Speedbooster on NEX 7 (I'm full frame baby!)

[david_smith110]

<p>The C/Y to NEX Speedbooster was finally in stock at Metabones so I ordered one up. So glad I did. My NEX is now for all intents and purposes a FF camera, while my lenses are one stop faster. I have a lot of testing to do with it but from the preliminary results it seems to be working as advertised. It is really nice to have all my lenses at almost the exact focal length they are supposed to be.</p>

<p>Here are some examples using the Yashica ML 50/1.7 (Series 2). The macro photos were shot on tubes. I am planing on getting a Planar 50/1.7 but I dont know, this ML is pulling out some nice pics. I was also going to pick up a Distagon 28/2.8 to go along with the Planar but I my get the Sonnar 85/2.8 instead of the Planar and let this little ML take care of the work between them.</p>

<p>Anyone else out there in Mirrorless land have a SB yet?</p>

<p><em>to be a child again</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8373/8577696941_99eae2f6a1_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>a world of color</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8243/8582856295_a0164ebdce_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>drowning in the bokeh sea</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8530/8583958188_3f9d50a7ba_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>alien harvester</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8518/8583956630_ee9f6641ca_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Oh Noes! The monkey sees me!</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8525/8582857955_f65f8efc54_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>fade to pale</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8232/8583959748_58b1bd2749_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>yummy bottle</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8384/8578801312_59ab39682c_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em></p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Congratulation! Too much bokeyy for me tho:)))</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Seems like it is a solidly made device, so the price is high. Lens mount converter/adapter and the speedbooster in one device is a good idea.</p>

<p>Call it "rear mount wide angle lens adapter" or "ïnverse tele converter" or "focal length reducer"- since at the same max lens opening diameter the focal length got shorter, naturally, the max aperture was increased by 1 stop, and the speed boost claim is real for the shortened lens.</p>

<p>However, how would you explain your claim that you have a full frame, while the maker says something like:</p>

<p>"<em>This adapter has a circular opening whose diameter is not big enough to cover a full-size 36mm x 24mm sensor."</em></p>

<p>Perhaps you mean full APS-C frame of pixels, 24 MP of them?</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Thanks Leslie. And while I shoot wide open or close to it most of the time on these shots I did go a little over the top on bokeh. I was really using selective focus to the utmost. :)</p>

<p>Frank, by FF I mean that the SB allows my lenses to be just about the focal length they would be on a FF camera. It takes the entire (almost) image from the FF lens and compresses it down to the APS-C sensor. For instance, my ML 50/1.7 becomes an ML 53/1.2 using the SB.That is much better then the 75mm it becomes using a normal adapter. My understanding is you also gain the shallower depth of field available from a FF setup. But no, my NEX 7 is not suddenly a FF camera, but the effects mimic a FF body very closely. So much so that the FF NEX 9 is going to have to be pretty darn good for me to justify the cash Sony is probably going to ask for it when it debuts. As far as Im concerned I basically have a FF NEX.</p>

<p>BTW, for anyone who is interested, the focal length equation is (FL) x 0.71 x 1.5= new focal length</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Thanks for posting, David! Those Contax Zeiss lenses are amazing, I hear. I have my sights on a Leica M system, but I am still curious about the SB (which I rightly assumed would give great images). I'd like to know:</p>

<p>1. Does it increase sharpness with both average and good lenses?</p>

<p>2. Does it reduce light fall-off in the corners? If you used the same lens on a 24x36mm sensor, would it have more LFO than when used with a SB+NEX?</p>

<p>3. Does it reduce CA, especially with WA lenses in the corners?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>The SB in question is like $400 --much cheaper than a second hand leica lens-- how much do you want it to do, Karim? Asking the impossible?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1. Does it increase sharpness with both average and good lenses?<br>

2. Does it reduce light fall-off in the corners? If you used the same lens on a 24x36mm sensor, would it have more LFO than when used with a SB+NEX?<br>

3. Does it reduce CA, especially with WA lenses in the corners?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get PS and be done with it. Are you silly drunk? becoming a leica snob? or just plain naive? The SB increase the FOV back to (almost) 135 and give you a full stop! And all that for $400! It's pretty good deal! </p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>BTW depends how you look at it, and if you do...the new Leica DXOmarked similar to the Nex 7 and my 4 years old d700, at over 5x the cost! </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Karim, as Leslie pointed out those are some pretty in depth questions that I simply cant answer in any definitive way right now. However I can point you to some web resources from those who have done some testing with it.</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic</p>

<p>http://www.eoshd.com/content/9485/metabones-speed-booster-adapter-full-review</p>

<p>What I can say pretty much mirrors Leslies comments as well. For the price it basically turns your NEX into a FF camera while giving your lenses a 1 stop boost for a <em>tiny fraction </em>of the cost of other available options. It is well made and so far delivers on its promises. </p>

<p>Check out those links. There is some good info there.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Thanks for the reviews, David. It's a good product, that's for sure. Still, I think I'll go for the Leica M system. Always keep an open mind, I say.</p>

<p>But - as an aside - no matter which way I cut the cake, I have noticed that DSLRs are becoming less relevant for most people, including me. I'll still hire them now and then but they feel like last month's newspaper.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Asking the impossible?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I'm just asking. ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Get PS and be done with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>PS = Photoshop? I don't use it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>becoming a leica snob?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Becoming"? BTW, how's that corner softness and barrel distortion going on those SLR lenses?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's pretty good deal!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>P.S. 'Full-frame' = 15-perf 65mm film. Perhaps 'Full-35' is a better term.<br>

I agree 100%!</p>

[andrew_hall1]

<p>It never amazes me how angle of view is confused with focal length.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>It never amazes <em>me </em>how people feel the need to add snarky comments to an internet forum post that add nothing useful to the discussion while also assuming the other person doesnt know what they are talking about.</p>

<p>Do you ever think I might be writing some of this stuff so the least common idiot denominator of the newbie photographic world will understand it without going into the basics on every single post? The point of this wasnt to explain angle of view vs FL, it was to highlight what the speedbooster can do in a way that <em>anyone </em>who clicks on it in from a google search can understand it without going into a boring didactic technical discussion that covers the fact that no, the speedbooster doesnt magically turn your lens back into something it never changed from in the first place.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>However, how would you explain your claim that you have a full frame, while the maker says something like:<br /> "<em>This adapter has a circular opening whose diameter is not big enough to cover a full-size 36mm x 24mm sensor."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br />It takes the image area which would be seen by a 36 x 24mm sensor or film and converges it onto a APS-C sized frame so the lens appears to have the same angle of view as it would have had on full frame.</p>

<p>What it really does is add additional positive Dioptres to the lens making the whole combination a shorter focal length. In order to focus it, it needs to move closer to the sensor. Impossible with a standard SLR due to the mirror but very easy with a mirrorless camera which has a much shorter sensor to lens mount distance.</p>

<p>So no, it's not full frame but it will certainly feel like it.</p>

<p>As for the increase in speed, F No. = focal length / aperture diameter (in its simplest form) so reducing the focal length will linearly reduce the f No.<br /><br /><br />Another way of looking at it is that it is taking all of the light which would ordinarily cover full frame and squeezing it into an APS-C frame so the light density (if such a thing exists) increases.</p>

<p>I like the idea and as far as I can tell viewing you images on a monitor, it certainly appears to work.</p>

[mostly sports]

<p>My concern is with another set of lenses to degrade the image, cause flare, and so on. It will be interesting to see some images on aps-c sensors compared with the same lens on an actual full frame.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>My concern is with another set of lenses to degrade the image, cause flare, and so on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Would you be concerned if the extra element was integral to the lens? Probably not because you wouldn't know. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It will be interesting to see some images on aps-c sensors compared with the same lens on an actual full frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that would be a good comparison.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Phil, I to was skeptical at first. Putting anything extra between the sensor and the old classic glass I shoot is simply anathema. That is why I never shot my beloved Rokkors on my Canon digitals. The adapters needed correction glass and there was no way I was going to degrade the IQ of my Minoltas with some cheap chinese made coke bottle glass.</p>

<p>But the speedbooster is different. The glass design is by Brian Caldwell who has some experience in lens design and they choose a high quality glass with some type of coating. I think I read somewhere the glass is made from ground unicorn horn and the coating is made from pixie dust. But you cant always believe what you read on the internet, right?</p>

<p>Anyway, it seems to work. So far in general shooting I have no complaints. I will try to do some comparison shots soon with the same lens on and off the speedbooster. I just dont think I would find anything so awful that it would make me give up me the benefits it provides.</p>

<p>In the meantime, check out this group that was started on Flickr especially for Speedbooster shots. There is some wonderful photography on here.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/2168861@N23/pool/with/8525339230/#photo_8525339230</p>

<p>And Steve, I agree with you. More glass elements are bad if they are high quality and executed properly. I mean, thats all lenses are really....just elements in a tube.</p>

[eric_onore]

<blockquote>

<p>My concern is with another set of lenses to degrade the image, cause flare, and so on. It will be interesting to see some images on aps-c sensors compared with the same lens on an actual full frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A tester at DPReview did just that with a Canon 6D here http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster</p>

<p> </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Folks, this concept is not new. The astronomy people have, for many years, used Barlow adapters to reduce focal length and increase angle of view. All the speedbooster is. at its heart, is a barlow. Google the terms "astronomy" and "barlow." A well-constructed barlow optic will not appreciably degrade an image.</p>

<p>Personally I think $400 is way too much to pay for a Barlow, but then again, it's a lot cheaper than any ff digital I know about. Makes me wonder if an astronomical barlow can be adapted, though.</p>

<p> </p>