Thread: New Canon Speed Booster

Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 65
  1. #51  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    Of course, until we can get our hands on it we won't know for sure, but the rational argument is in favor of the Canon having better quality for this purpose of shooting.
    Do you have a link to an actual optical comparison?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Try both first, and state your opinion later. All speedboosters degrade the image does not matter who makes them, can be more or less ofcourse but you put thick optics behind your lens that is not optimized for all focal lengths so results may vary between one reduducer to another differently between focal lengths for example. All boosters come with some quirks so nomatter how big of a lens manufacturer canon is does not matter much they still need to make compromises when making it. And yes canon do make really good lenses and a lot of them, but they also make a lot of plasticy low quality stuff. So I dont see their name as a stamp for quality. Metabones on the other hand I only had good experience with. Thier boosters hit way above thier price and the build quality is not canon plastic. And the pass trough electronics bettween the different mounts, metabones has done such for basically every mount out there without issues.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    Try both first, and state your opinion later. All speedboosters degrade the image does not matter who makes them, can be more or less ofcourse but you put thick optics behind your lens that is not optimized for all focal lengths so results may vary between one reduducer to another differently between focal lengths for example. All boosters come with some quirks so nomatter how big of a lens manufacturer canon is does not matter much they still need to make compromises when making it. And yes canon do make really good lenses and a lot of them, but they also make a lot of plasticy low quality stuff. So I dont see their name as a stamp for quality. Metabones on the other hand I only had good experience with. Thier boosters hit way above thier price and the build quality is not canon plastic. And the pass trough electronics bettween the different mounts, metabones has done such for basically every mount out there without issues.
    The canon speed booster is made with the same metal as the L series and isn't priced as Canon's plastic lineups. But even their plastic lenses, the cheapest 50mm around is still optically better than most equally priced lenses on the market.
    But the kicker in this is that the Canon speed booster is tested with their glass, primarily with cinema lenses in mind. So if using EF Canon lenses, this speed booster was made based on how they perform with these lenses, especially the CN-Es. As an owner of this lineup of lenses, I don't think the Metabones speed booster, at least not in this setup.

    We shall see in December when they arrive, but so far, all reports from the ones who tested the Canon one seems to confirm improvements over existing speed boosters, Metabones included.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    All speedboosters degrade the image does not matter who makes them,
    The good news is that things aren't quite that simple. In the whitepaper linked below I show measured MTF data demonstrating that a speedboosted Zeiss Otus at f/1.0 actually outperforms a plain Otus at f/1.4. Of course, proper speedbooster design is essential for this to happen. In the same paper I also demonstrate how a "real world" focal reducer can actually be better than "perfect". The key here is to understand that a large majority of photographic lenses have a similar aberration balance - especially near the optical axis - and its possible to be "better than perfect" by compensating for those aberrations.

    https://www.metabones.com/assets/a/s...Whitepaper.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Caldwell View Post
    The good news is that things aren't quite that simple. In the whitepaper linked below I show measured MTF data demonstrating that a speedboosted Zeiss Otus at f/1.0 actually outperforms a plain Otus at f/1.4. Of course, proper speedbooster design is essential for this to happen. In the same paper I also demonstrate how a "real world" focal reducer can actually be better than "perfect". The key here is to understand that a large majority of photographic lenses have a similar aberration balance - especially near the optical axis - and its possible to be "better than perfect" by compensating for those aberrations.

    https://www.metabones.com/assets/a/s...Whitepaper.pdf

    Yes its natural that the image improve the MTF and quality of the image in such sense that the projection get more concentrated. But you also introduce more corner softness and other oddities as you use more of the rim of tge projection.

    Will be interesting to see the canon booster side to side with metabones. My guess is they both have their quirks.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Caldwell View Post
    The good news is that things aren't quite that simple. In the whitepaper linked below I show measured MTF data demonstrating that a speedboosted Zeiss Otus at f/1.0 actually outperforms a plain Otus at f/1.4. Of course, proper speedbooster design is essential for this to happen. In the same paper I also demonstrate how a "real world" focal reducer can actually be better than "perfect". The key here is to understand that a large majority of photographic lenses have a similar aberration balance - especially near the optical axis - and its possible to be "better than perfect" by compensating for those aberrations.

    https://www.metabones.com/assets/a/s...Whitepaper.pdf
    When was this paper written/published? I remember Roger Cicala first being sceptical about the "speedbooster" but pleasently surprised after testing.
    And an other question: is this https://petapixel.com/2019/07/05/goo...tical-problem/ already a thing in optical design, with a fixed optical design like the speedbooster?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    When was this paper written/published? I remember Roger Cicala first being sceptical about the "speedbooster" but pleasently surprised after testing.
    And an other question: is this https://petapixel.com/2019/07/05/goo...tical-problem/ already a thing in optical design, with a fixed optical design like the speedbooster?
    Missed this completely when announced. Has anyone taken his calculation into engineering?
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    When was this paper written/published? I remember Roger Cicala first being sceptical about the "speedbooster" but pleasently surprised after testing.
    And an other question: is this https://petapixel.com/2019/07/05/goo...tical-problem/ already a thing in optical design, with a fixed optical design like the speedbooster?
    I wrote that back in 2014, although I don't think it has circulated widely. Regarding the other item, I think the answer is no. Its much simpler and far more generally useful to use conventional damped least squares optimization techniques rather than a massive pile of algebra to solve a limited design problem. The case at hand was designing a singlet with no spherical aberration or astigmatism. However, in that case you'd still be left with field curvature, chromatic aberration, etc..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    Yes its natural that the image improve the MTF and quality of the image in such sense that the projection get more concentrated. But you also introduce more corner softness and other oddities as you use more of the rim of tge projection.

    Will be interesting to see the canon booster side to side with metabones. My guess is they both have their quirks.
    That's why we measured the MTF over the full image circle to do the comparison.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #60  
    There is one video I watched that did a bit of a rough comparison between the new Canon Speedbooster and the Metabones. Their conclusion was that the Canon was a tad better. It's on CVP's Canon C70 review video. Watch at about 7:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qM6U--chGg
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts