Jump to content

My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"


Recommended Posts

I will make a comparison, nikon d800 50mm 1.2@1.8 vs mamiya 645 80 1.9@ 2.8 vs mamiya rz67 90mm 3.5@3.5 which is roughly equivalent. I will use some cheap black and white film unless someone wants to buy me some portra 400 or ektar 100 (sharper) for this crap :P

Btw, the equivalences don't have to be exact, because if the difference is so tiny it could be adressed to some minor equivalence differences, then there is no difference between formats. The fact is, I use 6x7 because I can't take the same picture with the nikon, trust me, I fucking hate developing and scanning neither do I like lugging around a gigantic camera plus lenses and attracting views from people, I don't buy the whole romantic point of view about film, I just enjoy the endresult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 301
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When this thing was announced it totally blew my mind. And I have been wanting one ever since the first time I read about it. If you don’t know what this is all about just think of it as a Spee

Do the experiment properly and you'll find that the perspective is the same.  Surely you must have heard countless times before that perspective depends only on the subject distance.  This is a truth

Even crappy jpegs look decent pretty much straight from camera.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Nikkor said:

I will make a comparison (,...)

I use 6x7 because I can't take the same picture with the nikon, trust me, (...)

Yeah, _that_ would be gorgeous. Please... I think I knew the technical result, but hey, I've been wrong before and sometimes even photography could easily called an art. Call me curious, but I'm not the only one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pentax 645 75mm 2.8/Kipon Baveyes/Sony A7s

Last one is Pentax 645 45mm 2.8

Quick test as I just received the adapter today. I had to get the Leica M version and adapt it as I needed it for a shoot and the Sony version was sold out on Adorama.

Now I have to return it because the 45mm only focuses to 1 meter. I hope the extra 10mm in the Sony adapter will fix this.

DSC09283.jpgDSC09286.jpgDSC09291.jpgDSC09298.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, more stills.  How 'bout an animated .gif or a 3D pie chart?  Doesn't look like anything special I couldn't replicate (close enough) with my A7SII using regular full-frame vintage lenses.  (of course certain people will howl that "all formats are the same" after I said that).   

That said, your distance from your subject in the previous video "Michaela" exploits the "look" very well.  I defy anyone in the "all formats are the same" camp to match the perspective you had there and replicate what you did there with their Iphone.  I've been shooting terabytes of full-frame stuff for a couple of years and nothing I have done can match the medium format perspective you have in that video.

Btw, you look like Charles Manson.  People should not trust you with their children. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Viscount Omega said:

  I defy anyone in the "all formats are the same" camp to match the perspective you had there and replicate what you did there with their Iphone.

Please. No-one is denying that there are combo's that you cannot match in practice (as in your example), when very large differences in sensor size are involved. But this is only due to the fact there are no equivalent lenses (Iphone 6 cropfactor 7.21, you can do the math...or can you?).

However, the overlap between say medium format and fullframe is much less extreme and yes, can easily be matched using equivalent lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Timotheus said:

Please. No-one is denying that there are combo's that you cannot match in practice (as in your example), when very large differences in sensor size are involved. But this is only due to the fact there are no equivalent lenses (Iphone 6 cropfactor 7.21, you can do the math...or can you?).

However, the overlap between say medium format and fullframe is much less extreme and yes, can easily be matched using equivalent lenses.

Do I have to go back to square one with someone like you?   It's like trying to talk to a fucking grad student who thinks gov't creates jobs.  Fuck this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 8:12 AM, Viscount Omega said:
5 hours ago, Viscount Omega said:

Do I have to go back to square one with someone like you?   It's like trying to talk to a fucking grad student who thinks gov't creates jobs.  Fuck this.

That's because you're not using a larger lens circle.  When you put a full-frame 35mm lens on an APS-C camera you're not using a full-frame lens the way it was intended.  You're only using the center section of glass in the lens. 

I have different systems BECAUSE they are different.

I didn't buy them to try and get the same result and often use the SAME lenses across systems as it saves me buying more lenses.

  That said, IF there is a lens available, then you can match them all else being equal***

Trouble is, there are no 12mm f0.7 M4/3 lenses that would be needed to match a 24 1.4 lens FF or 42.5mm f0.6 M4/3 lens you would need to match an 85 1.2 FF.     You would probably need to be shooting in something besides air to be able to match a FF f0.95 lens with M4/3 (though an f0.5 lens would get close).      Using focal reducers with the fastest lenses doesn't get you any benefit in speed either as there seems to be limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed#Fast_lenses

If you have a faster medium format lens, the same also applies against FF but again, apart from some rare and expensive mostly aerial lenses, that isn't going to be available and wide angle lenses in particular are not going to be (easily) matched (let alone beaten) by what is available for FF.       For me, "equivalence" favours smaller formats for telephoto use (as long as it is "good enough").

