This is my next purchase... My FX9 is great (not mine,companys),my a7iii is great but having 6k on the go with full frame results...100% dream come true thanks to LucAdapters
The clips with the booster seem to have less contrast. Is this possibly due to the extra stop of light coming in from the booster? Have you noticed any loss of resolution/sharpness in the center of the frame with the booster? Would love to see a comparison on a color focus chart with same exposures. Thanks for sharing!
T.J. Penton there is much less contrast, flares are more pronounced. This is extreme situation with light in frame. For sure You have to be more careful with booster especially with side flaring. I’ll do more tests with different lenses and maybe clean magicbooster optics with Zeiss kit. All exposures are the same. Iso 400 / 2500 wide open. Thanks for watching!
I would also like to see shots without this kind of lighting, as the loss of contrast would be problematic for me. I like the wider field of view, but it's hard to tell if the contrast can be restored. It could be the nature of this lens and the Booster combination, but the Booster shots also seem rather soft and bland. So, I look forward to more testing, but thanks for posting this video!
I prefer the image without the booster (its sharper). Much much cheaper to just buy a wider angle lens than this booster. Thanks for the test though 👍🏿
@@akpevbe Oh I misread your comment as „can't" good shallow depth of field. Well I'd just prefer to have the actual full frame look instead of just working around with the crop factor, but of course that's negligible
Am I the only one who likes the less clinical, less sharp and contrasty image the Magic Booster gives? Looks like a mojo and IMO adds some character to the image. Flares are flares, but look nice to me (I am assuming this is the most extreme case). Looks like it removes the sharpness and contrast just like a Pro Mist would do without the highlight bloom.
I just installed mine last night. I have the same flares. I plan on getting the JTZ DP30 matte box to help with light pollution. I'm going to keep the Magicbooster and will have to be mindful of how I use it. What are you going to do?
With minimal testing, it seems that any light hitting the front of the lens (glass and area around the glass) will somehow get magnified by the booster. So if you physically look at the front of your lens and see it illuminated then you will have flares. +Lucadapters
I'm going to keep it. I had to clean MB optics and will do more tests. But it seems plenty sharp without direct light source. Mattebox will certainly help.
@@PanJulianTVCool. My ultra-casual tests show that the adapter is still sharp. But it is tough to really tell since the sample area is much smaller now. I will still get the matte box, eventually. But to save money right now will try some deep lens hoods.
This is an excellent adapter design. Yes it flares as is expected,it's a magnify glass but you can use your beautiful full frame lenses which i have right now...AMAZING product. I prefer less contrast,flare and depth of field than crop . My art lenses are super sharp and super contrasty anyway so it's either this or Pro mist filters. So...
Great vid. I just received mine. The loss of sharpness is mathematical: the booster doesn't make the sensor any bigger while exposing it to 'more' info...so somethin's gotta give. The value any kit depends on use: I bought mine because 1. I shoot at a much higher resolution than I publish. 2. I do underwater, so I need lots of light. 3. Wider field of view, yet removing the central element returns to normal. For people who publish & shoot at same resolution, I suspect postproduction could help.??
i'd be very interested in seeing some test charts for comparison. as a lot of people here already pointed out, this thing seems to visibly reduce contrast and from what i can tell, also resolution. i'm no sharpness freak you can't add sharpness as easily as you can remove it :D still a great idea, i guess since the way you have to install it is so sketchy, i don't think major manufacturers with more experience like metabones will follow up to it unfortunally.
Not sure... the image quality is less for sure. But is more organic more organic to me with Lucas adaptor... but the sad thing is that takes times to remove.. I could like to use only sometimes.. How do you like it?
Samuele Apperti it took me about 25 minutes for the first time. But I had to clean optics on second day as I spotted some dust inside - be careful ;) and it took me a lot less time. Maybe 7 minutes with whole process. So it could be done on daily basis. But I doubt you would like to do it on a set with someone standing behind You 🤣
Vishal Kumar Gr8 choice. I sold bmpcc 6k and now own bmpcc 4K with Olympus 12-100 - this is crazy combo! If you’re not low light shooter its the way to go :) 512GB Cfast card and, 10 LP-E6 batteries... some accessories and you good to go :)
The Filmmaking Channel can’t argue with that. But what if you have no room to move back? Or need extra stop of light because your 1.4 lens is not enough to keep reasonable ISO? Or You just want to buy something for your bmpcc setup, because cage, rig, v-mounts, gimbal adapters, cf’s and t5’s was not enough of your hard earned credits 😃😂
Mr. Julian I didn’t understand the second part of your message. What are you talking about? As for space? Use a wider lens and honestly how often don’t you have space when using a rigged camera? I understand you want to validate your choice but I’m sorry. You were suckered into something that degraded the quality of your camera. The obsession with “full frame” is the downfall of many people. A good story doesn’t depend on how big a sensor ir how cropped it might be. There are numerous work arounds for good compositions with the crop the camera has.
The Director's Corner of course. I’m not ambassador. Different people have different needs. There is no right or wrong. That’s why There are no comments in the video - for people to come with their own conclusions on the product. Hope it helped You in some way.
The Director's Corner yes, but not everyone is working with controlled light. Some working on events, low budgets and so. Still - I’m not trying to tell you that You should buy it. Far from it. Cheers for your insight.
Thanks for the test I was looking for more content out there for these boosters. I also did a quick test on mine as well seems like different boosters respond a bit little differently? ruclips.net/video/1-_WG_kBgQU/видео.html
Waste of money, no dynamics in the clips, no excuse on the light, save yr money folks just stand precisely one metre further back from your subject and get magic booster equivalent shot but sharper, punchier and better dynamics. Not rocket science, but this crop nonsense can be rectified by that extra metre back from the subject and you will have $ 600 bucks extra to spend on other goodies. It's a lot of money lining his pocket on flawed logic, and inferior picture as softer. It's physics put another piece of glass in front of another lens or behind it and you destroy the lens unique design or characteristic. I also made a DIY magic booster using simple x0.71 optics available everywhere and for a fraction of the price lol. This product is best kidology have seen on any crowd funding site, only suckers bought it, and deep down they regret doing so and bought the hype.
I’m not going to lie, it looks softer
This is my next purchase... My FX9 is great (not mine,companys),my a7iii is great but having 6k on the go with full frame results...100% dream come true thanks to LucAdapters
The clips with the booster seem to have less contrast. Is this possibly due to the extra stop of light coming in from the booster? Have you noticed any loss of resolution/sharpness in the center of the frame with the booster? Would love to see a comparison on a color focus chart with same exposures. Thanks for sharing!
T.J. Penton there is much less contrast, flares are more pronounced. This is extreme situation with light in frame. For sure You have to be more careful with booster especially with side flaring. I’ll do more tests with different lenses and maybe clean magicbooster optics with Zeiss kit. All exposures are the same. Iso 400 / 2500 wide open. Thanks for watching!
@@PanJulianTV Definitely! Not sure if it's worth it. Let me know if you do a sharpness test. Thanks again
I would also like to see shots without this kind of lighting, as the loss of contrast would be problematic for me. I like the wider field of view, but it's hard to tell if the contrast can be restored. It could be the nature of this lens and the Booster combination, but the Booster shots also seem rather soft and bland. So, I look forward to more testing, but thanks for posting this video!
Can't wait till BM comes out with their Full Frame.
i don't think they gonna make a full frame sensor any time soon as they just released a 12k camera with new super 35 sensor.
thats not happening
Full frame is not even a format for shooting film, it's for photography.
Super 35 is the industry standard.
@@p-r-i-v-a-t-e this aged like fine wine.
It’s HERE
As much as i love this idea, I'm gonna have to pass. Thanks for making this video
I prefer the image without the booster (its sharper). Much much cheaper to just buy a wider angle lens than this booster. Thanks for the test though 👍🏿
i was thinking the same
It will not give you the same shallower depth of field, though
@@NikHem343 Aside from the fact that i can get good shallow dept of field on my 24mm 1.4, poeple hadly need shallow DOF when shooting on a wide lens
@@akpevbe That's right of course, but I for one would shoot a lot of (actual) 50 and 85, too.
@@akpevbe Oh I misread your comment as „can't" good shallow depth of field. Well I'd just prefer to have the actual full frame look instead of just working around with the crop factor, but of course that's negligible
Am I the only one who likes the less clinical, less sharp and contrasty image the Magic Booster gives? Looks like a mojo and IMO adds some character to the image. Flares are flares, but look nice to me (I am assuming this is the most extreme case). Looks like it removes the sharpness and contrast just like a Pro Mist would do without the highlight bloom.
Since the UV/IR filter can be remove, can it now be used as an astro cam? Hmnn.
I just installed mine last night. I have the same flares. I plan on getting the JTZ DP30 matte box to help with light pollution. I'm going to keep the Magicbooster and will have to be mindful of how I use it. What are you going to do?
With minimal testing, it seems that any light hitting the front of the lens (glass and area around the glass) will somehow get magnified by the booster. So if you physically look at the front of your lens and see it illuminated then you will have flares.
+Lucadapters
I'm going to keep it. I had to clean MB optics and will do more tests. But it seems plenty sharp without direct light source. Mattebox will certainly help.
@@PanJulianTVCool. My ultra-casual tests show that the adapter is still sharp. But it is tough to really tell since the sample area is much smaller now. I will still get the matte box, eventually. But to save money right now will try some deep lens hoods.
@@kjvisual7 If You're using photo lenses I believe its all you need - sunhood.
This is an excellent adapter design. Yes it flares as is expected,it's a magnify glass but you can use your beautiful full frame lenses which i have right now...AMAZING product. I prefer less contrast,flare and depth of field than crop . My art lenses are super sharp and super contrasty anyway so it's either this or Pro mist filters. So...
Great vid. I just received mine. The loss of sharpness is mathematical: the booster doesn't make the sensor any bigger while exposing it to 'more' info...so somethin's gotta give. The value any kit depends on use: I bought mine because 1. I shoot at a much higher resolution than I publish. 2. I do underwater, so I need lots of light. 3. Wider field of view, yet removing the central element returns to normal. For people who publish & shoot at same resolution, I suspect postproduction could help.??
i'd be very interested in seeing some test charts for comparison. as a lot of people here already pointed out, this thing seems to visibly reduce contrast and from what i can tell, also resolution.
i'm no sharpness freak you can't add sharpness as easily as you can remove it :D
still a great idea, i guess since the way you have to install it is so sketchy, i don't think major manufacturers with more experience like metabones will follow up to it unfortunally.
Im kind of scared to install but u made it look ez. How much is this thing
€649
Not sure... the image quality is less for sure. But is more organic more organic to me with Lucas adaptor... but the sad thing is that takes times to remove.. I could like to use only sometimes..
How do you like it?
Samuele Apperti it took me about 25 minutes for the first time. But I had to clean optics on second day as I spotted some dust inside - be careful ;) and it took me a lot less time. Maybe 7 minutes with whole process. So it could be done on daily basis. But I doubt you would like to do it on a set with someone standing behind You 🤣
Fog image, very bad
definitely softer look with the adapter.
Great video. I just bought one as well. And I am very satisfied with it.
Francisco Slade thanks for watching!
Sorry didnt get the deferance. Not justify such dlicate modification near the sensor.
tell me. when and where can i buy this thing? thank you.
Віктор Відео lucadapters on Facebook. Msg him and pay Via paypal. It takes 3 weeks to ship.
@@PanJulianTV thank you. i wrote on facebook. waiting for reply.
so where can I buy ??? I dont see any links on google or facebook
Hi! You'll have to go to LucAdapters fanpage on FB and send him a MSG. hope it helps
Mr. Julian
Oh okay thanks
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS a good value for money
Vishal Kumar if you own FF Sigma ART lenses then why not, but apart from that its better to get quality aps-c lenses for the cost of booster
@@PanJulianTV oh okay. I actually was thinking about bmpcc 4k. Because currently I own a Nikon D7100. And I wish I could use it as a cine camera.
Vishal Kumar Gr8 choice. I sold bmpcc 6k and now own bmpcc 4K with Olympus 12-100 - this is crazy combo! If you’re not low light shooter its the way to go :) 512GB Cfast card and, 10 LP-E6 batteries... some accessories and you good to go :)
@@PanJulianTV Thanks for your reply! And thank you for great advice!
Did the IR filter come with it?
Hi! Yes, it comes with magic booster
@@PanJulianTV thx
What was the filter you remove first after removing the funnel??
Hi! It's the original UV filter that is replaced with one provided by Luca
@@PanJulianTV got it!
Heavy lens flare !!!
This is complete garbage, the images speak for themselves. Move back your camera and voila you have the desired composition
The Filmmaking Channel can’t argue with that. But what if you have no room to move back? Or need extra stop of light because your 1.4 lens is not enough to keep reasonable ISO? Or You just want to buy something for your bmpcc setup, because cage, rig, v-mounts, gimbal adapters, cf’s and t5’s was not enough of your hard earned credits 😃😂
Mr. Julian I didn’t understand the second part of your message. What are you talking about? As for space? Use a wider lens and honestly how often don’t you have space when using a rigged camera? I understand you want to validate your choice but I’m sorry. You were suckered into something that degraded the quality of your camera. The obsession with “full frame” is the downfall of many people. A good story doesn’t depend on how big a sensor ir how cropped it might be. There are numerous work arounds for good compositions with the crop the camera has.
Also reasonable iso is achieved with lighting.
The Director's Corner of course. I’m not ambassador. Different people have different needs. There is no right or wrong. That’s why There are no comments in the video - for people to come with their own conclusions on the product. Hope it helped You in some way.
The Director's Corner yes, but not everyone is working with controlled light. Some working on events, low budgets and so. Still - I’m not trying to tell you that You should buy it. Far from it. Cheers for your insight.
Much softer image, not worth for me
Thanks for the test I was looking for more content out there for these boosters. I also did a quick test on mine as well seems like different boosters respond a bit little differently? ruclips.net/video/1-_WG_kBgQU/видео.html
looks super soft I pass.
Waste of money, no dynamics in the clips, no excuse on the light, save yr money folks just stand precisely one metre further back from your subject and get magic booster equivalent shot but sharper, punchier and better dynamics. Not rocket science, but this crop nonsense can be rectified by that extra metre back from the subject and you will have $ 600 bucks extra to spend on other goodies. It's a lot of money lining his pocket on flawed logic, and inferior picture as softer. It's physics put another piece of glass in front of another lens or behind it and you destroy the lens unique design or characteristic. I also made a DIY magic booster using simple x0.71 optics available everywhere and for a fraction of the price lol. This product is best kidology have seen on any crowd funding site, only suckers bought it, and deep down they regret doing so and bought the hype.
Steve I agree with you on this one. I think this makes the image look much worse with minimal positive effects.