1996-1999: Casio QV10A1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 9502004-2007: Olympus C-50602006-2006: Fujifilm F202007-2010: Fujifilm F31fd2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR2012- : Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)2015- : Fujifilm X-T10 (+ 23mm and 56mm)Now you know. :)
Francis Carver: "The Speed Booster is essentially a backwards teleconverter... shortening the focal length of the lens.. as a 0.71x focal length multiplier lens... combined with the 2x crop of a Four Thirds sized sensor gives a net effective crop of 1.4x, so a 50mm lens becomes a 35.5mm lens when the adapter is added. Then ... this 35.5mm lens offers a field-of-view equivalent to a 71mm lens on full frame."
Wow, how wonderful, Metabones & Co. Who would give $649 for the privilege of giving up ultra wide angle perspectives? This product makes zero sense. You can get a pretty good lens, maybe even a pair of lenses, for that much money.
And, y'know. There's still also that math thing, which is just basic facts, not a justification.
I'm not justifying anything — like I said, I also think the price seems high. On the other hand, if someone has thousands of dollars in Canon glass and picks up a m43rds body as an addition to the system, maybe it's worth it. I guess Metabones' financial returns will tell the story.
Let me spell this out:
On a m43 camera, a native m43 lens with a focal length of 50mm has a focal length of 50mm — no crop. This gives a field of view approximately like that you would get on a full-frame camera with a 100mm lens.
On a m43 camera with a Speed Booster and a full-frame lens with a focal length of 50mm, the focal length actually becomes 35mm. This gives a field of view approximately like that you would get on a full-frame camera with a 70mm lens.
This is not "giving up ultra wide angle perspective" no matter how you look at it.
If you want to look at it that way, there is also no "crop" when using a non-native lens. "Crop" is just a way of normalizing focal lengths for comparison of field of view, but doesn't really change anything. However, the 70% reduction in focal length _is_ real.
Without commenting on the price (which I agree seems quite high for what you get), I think you're misunderstanding. Forget the full frame reference; on the camera it works on, this reduces the focal length of the mounted lens, so a 50mm lens becomes _wider_.
Nice. The price seems high, but the convenience and utility will totally be worth it. I have the Manfrotto Flex Arm in both the heavy duty and the lightweight versions, and the heavy duty one is too hard to move and not flexible enough, and the lightweight version won't stay in place and can't support more than its own weight. Basically, interesting idea, didn't work out. This seems a lot better.
Pat Cullinan Jr: The sample photos need heavy post-processing.
A lot of them _do_ seem to have a tending-towards-lower-key exposure choice — I suspect that's part of the design towards creating a specific film-like look.
I'm not a Fujifilm shooter (at least, not at present...) but I don't think there's a way to bias this other than using EV compensation or adjusting the exposure each time, which is a little bit unfortunate. You can adjust saturation ("color density") and shadow and highlight detail, but not this. With Pentax, each of the tone curves (roughly analogous to Fujifilm's film simulation) also has a "high key / low key" slider. Ah well — nothing's perfect.
Karroly: All the pics in the gallery look underexposed...
I think it's mostly intentional, as part of the intended "film look". If you don't like that, expose differently.
The exposure choice looks great to me. It may be that you just have a different preference. Alternately, you may want to check your monitor calibration.
Howard S: it looks a lot like http://flashhavoc.com/godox-witstro-ar400-ring-flash-coming/
Cheetahstand also has amazing customer service. Not that Adorama is bad in this respect either, but I've been very, very happy with the personal touch.
HeyItsJoel: If it's done right, it should have the ability to tilt upwards so it can bounce flash off the ceiling!
It'd have to be way more powerful for that to work.
For what it's worth, we had this rumor for Pentax last year — http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52214695
fmian: The 3-4 Metz flashes I have handled recently (modern models) felt incredibly bad. Poor component fitting. Loose door covers. Cheap feeling external materials. High price though.If that's the first impression I got after using YongNuo and Canon flashes, then I'm sure other potential customers got the same impression.
