SUPER AWESOME NEWS!!!!

Hey everyone! So some super exciting news! Metabones speed booster seems to be the answer to our prayers in regards to getting wide on the Blackmagic!

Check out the link below!

http://philipbloom.net/2013/01/13/speed ... /#comments

Looks pretty neat! We've got an EF BMCC on order where I work, so I guess this won't be immediately useful to us (unless they release an EF to EF version). Great news for anyone with an M43 model, though.

Now I seriously should consider about BMCC mount choice...

Given the amount of EF mount devices out there, I'm sure this will be offered in some form or other for an EF mount camera. I probably wouldn't base my buying decision on one accessory...

I've only scanned through the article as busy on job, but does this not increase depth of field? As it concentrates all the light through the lens.

Jules

This adapter essentially turns the MTF version camera into APS-C!

Crop factor from FF = 36.0 / 15.81 x .71 = 1.62.

If it works as advertised, it's truly a game changer.

Cheers.

to make sure i understand :

-it works ONLY on MTF mount
-It does the magic
-Only Canon lenses that have Manual Exposure rig can be used ( for the reason that MTF on BMD is passive )

right?

thanks


g

to make sure i understand :

-it works ONLY on MTF mount
-It does the magic
-Only Canon lenses that have Manual Exposure rig can be used ( for the reason that MTF on BMD is passive )

right?

thanks


g

My understanding of where it stands right now is...
-It works only on Sony E Mount right now (there are plans for an MFT mount)
-Magic? Maybe.
-If there is an MFT adapter, then it will be active for active MFT mounts and passive for passive mounts.

I have to say that this development caused me to question my BMC EF-mount pre-order. However, the MFT mount is only planned by Metabones (and we all know how products that are simply announced works out in terms of wait) and there is no such thing as an active MFT BMCC, even in terms of an annoucement by BMD as being in development. I'm sticking with my EF mount.

All of my great EF glass is electronic aperature. As such, I need an active mount. Given the wait for the EF-mount, I'm guessing that this might be something I look at in a year to two years. At the BMCC price point, it might just become my second BMCC, should an active MFT and the Metabones MFT-to-EF adapter ever materialize.

This is great news indeed!

I hope to see more on the development of the EF mount or MFT.

Well it appears to me that this adapter contains two functions. First, it's a E-mount to EF adapter with electronics. Second, it's a collection of glass elements that perform the task of widening and subsequently speeding up the lens.

So, this adapter would never work on an EF model BMC, because the flange distance is already where it needs to be and any adapter, no matter how thin, would make the flange distance longer.

However, the BMC-EF doesn't need the first function of the adapter, since it is already an EF mount with electronics. I wonder if Metabones could make something for the BMC-EF that only provides the reducing/speeding up function. It would have to be a piece containing the necessary glass elements, that you drop in to the camera. It would live inside the tube between the lens mount and the sensor. They would obviously have to find some method of securing it without interfering with the mount or flange distance.

If they were to make this, it may be possible to reduce the lens even further to squeeze that whole full frame image from the lens down to the size of the BMC sensor.

If this is possible, the camera plus this adapter would be on a whole different level.

Well it appears to me that this adapter contains two functions. First, it's a E-mount to EF adapter with electronics. Second, it's a collection of glass elements that perform the task of widening and subsequently speeding up the lens.

So, this adapter would never work on an EF model BMC, because the flange distance is already where it needs to be and any adapter, no matter how thin, would make the flange distance longer.

However, the BMC-EF doesn't need the first function of the adapter, since it is already an EF mount with electronics. I wonder if Metabones could make something for the BMC-EF that only provides the reducing/speeding up function. It would have to be a piece containing the necessary glass elements, that you drop in to the camera. It would live inside the tube between the lens mount and the sensor. They would obviously have to find some method of securing it without interfering with the mount or flange distance.

If they were to make this, it may be possible to reduce the lens even further to squeeze that whole full frame image from the lens down to the size of the BMC sensor.

If this is possible, the camera plus this adapter would be on a whole different level.

I like this line of thinking. Sort of like the OPLF's that a company made to put into the 5D Mk II. It resides in the camera as an add-on. I would definitely be interested in it!

The Metabones info indicates "Optics designed by Caldwell Photographic in the USA." Perhaps Caldwell would be interested in making such a product for the BMCC, since the optics are "all" that is really needed for the EF version.

