Jump to content

My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Ahh, your one of those fellows that believes bigger sensor always equals better lowlight.

It's physics and math. Multiplying ISO by crop factor squared works, you can see for yourself, why won't you try it? What were the two cameras you used for your 'equivalence' test?

1 hour ago, Nikkor said:

The iso 4x? Double the iso in the fullframe, at best, because the A7 is getting old.

The speedbooster doesn't make the sensor any bigger.

Did you watch the video, specifically at 4:02? My understanding was no focal reducer was used. The cameras were set up for equivalence: focal length and aperture, but not ISO (which is the error and reason the FF image is darker. Setting the ISO correctly will match apparent brightness). Again, the formula is multiply ISO by crop factor squared (each f-stop lets in 1/2 the amount of light, that's why ISO must be multiplied by the crop factor squared- to compensate for the loss in light). It works- how can you deny the real-world result?

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

15 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Sounds like we should change the name from "equivalent lens" to "Equivalent lens plus adjusted shutter speed and/or ISO with the option of external ND-Filter" :) 

The term 'equivalence' is just a tool to match cameras and lenses, not lenses by themselves. Once the concept is understood, sure, for stills you can use shutter, ND, and ISO as needed to match EV (for film/video need to match shutter).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jcs said:

It's physics and math. Multiplying ISO by crop factor squared works, you can see for yourself, why won't you try it? What were the two cameras you used for your 'equivalence' test?

Did you watch the video, specifically at 4:02? My understanding was no focal reducer was used. The cameras were set up for equivalence: focal length and aperture, but not ISO (which is the error and reason the FF image is darker. Setting the ISO correctly will match apparent brightness). Again, the formula is multiply ISO by crop factor squared (each f-stop lets in 1/2 the amount of light, that's why ISO must be multiplied by the crop factor squared- to compensate for the loss in light). It works- how can you deny the real-world result?

Sorry Mental Lapsus, it's a two stop jump like you said,when I read 4x I thought you ment jumping 4 stops. Anyone who does't get the equivalence thing might just compare a m43 and Fullframe camera in DXO charts, check the dynamic range chart.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members

Funniest thing I know, and that happens all the time. At least once a week:
Someone tells me that camera X is much better and produces better images than camera Y and calls me an "idiot" (or much worse) for using camera X.
I ask them to send me an example of the images.
They say "sure" and send me 7... or 12%... or a graph......

Im sorry but charts can suck my balls :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mattias, you are so close, if you set ISO correctly you've got equivalence down.

What's the purpose of your videos? Is it to create drama or controversy to get views and negative engagement by doing things wrong on purpose, or is it to share your work, to help people make decisions and to help them learn how to shoot? Why not demonstrate equivalence correctly so other people can learn too?

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

"Wrong" is only existing in relation to ones definition of what is right ;) .

'Equivalence' is well defined, simple math. Not following instructions is like setting up a chess board where one player arbitrarily moves the pieces. If the other player is expecting a game of chess, they'll let the errant player know they are making mistakes. If the errant player says, "so what, I make my own rulez haha!", then what's the point of playing 'chess' or in this case 'equivalence' and what does this say about the errant player?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
9 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Camera X has better skin tones.

And wood tones.

7 hours ago, tupp said:

We'll probably need a macro lens for that.  ;)

4 hours ago, tweak said:

@jcs real definition of insanity = repeating the same task over and over but expecting a different result.

You are absolutely right. I've  totally given up on trying to discuss with him now.
He ignores my questions but demand I answer his.
I tried in various ways explain that some full frame cameras cant use higher ISOs than small sensor cameras (it varies from camera to camera).
I tried to explain that not everyone is willing to change shutter speed because that effects the motion blur.
I tried to explain that for example a 12mm lens is more likely to have barrel distortion than a 35mm.
I clearly showed (what most of us know) that exposure doesn't change with sensor size, the notion that crop factor applies to aperture is a myth.

But most of all he doesn't comprehend that this is for ME and not HIM. If he don't give a rats about ISO noise, use NDs or only shoot landscapes then that's fine.
If DOF is all that matters then he can go ahead and calculate any way he wants. I don't care.

But I do care about the endless amount of beginners contacting me and asking if its true that their phone can do everything that a FF can.
Or the countless beginners who are told that they shouldn't consider for example a BMPCC because they then "need a f1.8 lens just to match the exposure of a f4". Only to find out later that it was total BS and that exposure remains the same.
Not to mention the guys (in my experience most girls just shoot and don't go on about meaningless specs as much as guys) who says "there is no wide angle for the BMPCC" just because they don't get that comparing formats is totally useless. A 12mm on s16 is a wide lens and the shooter shouldn't give a crap about what a 12mm looks like on an old box camera with glass plates and a gunpowder flash.
They should learn to use their camera.. that's all.

So your right Tweak. In order to remain sane I will stop trying. He can believe and think what ever he wants.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jcs said:

'Equivalence' is well defined, simple math. Not following instructions is like setting up a chess board where one player arbitrarily moves the pieces. If the other player is expecting a game of chess, they'll let the errant player know they are making mistakes. If the errant player says, "so what, I make my own rulez haha!", then what's the point of playing 'chess' or in this case 'equivalence' and what does this say about the errant player?

Indeed, "what is the point".

The fact you believe someone must follow your "rules" or "game" (or whatever you want to call it) and agree with you (no matter how right you are) is where you have gone wrong imo. If I spent my days arguing with everyone/everything I disagreed with I would never get anywhere, I would be in a perpetual state of conflict. Just let it go ;) .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
44 minutes ago, tweak said:

Indeed, "what is the point".

The fact you believe someone must follow your "rules" or "game" (or whatever you want to call it) and agree with you (no matter how right you are) is where you have gone wrong imo. If I spent my days arguing with everyone/everything I disagreed with I would never get anywhere, I would be in a perpetual state of conflict. Just let it go ;) .

There is no point. Again he completely ignores what anyone says, don't respect others opinions, don't even try to understand what others think.
Instead he tries to close the thread just because some don't share his views and wont let his opinion be forced upon them.
Doesn't sound like reason or discussion in my book, more like a mild form of  terrorism...

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

There is no point. Again he completely ignores what anyone says, don't respect others opinions, don't even try to understand what others think.

Oh, the irony.

Also noted: throwing 'insanity' and 'terrorism' at @jcs when he has been polite, patient and indeed persistent. Ad hominem much?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members

Yes very polite. Very very polite. No passive aggressiveness. No opinion forcing. No cheap puns. Not trying to get the thread closed or anything.
Just politeness in its purest form.
I've had a smile through out the whole thread, and still do. But definitely not as super duper polite.
No joke, I have never experienced such a big chunk of politeness.
Its the politest ever. Like ever.
Polite.

(Better put this here since some people are on edge it seems: ;) )

Anyway Im out.
I started the thread to see if some where interested in the adapter and tell my thoughts about it.
That is the thread title. 
And not the constant bickering that lead me to many months ago put "The Video Movement is Dead" under my profile.

I wrote a long post last summer about how this movement has taken the same turn as all fads do eventually.
Most have moved on to other fields.
Pros are at work.
Enthusiasts and artists are out shooting.
Very few of them attend forums, most never do.
Left on the forums is just a few people trying to keep the ship floating while the "Assburgers" try to sink it with the never ending stream of arguments and forced opinions about specs, Canon, idiots, Philip Bloom jealousy, etc, etc, bla, bla, bla...

It seems to me that even Andrew is starting to loose faith.

I wont read any more response to this thread but if someone has a comment or question about the actual adapter Im happy to answer as best I can :)
(If so, contact me on YT, I turned of notifications on all forums years ago so there is a very big risk that I never see it.)

Also, to help finance a Leica version of the adapter I might consider selling the Sony version.
So if someone is interested they know where to find me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mattias seems to have trouble understanding that the brightness of the image on the screen is just the result from processing.

But if mattias hasn't understood this in two years or he understands it but has some neurotic crusade thing about being simple or something like that, then there is nothing to do.

He Even believes that depth of Field is the same when you take a picture with the Same focal length and aperture but different Sensor size.

In both cases he thinks that ,exposure and DOF, are absolute, and he doesn't want to understand the underlying concept. Have you ever seen an ego Implosion an Internet Forum? Not going to happen.

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...