a1man: Does the increased sharpness mean need for more resolution? They will now justify 54mp nex7!
One more question, with another adapter, is it possible to get even more light and sharpness if used with a medium format lens? Medium format lens on a nex body would look very funny :)
For me the question is whether how the overall performance of FF lenses plus adapter will compare to dedicated M4/3 and APS lenses of the same field of view. Of course, with the adapter, you will get wide open apertures that simply don't exist in the dedicated lens lineups, but what percentage of most photographers' images are done wide open? Once the novelty of having an f1.0 lens wears off, attention will be on how these adapted FF lenses perform at typical shooting apertures, and the performance will need to be good for this product to be successful. The "increased sharpness" that metabones demonstrates in their marketing material is a comparison between the FF lens with the adapter and the same lens used straight on the camera and NOT compared to an equivalent focal length dedicated APS or M4/3 lens. My guess is that the adapted FF lenses will be "good enough" for general shooting, but if you already have and APS/M4/3 lens of same FOV, that'll give better overall performance.
forpetessake: In the final analysis what it means is that APS-C and m4/3 lens manufacturers have no excuse creating lenses same size as FF but faster proportionally to the crop size. If the typical f/3.5-5.6 zooms were ok on FF, the APS-C typical zooms should be f/2.3-3.7 and m4/3 should be f/1.7-2.8 to collect the same light on smaller surface. Why do Olympus/Panasonic/Sony produce those terribly slow APS-C/m43 lenses instead?
I agree too - up until now, manufacturers could have created high speed M4/3 and APS lenses, but probably saw such lenses as serving a limited niche market and not justified with the increased size/weight/cost being too much of a compromise for consumers. It'll be interesting to see whether this adapter will be the catalyst in creating demand and production of more high speed lenses. If dedicated high speed lenses can have better autofocus than adapted FF lenses, this could be a market niche that will take off. On the other hand, there will still be demand from the average consumer for the slower and more compact lenses, as for those consumers, compactness and low weight are the big selling points for mirrorless cameras.
The performance test I would like to see for this device would be to compare 3 images:
1. 50mm FF lens/f8/24MP FF sensor2. 50mm FF lens + adapter/f5.6 effective/24MP APS sensor3. 35mm APS lens/f5.6/24MP APS sensor
...and make the same print size out of all 3 (a print size large enough to show resolution limits).
Curiously, the white paper article only adresses the open aperture characteristics of adapted lenses and doesn't say much about performance at typical equivalent shooting apertures, where the MTF "gain" may narrow. Plus, construction precision and coating quality will come into play in how the final product affects overall optical performance.
It certainly will be a nice device to use the full image circle of lenses designed for larger formats and I think will add a lot of versatility to small format mirrorless cameras, especially when it comes to wide angle lenses if the overall optical quality is not significantly degraded (as per my suggested test above).
artma: Oh, the irony of the open positions listed: almost all engineers, not a single UI designer or brand awesomerer.
Although the K-01 may look "big" compared to other mirrorless systems, it can certainly take advantage of the compactness and non-retrofocus lens designs that other mirrorless cameras allow. Pentax has shown a prototype (or mockup) lens with a rear element that protrudes deeply into the body and a front element which doesn't stick out much beyond the lens mount. Because there's no mirror in the way, the overall length of camera + lens can potentially be reduced compared to the equivalent retrofocus lens. The K-mount FF distance doesn't stop the whole lens from being shifted backwards relative to the mount. And any existing lens can be used straight on the camera without buying an extra adapter. Not such a bad idea.
bossa: Why do people automatically assume that the point of 'mirrorless' is to make a smaller camera? Obviously it can be smaller (usually amounts to larger lenses) but it's more about simplification by removing complex parts than 'smaller' in my opinion.
Confucius say: One large brick and many small bricks weigh much less that one small brick and many large ones.
People mouthing off about a camera they've never used and citing wrong spec's to justify their rant is just pathetic. The hatred here points to issues with the haters more than the camera I think. And the smug "I know better than Pentax" guys are just funny.
RE' the D800. Go to any camera store and they're walking out the door en masse... not bad for a B-Grade camera. There really is something wrong with the scoring system here if that camera is a B-Grade.