My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"

[jcs]

1 hour ago, tweak said:

This is awesome, I love how everyone constantly contradicts themselves and are arguing in circles about things I don't really think anyone here disagrees on for the most part. 

Yeah it's been pretty civil this time around and only a few holdouts left regarding sensor size alone having any special look. Feels kinda like being on a hung jury- we're so close! Is there a prize for being the first forum on the internet to agree on this subject?

[tweak]

Im just not sure what people are expecting from this? Does everyone expect people to say they all agree when no one here is actually arguing about the same thing/ specifics? Everyone here knows the real definition of insanity right?

[Mattias Burling]

8 hours ago, jcs said:

Anyone wanting to continue arguing without doing these tests for themselves is either lazy, blocked by their ego, or just enjoys arguing. Nothing wrong with being any of those things, it's part of being human, however we won't be able to take you seriously in this scientific debate  

Ive said many times through out the thread that I will have tests in the review since you asked for it.

But your right, its definitely laziness that makes me want to spend my Sunday doing something else than tests to show that there are differences, disadvantages and advantages to different sensor sizes/film sizes.

And its just my ego blocking me when say what Ive always said: You don't need a Full Frame or APS-C. A s16/1" like the BMPCC or RX100 will get you very far.
A wide angle down have to be a 15mm on Full Frame. A 18mm on s16 is still a wide angle, within the format. Be creative.
SDOF isn't a problem either. And no, exposure doesn't change with sensor size so do not apply crop factor to aperture.

And Im obviously just into arguing when I say that, some lenses have different artifacts than others. Wide angles for example have a tendency to be more likely to have fish eye distortion, depending on price and manufacturer. If you have a larger sensor you can use longer lenses and are more likely to not get such artifacts on a random lens.

So enough talk here is a test.

• Both images have the same settings accept for the Equivalent focal length and aperture.
• Both are straight from camera.
• Both are jpeg.

Im not gonna say which is which. And Im not gonna give comments on what I see. Its better people get to make up their own minds.
Ok I will say one thing, IMO, and thats just my opinion, you don't have to agree.

But I can't help but feeling that I find one of the images slightly darker than the other. 
I know, I know, its impossible since I used an equivalent lens and there is no difference between systems or sizes what so ever.
Its just a feeling.

Everyone can comment as they choose accept @jcs who needs to have a test in every post according to his own rules that he set after deciding for us that this from now on is a scientific debate and nothing else.
"Anyone wanting to continue arguing without doing these tests for themselves is either lazy, blocked by their ego, or just enjoys arguing."

Because I realize now that photography is a science and not an art form. A 20mp camera is always superior to a 18mp no matter what the other specs of the camera is. And everyone has to eat the same ice cream or they are idiots. 
I have seen the light.

(BTW I posted a quick video test yesterday if someone is interested they know where it is. Please read description first)

 

PS.

 

[tweak]

What you actually thought photography/ film was an art form? Foolish hippie, cameras will always only be about specs and hard science! - And onwards we shall go, leaping and bounding through mathematic correctness forth the race to 16K!!!

[Viscount Omega]

Interesting thread, similar to a discussion I had on another forum where I posited an alternate theory that maybe what some people are seeing regarding a different "look" between formats is not related to depth of field but rather a slightly different perspective due to different capture angles--this being due to the different-sized lens image circles being used. 

Simply put, a larger lens image circle "eye" sees things in a slightly different perspective than a smaller lens image circle "eye".   (The sensor and camera's processor being the "brain".)  Of course I have no way to scientifically measure perspective.  So, there's that...

It's a similar concept to what these two camera guy's are talking about in this discussion from here: http://cinematography.net/edited-pages/[cml]%20Anamorphic%20or%20Super%2035.htm

Here's the discussion:

"It seems to me that there is more of a difference between Anamorphic and Super 35mm 2.35 films looks than can be explained by either the distortions inherent in anamorphic taking lenses or the depth of field. They seem to render things in a much more dimensional way. I shoot frequently with anamorphics ( I own a russian set ) and whenever I investigate doing a project in Super 35, I put up the lenses, look through the finder and instantly feel somewhat disappointed with what I see.