This just solved every little whine about the bmcc's sensor size. Now we'll have better lowlight beacise it make make all lenses a stop faster, f0.9 anyone? Then we will have real wides, real FAST wides. And we will have thin DOF! And all this PLUS it makes all those lenses waaay sharper than they normally are. Whitepaper said there was a huge increase in center and corner sharpness with the MFT..so that means that product already exists. I mean, this is HUGE! It just solved all of the BMCCs shortcomings in one fell swoop! BM should partner with them in creating a focal reducer straight from full frame to its sensor size. Which would mean that the lenses will be even faster, wider and sharper. Combine that with the BMCCs amazing sensor, and we've got an extremely awesome camera with zero compromises! THIS IS AMAZING!

I hope Blackmagic Reads this...

I hope Blackmagic Reads this...

I would hope they do more than that...

This adapter essentially turns the major deficiency of the BMCC (small sensor) into an asset!

Nikon lenses suddenly become wider, faster and sharper with the MFT BMCC than they are on S35 cameras. And for 2.3x telephoto, you simply remove the adapter.

Rather than developing an S35 camera, BM could concentrate on this extremely low cost approach to exponentially widen the lens choices for the camera.

Perhaps they could either buy Metabones, make a deal with them to include the adapter with the current camera, or even embed the optics in the mount.

At the very least, a few MFT cameras would seem to be in order.

Anything but just read...

Cheers.

Hi everyone, this is Bo-Ming Tong of Conurus (who contributed to the electronic portion of the Metabones Speed Booster). If you would allow me to explain the MFT plan...

Passive MFT will be added in March 2013 for Leica R, Alpa, Contax C/Y, Contarex, Rollei and Nikon (including DX and G). An active MFT for Canon EF is planned for the future.

The MFT version maintains the 0.71x crop factor but will have higher optical quality because the optics are covering a smaller image circle now. (Specs are the same across MFT and APS-C, but the optical design is optimized for each format.) So please don't hacksaw the APS-C version for the optical elements!!!

Given that BMCC with MFT mount is passive anyway, I think the current plan is very solid, even if there is no partnership between Blackmagic and Metabones. However, if the need arises, Metabones is all ready to discuss and potentially collaborate.

Hi everyone, this is Bo-Ming Tong of Conurus (who contributed to the electronic portion of the Metabones Speed Booster). If you would allow me to explain the MFT plan...

Passive MFT will be added in March 2013 for Leica R, Alpa, Contax C/Y, Contarex, Rollei and Nikon (including DX and G). An active MFT for Canon EF is planned for the future.

The MFT version maintains the 0.71x crop factor but will have higher optical quality because the optics are covering a smaller image circle now. (Specs are the same across MFT and APS-C, but the optical design is optimized for each format.)

Thanks for the news! Would you be so kind as to comment on my post below that I copied from another thread here so validate or correct my conclusions regarding the use of the MFT adapter on the BMCC MFT camera?

"To summarize the white paper if my understanding of the optics is correct:
The Metabones focal-reducer on a EF lens-to-MFT mount creates an image circle of about 21.6mm in diameter on a true micro four-thirds sensor with a resulting multiplier of 0.71 affecting the field-of-view on a full-frame 35mm lens, for example, as if it were now a 25mm lens and a full stop faster as long as the wide aperture of the EF lens is about f1.26. Please take a moment to digest that.

Now we are concerned here about the BMCC which as you know has a sensor size smaller than a micro four-thirds sensor. If we take the identical focal-reducer and mount it on the BMCC MFT camera, about 15% of that reduced image circle is lost as the BMCC sensor fits well within the image circle. So we will see the increased centre sharpness and even less of the loss of resolution at the edges and we get the increased brightness of the lens, but we won't quite get back to the field-of -view of a true micro four-thirds sensor. Instead of seeing the FOV of a 25mm lens, our 35mm EF lens will look like a 28mm or 29mm lens! Still amazing.

Please let me know if my reasoning is flawed."

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your question. Correct me if I am wrong but BMCC has a 2.3x crop factor, which in my opinion is not that far behind the official MFT's 2x. The combined crop factor would have been 1.6, matching a Canon DSLR such as 7D. You could stick a Sigma 8-16 on the combo, and that shoots like a 13-26 in 135 format. BMCC + Speed Booster are already wider and faster than anything before! If, before the Speed Booster, the BMCC had already been a great proposition with the only nitpick being difficult to find wide angles for it, then the advent of Speed Booster completely wipes out that last bit of worry.

Bo-Ming Tong
Conurus

Thank you Bo-Ming Tong for coming to our forum and adding your comments! It's always best to learn about a product from the people who understand it best

Cheers
sean

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your question. Correct me if I am wrong but BMCC has a 2.3x crop factor, which in my opinion is not that far behind the official MFT's 2x. The combined crop factor would have been 1.6, matching a Canon DSLR such as 7D. You could stick a Sigma 8-16 on the combo, and that shoots like a 13-26 in 135 format..

Bo-Ming Tong
Conurus

Thank you for your response. So I was wrong about a 35mm lens appearing on the BMCC MFT camera as if it had the field-of-view of a 25mm lens or even 28mm. The 0.71 multiplier must be applied to the original crop factor of the BMCC sensor (2.3) to determine the effect of using the focal-reducer on FOV. Therefore 2.3 times 0.71 equals 1.6 (like APS-C). So a 35mm EF lens on the BMCC MFT with the focal-reducer will approximate the field-of-view of a 55mm lens which is what we'd see if it was on an APS-C sensor. The Sigma 8-16mm zoom will look like 13-26mm. Thanks again for the clarification!

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hey! I can finally sign back in.

Thanks for hopping in to let us know more about it, Tong!

Thanks for replying here Bo-Ming Tong! You have just helped create one of the most revolutionary technologies in the camera world!! Besides the amazing speed boost I love how it amazesly increase sharpness so much! Speed booster + BMCC might become one of the sharpest combos to exist! Amazing!

It would be ideal if the optic could be mounted inside of the EF mount version, thus allowing aperture control and IS support for Canon lenses. This would be a huge win not not require active electronics to be supplied by metabones.

However I'm confused as to why people think that M4/3+Adapter would be any sharper than APS-C.

Hi everyone, this is Bo-Ming Tong of Conurus (who contributed to the electronic portion of the Metabones Speed Booster). If you would allow me to explain the MFT plan...

Passive MFT will be added in March 2013 for Leica R, Alpa, Contax C/Y, Contarex, Rollei and Nikon (including DX and G). An active MFT for Canon EF is planned for the future.

G'day mate.

There would be a lot of demand for a passive MFT to EF mount from ex 5D shooters like myself who shoot exclusively with vintage primes. All of my nikon, M42, pentax k, and leica-r lenses have been adapted for EF with semi permanent leitax adapters.

I'm confused as to why people think that M4/3+Adapter would be any sharper than APS-C.

Look at the white paper on Metabones' web site. If I recall correctly, it explains how the MTF (measure of contrast where blacks are black and whites are white) is improved significantly in the central part of the smaller image circle. The outer portion of the image circle is not as sharp as the centre but apparently still as good as the original lens at least.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm confused as to why people think that M4/3+Adapter would be any sharper than APS-C.

Look at the white paper on Metabones' web site. If I recall correctly, it explains how the MTF (measure of contrast where blacks are black and whites are white) is improved significantly in the central part of the smaller image circle. The outer portion of the image circle is not as sharp as the centre but apparently still as good as the original lens at least.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I have no doubt that the lens performs better with the adapter than without for the M4/3 sensor. However I can't wrap my brain around why the lens would perform better vs a larger sensor. Maybe it is easier to consider APS-C+Adapter vs FF sensor. Seems like APS-C+Adapter would have no advantage.

I'm confused as to why people think that M4/3+Adapter would be any sharper than APS-C.

Look at the white paper on Metabones' web site. If I recall correctly, it explains how the MTF (measure of contrast where blacks are black and whites are white) is improved significantly in the central part of the smaller image circle. The outer portion of the image circle is not as sharp as the centre but apparently still as good as the original lens at least.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I have no doubt that the lens performs better with the adapter than without for the M4/3 sensor. However I can't wrap my brain around why the lens would perform better vs a larger sensor. Maybe it is easier to consider APS-C+Adapter vs FF sensor. Seems like APS-C+Adapter would have no advantage.

It reduces flaws in the image circle that would be apparent in the larger sensor. The trick is not to introduce flaws from the adapter itself and that's why no one has applied this so successfully on a motion camera before. The concept is old but the execution is fresh.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Take a FF lens
Attach it to a 10mp APS-C sensor with the Metabones adapter
Then attach it to a 10mp FF sensor without the adapter

Both sensors are capturing the exact same amount of image circle at the same resolution. So how are these any different except for the artifacts that the metabones adapter potentially introduces?

