Range Loser
Established
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.
From the setups I've seen, like a Canon 100mm rangefinder lens fitted to a Sony Nex with some sort of plumbing kit, it seems as ergonomically sound as gaffer taping a trumpet onto your iPhone with Garage Band app.
I might as well take the old V12 engine out of a 1970's Mercedes and fit into my VW Golf, it seems about as practical. 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.
From the setups I've seen, like a Canon 100mm rangefinder lens fitted to a Sony Nex with some sort of plumbing kit, it seems as ergonomically sound as gaffer taping a trumpet onto your iPhone with Garage Band app.
I might as well take the old V12 engine out of a 1970's Mercedes and fit into my VW Golf, it seems about as practical. 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.
Moriturii
Well-known
Ridiculous logic.
Thardy
Veteran
The Nex is not a micro four thirds camera.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, while not quite as militant as you in expression, I agree with you. 
My experience with M4/3 is that the lenses made for them (which are highly corrected by the software in the camera) produce just as good results (in many cases better) than Leica lenses adapted to them, and do it with less hassle.
I tried a lot of different lenses adapted to an E-P2 and really couldn't see any quality advantage over the kit lens or the 20/1.7 m4/3's lenses. The 2x crop factor is another issue with legacy lenses.
I like m4/3's. But I never could really get comfortable using adapted legacy lenses.
My experience with M4/3 is that the lenses made for them (which are highly corrected by the software in the camera) produce just as good results (in many cases better) than Leica lenses adapted to them, and do it with less hassle.
I tried a lot of different lenses adapted to an E-P2 and really couldn't see any quality advantage over the kit lens or the 20/1.7 m4/3's lenses. The 2x crop factor is another issue with legacy lenses.
I like m4/3's. But I never could really get comfortable using adapted legacy lenses.
gavinlg
Veteran
Yeah I agree, I tried a few adapted lenses on my e-p1 and to be honest, the kit zooms are usually better, let alone the panasonic 20mm which is an excellent lens. The crop factor using just the center of the image circle of the adapted lens (originally designed for a larger format) stresses the lens and makes it worse, IMO.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
A bit like putting a V12 into a Golf ... after you've sawn eight outer cylinders off to get it to fit ... but still being happy in knowing that it was V12 once upon a time!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It was a trend started by Roger Hicks!
Sparrow
Veteran
Range Loser
Established
Point taken about the Nex not being 4/3, but the awkward combo of fairly large old mechanical crafted lens and tiny new electronic mass produced camera is the same ergonomic nightmare.
If it was Roger Hicks that started the car analogies, well done to him. Both are bits of mass consumer technology that have rapidly evolved due to CAD, that most people can relate to.
If it was Roger Hicks that started the car analogies, well done to him. Both are bits of mass consumer technology that have rapidly evolved due to CAD, that most people can relate to.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
... or maybe it's a case of buying the camera on the system's intrinsic merits and then making the most of the extra capabilities it offers? Just a thought.
Mcary
Well-known
A bit like putting a V12 into a Golf ... after you've sawn eight outer cylinders off to get it to fit ... but still being happy in knowing that it was V12 once upon a time!
No No No, you get a golf convertible and make it a two seater by taking the rear seats out and moving the drivers compartment to the back LOL
My brother dropped a 390 big block with dual quads into a 67 cougar and had to drill holes in the fire-wall just to change the spark plugs. He could smoke rubber in all four gears, baby.
1935 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the EP2.
contax mount lens converted to LTM using a J-3 focus mount, on an LTM->M adapter, on an M-mu43 adapter.
I had to tap out new holes to re-index the aperture ring after shimming to maintain RF coupling for the Leica, baby.
1935 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the EP2.
contax mount lens converted to LTM using a J-3 focus mount, on an LTM->M adapter, on an M-mu43 adapter.
I had to tap out new holes to re-index the aperture ring after shimming to maintain RF coupling for the Leica, baby.
I feel the same way as the OP for my needs. They're ergonomic frankensteins. However, if the user gets great results and it doesn't bother them, then I say go for it.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
No No No, you get a Golf sedan and a chainsaw. And prove your sedan is convertible.
...Mike
Mackinaw
Think Different
Great engine the 390. A buddy of mine, with a '67 Mustang, stuck on a medium-rise intake manifold, bigger Holly 4-barrel carb, new cam, headers and different heads. Butt-puckering fast I tell you.
Back on cameras, I use legacy lenses on my E-P1 if I want a different look. My slightly hazy Canon 50/1.2 LTM makes a great portrait lens.
Plus, my Canon 500mm FL-F telephoto becomes a 1000mm lens. Great for wildlife.
Jim B.
Back on cameras, I use legacy lenses on my E-P1 if I want a different look. My slightly hazy Canon 50/1.2 LTM makes a great portrait lens.
Plus, my Canon 500mm FL-F telephoto becomes a 1000mm lens. Great for wildlife.
Jim B.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Two schools of thought:
-- If you can do it, why not?
-- Just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should.
-- If you can do it, why not?
-- Just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should.
Range Loser
Established
So it's all about tinkering in the shed huh? Seeing what lens you can cobble onto which body.
I used to have a 5X7 monorail which I used for landscapes, cripplingly heavy and took so long to set up the light had gone.
I also used to have a V8 Range Rover which was great when it wasn't overheating, or when the gearbox hadn't spit all it's oil out.
I'm happy now to know that my relatively modern car will start every time and my relatively modern camera and matching lenses will get me through the next job.
Am I just getting old?
I used to have a 5X7 monorail which I used for landscapes, cripplingly heavy and took so long to set up the light had gone.
I also used to have a V8 Range Rover which was great when it wasn't overheating, or when the gearbox hadn't spit all it's oil out.
I'm happy now to know that my relatively modern car will start every time and my relatively modern camera and matching lenses will get me through the next job.
Am I just getting old?
ruby.monkey
Veteran
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Maybe you're just getting smart. Or, perhaps, well-off enough that you're not forced to make do. Or both.
...Mike
P.S. I find baulky cameras much more acceptable than baulky cars. Perhaps because if it's important I always have a 2nd camera. But it's hard to drive everywhere with a 2nd car.
Thardy
Veteran
Zeiss provides a 50/2 for MFT for $866. My Industar 61 and Jupiter 8 both cost about $60 each. All three are manual focus. You can get great results for the price of a cheap adapter.
The best thing is that all these lenses (Leica M, LTM, Nikon, Canon) are just lying around in my closet.