Thinking of make a switch or adding a new format ...

F

FD_Paul

Member
Local time
2:23 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
15
View My Gallery
I've held off on MFT but am now considering investing in one of the units in order to use some much loved Canon FD glass. I'm certain now that any attempt by anyone to manufacture a body which will accept FD natively is many years away - if at all.

I'm also very interested in the IQ of MFT, and the kit lenses on offer by the two manufacturers.

I'm currently using a Canon 5D DSLR for action and 'important' stuff (e.g. weddings) and recently acquired a Ricoh GRDIII for 'grab and go' stuff.

I still feel there's some room for something in between - and the MFT format seems the logical one (I want to avoid the pseudo SLR form factor, so am tending more towards the PEN, or the new GF1). Good video would also be useful for me (kids and all).

Would appreciate comments from anyone in a similar boat.

If successful, I would even consider unloading the DSLR and expensive glass in the future (the rapid progress in these new form factors is very encouraging).
 
I expect more manufacturers to remove the reflex mirror in the next few years. Samsung NX is coming. Sony stated they are working on a mirrorless body too. Both will have larger sensors than the 4/3 compacts available today.
 
I'm definitely switching - back to RF's!

I'm definitely switching - back to RF's!

FD_Paul,

I'm having many of the same thoughts you're having. I sold my Pentax K10D over a year ago and got an RD1 and a Bessa R3A. Love them both but I had some important stuff come up - a wedding - and felt like I needed a DSLR to do it justice. Sold the R3A, a 35/1.2 Nokton and a 75/2.5 Heliar and got a K20D with a couple of fast Sigma lenses thinking I would keep the DSLR for important stuff. Wrong!

I just could not get back in the groove shooting with a DSLR. I loved my K10D before, but shooting with RF's for a year ruined DSLR's for me. I just don't want to carry one with me and it doesn't feel right in my hands any more. I don't see the same way any more either. Most of my keepers from the wedding were shot with the RD1.

I 'm selling the DSLR kit now and I too am thinking seriously about the new GF1 probably, or the Pen. I would just buy more glass for the RD1, but it's getting a little long in the tooth and the image quality at higher ISO's is starting to decay - dead pixels or something - requiring a lot of touch-up with the healing brush and I'm not into a lot of post processing except for a minimal amount of tonal adjustment and sharpening. I do about 99% of my post processing in Aperture and don't even own a full version of Photoshop anymore, just Elements.

I'm not sure which way to go right now, but I can't handle a DSLR anymore. I want something smaller, lighter, quicker, simpler and more discreet. Hey, I guess that would be a rangefinder! But I do want the immediate feedback and versatility that digital delivers. Sigh. I'll never be able to afford an M8 or M9, but the Pen and GF1 are getting pretty close to what I'm looking for in a camera system.

Let me know your thoughts and good luck to you.

Greg
 
Last edited:
Greg,

Look at the total cost of ownership. I bet if you add up great glass for a new m4/3s body and the body you could afford a good used M8. Prices are dropping and will continue as the M9s roll off the lines and into cases around the world. There is something about how RFs work that is just wonderful. Look at all the costs not just body for body. You got some M glass now.

B2 (;->

Sorry about the hijack, is that Cuba over there on the right?
 
Hi Bill,

It's funny you should mention that. I was just thinking along the same line before I saw your reply. Keep the RD-1 and lens I've got now, sell the DSLR stuff and save for a few months. Sounds like the way to go.

Thanks for the suggestion!
 
FD_Paul said:
.

I still feel there's some room for something in between - and the MFT format seems the logical one (I want to avoid the pseudo SLR form factor, so am tending more towards the PEN, or the new GF1). Good video would also be useful for me (kids and all).



If successful, I would even consider unloading the DSLR and expensive glass in the future (the rapid progress in these new form factors is very encouraging).
Click to expand...

You've hamstrung yourself before you start if you don't want the pseudo DSLR form factor, because the Panasonic GH-1 is the camera that does everything best for what you want.

Its video isn't limited in the same way as the GF1 or EP-1, so you can make films with it, not just record a passing moment. The Panasonic 'kit' lenses are only 'kit' with regards to speed, in other respects they are often better than some manufacturers higher grade lenses. Under normal conditions I don't think you'd see much difference in IQ up to 12x16 (or possibly 16x20) between prints from the 5D and GH-1 and of course it will take your FD glass with an adapter.

Steve
 
I'd try to think clearly about whether you will actually use those FD lenses. We all have FD glass we like and we all found out the hard way that nowadays you either use film or it's dead glass lying on a shelf.

Just because it's technically possible doesn't mean it's convenient. You get a bunch of teles with stopdown aperture and awkward manual focusing on a zoomed camera screen. With the EP1 or the GF1 you'll be chimping all the time. Doesn't strike me as a particularly enticing way to take pictures.

A lot of people buy these cameras because they're all "Hey, it will allow me to use all those lenses I love!" And then they try them two times and post pictures on Flickr how great this is and how they enjoy their new 48/2.8s and 70/2s and 100/1,4s and 270/2.5s. And then they find out that actually in day to day photography it sucks because it's slow and inconvenient, and eventually they go back to using the kit lens.
 
The kit lenses for the E-P1 are acceptable, but the new 20mm f1.7 for the GF1 looks better. However I am not a fan of the bokeh of it in the DPreview test shots.

Despite the firmware upgrade, autofocus on E-P1 is still slow, so you need to factor that in. The GF1 is likely to be much better in that area but there is no in-body IS. High ISO performance in the E-P1 and likely GF-1 is on par with M8 and older DLSRs (such as K10d) but of course not as good as the latest crop.

Yes you can use all sorts of 3rd party lenses with them, but MF with them is still a measured experience (open up aperture, rough focus and compose , zoom focus, finetune, stop down aperture and meter, take shot).

There is something nice about using it though, despite all the caveats!
 
rxmd said:
I'd try to think clearly about whether you will actually use those FD lenses. We all have FD glass we like and we all found out the hard way that nowadays you either use film or it's dead glass lying on a shelf.

Just because it's technically possible doesn't mean it's convenient. You get a bunch of teles with stopdown aperture and awkward manual focusing on a zoomed camera screen. With the EP1 or the GF1 you'll be chimping all the time. Doesn't strike me as a particularly enticing way to take pictures.
Click to expand...

If you have FD glass, then one would presume that you know what it's like to use manual focus lenses on an SLR, and how that differs from a rangefinder or an auto focus system. Yes, MF on m4/3 is bound to be slower to use in some situations.

Overall, though, I don't find using the EVF in the G1 to be problematic at all, even with MF lenses. In fact, I can focus much more accurately with the zoomed focus assist when I need to. I also don't find stop-down to be a problem with the EVF. The EVF was designed to work well with slow lenses (f/5.6 at the long end) and I'm seldom using smaller apertures than that. Even then, it "gains up".

Personally, I don't think one should purchase an m-4/3 camera for the express purpose of using legacy glass, or to be a replacement rangefinder (it's not). Purchase one because it's a form-factor that "fits" -- i.e. the size, weight, IQ and shooting operation (LCD, EVF, or accessory OVF), is a pretty good match for what you want to do. As an added bonus, you may find that some fast legacy glass is very useable. The lens I seem to mount MOST on my G1 these days is the 40mm M-Rokkor f/2 (yes, a 30-year-old legacy lens with an 80mm equivalent view).
 
JBurnett said:
If you have FD glass, then one would presume that you know what it's like to use manual focus lenses on an SLR, and how that differs from a rangefinder or an auto focus system. Yes, MF on m4/3 is bound to be slower to use in some situations.

Overall, though, I don't find using the EVF in the G1 to be problematic at all, even with MF lenses.
Click to expand...

Except that he explicitly mentions that he doesn't like the DSLR form factor and rules out the G1, stating a preference for the EP1/GF1. So while you are happy with the electronic viewfinder, he won't be using an EVF, he would be focusing on the back display instead. Focusing a long tele on a zoomed camera screen while chimping at arms' length and hoping you don't have too many fingerprints on the screen and that it's not too bright outside so that you can still see something sounds just great, doesn't it? Preferably with a moving subject, there was the word "kids" mentioned somewhere. You and I and the OP know what it's like to use manual focus lenses on an SLR, and this is not it. As I said, it's OK for the occasional Flickr Yes-it-works shot, but that's about it in my book.
 
I saw the adaptability of the MFT cameras and thought that it was a dream come true. I don't think I'll ever be in a position to drop the cash required for a Leica digital body, but here was this reasonably priced, well designed camera on which I could use my Leica lenses. Add to that the ability to use other legacy lenses (for me, my good old FD stuff), and I thought it was a no brainer. I had to wait a bit for a black body to become available, and when it did, I bought the Panasonic G1.

Now I'm very conflicted. The images I can get from my Leica lenses are great, but the hassle of focus assist is a real drawback. Forget trying to capture moving targets in any wider apertures. The other problem for me is the crop factor. Sure, it's great making a standard lens into a tele, but again, focussing is a pain. My widest Leica lens ends up just under 60mm. For FD I can get that down to an effective 35mm FL, but at the price of speed (FD 17mm f4).

I used the kit lens to shoot an evening garden party and had a few keepers, but a majority of the shots were hampered by the G1's so-so low light abilities. I'm going to keep working with the G1, and I really need to get out and shoot a daylight event using legacy glass before I make up my mind about the experiment.
 
Prosaic™ said:
I expect more manufacturers to remove the reflex mirror in the next few years. Samsung NX is coming. Sony stated they are working on a mirrorless body too. Both will have larger sensors than the 4/3 compacts available today.
Click to expand...

Not much larger than a lot of people seem to think. 😕
 
rxmd said:
So while you are happy with the electronic viewfinder, he won't be using an EVF,
Click to expand...

You're right to caution the OP; as I suggested, one should consider whether the camera is suitable from a variety of perspectives, including operational control. I've never liked or gotten used to using an LCD for composing, which is why I specifically chose the G1 when looking for a down-sized-from- DSLR camera. It had the first EVF that I ever thought I might be able to use and, after almost 6 months, I've grown to really like it. The LCD on my camera is perpetually turned in to the body.

OTOH, I see some excellent shots from photographers using the E-P1, particularly with the 17mm prime, but also with the kit and with MF lenses. I couldn't do it, but some people seem to be happily snapping away.

(An aside: with all the FILM cameras I've ever used (including Leica M3, Nikon F, 4 x 5 view, Hasselblad, TLR's, and more), the one setup that I felt MOST AT EASE with, was an Olympus OM-1 with 35 and 85mm f/2 lenses. My Canon DSLR always felt too large and clunky. My Canon G9 took good pictures, but was frustrating to use. The G1, while far from perfect, feels MUCH closer to the OM. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom