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

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.

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

@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).

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

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.

The Canon adapter /is/ AF.

No, but for OM lenses.

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).

> exposure is independent of sensor size

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

@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".

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?

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).

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

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.

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.

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).

> 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.

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.

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).

@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. :-)

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 :(

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).

@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.

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

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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.