awesome video Lee - thank you - it really gave me an idea what I could do with Medium Format, I have always been interested in it as the dynamic range photos taken with it are awesome. I would love to experiment some video ideas with it. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this.
The dynamic range would be camera body specific. It wouldn't have any affect on dynamic range, just the wider field of view at any given focal length kind of look
great information ... I use a Mamiya 645 complete set with a S1H setup.Your description of bending light to the sensor with these lenses is very helpful. Good video
I discovered the same thing when I picked up a relatively inexpensive SMC 645 200mm f/4 Pentax-A mount lens a couple of months ago. With a Fotodiox PT645-EOS adapter it makes awesome images on my 1D3 and 5D2 DSLR's. I haven't yet tried it on the M50 but that would need a different glass reducer. The (used) adapter only cost me AU$42.79 shipped from the UK.
Up until now I have always been under the impression for medium format to require a sensor the size of the actual medium format (44 x 33 millimeters) or larger. Anything smaller than that cant ever be called 'real medium format' as the physical size just isnt there.
This give an equivalent of being bigger than the 44x33. It's more like 52x38 or something like that. I can't remember. This adapter is for the focal length behavioral change only. It doesn't do anything else. Other than add a stop of light too
The real test would be how big can you blow the image up without having to use AI or some algorithm. The beauty of medium is not just the look of the format the the image size you could get. It’s awesome to be able to use the medium format lenses but that’s just half of it. Great video.
Great video. I've been using the pentax and contax kipon baveyes since they first came out. Love them so much. In your video you talk about moving closer to achieve the same composition, but the idea is to actually use a longer focal length medium format lens to achieve the same 35mm focal equivalency. For example, one would use a 70mm medium format lens to get the same composition as using a 50mm on a full frame camera (70mm * 0.7x kipon crop factor = 49mm). The benefits of digital medium format is that using longer lenses allows for less lens distortion, and larger lenses have more resolution detail in the out of focus areas leading to a smoother transition between out of focus bokeh.
I read this comment some time ago and didn't know I didn't respond. I actually took your advice and it's how I've been shooting ever since. This setup is all I use for everything. Including weddings, events, wildlife, and video. I learned to just switch lenses instead of moving because I'd rather have the look of longer glass anyway. Which is the reason I shoot this way to begin with
That 1.4 multiplication factor that you found just gives you the results that you'd get by dividing your sensor size with the focal reduction factor (0.7) 1.4 is close to the inverse of 0.7, which is about 1.4286. Or just use the formula apparent sensor size = actual sensor size / focal reduction factor You may just continue multiplying with 1.4, the result is almost the same anyway
Lovely images. It is indeed a great way to get a medium format field of view if you also match aspect ratio and even better if you use a camera with a 16 bit sensor, you will then be able to match the output and colors.
I have the following medium format lenses for my Mamiya RB67: 50mm f/4.5 90mm f/3.8 140mm f/4.5 macro 150m f/4 soft focus 180mm f/4.5 250mm f/4.5 I would love to be able to mount these medium format lenses on my full-frame Leica M10 digital rangefinder. However, I really do not see the advantage of doing so. It would be easier and less expensive for me to use a non-optical adapter to mount my Nikon full-frame SLR lenses on my Leica digital.
Yes that is true. But what is easier to do is subjective. I've grown accustomed to only using this setup for everything I shoot. In fact, I can't remember the last time I used a regular full frame lens. Even the manual focus part became part of how I think. I've learned the lenses and how the focal lengths look, enough to predetermine how my shot is going to look ahead of time. But everyone has their thing, and I am also interested in trying some other glass. Such as the ones you mentioned
Very well done and quite interesting! I‘m shooting landscape and fashion with a 5Dc, a 5D MK2 and a Hasselblad H2D-39. I‘m thinking about getting an old and cheap Sony A7 to try this exact medium format focal reducer, to compare it to my medium format camera, but I‘m not sure if it‘s worth it with the old a7. My budget is definitely too low for a new one though
I just looked into A7 prices and that sounds like a good way to go, on a tight budget. I thought about getting one myself when I first looked into the focal reducer. I bought the M mount version because its adaptable to Sony, RF, and others. I switch between my Sigma FP and canon eos R. The eos R might be a good thing to consider too because you already have canon gear.
MF is bigger image circle than FF. So it focus larger circle to a smaller circle, hence more light than a MF sensor/film would receive. Same effect with FF to APS-C speedboosters.
But it does add a unique look if you know how focal lengths work. This is the same difference between why people go to full frame instead of APSC, minus sensor performance. This is for the focal length look only. Which can make a huge impact on how a specific focal length behaves
That's a piece of good news to hear that finally someone did a speedbooster adapter for medium format lenses on 35mm fullframe camera... BUT 0.7 is not enough. The smallest medium format size is 60x45mm (the real pic is 56x42mm), the most used pic size is 56x56mm (6x6). So, just some calculations... It's a simple Pythagoras equation: ... ... square(A) + square(B) = square(C) ... ... C = squareroot( square(A) + square(B) ). The diagonal of the smallest MF pic (56x42mm) is squareroot( square(56) + square(42) ) = 70mm. The diagonal of the most used MF pic (56x56mm) is squareroot( square(56) + square(56) ) = 79.2mm. The diagonal of a 35mm fullframe pic (36x24mm) is squareroot( square(36) + square(24) ) = 43.27mm. Thus the "minimum" amount of the reducier should be -- 43.27 / 70 = 0.62x to get the pic of a 60x45 (crop factor is the reciprocal = 1.62) -- 43.27 / 79.2 = 0.55x to get the pic of a 60x60 (crop factor is the reciprocal => 1.83) Why didn't they make these instead of a common fullframe to APS-C reducer (0.71x)? (and for that quite hefty price...)
You can also just do 1/crop factor to obtain the same value, it's easier. For example APSC -> FF is also 0.62x, or 1/1.6. the reason they make speedboosters 0.71x for APSC is because corners would be horrible if they made it 0.62x, they keep more of the center of the image circle to avoid severe vignette and distortion. It's very likely the same thing here from medium to FF. You won't be seeing 0-loss speedboosters anytime soon. Part of the tradeoff of using them! They all keep a 1.1x crop factor all things considered to keep a clean image.
It adds to T-stop not F-stop. This is something that even manufacturers say wrong. F-stop increase would add to more defocused background as a change in bokeh. But that did not happen and that is impossible. So F-stop stays the same but T-stop gains one stop. It's a wierd thing i dont even know how to describe it properly.
awesome video Lee - thank you - it really gave me an idea what I could do with Medium Format, I have always been interested in it as the dynamic range photos taken with it are awesome. I would love to experiment some video ideas with it. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this.
The dynamic range would be camera body specific. It wouldn't have any affect on dynamic range, just the wider field of view at any given focal length kind of look
great information ... I use a Mamiya 645 complete set with a S1H setup.Your description of bending light to the sensor with these lenses is very helpful. Good video
this was really informative and helpful. i'm now looking to buy one of theses adapters myself. They are hella expensive these days tho :(
For someone who doesn't shoot film, which medium format lens is the most common?
Honestly, I only know much about pentax medium format glass. The 75mm and the 55mm are the most common
I discovered the same thing when I picked up a relatively inexpensive SMC 645 200mm f/4 Pentax-A mount lens a couple of months ago. With a Fotodiox PT645-EOS adapter it makes awesome images on my 1D3 and 5D2 DSLR's. I haven't yet tried it on the M50 but that would need a different glass reducer. The (used) adapter only cost me AU$42.79 shipped from the UK.
I have a M42 200mm and I don't see the interest of MF unless you tilt shift
Up until now I have always been under the impression for medium format to require a sensor the size of the actual medium format (44 x 33 millimeters) or larger. Anything smaller than that cant ever be called 'real medium format' as the physical size just isnt there.
This give an equivalent of being bigger than the 44x33. It's more like 52x38 or something like that. I can't remember. This adapter is for the focal length behavioral change only. It doesn't do anything else. Other than add a stop of light too
The real test would be how big can you blow the image up without having to use AI or some algorithm. The beauty of medium is not just the look of the format the the image size you could get. It’s awesome to be able to use the medium format lenses but that’s just half of it. Great video.
Great video. I've been using the pentax and contax kipon baveyes since they first came out. Love them so much. In your video you talk about moving closer to achieve the same composition, but the idea is to actually use a longer focal length medium format lens to achieve the same 35mm focal equivalency. For example, one would use a 70mm medium format lens to get the same composition as using a 50mm on a full frame camera (70mm * 0.7x kipon crop factor = 49mm). The benefits of digital medium format is that using longer lenses allows for less lens distortion, and larger lenses have more resolution detail in the out of focus areas leading to a smoother transition between out of focus bokeh.
I read this comment some time ago and didn't know I didn't respond. I actually took your advice and it's how I've been shooting ever since. This setup is all I use for everything. Including weddings, events, wildlife, and video. I learned to just switch lenses instead of moving because I'd rather have the look of longer glass anyway. Which is the reason I shoot this way to begin with
That 1.4 multiplication factor that you found just gives you the results that you'd get by dividing your sensor size with the focal reduction factor (0.7)
1.4 is close to the inverse of 0.7, which is about 1.4286.
