My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"

[Mattias Burling]

Its all down to taste I guess. Personally I have never owned a combo with creamier bokeh before. Not with 0.95 lenses, not M-Mounts, Sony FE, Canon-L or Nikon FX.

I just love how soft blurred edges get. How everything seems to flow into eachoter and how "un harsh" bokeh balls become without a bunch of specs in them. Just light.

[Nikkor]

8 minutes ago, jonpais said:

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.

The mamiya 80 1.9 has a tendency for busy bokeh, but the Adapter might be increasing the problem.

For very wide blurry lenses there is no Alternative in 645, apsc or m43 to 35mm fullframe. I also enjoy wide street fotography fullopen. Here a sample on a d800, 28mm 1.4 (this would be a 14mm 0.7 on m43)

[No username]

25 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

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

cool! I'd always just assumed that the digital 645 had the same FOV as film.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Weird, but guess that's a whole other topic

 

 

[jonpais]

5 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

The mamiya 80 1.9 has a tendency for busy bokeh, but the Adapter might be increasing the problem.

For very wide blurry lenses there is no Alternative in 645, apsc or m43 to 35mm fullframe. I also enjoy wide street fotography fullopen. Here a sample on a d800, 28mm 1.4 (this would be a 14mm 0.7 on m43)

Was this shot wide open?

[Nikkor]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Was this shot wide open?

I think so, will ckeck again because sometimes I pull for f2 for extra sharpness.

Here is the file I uploaded to Flickr if you want to Check the exif, I don't have a PC right now. It looks like 1.4 because of the aberrations.

[PabloB]

9 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

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

The images look so 3D 

[tweak]

11 hours ago, No username said:

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

I said "silliest" not "stupidest".  

[jcs]

2 hours ago, tweak said:

I said "silliest" not "stupidest".  

My understanding is threads will be locked if they go political. I will say this and no more: do deep research about who's really pulling the strings, study history*, follow the money and who's pushing hate and division vs. love and unity. Look at the big picture, then I hope you'll be part of the solution of healing this planet ? vs. continuing the prior path. You can tell right from wrong based on messages of love and kindness vs. the opposite.

Anyone who wants to debate, PM me since we're not allowed in the public forum.

* take a deep look at the ancient megalithic structures (that we still can't build today!) dating back over 12,000 years that MSM and MS science are trying to suppress (Atlantis wasn't just an island). That's just the tip of the iceberg...

[tweak]

Annnnnd thread locked. 

[webrunner5]

Passing out Tinfoil Hats soon. Put in your order, get em while there hot. Really! This stuff never ends. Aliens are coming after our ass I hope, to put us out of out misery LoL. Jesus.

16 hours ago, Nikkor said:

The mamiya 80 1.9 has a tendency for busy bokeh, but the Adapter might be increasing the problem.

For very wide blurry lenses there is no Alternative in 645, apsc or m43 to 35mm fullframe. I also enjoy wide street fotography fullopen. Here a sample on a d800, 28mm 1.4 (this would be a 14mm 0.7 on m43)

Man that has some Serious 3D DoF to it. Awesome!

[jcs]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Passing out Tinfoil Hats soon. Put in your order, get em while there hot. Really! This stuff never ends. Aliens are coming after our ass I hope, to put us out of out misery LoL. Jesus.

Man that has some Serious 3D DoF to it. Awesome!

The Tinfoil Hats (either actual tin or aluminum) have been upgraded to nickel-iron alloy (mu-metal) which works better to shield EM radiation. Regarding the 'aliens', there's a cream for that .

At least we've finally established that's there's no such thing as a FF, MF or any or size "look". It's about physics and optics, where even in the same format looks are radically different in terms of bokeh, 3D, etc. The (highly imperfect) Canon 85mm F1.2L + 5D3 does nice 3D too (probably stopped down a little):

[TwoScoops]

Great shots. Voigtlander 17.5mm for MFT does 3D nicely too.

[Mattias Burling]

This weekend Im finally shooting a video with the adapter.
Still haven't got all the stuff I wanted before I did it, like borrowing a A7sii etc, but I can't wait any longer. 
I must see how it looks

In other news,
I was interviewed by a local paper yesterday regarding my Instagram and accidentally said how much money that is just waiting for you in Swedish flee markets in the form of vintage lenses.
So I guess I will have some new competition, at least locally

Any who, the reporter wanted pictures of me taking street photos and I was carrying the A7 with adapter and 80mm f1.9.
So I did some more street shooting at f1.9 and its still very fun... and rather difficult.

 

Also today I opened the box to the very affordable Zeiss Jena 80mm f2.8 and the adapter can't get here fast enough.

