thegman
Veteran
I get it, if you use a Sonnar, Nokton 1.1, or similar on a range finder, you have to accept issues like back focus and the fact that your range finder alignment has to be *perfect*. Put such a lens on a m4/3 or NEX camera and all those problems go away.
Hell, you could argue that an EVF equipped full-frame version of a NEX is a better camera for these lenses than a range finder is.
Having said all that, I don't put my M lenses on my Lumix G1, mostly because I much prefer film, and partly due to the humongous crop factor.
Hell, you could argue that an EVF equipped full-frame version of a NEX is a better camera for these lenses than a range finder is.
Having said all that, I don't put my M lenses on my Lumix G1, mostly because I much prefer film, and partly due to the humongous crop factor.
goamules
Well-known
Well, I just got a G1, the first time I've even handled one. BOY, do I get it! Trying 5 Canon RF lenses, and an Industar, then remembered I had an extension tube set I've never used, then trying low light...then....Yeah, this is fun.
What's really cool is comparing the bokeh wide open between these lenses - almost instantly. Shoot...unscrew...shoot...unscrew...load to the PC....compare. Very fast and fun.
What's really cool is comparing the bokeh wide open between these lenses - almost instantly. Shoot...unscrew...shoot...unscrew...load to the PC....compare. Very fast and fun.
russelljtdyer
Writer
What I Get
What I Get
Here's what I get from the adaptability of a micro four-thirds camera. I can use the lenses that fit my Zeiss Ikon M-mount film camera on my Lumix GF1 digital camera. They're both modest sized--the Lumix especially--so that I can carry one set of lens, and two cameras. I take the better shots with my Zeiss Ikon and all the rest with my Lumix.
In the photo below, you can see my Lumix GF1 with a Voigtlander adapter and a Zeiss 35mm Biogon f/2 ZM lens--an excellent lens. On my Zeiss Ikon, I have a Voigtlander 50mm Nokton f/1.5 lens. Not as good of a lens as my Zeiss lens, but it's pretty good and had a reasonable price. It's a Leica thread mount (LTM) lens, but with a Voigtlander adapter to make it an M-mount lens. I use it on my Canon P camera, as well. The tall thin lens on the left in the foreground is an old Leica 9cm Elmar f/4 (LTM). On my Lumix, I get 180mm focal length out of it. Behind the Leica lens is a Lumix kit lens that I sometimes bring with me when I want zoom and image stabilization on the Lumix camera. With the exception of that one Lumix lens, I can use easily all of my lenses on either camera. I don't have to bring one set of lenses for my film camera and another for my digital camera. Of course, sometimes I only take a film camera and other times only a digital one. But when I want the flexibility of both formats, without the bulk, this combination is nice.
As you can see from the shot below, I can comfortably put all four lenses and the two cameras in a small Domke shoulder bag, along with cleaning items, extra film, and personal items (e.g., a cell phone, wallet, map, etc.). The bag isn't heavy when loaded with all of this equipment, but I have several possibilities. By the way, with the exception of the Leica 9cm lens, all of my lenses are not old lenses. I bought them new within the past year or two.
What I Get
Here's what I get from the adaptability of a micro four-thirds camera. I can use the lenses that fit my Zeiss Ikon M-mount film camera on my Lumix GF1 digital camera. They're both modest sized--the Lumix especially--so that I can carry one set of lens, and two cameras. I take the better shots with my Zeiss Ikon and all the rest with my Lumix.
In the photo below, you can see my Lumix GF1 with a Voigtlander adapter and a Zeiss 35mm Biogon f/2 ZM lens--an excellent lens. On my Zeiss Ikon, I have a Voigtlander 50mm Nokton f/1.5 lens. Not as good of a lens as my Zeiss lens, but it's pretty good and had a reasonable price. It's a Leica thread mount (LTM) lens, but with a Voigtlander adapter to make it an M-mount lens. I use it on my Canon P camera, as well. The tall thin lens on the left in the foreground is an old Leica 9cm Elmar f/4 (LTM). On my Lumix, I get 180mm focal length out of it. Behind the Leica lens is a Lumix kit lens that I sometimes bring with me when I want zoom and image stabilization on the Lumix camera. With the exception of that one Lumix lens, I can use easily all of my lenses on either camera. I don't have to bring one set of lenses for my film camera and another for my digital camera. Of course, sometimes I only take a film camera and other times only a digital one. But when I want the flexibility of both formats, without the bulk, this combination is nice.
As you can see from the shot below, I can comfortably put all four lenses and the two cameras in a small Domke shoulder bag, along with cleaning items, extra film, and personal items (e.g., a cell phone, wallet, map, etc.). The bag isn't heavy when loaded with all of this equipment, but I have several possibilities. By the way, with the exception of the Leica 9cm lens, all of my lenses are not old lenses. I bought them new within the past year or two.