Or just use the formula apparent sensor size = actual sensor size / focal reduction factor
You may just continue multiplying with 1.4, the result is almost the same anyway
Lovely images. It is indeed a great way to get a medium format field of view if you also match aspect ratio and even better if you use a camera with a 16 bit sensor, you will then be able to match the output and colors.
I have the following medium format lenses for my Mamiya RB67:
50mm f/4.5
90mm f/3.8
140mm f/4.5 macro
150m f/4 soft focus
180mm f/4.5
250mm f/4.5
I would love to be able to mount these medium format lenses on my full-frame Leica M10 digital rangefinder. However, I really do not see the advantage of doing so. It would be easier and less expensive for me to use a non-optical adapter to mount my Nikon full-frame SLR lenses on my Leica digital.
Yes that is true. But what is easier to do is subjective. I've grown accustomed to only using this setup for everything I shoot. In fact, I can't remember the last time I used a regular full frame lens. Even the manual focus part became part of how I think. I've learned the lenses and how the focal lengths look, enough to predetermine how my shot is going to look ahead of time. But everyone has their thing, and I am also interested in trying some other glass. Such as the ones you mentioned
What camera lens and adapter do you use???
Pentax-a 645 lenses (35, 55, 150, 200, 300, 45-85, & 80-160)
Kipon Baveyes P645 to Leica M x0.7 focal reducer.
I also mount the m mount to my rf, and l mount
@@leecoreyphotography Excelent ! , but i prefer no baveyes, pure image on the sensor.
Very well done and quite interesting! I‘m shooting landscape and fashion with a 5Dc, a 5D MK2 and a Hasselblad H2D-39. I‘m thinking about getting an old and cheap Sony A7 to try this exact medium format focal reducer, to compare it to my medium format camera, but I‘m not sure if it‘s worth it with the old a7. My budget is definitely too low for a new one though
The A7 will work for that purpose but id suggest something with a newer sensor. A good high quality EVF as well.
I just looked into A7 prices and that sounds like a good way to go, on a tight budget. I thought about getting one myself when I first looked into the focal reducer. I bought the M mount version because its adaptable to Sony, RF, and others. I switch between my Sigma FP and canon eos R. The eos R might be a good thing to consider too because you already have canon gear.
Don’t those adapters take away a stop of light the reason why that adapter adds a few stops ?
MF is bigger image circle than FF. So it focus larger circle to a smaller circle, hence more light than a MF sensor/film would receive. Same effect with FF to APS-C speedboosters.
It add light rather than taking it away. I haven't noticed a quality change either
The only way I know is to make panorama to cover 1.4 time FF field of view to get MF look
I use this adapter plus panorama, it's very dramatic
none of this makes any sense - a simulation is not the thing itself
But it does add a unique look if you know how focal lengths work. This is the same difference between why people go to full frame instead of APSC, minus sensor performance. This is for the focal length look only. Which can make a huge impact on how a specific focal length behaves
That's a piece of good news to hear that finally someone did a speedbooster adapter for medium format lenses on 35mm fullframe camera...
BUT 0.7 is not enough. The smallest medium format size is 60x45mm (the real pic is 56x42mm), the most used pic size is 56x56mm (6x6).
So, just some calculations...
It's a simple Pythagoras equation: ...
... square(A) + square(B) = square(C) ...
... C = squareroot( square(A) + square(B) ).
The diagonal of the smallest MF pic (56x42mm) is
squareroot( square(56) + square(42) ) = 70mm.
The diagonal of the most used MF pic (56x56mm) is
squareroot( square(56) + square(56) ) = 79.2mm.
The diagonal of a 35mm fullframe pic (36x24mm) is
squareroot( square(36) + square(24) ) = 43.27mm.
Thus the "minimum" amount of the reducier should be
-- 43.27 / 70 = 0.62x to get the pic of a 60x45 (crop factor is the reciprocal = 1.62)
-- 43.27 / 79.2 = 0.55x to get the pic of a 60x60 (crop factor is the reciprocal => 1.83)
Why didn't they make these instead of a common fullframe to APS-C reducer (0.71x)? (and for that quite hefty price...)
You can also just do 1/crop factor to obtain the same value, it's easier.
For example APSC -> FF is also 0.62x, or 1/1.6. the reason they make speedboosters 0.71x for APSC is because corners would be horrible if they made it 0.62x, they keep more of the center of the image circle to avoid severe vignette and distortion.
It's very likely the same thing here from medium to FF. You won't be seeing 0-loss speedboosters anytime soon. Part of the tradeoff of using them! They all keep a 1.1x crop factor all things considered to keep a clean image.
It adds to T-stop not F-stop. This is something that even manufacturers say wrong. F-stop increase would add to more defocused background as a change in bokeh. But that did not happen and that is impossible. So F-stop stays the same but T-stop gains one stop. It's a wierd thing i dont even know how to describe it properly.
That's not how it works chief