Mattias Burling

Problem was that they really didn't have any for sale. I signed up for one about a year ago. Never heard from them again. The whole company seems to struggle quite a bit imo.

"destroys it", I think this discussion in pointless if you feel any of those images are "destroyed". My Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8 has so much distortion and aberration that its not even funny. Still its one of the highest regarded lenses in the E-Mount system. And Ive never seen anyone refer to that as "destroyed". In short, I think you and I are to far appart in our opinions on this matter and we will never agree so lets just leave it at that. We arent even speaking about the same thing when we use the word "quality". Like I've said before some put sharpness on top of the list, others dont. Some think lowlight is important, others care more about colors. And that doesn't mean that one of them "dont give a shit about quality". It just means that you should lighten up a bit. Its all just opinions and taste. Even such a word as "expensive" is just a relative opinion and not a fact that you can force or apply to others. Personally I see no artifacts in the three images above worth writing home about, let alone be upset about. PS Thats also enough for today. I will post more info when Ive shot more with the adapter. Until then I leave you all with Mats review . Sorry if it had already been posted.

Im actually only a Lieutenant. In other news, If one is interested in how "Swirly Bokeh" looks in Medium Format 6x6 film without using any sort of adapter here it is. This is shot with a 75mm Zeiss lens on a fixed lens camera using Fujifilm Acros 100 film. Its processed in Tetenal Neofin Blue I think. So as you can see the 80mm Macro has so far very very moderate swirl compared to this lens on film. Here are some other images from the Mamiya adapter and Macro lens that shows that the "issue" really isn't any "issue". On this one the detail can be shown quite effectively. The image is already cropped btw. If you click on it and full screen and serve the towers, then click to zoom in, and you will see these thin wires appearing going down from the roof of each tower. Makes me really want to try the A7r.

Thank you for respecting people having a different opinion. It means a lot.

Then please show me the document saying that Im not allowed to prefer the larger 6x9 for nice prints and 645 to save film. I just made up the phrase "aps-c of MF" and you guys are acting like its a household and standardized technical term And I still think you should look up swirly bokeh. Just Google it and I think you perception of "that bad" will quickly change.

Its just our opinion Im not right nor wrong. Neither are you For me 645 is to save film. 6x9 is for nice prints. 6x6 is for Square and pocketable. 6x7 is the odd APS-C. Smaller than my prefered 6x9 but not small enough to save film like the 645. I dont think it being a macro have anything to do with it. Google "swirly bokeh". Its a very common characteristic in medium format lenses and many of my MF cameras has it. So does alot of full frame lenses like the helios.

The Kipon doesn't introduce any field curvature. Its a characteristic of many medium format lenses. Imo, 6x7 is nice but a bit small. Its the odd ball or the APS-C among medium format so to speak. But I sure hope they make one. The more options the better.

There certainly are a lot of options since there are adapters from other medium format systems to the once Kipon has available as speedboosters. Will look into it and try to make a complete list. Meanwhile, these are the native mounts they offer today. BAVEYES HASSELBLAD-SONY E 0.7x BAVEYES HASSELBLAD-LEICA M 0.7x BAVEYES HASSELBLAD-LEICA SL 0.7x BAVEYES PENTAX645-SONY E 0.7x BAVEYES PENTAX645-LEICA M 0.7x BAVEYES PENTAX645-LEICA SL 0.7x BAVEYES PENTAX67-SONY E 0.7x BAVEYES PENTAX67-LEICA M 0.7x BAVEYES PENTAX67-LEICA SL 0.7x BAVEYES MAMIYA645-LEICA SL 0.7x BAVEYES MAMIYA645-SONY E 0.7x

Speaking of medium format. When I want a break from the teny tiny sensor size that is the medium format 6x4.5 with x0.7 crop and want a more regular crop I shoot 6x9 film. Turns out the Mamiya Macro is pretty good for photographing negatives. Here I just held it up against a window. Using my proper holder and light the results should be good. Today I use a m4/3 camera when Im to lazy to scan but haven't been super exited about the reasults. Mamiya + Sony A7 (Like earlier you need to click and load full res to see the result.)

