Does the 2x crop factor bother you?

[acheyj]

Angle of view is of course the best way to think as its what the final image/print will be. As the media size increases/decreases the "crop factor" becomes meaningless.
In MF 120 one has many differing focal lengths to combine with frame size eg., 6x4.5 6x6 6x7 6x9 etc.
To return to the original question the problem, if its a problem at all, arises when we use 35mm full frame legacy lenses on the four thirds cameras. As I see it its really only the WA landscape user who is disadvantaged.
In any case to use a film based lens on a modern digital camera 4/3 or any other makes no sense as the optical requirments are much tougher.
Apart from the novelty aspect to invest on a digital camera and then compromise on the lens is a losing path.

ron

 

[Fujitsu]

Apart from the novelty aspect to invest on a digital camera and then compromise on the lens is a losing path.
ron

There is no ~50/1.4 for MFT so I see a reason to use legacy lenses. (Which can be pretty cheap compared to new glass anyway...)

 

[Axel]

As a closed system 4/3 would be okay but its a no-go for using my M-
and L39-Lenses.
I´d like to use the whole lens and not only a small inner circle

Regards, Axel

 

[Y.B.hudson III]

HeLLo, There is no crop factor if you are using 35mm cine Lenses...

 

[Phantomas]

Yes. I sold my R-D1 only after using it for a few hours. That's how much crop factor bothers me.

 

[jarski]

bothers a little even with M8. and 2x enough not to even try it.

 

[laptoprob]

The 7-14 solved the crop factor thing for me. Before that or without that, I would never get into the m4/3 world. It's cost is relative. Compare it to a set of other good (super)wides and it is not that expensive.
The 20 is great and I like the compact size a lot. Besides that, other sorts of lenses are very interesting. Pentax 110, C-mount...

 

[Finder]

To return to the original question the problem, if its a problem at all, arises when we use 35mm full frame legacy lenses on the four thirds cameras. As I see it its really only the WA landscape user who is disadvantaged.

Why? You can get lenses down to 7mm for a m4/3 camera. I am sure 4/3 cameras have similar optics. Where is the disadvantage?

In any case to use a film based lens on a modern digital camera 4/3 or any other makes no sense as the optical requirments are much tougher. Apart from the novelty aspect to invest on a digital camera and then compromise on the lens is a losing path.

ron

I use 35mm lenses on my m4/3 camera. Not really any different from my m4/3 lenses in terms of quality. What m4/3 camera and lenses are you using?

 

[dws21uk]

I thought I would be but the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens is just superb on the E-P2.

Original on Flickr

 

[jbielikowski]

2x crop, aps, full frame- those are smalish to me. Medium format is da right format.

 

[cosmonaut]

It looks to me if you own both a m4/3rd camera and a bag full of great old glass why not. I wouldn't go out and buy an ep1 and expext it to be an M9.

 

[cosmonaut]

This is one question especially for film photographers who also use m4/3 cameras. Does the 2x crop factor bother or "limit" you in any way? Do you miss the full frame? Or would you say it doesnt matter?

Sometimes I see photographs from m4/3 that do indeed have a "cropped" look to them. Then there are others like this (found in a parallel thread here on rff) that do look pretty much "full frame". http://www.flickr.com/photos/xy9z/4511891839/in/set-72157623833941864/

What do you think?

The cropped look is most likely the 4/3rd format and not the lens.