*** The day M4/3 can match my A7s in low light/high ISO is likely still quite a way off though wouldn't it be nice to see and of course by then FF low light cameras will be better still.

The Government does create jobs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not even worth it to argue.  It's like that guy is still talking about sensor sizes, DOF and equivalence from 5 years ago.  It's like me against the world so when I say "Fuck this", I mean I'm going to stop reading this thread.  It's like being lectured to by a homeless guy drenched in his own urine.  

Your Aunt Sally can't tell the difference between formats anyway. :)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nikkor said:

Nice Zachguti, Looks much more promising now, f1.9 seems to be too much for the adapter.

I agree. I'm very happy with the look and sharpness at f2.8. The adapter definitely adds some barrel distortion and field curvature, which is usually ok with me.

If I can't use the 45mm or the 35mm f3.5, this adapter will be a huge disappointment. 

13 hours ago, Viscount Omega said:

That said, your distance from your subject in the previous video "Michaela" exploits the "look" very well.  I defy anyone in the "all formats are the same" camp to match the perspective you had there and replicate what you did there with their Iphone.  I've been shooting terabytes of full-frame stuff for a couple of years and nothing I have done can match the medium format perspective you have in that video.

I completely agree. That video was not made by me. It was Zack Wallnau on vimeo. I will shoot this weekend at the proper distances. I mostly wanted to check sharpness, and thought I'd share.

13 hours ago, Viscount Omega said:

Btw, you look like Charles Manson.  People should not trust you with their children. 

Hahaha. That's the director of the video I'm shooting. I'll let him know what the internet thinks of him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members

I changed my mind about getting a Sony A7s, Im going back to Leica instead (fingers crossed on finding a cheap SL).
Therefor there was a risk that review would just fade away and never get done (don't have much time for YT anymore).
So I decided to just finish it with what I have so far and when I do get the Leica version and have tested all my lenses and such I will make a revisit review.

Do I think you should you buy it?
Well that depends. Im certainly very glad I have it. I love it. Like seriously, Love It!
For others I say:
YES if you are an analog MF shooter that has lenses.
YES if you are an A7/Leica shooter that want to get into analog MF as well.
YES if you are an A7/Leica shooter that loves vintage glass and experimentation.
MAYBE if you are primarily a digital shooter that wants some fast portrait lenses or just happen to have $500 burning a hole in your pocket.
NO if you think DOF is everything.
NO if you think megapixels is tha shit!

Pros:

  • The awesome MF lenses!
  • $500 isn’t much to give another dimension to your camera.
  • Quality is great.
  • 80mm f1.9 at x0.7 crop is awesome.
  • Its the Medium Format Experience on the cheap.

Cons:

  • If you don’t have an interest in MF film it becomes niche.
  • No AF.
  • Some MF lenses are quite big.
  • Not all MF lenses focus to infinity (according to rumor, all of mine does).
  • $500 is still $500 and used once aren’t gonna be very common.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't you adjust the ISO for full frame with the crop factor squared? That's required math and physics for equivalence. If you do that brightness will match.

Good points showing improved image quality with the adapter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Referring to the Equivalence test here at 4:02: 

For example, if the crop factor is 2 and the ISO for the crop camera is 800, the FF camera should be set to 2^2 = 4*800 = ISO 3200. That's why the full frame image is darker.

Mattias states he doesn't believe in equivalence (including in the video), then does the test wrong- what's the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members

The test isn't "wrong". Changing the ISO isn't an option for everyone.
Some cameras wont let you go lower and at least my large sensor cameras cant keep up in high ISO with the smaller sensors that I have used.  
So trying to match the long depth of field of the smaller sensors is just introducing a lot of noise or creating a darker image, I cant use an "equivalent" lens to mimic the look.
And we all know shutter speed is what it is.

Any who,
This discussion is so boring by now that I don't care. I will simply refer back to the test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The test isn't "wrong". Changing the ISO isn't an option for everyone.

In the video you stated 'equivalence', which means you try to set both cameras to match per the equivalence math, right? Are you saying that the full frame camera you used couldn't set the ISO ~4x what you set the M43 camera? What were the two cameras?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...