Roger Hicks
Veteran
Different people have different definitions of 'fun'.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Jackslai
Established
Last edited:
gekopaca
French photographer
larryk34
Larry Kincaid
I originally bought a Panasonic G1 as a backup for my Leica M9 and to add a camera that has a lens that can zoom out to the equivalent of 400mm. I agree with most of what has been said about the hassle of using Leica M lenses vs. the kit lenses. But the Leica itself with Leica lenses is so much better than the G1 with its kit lenses that there's no reason to use the G1 at all. Except for the telephoto/zoom capacity. But what then is the fate of the old film legacy (non-Leica) lenses? I have a beautiful Pentax 50mm f1.4 manual lens, considered one of its best, just sitting on the shelf. For $15 I was able to buy an adapter to use it on the G1. How else to rescue and give life back to these wonderful lenses. As said above, the look of this old (and heavy) manual focus lens is quite different and well worth the effort. It also creates a different effect than one of my Leica M lenses. For less than $100 per adapter, it's worth it to have this added capacity. The real issue with the micro 4/3 so far is the lower quality of the sensor compared to the Leica M8 and M9. The G1 sensor is not up to the quality of the legacy lenses. But this is changing fast. The GH2 sensor is much better. Eventually, we will see the difference in image quality using a high quality legacy lens on an m4/3 camera. Meanwhile, the lenses and their adapers are sitting there patiently waiting to be called back into action. [By the way, I like the zoom function that comes with the manual focusing of lenses on the G1. But I still prefer manual focusing to autofocus. The short response would have been: Why not?
kevinparis
Established
reasons for shooting legacy lenses on micro 4/3 and indeed 4/3?
Its fun.... and you get images with a look you wouldn't get with the native lenses
Nikkor 50/1.2
Boy with a Camera by kevinparis, on Flickr
OM 24/2
Waiting for the Christmas Miracle by kevinparis, on Flickr
Contax 50/1.7
Contemplating Eric by kevinparis, on Flickr
more here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157622730407793/
Its fun.... and you get images with a look you wouldn't get with the native lenses
Nikkor 50/1.2
Boy with a Camera by kevinparis, on Flickr
OM 24/2
Waiting for the Christmas Miracle by kevinparis, on Flickr
Contax 50/1.7
Contemplating Eric by kevinparis, on Flickr
more here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157622730407793/
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Ray
Hi Ray
I do have a Nex and love it, but I'm always interested in other tools. Right now, the m4/3 being the size of a larger sensor dslr makes little sense, but they are still interesting to me in that they can so easily use existing lens I have. I think the current m4/3 offerings are currently in the Chrysler K-car era, but I do think there may be potential if the sizes can come down, as the VF models right now are as large as a nice D40 or D5100.
Hi Ray
I do have a Nex and love it, but I'm always interested in other tools. Right now, the m4/3 being the size of a larger sensor dslr makes little sense, but they are still interesting to me in that they can so easily use existing lens I have. I think the current m4/3 offerings are currently in the Chrysler K-car era, but I do think there may be potential if the sizes can come down, as the VF models right now are as large as a nice D40 or D5100.
Really?? I thought you went the Sony NEX route.
/
cliffpov
Established
I get it, but I'm not telling.
Travis L.
Registered Userino
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!
12 cylinder Golf..... Done.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/17/worthersee-2007-vw-shows-off-monster-golf-gti-w12-650-concept/
rdeleskie
Well-known
Well, looks like I disagree with many of you. I "get" m4/3. The limitations of the smaller sensor are frankly immaterial for 90% of what I (and I suspect you) shoot. I can't get noiseless ISO 3200? Gee, nobody could three or four years ago, and somehow photographers survived. 1 or 2 stops less latitude than a 5D, 7D or D7000? That's still more than a RD-1 or M8 and those cameras seem to produce brilliant pix. The DOF is greater than APS-C? I either use that to my advantage for street shooting, or use a longer lens and take a few steps back.
In exchange, my EPL2 with the 20mm lens (or even the collapsible kit zoom) fits into my coat pocket or my courier bag. It goes with me everywhere. I own a Nikon D40x, one of the smaller bodied Nikon DSLRs. There's no comparison with size: the Nikon is on one side of the tipping point, the EPL2 the other. The Nikon stays home, the EPL2 goes for walks. It takes more pictures when it's with me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5173091205/in/set-72157625378028532/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5173706524/in/set-72157625378028532
I also "get" using adapted lens on it. My Summicron DR 50/2 becomes a 100mm with full manual control and a classic look, and the entire kit is smaller than my M6.
Perhaps my expectations are different than other peoples. I didn't buy the camera looking for a cheap M8/M9, I bought it for what I perceived to be its unique set of characteristics, and it has served me well in this regard.
I also purchased a GH2, mainly for it's video capabilities (I used it as a B-cam on a series of TV commercials I directly recently). It's a very capable picture maker. It's smaller than the D40x, but the real size advantage comes from the native lens. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is half the size of the Nikon 35/1.8, and the Panasonic 14-140 about half the volume of the Nikon 18-200 VR. These things add up. When I do carry a camera bag, the one the GH2 goes into is about half the size as the bag for my Nikon F100 or my D40x. Again, smaller bag, smaller size, lower weight means it's more likely to get used. Isn't that part of why many of us use rangefinders instead of SLRs/DSLRs in the first place?
As far as lenses go, the M4/3 ones I've used have easily been the equal of their Nikon counterpart.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5603004909/in/set-72157626461416868/
The Panasonic 20/1.7 is in a class of its own - sharper with a nicer rendering than any of my DSLR primes.
I guess I don't get "not getting it."
In exchange, my EPL2 with the 20mm lens (or even the collapsible kit zoom) fits into my coat pocket or my courier bag. It goes with me everywhere. I own a Nikon D40x, one of the smaller bodied Nikon DSLRs. There's no comparison with size: the Nikon is on one side of the tipping point, the EPL2 the other. The Nikon stays home, the EPL2 goes for walks. It takes more pictures when it's with me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5173091205/in/set-72157625378028532/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5173706524/in/set-72157625378028532
I also "get" using adapted lens on it. My Summicron DR 50/2 becomes a 100mm with full manual control and a classic look, and the entire kit is smaller than my M6.
Perhaps my expectations are different than other peoples. I didn't buy the camera looking for a cheap M8/M9, I bought it for what I perceived to be its unique set of characteristics, and it has served me well in this regard.
I also purchased a GH2, mainly for it's video capabilities (I used it as a B-cam on a series of TV commercials I directly recently). It's a very capable picture maker. It's smaller than the D40x, but the real size advantage comes from the native lens. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is half the size of the Nikon 35/1.8, and the Panasonic 14-140 about half the volume of the Nikon 18-200 VR. These things add up. When I do carry a camera bag, the one the GH2 goes into is about half the size as the bag for my Nikon F100 or my D40x. Again, smaller bag, smaller size, lower weight means it's more likely to get used. Isn't that part of why many of us use rangefinders instead of SLRs/DSLRs in the first place?
As far as lenses go, the M4/3 ones I've used have easily been the equal of their Nikon counterpart.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5603004909/in/set-72157626461416868/
The Panasonic 20/1.7 is in a class of its own - sharper with a nicer rendering than any of my DSLR primes.
I guess I don't get "not getting it."
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
If you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
I looked at your flickr images, at 1024x624, zoomed in just a bit, and the puppy is blurry, there is low dynamic range, there is diginoise, and there is softness. Almost looks like there is fog.
I don't get this with my d40, when enlarging the same amount.
I think your m4/3 is more like a stop or two below a D90 or Nex in dynamic range, , and more like a few below a D7000/D5100.
But different folks have different requirements. If you're happy with this quality, that is all that matters. But from a price/performance standpoint, it is not really better than my $99 point and shoots (well, the good ones in that range).
IMHO.
ok
If you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
I looked at your flickr images, at 1024x624, zoomed in just a bit, and the puppy is blurry, there is low dynamic range, there is diginoise, and there is softness. Almost looks like there is fog.
I don't get this with my d40, when enlarging the same amount.
I think your m4/3 is more like a stop or two below a D90 or Nex in dynamic range, , and more like a few below a D7000/D5100.
But different folks have different requirements. If you're happy with this quality, that is all that matters. But from a price/performance standpoint, it is not really better than my $99 point and shoots (well, the good ones in that range).