Last edited:
Frank Petronio
Well-known
The main reason I see to use old lenses on the new mirrorless cameras is that up until the recently announced Olympus 45/1.8, there hasn't been a good portrait lens solution. But now you can mount a cheap 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 lens and make nice headshots until the cows come home.
FalseDigital
BKK -> Tokyo
(edit) ^ EXACTLY!
I definitely disagree with the original post.
There's no way you can get a 100mm f/1.8 lens for $40 with any other system. Not to mention if done correctly the quality is outstanding.
I definitely disagree with the original post.
There's no way you can get a 100mm f/1.8 lens for $40 with any other system. Not to mention if done correctly the quality is outstanding.
Last edited:
FalseDigital
BKK -> Tokyo
Also, I forgot to mention video capabilities. Being able to shoot 720/1080p through a Nikon 55mm f/1.2 lens is a beautiful thing. Also, good luck finding a 110mm f/1.2 lens any other way 
kuzano
Veteran
Or an 80mm equivalent f1.8 for $25 (Hexanon glass)
Or an 80mm equivalent f1.8 for $25 (Hexanon glass)
near pancake... easy mod to 4/3 mount w/no adaptor, and then adapt to m4/3 w/ 4/3 to m4/3 adaptor.
Hella portrait lens!!!!!!
Or an 80mm equivalent f1.8 for $25 (Hexanon glass)
near pancake... easy mod to 4/3 mount w/no adaptor, and then adapt to m4/3 w/ 4/3 to m4/3 adaptor.
Hella portrait lens!!!!!!
kuzano
Veteran
Well I feel the same way you do.... somewhat...
Well I feel the same way you do.... somewhat...
Which is why I won't touch an aps-c or any aps sensor because of my Canon 5D.
But sensor size aside, I use the 12mp 4/3 sensor for the primary advantage it has .... REACH with adapted lenses. So easy to turn a fast 2.8 300m lens to 600mm. Also that sensor in both 4/3 and m4/3 bodies delivers quality that is almost un-noticeably different than APS-x sensors in all my testing, using a Canon T2i and Nikon D80 that I bought to try against the Olympus sensor.
So, for the advantages of extensive reach in a small system, the Olympus and Panasonic 4/3, m4/3 sensor have a permanent place in my bag. The APS sensors I tested did not give me a noticeably better image quality, and nowhere near the reach.
All the hue and cry for APS sensors in mirrorless cameras, overlooks the biggest advantage of the 4.3 sensor. Birders and wildlife people are loving them.
So, when I want no crop, and the advantages of FF, I hire a sherpa to carry the 5D for me. When I want small, manageable and a camera with real reach, I use the 4/3, m4/3rds system, which I can tote by myself.
Well I feel the same way you do.... somewhat...
I simply refuse to use anything with a sensor smaller than APS-C. I don't care what you can bolt to it.
Which is why I won't touch an aps-c or any aps sensor because of my Canon 5D.
But sensor size aside, I use the 12mp 4/3 sensor for the primary advantage it has .... REACH with adapted lenses. So easy to turn a fast 2.8 300m lens to 600mm. Also that sensor in both 4/3 and m4/3 bodies delivers quality that is almost un-noticeably different than APS-x sensors in all my testing, using a Canon T2i and Nikon D80 that I bought to try against the Olympus sensor.
So, for the advantages of extensive reach in a small system, the Olympus and Panasonic 4/3, m4/3 sensor have a permanent place in my bag. The APS sensors I tested did not give me a noticeably better image quality, and nowhere near the reach.
All the hue and cry for APS sensors in mirrorless cameras, overlooks the biggest advantage of the 4.3 sensor. Birders and wildlife people are loving them.
So, when I want no crop, and the advantages of FF, I hire a sherpa to carry the 5D for me. When I want small, manageable and a camera with real reach, I use the 4/3, m4/3rds system, which I can tote by myself.
Last edited:
ktran
Established
Indeed. People can keep harping on about sensor size and dynamic range and etc. and post DXO numbers, while I take pictures with my E-PL2 that I find are technically superior to all but the latest generation of APS-C sensors. The size difference between a 1.6+ crop (APS-C Canon) and a 1.92 crop (4/3) is really, really negligible. When quoting sensor sizes, people will quote the imaging area of the 4/3 sensor (17 x 13) whilst they quote the entire sensor size (incl. non-imaging area) of the APS-C sensors. This diagram (linked from camerapedia) is telling:
http://homepage.mac.com/capek/sensors.gif
Oh well. The argument is silly. You use whatever you want to use, be it slide film or a bloody cell phone camera.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Great post.
Even the very minor difference between APS-C and 4/3 is nulled if you crop to 4x3, 5x4, or square.
The only real difference is between APS-C sensors made by Sony and sensors made by most anyone else, with Sony running about half a generation ahead of their competition – an almost meaningless difference in practice, and an absolutely meaningless distinction if your camera is more than 8 months old.
Last edited: