F0.74 - new Metabones Speed Boosters break boundaries

[Andrew Reid]

Hey Andrew, really good news!

I've just been filming with the Pocket, using the combo of a Nikon 24mm f2.8 & Iscorama (makes it about a 48mm).

Its absolutely the perfect combo for a workable FOV & it seems that its the widest one can go with the Iscorama.

 

So the question is, will this combo still work with the new SpeedBooster on the BMPCC or will i be forced to use a less wide lens?

 

You will need to go to a 35mm lens.

[lmackreath]

And if I already have the old speedbooster and sigma 18-35 combo with my bmpcc is it worth trying to return the speedbooster to get the new model for the small extra focal and aperture advantages?

[Andrew Reid]

I have a comparison video coming up between the standard M43 Speed Booster and BMPCC Speed Booster which should help answer your question.

[Guest c2dd7b52878779b55f43cc8c269267c1]

The Speed Booster doesn't really change the look of the lens. It shrinks the image circle, which mainly affects light gathering and sharpness (and format coverage, obviously). The size of the bokeh relative to the image circle size doesn't change and the same should go for depth of field.

Your 85mm F2.0 becomes a 60mm F1.4 with a 0.71 Speed Booster. It doesn't become a 85mm F1.4, which would be a difference in bokeh and DOF.

Since the focal length and the aperture change by the same ratio, there is no change in DOF.

At least that's how I understand it.

 

Thanks, it took me a while but I understand what you're saying now. I think you understood my question better than I did myself!

 

Basically, ignoring the slight differences in effective focal length and sensor size, I think that you are saying yes to my example: "… if I were to put a Nikon 85mm f2.0 onto the BMPCC with the new 0.64x Speedbooster, would it give about the same DOF result as an actual Nikon 50mm 1.2 on an actual APS-C sensor". It would also give the same light gathering ability. This is because the f-stop-to-focal-length ratio remains the same. Correct?

 

Basically, it means that the Speed Booster really does turn smaller sensors into larger sensors in every way - i.e. that a lens will look the same on a BMCC-with-SB as it does on a 7D. 

 

I didn't doubt it, I just didn't understand it.

[Jacek]

Fantastic news!

 

Wondering if You can try it with some nice lens and SLRMagic Anamorphot?

[JohnBarlow]

I wonder if this is Nikon F mount only 

[Matt White]

I consider this news a great sign, since it arrived on the same day as my BMPCC. Of course, the Sigma is on perpetual backorder, but I did get the regular Speed Booster.

 

Now that we have rethink our lens choices, does anyone know if Nikon's VR (vibration reduction) works on BMPCC, and if so, how well? I wonder if there are any advantages over a fully manual lens.

[Cfreak]

Great article Andrew and great news for us.

 

Is that a Leica R lens you adapted to Nikon mount (not M or LTM mount), correct?

 

Metabones is taking advantage the added space in the BM cameras since they don't have mechanical shutters, like the GH2 and GH3 do, correct?

 

I skimmed through the Metabones documents and despite seeing warning as: BMCC version can only be used on the BMCC is there and reason this version couldn't be used on the BMPCC? Did Metabones indicate there would be physical interference or vignetting with this version on a a GH2 or GH3?

 

I do see the BMPCC version has the deepest protruding rear element and is specifically made for the smaller S16 sensor, so it's obvious to me there that version won't work on anything but a BMPCC.

 

Thanks for your replies and all your good work!

[Cfreak]

I skimmed through the Metabones documents and despite seeing warning as: BMCC version can only be used on the BMCC is there and reason this version couldn't be used on the BMPCC? Did Metabones indicate there would be physical interference or vignetting with this version on a a GH2 or GH3?

 

Dooh! I can answer one of my own questions about the BMCC speed booster, yes it can be used on the BMPCC with resulting in a 1.93X crop factor. The chart is attached, it was buried in the Press Release on page 6:

 

 

[Shaun Fontaine]

So glad I held of buying one for my pocket cam, these are even better, I currently own no Canon or Nikon glass, only MFT so I gues the Nikon version will do me and I can just buy glass for that.

[au8ust]

I don't get the crop factor. The press release says at the beginning that BMPCC has 2.88x but at the table at the end they say it's 3.02x.

[thedest]

full review with some nice footage here: http://philipbloom.net/2013/12/02/part3-2/

gets to metabones adaptor around 14'30"

 

I was really surprise with that review. I really like PB, but saying things like "the only advantage of RAW is on hard lighting situations" makes me worried about some of his opinions.