Hypothetically say you shot with a: 50mm anamorphic at T8-5.6 and a 24mm flat prime lens at T2 in the super 35mm 2.35 format both focused at 10 feet. The lenses / formats would produce a very similar horizontal and vertical field of view. The depth of field would also be very similar. Would these images be nearly identical? I know that those might not be any ones real world stops for the same scene... But what would account for any differences?"

"The perspective will not be the same. The angles may match but your relationship (the cameras relationship) to the angle will not be the same. That is to say, if you picture a wedge representing your field of view, in the anamorphic scenario you will be further inside of the wedge than in the non anamorphic. In the non anamorphic you will be closer to the 'point' of the wedge. Therefore the sense of peripheral vision as will not be the same. Some would argue that this is why anamorphic looks more natural or realistic than non anamorphic."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm well aware anamorphic lenses are different animals from sphericals, but is it possible for two spherical lenses to share the same field of view, have different sized image circles and have slightly different perspectives? "Further inside of the wedge or closer to the point" etc..   If not, why not?

[cantsin]

@Mattias Look, it's true that a camera with a bigger sensor/film plane lets in more light, and that for DoF and exposure equivalence you'll need to stop down the camera with the bigger sensor - in theory.

In practice, this difference is annihilated through the ISO calibration of the camera. (An APS-C camera will usually have half the base ISO of a full frame camera, respectively twice as much noise at the same ISO.)

[jcs]

39 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Because I realize now that photography is a science and not an art form. A 20mp camera is always superior to a 18mp no matter what the other specs of the camera is. And everyone has to eat the same ice cream or they are idiots. 

I have seen the light.

PS.

 

The debate has been sensor size and look. That's it. Folks added other elements such as lens effects which were never contradicted.

Haha it's all good ? 

[tweak]

38 minutes ago, jcs said:

The debate has been sensor size and look. That's it. Folks added other elements such as lens effects which were never contradicted.

Haha it's all good ? 

Exactly. "Sensor size and look". Very ambiguous wording. What you should have said was "sensor size and lens FOV/DOF equivalency". "Look" can be linked to all the characteristics of glass used on that sensor size, thus different "looks" based on sensor size is a very real thing imo... unless of course you're not using lenses when you shoot with a camera? 

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

@Mattias Look, it's true that a camera with a bigger sensor/film plane lets in more light, and that for DoF and exposure equivalence you'll need to stop down the camera with the bigger sensor - in theory.

In practice, this difference is annihilated through the ISO calibration of the camera. (An APS-C camera will usually have half the base ISO of a full frame camera, respectively twice as much noise at the same ISO.)

And its all about taste. I mostly use small sensor cameras and usually a bit older with noisier ISOs (but its important to note that larger sensor does not make for less noise. There are examples of it going both ways and depending on mega pixels etc). 
But I prefer a little noise over the blurry images I would get by adjusting my shutter speed.

In 99% of all images I take the shutter speed is locked. It can't be tampered with.
In 70% the aperture is also locked.

The only parameter I change maybe 50% of the times is ISO.

 

[Nikkor]

I Love it, every single post is wrong.

[tweak]

17 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

I Love it, every single post is wrong.

You will make EOS HD implode with such posts.

[kaylee]

?

[jcs]

1 hour ago, tweak said:

Exactly. "Sensor size and look". Very ambiguous wording. What you should have said was "sensor size and lens FOV/DOF equivalency". "Look" can be linked to all the characteristics of glass used on that sensor size, thus different "looks" based on sensor size is a very real thing imo... unless of course you're not using lenses when you shoot with a camera? 

Very specifically, does sensor size create a specific look regardless of any other variable, or not. Equivalence is a useful tool to help answer this question.

