Unless things change GREATLY in the FF sensor + short flange distance universe, I'd rather have APS-C NEX and Speed Booster than the probable corner issues.
If this pans out well, we're going to have to change the forum stance of, "Glassed adapters suck," to "Glassed adapters suck unless they're designed by Caldwell."
My Leica-R adapter arrived today. Seems like a nice product. Quality is high like my other Metabones adapters, though there's some sort of rough edge going on between the lens-facing ring and the body of the adapter. Rough to the fingertips, but not rough to the lens or anything.
Anyway, no shots yet as I haven't gotten out to use it yet. But, looks good so far with test shots around the house.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
My Leica-R adapter arrived today. Seems like a nice product. Quality is high like my other Metabones adapters, though there's some sort of rough edge going on between the lens-facing ring and the body of the adapter. Rough to the fingertips, but not rough to the lens or anything.
Anyway, no shots yet as I haven't gotten out to use it yet. But, looks good so far with test shots around the house.
.. would love to see anything even test shots in the house. Is it possible, that you post a picture with and without adapter plus a 100% crop ?
ISO1600 wrote:
Unless things change GREATLY in the FF sensor + short flange distance universe, I'd rather have APS-C NEX and Speed Booster than the probable corner issues.
Sorry, I don't get the meaning of your post.
Corner issues on current NEX cameras are only with RF wideangles. You can't use RF wides with the Metabones SB. No comparison possible.
On the other part, If you compare the photos taken with a SLR lens + a hypotetic FF NEX against the images produced by the same SLR lens + SpeedBooster + NEX-7, I'm sure that the former combo would win easily., provided that the sensor of that new FF NEX will be at least as good as the one in the NEX-7, which logically it should be.
RCicala wrote:
I've spent the morning testing it. Going to take me a while to write the blog post, but the summary is pretty straightforward:
As long as you don't mind giving up a bit of resolution and adding a bit of astigmatism, it does exactly what they say.
Videographers will be thrilled with it. Landscape photographers would not.
Hi Roger,
Great article, thanks very much. However, I'm a bit confused by your statement above that you've giving up a bit of resolution: it seems from your test that although there was some additional astigmatism and distortion, the MTFs were higher with the SpeedBooster compared to the 5DmkII across the board? Or am I missing something?
LeadyGonzales wrote:
.. would love to see anything even test shots in the house. Is it possible, that you post a picture with and without adapter plus a 100% crop ?
Great article, thanks very much. However, I'm a bit confused by your statement above that you've giving up a bit of resolution: it seems from your test that although there was some additional astigmatism and distortion, the MTFs were higher with the SpeedBooster compared to the 5DmkII across the board? Or am I missing something?
I wrote that yesterday while I was still crunching the numbers. I think I wasn't mentally ready to accept those results, maybe
At that time I was looking at the astigmatism and the lower numbers (where astigmatism was having it's effect) do show a slight reduction, but the average at each location (sagittal and tangential) are improved.
It's why I said if I was shooting large-print landscapes, where the astigmatism would certainly show, I wouldn't be as happy. But for video or normal photography, I don't think it would be significant.
What I want to see is, say, a 50mm f/1.2 on the 5D III, then the 50mm f/1.2 on the NEX-7, taken from the same spot. They should look (more or less) identical, and I'm curious about the comparison of MTF between those two things, not the difference between a lens with a normal adapter and the speedbooster.
Yes, you're absolutely right. We assumed that using the Speedbooster, in theory, should improve the performance of a FF lens on a APS-C sensor versus the same lens in the same sensor, without the SB. The results so far aren't showing that improvement, only a gain in speed.
That test that you suggest of a 5DIII vs NEX-7+speedbooster is the one that would give us a clue about the losses ( hopefully minimal ) caused by the optics of the SB.
Jman13 wrote:
What I want to see is, say, a 50mm f/1.2 on the 5D III, then the 50mm f/1.2 on the NEX-7, taken from the same spot. They should look (more or less) identical, and I'm curious about the comparison of MTF between those two things, not the difference between a lens with a normal adapter and the speedbooster.
I believe Roger did just that with the Imatest, no?
artur5 wrote:
Yes, you're absolutely right. We assumed that using the Speedbooster, in theory, should improve the performance of a FF lens on a APS-C sensor versus the same lens in the same sensor, without the SB. The results so far aren't showing that improvement, only a gain in speed.
.
The 14 mm 2.8 is clearly showing that improvement, in the center.