IMHO.
Well, looks like I disagree with many of you. I "get" m4/3. The limitations of the smaller sensor are frankly immaterial for 90% of what I (and I suspect you) shoot. I can't get noiseless ISO 3200? Gee, nobody could three or four years ago, and somehow photographers survived. 1 or 2 stops less latitude than a 5D, 7D or D7000? That's still more than a RD-1 or M8 and those cameras seem to produce brilliant pix. The DOF is greater than APS-C? I either use that to my advantage for street shooting, or use a longer lens and take a few steps back.
In exchange, my EPL2 with the 20mm lens (or even the collapsible kit zoom) fits into my coat pocket or my courier bag. It goes with me everywhere. I own a Nikon D40x, one of the smaller bodied Nikon DSLRs. There's no comparison with size: the Nikon is on one side of the tipping point, the EPL2 the other. The Nikon stays home, the EPL2 goes for walks. It takes more pictures when it's with me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5173091205/in/set-72157625378028532/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5173706524/in/set-72157625378028532
I also "get" using adapted lens on it. My Summicron DR 50/2 becomes a 100mm with full manual control and a classic look, and the entire kit is smaller than my M6.
Perhaps my expectations are different than other peoples. I didn't buy the camera looking for a cheap M8/M9, I bought it for what I perceived to be its unique set of characteristics, and it has served me well in this regard.
I also purchased a GH2, mainly for it's video capabilities (I used it as a B-cam on a series of TV commercials I directly recently). It's a very capable picture maker. It's smaller than the D40x, but the real size advantage comes from the native lens. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is half the size of the Nikon 35/1.8, and the Panasonic 14-140 about half the volume of the Nikon 18-200 VR. These things add up. When I do carry a camera bag, the one the GH2 goes into is about half the size as the bag for my Nikon F100 or my D40x. Again, smaller bag, smaller size, lower weight means it's more likely to get used. Isn't that part of why many of us use rangefinders instead of SLRs/DSLRs in the first place?
As far as lenses go, the M4/3 ones I've used have easily been the equal of their Nikon counterpart.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34776140@N05/5603004909/in/set-72157626461416868/
The Panasonic 20/1.7 is in a class of its own - sharper with a nicer rendering than any of my DSLR primes.
I guess I don't get "not getting it."
rdeleskie
Well-known
If you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
I looked at your flickr images, at 1024x624, zoomed in just a bit, and the puppy is blurry, there is low dynamic range, there is diginoise, and there is softness. Almost looks like there is fog.
I don't get this with my d40, when enlarging the same amount.
I think your m4/3 is more like a stop or two below a D90 or Nex in dynamic range, , and more like a few below a D7000/D5100.
But different folks have different requirements. If you're happy with this quality, that is all that matters. But from a price/performance standpoint, it is not really better than my $99 point and shoots (well, the good ones in that range).
IMHO.
Wow, you can make deductions about dynamic range and noise quality from highly compressed Flickr images? Don't tell DXOMark you'll put them out of business.
Your crack about a $99 point and shoot is simply facetious, defies every known principle of sensor design and contradicts every test and review available. But if you're happy with that line of reasoning, that's all that matters.
[I removed my line about the "puppy" - we were looking at two different shots. At any rate the original to the flickr shot which you refer is a 2.31 MB jpeg (there was no RAW), crunched down to half that size by Flickr.]
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
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!
I once owned a V6 Golf, so only 6 cylinders were chopped off. Was called the GTI here in the States. A fun car, actually.
wgerrard
Veteran
Small cameras demand small lenses. That's my take on this. If so many of us didn't have so much money tied up in M lenses, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
goamules
Well-known
I'm getting ready to buy a G-1 because their price has come down to what I find reasonable for testing and using my LTM lenses. For $200 I can instantly get a good facsimile of what the lens can do, in color, without driving to Walgreens and paying $8 to develop a roll. A $200 tool to test about $1000 worth of lenses? Sure...I'll buy that.
The other reason is that ultimate, uber quality is not what I'm looking for. I want to see flaws, aberrations, uniqueness. I like unusual color rendition. And I honestly like the idea of finding a modern use for something made 50 years ago.
