Previous news story    Next news story

Metabones delays shipment of 'Speed Booster' for Micro Four Thirds

By dpreview staff on Apr 12, 2013 at 23:40 GMT

Metabones has announced the schedule for the Micro Four Thirds version of its innovative 'Speed Booster' lens adapter has slipped to the second half of 2013. Like the existing version for mounting Canon EF lenses on Sony NEX cameras, the forthcoming version will allow the use of full-frame lenses, reducing the focal length by a factor of 0.71x and increases the maximum aperture by 1 stop. The Micro Four Thirds version will give a 1.4x overall 'crop' - giving a similar field of view to APS-C stills cameras and the Super35mm video format.

The Speed Booster is available in an increasing number of other lens/mount combinations. Its first incarnation was a Canon EF to Sony NEX apapter, which we tested by mounting a few Canon lenses on a Sony NEX-6. Click here to read some of our initial thoughts on the possibilities and challenges presented by such a unique product.

Notice on the Metabones website

'We apologize but the m4/3 schedule is slipping. Manual focus lenses such as Nikon, Leica R, Contax C/Y, Contarex, ALPA and Rollei will be supported in the second half of 2013. Canon EF lens (but not EF-S) support is planned in the future, but we do not have an estimated date yet.(via 43rumors)

The 'Speed Booster' lens adapter allows users to mount SLR lenses on APS-C and Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras that reduces the focal length by a factor of 0.71x and increases the maximum aperture by 1 stop.

Comments

Total comments: 109
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (3 months ago)

Why not a metabone speedbooster for m43 that gives 2 stop advantage and ~0.45x conversion (full - full frame circle) just like the APSC's 1 stop speed advantage and 0.71x?

If its reverse of tele-converter (extending focal length and dropping aperture and sharpness 1 stop for 1.4x and 2 stop for 2x) then same should extend to m43, atleast in theory!!

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Apr 15, 2013)

This is a real disapointment for M43 users. Why not design the adapter to fit Canon EF-S and other APS-C lenses onto M43 camera the same way it is designed to fit full frame lenses onto APS-C? This is dumb to have a full frame lens attached to a M43 camera with a APS-C size image circle half wasted for $600.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 15, 2013)

The EF-S lenses extend too far back into the flange. There is not enough room for the adapter. Maybe that wouldn't be the case for other native APS-C DSLR lenses but it limits them to EF only from a Canon perspective (which is clearly where they are focused).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 16, 2013)

in general SLR APS-C lenses are no good ones.
their cost-performances are low, and
they do not have a future.
do not buy and do not keep as long as you can.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma announces super-fast 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C DSLRs

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/04/18/Sigma-announces-worlds-first-F1-8-constant-aperture-zoom-lens

0 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (Apr 15, 2013)

Amazing 3 days and this is still the same news, just logged into Pentax Forums where there an announcement of a new APS-C compact camera (world smallest) no low pass filter

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 15, 2013)

think LPFs should join former miners to protest at Thatcher's funeral and sing their own song "The Fujifilm/Nikon/Pentax is Dead".

0 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (Apr 15, 2013)

You define "news" as an accidental leak of a promotional video about an upcoming product where DPR is probably under NDA?

0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (Apr 15, 2013)

Any danger of an actual CAMERA REVIEW this month?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 15, 2013)

Yes. Possibly today.

4 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (Apr 15, 2013)

Times running out

1 upvote
Photogaz
By Photogaz (Apr 15, 2013)

Not sure I'd ever buy one, but seems like a nice bit of kit!

2 upvotes
Herringbone Imagery
By Herringbone Imagery (Apr 15, 2013)

Though its not something that I would have a use for, its still great to see new products on the market.

0 upvotes
Pablo4
By Pablo4 (Apr 14, 2013)

mhh... sad that it only gives you APS-c FOV... big lol to poor m4/3 users that will pay 600 bucks extra, so they get to see what 1.5 crop users normally see :>

6 upvotes
Torsten Hoff
By Torsten Hoff (Apr 14, 2013)

You're missing the point. Completely.

