dishe

I agree with a previous poster in this thread that it should be a SECTION and not a single thread, all about lenses!

Yep. Has nothing to do with AF. 
So, setting face detection to "off" seems to get around it for people who intend to record internally- but only if you press record. If the camera doesn't think it is seeing a face, there's nothing to apply smoothing to. The problem is, this "workaround" only applies as soon as you hit the record button. When it isn't actively capturing, that face detection and skin smoothing come back in the live view. That means if you are feeding a live HDMI signal out to an external recorder or to a monitor or internet streamer, the faces will be all waxy. Pressing record will help for only 30 min increments, since the internal recording stops. Or, in the case of the A5100, it will overheat before even that. 
The biggest reason this bug irks me is that these little cameras are actually excellent for sending APS-C live hdmi out for hours on a single battery. If you aren't recording internally, the A5100 not only never overheats, but also can feed an Atomos Ninja for over well an hour with battery left to spare. With Ninja's being under $300 these days, this is a great B-cam to shoot events and concerts alongside something like an A7s. But this bug makes external recording or streaming nearly pointless. Pressing record every 30 minutes isn't practical if the purpose is just to get a clean signal, and will run down the battery and heat up faster for no good reason. Not to mention the unnecessary wear and tear on a memory card doing write cycles when we don't need to. 
Something interesting that just occurred to me- We mentioned above that the bug only exists in video mode. Not on M or any other photography mode. Unfortunately, the only way to get a properly resampled clean HDMI video signal is by being in video mode. But interestingly, when in video mode, skin smoothing is greyed out in the menu. You can't toggle it on or off, as I think it was supposed to always be off. This bug, however, makes it default to ON even though the menu is greyed out and says "disabled" in video mode. 
I'm wondering, maybe the reason it doesn't do it in photo modes is because you have the ability to toggle it off? Maybe if Sony actually let us turn it on and off in video mode, the camera would respect our choice to turn it off?

I don't know if I'm on to something. Hopefully someone at Sony can figure it out and give us a firmware update!

I use an Atomos Ninja 2. I think the output is standardized to be 60hz but there is a pulldown applied that the recorder seems to know how to deal with. Recorder and camera were set to 1080/24p, and the footage when viewed on my desktop in post accurately shows 23.97fps (and looks great). I don't think the camera or recorder supports 60p over HDMI. 24 and 30 seem to work fine (NTSC user).
 

Axel with LOG footage the grade has much more impact on colour than the camera does.
Most grades are weird looking and prioritise dynamic range. It takes real artistic skill to do a good one.
So judge the grade not the camera.
The skin bug is interesting... does it only affect HDMI?

UPDATE:
Excuse me while I remove my foot from my mouth. 
I just tested this again with an A7S that ships with a different firmware than the one I originally saw the problem on. And it doesn't do it anymore. It appears that firmware v.1.10 no longer has the waxy skin bug. This is incredible news and something I really wish Sony would have just said something about instead of denying that they even knew about a problem. If all I had to do was update the firmware, I wouldn't be here. 
Going to see if there's an update to the A5100 as well and report back soon. Just wanted to share this info as soon as I became aware of it.

So, this came up in another thread I was just in, and I see it mentioned here and there on the forum, but I think it deserves its own topic so I'm starting one.
I recently became very interested in recording externally to an Atomos or similar from my Sony bodies in an attempt to break the 30min limit. Seemed like a no brainer, especially with the current ridiculous falling price of Ninja units. But before I jump in, I wanted to read up on the workflow so I'd know what to prepare for. Until now, I was unaware of what the Skin Smoothing setting in the camera did (honestly, what self respecting photog or videog would have that enabled in the first place anyway), but now I'm suddenly VERY aware of it. 

Apparently (and I'm just going by what I see online in my research), there is some sort of bug in the firmware of many of the BIONZ X based cameras, that turns this blasted smoothing feature on when recording video even if you disabled it in the menu. If you aren't aware of this bug, this guy's video pretty much nails it in demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GVm1Ke2dQ
Since I didn't hear many people being scared off by this, I figured you can't go by one guy on the internet's opinion of a perceived problem. 
But then I found it again mentioned in Phillip Bloom's blog regarding using the A7S with a Shogun here:
http://philipbloom.net/blog/dad/ (about half way down the page)

And here it is again by Dave Dugdale:
http://www.learningvideo.com/atomos-shogun-review/ (third paragraph)

Then some guy in a forum shared this video to demonstrate how well the atomos was working with his A5100:
https://youtu.be/-DmrpLji6gk
He apparently wasn't even aware of the waxy skin thing going on with her face, but I see it right away now that i'm aware of it!

It seems that this issue is a legit one. While I've read that a firmware update to the RX series has solved it on that camera, the rest of us trying to record off our A6000, A5100, A7S, etc have this blasted thing show up whenever a face can be recognized. The "solution" has been to turn off face recognition and press record in camera. Without recording in camera, the hdmi out defaults to smoothing on again. I'm wondering, how many people do this and just haven't noticed it happens? Now that I've seen it and will be looking for it, I'm afraid it will drive me bonkers. OR do people just hit record in the camera to disable it?

My real question is, what about those of us who want to do this simply because we want to record longer durations than the internal recording allows? What happens when my A7S reaches 30 min and stops recording internally? Does everyone's face suddenly go all waxy? And what about trying to use external recording to prevent overheating on the smaller A5100? Hitting record on the camera isn't an option because it will build up heat too fast to even make it to 30 minutes most of the time. Is there another solution I'm not aware of? 

So, this came up in another thread I was just in, and I see it mentioned here and there on the forum, but I think it deserves its own topic so I'm starting one.
I recently became very interested in recording externally to an Atomos or similar from my Sony bodies in an attempt to break the 30min limit. Seemed like a no brainer, especially with the current ridiculous falling price of Ninja units. But before I jump in, I wanted to read up on the workflow so I'd know what to prepare for. Until now, I was unaware of what the Skin Smoothing setting in the camera did (honestly, what self respecting photog or videog would have that enabled in the first place anyway), but now I'm suddenly VERY aware of it. 

Apparently (and I'm just going by what I see online in my research), there is some sort of bug in the firmware of many of the BIONZ X based cameras, that turns this blasted smoothing feature on when recording video even if you disabled it in the menu. If you aren't aware of this bug, this guy's video pretty much nails it in demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GVm1Ke2dQ
Since I didn't hear many people being scared off by this, I figured you can't go by one guy on the internet's opinion of a perceived problem. 
But then I found it again mentioned in Phillip Bloom's blog regarding using the A7S with a Shogun here:
http://philipbloom.net/blog/dad/ (about half way down the page)

And here it is again by Dave Dugdale:
http://www.learningvideo.com/atomos-shogun-review/ (third paragraph)

Then some guy in a forum shared this video to demonstrate how well the atomos was working with his A5100:
https://youtu.be/-DmrpLji6gk
He apparently wasn't even aware of the waxy skin thing going on with her face, but I see it right away now that i'm aware of it!

It seems that this issue is a legit one. While I've read that a firmware update to the RX series has solved it on that camera, the rest of us trying to record off our A6000, A5100, A7S, etc have this blasted thing show up whenever a face can be recognized. The "solution" has been to turn off face recognition and press record in camera. Without recording in camera, the hdmi out defaults to smoothing on again. I'm wondering, how many people do this and just haven't noticed it happens? Now that I've seen it and will be looking for it, I'm afraid it will drive me bonkers. OR do people just hit record in the camera to disable it?

My real question is, what about those of us who want to do this simply because we want to record longer durations than the internal recording allows? What happens when my A7S reaches 30 min and stops recording internally? Does everyone's face suddenly go all waxy? And what about trying to use external recording to prevent overheating on the smaller A5100? Hitting record on the camera isn't an option because it will build up heat too fast to even make it to 30 minutes most of the time. Is there another solution I'm not aware of? 

^ agreed. I recently was researching this stuff and found myself discussing it with folks on Personal-View. Apparently, much of the housings are mass produced between manufacturers, but the glass that gets installed is not necessarily equal. Its a quality control issue, much like many things out of China that are mass produced on a budget. 2 products from different companies can look identical, but not necessarily perform the same. 

I saw tests from the "cheapo ebay" models on that forum, and they did not perform as well as the RJ. On a whim, I decided to use the contact form to shoot an email out to RJ, and it seems like I got a personal response from Rong Jin himself. He was actually extremely informative and helpful, we started discussing coatings and quality of the glass, and it was pretty clear to me that this is a guy who takes pride in his product. I do believe he puts in a better quality glass element than the others.

Andy- hate to be "that guy", but this clip doesn't prove a darned thing.
 
You posted it earlier as well, and as someone else already pointed out there is so much motion going on that you wouldn't be able to spot a clean key versus a messy one in the first place. Not to mention it has been down sized to 480p. I mean, any HD camera downsized to 480p will work according to my explanation above about resampling. I'd say you could have probably shot this on an iPhone4 and gotten roughly the same results. 
 
Just saying.

Just wanted to follow up on this. Apparently there are 2 versions of the Tamron, one with a gold ring (black letters) that was made in Japan, and another one that is black with gold letters, made in China. Don't get the black one!

No, I think the point is that the traction behind these cameras are not all necessarily unanimous. Some people love it, other's don't. So look at it and make your own decision! There are quite a few things that don't impress me about the GH4, but I still think its a fine camera for most things.

Nothing wrong with a reminder now and then that our tastes differ and YMMV. There isn't any one camera that everyone agrees is perfect.

Was poking around for a deal on one of these 35-70s, stumbled upon a relatively unspoken gem (or so the critics claim) that is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

The Nikon version has an aperture dial, runs about the same price as that Nikkor zoom I mentioned, yet has a larger useful range and has been compared optically to the Canon L of this type. Its no 50-150, but for the price I'd be crazy to pass this mid-range up!

Collaboration with up and coming talents, local musicians, I am all for it, I do it. Right now I am collaborating with two bands and a singer.
 
The subject at hand here is rather different.
 
Should those collaborators have tracks in the Deep Dark Database that Vimeo is using for their Copyright Match system, your Vimeo upload will be at the mercy of their appeals process and the onus will be on you to prove that you have permission to use the track... not always easy, and an extra bureaucratic headache one really should not have to deal with in all fairness.
 
There's so many more bad things about this development...
 
- It severely limits freedom of artistic expression on non-commercial personal or experimental work
- It harms music sales because tracks will get less airplay and a smaller audience. I hear music first on Vimeo or YouTube then I go off to buy it on iTunes so I can play it on my iPhone. I don't walk around with a playlist of videos on Vimeo playing on my phone. Vimeo is not an iTunes rival so having commercial tracks on there doesn't compete with the music industry.
- It is impractical to get a license or permission for most music, especially the best cinematic stuff (Radiohead, Pink Floyd, for example)
- It is cost prohibitive to get a license in many cases
 
Really if I could pay something, easily and quickly to a major record label for artistic fair use of a track, I would, but there's absolutely no way of doing so. They are missing out on a huge business opportunity here.
 
By all means for wedding videographers who just got paid $20k for a video and they are ripping off a band by using copyright music in that commercial project without permission, these people should pay for a license.
 
For fair use, artistic stuff, with no commercial earnings behind the video, this stuff is all so very wrong.
 
All the best music is copyrighted material and it is virtually impractical to get the proper permissions to use, say, Pink Floyd, whilst fair use has no hard and fast rules and leaves you at the mercy of a judge. Copyright law needs reform big time.
 
As for Music Bed... Not satisfied with the vast majority of stuff in their library. It's too bland and boring on the whole. Very hard to find something that really inspires.

Everything about this video is totally unnecessary. The internet as a whole is stupider because of it, IMO.

You're definitely on the right track, now. When you say the "crop sensor without speedbooster receives less total light as the full frame sensor", you are correct in that the area of light that falls outside the sensor is cut off. Technically, that is light that wasn't received. But the confusion here comes from the idea that this somehow effects the part of the image that IS being exposed in the middle. 
In the original diagram, those two beams of light that hit the full frame and crop are the same intensity. Those pixels will be exposed the same amount, assuming the sensor tech are similar enough. It just won't see what is beyond the borders of the frame, as it is cropped out. 
 
The ISO and Aperture did not change. The entire image got cropped instead. 
 
But, the focal reducer condenses the light into a smaller point, thus making it more dense and intensifying it. Here's a diagram I threw together:


Note that as the beams spread out away from the lens, they get larger and less intense because the photons scatter. And in the second example, the resulting image is just a cut out of the full frame one above it. The intensity of light that is hitting the sensor in the middle is the same intensity of light that is hitting the middle of the full frame one. The exposure is the same, the FOV is same, but now we are only seeing part of the image as the rest was discarded outside the viewable area.

The problem is, if I want to see the entire subject (a camera in this case), I need to back up now. And by backing up, I am changing the distance between me and the subject, which changes the DOF calculation as well. But it has not changed the aperture of the lens, it has only changed how I might intend to use it. The DOF caculation is the same math as it always was (aperture size and distance to subject = DOF), saying that the aperture has now changed will really mess with the calculation of DOF as well as exposure. It is wrong IMO to say that. If someone bought a crop sensor and wondered why their DOF appears to be different, they never really understood DOF in the first place.
 
But note the bottom example, the focal reducer aims the beams of light together towards a smaller point of light. As they do that, they are less scattered and more dense, and thereby more intense. The resulting image that hits those photosites is therefore brighter as a result. The resulting image is therefore the same framing and DOF as the original on a full frame, however now it has the added side effect of being at least a stop brighter as well!
 
To all those saying the math in the video appears to be correct:
It may appear to have worked in his example, but its like saying that 2 * 2 = 4, therefore * means addition. Yes, in that case, the answer is correct (2+2=4), but not for the correct reasons. When you try to apply the same math to 3 * 3, your answer won't be what you expected it to be (according to the incorrect assumption, you might say 3 * 3 = 6, however those that understand that * really means multiplication will be expecting the correct answer of 9). His math may appear to work, but his explanation is patently wrong for it!

Everything about this video is totally unnecessary. The internet as a whole is stupider because of it, IMO.

Oh, one more thing (since I'm getting it all out of my system).
 
To those who agree with his assertion that camera manufacturers are somehow "ripping you off" because the F/2.8 works more like a 5.6:
 
Understand that wider apertures are more expensive to engineer and produce than smaller ones. The glass is larger and heavier and requires more quality control in the optics. Canon doesn't charge more based on the DOF you get by using it, they charge more because it is technically more complicated to produce a constant aperture zoom with that amount of sharpness and aperture.
Whether you are getting the same DOF as a full frame camera or not, the glass being produced by crop sensor manufacturers like Panasonic has an aperture of F/2.8. The aperture is a measurement of how light passes through that lens, and the lens in this situation IS, in fact, an f/2.8. So why should they not be allowed to charge what an F/2.8 costs? Because YOU don't find it as useful as it is on a full frame? How is that a fault of the lens? It still transmits the same intensity of light, has the same DOF (if you are strictly calculating aperture to distance-to-subject, as it should be), still costs them the same amount of R&D to make because it IS actually a 2.8 aperture. So why are they ripping you off by charging the requisite amount for it? 
 
Don't get me wrong, I wish it were cheaper, but it seems appropriately priced for what it is. 

Reducing an image in size from any sensor crop allows you to think of the sensor as one giant pixel but the problem is not all sensors are created equally.
 
You can have the Blackmagic sensor in the Production Camera, a large APS-C sized sensor with just 8MP and yet above ISO 400 it is really noisy because the photosites that actually do the light capturing are so small, and around them is a load of circuitry for global shutter readout taking up room on the sensor, that cannot be used to capture light!
 
You can have the 1" sensor from the RX100 Mark III which is back illuminated and very good micro lenses, no gaps between pixels, crowded out with 20MP on a small surface area and it ends up being as clean at ISO 1600 as the much larger 24MP sensor in the NEX 7 from a few years ago, because the pixel architecture and design is more modern, the micro lenses better, the readout circuits cleaner, less noisy A/D and so on...
 
So what is this total nonsense calculating ISO with the crop factor of the sensor.
 
The OP is trying to over simplify and combine specs so that they are universal with all cameras. It can't be done. You have to measure each component of the camera separately. Aperture is a separate spec to sensor size. Focal length is separate to sensor size. A 24mm is a 24mm! Whilst it may help to think of focal lengths multiplied by crop to get the angle of view (we all can use this to figure out what a 12mm looks like on a 2x crop sensor can't we?) it doesn't help when people try and change the spec of the lens based on something that is actually unrelated and a totally different thing, a different part of the camera.

Again... not true when you look at it on a per pixel level at 1:1.
 
If all is equal with the generation of sensor, and pixel density, then a crop sensor is merely that... a crop of a full frame sensor and in that crop is the same quality of image, same pixels, same intensity of light capture, same signal to noise ratio, to pretend otherwise because you are taking the whole sensor and shrinking the image down in post is a bit daft really.

Gather more light yes but how much you gather ACTUALLY depends on the pixel architecture!