The OP question reminded me of a long thread on the LF forum, where a guy said he just bought a dual purpose motorcycle to take his Large Format camera into the field and up long dirt roads. One guy continued to criticize the plan, saying how a minivan carries more, how vibration would wreck the camera, saying how motorcycles are stupid...etc. To each his own. So when I see a question like "why does xyz use ABC when I don't think they should...?" I just consider the futility of answering.
The other reason is that ultimate, uber quality is not what I'm looking for. I want to see flaws, aberrations, uniqueness. I like unusual color rendition. And I honestly like the idea of finding a modern use for something made 50 years ago.
The OP question reminded me of a long thread on the LF forum, where a guy said he just bought a dual purpose motorcycle to take his Large Format camera into the field and up long dirt roads. One guy continued to criticize the plan, saying how a minivan carries more, how vibration would wreck the camera, saying how motorcycles are stupid...etc. To each his own. So when I see a question like "why does xyz use ABC when I don't think they should...?" I just consider the futility of answering.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I hate you
But seriously, did you have someone do the conversions, or did you do it yourself? I hate to say this, but my Minox and the Yashica that I still have (even the Canonet) are just stored right now...I'd love to be able to get these camera's nice lenses (ok, for the Minox that may be pushing it, but anyway...) more mileage, and my GF1 is certainly getting a lot of it, even with some LTM and M-mount lenses.
Jared
Newbie
I think it is great Sony/Panasonic/Olympus give us the option to use our old lensen on these new cameras.
Wouldn't recommend buying a m4/3/Nex instead of an M9 to use only with M lenses.
But it's great it is possible when u need a focal distance/aperture curently not available as a dedicated system lens, or want the look of a certain lens on digital. I use the contax G system and I don't have a problem that I can mount the lenses to the Nex camera I bought yesterday.
I know I will mainly use the Zeiss 24mm for sony Nex when it becomes available and no adapted G lenses.
On fullframe dslr (I use a 5DII) I think lens adapters are a godsend, prefer my Leica R over Canon L anytime (unless I need fast AF), OM zuiko and some Takumar lenses also get some playtime.
And if you think it's a hassle to use an adapted lens from time to time on a digital body,
then just don't ^^
But it is possible that other people will do it and like it
Wouldn't recommend buying a m4/3/Nex instead of an M9 to use only with M lenses.
But it's great it is possible when u need a focal distance/aperture curently not available as a dedicated system lens, or want the look of a certain lens on digital. I use the contax G system and I don't have a problem that I can mount the lenses to the Nex camera I bought yesterday.
I know I will mainly use the Zeiss 24mm for sony Nex when it becomes available and no adapted G lenses.
On fullframe dslr (I use a 5DII) I think lens adapters are a godsend, prefer my Leica R over Canon L anytime (unless I need fast AF), OM zuiko and some Takumar lenses also get some playtime.
And if you think it's a hassle to use an adapted lens from time to time on a digital body,
then just don't ^^
But it is possible that other people will do it and like it
Traut
Well-known
My Nex5 is not a camera to me but a digital back for some excellent glass. I bought it for that purpose.
There are better / cheaper / larger format / etc alternatives as a digital camera - but no better alternative as a digital back for Contax G, Canon FD L, Nikon RF glass at this point in time. It's not an affectation when I put an 85mm 1.2 lens on a digital back I can keep in a side pocket of a small camera bag when I want it.
There are better / cheaper / larger format / etc alternatives as a digital camera - but no better alternative as a digital back for Contax G, Canon FD L, Nikon RF glass at this point in time. It's not an affectation when I put an 85mm 1.2 lens on a digital back I can keep in a side pocket of a small camera bag when I want it.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It's extremely practical.
http://youtu.be/nCO22jxMrrQ
The whole thing is truly worth watching, but the relevant portion starts at 2:55. One of the car magazines had an article about it at the time — in the article, Newman was not identified as the owner — and the resulting car was both considerably faster, and handled better on the track than the original 928. They had to widen the chassis and the bodywork to make the engine fit.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
People have boxes of old, obsolete (in terms of manual focus-only, and coating) film camera lenses in various mounts they paid good money for, switched to digital, and now want to be able to use them on their digital cameras - kluge be damned.