10 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

I see it works in two ways,

first, it provides an option for 4/3" users to have better photos, which is better than no option.

second, it makes lenses compete more easily across mounts and across formats. it lets people see the facts behind different formats, making it hard for makers to cheat customers, makes a fair, more competitive market for everyone.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Apr 14, 2013)

Pablo is right. Crap. Cheap Nikon DSLR 400$ and 1.4/50 at 200$ will outperform m43 over a wide margin.

5 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 14, 2013)

You still get 1 stop better aperture and 50% more FOV than you did before.

6 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Apr 15, 2013)

Ummm you gain somehow more effective aperture and wider FOV... It's something!

0 upvotes
Nerval
By Nerval (Apr 15, 2013)

What people are missing out about IQ comparison is that MFT lenses are already quite perky in the normal to short telephoto range.
But high speed wide-angle to normal are either non-existent, or hyper pricey.
Now with the upcoming Metaboost, MFT users can buy super-wide / wide ff primes, which are more affordable and provides many more options, so it's rather good for them.
If anything the 2x crop factor on MFT is an advantage but also a big constraint, being able to widen the scope of solutions for wide angle shooting makes the metaboost even more relevant to the MFT than any other system. IMHO.

After if MFT suits your tastes or not, delivers enough IQ or not and so on, is another question, but if it's well put together, the metaboost IS a good thing for MFT users.

Well speedbooster is expensive, but as someone pointed out, prices will drop eventually.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
pixelatorcw
By pixelatorcw (Apr 14, 2013)

I am very satisfied with the Speedbooster I bought for the Sony E mount system. Using a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens on my Sony Nex-6 given an effective aperture of f/1.0. Great!

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

an equivalent f/1.5x.

the name SpeedBooster is confusing. that we cannot really boost the speed. we can only waste less the light coming through the original lens' aperture.

2 upvotes
AstroStan
By AstroStan (Apr 14, 2013)

"an equivalent f/1.5x"

No. It contains a positive and relay lens that reduces FL while retaining the aperture, thus the f-ratio is decreased. It is the very definition of "f-ratio" and simple math.

You are correct in the implication that no "extra" photons are gathered by this trick but that's not what f-ratio "speed" refers to. Lowering the f-stop of a fixed FL does increase the information from objects by gathering more photons into the same angular area and thus each pixel. But in the case of FL reduction there is no new information from the object, but each pixel covers a wider angle and receives more photons (i.e. the angular image scale has changed).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

> but that's not what f-ratio "speed" refers to.

why do we need "speed" in the first place?
if you can answer that question, which may sound stupid,
you should be able to see the clear answer.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 14, 2013)

> why do we need "speed" in the first place?

Because it was a clever way of making exposure easier to calculate; f numbers represent the same exposure regardless of focal length, a 35mm f2 lens has the same exposure as a 350mm f2 lens regardless of the fact the latter has a 10x larger physical aperture.

2 upvotes
cyberstudio
By cyberstudio (Apr 14, 2013)

In a nutshell, "speed" here means, keep ISO same, your fastest possible shutter speed (for correct exposure) is one stop faster with Speed Booster than without.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

@Andy Crowe & cyberstudio,

should go back one more step what does "speed" mean for photograph. ISO or exposure calculation doesn't mean it.

the quality of image is the answer, what we are really after, how we can have faster shutter speed at the same image quality, or better image quality at the same shutter speed.

isn't that simple enough?

using exactly the same film, same "exposure" (to unit area), same development, we do not get the same quality of image if the formats are different (like 135 vs 120 vs 4x5" films) so ISO is useless (I know it happens to work when the size is the same).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (Apr 14, 2013)

Yabokkie: You can talk at length about this if you want to.

However, the people you're replying to in this thread will still be right about the f-number, and you will be wrong.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

@Iskender

talking about f-number out of the context of photography? you may do it. it's protected by the first amendment I think.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
pixelatorcw
By pixelatorcw (Apr 15, 2013)

It's interesting how this conversation was turned around into a discussion of the term 'speed' in photography.

As an engineer I agree with the comments about the meaningless term 'speed' when it comes to lenses. A lens has no 'speed' and cannot have a speed. But as a (devoted!) hobby photographer I have got used to how the term 'speed' is (mis)used in the photographer communities. So regarding lenses, a 'fast' lens really means a lens with a large aperture.