I am shocked and appalled at how terrible the information in that video is (and I want my 37 min of my life back). 
 
What makes it worse is that he is actually presenting it with such arrogance and conviction, that people are buying into it!
 
Karrim, let me take a moment to explain:
 
If you take a picture on a 7D (APS-C crop) vs a 5D (Full Frame) with the same 50mm lens, the 7D only sees the center part of that lens. If you were to take that picture from the 5D and crop it inward 1.6x in post, it should look pretty much identical to the 7D's picture. Same bokeh, same DOF, same amount of light exposure. The difference is only that you are cropped inward so much that you might not be able to get your entire subject in the frame anymore.
 
The aperture does not change on a crop sensor camera. PERIOD. However, you have to stand farther away from your subject to get what you want to fit inside the crop. Since DOF is a combination of aperture and distance, the DOF will change and become deeper as you step back more. But again, the aperture does not change! Only your distance has. A picture taken at the same distance will have the same DOF, and most importantly the same amount of light!
 
The reason the manufacturers list "35mm equivalents" on their lenses is not at all misleading. Many photographers think in full frame FOVs, so they need to know that a 28mm is no longer a wide angle, but rather a medium one. The amount of light gathered does not change, the aperture is very much the same. But your composition is different, as you are standing farther away. F/2.8 at a particular distance to your subject will yield the same DOF no matter what size the sensor is. What Northup is saying is PATENTLY FALSE.
 
As far as light gathering with a speed booster- imagine you have a flashlight, and shine it at a wall. As you get closer to the wall, the photons are less scattered, closer together, smaller and brighter. If you've ever tried to fry ants on a sidewalk with a magnifying glass, you know how a focal reducer can condense the light from the sun into a single spot intense enough to start a fire. So when using a speedbooster, you are actually gaining more light, technically more than a full frame camera with the same lens would as it is more condensed now. This is science, this is physics of light, and has been totally explained to death before. 
 
As an aside- his whole thing about smaller sensors having poor low light performance because they see less light overall. I'm with Andrew- total and complete bullocks. The size of the sensor overall has NOTHING to do with it, but rather the size of the photosites. The photosites are what make up the individual pixels for your image. The higher the megapixels, the more densely populated the sensor is and therefore the smaller each photosite. Smaller photosites gather less photons per exposure and therefore get noisier at similar ISO values to larger ones. But technically, you can have a small sensor with larger photosites than a larger one. The Sony A7S how shown what a difference smaller megapixel counts can do for a sensor in low light. Technically Panasonic can make a MFT sensor especially designed for low light by only making it 10 megapixels. Then we'd get stellar ISO performance compared to any 5D, despite sensor size. 
 
He keeps going on about how because the sensor is smaller than a full frame one, it can't see as much light and therefore the ISO needs to pump up the gain higher to reach the same exposure. Everytime he says that I want to shove my fist through the computer screen for being so arrogantly ignorant. 

He said the "aperture changes", which is wrong. It does not. If it did, the exposure would as well. He wants to say that those manufacturers are somehow "lying to you" about the comparable lenses, that it should give comparable F-values as well. But the comparable f values would be far more misleading since they would pertain to light gathering ability!
But that's just one thing he said. Most of his "points" are misguided, especially about how sensor size relates to light gathering ability. In fact, I have more problems with what he described than agreements. Please don't just accept this video at face value.

I am shocked and appalled at how terrible the information in that video is (and I want my 37 min of my life back). 
 
What makes it worse is that he is actually presenting it with such arrogance and conviction, that people are buying into it!
 
Karrim, let me take a moment to explain:
 
If you take a picture on a 7D (APS-C crop) vs a 5D (Full Frame) with the same 50mm lens, the 7D only sees the center part of that lens. If you were to take that picture from the 5D and crop it inward 1.6x in post, it should look pretty much identical to the 7D's picture. Same bokeh, same DOF, same amount of light exposure. The difference is only that you are cropped inward so much that you might not be able to get your entire subject in the frame anymore.
 
The aperture does not change on a crop sensor camera. PERIOD. However, you have to stand farther away from your subject to get what you want to fit inside the crop. Since DOF is a combination of aperture and distance, the DOF will change and become deeper as you step back more. But again, the aperture does not change! Only your distance has. A picture taken at the same distance will have the same DOF, and most importantly the same amount of light!
 
