I don't get it

[EtoileFinder]

By the way in video mode you can shoot in full hd with an hacked gf1 or gh1...with legacy lenses. I saw great result with cheap lenses like canon fd and minolta md.

 

[gekopaca]

Buying Micro 4/3 cameras and using adapters to fit legacy lenses on them seems very popular at the moment but it seems so wrong.
If I want to use classic glass, I'll buy the classic camera it was meant to fit and use classic film to go with it.

You're totally wrong, man.

NEX isn't a M4/3 camera, and there's 2 problems with it :

1) design and ergonomy, that's makes umconfortable heavy lenses on it.
M43 cameras (and particulary the G serie of Panasonic) are very well designed for the hand, and should accept easily tele lenses.

2) the sensor size of NEX is bigger than M43, so a lot of little lenses which fit perfectly on M43 cameras will create horrible vignetting on NEX sensors.

For example, my favorite legacy lenses on M43 cameras are Pentax Auto 110 lenses and SOM Berthiot C-Mount lenses.
They're thin and light and perfectly fit on M43 camera.
THe two main reasons to use legacy lenses on M43 camera are :
- The manual focus (impossible to have a "real" manual focus with M43 AF and motorized lenses)
- The "special rendering" of legacy lenses :
The soft bokeh of Pentax Auto 110 lenses is incredible :

And I love the flare f my SOM Berthiot Cinor 50mm f2 :

And what about the swirly bokeh of CCTV Cosmicar Television 25mm f1.4? It's unique!

You will find more example about C-mount lenses on M43 cameras here :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99501


PS : What's that damned comparison with cars? it's ridiculous!

 

[willie_901]

With regard to m 4/3 sensor performance: The increase in dynamic range provided by most APS-C sensors is important to me. The information content of my D200 RAW files is significantly greater what I found with the LUMIX G1. Both had similar shadow noise levels. Regardless of where and how the images are displayed, there's no such thing as too much dynamic range.

It's not fair to compare the D300 and D700 RAW files, so I won't go there.

Here's the important thing: the physics says the sensor size is the most important parameter in digital photography (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/). The m 4/3 system faces a fundamental handicap compared to APS-C sensor cameras. Newer m 4/3 sensors should out-perform older sensors, but they will never out perform a newer APS-C sensor.

 

[ampguy]

well, when m4/3 came out, while it didn't equal current APS-C DSLR capabilities, it wasn't too far behind, and had promises of small lenses, and more capabilities coming. Now several years after the launch, there are still only 2 sensors, and the best sensor in say the Lumix G2 and latest Olympus models, are still below the 2006 era D40x, and aren't really any smaller in body size, maybe a couple of mm.

However, if you're just taking web photos or 4x6 photos, it's certainly good enough, they look cool, have as good as or better sensors than tiny digital point and shoots, and can fit a variety of lenses and have live view for accurate focusing.

However, if you have a decent printer, or good local costco around, it's certainly worth stepping up to an entry level DSLR or NEX, imho.

 

[shadowfox]

Why?

How else can you get a 600mm f/4.5 kit that you can carry all day long, has a good Image Stabilization system and cost about $1000 for both body and lens?

* I should have posted a higher resolution, the details are lost at this size.

All wide open, the top two were handheld.
Olympus E-620 (later replaced by E-P2) + Zuiko OM 300/4.5.

 

[Guaranteed]

We adapt them because it's fun to play with/utilize what we already have.

I do it for the same reason I ground down the mount on my C/Y 1.7/50 for my 5D2, because I can.

 

[lars]

Now several years after the launch, there are still only 2 sensors, and the best sensor in say the Lumix G2 and latest Olympus models, are still below the 2006 era D40x,

AFAIK there have been three sensors. The Olympus PENs, Panasonic G1, G2, G10, GF1 and, I think, the GF2, all use the first gen. sensor. The Panasonic GH1 had a different sensor that supported true multi-aspect ratio output. The GH2 uses a newer multi-aspect ratio sensor.

While I have pointed out in other forums that the GH2 has limited dynamic range compared to something like my Nikon D300, I would rate it the same or a bit better than the dynamic range of the D40x, and just a bit below that of a D90.

and aren't really any smaller in body size, maybe a couple of mm.

I've compared my GH2 with 14-45 zoom against my D60 with a 24/2.8. The GH2 is, in fact, smaller by a little bit. But the zoom gives it much more versatility. My GH2 + 20/1.7 compared to my D60 with 35/1.8 is much smaller.

However, if you're just taking web photos or 4x6 photos, it's certainly good enough, they look cool, have as good as or better sensors than tiny digital point and shoots, and can fit a variety of lenses and have live view for accurate focusing.
However, if you have a decent printer, or good local costco around, it's certainly worth stepping up to an entry level DSLR or NEX, imho.

I definitely disagree with that. I would say an m43 camera using the first gen. sensor is about as good as a Nikon D70, and I've seen plenty of high quality work from that camera, despite its old sensor technology.

larsbc

 

[Merumeni]

Hmm, how about simply having fun?
How about not having enough money to buy the M9 and some half decent lenses at the same time? What would you buy first ?
Excuse me father for having used inappropriate lenses on my E-P2 ...

 

[ampguy]

I think you are correct about 3 sensors

I think you are correct about 3 sensors

However, I think that the 3rd GH2 sensor was mainly to optimize video capabilities - and brought little or nothing for still photo use. Note that in dxomark's site, they measure lower bit resolution for color depth, dynamic range, and lower high-ISO capabilities than the 2nd sensor, but better for all 3 than the first sensor.

http://www.eoshd.com/entry.php?29-Panasonic-engineer-reveals-workings-of-GH2-dual-exposure-sensor

AFAIK there have been three sensors. The Olympus PENs, Panasonic G1, G2, G10, GF1 and, I think, the GF2, all use the first gen. sensor. The Panasonic GH1 had a different sensor that supported true multi-aspect ratio output. The GH2 uses a newer multi-aspect ratio sensor.

While I have pointed out in other forums that the GH2 has limited dynamic range compared to something like my Nikon D300, I would rate it the same or a bit better than the dynamic range of the D40x, and just a bit below that of a D90.


I've compared my GH2 with 14-45 zoom against my D60 with a 24/2.8. The GH2 is, in fact, smaller by a little bit. But the zoom gives it much more versatility. My GH2 + 20/1.7 compared to my D60 with 35/1.8 is much smaller.


I definitely disagree with that. I would say an m43 camera using the first gen. sensor is about as good as a Nikon D70, and I've seen plenty of high quality work from that camera, despite its old sensor technology.

larsbc

 

[lars]

However, I think that the 3rd GH2 sensor was mainly to optimize video capabilities - and brought little or nothing for still photo use. Note that in dxomark's site, they measure lower bit resolution for color depth, dynamic range, and lower high-ISO capabilities than the 2nd sensor, but better for all 3 than the first sensor.

On the m43 forum on Dpreview, a number of GH2 users have reported improved image quality (mostly regarding better high ISO noise control) when comparing the GH1 to GH2 files. Also, AFAIK, the DxO results don't reflect the fact that some people were reporting banding issues in the GH1 that would put a cap on the maximum ISO they would choose to use. My G1 also suffered from a banding issue, causing me to limit myself to ISO400. My GH2 has no banding issues so I have used it up to ISO1600 with no concerns.

larsbc

 

[dee]

... what about just having fun with adapted lenses ? Especially if enforced retirement has curtailed any further purchases !

Of course , the kit lens on my ex-dem [ read - inexpensive ] G1 is more than adequate , and is convenient . Yes , a G1 pime would give great results , but being able to use Sonnar / Tessar clones from my ex-USSR collection is great fun - and I love that vintage look .
Also , all my much loved Rokkors have been given a new lease of life , both on the used Leica Digilux 3 / L1 and , now , the G1 .
The results look fine to me ....

How about a really cool faux Elmar lens ? - see my dee-rangefinder thread !

 

[RayPA]

I don't get it. I'm having a blast with it!



/

 

[Darshan]

1. Because I can..
2. I absolutely hate focus-by-wire on the m4/3 lenses
3. How else will I get that Leica glow w/out spending 2.5k at the minimum?

 

[waynec]

If you bought a 4/3rd's system have you done any test comparing the m4/3rds brands lenses to adapted lenses?
I own a G1, and outside of the conversation about sensor size that EVERYONE knows about and which is being replayed in this thread, I have actually tested my adapted lenses to my Panasonic. I will tell you now that my chosen adapted lenses are way way better. In fact I love the ability to test various lenses on one body and instantly see the results. I gives you instant feedback on just how bad those Nikon and Canon and other lenses are, and believe me some of them really suck.
I would also tho like to question that if the sensor in the micro cameras were to be enlarged to APS-C size, I wonder how they would perform to other cameras with that size sensor? I feel a apples to apples test is much better then conjecture.
Btw, love the cat picture.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Am I just getting old?

Emm...well...

 

[DNG]

It all about variety and versatility.

Does anyone make a 100mm f/1.5 lens? A ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar is an excellent Fast Portrait lens, hands down!

How about a 600 f/2.8? A 300mm f/2.8 C/N makes an super fast long telephoto....

I know the Image Circle is cropped by 2x, and this can be an advantage from cropping a 300mm image in 1/2 and losings all those pixels.

 

[Range Loser]

Sounds like there's a lot of small camera enthusiasts with old lenses out there. I've no objections to smaller sensors as long as their limitations are acknowledged, it seems pointless saying how close or not they are to larger ones, it's horses for courses as they say.
My main objection was always trying to balance a long old bit of antique glass on a camera the depth of a swollen credit card, then holding it at arms length while trying to focus using the screen on the back.
I do understand that some of the mini SLR type 4/3 cameras have EVF's and I'm sure this is some comfort, though personally I don't like squinting into a small TV monitor.
If you like to try out lots of legacy optics on one digicam then I guess this is the answer. As you can guess this doesn't appeal to me, I'll stick to looking at the world through an optical viewfinder, but as I said, I'm getting old.

 

[ampguy]

Hi Ray

Hi Ray

I'm a bit interested in µ4/3. At one time I even bought some adapters...

 

[gekopaca]

I do understand that some of the mini SLR type 4/3 cameras have EVF's and I'm sure this is some comfort, though personally I don't like squinting into a small TV monitor.

Come on! Don't be a gadfly!
I'm also a RF user, and I can shoot usefuly even if the VF is analogic or electronic;
I need to focusing and framing, that's all!
Cameras aren't a religion! they're tools to make pictures!
Look at this one : GH1 + Pentax Auto 110 18mm. Is it important to know if it's an EVF or a VF, a big or a small sensor???

 

[dee]

My fave set up is a 135 f 3.5 Rokkor on my Leica Digilux 3 - a lightweight fast zoom , which used at infinity at a set aperture on aperture priority works a dream for an airshow .
It's translated into my G1 , though the adapters G1 - 39mm - SR go past infinity until I get dedicated one .
All this for the cost of a couple of adapters .
... and the tiny CV 35mm f2.5 is fantastic .