Clearly the adapter will be better than without for the same sensor size.

Take a FF lens
Attach it to a 10mp APS-C sensor with the Metabones adapter
Then attach it to a 10mp FF sensor without the adapter

Both sensors are capturing the exact same amount of image circle at the same resolution. So how are these any different except for the artifacts that the metabones adapter potentially introduces?

Clearly the adapter will be better than without for the same sensor size.

easy - the same image circle, the same resolution.
but due to the size of the sensor, the SPI (sensor-area per inch) is significantly increased. decreasing aliasing by comparison (but not decreasing aliasing comparing the same camera)

It also acts as a magnifying glass - more light on the sensor = brighter... doesn't chance the f/stop. but does chance the T/stop. I guess in the same way a magnifying glass effects perceived resolution, you get that benefit from this adapter.

At least that's how I understand it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope Blackmagic Reads this...

Perhaps they could either buy Metabones, make a deal with them to include the adapter with the current camera, or even embed the optics in the mount.

I hope they don't buy Metabones. We want these adapters release on time

Passive MFT will be added in March 2013 for Leica R, Alpa, Contax C/Y, Contarex, Rollei and Nikon (including DX and G). An active MFT for Canon EF is planned for the future.

Hi, Bo-Ming Tong. Wow i shoot with Nikkor lenses, the MFT to Nikon excites me a lot! So the adapter will work with full frame and dx lenses, right? will it have a mechanical aperture dial for the G and DX lenses?

Thanks, Thomas

I hope they make a cheap passive EF to MFT adapter under $400. Having the active adapter on the BMCC MFT is wasteful. Or it would be amazing if they can make an external controller for EF models. To control aperture and provide IS power.

If we can have the Canon 24-70mm IS + Speedbooster with an external controller, that would be flawless.
PLEASE Metabones!!!

We need to combine these awesome products to get the ultimate combo!
http://store.redrockmicro.com/livelensmft

This is my major hangup with the release schedule: A number of the lenses can be adapted to EF mount anyway, a passive EF really should be in the first wave if not the first adapter to be released.

If they release a Nikon version then it would likely HAVE to have a mechanical aperture dial, otherwise you're stuck with old Nikon primes which is a grave limiter.

A Passive EF mount (or an Active one, it doesn't matter) would at least allow you to use a Novoflex adapter on Nikon G lenses, extending your range. And, of course--again, most glass can be adapted to EF, anyway.

The RR EF controller would be a good solution, and whatever else comes out with IS stabilization after that.

It doesn't seem like a passive mount is in the cards and EF isn't an early release...if you want an EF mount email Mark and Tong, we really need an EF to MFT mount more than any of the others IMO.

It doesn't seem like a passive mount is in the cards and EF isn't an early release...if you want an EF mount email Mark and Tong, we really need an EF to MFT mount more than any of the others IMO.

Sorry, but what we (by that I mean I) need is Nikon to MFT. The MFT mount is passive, clearly the easiest to produce, and hoards of Nikons (and Rokinon, Zeiss, etc.) are both manual and sharp.

Cheers.

Passive MFT will be added in March 2013 for Leica R, Alpa, Contax C/Y, Contarex, Rollei and Nikon (including DX and G). An active MFT for Canon EF is planned for the future.

I might be missing something here, but: Why Alpa?

No Leica M ?

So what is the time frame on the MFT version of the BMCC ? I plan on getting some nice Rokinon cine glass and this reducer would work swell for the 24 35 and 50. Also is there a firm release date of this product being compatible for the passive MFT BMCC. I read the article checked the website but there is no model speed booster as of right now that works with this Camera.

So through my long winded message is it worth the wait for a MFT BMCC or would you guys just get the EF version (if invested in heavy EF glass) as soon as one becomes available?

Take a FF lens
Attach it to a 10mp APS-C sensor with the Metabones adapter
Then attach it to a 10mp FF sensor without the adapter

Both sensors are capturing the exact same amount of image circle at the same resolution. So how are these any different...?

The image circle with the Metabones adapter is smaller than the image circle without it. The amount of light captured (with the exception of any light absorbed or reflected by the four elements in the adapter) is however the same so the smaller image circle appears brighter and brighter means better contrast and that means improved MTF or apparent sharpness. But any aberrations in the FF lens may be minimized because everything is made smaller (with the exception of defects in the adapter as you indicated) and that can improve image characteristics for the smaller APS-C sensor.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It doesn't seem like a passive mount is in the cards and EF isn't an early release...if you want an EF mount email Mark and Tong, we really need an EF to MFT mount more than any of the others IMO.

Sorry, but what we (by that I mean I) need is Nikon to MFT. The MFT mount is passive, clearly the easiest to produce, and hoards of Nikons (and Rokinon, Zeiss, etc.) are both manual and sharp.

Cheers.

I'd likely think there are more people that would benefit from an EF dumb mount (being able to actually use Nikon G glass as well) than a passive Nikon mount. Thus, why Blackmagic, VisionResearch (Phantom camera), KineRAW and many many more start with an EF mount, not an F mount.

Also, matter of tastes... Personally, I think the Rokinon's are unusable wide open, but some people dont' care about soft images or haze or poor color so not a big deal. Old Nikkors are also soft wide open, unpleasantly so on newer digital sensors. Again, just me. The more flexibility the better.

It doesn't seem like a passive mount is in the cards and EF isn't an early release...if you want an EF mount email Mark and Tong, we really need an EF to MFT mount more than any of the others IMO.

Sorry, but what we (by that I mean I) need is Nikon to MFT. The MFT mount is passive, clearly the easiest to produce, and hoards of Nikons (and Rokinon, Zeiss, etc.) are both manual and sharp.

Cheers.

I'd likely think there are more people that would benefit from an EF dumb mount (being able to actually use Nikon G glass as well) than a passive Nikon mount. Thus, why Blackmagic, VisionResearch (Phantom camera), KineRAW and many many more start with an EF mount, not an F mount.

Also, matter of tastes... Personally, I think the Rokinon's are unusable wide open, but some people dont' care about soft images or haze or poor color so not a big deal. Old Nikkors are also soft wide open, unpleasantly so on newer digital sensors. Again, just me. The more flexibility the better.

Through ownership and rentals I've found the Rokinons not to be that far off if at all from Zeiss lenses. Really the only difference is build Quality. But I agree that there is a bigger EF crowd out there and that is the reason they start with the EF mount. Most of my EF glass is for stills though.

Take a FF lens
Attach it to a 10mp APS-C sensor with the Metabones adapter
Then attach it to a 10mp FF sensor without the adapter

Both sensors are capturing the exact same amount of image circle at the same resolution. So how are these any different...?

The image circle with the Metabones adapter is smaller than the image circle without it. The amount of light captured (with the exception of any light absorbed or reflected by the four elements in the adapter) is however the same so the smaller image circle appears brighter and brighter means better contrast and that means improved MTF or apparent sharpness. But any aberrations in the FF lens may be minimized because everything is made smaller (with the exception of defects in the adapter as you indicated) and that can improve image characteristics for the smaller APS-C sensor.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I think that you are talking about APS-C vs APS-C+Metabones. Yes I understand how the latter is better.

However APS-C+Metabones will not be better than FF (all else equal), which is what I was describing.

A dumb EF speed booster is the best option because just about every other type of glass can be cheaply adapted to it (except minolta/sony A). You can adapt nikon, M42, pentax k, Leica r, contax, etc, etc. The Nikon mount is far less adaptable, you can't adapt pentax k or EF to Nikon for instance. It would make a lot more sense to put out a dumb EF speed booster first, I do wonder though whether there could be problems with adapters that don't hit infinity dead on.

I have been thinking about all the possibilities. What about all the cheap medium format glass.

60cm image circle compressed to m43 is like 3-4 extra stops right? Its probably imposable but..... maybe....

Small sensor + speed booster + FF lenses will be SUPERIOR to FF + FF Lens.

Example: Lens 50 F1.8

FF camera + 50 F1.8 = FF Camera with 50 F1.8
APSC Camera + Speed booster + 50 F1.8 = APSC sensor + 35 F1.2 = FF FOV + 35 F1.2 lens + massively increased sharpness

Sorry guys, this just abosultely killed the premium of FF.

Small sensor + speed booster + FF lenses will be SUPERIOR to FF + FF Lens.

Example: Lens 50 F1.8

FF camera + 50 F1.8 = FF Camera with 50 F1.8
APSC Camera + Speed booster + 50 F1.8 = APSC sensor + 35 F1.2 = FF FOV + 35 F1.2 lens + massively increased sharpness

Sorry guys, this just abosultely killed the premium of FF.

