Previous news story    Next news story

Metabones announces 'Speed Booster' lens adapter for mirrorless cameras

By dpreview staff on Jan 14, 2013 at 10:38 GMT

Specialist accessory manufacturer Metabones and optics company Caldwell Photographics have jointly announced the 'Speed Booster', a lens adapter for for mounting 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. The Speed Booster also promises sharper images compared to using the lens with a simple adapter. The first version will allow use of Canon EF lenses on Sony NEX bodies, and will be available this month from Metabones' web site for US$599. Support for additional lens mounts (including Nikon F) and camera systems (including Fujifilm X and Micro Four Thirds) is also planned.

In a technical white paper on the Metabones web site, designers Brian Caldwell and Wilfried Bittner set out the principles behind the Speed Booster and its practical advantages in some detail. In essence it's the opposite of a teleconverter - rather than increasing the focal length and reducing the aperture, it decreases the focal length and increases the aperture. This also promises sharper images compared to using the same lens with a simple, non-optical adapter, as the visibility of aberrations is reduced.

The wideangle converter is made possible by the short flange (i.e. lens mount to sensor) distance of mirrorless cameras, which allows the addition of focal length reducing optics to the space within the adapter between the lens and camera body (in an SLR, the mirror is in the way). It has the effect of shrinking the lens's image circle, which means that it only works with optics designed for larger formats. All full frame lenses should work on APS-C cameras, but lenses designed for APS-C SLRs will likely vignette, although they should work on Micro Four Thirds bodies.

The Speed Booster uses a 4 element/ 4 group optical system, and works with lenses as fast as F1.2. The additional optics mean that it's actually shorter than a conventional adapter, resulting in a more compact overall system. On APS-C mirrorless cameras it offers an effective crop factor of 1.1x, meaning a lens will behave very similarly to how it does on full frame; on Micro Four Thirds the effective crop factor is 1.4x.

The adapter's precise functionality will depend on the lens and body used. The version to use Canon EF lenses on Sony NEX bodies will support electronic aperture setting and image stabilisation, along with (slow) autofocus when used with newer Canon lenses. However the Nikon F mount adapter offers only mechanical aperture setting with G-type lenses; there's no promise of either AF or VR at the moment. 

Press release:

Metabones and Caldwell Photographic introduce Speed Booster

Petersburg, VA, USA, January 14, 2013 - Metabones® and Caldwell Photographic jointly announce a revolutionary accessory called Speed Booster™, which mounts between a mirrorless camera and a SLR lens. It increases maximum aperture by 1 stop (hence its name), increases MTF and has a focal length multiplier of 0.71x. For example, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II lens becomes a 59mm f/0.9 lens on a Sony NEX camera, with increased sharpness. The faster F-stop allows for shallow depth-of-field and a lower ISO setting for decreased noise.

Speed Booster is also particularly pertinent to ultra-wide-angle SLR lenses. The combined focal length multiplier of Speed Booster and an APS-C mirrorless camera is approximately 1.09x, making the combination almost "full-frame". Full-frame ultra-wide-angle SLR lenses largely retain their angle-of-view on an APS-C mirrorless camera when Speed Booster is used.

The optics of Speed Booster is designed by Brian Caldwell, PhD, a veteran of highly-corrected lens designs such as the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro lens with exemplary MTF performance (focusing done with visible light requires no correction whatsoever for the full spectrum from UV to IR).

Speed Booster serves double-duty as a lens mount adapter, from Canon EF lens (but not EF-S) to Sony NEX, with auto-aperture, image stablization, EXIF and (slow) autofocus support for late-model (post-2006) Canon-brand lenses. It will be available in January 2013 from Metabones' web site and its worldwide dealer network for US$599 plus shipping and applicable taxes and duties.

Other mount combinations will follow shortly afterwards. Leica R, ALPA, Contarex, Contax C/Y and Nikon F (with aperture control for G lenses) will be supported, as will Micro 4/3 and Fuji X-mount cameras. Support for other mounts will be added in the future.

To learn more details about this revolutionary technology, read the Speed Booster White Paper on Metabones' web site.

Specifications

 Magnification  0.71x 
 Maximum input aperture  f/1.26
 Maximum output aperture  f/0.90
 Lens elements/groups  4/4
 Objective lens mounts  Canon-EF, Nikon-F
 (Leica-R, Contax C/Y, Contarex, Alpa planned)
 Capabilities, Canon-EF version  Electronic iris control, AF and IS
 Capabilities, Nikon-F version  Manual iris control of G-type lenses
 Camera mounts  Sony NEX, Micro Four Thirds (Fujifilm X planned)
 Length reduction (Sony NEX version)  4.16mm
 Length reduction (Micro Four Thirds)  6.17mm
 Dimensions Sony NEX version
 (diameter x length)
 69mm x 27mm (with tripod mount removed)
 Weight Sony NEX version  194 grams
 Tripod mount  Removable type with Arca Swiss compatibility

Comments

Total comments: 457
123
the reason
By the reason (Jan 15, 2013)

again, you people are crazy. This is dirt cheap. my 100$ 50mm f1.8 becomes a 35mm f1.2 for jebus sakes...and a true 35mm f1.4 becomes a 24mm f1!!!
Do you know how expensive a 24mm f1 would be???

6 upvotes
zygh
By zygh (Jan 15, 2013)

Even though the concept looks interesting, the price is verging on the insane. Unless one owns the lens(es) worth thousands, I can't see this adapter being a solution for those of us with old Nikkor or M42 lenses.
I would like to try one, but for the price, I'd much rather get a 1.8/35E or save a bit more and go for a SH 1.8/24E.
Anyone else feels the price is excessive?

4 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (Jan 15, 2013)

Spot on. Anything added on is just an add-on.

Overall, the money spent on a dedicated NEX or m4/3 lens gives this adapter a home run. Why bother and make things cumbersome? After all, with such an expensive adapter, you still have to bite too many compromises( AF speed...).
I do use adapters to accommodate my EF or F mount lenes to Nex and m4/3 bodies. But I am talking about $15.00 adapter, not $700 after tax.

