khmuse
Tech Guru
As I am not an adapter "manufacturer" I don't think that I have any real interest in trying to convince a loose knit group of individuals to adopt a measurement regiment. That is why I asked for a description of the methodology that was used to support the claim of "gain".
Now, if I were an adapter "manufacturer" I think that my approach would be to build a specialized adapter. Mine would be a piece of ground glass from a standard view camera mounted to the back of the Mount Wilsion's 100" Hooker Telescope.
Imagine what a claim of gain I could have for my piece of ground glass "adapter"! (Something like 10,000 : 1 if my image area were around 1" square)
It would pretty easy to extrapolate the lose of your adapter from your statement that you show a loss of .5 f stops when using an f1.4 lens (assumed to be wide open) if the camera's aperture were known. I could assume a dvx or similar and I could also assume it too was wide open, but I would rather not make that leap.
My exchanges here are by no means meant to be a comment on your product, just on the claim of "gain" you made.
Best of luck with the product and your endeavor.
Now, if I were an adapter "manufacturer" I think that my approach would be to build a specialized adapter. Mine would be a piece of ground glass from a standard view camera mounted to the back of the Mount Wilsion's 100" Hooker Telescope.
Imagine what a claim of gain I could have for my piece of ground glass "adapter"! (Something like 10,000 : 1 if my image area were around 1" square)
It would pretty easy to extrapolate the lose of your adapter from your statement that you show a loss of .5 f stops when using an f1.4 lens (assumed to be wide open) if the camera's aperture were known. I could assume a dvx or similar and I could also assume it too was wide open, but I would rather not make that leap.
My exchanges here are by no means meant to be a comment on your product, just on the claim of "gain" you made.
Best of luck with the product and your endeavor.