How important is the aperture when it comes to the exposure of an image? What is REALLY important is how much of the light hits the sensor. When you use a 'full frame lens' (which is also a somewhat meaningless term) on an APS-C camera, a lot of the light hits outside the sensor. What the Speedbooster does, is actually to concentrate this light so that more light hits the sensor.

So an EF 50mm f/1.4 on my Nex-6 really gives the equivalent of a f/1.0 aperture. But 'Lightbooster' would have been a more correct name.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 15, 2013)

the adapter cannot steal light, so no "LightBooster".
it can however return some of the stolen light.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Apr 15, 2013)

what stolen light?? there is/was not light that is stolen. When you try to be pedantic, how about you yourself use correct terminology.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tramptime
By tramptime (Apr 14, 2013)

It is just unfortunately these adapters have such high prices... a sony nex and a speedbooster adapter approach the price of a nikon d600 almost for example. i would rather get the nikon then.

1 upvote
Macx
By Macx (Apr 14, 2013)

I agree, but that's supply and demand. Once other manufacturers market similar products price will undoubtedly fall.

2 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (Apr 14, 2013)

Snooze. It's 2013, I prefer my AF glass. Most MF shooters just shoot boring static things that don't move with their faux retro-looking digital cameras.

1 upvote
Kiril Karaatanasov
By Kiril Karaatanasov (Apr 14, 2013)

Actually many MF shooters shoots sports. So you are bettersaying I have little experience using MF and prefer the comfort of AF.

9 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Apr 14, 2013)

"Actually many MF shooters shoots sports."
However most sports shooters shoot AF (Edit: more like the overwhelming majority of sports shooters). Why do you think this might be?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

we live in a world that we cannot have good quality without auto-control for most of things.

AF or MF is more a question of quality control. you can use MF if the quality, focusing accuracy, is hopelessly low.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 14, 2013)

The Canon adapter /is/ AF.

Comment edited 7 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 14, 2013)

And the AF /is/ a joke (in this adapter).

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Future user
By Future user (Apr 13, 2013)

Wasn't Olympus working on a 0.5x reducer? YES! Seems so:

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-working-on-a-sort-of-speed-booster-adapter-too/

Hope that see the daylight some day...

Meanwhile, this Metabones would be useful on lenses like Sigma 8-16mm (widest zoom) or 20mm f1.8 (fastest FF wide). However, the cost..not sure whether it's worth the adittional spending over native lenses. If only it was 0.5x...

Come on, Olympus, bring that 0.5x!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

0.5x for lenses made by Oly's rivals?

0 upvotes
Future user
By Future user (Apr 13, 2013)

No, but for OM lenses.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

I know some places in Tokyo that repair OM. they are sent to a single place. the requirement is low. not something Oly will care. they abandoned it already.

0 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Apr 13, 2013)

Sony Alpha to NEX E should have been the first thing they release, it's the obvious adapter for that system. I really hope it will come out before summer.

The flange distance is practically the same as for Canon EF, it just needs a different mount and an aperture ring.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

it's an easier job than EF-NEX. the issue is people don't have good lenses for Alpha mount. EF is a far larger market section.

1 upvote
Peksu
By Peksu (Apr 13, 2013)

Not larger for NEX, because Sony makes LA-EA-adapters and people adapt Alpha lenses for NEX with full aperture control and EXIF (and phase detection AF).

0 upvotes
Sean Nelson
By Sean Nelson (Apr 14, 2013)

They're also likely to sell more units for NEX than for M43 because of the paucity of native NEX lenses.

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Apr 14, 2013)

Nonsense. Sean Nelson They are going to sell more Nex adapters because Sony has popular video cameras like FS100 and FS700. Who else do you think is buying these 600 dollars adapters? M4/3 AF100 is dead

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

Pana m4/3" is still not a very good design (Oly 4/3" was simply stupid) but small sensors (small apertures) got one advantage that will become important for the coming 8K all-in-one video cameras -- superzooms.

0 upvotes
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (Apr 13, 2013)

Ok, I was already buzzing around MFT...but if this means I will be able to use my line-up of Canon EF lenses with, say, a Olympus OM-D E-M5 and some dedicated MTF lenses, than it's a done deal (...and what a sweet one...)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

I have a problem with the name.

it's called SpeedBooster but it really works as SpeedReclaimer.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 13, 2013)

It's a speed booster in terms of exposure (exposure is independent of sensor size), more of an "image circle reclaimer" if you want to use those terms.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

> exposure is independent of sensor size

that exposure was invented for chemical, not photography.
irrelevant exposure, irrelevant speed,
from photographic point of view.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 14, 2013)

@yabokkie so what do you suggest? Completely different exposure numbers on every different camera? If you wanted to compare cameras perform you'd have to calculate what the equivalent exposures would be rather then going "ok this is a picture I took at ISO1600, how do these other cameras perform at ISO1600".

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

we get different quality of image using the same ISO1600 on different formats. then what do you want to say "compared, same shutter speed, at different image quality"?

why cannot you use any shutter speed at will if you don't care the image quality?

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 14, 2013)

If you have the same FOV then you'll want the same minimum shutter speed to avoid blur / camera shake regardless of sensor size (at least without IS).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

sensor size isn't an issue, aperture size is.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 15, 2013)

If you base exposure on physical aperture rather than f ratio you get wildly different aperture numbers for the same exposure based on the lens focal length, why would that be helpful?

0 upvotes
Majoren
By Majoren (Apr 13, 2013)

I would like to see this thing in an EF->EF version to put on my 50D

Then My 24-105 f/4 would go from FOV 36-168 to FOV 24-105
But illuminating my sensor as it was f/2.8

OR even:

FF with the low lvl pixel noice, you could crop to an 8MP shot..

EF->EF mount ASAP please

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 13, 2013)

Its IMPOSSIBLE to work on an EF to EF mount. Law of physics and all.

It could work on a Canon M mount but thats a propriety mount so no one will have access to the workings of the mount.

m43 is an open mount standard while Sony has disclosed the working of its mount so metabones has released adapters to these two mounts only since they have all available data.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

all APS-C SLRs deserve to die for that sake. I don't know the result but APS-C mirrorless ones should be able to unite the world.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 13, 2013)

Yes but AF with this adapter is just OK. Not great as Canon EF lenses work best with phase detect systems while NEX and m43 work with contrast detect systems.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 15, 2013)

When I saw this speed booster first released, the EOS-M was the first thing that jumped to my mind. Canon should make this for their mirrorless. Coupled with the wonderful world of EF lenses, it would really behave pretty closely to the pocketable (at least with the 40mm prime) FF ILC camera people want. At a small fraction of the price of a FF sensor, and with an existing lens selection.

AF is the problem? The EOS-M's primarily CDAF can't autofocus worth crap on their existing line of EF PDAF focused lenses anyway.

0 upvotes
Petr Klapper
By Petr Klapper (Apr 13, 2013)

Still no word about Nikon(G) > Nex/Fuji speedbooster, as "promised" in January :/

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

it's not a very good idea to use a lens on a format it was not designed for. but for 4/3" users they don't have other choices at the moment. 4/3" makers have been refusing to make large aperture lenses because they want to cheat with small ones.

3 upvotes
Pasadena Perspective
By Pasadena Perspective (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't mean to disagree or be difficult, but in my experience using both, I don't see a disadvantage to it in most cases. Granted, a design that uses glass has more complications than a transparent one (like the passive EF to M43 adapters with no aperture control, etc.)

Are you speaking more about image quality or control? On the image quality side, I use everything from compacts to phones, camcorders, mirrorless cameras and DSLRs and find no image quality disadvantage to using DSLR lenses on M43 systems - they just have an entirely different crop. :)

4 upvotes
kaiser soze
By kaiser soze (Apr 13, 2013)

I keep seeing really strange comments from different people in the various comments on this site. Perhaps the companies in the MFT realm are not producing large-aperture lenses. I haven't looked into that, but i have no reason to doubt it. But what i don't get is the use of the word "cheat". I don't understand this at all, and it bothers me. Cheating is an unethical, amoral act, usually implying a violation of law, or a least a moral violation. As such, it is a serious accusation, and the word should be used in a manner that does not water down its meaning. No person or company should be accused of cheating unless they have done something overtly illegal. I think that you do not understand the meaning of this word, and have used it incorrectly.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
marcio_napoli
By marcio_napoli (Apr 13, 2013)

Hi Kaiser,

I believe I see where the word "cheating" came from...

The smaller the sensor size, the easier (and less expensive) it is to make fast lenses for that format.

The smaller the format, you need less amount of glass to project light over that sensor.

So, if you have f2.8 zooms on 35mm FF cameras, why the H*ll the fastest zoom available for micro 4/3 is f2.0 (and it's already asked for loads of cash) ?

The other day, I was shopping for a fast zoom for my GH2, and I all I could find was a Lumix f2.8 zoom.

Wait ! f2.8 is what I would expect for a much larger sensor, like my FF Nikon.

For a tiny sensor like 4/3, I would expect a f1.8 zoom, and it should be less expensive than the FF 2.8 ...

At the moment, there's no f1.8 zoom, and the f.2 and f2.8 are really, really expensive (they shouldn't be, as there's not so much expensive glass involved).

That's why I agree with the word "cheating".

3 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 13, 2013)

marcio: unless you're a lens designer, you're just blowing smoke.

Anyway, the f2.8 MFT lens you're talking about is about half the size and a quarter of the weight of the equivalent 35mm f2.8 .. so I don't get your complaint.

If it was the same size as the FF lens, then it could probably be faster. Oh, right, like the Olympus 14-35...

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

an f/2.8 m4/3" lens simply cannot do the work of an f/2.8 lens of 35mm format. the small aperture can only let in 1/4 of the light which is the fundamental reason why 4/3" image qualities are low.

it's not the sensor size, which will become a problem when the f-number approaches f/0.5 and we are far from that (and we don't have f/1.0 for 35mm SLRs except a discontinued Canon).

> a tiny sensor like 4/3, I would expect a f1.8 zoom,

the equivalent lens of 35mm format 24-70/2.8 will be mZD/G12-35/1.4, which will be of about the same (slightly less) size, weight, and cost as the current Nikon and Canon ones.

it will be 16-46/1.8 for APS-C, but this lens will be larger and more expensive (may be unreasonably expensive as 4/3" ones but for some real reasons).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 13, 2013)

@yabokkie: "the fundamental reason why 4/3" image qualities are low"?

You're talking in absolutes for a relative measurement; you could make exactly the same argument for why 35mm "image qualities" are low in comparison to medium format.

The fact is that 4/3 (or more accurately, M4/3, with the newer sensors) has "image qualities" that are more than acceptable for a large number of applications--certainly acceptable enough for most of the photography engaged in by members of these forums.

Your original comment is also risible. What do you consider a "large aperture" -- f/1.8? f/1.4? Or how about f/0.95? Because there are native MFT lenses in all those speeds.

Uninformed. Ridiculous.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

> you could make exactly the same argument for why 35mm "image qualities" are low in comparison to medium format.

I don't stand with any format. I stand with basic physics. sorry to say that's not true. the 120 and 135 format cameras are about the same at low light (135 got an upper hand but not big deal, different for "high light" though).

the standard prime for 645 cameras is about 80/2.8, and it's 90/3.5 for 69, while we have cheap 50/1.4 for 135 SLRs. the "crop" factor is 0.61 for 645 and 0.43 for 6x9. do the maths yourself.

after all we have the best lens lineups for 35mm format and new even better ones for 35mm format.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marcio_napoli
By marcio_napoli (Apr 13, 2013)

Hi Ptox,

What you said is exactly my point. What about a fast micro 4/3 zoom that is not size or weight constrained ?

That's exactly my point. Why do they have to be constrained?

Not all times we need to carry lightweight gear.

Sometimes we just want the best quality, even if it weights more.

I wouldn't mind carrying around a f.14 or 1.8 micro 4/3 zoom...

I would love it for my video projects, where I need cinematic "bokeh" and focal lengh versatility above all else, and a really fast zoom would fit the bill nicely in this case.

BTW, I'm among that folks that would like (and would pay, and carry all day long) a FF f2.0 zoom lens.

It could be a 3 kg and 5 thousand dollars lens, I still would.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

it seems that f/2.0 zooms are impossible at the moment. Canon's new 24-70/2.8L2 is a great lens that gives me an impression they are hitting the wall.

ZD35-100/2.0 is merely 70-200/4 equivalent (optical capability, not the size/price).

0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 13, 2013)

"I stand with basic physics."

Since when does "basic physics" produce subjective conclusions such as "4/3 image qualities are low"?

The best (micro) 4/3 images have better color depth, dynamic range, and resolution than the original 35mm Canon 5D, with its 4x area sensor.

The quantity of light entering the lens is irrelevant; it's how that light is translated into a digital image that matters. The sensor is the thing.

1 upvote
ptox
By ptox (Apr 13, 2013)

@marcio: okay, but what's the point of a small camera system if it doesn't have small lenses?

You'd get no benefit from an MFT 12-35 f1.4 over a 35mm 24-70 f2.8 -- same DOF control, similar low light performance, and (other than the body) similiar size.

I'd say that's "why the h*ll" such a thing doesn't exist. :-)

0 upvotes
marcio_napoli
By marcio_napoli (Apr 13, 2013)

Hi Ptox

hehe I understand my posts are a bit confusing :)

The reason I "need" that combo is because the GH2 (and now GH3) is the best video camera in the world below Arri Alexa, RED and Sony cinema cameras. (a bit of exaggeration, but not far from truth either)

Anyone who have ever used a GH2, knows there's no comparison, it just smashes the other video DSLRs (even the most recent ones, like 5D mk III).

But if you want that superb video quality, and also want cinematic bokeh + versatility in focal lenghs, you'll find yourself limited with the lenses available for MFT.

A f2.8 zoom on MFT does not produce shallow enough DOF for cinema look

Right now, I'm starting an indie production, and we're filming with f2.8 Nikkors via adapter

If there were any f1.8 zooms available for MFT, I'd have gone that way.

It would give the best of both worlds: GH2 video quality + FF bokeh + zoom flexibility

Right now, it's one thing or the other... you can't have all three at once, unfortunately :(

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 13, 2013)

there is no benefit. the 4/3" was designed by misunderstanding (misled by Kodak maybe), or for cheating those without understanding, of basic physics.

another corner stone of 4/3" is its designers assume semiconductor is far more expensive than optics and should be given higher priority. it's designed for digital, and should be trashed with digital (of 15 years ago).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 13, 2013)

@marcio
> A f2.8 zoom on MFT does not produce shallow enough DOF for cinema look

"Cinema look" with a zoom? Most scenes like that are shot with a static focal length and most fast cine lenses are primes, why would you need a zoom? Show me a shallow depth of field scene from an actual movie that zooms during the take.

0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 13, 2013)

@yabokkie: You keep saying "basic physics" like it means something. It doesn't.

Comment edited 8 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
KenBalbari
By KenBalbari (Apr 14, 2013)

Lots of foolish replies so far. But with 38 autofucos m4/3 lenses, and another 9 CDAF optimized 4/3 lenses which focus fine with an adaptor, m4/3 users not only have far more choices than any other mirrorless system, they have more lens choices on "the format it was designed for" than even APS-C DSLR users.

0 upvotes
KenBalbari
By KenBalbari (Apr 14, 2013)

@marcio

The biggest difference in lenses for the smaller format is that a given focal length will have a difference angle of view. But there is nothing there that says it will be easier to produce a lower f-number. Take a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom for example. Well, you now only need the focal length to be 12-35. But is it easy now to make it f/2.0 or f/1.8 instead? If it were, don't you think full frame users would love to have an inexpensive super fast wide angle lens?

The fact is, as the size of the aperture approaches the size of the focal length, lens aberrations will kill your image quality, and require much more sophisticated designes to counter.

As long as you keep f-numbers at 2.8 and above though, where aberrations are less an issue, there are no special problems with designing sharp m4/3 lenses. In fact they are typically just as sharp as their larger format counterparts.

