My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"

[tweak]

1 minute ago, noone said:

I guess I just don't look on a focal reducer to give a Medium format "look" on FF or FF on APSC or APSC or FF lenses on M4/3 ETC.

This is where the problem begins I think. As I don't really think of a "look" only based upon sensor size, more so as a combination of format size and the rendition/ characteristics of the optics made for that format.
This focal reducer simply allows you to use a MF lens on a FF camera and use its full image circle (containing all the things you like or dislike about such a lens). A focal reducer imo (and for what I use them for) simply allows you to use a lens as it was designed to be seen on a smaller format. If you understand this as a theory, you understand why people would bother using them on any format small or large.

Where the whole thing goes wrong imo is when people look at focal reducers only as means to getting specs they cannot otherwise obtain (such as focal lengths and light transmissions etc).

[Nikkor]

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

My 50mm primes or zooms definitely don't have the rendition of the Mamiya + Adapter. So IMO its very exciting. Its medium Format.
In short, I'm blown away by the look and detail.

 

(the adapter and MF lenses also seems to have way less aberration than my modern lenses, but I need to test it more to confirm.)

Nice, but please check for fieldcurvature introduced by the adapter. (Also distortion, against a brickwall) I know these things don't matter for the look you seem to be after but they do if you want to replace a real medium Format Camera with this.

[Mattias Burling]

15 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Nice, but please check for fieldcurvature introduced by the adapter. (Also distortion, against a brickwall) I know these things don't matter for the look you seem to be after but they do if you want to replace a real medium Format Camera with this.

I have tried to capture field curvature against huge walls witj lots of lines and patterns. So far Im unable to provoke such an artifact.

But I haven't tested all my lenses yet.

[Nikkor]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

I have tried to capture field curvature against huge walls witj lots of lines and patterns. So far Im unable to provoke such an artifact.

But I haven't tested all my lenses yet.

Field curvature is when the focus plane has curvature and turns into a Shell from a sphere. This is very notorious on portrait/body Shot distances and will make the focus distance be different in the corners compares to the center (plus swirly bokeh in extreme cases)

[Mattias Burling]

24 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Field curvature is when the focus plane has curvature and turns into a Shell from a sphere. This is very notorious on portrait/body Shot distances and will make the focus distance be different in the corners compares to the center (plus swirly bokeh in extreme cases)

I will try.

[Nikkor]

14 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I will try.

For example in the shot wehre GP is on the bed, her face is in focus but the sheets on the left and right that are in Focus are 10cm or more behind the face.

[Mattias Burling]

9 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

For example in the shot wehre GP is on the bed, her face is in focus but the sheets on the left and right that are in Focus are 10cm or more behind the face.

Not on my screen. The sheets in focus are infront of her leg that sits just on the edge of focus. And her face is of course infront of her legs.

I will make a proper tests with objects at know distances. Sheets arent very reliable imo.

But now I know what you are looking for.

[Mattias Burling]

Update 4: Film vs Digital 

Today I did a little test with the adapter vs my Mamiya 645 Film Camera.
The main point of the test was to make sure the camera worked for the same reason as earlier (24h return policy).
So no, its not a proper shootout.

I used a roll of expired Kodak T-Max400 that came included, no idea how the seller had stored it.
Developed a few hours ago in Tetenal Ultrafin and used my crappy flat bed scanner for speed.

First of all, some parameters:

• Same lens on both cameras.
• Same ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed.
• I did NOT shot from the same distance.
• I did NOT focus at the same point (to dark).
• The Film was Kodak T-Max 400
• Developed and quickly scanned by me.
• The film has been adjusted in post.
• The Digital has had a “Kodak T-MAx400” Preset added.

One question Ive gotten before is if the adapter adds barrel distortion.
Looking at the door behind me on the mirror selfie I might say, no, it was already there.

Another note is the bigger image from the Mamiya which has different aspect ratio and crop (x0.62 vs x0.7). But I can also bee exaggerated due to different distances. Might be the Mamiya viewfinder that makes me back up a bit. Will test again.

Sony Selfie

Mamiya Selfie

GP with the Sony

GP with the Mamiya

The Mamiya with the Sony


The Sony with the Mamiya

 

BTW, shot a bit of video yesterday. Pulling focus at f1.9 went pretty ok and the added weight reduced shakiness by a lot.
Hopefully I will have a video test done this weekend.

[cantsin]

Hmm, something is weird... The Mamiya pics have noticeably more depth of field/overall more sharpness.

[Nikkor]

18 minutes ago, cantsin said:

Hmm, something is weird... The Mamiya pics have noticeably more depth of field/overall more sharpness.

That's because mattias didn't shoot at the same Subject to Lens distance as he has stated in his post. All I can say right nos from those pica is that tmax is amazing even if long expired,and that the boxy formfactor of the 645pro is actually pretty handy compared to the fiddly a7 :p

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

Hmm, something is weird... The Mamiya pics have noticeably more depth of field/overall more sharpness.

I don't know about being sharper, but the creamy look of the film is way nicer than the harshness of the A7 for sure. The Sofa shot is really nice with the Mamiya. Now for Landscape, I guess you might want the digital look. Then maybe not LoL.

[jcs]

I recently helped a friend set up an A7S II and showed her the difference a Black Pro Mist 1/4 makes to take away the digital harshness- she loved the look. Addition diffusion would help the A7 look more like film.

[Mattias Burling]

5 hours ago, cantsin said:

Hmm, something is weird... The Mamiya pics have noticeably more depth of field/overall more sharpness.

IMO, Wider field of view, sure it has a bigger sensor. But sharper..

Dont get me wrong, I love film and if I ever had to choose between them to use for the rest of my life it would be film.

And even though T-Max has a crazy amount of sharpness it cant be as sharp as digital in this experiment. Mainly because the scanner isnt very sharp. And on my screen it shows up that way.

[No username]

3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

IMO, Wider field of view, sure it has a bigger sensor. But sharper..

Dont get me wrong, I love film and if I ever had to choose between them to use for the rest of my life it would be film.

And even though T-Max has a crazy amount of sharpness it cant be as sharp as digital in this experiment. Mainly because the scanner isnt very sharp. And on my screen it shows up that way.

Thanks for putting these tests up. It's a big help. I'd been looking at these a little while ago and after seeing your posts this week, had been tempted to pull the trigger on one in the next day or two.

However.....Looking at your last post you say that: "IMO, Wider field of view, sure it has a bigger sensor.". Do you mean that the field of view is smaller on the Sony?? Because on the official web site for the adaptor it states: "Get rid of crop factor. Get the same view like on medium format cameras".

When I looked at your last shots, it certainly looked like there was a pretty big crop factor but I thought maybe you'd just repositioned yourself BUT if there is a large crop factor it totally contradicts what they're saying on their website. Which is pretty disgraceful.

Be good to know what your thoughts on crop factor / field of view are.

Either way thanks for doing these tests. Might just have saved me wasting €500.

[Mattias Burling]

40 minutes ago, No username said:

Be good to know what your thoughts on crop factor / field of view are.

You get less crop factor than without. Its closer to medium format than full frame.

The Mamiya has x0.62 and the Sony + adapter x0.7. The Sony alone of course has x1.0.

[tweak]

37 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

You get less crop factor than without. Its closer to medium format than full frame.

The Mamiya has x0.62 and the Sony + adapter x0.7. The Sony alone of course has x1.0.

Not buying it for this reason would be the silliest thing I've read in a while. Most speed boosters don't boost back 100% to the optics original image circle, all are just shy of it usually.

[No username]

39 minutes ago, tweak said:

Not buying it for this reason would be the silliest thing I've read in a while. Most speed boosters don't boost back 100% to the optics original image circle, all are just shy of it usually.

I can't believe it's the silliest. Have you opened a newspaper and read anything coming out of the Whitehouse recently?

Anyhoo,

I'm not particuarly techy when it comes down to adapters but when my main reason for buying an adapter is because the manufacturer states that I can "Get the same view like on medium format cameras" with it then having a sizeable crop is going to be a deal breaker for me.

Guess a 645d is going to be the cheapest entry into digital MF for now. Shame.

[Nikkor]

The Pentax 645d has a bigger cropfactor than this speedbooster. Even the most expensive backs are not really fullframe 54mm vs 56 

[Mattias Burling]

BTW, Street Shooting at f1.9 with this thing isn't exactly easy. But man is it creamy  

[jonpais]

1 minute ago, Mattias Burling said:

BTW, Street Shooting at f1.9 with this thing isn't exactly easy. But man is it creamy  

Hi Mattias, I like some of these street shots, for one thing, because I know lots of street shooters like yourself usually prefer to use a wider lens and set it at hyperfocal distance, whereas I prefer getting in close and throwing the background a little bit out of focus - not completely obliterated, I like to have a sense of the place... but I would not call this background blur or bokeh creamy... just my opinion... it looks quite busy, frenetic, with unpleasant outlines. I wouldn't want this in a portrait shot, because it adds a bit of nervousness... Of course, what's creamy, what's a little busy, what one person likes and so on is a matter of taste. I'm glad you're enjoying this and generously sharing it with everybody.