Lets start with two assumptions for simplicity, even though they aren't correct:

-The speed booster adds no artifacts. It simply reduces the size of the projected image.
-The crop sensor and the FF sensor have the same efficiency per area, the same number of total mega pixels, and the same dynamic range.

FF camera + 50mm F2 = APS-C + Speed Booster + 50mm F2
(same FOV, same DOF, same sharpness, same contrast, same light gathering ability)

Now the cool thing is that this is also true:
FF camera + 80mm F3.2 = APS-C + 50mm F2
So the same lens can have multiple FOV. Just like using a teleconverter in reverse.

This is all theoretical talk. The big advantage of the speed booster is that there is no FF competition for something like a BMCC in remotely the same price category. As you said, the premium for FF is lower unless they can make the sensor more efficient (per surface area) or unless the speed booster adds negative artifacts.

All talking about video here. For photography the FF sensor is better at the moment since the speed booster appears to kill AF performance.

Building a speed booster into the BMCC EF mount would be truly awesome!

Small sensor + speed booster + FF lenses will be SUPERIOR to FF + FF Lens.

APSC Camera + Speed booster + 50 F1.8 = APSC sensor + 35 F1.2 = FF FOV + 35 F1.2 lens + massively increased sharpness

Gerald, you may have missed a few posts recently that clarified the effect of the Metabones adapter with the 0.71x multiplier. In your example, the 50mm FF lens mounted on the adapter does not then appear to be a 35mm lens in terms of FOV (50mm x 0.71 = 35mm is what you may be thinking but it is not true). The actual effect of the multiplier is applied against the original crop factor of the sensor. For example, on the BMCC MFT with a crop factor of about 2.3, the crop factor is reduced by the adapter to about 1.6x or the equivalent of an APS-C camera without the adapter (2.3 x 0.71 = 1.62). Therefore the 50mm FF lens plus the adapter has the apparent FOV of an 80mm lens approximately compared to about 115mm on the BMCC MFT without an adapter.

On a true MFT camera with a MFT sensor (crop factor of the sensor is 2x), then the addition of the Metabones adapter results in an apparent crop factor of about 1.42 which is approximately the view of a Super35 sensor! The 50mm FF lens with the adapter will have the view of a 70mm lens approximately instead of the 100mm view the MFT camera would normally have without the adapter.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Thanks for the detailed clarification Rick. But mu example was that of an APSC sensor (1.6) which effectively becomes a 1.0 with the speed booster. For much much lesser cost we can have exotically fast, super sharp lenses with the look of full frame using chaper apsc mirrorless bodies. I mean we can now have te exact same look of huge expensive systems on a much much cheaper set up and much more exoctic and sharp lens specs (35 F1.2 (super sharp) at less than a 100$! WTF!)

Thanks for the detailed clarification Chris. But mu example was that of an APSC sensor (1.6) which effectively becomes a 1.0 with the speed booster. For much much lesser cost we can have exotically fast, super sharp lenses with the look of full frame using chaper apsc mirrorless bodies. I mean we can now have te exact same look of huge expensive systems on a much much cheaper set up and much more exoctic and sharp lens specs (35 F1.2 (super sharp) at less than a 100$! WTF!)

I'm not sure where you get 35mm F1.2 from? You still need a fast lens if you want it to look like a fast lens does on FF.

FF sensor + 35mm F1.4 = APS-C + 35mm F1.4 + Speedbooster

So yes, you have more options now to get the 35mm 1.4 FF look on smaller sensors. You still need the fast and sharp lens though.

A 50 F1.8 on an apsc with the speed booster becomes a 35 F1.2. Check out EOSHD's comparison shots between te Nex 7 with Speed Booster vs a 5Dmk3. Same lens, set at same aperture renders same FOV and DOF! And read the white paper. It shows the HUGE increase in sharpness with the speed booster. A nikkor 50 F1.2 was used wide open an it wa so soft..but with the speed booster, suddenly it looked so sharp that peaking was triggered.

gerald, to keep it simple, without the confusing conversion

for NEX/APSC speed booster - its still 50mm but 50mm FOV on a FF sensor (or close approximate)
for M43 speed booster- its still 50mm but 50mm FOV on an APSC sensor (which is 1.6)

only M43 can take EF-S/DX lenses so thats more lens option at faster speed. (think canon 17-55 @ f2.0) this will make almost all f4.0 zooms worth buying!