 

I dont know if he is reviewing the camera as a pro-camera, or as an enthusiast-camera.

 

A good example is when he talks about the battery life. With the new batteries from the Blackmagic you can get 50min of juice - so with 3 batteries you can get more recording time than most mirrorless and DSLRs (and those batteries are cheap and small). Pro's usually use external power, so it woudnt be a big problem.

 

I dont know. It looks like he is angry with the camera for some reason.

 

I know that the pocket is not a good camera for him, because he can work with cameras like the EPIC or the ALEXA. But for ordinary people those cameras are not accessible. So for us, having that kind of image quality for that price is something new. I think he made a review aimed at guys like him, not at 99% of his public.

 

BTW, im still waiting for Andrew's RAW pocket video. Im a big fan of your images.

[Bioskop.Inc]

I was really surprise with that review. I really like PB, but saying things like "the only advantage of RAW is on hard lighting situations" makes me worried about some of his opinions.

He probably said this because the ProRes is so good, stunning even & of course, more convenient.

So (& it pains me to say so) i think he might be right - RAW is for those really hard to get shots &/or ones that need a lot of detail (landscapes etc...).

[espertype]

Basically, ignoring the slight differences in effective focal length and sensor size, I think that you are saying yes to my example: "… if I were to put a Nikon 85mm f2.0 onto the BMPCC with the new 0.64x Speedbooster, would it give about the same DOF result as an actual Nikon 50mm 1.2 on an actual APS-C sensor". It would also give the same light gathering ability. This is because the f-stop-to-focal-length ratio remains the same. Correct?

 

Yes, I think it becomes a ~55mm F1.2 lens - and thus a 110mm equivalent to full frame. But now I'm starting to get confused as well when it comes to equivalent depth of field. I usually don't think about it because I don't personally care what the DOF is equivalent to full frame. I think it has depth of field like F2.4 on full frame with the Speed Booster and F4.0 without the Speed Booster. But I'm really not sure anymore and I'm no expert. o.o"

 

 

Metabones is taking advantage the added space in the BM cameras since they don't have mechanical shutters, like the GH2 and GH3 do, correct?

 

Ah, yes, the physical shutter must be the reason why it doesn't work on regular MFT cameras. I totally forgot about that. I really can't blame Metabones or Blackmagic, apparently there is no way to get something smaller than 0.71x for regular MFT.

[thedest]

He probably said this because the ProRes is so good, stunning even & of course, more convenient.
So (& it pains me to say so) i think he might be right - RAW is for those really hard to get shots &/or ones that need a lot of detail (landscapes etc...).

I agree about how good the ProRes is.

He also says that having ProRes HQ is useless and that the LQ would be enough.

About RAW, there are so many advantages. You can fine tune the exposure, you can recover more shadow and highlights, you have more detail, you can push it harder, you can add more sharpness, saturation, grade it better etc

Honnestly, I can see it as being overkill for my mom, because she just want to get the picture. But for those who need to play with the image, for those who want to create a look and for those who want the best possible IQ, RAW WILL make a difference.

[Giovanni Bertani]

This is great and basically removing most of the limits of BMCC.

 

To be the perfect combo with a Canon Mark III we need EF lenses version now. Please!

[jpbelanger]

I know many of you have a Canon-compatible lens collection, but I had to sell everything last year and want to start fresh. If you were in my place, would you consider going all-Nikon for BM compatibility and consider getting a Nikon DSLR for stills, or would you stick with Canon until a compatible Speedbooster comes out?

[Giovanni Bertani]

I am shooting with a Mark III in Raw and Canon still has a full line of video cameras with EF lenses. You can mount Nikon glass over a Canon mount. So for me now selling all my glass makes no sense.

[Andrew Reid]

BTW, im still waiting for Andrew's RAW pocket video. Im a big fan of your images.

 

Thank you. The video that is subject of this article was 50% shot in raw on the Pocket camera. The quality is good, can hardly tell it apart from 2.5K raw on the BMCC.

[jpbelanger]

I am shooting with a Mark III in Raw and Canon still has a full line of video cameras with EF lenses. You can mount Nikon glass over a Canon mount. So for me now selling all my glass makes no sense.

 

Ok well, would you buy Nikon glass for use with the BMPCC exclusively?