex much?

In the old days, does a teleconverter works across wide range of focal length and lens design? Or is it more likely that a teleconverter is optimized for a few lenses only? I also remember that Canon's FD->EF converter introduce some image degradation.

ken.vs.ryu wrote:
sour grapes m4/3 camp napoleon complex much?




Umm, no? This doesnt negate m43's total size advantage, it simply "creates" a FF NEX or APS-C m43 setup.

I would love for them to create simplified adapters for Minolta MD to m43, etc. An image-stabilized Minolta 85 1.2 at effective 120mm f/0.9? Yes please.

I recommend that everyone read the white paper on the Metabones site. This thing was designed by the same guys that designed the Coastal Optics 60mm, and it looks pretty remarkable. Longer exit pupil, less aberrations, higher mtf, shorter adapter length, etc. Sounds incredible. I keep thinking that the Voigtlander 40/2 pancake would be awesome with this thing on Nex.

That "whitepaper" contains a bit to much PR buzzwords to be taken seriously, but the theory behind the concept is good.

Two things remain to be verified:
1) does it really perform at F2.0 or F1.4? They've only shown small samples and 20lp/mm figures - and mainly from videographers (who I guess is the main target group anyway)
2) how good is the flexibility between lenses with different exit pupil distances/sizes? Will it be equally good with a 50/1.4 as with a 135/2.0?

one is already halfway answered in the white-paper, a 50mm F1.8 AIS lens will get about 2/3 Ev more vignetting and worse corners than the no-adapter FF version. More than good enough for hipstamatics and videographers, maybe less impressive if you've ever seen the lens used on a D600.

Given that I know who designed it, the lp/mm comparison as a concept is laughable. They should (and do) know better, so I guess they had very little to do with the actual "white-paper".
Yes, the 20lp/mm contrast goes up (in the center part of the frame at least...) - but that's totally irrelevant. To compare a lens used on FF with a lens/converter combo used at µFT the µFT combo needs to have the same MTF at 40lp/mm as the FF combo does at 20lp/mm - if you want the end result, the finished image, to be as sharp. 20lp/mm is a line 4 pixels wide on a 20+MP FF camera, and a line about 7 pixels wide on a 16MP µFT. There's quite a lot of difference between a 4-pixel blur and a 7-pixel blur.

For videographers, this is a godsend. For photographers, less so. You could compare the full-size images from a FF-camera with a certain lens with the full-size image from an APS-NEX with the same lens and this converter, and the result is quite easily predictable - the APS image will be noticeably worse. The questions is just "by how much?". In physics, there's no such thing as a free lunch - Newtons law of thermodynamics and so on. You can only increase the losses of a black-box system (a lens), never lower them.

The object-side resolution of the lens will be worse, the adapter will cost a lot of money, the AF will be slow or non-existing, the camera system as a whole will lose a lot of the "compact" appeal. It had better be very, very close to a zero loss system for the practical aspects to ever outweigh just getting a FF-based system in the first place.

theSuede wrote:
That "whitepaper" contains a bit to much PR buzzwords to be taken seriously, but the theory behind the concept is good.

Two things remain to be verified:
1) does it really perform at F2.0 or F1.4? They've only shown small samples and 20lp/mm figures - and mainly from videographers (who I guess is the main target group anyway)
2) how good is the flexibility between lenses with different exit pupil distances/sizes? Will it be equally good with a 50/1.4 as with a 135/2.0?

one is already halfway answered in the white-paper, a 50mm F1.8 AIS lens will get about 2/3 Ev more vignetting and worse corners than the no-adapter FF version. More than good enough for hipstamatics and videographers, maybe less impressive if you've ever seen the lens used on a D600.

Given that I know who designed it, the lp/mm comparison as a concept is laughable. They should (and do) know better, so I guess they had very little to do with the actual "white-paper".
Yes, the 20lp/mm contrast goes up (in the center part of the frame at least...) - but that's totally irrelevant. To compare a lens used on FF with a lens/converter combo used at µFT the µFT combo needs to have the same MTF at 40lp/mm as the FF combo does at 20lp/mm - if you want the end result, the finished image, to be as sharp. 20lp/mm is a line 4 pixels wide on a 20+MP FF camera, and a line about 7 pixels wide on a 16MP µFT. There's quite a lot of difference between a 4-pixel blur and a 7-pixel blur.

For videographers, this is a godsend. For photographers, less so. You could compare the full-size images from a FF-camera with a certain lens with the full-size image from an APS-NEX with the same lens and this converter, and the result is quite easily predictable - the APS image will be noticeably worse. The questions is just "by how much?". In physics, there's no such thing as a free lunch - Newtons law of thermodynamics and so on. You can only increase the losses of a black-box system (a lens), never lower them.

The object-side resolution of the lens will be worse, the adapter will cost a lot of money, the AF will be slow or non-existing, the camera system as a whole will lose a lot of the "compact" appeal. It had better be very, very close to a zero loss system for the practical aspects to ever outweigh just getting a FF-based system in the first place.



So you claim the white paper is bs, but you make those statements and those questions?

Nice!

So in a best case zero image quality loss situation:

Gain: Size and weight (but not depth) of the camera body

About equal: Price of 24MP NEX-7 +adapter vs price of 24MP D600

Loss: AF/AF speed

Any potential/inevitable image quality loss will be added to the loss side

So, I don't have any m43 sour grape. NEX camp might be more excited for their lack of lenses

This is a believe-it-when-I-see-it, without a doubt.

Diglloyd Lloyd Chambers write a lot about it in his blog

Tanegashima wrote:
So you claim the white paper is bs, but you make those statements and those questions?

Nice!

Did I write that? I wrote:
"the white-paper contains to much PR"
-And then:
"Knowing the persons behind the optical construction..." and "I guess they had very little to do with the actual white-paper"

There's good information in that "white-paper". But much of that information is quite seriously skewed/angled to make persons of no or little optical knowledge think that the product actually IS magic - which it isn't. It might be good, but it isn't magic. And it isn't in any way "better" than using the lenses on the cameras they were made for - FF cameras.

theSuede wrote:
Tanegashima wrote:
So you claim the white paper is bs, but you make those statements and those questions?

Nice!

Did I write that? I wrote:
"the white-paper contains to much PR"
-And then:
"Knowing the persons behind the optical construction..." and "I guess they had very little to do with the actual white-paper"

There's good information in that "white-paper". But much of that information is quite seriously skewed/angled to make persons of no or little optical knowledge think that the product actually IS magic - which it isn't. It might be good, but it isn't magic. And it isn't in any way "better" than using the lenses on the cameras they were made for - FF cameras.

there seems to be a lot of confusing wording leading people to interpret them as saying that this will make lenses perform better than they do on FF. the truth is that it will make FF lenses perform better on aps-c than they currently do on aps-c with standard adapters – but only in the center, probably only for certain lenses, and with the addition of more optical aberrations. how useful it is will depend on how it performs with a variety of lenses.

i for one am excited to see how it does. i'm already shooting FF lenses on aps-c since they don't make FF cameras in my preferred style, so there is a possibility that it won't be a huge image quality hit for me. i want to know how some of my favorite lenses perform with it though and whether they maintain their character.

[conjecture]

I think software correction of distortion and CA will be necessary when using this adapter. If it turns out that it will be no disadvantage to use the NEX 7 instead of the 5N, the extra pixels will help. A corrected 24 MP image may give just as high resolution as a 16 MP image with optics that don't need correction.

[/conjecture]

alundeb wrote:
[conjecture]

I think software correction of distortion and CA will be necessary when using this adapter. If it turns out that it will be no disadvantage to use the NEX 7 instead of the 5N, the extra pixels will help. A corrected 24 MP image may give just as high resolution as a 16 MP image with optics that don't need correction.

[/conjecture]


I had thought that. Yes you lose resolution or detail but as my current benchmark is a 5Dc, am I really going to care?

Here's a comparison between the NEX 7 + adapter and 5diii using the same Sigma 24/1.8.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9474/prototype-metabones-speed-booster-equipped-nex-7-vs-full-frame-5d-mark-iii

Unfortunately the larger image comparison jpeg downloads don't work

Taylor Sherman wrote:
I just ordered the Leica-R to Nex adapter. If they come out with a Nikon-Nex version they'll get even more of my money. . .



I already have R to EF and N to EF adapters, so I will be able to use all my lenses with any of these three mounts with the Metabones EF-NEX. So far I only have one Leica R lens, and that one is leitaxed to Nikon mount.

cputeq wrote:
I would love for them to create simplified adapters for Minolta MD to m43, etc. An image-stabilized Minolta 85 1.2 at effective 120mm f/0.9? Yes please.

You're having it the wrong way. It will be transformed into a shorter focal lenght. And by the way, there is no such thing as "effective" focal length.

douglasf13 wrote:
I keep thinking that the Voigtlander 40/2 pancake would be awesome with this thing on Nex.

That was my thought as well. Something tells me it won't perform very good with the fastest lenses.

theSuede wrote:
It had better be very, very close to a zero loss system for the practical aspects to ever outweigh just getting a FF-based system in the first place.

Too bad there are no smallish FF cameras with interchangable lenses.

Makten wrote:
cputeq wrote:
I would love for them to create simplified adapters for Minolta MD to m43, etc. An image-stabilized Minolta 85 1.2 at effective 120mm f/0.9? Yes please.

You're having it the wrong way. It will be transformed into a shorter focal lenght. And by the way, there is no such thing as "effective" focal length.




I know it's a shorter focal length, though I should have typed "effective 120mm FOV."

However my math is correct. One applies the Metabones multiplier of 0.7x for APS-C, then the sensor crop factor back, essentially negating the 1.5x. So for APS-C there is no internal math to do for a lens.

So, Metabones+NEX = FF FOV, essentially (small difference)

Same thing with m43 (which is what my post was about), but now we work with 2x on the sensor crop. This works to an effective FOV of 1.4x for any FF lens mounted to m43. 85 * 1.4 = ~ 120mm FOV.

Or, (0.7 - Metabones) * (focal length) * (2x sensor crop) = ~120mm FOV.


I am unsure if this also causes the m43 to magically gain 2 stops of light, though.