Kipon / Baveyes medium format speed booster for full frame Sony A7 series

[noone]

I think it is not so popular for a number of reasons.

Medium format lenses are not necessarily sharper than 35mm lenses (they don't have to be, just as 35mm lenses don't have to be as sharp as M4/3 lenses).

There are not so many medium format lenses available compared to 35mm and the A7 cameras can adapt sooo many lenses.

For cheap lenses, you are going to find a magnitude of times the number of 35mm lenses as medium format available.

I think it only makes sense if there is a particular medium format lens you want to use on an A7 series camera that is not available with other choices (how many would THAT be?).

 

If there was a lot less choice already available, then this would be handy but as it is, I think it is mainly only for those who have the lenses already and want to try them on E mount and that wouldn't be a lot of people.

 

 

I am still done with film though I would like to try my Polaroid 600SE with a digital back if possible and cheap enough (I would need a medium format film adapter and a digital back adapter to that).

Someone was selling Mamiya 6 cameras modified to take a digital back on Ebay a few years ago, I would have loved one of those but it wouldn't replace a dedicated FF A7s or M4/3 camera for me.   

I love using different formats because they ARE different.     Adapting across formats means I don't have to buy as many lenses.

 

[Don Kotlos]

10 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

The same old story pops up online all the time. Doesn't matter how many times it gets explained.

I feel you are the only one that brings this false belief no matter how many times it gets explained (here, here, here).

Quote

Example:

I like using a 35mm on the street since I can then fill the frame with a person from a comfortable distance.

Only problem is that the DOF is so shallow at f8 set at 3m (2-5m) that its tough to get things on focus.

If I instead use a 17mm lens at f8 set to 3m I get from about 1m to Infinity. Much better.

But its to wide, people dont fill the frame as easily. They look tiny.

Solution, m4/3 crop sensor camera.

Yes, but if you use the "equivalent" aperture, then there are no differences in DoF. 

Here is an example from dofmaster:

Quote

Comparing the 35mm on FF  side by side to the 17mm MFT there is another difference though. Background compression. It has changed because they are different focal lengts. A 17mm and a 35mm. So the "equivalent" wasnt 100% equivalent after all.

As stated and shown multiple times in various threads, compression depends only on the distance from the subject, nothing to do with the focal length or the sensor size. 

The only differences that might arise is just because of the lens differences in quality.

For example, wider lenses are more prone to distortion artifacts so to keep the same field of view at the same distance with minimal distortion (typical senario in portait/landscape photography, it would be easier to do so with a larger sensor/film and a longer focal length. That is one of the reasons larger sensor cameras were preferred for this type of photography, the other being quality based on just the sheer area of the film used. 

Another example is the resolution of the lenses which affects the quality depending on the circle of confusion. So it is easier to create lenses for larger sensors that have larger circle of confusion. 

Now, many things have changed since then. Quality of lenses has vastly increased and especially for FF sensors there are very very good choices for relatively low price. Also distortion is very well controlled, and most of them give excellent quality even at larger apertures. And that is exactly the problem that this adaptor faces. Getting a MF lens that can offer similar quality to the current FF offerings for even the same price is very very hard. So unless someone has many good MF lenses lying around, this adapter makes little sense. 

So in the end the reason that small sensors cannot have the look of larger format sensors is

a) As stated before its very very hard to design very sharp lenses with equivalent to larger sensor (very very small) focal lengths at equivalent (very very large) apertures with minimal distortion. 

b) The image quality still depends on the sensor size, so even though FF sensors have come pretty close to MF sensors, the sensor area difference between FF and 1" sensors, and thus quality is HUGE. That also provides little incentive for companies to overcome point a).  

[noone]

For those wanting one of the latest digital medium format cameras for an image quality boost, the difference between APSC and FF is a fair bit bigger than the difference between FF and most of the digital medium format cameras.       There IS a difference but everyone has to decide for themselves if it is worth it.  

Recent high MP FF cameras may well compare very favourably with current digital medium format cameras, especially since lenses are advancing so rapidly to use with large MP FF cameras.

For me, M4/3 and FF mirrorless play well together and adding medium format wouldn't make all that much difference for me (but then even a 24mp A7 was more image quality than I needed for daytime use).     I would like to play with MF as I said above though given the right (cheap) adapters/backs.

I also have to thank this thread for just getting me to discover that my Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro CAN be used (manual focus) with my Lens Turbo focal reducer and GX7.      I thought it would be useless before so never tried it. (the Lens works great with fast AF and Kipon smart adapter but that is not a focal reducer).

I have to set the aperture via my A7s (removing it while the camera is on) but it is not like my EF/EF-s lenses in that focus is mechanical so I can use that lens as well as a 17 TS-E.

 

[noone]

WTF!

I have also just found out that the EF-S 18-55 IS ii Canon APSC kit lens can also be used the same way on the Lens Turbo (set aperture on another camera and remove the lens while it is turned on) and as long as you set manual focus on the lens you CAN focus it.      This is another lens that works great for AF on the Kipon adapter but this Lens Turbo is going to come out of its box now fairly often.     This cheap and cheerful Canon kit lens is one of the biggest value lenses ever.

I had always believed that EF/EF-s lenses focused only by electronics in AF or MF (EF means "electronic focus" hence the TS-E lenses not having F in their names)

13-40 f1.8 to f4 on M4/3 with focal reducer (manual focus and IS doesn't work but IBIS does on the GX7) 26-80mm FF angle of view, 18-55 3.5-5.6  on M4/3 with Kipon adapter (fast AF IS works but IBIS doesn't on the GX7) 36-110 FF angle of view, 18-55 3.5-5.6 3.5-5.6 APSC on my A7s (slow AF) 27-82 FF angle of view, covers FF on my A7s 24-55 3.5-5.6 (slow AF) s is angle of view.

 

I could even use it on a Canon APSC camera!

[noone]

And a brain fade.

The Canon lenses all seem to be wide open with the lens turbo anyway so no need to adjust aperture on another camera as I am only getting them wide open and can not change the aperture regardless.       For that, this would only work with lenses with a mechanical aperture ring like some of the third party lenses.

The focusing though IS a bonus and very pleasant surprise with the Sigma 150 2.8 and the APSC kit lens with the Lens Turbo focal reducer.

     It seems with SOME Canon EF lenses, there is mechanical focus control in MF mode.    The ones I have previously tried must have been exceptions.     That plus what I have seen around the web and the fact that EF stands for electronic focus.

[Mattias Burling]

4 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

I feel you are the only one that brings this false belief no matter how many times it gets explained (here, here, here).

Yes, but if you use the "equivalent" aperture, then there are no differences in DoF. 

Here is an example from dofmaster:

As stated and shown multiple times in various threads, compression depends only on the distance from the subject, nothing to do with the focal length or the sensor size. 

The only differences that might arise is just because of the lens differences in quality.

For example, wider lenses are more prone to distortion artifacts so to keep the same field of view at the same distance with minimal distortion (typical senario in portait/landscape photography, it would be easier to do so with a larger sensor/film and a longer focal length. That is one of the reasons larger sensor cameras were preferred for this type of photography, the other being quality based on just the sheer area of the film used. 

Another example is the resolution of the lenses which affects the quality depending on the circle of confusion. So it is easier to create lenses for larger sensors that have larger circle of confusion. 

Now, many things have changed since then. Quality of lenses has vastly increased and especially for FF sensors there are very very good choices for relatively low price. Also distortion is very well controlled, and most of them give excellent quality even at larger apertures. And that is exactly the problem that this adaptor faces. Getting a MF lens that can offer similar quality to the current FF offerings for even the same price is very very hard. So unless someone has many good MF lenses lying around, this adapter makes little sense. 

So in the end the reason that small sensors cannot have the look of larger format sensors is

a) As stated before its very very hard to design very sharp lenses with equivalent to larger sensor (very very small) focal lengths at equivalent (very very large) apertures with minimal distortion. 

b) The image quality still depends on the sensor size, so even though FF sensors have come pretty close to MF sensors, the sensor area difference between FF and 1" sensors, and thus quality is HUGE. That also provides little incentive for companies to overcome point a).  

First you say its false and then you agree with me.... and no Im not the one who brought it up. 

You also say, "Yes, but if you use the "equivalent" aperture, then there are no differences in DoF."

My point exactly, you change the exposure. Not equivalent at all. For me its important to expose properly.

"As stated and shown multiple times in various threads, compression depends only on the distance from the subject, nothing to do with the focal length or the sensor size. "

My point exactly.

 

 

[Don Kotlos]

10 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

First you say its false and then you agree with me.... and no Im not the one who brought it up. 

You also say, "Yes, but if you use the "equivalent" aperture, then there are no differences in DoF."

My point exactly, you change the exposure. Not equivalent at all. For me its important to expose properly.

Ok then I guess we can agree that once an equivalent focal length and aperture is used, the famous MF "look" comes down to just a difference in exposure which can be adjusted with either the shutter speed, ISO or an ND. 

10 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

"As stated and shown multiple times in various threads, compression depends only on the distance from the subject, nothing to do with the focal length or the sensor size. "

My point exactly

Then you must excuse my response which was based on this sentence: 

On 1/28/2017 at 9:56 AM, Mattias Burling said:

If you change lens to get more SDOF youve done just that. Changed lens. Which means a different background compression.

 

[No username]

STAY WELL AWAY. POOR QUALITY and DOESNT work on Wide angle Pentax 645 lenses.

Sooo, I finally bought this after coming across it on a few blogs (here included) and just wanted to post this quick update so that other people don't waste their money.

Upon receiving the adaptor I immediately went about buying a bunch of 645 lenses and was pretty excited by the promise of this adaptor for my A7Rii. HOWEVER, the quality of the optics is pretty poor and as someone mentioned there's a lot of smearing towards the sides of the image.

Then things got worse. When trying to attach my Pentax 645 45mm lens to it I found that it wouldn't even connect to the adaptor. After a lengthy email exchange with the supplier they finally admitted that it DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK with wide angle Pentax lenses!!!!!!

Guess that might have been a useful thing to have known. 

Anyway, now I'm stuck with trying to get my money back. 

As the saying goes...'if it looks too good to be true'........