[tweak]

15 minutes ago, jcs said:

Very specifically, does sensor size create a specific look regardless of any other variable, or not. Equivalence is a useful tool to help answer this question.

Personally I would say no, but sensor size is never "regardless of any other variable"... hence discussions like these. "Equivelence" in this case is merely math, done in perfect world environment, not considering all variables. Whether said variables are worthwhile enough to consider acknowledging is where this argument really begins imo.

[jcs]

2 minutes ago, tweak said:

Personally I would say no, but sensor size is never "regardless of any other variable"... hence discussions like these. "Equivelence" in this case is merely math, done in perfect world environment, not considering all variables...

We set everything up as equivalent as possible so we can see if there is a real effect, or not. In this case we're testing to see if sensor size alone creates a specific look, or not.  

For example, the recent image where 3 formats are compared with the cameras set up for equivalence, there is no specific look or looks which can be attributed to sensor size. That's the point of all these tests and debates.

[tweak]

11 minutes ago, jcs said:

We set everything up as equivalent as possible so we can see if there is a real effect, or not. In this case we're testing to see if sensor size alone creates a specific look, or not.  

Yes, as was your prerogative, but other people were not talking about the same things as you and didn't actually care about such facts... just saying. This thread wasn't started to have debate about such facts or science, in fact I believe that was the total opposite of what this thread was about imo. Thus no one should be surprised with the outcome of this thread.

[Bioskop.Inc]

Wasn't the whole point of this thread, originally, to show what this adaptor can do i.e. allow people with FF cameras to adapt MF lenses to a different sensor & allow them to use these lenses the way they were meant to be used?

Perhaps I'm just being silly here?

I personally do not really like using speed boosters on the Pocket cam - I bought it because of its physical size, the S16 sensor size (which was more to do with nostalgia), ProRes HQ & the price!

I use anamorphics to get a wider FOV & step back a little.

I hate wide angle lenses.

Oh, and i'm the guy that refers to a 24mm lens as a 24mm lens, regardless of what sensor i'm using it on!

[jcs]

21 minutes ago, tweak said:

Yes, as was your prerogative, but other people were not talking about the same things as you and didn't actually care about such facts... just saying. This thread wasn't started to have debate about such facts or science, in fact I believe that was the total opposite of what this thread was about imo. Thus no one should be surprised with the outcome of this thread.

Threads go all over the place with many sub ideas. The people I engaged in this debate were talking about exactly the same thing, sensor size having a real and specific look, or not. Is the 'full frame look' or 'medium format look' real, or not.

[Viscount Omega]

I think people use the terms "full-frame sensor" and "full-frame lens" and "full-frame look" and "APS-C lens/look" and "APS-C sensor" etc. interchangeably because sometimes you can't use one without the other.  Strictly speaking, the sensor is just the method of capture.  I don't think it has anything to do with the "look", per se. 

[tweak]

57 minutes ago, Viscount Omega said:

I think people use the terms "full-frame sensor" and "full-frame lens" and "full-frame look" and "APS-C lens/look" and "APS-C sensor" etc. interchangeably because sometimes you can't use one without the other.  Strictly speaking, the sensor is just the method of capture.  I don't think it has anything to do with the "look", per se. 

Exactly. As was happening here (or people assumed was happening  ).

1 hour ago, jcs said:

The people I engaged in this debate were talking about exactly the same thing, sensor size having a real and specific look, or not. Is the 'full frame look' or 'medium format look' real, or not.

You assumed they were, yes. But as I've pointed out "Look" is a very ambiguous word, open for interpretation, not definitive to your arguments in this thread which are that of equivalency and math/ science of sensor size vs DOF. Others (like me) I assume to actually be talking about "look" in regards to the lenses and the characteristics of such used on different sensor sizes. Thus to argue there is no different "look" between lenses for different formats imo would be to argue there is no different look between any lenses at all...