Knallberto
Veteran Member
All people will believe it and are searching red/yellow/blue/infrared/ultraviolet easter eggs on Dec. 24th !
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What if Sony made an NEX w/built in SB on aps-c and called it full frame.?
- Thread starter Tastybread
- Start date
Tastybread
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 36
Christ you guys. Sorry I asked the question. People in this forum have used "SB" to reference Speed Booster multiple times. Thanks for turning this thread into a discussion completely outside of what it was intended, even after the mistake i made was clarified.
Lightshow
Veteran Member
Sony wouldn't call it FF, and its mount would have to be different to accommodate the SB'S elements, and I don't see Sony making a whole new mount vs just making a FF sensor NEX.
Adding a SB to a few wide FF lenses I can see them doing if they needed to, and the SB will be optimized for the lens vs kind of optimized for a range of lenses.
Adding a SB to a few wide FF lenses I can see them doing if they needed to, and the SB will be optimized for the lens vs kind of optimized for a range of lenses.
Assuming English is your mother tongue; which it is not for many users on this boards.
Back to topic (and in Gary's preferred grammatical layout):
Tastybread wrote: "Would that be an acceptable trade off or would you ignore it as a full frame camera?"
In my humble opinion (IMHO) - I don't think so as such a technique would not give you the reduced high ISO (sorry, International Standards Organization) noise, the larger dynamic range (DR) and higher resolution of real Full-Frame (FF) sensors. It would be difficult to see how Sony could market this, especially given that they are already one of the leading manufacturers of current FF sensors (and already include such a sensor in their RX1 compact). The increased Depth of Field (DoF) would be the only really marketability element, but that relies so heavily on the lens that even that would be difficult.
Someone (somewhere above) mentioned the possibility of simply manufacturing a focal reducer (FR) element to the back of a lens to increase its factorial system (F) stop. I don't understand enough about lens design, but surely this must have been done before... and if it hasn't, then why not? Where's my 16-47/F2 (24-70/2.8 + FR)? ;-)
straylightrun
Senior Member
Are you seriously complaining about that on the internet? Do you also get confused about LOL and WTF? Wow.GaryR60 wrote:
Man, I hate it when people assume that I have a problem finding information when what I am talking about is their own ignorance of English composition standards. The point was that you should NEVER use an abbreviation without first spelling out the words in question, followed immediately by their abbreviation in parentheses, like this: "Speed Booster (SB)." That has been the standard in English grammar for at least a couple of centuries.straylightrun wrote:
Man, I hate it when people are on the internet and complain they can't find information
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sony+nex+sb
Richard Ettinger
Senior Member
they won't.
Nikon used a built in the body focal reducer back in the mid 1990s with their E2/E2s digital models .
- John
You asked a question , and got some good replies , even though the question was ignorant .
What more do yo want ?
The physical size of a sensor can not be changed by optical trickery, or anything else .
The SB or Turbo-something thingies will degrade IQ, to whatever degree, but they will, like even the very best, lens-specific FL converters do .
Hence, a built-in lens converter would make any camera mediocre .
Richard Ettinger
Senior Member
How did that impact lens sales? the impetus to purchase the speed booster is to support FF lenses on mirrorless cameras. What's in it for Sony to build a camera like that? (I'd buy one of course.)fotowbert wrote:
Nikon used a built in the body focal reducer back in the mid 1990s with theirE2/E2s digital models .
- John
That being said, I've loaded up with legacy glass in the last year. On line classifieds like Craig's List have brought many a bargain lens my way.
Canon 40D. Canon 50mm f1.4, canon 135mm 2.8/soft focus, Canon 70-200 f4L, Canon 24-105L. Sony Nex-7.
I doubt it had any effect. The whole point of the Nikon E2/E2s with its built in focal reducer was to allow FF angle of view with the existing F mount lens inventory on its small 2/3 inch CCD sensor. History has shown what succeeded in the marketplace was making the sensor larger (APS-c), accepting the 1.5 crop factor, and designing APS-c specific lenses with shorter focal lengths.Richard Ettinger wrote:
How did that impact lens sales?fotowbert wrote:
Nikon used a built in the body focal reducer back in the mid 1990s with theirE2/E2s digital models .
- John
I agree. It is a rather niche market however as those of us who want to use FF lenses are likely relatively few compared to total mirrorless sales.
I wouldn't. I favor a separate focal reducer in an adapter as it allows one more options IMO.
I also doubt that Sony would ever consider it profitable to market such a camera, but Hasselblad might. They would find a NEX with the added bulk of a built in focal reducer an idea product to wrap in exotic wood or perhaps titanium with 14 K gold and diamond accents. :-D
My interest in NEX was sparked when I discovered one could use legacy Canon FD glass once again in the digital age. If Metabones markets a FD to NEX Speed Booster I expect to be spending an unjustifiable amount of money to use some lenses I should have sold years ago.
- John
Laughing out loud (LOL). You get an "A" for the day, Rob.
No, I don't. The fact that the internet is rife with poor grammar doesn't excuse it, does it? Ignorance is still ignorance, no matter where it is presented.straylightrun wrote:
Are you seriously complaining about that on the internet? Do you also get confused about LOL and WTF? Wow.GaryR60 wrote:
Man, I hate it when people assume that I have a problem finding information when what I am talking about is their own ignorance of English composition standards. The point was that you should NEVER use an abbreviation without first spelling out the words in question, followed immediately by their abbreviation in parentheses, like this: "Speed Booster (SB)." That has been the standard in English grammar for at least a couple of centuries.straylightrun wrote:
Man, I hate it when people are on the internet and complain they can't find information
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sony+nex+sb
ryansholl
Leading Member
Given that they could make their own e-mount focal reducer w/ electrical contacts for a-mount glass (think of the la-ea1 but with glass) and have both e-mount and a-mount in the same package.
Sorry for steering it off-topic. I had no idea everyone was going to be so defensive of poor grammar.
Thanks Gary! I actually had to look up a bunch of those ;-)GaryR60 wrote:
Laughing out loud (LOL). You get an "A" for the day, Rob.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum