13 hours ago
 |
DtEW
Has a website at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dtewsacrificial/
Joined on
Feb 17, 2012
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Wait... so the idea is an accessory that makes the smartphone worse at what it's best at (being with you all the time by being unobtrusively pocketable), but not making it any better at what its worst at (image quality, photographic flexibility)?
Guidenet: I really don't see the point. Sticking 4 extra elements of glass in there can't be great for resolution. There is absolutely going to be degradation in IQ and for what? So you can undo some crop factor? Crop factor is not optical. This is. This is a sort of negative teleconverter. How often do you really need a wider lens you can't purchase for your body. M4/3rds has already excellent super wides.
The only thing this may help is give additional mediocre solutions for the lack of glass available for Sony Nex bodies where they have a poor selection already. Hense the release of Canon EF to Sony Nex released first. For everything else, I just don't see a point and for Nex, I just see it as another mediocre workaround to a poor selection of mostly kit type glass.
If I were going to do this, I'd rather a normal adaptor with no glass elements and maybe no degredation in IQ. This is just not worth a stop and $500. No real point in it.
@bobbarber,
I think this is the distinction that needs to be made: assuming this tele-reducer is of a good design and build, AND KEEPING THE CAMERA CONSTANT (let's say the APS-C NEX in this case), this tele-reducer stands to increase the apparent resolution of a FF Canon lens versus using just an adapter and no reducer.
But I suspect that if the same FF Canon lens was used on an APS-C NEX body w/this tele-reducer, versus using it on a theoretical FF NEX body (no tele-reducer in between), I suspect the FF NEX will resolve better without the additional optical elements stuck in-between.
So I think Metabones' claims are believable given the intentions of what this product is for, and all the FF-using naysayers are getting butthurt... nay exhibiting butthurt insecurity for fear of being challenged for their equipment choices, for no good reason.
E = Tiffen Sky 1A filter, 55mm. This produced an obvious difference in tint relative to the other tested conditions. I'm not sure why this was not obvious in the prior test. It reduced some of the purple fringing, and actually seems the sharpest of the three tested conditions. As maligned and inexpensive as Tiffen filters are (well, not quite as maligned as no-name filters), optically it actually seems quite respectable. But it probably won't fare as well in flare tests, since it is uncoated AFAIK.
F = Hoya S-HMC Pro 1 UV(0) filter, 55mm. This filter reduced even more of the purple fringing, although it seems a hair less sharp than the Tiffen. It is, however, about as flare-resistant as UV filters go. As it should be, as it is by far the most expensive. But is it possible that the super-multi-coating contributed to the difference in sharpness versus the Tiffen?
Results:
I figured some people could have guessed this one, as there are more obvious visible differences.
D = No filter. Many legacy lenses were not well-controlled for UV, which manifests as purple fringing. People have reported that adding a UV filter helps with this artifact.
This is the LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version of:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/1918904/_dsc3198_1600exif
LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version can be seen at:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/2101945/_dsc3220-1
This is the LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version of:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/1918907/_dsc3220_1600exif
This is the LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version of:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/1918906/_dsc3207_1600exif
LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version can be seen at:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/2101944/_dsc3207-1
LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version of this photo can be seen at:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/2101942/_dsc3198-1
LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version of this photo can be seen at:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/2101948/_dsc3201-1
This is the LR4.1 PV2012 re-worked version of:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7495104931/photos/1918905/_dsc3201_1200exif
I have no problem with Joe Klamar. Every photographer will have great days, off-days, and WTF-days, which is apparently what happened here.
I don't know why nothing has been said about the editors who chose these images to be published. As far as I'm concerned, they were the ones who completely dropped-the-ball on this one.
M&M:
Sony NEX-5N + Yashica DSB 135mm f/2.8 @f/2.8, 1/40th sec, ISO100, tripod mounted, remote-triggered.
Subject distance about 7' 3" (approx 17% farther than before), perpendicular to camera axis.
Tested conditions:
No filter
Hoya S-HMC Pro 1 UV(0) filter, 55mm
Tiffen Sky 1A filter, 55mm
All shots individually focused to peak focus, which was the most time-consuming part of this affair.
All three photos: 100% crops. Imported into LR4.1 as ARW (no in-camera shenanigans), no post-processing from default (esp. no sharpening!). Develop settings (i.e. crop) copied from the first file to the other two files (also, full homogenization of settings). All three files exported to PS CS3 for collaging. Exported for web in JPEG at 100% quality.
Obviously single-blind.
Sony NEX-5N + Yashica DSB 135mm f/2.8 @f/5.6, 1/8 sec, ISO100, tripod mounted, remote-triggered.
Subject distance about 6' 2.5", perpendicular to camera axis.
Tested conditions:
- No filter
- Hoya S-HMC Pro 1 UV(0) filter, 55mm
- Tiffen Sky 1A filter, 55mm
All shots individually focused to peak focus, which was the most time-consuming part of this stupid affair.
All three photos: 100% crops. Imported into LR4.1 as ARW (no in-camera shenanigans), no post-processing from default (esp. no sharpening!). Develop settings (i.e. crop) copied from the first file to the other two files (also, full homogenization of settings). All three files exported to PS CS3 for collaging. Exported for web in JPEG at 100% quality.
Obviously single-blind.
I don't remember whether I voted in this one... but this one deserves the 13x 0.5 star ratings.
Who could've possibly thought this was a good concept for a photo?
Something about the way this image engine deals with B&W screws everything up into dithering. Please use "Original" to see the intended image.
I couldn't get my own shadow out of the shot.
Anfy: IMHO it holds remarkably well against the bigger sensor Sony NEX-5n even at 3200 ISO.
You mean, "the NEX-5N ends up costing 10% less than the OM-D E-M5 if you want to include a viewfinder with 60% more resolution". In other words, hard to compare.
I will grant you that the 24-100mm-FF-equivalent 4x zoom is a better spec'ed do-all kit-lens than the NEX's 27-83mm-FF-equivalent 3x zoom. But considering that it makes the E-M5 bigger in all dimensions than a NEX-5N/7 w/kit lens... how could you you in the same breath crow on about bulk?
I mean, look at this:
http://j.mp/FQsMoR
Ridiculous.
It's one thing to like a camera, and the OM-D E-M5 has a lot going for it... but it's best to stay within the bounds of reality. People don't go all fanboy-ish and gaga over something and declare their chosen horse the one to make all others obsolete for good reason: reality is complicated and direct comparisons generally don't exist.