I its anything like the earlier models of Zeiss Jenas Ive had I will be very happy.
Here is an old test with the 35mm in m42.

 

And a set of three C-Mounts.

 

So again, if the 80mm f2.8 only preforms half as good it will make for an interesting image.

[tupp]

11 hours ago, jcs said:

At least we've finally established that's there's no such thing as a FF, MF or any or size "look".

We have established not such thing.  So far, every equivalence test has demonstrated a difference in DOF and look between different focal lengths -- even when using the same zoom lens.

 

 

11 hours ago, jcs said:

It's about physics and optics,

Absolutely... and those considering the physics of DOF/focus need to take into account additional optics variables, such as:  diffraction; physical aperture size; focus field flatness; entrance pupil; ratio of element diameter to focal length; ratio of element diameter to fimage circle; etc.

 

Have the equivalence tests submitted to this forum addressed these variables?

 

 

11 hours ago, jcs said:

where even in the same format looks are radically different in terms of bokeh, 3D, etc.

Yes, but the look is not inherent in a format as much as the look is generally inherent in the optics made for a format.

 

Of course, there are exceptions to such a generalization.  For instance, a Fujian 35mm will exhibit a very different DOF and focus field and look on APS-C than a typical 35mm prime set at the same f-stop.  However, this fact just demonstrates there are other important variables to DOF/focus than the f-stop and focal length used in a simple DOF calculation.

 

Do you not think that the actual glass might have some bearing on DOF, focus and look?

 

 

11 hours ago, jcs said:

The (highly imperfect) Canon 85mm F1.2L + 5D3 does nice 3D too (probably stopped down a little):

Fast lenses seem to generally have mushy DOF roll-off.  Perhaps this tendency is due to a larger ratio in element diameter to focal length (or to image circle diameter).

[jcs]

@tupp, while we agree the two images are not exact, it was acknowledged that it was not possible to make the settings exact for equivalence. I don't see anything significantly special or magical about the full frame image, and most people cannot even see a difference without a blink test:

The simulations showed a perfect match, hopefully this simple diagram will show why:

If we take a movie projector and increase the distance from the projector to the screen, the image grows larger and vice versa. Does the image significantly change other than size? This should make it clear that sensor size by itself does not do anything special for the projected or recorded image. Are we in agreement?

Now does the size, shape, curvature, and number of lens elements make a difference with respect to DOF, bokeh, and overall image character? Of course, no one has argued that point as these changes occur between lenses designed for the same format, for example the Canon 50mm 1.4 vs the Canon 50mm 1.2. The 1.2 has a much larger lens and of course a larger aperture. What happens when we set both lenses to F1.4, or F2.0? Is there still something 'magical' about the 1.2 lens with the much larger glass?

Are they different? Sure they are. Is it significant? Does it matter- we're using the same sensor size?

Much more comparisons here between the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2: https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

We haven't changed sensor size, only lenses, and the bokeh and character is quite different, right?

Want crazy/weird/artistic bokeh on full frame? Here you go ( http://allphotolenses.com/gallery/item/c_7319.html ):

Everyone agrees that lenses make a huge difference and some full frame lenses have bigger optics than some medium format lenses, right? If you still feel that sensor size affects the final projected/captured image, can you provide supporting math, physics, diagrams, and real-world examples supporting your hypothesis?

[jcs]

8 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

Great shots. Voigtlander 17.5mm for MFT does 3D nicely too.

I had the 25mm Voigtlander F.95 for the GH4- very cool indeed!

 

[jcs]

On 2/27/2017 at 1:56 AM, Brian Caldwell said:

The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness.  The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer.

@tupp does this make sense now?

[tupp]

3 hours ago, jcs said:

@tupp, while we agree the two images are not exact, it was acknowledged that it was not possible to make the settings exact for equivalence.

In that case, there are no grounds to conclude that optics from small and larger formats can be made to look identical (nor even to conclude that the equivalence principle is valid) -- nobody can provide proof that such a notion is true.

 

 

3 hours ago, jcs said:

 I don't see anything significantly special or magical about the full frame image, and most people cannot even see a difference without a blink test:

I see a significant difference between the optics for small formats and large formats, and I mentioned a difference in the test in questions when they were posted in another thread without the GIF.  Keep in mind that this comparison was made with the  SAME zoom lens without any middle ground on which to show focus peculiarities (I have repeated these two points several times).  The second comparison shows a fairly obvious difference in DOF, as do most other comparisons linked in this forum.

 

Will try to address other points later...

[jcs]

6 minutes ago, tupp said:

In that case, there are no grounds to conclude that optics from small and larger formats can be made to look identical (nor even to conclude that the equivalence principle is valid) -- nobody can provide proof that such a notion is true.

 

 

I see a significant difference between the optics for small formats and large formats, and I mentioned a difference in the test in questions when they were posted in another thread without the GIF.  Keep in mind that this comparison was made with the  SAME zoom lens without any middle ground on which to show focus peculiarities (I have repeated these two points several times).  The second comparison shows a fairly obvious difference in DOF, as do most other comparisons linked in this forum.

 

Will try to address other points later...

Do you realize that what you are saying is that the lenses are alive and sentient and direct photons differently based on the physical sensor size? Everything that Mattias posted here is a collective hallucination and focal reducers don't actually work? Or are you just messing with us for kicks? If not, I look forward to your equations and examples showing your concepts in action.

[tupp]

8 hours ago, jcs said:

The simulations showed a perfect match,

Again, simulations are not reality, and, again, did the simulations to which you refer address the variables of diffraction, physical aperture size, focus field flatness, entrance pupil; ratio of element diameter to focal length, ratio of element diameter to image circle, etc.?

 

8 hours ago, jcs said:

hopefully this simple diagram will show why:

Sorry to be critical, but that is a really lousy diagram.  It is an improper analogy to put the camera sensor and projector screen on the same "side."

 

 

8 hours ago, jcs said:

If we take a movie projector and increase the distance from the projector to the screen, the image grows larger and vice versa. Does the image significantly change other than size? This should make it clear that sensor size by itself does not do anything special for the projected or recorded image. Are we in agreement?

No.  We disagree that this analogy makes sense.

 

A projector focuses a flat, two-dimensional slide onto a flat, two-dimensional screen, while a camera generally focuses a three-dimensional scene with depth onto a two-dimensional sensor (or piece of film).  One scenario is flat on both "sides" while the other scenario is not "flat" on both sides -- that "unflat" scenario involves DOF.

 

 

8 hours ago, jcs said:

Now does the size, shape, curvature, and number of lens elements make a difference with respect to DOF, bokeh, and overall image character? Of course, no one has argued that point as these changes occur between lenses designed for the same format, for example the Canon 50mm 1.4 vs the Canon 50mm 1.2. The 1.2 has a much larger lens and of course a larger aperture.

So, you agree that there is more to DOF than the simple DOF formula involving only f-stop and focal length?  If so, the equivalence principle doesn't always apply.

 

8 hours ago, jcs said:

What happens when we set both lenses to F1.4, or F2.0? Is there still something 'magical' about the 1.2 lens with the much larger glass?

Are they different? Sure they are. Is it significant? Does it matter- we're using the same sensor size?

Much more comparisons here between the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2: https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

We haven't changed sensor size, only lenses, and the bokeh and character is quite different, right?

You seem to be making my point for me.  Glass makes a difference in the look/DOF.  Those two images look dramatically different, but they should have been shot with the exact same f-stop.

 

Sensor/film size is irrelevant, except for the fact that the more that one crops into an image circle, the softer the image gets and, thus, the more one loses the character of the lens.

 

You do understand that I have not been saying that format size is imperative -- the difference in look/DOF mostly involves the optics.

 

 

8 hours ago, jcs said:

Want crazy/weird/artistic bokeh on full frame? Here you go ( http://allphotolenses.com/gallery/item/c_7319.html ):

Everyone agrees that lenses make a huge difference and some full frame lenses have bigger optics than some medium format lenses, right?

That image is one of the best test images for DOF that I have see on this forum -- the continuous iron fence clearly shows the DOF and the DOF roll-off.  All DOF/equivalency tests should be done like this image.

 

Yes.  Some full frame lenses have bigger optics than some medium format lenses.  However, such a scenario would probably jibe with the general differences in look/DOF between smaller format and larger format optics.

 

8 hours ago, jcs said:

If you still feel that sensor size affects the final projected/captured image, can you provide supporting math, physics, diagrams, and real-world examples supporting your hypothesis?

No.  Sensor/film size has little to do with the look/DOF (given that one doesn't crop too severely into the image circle).

 

Also, projectors are irrelevant, as the both the slide and screen are two-dimensional, unlike the 3D scene and 2D sensor/film with a camera.

 

I can't provide the math as there are complex variables of which I would have no idea on how to factor in.  I have listed most of the variables that are probably important above in my first comment of this post.

6 hours ago, jcs said:

On 2/27/2017 at 4:56 AM, Brian Caldwell said:

The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness.  The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens.  Period.  Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer.

@tupp does this make sense now?

No.  I already addressed this passage previously in this thread.