0 upvotes
KenBalbari
By KenBalbari (Apr 14, 2013)

@yabokkie

Sorry, but basic physics says that if you cut the focal length in half, you double the lens power. So the image from the lens will be just as sharp as it was on the larger format. The only limitation as far as resolution will be at the sensor.

Also, keep in mind, if you use your example where ZD35-100/2.0 is merely 70-200/4, you also have to quadruple your ISO on 135 film format in order for those to be equivalent. Then you have no advantage either in noise or dynamic range.

As I pointed out, m4/3 is limited in choices below f/2.8. But as long as you are shooting at f/5.6 or higher on full frame, you have ZERO advantage in image quality, using this equivalence logic, unless you are getting more resolution from the sensor.

But you won't normally shoot at f/5.6 and ISO 800. You will normally use a lower ISO and either a wider aperture for more narrow depth of field, or a faster shutter. When one of those things is desired, that's your advantage.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 14, 2013)

@KenBalbari,

ISO is cannot be used as a base for comparison. whatever ISO is irrelevant, the "exposure to the frame" is.

anything should not be compared at mm or sqmm because these do not have photographic meaning. we can compare however, at the same perspective and framing, a flower in two images, which may be different in mm or sqmm on the sensor but takes the same portion, say 10% of area in each image.

this is the starting point. if you agree, you can get the same result as me. simple physics. but if you don't, you will compare a flower projected on 10% of a 4/3" sensor to 1/4 of the flower on 2.5% of a 35mm sensor (they are of the same area in sqmm). odd enough but that's still okay if you keep that in mind (comparing 10% to 2.5%) and adjust the result accordingly.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
quangzizi
By quangzizi (Apr 15, 2013)

1, "4/3" makers have been refusing to make large aperture lenses because they want to cheat with small ones."

Oh yeah sure these are slow:
42.5 1.2
25 0.95
17 0.95
42 0.95
12 2.0
17 1.8
20 1.7
12 -35 2.8
What!!! More to come

2, Some people are too crazy about f-stop. How can you demand 1.xxx sth zooms just because MFT is smaller? Do you even know what are you buying into? Where is the size benefit then?

3, "there is no benefit. the 4/3" was designed by misunderstanding (misled by Kodak maybe), or for cheating those without understanding, of basic physics."

What a retarded comment. Period. The system is merely four years old and already made an impact on the camera scene. Who are you to tell those engineers and mangers stupid or cheating? They had a plan and they carried it out well, so well that you felt threatened is it?.

Get lost armchair + keyboard hero

3 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (Apr 13, 2013)

I hope they can sell the technology to cameras manufacturer. so it can be built in

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Apr 13, 2013)

Don't think manufactures want to have that built in and help Canon sell more lenses.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
kaiser soze
By kaiser soze (Apr 13, 2013)

This isn't a technology that would or could be built into a camera. It is an enhacement to a lens. And the net result is compromised. You could design a similar lens from scratch, i.e., the same maximum aperture and focal length that you end up with when you use this adapter with an existing lens, and the results would almost certainly be better than this kludge. The only compelling reason to use any adapter of this sort is to take advantage of existing lenses. When that is the case, then you have the question of whether to use an adapter without glass or an adapter with glass. With glass, as compared to not, you get less crop and therefore shorter effective focal length along with smaller f-number. In some cases the smaller f-number will be useful, but the image quality will suffer. Only in very specific circumstances would this be preferable to an adapter without glass.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 13, 2013)

It would be better if they made it an open standard that was free to anyone.
The need to 'sell' technology does more harm and prevents true innovation in the long run.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 13, 2013)

Already been done, the Nikon E2 (1995) had this technology to reduce a full frame image circle down to a 2/3" sensor. There's no point doing it now tho as lenses optimized for smaller sensors exist, you'd be limited to FF lenses without the other benefits of having a FF sensor.