Maybe a A7iii at NAB? It will of course cost your soul plus one million in gold

I dont know, I shot some macro shots at f5.6-f8 today and they where definitely detailed enough but at those distances the dof is still not wider than a cookie (I was buying cookies at the time). Here are quick side-by-side. The Mamiya Macro and Adapter and then the Modern FE 35mm f2.8 which I think we all agree is as sharp and detailed as they come. Both shot at f8 and focus on the hair infront of the trolls eye. The Modern lens got the handicap of being much closer to the subject. These are heavy crops. Mamiya Zeiss Mamiya untouched Zeiss untouched I don't see any more detail or resolution in the mega modern and native super glass. The shallower depth of field af course blurs more of the image. But if you peep where the focus is, around the eyes it looks the same to me. Vintage swinging above its league imo

If I click this image and then click it again to zoom 1:1, wait until its loaded, I feel there is enough resolution to go around. When I can see individual hairs on a horse nose on an already crops image I say its enough for a photo. Let alone a simple HD or 4K image. Here is a screen dump of the zoom on flickr. And this was at the lens softest setting. At f11 or even f16 the detail is insane.

I will for sure. Just note that I only have the original A7 with HD in a low avchd and issues with moire if one uses to sharp of a lens. Also quick update: I shot outside in the sun today and stopped down to f5.6-f11. The amount of detail, not sharpness, detail is of the fu..ing wall! Crazy amount! I will set up a side by side.

Since I can't edit my original post the images etc get split up here and there and mixed with the disussions (which are great, thats why I post here). But if one wants to view it in one single go there is pretty much identical content in an article on my site www.gunpowdervideo.com. An Update - Is it sharp enough? Im still early in the process of reviewing and I haven’t had as much time as I would have wanted to. But I have made some sharpness tests In my opinion, sharpness comes pretty far down the list on what makes a particular lens great. All Im interested in is if its “sharp enough” when using the old lenses and adapter in front of my 20mp Sony sensor. The short answer is “yes”. The Test The test isn’t the most scientific in the world. I just shot pictures of a book, hand held, using three different lenses. I decided to fill the frame more or less equal even though that made the two competitors able to get much closer to the subject. Even still, its sharp enough to my eye. The lenses where: The Mamiya 80mm f4 Macro + Kipon Baveyes Adapter The Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.7 (also vintage) The Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8 (as modern as it gets) All where shot using the same settings at f8. The focus may drift a little but Im sure you can work it out by clicking and peeping the pictures. Here are the results! First we have the Mamiya 80mm f4 + Baveyes Adapter @ f8. Camera profile is "standard". Next we have the good old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.7 with a dumb adapter. Lastly we have my brand new FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss lens. Its a very nice lens to have if you have a Sony A7. Great for street with its small size and workable focus scale on the display. It can have loads of aberration but other than that its great. And razor sharp. I don’t know what you think but I think it looks ok. There is a tiny bit of aberration around the square on right page from the modern Zeiss. Other than that I can’t really pick out any major fault in any of them. I think its safe to say that the Kipon Baveyes doesn’t have any major impact on sharpness. Which is nice and lets us instead focus on the good things, like for example the bokeh. These are from this mornings walk with Gunpowder. This one is straight from camera. This one is a bit graded. Here we see a tendency of another divider between people, swirly bokeh. Which I always like. I havent noticed any weird flaring so far. This was without a hood. Even at f4 the dof is pretty thin. Cant wait to test my 80mm f1.9! Luckily the Red peaking shows up nicely. Then Gunpowder got bored so we will leave it at that for now. Plenty more to come, more lenses and of course video. My lenses btw are 80mm f4 Macro, 80mm f1.9, 150mm f3.5, 45mm f2.8 and waiting on a Zeiss 80mm f2.8 + Penatcon 6 to M645 adapter.

I will be able to help you with that

Here is a random frame thats "only" ISO1000 and 1/60. Not cropped for some peeping. I added a vignette in post. Focus sits on the eye but maybe more critical a few cm behind on the head. Click to enlarge.

As always this type of subject becomes a hot potato. Some say there is a difference between 4x5 Large Format and a 1" RX100. Others don't agree. Personally I don't care all that much. Its also impossible to reach a wide consensus when people saying "this lens is better than that lens" aren't even agreeing on what characteristics is most important in an image. Its all about taste. The most common misunderstanding is when someone believes all of us rank sharpness number one in a lens feature (I sure don't). Im going to concentrate on just showing what the thing can do and let people make up their own minds. Comparing shots will be made, video as well. Only problem is I haven't had the time and when I did there was a Blizzard. So all I can say now is, stay tuned. One thing Ive noticed but need to test more is the lack of chromatic aberration compared to my modern E-Mount Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8. I will do a side by side of that as well since the pictures Ive compared so far was in a bit different lighting situations. But regarding lenses Old medium format lenses are pretty affordable and if you like me still shoot film they where already sitting on your camera. But, I decided to buy a few more just because of "why not, I like old glass". Thats when I noticed that there are cheap adapters for Hasselblad, Bronica and Pentacon 6/ Kiev 88 to the 645 formats... And an old Zeiss Jena with Zebra Stripes for Pentagon 6 aren't very expensive at all... I bought the 80mm f2.8 and Im looking at their tele prime as well. As usual Im going to have to be patient with the adapter since its coming from China. I used to have the Zeiss Zebra 35mm for my NX1 and Digital Bolex as well as a set of Jena C-mounts. All very tasty But to at least include some sort of image in the post I will include two photos from last time, both with the 80mm Macro. This first one is ISO6400 and 1/40 so there is motion blur, not lacking sharpness. Notice how only the very top-right of the left leaf is in focus. But there you can even make out the tiny tiny hairs. Like I said last time, "sharp enough"

Look at the Image I posted. Ok. What are you talking about, I was all happy. And what does my post have to do with the title? All I said was that I dont believe in buying a stills camera if one never ever ever shoots stills. Whats negative about that? The title doesn't say anything about "video only". The A7rii is also a stills camera... Im confused to say the least, and since you totally ignored the image I posted, didn't as much as glance at it but instead made a smug remark, Im pretty sure this conversation is going nowhere and fast. Im out.

I see less moire than both the A7rii and A7sii and more detail than the NX1!!! But your right, buying a stills camera just for video is pretty crazy.

My experience as well. I really tried to like a windows PC. They cost the same if you want the build quality of a mac, but I still wanted to try. After six months I said, "fuck this". Will never go back.

Though question since I don't agree with your assessment of the advantages of Medium Format. I still shoot film, both medium format and full frame (small picture). And I definitely don't use medium format to get faster films. If anything I use the opposite. Thats why I kickstarter backed the modified Kodak Vison 50D from Cinestill. A 56mm is till going to be a 56mm and nothing else. And if one likes the look of a 100mm one needs to use a 100mm. The DOF is identical on all formats but on the medium format you get more in the frame. A good example is when I use a 17mm on APS-C. Its great for street photography with the deep DOF of a 17mm (on any format). But I can fill the frame with a person without going as close as I would have had to do with FF. More like the distance of a 35mm on FF. The problem is if I try to shoot a closeup of someone, then I dont get a look of a 35mm at all. The person is all distorted with a huge head. This is why medium and large format is nice and can't be simulated with equivalent lenses. But I will test all this and this discussion is a never ending story so lets leave it for now. If one only care about SDOF and firmly believe that a focal length can be changed with different sensor sizes. Then he/she can just settle with a 1" sensor like the RX100. Because with the "equivalent" theory thats just as good as FF, MF or large format. No difference at all. But if one can see a difference between for example m4/3 and FF. Then he/she will see the same advantages and disadvantages between FF and MF. And of course MF and LF.

I will make a video for sure. Not sure when though. I will do some side by sides. But the reason why I like medium format has very little to do with DOF. Its about getting more in the frame using longer lenses at a comfortable distance. An equivalent lens wont be able to simulate that. But I get what you mean and I know many care about dof. So I will do all the tests people wish to see.

They sell versions for both Leica and Sony. The lens mounts so far if Im not mistaken is Hasselblad, Pentax 645, Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645.

When this thing was announced it totally blew my mind. And I have been wanting one ever since the first time I read about it. If you don’t know what this is all about just think of it as a Speedbooster. But instead of turning an APS-C into Full Frame it turns a Full Frame into a Medium Format Camera. And as you may know, medium format in digital is pricy to say the least. I will have more info and go deeper into this later on, this is just my first impressions. Opened the box literally just a few hours ago. Its very sturdy and all metal. It balances well after putting on a hefty lens. The lens I tested tonight was a 80mm f4 Macro. I have others but wanted to see some closeups to check sharpness. Its much sharper than I expected. Sharp enough I guess... Also Ive seen no excessive vignette. Any vignette in the samples are added in post. I also added grain. Portrait of GP Closeup Selfie Closest Focus With vignette and grain. Without vignette, still grain.