Good innovation + high price = bad idea

2 upvotes
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (Jan 15, 2013)

You're missing the point, this can in some cases give you a lens faster than anything on the market. The cost will most likely reflect the quality of the optics used, so yes, it is in part aimed at those who who "own the lenses worth thousands".
But don't despair, we'll most likely see cheap versions appearing for you.

2 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 15, 2013)

Hmmm...imagine what f-stop improvement you could get if there was one for the Pentax Q system but, then again, massive (relatively) lens on tiny body.

Cheers

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Jan 15, 2013)

No, Pentax Q has a tiny sensor, so an adapter that can shrink FF (or even APSC) lens image circle that tiny would be VERY large and expensive.

It might not even be possible.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
JonSr
By JonSr (Jan 15, 2013)

i can't wait to hear what people do with that. New Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG with metabone.. yeah.. can't wait to put it on my GF2.

0 upvotes
Horshack
By Horshack (Jan 15, 2013)

228 comments in one day tells me Metabones is tapping an unrealized need here. I'm pretty excited about the prospect this has for MFT video.

1 upvote
RDMPhotos
By RDMPhotos (Jan 15, 2013)

Its funny .. I have been talking about this type of optical converter since the first µ4/3 camera was released in 2009. It was on another message board (Photo dot net) where I started the discussion. We even discovered a patent that Kodak had for and optical adapter that does this same thing too .. Originally intended to be used on telescopes to increase the speed of the telescope by a couple stops and have a camera that could be attached to it to to take photos using the slower better film that captures more detail.

I am glad someone finally put this principal into use on the Mirror less cameras. I think they avoided the Kodak patent by not reducing the FL as-much or speeding up the lens as much; tho i think that the image circle of long telephoto lenses and telescopes are much larger and the 28-100mm range cant have their image circle shrunk so much...

I just hope some Asian company produces an adapter with this optical setup for me to use my Minolta MD lenses on my µ4/3 camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bastubacka
By Bastubacka (Jan 15, 2013)

Some lawyer person over at dvxuser.com calculated that the Kodak patent from 1996 will expire in march this year, so...

1 upvote
RDMPhotos
By RDMPhotos (Jan 15, 2013)

Ahhh, that explains it..
Thanks Bastubacka

0 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Jan 15, 2013)

Wow, so many people being negative and complaining about all the negative technicalities. Do you guys even have fun taking photos?

7 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Jan 15, 2013)

That's the point. People bothering with this type of hardware instead of taking photos with the lenses that are actually made for your camera.

What makes you think people who believe this is a bit foolish don't take photos? For example, you have two photos in your gallery and both are of a camera bag. LOL You have no other link to photos on your profile. What you do have is a mix of posts on various forums about connecting gear and building travel kits. None I can see are on actual photography. Plenty about which gear to buy and various camera controls.

On the other hand, I have, good or bad, 643 pictures on this gallery alone at DPReview. Who is the one who has "fun taking photos?"

Another example of the pot and black kettles. So, my question to you might be "Do you guys even have fun taking photos?" ;-)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Jan 15, 2013)

We'll just have to see if this flies. If one can add 4 elements to an existing formula which we already do with a teleconverter and get better performance and if that smaller somewhat noisier sensor suddenly magics into something other than what it is, then we'd have something here. Like I said, we'll have to see.

I'm betting we'll end up in a year with something along the lines of the Lycro camera where it does not live up to the hype. Either way, I'll stick with full frame DSLRs and continue to use quality glass. Others can go ahead and stick largish Canon EF lenses on this jobby and put that on their Nex.

I guess some of the same people who trumpeted telecentric lenses for Olympus will trumpet this optics here. Talk about bending light?

2 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 15, 2013)

Stand aside there is a queue forming behind you sir.

2 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Jan 15, 2013)

guidenet,, you've been working pretty hard here all day, bashing technology you've never seen up close, let alone used. We get it,,you're sticking with your blah blah blah,,, now go away.

4 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Jan 16, 2013)

@Juck. Yes I get it too. One image in his gallery. Member of forum for 10 months with only one forum post asking for software help as well as owning an entry level Canon. So, are you sticking with your blah? Do you even understand this technology? How about photography? And, when you say "We get it" Who's "We." Other new folks to photography? Your friends? Family members? One person per village? ;-)

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Jan 17, 2013)

guidenet, this isnt the only place in the universe to post images, and quite frankly one of the worst. If you wanna spend about 3K$ on a full frame camera and god knows what more on lenses to post images here and facebook, be our guest. But dont expect everyone to believe thats the smarter choice

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Jan 17, 2013)

youre also talking like you work for national geographic. Quite frankly if I had spent the money a D800 costs and have a gallery filled with very very bad HDRs and out of focus birds Id feel stupid. Its not the blah you have, its what you do with it.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 15, 2013)

One more thing nobody mentioned. NEX sensors (esp NEX-7) don't like light falling at acute angles, it results in vignetting and color fringing already a problem with EF lenses. This adapter will contribute even more to this problem, so I wonder if anything but telephoto lenses will be usable at all.

2 upvotes
Greg Erker
By Greg Erker (Jan 15, 2013)

The white paper says "Another nice benefit of the Speed Booster is that it moves the exit pupil further from the image plane for any objective lens. In other words, it actually improves the telecentricity of the lens system. This helps to improve corner illumination and reduce sensor artifacts such as color variations caused by pixel crosstalk."

So it should actually be better.

7 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 15, 2013)

What planet is Canon on? They could have done the same thing on a new body with an evf and called it an "EOS-M". Maybe they are no longer clever enough?

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 15, 2013)

If you think it's so easy to convert FF lens to APS-C neither loosing image quality nor speed, then it must be million times easier and cheaper to create a native APS-C lens with similar characteristics. The practice though shows it's not true.

2 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 15, 2013)

Hmmm - easy to miss the point - this is not a great new invention to replace made for the purpose lenses. This is a great new invention to allow existing users of EOS lenses (it can be a significant mount of investment) access to alternative (Not Canon) camera bodies to work with. If Canon had been more pro-active in making a pro-level EVIL type body for their EOS glass this might never have happened. In fact Canon might take a leaf out of this book by licensing the mount and building it into a new EVIL type camera body - even the shorter flange focal distance would be a sell-point. But no doubt they have felt secure behind the barred door of their electronic EOS mount system and felt no need to move until they were pushed.

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 15, 2013)

Tom, I think from canon's perspective you'd be making an APS-C camera with a rebel-like pricepoint that utilizes lenses and gives not to dissimilar results to it's 5D. That hurts 5D sales for those that don't mind the EVF over the OVF, but it probably demolishes the 7D and 50D sales. The EOS-M is scientifically designed to leave the Canon DSLR line alone. That's what was so interesting about the Sony offerings lately, they didn't mind stepping on their previous product's target customers. Canon's thinking more about market share and less about technology.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm quite skeptical that this gonna fly. One thing, I don't believe they will be able to preserve the image quality -- sometimes even simple protective filter significantly affects image quality, and here they added a lot of glass to lens' carefully crafted optical formula. Secondly, no fast autofocus means manual focus for all practical cases. But EF lenses have terrible manual focusing ring. Finally, EF lenses are too big and heavy to appeal to many people using NEX bodies. I have LA-EA2 adapter and A-mount lenses, and though there are no problems like here (focusing is fast and precise, image quality is not affected), yet I find even that setup to be too big and heavy and practically unusable with NEX body -- I would rather go with DSLR body if I wanted to use those lenses, it would be free from all the limitations and cost less too.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 15, 2013)

Sorry, whilst you were thinking about it the bird has flown ...

Orville

(No relation)

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Jan 15, 2013)

I stay with small native lenses and a few legacy manual focus lenses.

1 upvote
Sosua
By Sosua (Jan 15, 2013)

Check the white paper, it makes pretty compelling reading.

Includes MTF graphs for multiple lenses and formats, plus sample images. The idea adding elements detracts from IQ is due to teleconverters magnifying defects - this theoretically does the opposite.

Not all EF lenses (or full frame) lenses are large either... this will apply beyond EF glass, and no doubt at a lower cost when you look at the $400 Leica R to Fuji X adapter...

1 upvote
Drew Conway
By Drew Conway (Jan 15, 2013)

Yay, I no longer have to buy into a new lens system: Canon EF lenses + Sony NEX bodies = Photography for the win.

1 upvote
Owen
By Owen (Jan 15, 2013)

So you bought a small NEX camera that's nice to carry around and now you want large Canon lenses on it? You may as well stick to your SLR.

3 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 15, 2013)

Yup, me too, I have been holding off buying new Canon bodies for my delightful fleet of EOS lenses hoping that Canon would produce something EVIL - whaddayaget? More and more expensive video-enabled and the EOS-M. I rest my case. Canon best had put a brick under that wheel, I am not sure that leaving it in gear will work.

0 upvotes
martyvis
By martyvis (Jan 15, 2013)

I think the target lens is the smaller 28 - 100mm prime prange of lenses. I have a Panasonic G3 and use 28mm and 50mm Pentax primes. Still much smaller than a Canon 600D/60D. I would like to get say 20mm/40mm from an inexpensive Canon 28 or 50mm EF prime - provided the cost and IQ is good

0 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 15, 2013)

Hoary old argument -the body size - have you sat a NEX next to a 5D with battery pack? Also if you have good dslr kit and a lot of lenses and don't want to keep investing in upgrading to yet another dslr body then what is wrong running any EVIL type body on any EOS lens? Perhaps you are not going to buy EOS lenses for your NEX because of this but you sure have an alternative use for your existing lenses here.

0 upvotes
intruder61
By intruder61 (Jan 14, 2013)

one of the better "inventions" made for photography.
this is going to be good.

0 upvotes
joepix
By joepix (Jan 14, 2013)

Hmm.. how many stops could be gained if they made one of these to convert medium format lenses to Micro 4/3s or even to use medium format on full frame? I'd love to use my old Hassy lenses again.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

More..but Medium format lenses tend to be slower than full frame; might also be expensive.

0 upvotes
joepix
By joepix (Jan 14, 2013)

But you'd gain 2 or more stops on a NEX sensor. My 180mm Hassy f4 would be an f2 or f1.8. That would be so sweet.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 15, 2013)

Exactly the same. It doens't matter what format lens was designed for, they shrink the FOV and by 0.71, while the aperture is the same, so that results in 1/0.71 = 1.4 (less due to losses in their adapter) increase in f/stop. The same amount of light will cover smaller area, nothing more. B.t.w. vignetting may become a serious problem.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 15, 2013)

Re Forpetessake: OP is speaking of a "medium format to MFT adapter" Metabones does not make this type of unit. So far they only have one set of optics, .71x. If they did have a Medium format to MFT 1:1 I would assume the FOV would be the same as a native MF camera and light output would be 2-3 stops faster.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 15, 2013)

@forpetessake

You might want to check if what you're saying is really true. m43 format is smaller than APS-C, for example, so the image could be shrunk smaller than 0.71, and made brighter. You could even go smaller with smaller formats, always getting a brighter and smaller image. Yes, there will be limits to what they can do, but the 0.71 number in this case comes from the size of the format they are starting with, nothign else. That number could (and should) be different for different formats. People are using a magnifying glass analogy. If you shrink light down small enough, it gets VERY bright, hot enough to burn! I think you'd agree that that represents more than a stop gain in light intensity? So with smaller formats, you can shrink the image smaller, and make it brighter, because you are going in the direction of the magnifying glass scenario.

0 upvotes
z9z9z9z9
By z9z9z9z9 (Jan 15, 2013)

> the 0.71 number in this case comes from the size of the format they are starting with, nothign else.

.71 is not arbitrary, it's one divided by the square root of two.

0 upvotes
martin0reg
By martin0reg (Jan 15, 2013)

I hope they can make a version with a higher "compression" of 0.5 (instead of 0.7) and with gain of 2 stops (instead of 1). This would fit the "shrink" ratio of mFT to FX.
I would love to put my old nikkors on my pana GH without any crop factor - 1.4/35 would become 0.7/35 equivalent ... sounds crazy, ridicoulos FOV, ND filter are needed...

1 upvote
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Jan 14, 2013)

No aperture control on new lenses right?
Unless I am missing a tab or adjusting ring somewhere...

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

electronic, control via camera.

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (Jan 14, 2013)

the element on this converter looks as though it protrudes significantly into the lens-side.

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (Jan 14, 2013)

I bet nikon DX lenses (like the 35/1.8) would work without vignetting with the MFT-NikonF adaptor. That would yield a 25mm f/1.3 lens that would probably be pretty sharp.

1 upvote
martin0reg
By martin0reg (Jan 14, 2013)

There are tele converters 1.4x and 2.0x.
What about a booster 0.5x - for FX lenses on mFT?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Airless
By Airless (Jan 14, 2013)

So if you used this adapter with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6, that gives an effective focal length of 12-24mm, you could have an effective focal length of 8.5mm at f/3.2? If so that is incredible.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

If the crop is 1.5x then it would be a 8.52-17.04mm

0 upvotes
bydloman
By bydloman (Jan 14, 2013)

Unluckily you'll probably see the lens hood at 8mm :-/ (you can't remove it)
Should work at 16mm.

Tokina 11-16 should work at 16 as well, and if I understood it correctly you'll have an almost right 16mm field of view at around f2.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

It should work on all DX lenses that are used on FF cameras, like the Tokina and Nikon 35mm F1.8G

0 upvotes
gatorowl
By gatorowl (Jan 15, 2013)

What am I missing? The release clearly stated that the adapter only works on FX (full-frame) lenses, not DX/APS-C lenses.

The camera with the adapter uses much more of the lens than it does without the adapter. There would be horrible vignetting with APS-C lenses, so the Sigma 8-16mm would only be useable, perhaps, at 15-16mm.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

FAQ

-What does it do: Makes image circle smaller to fit small sensors better. You can also call this a anti crop adapter.
-Will not work on any DSLR (only mirrorless cameras)
-Does it work: Yes
-Does it degrade image quality: No, it might make it a bit better (on small sensor) How is this possible? Same reason every picture looks good on a 4x6 vs Poster size
-Does it make my lens faster: It makes the image circle smaller so "more light" (think back to burning ants with a magnifying glass when you were a kid)
-Why has this not been done before? Mirrorless cameras have only been out for a few years.
-Has this been technology been used before? Yes, the Olympus 14-35mm F2 and 35-100mm F2 are in reality 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 lens but with a adapter "built in" and these are known as the finest and fastest zoom lenses of their kind. Also check out the world of telescopes.

Feel free to add to this list.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
17 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Jan 14, 2013)

Very helpful, thanks.

This is quite the development, although comes at a time I guess when mirrorless platforms are fleshing out their lens line ups but still, really interesting.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

My guess this is big news for RED and other cine camera users since most sensors are super 35. These users have issues finding good quality wide glass. RED might have to make a new mount to make this work (I think they have two different ones EF, PL)

2 upvotes
noirdesir
By noirdesir (Jan 15, 2013)

Kodak held a patent on it and was not very willing on licensing it. Put with Kodak being cut into pieces and their patents sold to other companies this probably made things a lot easier.

See this post: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/34260487

2 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 15, 2013)

The concepts behind this are straightforward and nothing that wasn't understood a century ago. Maybe two. Kodak no doubt had patents on many things, including designs for similar dohickeys, but that wouldn't have stopped others from legally making adapters using the same well-understood optical principles. The laws of physics, including optics, can't be patented. Not that people don't try.

1 upvote
_sem_
By _sem_ (Jan 15, 2013)

I think thorough IQ tests on different lenses with comparison to native lenses for the smaller system will be needed to tell if the thing is worth the price.
And, native lenses will still be smaller and lighter compared to canikon on this adapter (notice the size of Oly F2 lenses). So if the idea of going mirrorless is to pack light, this is a workaround for those that want to make some use of their old big lenses but don't mind carrying the weight now and then. Essentially, they might be better served by a full-frame mirrorless body. I wander if a well-made converter might happen to speed up AF, which is the issue with large-sensor mirrorless.

2 upvotes
David Myers
By David Myers (Jan 14, 2013)

I wish people would read the full article before they mouth off with a load of negative rubbish. 1. By compressing the image the light intensity increases (think of focusing the sun to a spot with a simple magnifier). 2. By reducing the image size you reduce down the physical size of any aberrations as well so the image really IS much sharper and appears much better corrected at the sensor plane. DP Review were good enough to provide a link to the white paper - read it and 'engage your brain before driving your mouth!

Now when will Nikon bring out a mirrorless APS-C that I can use it with so my 28mm f/2.8 will become a 14mm f/1.4?

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

I hope they come out with a 1:1 optics for APS, MFT and Nikon CX. At the moment, they seem to be using the same optics in all the adapters.

I'm going to guess that it might be too expensive to make a Medium format adapter but we might see them when we have full frame mirrorless cameras.

0 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Jan 14, 2013)

Been reading the specs a bit but not sure about one thing: I get the impression the IS on Canon lenses would be functional even while using the speedbooster on for example NEX. Right or wrong?

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

Seems like the adapter will have full electronics but I'm sure if there are issues it will be related to IS and Auto Focus. Optics look really good.

I would like to see a cheep adapter for classic lenses with no electronics. $300-400 would be a good price.

0 upvotes
Vince876
By Vince876 (Jan 14, 2013)

Optically nothing new, just see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecompressor, they are used when you want to fit a larger Sky subject inside your frame and, yes they do luminosity gain. The problem is if they make the AF work properly, in astrophotography the subject is always at the infinite mark ... :-)

2 upvotes
erichK
By erichK (Jan 15, 2013)

Exactly! Such "telecompressors" or focal length reducers have been used for decades in visual astronomy and astrophotography, which are, btw, quite demanding applications in terms of resolution, contrast and minimizing flare.