It's better as an optional attachment so you can have both lenses optimized for smaller sensors and make better use of FF lenses.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Apr 13, 2013)

Having seen these things in the astronomy world for 30 years, many of us were wondering when they'd release something like it for cameras. Now that it's here, we see the expected shortcomings (added aberrations) and realize it will be mostly a "centre of field" device. But I'm wondering if it even makes sense getting one? You can buy f/1.4 lenses now from 24mm all the way to 85mm and that is pretty fast. Some of them are very sharp, even wide open. There are also lenses that are as fast as f/0.95 (Schneider CCTV lenses, and others, usable on m4/3rds). My guess is most people will find that going up one stop in ISO will be a better idea than using this compressor except in rare circumstances were every last drop of speed is needed. This kind of device would have been far more useful 5 years ago when cameras were much noisier at high ISO.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm not sure you can buy the lenses you're talking about for m43. FF yes, but this news item is about m43. In particular, there are no wide lenses as fast as you are taking about.

0 upvotes
paulrfarrington
By paulrfarrington (Apr 13, 2013)

There are 17 and 25mm f/0.95 primes available for the u4/3s system.

5 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Apr 13, 2013)

Just imagine that you had a bunch of Zeiss or Leica lenses worth several thousand Euros. With this adapter you'd be able to make good use of them again - without losing their focal length and even gaining on aperture.
The lens centric design of 4/3 should even work better with this adapter.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Apr 13, 2013)

Zeiss or Leica lenses worth several thousand Euros may be better suited for an FF mirrorless, since, if you have glass that expensive why get a cheap body? The 4/3 sensors are getting better and better, but if I had such a collection I would rather have no extra glass come in the way of any "legendary formulas" in lens design (if I were such a person that would have such lenses and believe no other lenses could ever match them)

1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Apr 13, 2013)

@Nishi: No, they are not better suited for FF, because they were designed to fit film and not digital sensors. The latter makes them lose sharpness and light in the corners. A 4/3 design crops the best part of the lens, but of course the adapter's glass must be excellent, too.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 13, 2013)

@paulfarrington

Thanks. I forgot about the 17mm Nokton or whatever is us. The 17 gets us down to 34mm equivalent, which is still not really wide. I remembered the fast 50s, but those aren't wide either.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
JTHAIN
By JTHAIN (Apr 13, 2013)

Does it have to be a Full Frame lens? Wouldn't APSC lenses work on a micro four thirds sensor? Or would there be vignetting? I'm thinking this might make for a great northern lights shooting lens. Wide and fast.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 13, 2013)

The image circle of an APSC lens will cover an m4/3 sensor with these adapters, but unlike Nikon DX lenses Canon EF-S lenses protrude further back, perhaps too far for the adapter hence the Canon version being FF only.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Apr 13, 2013)

I think this booster does more for NEX than for M43 as it does not provide any wider FOV. It can provide more lens speed, which would make fast FF lenses even faster and that sounds good for re-using legacy lenses which are cheap and fast. However given the ghosting or flare issues when using those lenses on M43 cameras, I also wonder how good the end result will be with such speed boosting. Lots of question marks here. Are there independent tests yet?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
TO Photo
By TO Photo (Apr 13, 2013)

The FOV has to change based on the physics. The MFT crop will be reduced but not eliminated.

0 upvotes
Gao Gao
By Gao Gao (Apr 13, 2013)

They should make a 2x booster with 4x ND built in

0 upvotes
Rob Sims
By Rob Sims (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm waiting on the Nikon f-mount to Sony e-mount for this one... Hopefully it'll be available before this year is out.

Saying that, I haven't heard that many user feedback threads yet regarding the existing Canon one yet... How well has it generally been received?

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Apr 13, 2013)

with fast lenses, such as the old Nikkor 50mm f1.2 or 0.95 Nokton is now already more cinema look feasible than necessary - who needs this adapter? I do not

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 13, 2013)

rusticus, Even though it's called SpeedBooster, I think it's more about focal length... Your Nikkor 50mm 1.2 will have two focal lengths on m43, with and without adapter.

5 upvotes
Zoeff
By Zoeff (Apr 12, 2013)

I'm secretly hoping that they're working on turning it into a 0.5x reducer but I doubt that's going to happen. :(

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 13, 2013)

That's what they should have done. It's theoretically possible...I think. :)

1 upvote
Raffwal
By Raffwal (Apr 13, 2013)

IIRC, the designer commented on some forum or website that due to space constraits they could not go below x 0.7.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Total comments: 109