The reason the manufacturers list "35mm equivalents" on their lenses is not at all misleading. Many photographers think in full frame FOVs, so they need to know that a 28mm is no longer a wide angle, but rather a medium one. The amount of light gathered does not change, the aperture is very much the same. But your composition is different, as you are standing farther away. F/2.8 at a particular distance to your subject will yield the same DOF no matter what size the sensor is. What Northup is saying is PATENTLY FALSE.
 
As far as light gathering with a speed booster- imagine you have a flashlight, and shine it at a wall. As you get closer to the wall, the photons are less scattered, closer together, smaller and brighter. If you've ever tried to fry ants on a sidewalk with a magnifying glass, you know how a focal reducer can condense the light from the sun into a single spot intense enough to start a fire. So when using a speedbooster, you are actually gaining more light, technically more than a full frame camera with the same lens would as it is more condensed now. This is science, this is physics of light, and has been totally explained to death before. 
 
As an aside- his whole thing about smaller sensors having poor low light performance because they see less light overall. I'm with Andrew- total and complete bullocks. The size of the sensor overall has NOTHING to do with it, but rather the size of the photosites. The photosites are what make up the individual pixels for your image. The higher the megapixels, the more densely populated the sensor is and therefore the smaller each photosite. Smaller photosites gather less photons per exposure and therefore get noisier at similar ISO values to larger ones. But technically, you can have a small sensor with larger photosites than a larger one. The Sony A7S how shown what a difference smaller megapixel counts can do for a sensor in low light. Technically Panasonic can make a MFT sensor especially designed for low light by only making it 10 megapixels. Then we'd get stellar ISO performance compared to any 5D, despite sensor size. 
 
He keeps going on about how because the sensor is smaller than a full frame one, it can't see as much light and therefore the ISO needs to pump up the gain higher to reach the same exposure. Everytime he says that I want to shove my fist through the computer screen for being so arrogantly ignorant. 

Referring to the video. It has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese.
 
He says a large sensor captures more light, without mentioning the crucial SIZE and NUMBER of pixels. It is the size of the pixels and how many there are that gives you your resolution and dynamic range. The Blackmagic Production Camera for instance has a larger sensor than the GH4 but sucks in low light because it has small photosites due to global shutter circuitry around each pixel taking up a lot of room. He has grossly oversimplified things in that video through lack of basic knowledge.
 
He is multiplying aperture by crop factor to give an equivalent depth of field, this too is bollocks.
 
F1.2 is F1.2. At the same focus distance and focal length you will get the same shallow DOF with a 50mm F1.2 on a small sensor as you would do on full frame. The difference is that to maintain the same framing, the small sensor camera has to move back from the subject, and the focus point shifts backwards towards infinity, which lessens the separation between the subject and background making it appear that the lens is giving a less shallow DOF.
 
He also really stupidly in his Canikon love affair doesn't seem to mention that F1.2 is as bright as F1.2 no matter what the sensor size is.
 
F1.4 does not = F2.8 with a 2x crop sensor in terms of exposure or light transmission.

LOL Andy- The FD has been out since I first heard about the RJ booster! I bought one in FD and EOS, and actually used the FD version this morning on a shoot!

Since my lenses are all FD, vintage Nikon or EOS, I now have them all boosted (Nikon on an EOS adapter). And the FD's get stepless aperture adjustment using the lever. I guess if I ever get any modern Nikon glass I'd need another adapter with the iris adjustment ring there too. Since I also own and use a Canon body, I mostly stick to EOS when it comes to modern glass (and stop down iris on EOS body before placing on adapter when necessary).
 
Which brings me to answer this guy:
 
The Nikon mount is the furthest flange distance of the popular lens types. That means the lens sits farther away from the film/sensor, and why you can almost universally mount a Nikon lens on any other body type (EOS, M4/3, etc) yet not vice versa. The BM focal reducer is a tight fit, as we've already seen. I'm willing to bet that they need all the distance they can get in order to fit that crazy reduction optic in there. EOS might be possible as it is only slightly closer, but Metabones has held out on the EOS mount until they get an active mount working as they did for the Sony adapters. Likely for the very reasons I mentioned above; without an EOS body available to change aperture, modern lenses are difficult to use on a passive dumb adapter. Once they start rolling those out, we might see an EOS adapter for the BM cameras with the same crazy optic, but I feel like anything shorter than that is too tight of a squeeze!