Having said that, I've seen some old Metz flashes that were quite nice.
iudex -- look at where they're made. The Metz 36 AF5 is a licensed product, made by Tumax/Icorp http://www.icorpandtumax.com/DSL88Series.html in Hong Kong. The 44 AF and higher models are still German-made.
Mike Yorkshire: Very sad news. Sadly the camera manufacturers have designed flash systems closely integrated with their cameras and then had the resulting flash made by Chinese workers. Metz would always find it difficult to keep up in this market - their products were always second to none.
For the last few years, Metz has done exactly that — all of their lower range (36 AF and down) is made in China and bears a strong resemblance to Tumax/Icorp generic rebadged flashes.
ThePhilips: As cameras' high ISO performance improves, a need for a proper flash lessens.
Otherwise, as an amateur, I was always surprised by the lack of advancements in the lighting equipment. Flash designs, and the accompanying technics, are very old. The problems with them - are as old. Yet pretty much nobody tries to improve something there. Flash is still the same largish expensive-ish clunky device I have hard time to justify to buy and dedicate the space in my bag for it. As if interchangeable lenses weren't enough of the hustle.
> As cameras' high ISO performance improves, a need for a proper flash lessens.
I'd argue that the need for _proper_ flash is constant. The need for flash for taking snapshots in dim rooms may lessen, but that's basically irrelevant.
Paul Farace: In 1977 Pentax stormed the camera world with a simple SLR, the K1000, that only came in black leatherette and chrome. It dominated the lower level camera market for years... now they only seem to make pretty collectibles... sad in a way. I love my art deco box cameras but these seem to be way beyond that!
I like the one that looks like a bowl of sherbet!
Have you looked at the K-3 (or, for that matter, K-50 or K-500)? All are very highly rated as serious cameras, not just "collectables". If they want to make candy-colored models (primarily for the Japanese market, as I understand it) to bring in some money, fine by me!
Marty4650: Pentax is just doing something to set themselves apart from the competition.
They make very good APSC cameras and lenses, but so do their competitors Nikon, Canon and Sony. And it seems anything Pentax can do, their competitors can do as well or better. So they need something to set themselves apart. That something is "a mind dazzling array of color combinations."
This may sound silly, but there is a market for this. A niche market perhaps, but still a market. And if no one else wants it then Pentax will take it for themselves.
I haven't seen anyone else do prime lenses like the Limited series — that's what I'm in it for. (Possible exception of Fujifilm and their X lineup.)
Wait, 20× magnification? Or... 20× zoom?
Hmmm. Still doesn't look my idea here: http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/38329/1943
Matthew Miller: Fun and confusing fact! "High key lighting" and "high key photographs" are different concepts with different meanings and different history. The former comes to us from cinema, where "key" means the main light; the latter is much older and comes from painting and classical art, and "key" is closer to its use in music, and means the preponderance of tones — everything is shifted to a brighter average exposure, with little or no dark or black tones.
This tutorial focuses on high-key lighting, and the results aren't _really_ high key images in the classical sense (although we can argue about influence of the white background). The model's hair and clothing here have definite dark tones.
Generally, this isn't a huge difference for _high key_, since they're both kinda bright, but there is generally a different emotional effect:
* High-key image: ethereal, delicate, dream-like* High-key lighting: cheery, upbeat, energetic
but if we go to _low key_, there's a huge difference: low key *lighting* usually means that there's a lot of contrast from a hard non-key light. This is often dramatic and dynamic, whereas a low key image in the classical sense has an overall sense of darkness, often without contrasting highlights:
* Low-key image: somber, restrained, depressing* Low-key lighting: dramatic, mysterious, taut
In some ways this is a tangent to the tutorial, but it's something I see a lot of people get mixed up, and it's confusing when people are using a similar-sounding term to mean very different things.