0 upvotes
Stefan Zeiger
By Stefan Zeiger (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm wondering about the AF limitations. What feature do these "late-model" Canon lenses have that they need to get AF working? AF has always been controlled electronically in EF lenses, so shouldn't this be pretty trivial with contrast detection in the camera?

Incidentally, I've got a Canon system and have considered buying a NEX body lately (any NEX7 successor in sight yet?), so this would make the decision a lot simpler. However, my most-used lenses are Tamrons, and all my lenses are pre-2006.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 14, 2013)

If you look back at the product from which this has been developed, there's a more detailed explanation: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/13/Metabones-conurus-adds-autofocus-for-recent-canon-ef-ef-s-lenses-to-e-mount-nex-adapter

I suspect the answer is down to how well a lens designed for phase-detection can be driven to allow its use with contrast-detection AF.

1 upvote
jpr2
By jpr2 (Jan 14, 2013)

they have been pretty honest abt. limitations of AF speed achievable through Conurus EF to E-mount smart adapter: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50285292

0 upvotes
Stefan Zeiger
By Stefan Zeiger (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanks, that sheds some light on the issue. I guess it's not as simple as telling the lens to just move the focus distance forwards or backwards since these lenses are optimized for phase-detect where the command from the camera would be "set the focus to X meters". I just wish they didn't disable it by default. If you can't get accurate AF with a lens, you can always fall back to MF on your own.

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Jan 14, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 14, 2013)

Maybe you missed it: "The Speed Booster also promises sharper images compared to using the lens with a simple adapter."

Also, this adapter will not only benefit photographers, but videographers looking for more lens mounting options, and for a way to obtain wider viewing angles on m43 mount cameras like the Black Magic Cinema camera. See the stir this adapter is creating on NoFilmSchool. The wheels are turning for many.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/metabones-speed-booster-lenses/

4 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (Jan 14, 2013)

Hard to imagine it but this should improve the apparent resolution of the lens (provided the converter itself has good optics). I've read that the Olympus f2 zooms, probably the best zooms ever made in terms of optical quality, use this technology. Definitely something to get excited about.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 14, 2013)

A 4x6 print from a 1200x1800 pixel image is no sharper than a billboard-sized print from the same image. Nobody's eye can detect more information in the 4x6 print than in the billboard. The information is the same in both cases, by definition. So saying that you get a sharper image through compression, is like saying that the 4x6 image contains more information than the billboard-sized print. It doesn't. It can't.

Conclusion: OP is right about this device not increasing sharpness. The limit of sharpness is what the original lens takes in. How could more information, from the real-life scene that is being photographed, be added to the image in the space from the back of the original lens, through the adapter, to the sensor? There is no real-life information there to add. All you do is hope not to degrade things too much.

Conclusion #2: Nevertheless, OP is ALL WET. This looks like a very cool device that adds some serious capability to mirrorless cameras, except for pixel-peepers.

1 upvote
Hugo600si
By Hugo600si (Jan 14, 2013)

@bobbarber, there is extra information, the area that now falls outside the APS-C sensor. This lens takes the full frame image and reduces its size, some quality of the full frame will be lost due to the lenses, but you can gain a bit as well (let the reviews decide how much)

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 14, 2013)

@Hugo600si,

Your point is well taken, but I see it as tangential to the argument people are making (or implying), or else I'm completely misunderstanding what people are saying.

What I hear is this: An argument that the fully visible image on an APS-C sensor via adapter will be sharper than the fully visible image on a FF sensor. That just ain't so. The image will be denser, but not sharper.

Otherwise, we have to believe that microfilm is "sharper" than the newspaper it is reproducing, etc. Microfilm is denser than the original image, but not more detailed, which is what sharper means to me.

Maybe I'm misusing these terms!

0 upvotes
DtEW
By DtEW (Jan 15, 2013)

@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.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Jan 15, 2013)

If they say it makes images sharper, that settles it. Proof to follow.

0 upvotes
brkl
By brkl (Jan 14, 2013)

Now make one that turns a 300mm large format lens into an ungodly light-capturing beast.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

What about about a Can/Nik 300mm F2.8 to pentax Q adapter? 300mm F0.0001
But they only sold about 10 pentax Q's :(

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 14, 2013)

An expensive way to make optical magic :) Not many lens mounts yet. And the planned ones are rather esoteric. No Pentax and Sony :(

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 14, 2013)

If this thing works WELL and does what it says it will....then it is CHEAP! As for Pentax/Sony......they are starting out with the Canon mount for a simple reason...Canon sells more DSLR's than anyone else. This is also the reason I chose Canon over Nikon 10 years ago....bigger lens selection.

0 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (Jan 14, 2013)

Brilliant! I didn't think a focal reducer would be feasible.

This is definitely going to make things very interesting for APS-C vs. FF. Right now, the Sony NEX-7's 24MP APS-C is looking darn good against the new crop of 24MP FF... this makes it an even closer battle....

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 14, 2013)

Focus reducers are very feasible IFF the sensor size is smaller the the lens image circle. And you do get a faster lens. Thats the most amazing thing. But --- due to vignetting there is a limit. And they claim it to be F0.9. Cool! Would be nice to try it with a F1.4 lens and get F1.0.

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm not sure why you think this is very interesting. Why does this bode well for Nex-7 against FF cameras? What's this about a battle?

Just like a teleconverter, no doubt there is certainly going to be image degredation. Moreover, I'm not sure any gain in f/stop is as much as there was a loss in the first place. The APS-C sill has a higher pixel density and all that goes with that.

As far as degredation goes, anytme you stick extra glass in there, you're deviating from the optical formula and in this case, by quite a bit. This is a one size fits all type thing where you're adding the same extra formula to all lenses. Some will probably degrade a lot more than others.

What it boils down to is that I'd not put one of these on a camera I owned under any circumstances. One would have to be a real gearhead to go so far as something like this. I mean, Why?

1 upvote
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (Jan 14, 2013)

It's interesting because I didn't think even a NEX E-mount flange let you get close enough to the sensor or was wide enough.

I've seen significant evidence that many lenses designed for FF actually resolve better as an APS-C crop, i.e., the center 24MP APS-C (NEX-7) is better than the 24MP FF -- thanks to bad corners on FF. This will allow the same (NEX-7) sensor to have it either way, with extra light to help even the playing field against a FF sensor in low light. We also get to be able to use legacy FF lenses for wide view angles again.

Issues? Sure. After reading the white paper:
1. I would have gone for 1X effective FF crop, not 1 stop gain.
2. I wouldn't have left SA undercorrected.
3. I agree with Guidenet that some lenses will work better than others (and fast double Gauss seems to be their target).

There will be some IQ issues from the extra glass (flare/contrast), but it might even reduce sensor reflections for some lenses. We'll see....

0 upvotes
ImagesInstyle
By ImagesInstyle (Jan 14, 2013)

so with:
Canon....its AF

but with
Nikon AI, or G Lens...its Manual operations only?

not worth it just for 1 stop and to use just manually.

Seems like the designer are some Canon Fanboys for sure.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 14, 2013)

You're saying that independent companies have to do all the work to develop models for both Canon and Nikon before they can release either?

6 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 14, 2013)

Nah ... they have just released it a bit too early methinks. Maybe they got impatience, and needed to get incomes to go on with their development.

EDIT: Oops R. Butler, we had almost the same kind of reply :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

If you look up the F mount mechanics, you will see why.

0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

Conorus, Metabones partner only developed an EF to E mount with full electronic aperture control. It only made sense to do that at this point. The MFT and the X-Mount are both in the works, and as I understand it, much easier to reverse engineer than the Nikon G standards.

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 14, 2013)

Does it work?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 14, 2013)

We'll let you know once we've got one in.

6 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

http://philipbloom.net/2013/01/13/speedbooster/

I would like to see a DPreview write up on still image quality.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Prime_Lens
By Prime_Lens (Jan 14, 2013)

I really appreciate the reference link.

Thank you.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 14, 2013)

There are some video demos of this adapter up at NoFilmSchool.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/metabones-speed-booster-lenses/

0 upvotes
Tomee21
By Tomee21 (Jan 14, 2013)

So if there will be a M4/3 version of this speed booster, I suppose its magnification will be 0,5 isn't it? As 0,71 will convert FF image circle to APS-C, but M4/3 needs a 0,5 conversion right? I hope they won't release the M4/3 booster with the same 0,71x magnification because that would be unfair. At least if I get these specifications correctly.
EDIT: I've just seen that the magnification is the same, on APS-C it is 1,1, while on M4/3 it is 1,4. Now this is much less appealing. It doesn't give you Fullframe view. I think many of us got these incorrectly from other (less detailed) news. Shame.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 14, 2013)

No - the focal length multiplier is 0.71.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jan 14, 2013)

Even at 1.4x that's still an improvement over nothing for m4/3 (if you're looking for a wider angle of view anyway) and the fact that Metabones is showing it's possible may prompt other companies to release similar adapters specific to m43.

Plus being 0.71x means that APS lenses can be adapted to m4/3, where if it was 0.5x only full frame lenses would work without vignetting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 15, 2013)

The APS-C to 4/3rds magnification is of course the exact same as the ff to APS-C magnification. Maybe that's something they have in mind? The optics would be needlessly large though for the aps-c to 4/3rds task but I don't think that will stop it.

0 upvotes
Starred
By Starred (Jan 14, 2013)

http://bnaro.com/b/metabones-speed-booster-an-unbelievable-adapter/

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 14, 2013)

Once I had a solution adapting Leica lenses by a “lense adapter” to Nikon. It was degrading the quality. Bringing in a further lens(system) will lower the total output. At least one must obey the laws of optical permissions in physics and transfer this to the average practical photographic use.

But, I am open if this new approach is “quite” close to perfection. This would be then a great solution to the "ugly crop” factor. One just needs some more scientific answers before buying. Reading their claim in the white paper “essentially zero spherical aberration”: this is only for the rare physical environment described therein, and doubtful for practical use. In my view, the methodology is unscientific. And what is "essentially zero" - says nothing in legal terms.

I also do not like marketing jargon in this context like “speed booster”, or “It’s too Good to be True”. This is 1850s century style for me. Those are just some of my personal feelings.

3 upvotes
napilopez
By napilopez (Jan 14, 2013)

I don't think there's a need to be so doubtful. The

Also, although I'd normally agree with you, it's not really marketing jargon. It actually is making the lens "faster", as speed is normally understood in a photographic context.

Ultimately we will see, but at the very least for video use there seems to be no apparent adverse effect, given the samples demonstrated.

0 upvotes
Lights
By Lights (Jan 14, 2013)

It sounds like a great idea. Think though I'll wait and read some user opinions, and reviews, before plunking down that kind of cash. It would be nice to use my manual lenses wider (although that's possible now with a wide angle converter with limitations - size). It would also be great to use my Canon lenses on M4/3. But it's not cheap, and not altogether proven in real world use, yet.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jan 14, 2013)

See if I get this...

If I use this between the Canon EFS 15-85mm IS USM f3.5-5.6 and a MFT body (like the OMD EM5 or GH3) I would get the equivalent of a 21-120mm IS USM f2.8-3.5 lens?

Focal length X2 and then X0.71. ?

Then with the the MFT Digital Tele Converter (x2 crop) the same lens would also allow FHD video at 42-240mm with IS and USM at f2.8-3.5?

SWEET!

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Jan 14, 2013)

This adapter doesn't work with EF-S lenses, so unfortunately that won't work.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

It should work with EF-S lenses if you adapt it to u4/3. In your example the 15-85 would turn into a 11-60mm and when you slap it on a u4/3 body it would go to 22-120mm (f2.8-3.5?)

If your trying to figure it would it should be (Native lens) times .71= X Then you take X times crop factor and you get your final result.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanks for the reply Andy but then I don't understand why the white paper says "DX" to "Micro 4/3" = "Yes" on page 3?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 14, 2013)

APS-C to 4/3 should be possible, but I wonder if the design of the EF-S rear element would make it physically unable to be mounted. That is the case with teleconverters and EF-S lenses.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Jan 15, 2013)

Canon EF-S lenses won't fit on this adapter for the same reason they don't fit on full frame EOS bodies - they're physically blocked from mounting. Nikon DX lenses (and third-party Canon EF-fit APS-C lenses for that matter) don't have the same limitation. So this is a specific limitation of the EF-S mount - all other APS-C SLR lenses should work on Micro Four Thirds cameras (in terms of coverage at least).

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanks for the clarification on the EF-S mount. Good to know.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (Jan 14, 2013)

Looks like some true innovation if the optics quality holds up.
It must be tough to design such a converter to handle all sorts of focal lengths and lens designs. I will be curious to see how this works out with various lenses.

The smaller sensor formats have always struggled to have decent wide angle designs and perhaps now some of those great full frame wides can be used again and have decent performance on DX and m43 bodies.

Personally I have an outstanding 16/3.5 AI Nikon fisheye which appears to be better than any other fisheye I've tried - now perhaps I can use it on my m43 body and get the same excellent results with a lens I already have and get nearly the same field of view.

Who's gonna buy one first and try it out?

0 upvotes
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 14, 2013)

Fantastic idea !
However, I seriously doubt I would pay twice as much for an adapter than I did for the camera or lens. Just sayin'.

rd

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Prime_Lens
By Prime_Lens (Jan 14, 2013)

Quite interesting.. but it is a total donkey doo doo.

I am sure it will make it stop faster.
More light concentration is more light concentration, after all.

Sharper? Revolutionary?
Nah~
All they are doing is slapping in a piece of convex glass to an existing adapter.
And every time you add more layer of glass to the lens, the IQ goes down, and becomes more prone to internal flare and ghosting. Because it creates yet another glass surface for light to penetrate or bounce off of.

It's a fool's gold guys..

2 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

Hardly just slapping a single lens behind it. 4 elements means there's correction for aberrations and other optical issues. There's no doubt this will degrade some of the image, however, the increase of MTF by reducing the image does increase the sharpness compared to an unmodified adapter. Net result is more likely a wash in terms of image quality.

Internal reflections are also reduced by using multiple coatings. This has always been the case (ie. multi-coated lenses vs single-coated lenses).

As skeptical as you might be, the concept has always been simple and probable to do, however there was never a reason to do so until mirrorless made it possible with more space to add those corrective elements.

It's not fool's gold if it increases resolution, maintains the field of view of the 135 format lenses and also the DoF properties.

4 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Jan 14, 2013)

"Every time you add more layer of glass to the lens the IQ goes down" - Right which is why all manufacturers design lenses with a single glass element. right? :)

You are right that having more glass can have an adverse impact on quality. But remember lenses themselves have anywhere from 5 to 20 glass elements. These large number of glass elements are needed to eliminate the aberrations and the glass used is high quality to give high IQ. So no adding glass elements does not always lead to "degradation", it can lead to improvements as well if it is used to reduce aberrations. This adapter is also a fairly sophisticated 4-element design and not just a single piece of cheap glass. Being a $600 adapter it can include high quality glass elements like original lenses (it might even have better glass than some of the cheaper lenses) and by reducing the aberrations as explained in the white paper, it is actually quite plausible that it improves overall quality.

1 upvote
Prime_Lens
By Prime_Lens (Jan 14, 2013)

You both are correct.
4 elements of glasses probably used to correct optical aberrations.
Be it a spherical aberration, chromatic aberration and/or de-focus aberration.
It might be even plausible like you say.
But just how plausible?
Again it is quite interesting (idea), but odds are against them.
They made some bold (almost magical) claims and even have a pre-order page up.
However they have no tangible data to back their claims.
So, until I see some results, I will just happily remain as a non-believer and reserve my applause for later.

BTW, glass elements/groups in lens are what they are for making the lens what it is.
This is add on.
It makes quite the difference.

1 upvote
Sosua
By Sosua (Jan 14, 2013)

I think the fact it was designed by the guy who made the coastal Optics 60 and its $600 is more encouraging than if it cost $100...

We will see, essentially seems to be a way of getting 'FF' look from your FF lenses on APSC

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 14, 2013)

This almost sorta makes sense for a few lenses on APS-C to give that FF look. But for m43, just buy a used NEX body for your adapted lenses and call it a day.

This would be a little more exciting if it worked with native mount lenses instead of just adapted ones.

0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

Never work with native lenses because of the flange distance. You always have to take a larger format lens to a smaller capture medium. That's the nature of focal reducers.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 14, 2013)

I find it HILARIOUS to see people here who say they can't wait to get their hands on it so that their MFT behaves like, or becomes as good as, an APSC...
and up until yesterday we were still reading comments in from the MFT crowd how good (or better) their cameras are than APSC.

6 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (Jan 14, 2013)

Hopefully they are two different groups of people :) I'm an MFT fan, know the strengths and weaknesses of MFT versus APS-C and full frame, and am in no rush to go out and get some EF or Nikon lenses and this adapter. I can't think of any lens I'm longing for that isn't available in an MFT mount (which is a much different statement than saying that all full frame lenses have MFT equivalents). Maybe it is a different story if one is running both an MFT system AND a dSLR system with two sets of lenses...

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

If you find that funny, you have a odd sense of humor. What they are speaking of is options. I currently own a Zeiss 2,8/15, 2/25, and 2/100 and it would be nice to use them on the OMD with this adapter. It will create a segment of lenses not available in any other format. Ever seen a Zeiss 10.7mm f2 or a 17.75mm f1.4 or a 71mm f1.4. In the MFT world that would be like having a 21mm f2, 35mm f1.4, and 142mm f1.4. Those are just the lenses I own. Again..why is it funny to have options?

10 upvotes
Boomanbb
By Boomanbb (Jan 14, 2013)

This is very similar to focal reducers used on telescopes to make it easier for astrophotography. Very common and been around a long time.

Ben

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 14, 2013)

Quote: "This also promises sharper images compared to using the same lens with a simple, non-optical adapter, as the visibility of aberrations is reduced."

I am sure, that if any serious tests are done, this will turn out to be a crock of BS. It is a known fact that adapters with a lens increase chromatic aberrations. This is obviously more marketing spin than science.
Maybe I'm sounding a bit harsh... but for $600, which is the price of an apsc camera body, there is no excuse for marketing hype substituting physics!

I use a $20 adapter with no optics in it, and my 50mm f1.4 retains all it's glory in the results it produces.

3 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Jan 14, 2013)

Not necessarily. At the end of the day if the glass elements used in an adapter are as high quality as the one's used in the lenses themselves then it doesn't have to degrade quality. The loss mostly comes because the adapters use cheap glass elements. But here we are talking about a $600 adapter, not a $50 adapter so it could have high quality glass elements.

Unlike other adapters, with their adapter you don't just take the center crop of the larger FF image circle and throw away the "extra". Instead they are taking all the light from the larger image circle and projecting that onto the smaller sensor. Thats where they claim the improvement comes in. It sounds plausible though we don't know how true the improvements are in reality. Maybe it is just a marketing claim or maybe there actually is an improvement. But why don't we wait until the product has been tested and then pass judgement

8 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 14, 2013)

Look up the person that designed it before you put your foot in your mouth (too late for that?) He has designed near perfect lenses for forensics and other specialized fields. If you want some tests, go to Phillip blooms website, he is a video guy but did a good review on this unit already. What I do agree is that it did sound too good to be true at first, but the physics are sound.

5 upvotes
W Sanders
By W Sanders (Jan 14, 2013)

But this isn't that kind of an adapter, it matches the focal length almost 1:1. Doesn't solve the problem I think most people need solved, which is the lack of long fast teles for m4/3, but hey.

I've tried a $20 adapter with my Panasonic GF bodies and my old twist on Canon lenses and the pictures look like crap. My theory is that internal reflections inside the body "fog" the image. Some lenses work better than others, and stopping the lens down helps cut the fog, which is exactly not the point when using a long tele.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Jan 14, 2013)

There's no indication that the ͎μ4/3 version will not also be a 0.71X (actually sqrt(2)/2, or 0.7071) converter, which means that you'd still get a 1.4X crop factor out of the deal (along with the full stop of brightness). So a 300mm/2.8 would be equivalent to about 425mm (35mm equiv for length, given 212mm and change actual system focal length and a subsequent 2X crop factor) at f/2.0 (actual speed, f/4 for 35mm-equiv DoF purposes) on ͎μ4/3. Where I come from, that ain't too shabby.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 14, 2013)

Wow, it's 2013 already, but the "magical properties" snake oil carnival barkers & vendors of the 19th century are still out in force, it seems. About half the new product announcements posted here seem to be rather grotesque, unfortunately.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Jan 14, 2013)

You got that right! LOL

1 upvote
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

If we believed this, then you should also think the same of a magnifying glass. You should not be able to light a fire by shining the sun through a piece of glass. How can you compress light? that sounds like witchcraft to me.

12 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 14, 2013)

It works. I promise you. It wont be perfect with many lenses though. But - for some it will do exactly what it says.

The main reason it works is because 4/3 is a smaller format that FF and APS-C.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 15, 2013)

Hahah! This isn't magic at all. In fact, this is the perfect time for this to appear. There's a market for it, and it is now technically possible.

For this to come about there needed to be A) mirrorless cameras with room to jam some elements behind B) a strong market to consume widgets for said cameras and C) someone with the know-how to design it. It probably took a couple years to design the optics to be optimal for a couple different mounts.

So, this isn't magic, and it's sensible that it is coming out now.

If it confuses you, don't worry about it. Mostly because your worries won't stop it from working. But also because, hey, why worry?

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Jan 14, 2013)

I am thinking this makes all the interesting lenses at the Cameraquest site that much more interesting.

2 upvotes
Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul
By Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul (Jan 14, 2013)

Hope it's not ruins camera & lens. Amen...

0 upvotes
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (Jan 14, 2013)

A very interesting and useful gadget!

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Jan 14, 2013)

Great product!
Great news for all APSC cameras.
Must buy.

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 14, 2013)

This thread goes to show people will complain about anything!

7 upvotes
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (Jan 14, 2013)

Is that a complaint? ;o)

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't like your complaint about complaining!

0 upvotes
Peter Heckert2
By Peter Heckert2 (Jan 14, 2013)

Set a magnifying lens in front of the sensor, and you get a bigger sensor.
Set a stray lens in front of the sensor and you get a smaller sensor.
Its that easy ;-)

Ok it is not so easy to maintain the focus distances, but it is possible.

Hopefully the ridiculous urban legend about sensor size and DOF will die now.

Peter

7 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

urban legend? Doesn't this kind of confirm it rather than debunk it. It makes it possible to have the same DoF properties on a smaller sensor, so not so urban legend.

What I'd like to see is a larger format lens with this adapter applied to it to put onto my 135 format equipment.

This would put to rest the idea that Medium Format has an advantage over 135 format. Pair this idea with a Carl Zeiss 80mm F/2 and a Nikon D800E, and there would be absolutely no reason to go medium format.

0 upvotes
martin0reg
By martin0reg (Jan 14, 2013)

Yes ist seems to be so easy - but vice versa:
- stray lens in a conventional tele-converter
- magnifying lens in the speed booster
Or did I get it wrong?

0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Jan 14, 2013)

I think there's also some confusion by what sharper means (some people have even said 'better'). It's important to note that this is on the adapted camera, not better or sharper in the sense of something like a full frame camera.

If anything the best that it would get from an MTF chart would be equal to each other comparing the same lens on both the FF camera and an adapted APS-C camera.

This does not improve the optics of the lens, it improves resolution on an adapted sensor because the LP/H has been increased for more pixels per line height with the focal reducer element.

1 upvote
Total comments: 457
123