I don't get it

[Leigh Youdale]

I'm with you guys - well most of you. I bought a GF-1 and kit zoom, EVF and an M-adaptor. I tried my M-lenses on it and concluded it was just plain inconvenient without any commensurate benefit and the kit zoom is not only up to the job but if I don't take it off I don't have to worry about dust on the sensor. In fact, I hardly ever use the camera on anything but full auto and jpeg file capture. The results are fine at the sizes I usually print and take up a lot less of my time and hard drive capacity than shooting RAW. But it's there if ever I want it.
The whole point of it for me was the occasional convenience of digital capture. If I need to access faster lenses I can use my M6 or Nikon as they were intended to be used with the f2, f1.8 and f1.4 primes I have.

 

[willie_901]

I tried it... and I still don't get it.

OK... you've got a nice collection of glass you really like. Maybe it's time to give digital photography a try.

Micro 4/3 bodies are relatively inexpensive and aren't too unpleasant to carry around and operate.

Lens adapters seem like a bargain as they leverage the use of your lens collection.

Micro 4/3 lenses seem to be a bit expensive (to me anyway) .

So you spend quite a bit of time playing around with non-micro 4/3 lenses.

You realize a convenient compact, light-weight camera has become large and heavy.

Then you discover micro 4/3 lenses perform as well or better than the lenses in your collection. The end results I got from 20/1.7 and G1/GF1 kit LUMIX lenses were excellent. Results I saw from other micro 4/3 lenses from others were excellent.

You realize your time would have been better spent using micro 4/3 system lenses and making photographs, instead of experimenting with non-micro 4/3 lenses.


Micro 4/3 was conceived and implemented as a photography system. It turns out it is a very well designed and integrated system. Even wide-angle-of-view micro 4/3 lenses are available now. It's no surprise lenses designed for the system work as well or better than lenses that were not designed for the system.

And in the end, you have a sensor whose overall performance is well below all but the oldest APS-C sensors.

 

[former member]

My favorite lens on the EP2 is the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 in LTM. Focus to 18", small and well balanced on the EP2. With liveview, Sonnar focus shift is not an issue.



Wide-open at F1.4.

 

[kshapero]

I swing both ways. It is truly just a lot of fun fooling around with my Sony NEX popping on M mount lenses, but using the Sony lenses is also very satisfying. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[former member]

I like manual focus, aperture-preferred auto-exposure. Basicallly, use it like a Nikon FE2.



With the LTM Nikkor 5cm F1.4, at F4.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"And in the end, you have a sensor whose overall performance is well below all but the oldest APS-C sensors."

But then you realize it doesn't matter because all you do is post photos to websites! 😉

Seriously, m4/3 sensor size and IQ is more than good enough for most anything we do with photos, including printing them. We have become obsessed with "relative IQ," because "absolute IQ" has become pretty much irrelevant these days.

 

[former member]

The performance of most sensors that people judge is more in-camera signal processing than true raw-sensor performance. For the most part- meaningless as post-processing can be applied to even the playing field.

My shots are straight put of the camera, resized in PS7. Good enough for most people.

 

[igi]

People use them because:

1.) To be able to get focal length/aperture combination not yet offered by current M4/3 lenses.
2.) People like to play.

Now what seems so wrong with both???😕

From the setups I've seen, like a Canon 100mm rangefinder lens fitted to a Sony Nex with some sort of plumbing kit...

It's the lens that looks like a tube in the first place. 😉

 

[DanOnRoute66]

Using older lenses is fine although it bothers me a bit when people butcher something as rare the Canon 50mm f0.95 to adapt it for Leica use. I've also seen listings on eBay recommending to cut the meter pin off of Zuiko M42 lenses in order to "adapt" them to current digital cameras. Really? Aren't there enough lenses out there for the digital gizmos? And, if you must use an M42 lens, please use something other than a Zuiko. After all, there must be thousands upon thousands of M42 lenses out there (Takumars, Mamiyas, etc.) that didn't have the meter pin to begin with.

 

[retnull]

The 2x crop factor is a disadvantage....or an advantage: depending on your needs. A cheap old Elmar 90/4 becomes an unnoticeable walk-around 180mm. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

 

[ithrowbuckets]

People do it because its fun. if you've got any better ideas for a camera system to mount virtually any lens ever made onto a camera i'd like to hear it. I've had no problem shooting my 58mm 1.4 rokkor on my ep-1. its a big heavy piece of glass an i like how it balances, you just have to learn to hold it differently.

And for putting a v12 into a golf, i see no problem with this at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chreIG-6NXo

 

[Keith]

My favorite lens on the EP2 is the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 in LTM. Focus to 18", small and well balanced on the EP2. With liveview, Sonnar focus shift is not an issue.



Wide-open at F1.4.

That image looks quite soft on my monitor Brian ... is that softness coming from the lens or the camera's sensor?

 

[JoeV]

I enjoy using Lumix lenses on my G1, they deliver high-quality images, certainly good enough for my use.

I have also found a 2nd life for my old Minolta MD lens set, which otherwise would be collecting dust. From a practical consideration, of course I'm not going to be able to get medium-wide or wide angles of view with these older lenses; their focal lengths prohibit that. But, when I need a medium telephoto lens of relatively compact size, with a sub-f2 aperture (like for candid portraits under available light), nothing beats a good 50mm lens like an MD, that manually focuses, has a manually-operated aperture that opens up to f/1.7 or larger, and delivers great bokeh.

There's also the occasional need for a long-reach telephoto lens of wide maximum aperture, which is fulfilled by my Tokina 80-200 lens in MD mount, that has a constant max aperture of F/2.8 at all focal lengths, giving me the equivalent of a 160-400 at F/2.8. You just can't find relatively compact lenses with this equivalent aperture and focal length for moderate prices anywhere, or in any other camera system. In this instance, micro-4/3 offers the best balance between sensor size and telephoto reach. When practical necessity dictates, adapting older lenses to this camera format offers great benefits; it's not about mere camera fondling and adapting lenses "just because".

Although many people criticize micro-4/3 for not having shallow enough DOF, the flip side is that when you need sufficiently wide DOF to capture your subject in sharp focus, this format gives you that capability, while still having a large enough sensor size to deliver shallow DOF where desired. It's a great format size because it does many things pretty well.

I also like the G1-style body's grip, which helps stabilize the body when using longer lenses. I'm not sure what the NEX cameras' feel like with long lenses attached, but the G1-style body works well.

~Joe

 

[JoeV]

Many older lenses are a bit soft when operated wide open, especially those of sub-f/2 aperture; you find this out real quick when adapting them to a digital camera back. Even so, this can often lend a good effect to certain images. In this example, I was using an old Vivitar 28mm in MD mount, the aperture was pretty wide, I think around f/2.5. This Vivitar isn't the sharpest MD lens in my collection, but it's the shortest focal length I have in MD mount.

I'll agree that adapting older lenses doesn't work for every image, but it's a nice option to have, especially considering the low cost of many of these lenses. In this case, I can get a 28mm f.l. with the Lumix 14-45 lens, but it doesn't open up to f/2.5. Again, another benefit of having an arsenal of older lenses from which to choose from.

~Joe

 

[reala_fan]

I have found that Konica Hexanon's do a very nice job on the Panasonic G1.

Here is an example with my trusty Hexanon 85mm f1.8 lens on the G1L

 

[fbf]

seems like people only tried the cheap, intro m4/3 ep1, gf1 bodies and get the conclusion that this thing sux.
Try at least a g1 before you make the conclusion. The newer g2 and gh2 are amazing.

 

[former member]

Keith- the shot was hand-held at ~1/15th, at F1.4. The Nikkor is softer than a modern lens. At minimum focus, the Sonnar formula lens is even softer than what people are used to seeing on an RF. The Summicron doesmuch better at close-focus. I'm not big on using sharp/modern lenses.

On the M9, the 1935 CZJ Sonnar 5cm F1.5, Wide-Open. Same lens that was used on the previous EP2 photo's. an adapted lens.



This is one of the best pre-war Sonnars that I've used. Min focus is 3ft. The 18" focus on the Nikkor is nice, but pushes it past its optimal performance.

 

[Thardy]

seems like people only tried the cheap, intro m4/3 ep1, gf1 bodies and get the conclusion that this thing sux.
Try at least a g1 before you make the conclusion. The newer g2 and gh2 are amazing.

You mean a larger body size? From what I've read the gf1 is better than g1 outright, and gh1 in many areas that really count.

 

[Keith]

Keith- the shot was hand-held at ~1/15th, at F1.4. The Nikkor is softer than a modern lens. At minimum focus, the Sonnar formula lens is even softer than what people are used to seeing on an RF. The Summicron doesmuch better at close-focus. I'm not big on using sharp/modern lenses.

I thought so ... I had one of these on my S2 and I was surprised at how pleasantly soft it was wide open. Noticably softer than my J-3 in fact!

 

[former member]

My LTM Nikkor is an early "Tokyo" 5cm F1.4. The optics were later "tweeked". I will try a comparison between the late Black F1.4 against this early one. On the film cameras, The Tokyo lens is softer than the later ones, but has smoother out-of-focus areas.