Optical reducer - death of full frame?

N

nongfuspring

Well-known
Local time
6:25 AM
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
705
Not sure if anyone has already posted this, but just in case:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9467/aps-c-and-super-35mm-just-went-full-frame-metabones-speed-booster

So hopefully all the 4/3rds and APS-C people will be able to get significantly "faster" lenses and all the DOF you'd get on a full frame with no crop factor.

I have always wondered why manufacturers don't still make optical reducers (maybe someone on the forum can explain that to me.) I'm guessing it is just to artificially keep those full frames more expensive.
 
If it works as advertised it sounds like a breakthrough product, enabling (with the correct mount adapter) any legacy FF lens from any mount to be used on latest generation mirrorless camera bodies like the Fuji X-trans and Sony NEX - while retaining signature characteristics.

I'm not an optics expert. I'd be interested to hear from more informed members.

I can understand why manufacturers wouldn't want to cannibalise sales of FF bodies by producing adapters like this.
 
The way I understand it is that optical converters aren't usually fantastic unless they have some pretty well thought out optical engineering behind them, which I imagine would mean that the best results would have to be adapters tailored for specific optical formulas. I've heard these types of converters have existed for a long time, too. Could be wrong on both counts.
 
It is not really that new, and no full format killer either if we go by past experience. The Nikon E3 (which used a similar system to have no crop) was superseded by the (cropping) D1.
 
The form factor of those 4/3 or APS-C bodies might then be the only limiting factor left.

Although I sold my Carl Zeiss Jupiter-9 to a fellow forum member (who no doubt is going to use it far more than me, for much better images), I have a hard time imagining myself shooting that lens with a reducer on my Ricoh GXR-M. It would be an unbalanced rig, hard to control!

Same time, I might be interested to obtain one and use my Nikkor-S 1.4/58mm as a full frame on that Ricoh GXR-M! :cool: And if they would be available Nikon <-> Nikon, I'd get myself a D300 to use the lens on:cool::cool:
 
The glass in the new Metabones EOS/E-mount Speed Booster adapter is an optical reducer. This glass is already common on some astro-telescope camera adapters to shrink the telescope’s image to fit a digital camera body.
Click to expand...


Dylan Hope said:
The way I understand it is that optical converters aren't usually fantastic unless they have some pretty well thought out optical engineering behind them, which I imagine would mean that the best results would have to be adapters tailored for specific optical formulas. I've heard these types of converters have existed for a long time, too. Could be wrong on both counts.
Click to expand...


It was my understanding as well. Teleconverters come with numerous catches: diffraction and/or chromatic aberration and/or loss of light and (most of all) loss of resolution. In order for this to be a sensor size "killer", this adapter would have to have: 1) zero resolution loss; 2) the absolutely mostly flawless optical glass ever conceived for any camera; 3) be under $200.

None of that matters, though, if you're in the "who cares!" camp. And/or think of the iPhone as the best camera "ever".
 
sounds too good to be true, but I'm open minded, so I'll wait and see where this goes,
it might work very nice for video footage, where lower pixel counts suffice and you want crazy bokeh going on, I still have a GH-1 which I use for video so this could come in handy.

I find it amusing that all the m43 crowd is wishing for the dead of fullframe since many years,
where nowdays you can get a nice 5d classic (which is still superb btw) for around 400$ but people prefer do dish out tons of money for the latest plastic-nintendo craze cameras.
 
buzzardkid said:
The form factor of those 4/3 or APS-C bodies might then be the only limiting factor left.

Although I sold my Carl Zeiss Jupiter-9 to a fellow forum member (who no doubt is going to use it far more than me, for much better images), I have a hard time imagining myself shooting that lens with a reducer on my Ricoh GXR-M. It would be an unbalanced rig, hard to control!

Same time, I might be interested to obtain one and use my Nikkor-S 1.4/58mm as a full frame on that Ricoh GXR-M! :cool: And if they would be available Nikon <-> Nikon, I'd get myself a D300 to use the lens on:cool::cool:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a mirror causes issues here. :(

Won't work with RF lenses either!

So it's not a unicorn....but cool nonetheless. :)
 
Paul T. said:
There's a thread on this already, with all the debate about the technical issues.
Click to expand...
Where? Or do you refer to the thread in the Fuji sub-forum? It shouldn't be discussed there, but here, as it isn't something Fuji, but also Nex and m4/3. Gee, at the moment it is just Nex.....
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
It was my understanding as well. Teleconverters come with numerous catches: diffraction and/or chromatic aberration and/or loss of light and (most of all) loss of resolution. In order for this to be a sensor size "killer", this adapter would have to have: 1) zero resolution loss; 2) the absolutely mostly flawless optical glass ever conceived for any camera; 3) be under $200.

None of that matters, though, if you're in the "who cares!" camp. And/or think of the iPhone as the best camera "ever".
Click to expand...
To have such an adapter for 41 megapixel Nokia lumia, would be something.
Like Noctilux for nokia...
 
Speedbooster may solve the problem with crop factor on substandard formats, but there is another issue which I find to be a dealbreaker: the size of the viewfinder.

All full frame digital cameras I tried have significantly larger viewfinders than any APS-C (or similar) cameras. This makes them better at manual focusing which I almost always prefer to auto-focusing.

I am aware that there are some substandard cameras with viewfinders larger than FF cameras, but they are rare and considered something of an oddball equipment. Not to mention that they cost more than I'm willing to pay.
 
nongfuspring said:
Not sure if anyone has already posted this, but just in case:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9467/aps-c-and-super-35mm-just-went-full-frame-metabones-speed-booster

So hopefully all the 4/3rds and APS-C people will be able to get significantly "faster" lenses and all the DOF you'd get on a full frame with no crop factor.

I have always wondered why manufacturers don't still make optical reducers (maybe someone on the forum can explain that to me.) I'm guessing it is just to artificially keep those full frames more expensive.
Click to expand...
Because, basically, more glass added to ANY existing lens = worse quality. You are not, after all, optimizing anything: you're just doing a bodge to make the unacceptable acceptable (for a given value of 'acceptable').

Cheers,

R.
 
They do make use of optical reducers in some lens designs, actually. The speed booster white paper explains how aberrations can actually be reduced; more in the other thread.
 
digitalintrigue said:
They do make use of optical reducers in some lens designs, actually. The speed booster white paper explains how aberrations can actually be reduced; more in the other thread.
Click to expand...
But there's a big difference between an 'optical reducer' as an integral part of a lens design -- where it isn't really an 'optical reducer' at all, except insofar as it suits the speed booster maker's purpose -- and clagging a bodge group (teleconverter, w/a converter, 'speed booster') onto an existing lens. For that matter, very few tele or reverse-tele (Retrofocus) designs are as sharp, contrasty or distortion-free as symmetrical or triplet-derivative designs.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom