cnewhall
Chris
Does anybody have both an NEX and a Micro 4/3 camera. I would really like to see comparison photos taken by both camera's with the same (old) lens on them. I am trying to decide whether I need to pick up a Nex 5 (or maybe wait for the Nex 7) to use with my old Zeiss and Angenieux lenses to see how much it really makes a difference, upgrading to an APS-C sensor, or should I wait for something full-frame to come-out/drop-in-price and keep myself content using the lenses on my GF1 and Contax for now?
uhligfd
Well-known
Chris, you are young, you have good equipment. Why do you rush?
Use that equipment to the hilt to school yourself and save your cash until it does no
longer fit all your definable needs. Then find a better set of stuff. Not the reverse way.
Or your soul will not grow and a sick gear-o-holic mentality takes over in you. Careful, money can wreck havoc on the young and old, where going back to gearing oneself up onto a better, higher level would have been the only way to improve.
Good luck learning in yourself!
Use that equipment to the hilt to school yourself and save your cash until it does no
longer fit all your definable needs. Then find a better set of stuff. Not the reverse way.
Or your soul will not grow and a sick gear-o-holic mentality takes over in you. Careful, money can wreck havoc on the young and old, where going back to gearing oneself up onto a better, higher level would have been the only way to improve.
Good luck learning in yourself!
jarski
Veteran
I wait Photokina before plunking my money to any new camera ! 
cnewhall
Chris
Very good advice, it is hard not to let that mentality get the best of you, new gear and incremental improvements (that can cost $1000's) are very tempting sometimes.
It's just that I have been hearing bad things lately about using classic lenses on Micro 4/3, due to the sensor size and angle. I have a edit:Nikon-(couldn't find Contax yet) and an Exakta adapter coming so I will soon be able to test the quality of a bunch of really cool (and rare) old lenses, which I just picked up for almost nothing (it's been a good summer for me, my photography hobby has more than broken even), on my GF1.
Last edited:
awilder
Alan Wilder
The NEX 5 is very tempting with the abilty to use legacy wide angles and the 1.5X crop factor is very nice too. As an owner of the E-P2, I really like the EVF especially in bright sun that make any LCD screen hard to see. The 2X crop has it's advantages too for tele work I could never get with my Leica M lenses. For wide angle shots, I simply use the 14-42 zoom that came with the camera. It's not too shabby and does the job. According to Popular Photography, Olympus cameras of this type are reputed to have the least noise at higher ISOs of any of these cameras and color acuracy is better than the Sony but not quite as good as the Panasonics.
Where are you hearing *bad* things using adapted lenses on micro 4/3?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Wise-words of the year!
This advice should be on a plaque and hung on the wall of any aspiring photographers, young or old. And it should only be taken down to be replaced by the photographer's own pictures one day.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Where are you hearing *bad* things using adapted lenses on micro 4/3?
It has been floating around various discussion fora on the Internet for, oh, say the last year and a half that M-mount lenses of ~35mm or shorter have issues with corner/edge sharpness; speculation is it has something to do with the way the u4/3 sensor's cells collect light; speculation is also that's the reason the M8/8.2/9 sensors use micro-lenses of a particular design.
I can't personally verify the veracity of these rumors, suffice it to say one would had to have been entirely offline for the last year not to have heard about this.
~Joe
douglasf13
Well-known
There are tons of samples on the Sony forum on getdpi.com
awilder
Alan Wilder
My own expeience with the E-P2 confirmed that my legacy 15/4.5 and 21/4.5 lenses both had smeary edge detail compared to the native 14-42 zoom that came with the camera. The former lenses were tack sharp to the corners with film but not with u4/3. My 35/2 or longer lenses did okay with the E-P2.
seakayaker1
Well-known
There are quite a lot of others who are having a great time taking some wonderful photos with classic lens and the m4/3.
A couple of links:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10029&page=45
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4390&page=68
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17934
and a link to my flickr site with the GF1 and Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander, Yashica, and Panasonic Lenses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26672618@N03/sets/
Life is Grand
Dan
~
cnewhall
Chris
Those are some really cool photos. I guess even though Micro 4/3 sensors crop the image down and don't take full advantage of some of these amazing lenses, there's still a magic to them you can't get with any (m43 format) Panasonic or Olympus lens.
seakayaker1
Well-known
I would disagree, I can not speak for the Olympus lenses but the Lumix G 7-14mm/f4 ASPH., Lumix G 20/1.7, Leica D Summilux 25/1.4, and Leica D Elmar Vario 14-50 3.8/4.5 ASPH have produced great shots for me and many others. I only spoke about the ones that I own, two four/thirds lenses, and two micro four/third lenses. Sample shots can be found at my flickr account in the previous post above.
Sample shots for another great Panasonic Lens, the Leica 45mm F2.8 Macro lens with OIS can also be found here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11594&page=4
Perhaps the 4/3rds is not for everyone, but choices is what makes life so much fun. I'm having fun with my GF1!
. . . . . I hope you enjoy the camera that you eventually purchase as much as I enjoy the GF1!
Life is Grand!
Dan
~
Fujitsu
Well-known
Where are you hearing *bad* things using adapted lenses on micro 4/3?
Here. Its just more fun to use 35mm lenses on larger sensors.
douglasf13
Well-known
Where are you hearing *bad* things using adapted lenses on micro 4/3?
Due to the short distance between the exit pupil and sensor in many wide M lenses, there is often corner smearing or color shifting at the edges of the frame when focused to infinity with m4/3.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I should have clarified my earlier comment. Corner smearing and other optical artifacts are only "bad" in the eye of the beholder. It's a subjective issue more than optical, since the subject matter of the image itself trumps any technical consideration.
Of course, given that there're lots of legacy, MF lenses out there from which to choose from, one can get nearly the same quality of images for a lot less dollars. In my case, I already have a Minolta MD kit of lenses, which I enjoy adapting to my G1. These lenses aren't as sharp as the Lumix 20-1.7, but they're fun to use and do give good results.
The issue with corner smearing using M-mount lenses I understand affects mainly the wide angle lenses; the examples of images I've seen posted using longer focal lengths have the typical Leitz sharpness one would expect.
Some of this also has to do with optical design; I've seen some example images posted taken using Zeiss M-mount glass, in wider focal lengths, that don't show the typical corner smearing; perhaps these designs include a bit more telecentricity.
I need to keep reminding myself that the technical merits of a lens has little to do with the aesthetic merits of the resulting image. This was reinforced upon me yesterday when I was on my back porch, composing still-life images using my homemade 8"x10" nested box camera, using a 150mm binocular lens and paper negatives. I'd say there's a bit of corner smearing here, what? Yet the image seems to hold together. Again, beauty can't be measured by an MTF curve.
~Joe
Of course, given that there're lots of legacy, MF lenses out there from which to choose from, one can get nearly the same quality of images for a lot less dollars. In my case, I already have a Minolta MD kit of lenses, which I enjoy adapting to my G1. These lenses aren't as sharp as the Lumix 20-1.7, but they're fun to use and do give good results.
The issue with corner smearing using M-mount lenses I understand affects mainly the wide angle lenses; the examples of images I've seen posted using longer focal lengths have the typical Leitz sharpness one would expect.
Some of this also has to do with optical design; I've seen some example images posted taken using Zeiss M-mount glass, in wider focal lengths, that don't show the typical corner smearing; perhaps these designs include a bit more telecentricity.
I need to keep reminding myself that the technical merits of a lens has little to do with the aesthetic merits of the resulting image. This was reinforced upon me yesterday when I was on my back porch, composing still-life images using my homemade 8"x10" nested box camera, using a 150mm binocular lens and paper negatives. I'd say there's a bit of corner smearing here, what? Yet the image seems to hold together. Again, beauty can't be measured by an MTF curve.
~Joe
igi
Well-known
I wait Photokina before plunking my money to any new camera !
+1
rumors say 4 new lenses from Oly... so right now I'll save up a bit
cnewhall
Chris
Where are you hearing *bad* things using adapted lenses on micro 4/3?
Yes, here and at Photo.net for the most part.
cnewhall
Chris
I understand what a lot of you are saying, but my problem is I have a way more valuable and extensive lens collection than I have camera bodies. I love the simplicity and forgiving nature of digital just as much as I love the skill and patience needed when using old rangefinders or SLR's. I do not however want to spend a ton of money on different lenses for different cameras.
I have my Nikon F3, a couple Exakta's, and an old Contax for using most of my lenses with film, but then, if I want to go digital but don't want to lug around a huge Nikon DSLR (which I couldn't even use my rangefinder lenses with) my choices are quite limited. I would love a Leica M8.2 or M9, but there is no way I am going to be able to afford that. That basically leaves me with Micro 4/3 or NEX (sorry, the Epson is a little dated for my tastes). I picked up a refurbished GF1 with the 20mm for $650 back at the beginning of the year, and I have been extremely happy with it.
Recently I ordered a few adapters for it, the Nikon one I received is defective and leaks light so I am sending that back, the Exakta one has not come in yet, and the Contax rangefinder adapter is not currently available from the only guy I can find who makes them. I am worried though, the more I read into it, that the GF1 (or any Micro 4/3 camera for that matter) may not be the right camera to be able to fully appreciate these lenses. To me it seems that even the NEX camera's are not fully acceptable yet, and I may need to wait a year or two to see what developments are made in those formats and what else comes out.
I have my Nikon F3, a couple Exakta's, and an old Contax for using most of my lenses with film, but then, if I want to go digital but don't want to lug around a huge Nikon DSLR (which I couldn't even use my rangefinder lenses with) my choices are quite limited. I would love a Leica M8.2 or M9, but there is no way I am going to be able to afford that. That basically leaves me with Micro 4/3 or NEX (sorry, the Epson is a little dated for my tastes). I picked up a refurbished GF1 with the 20mm for $650 back at the beginning of the year, and I have been extremely happy with it.
Recently I ordered a few adapters for it, the Nikon one I received is defective and leaks light so I am sending that back, the Exakta one has not come in yet, and the Contax rangefinder adapter is not currently available from the only guy I can find who makes them. I am worried though, the more I read into it, that the GF1 (or any Micro 4/3 camera for that matter) may not be the right camera to be able to fully appreciate these lenses. To me it seems that even the NEX camera's are not fully acceptable yet, and I may need to wait a year or two to see what developments are made in those formats and what else comes out.
Last edited:
Are you looking for an internal or external mount adapter?
Acceptable according to what criteria? I've used micro 4/3 since the fall of '08 and they've been *more* than acceptable with adapted lenses.