OM-lenses on R-D1s ?

[gliderbee]

Quite some time ago, I bought a OM-to-LTM adapter, but never used it.
Because I now have a digital RF, I've put a M-to-LTM adapter on the R-D1, then the OM-lens with the OM-LTM adapter. I used a OM 28mm and used zone-focussing, but the picture is not in focus at all ... Am I doing something wrong or can't this work ? If not, why not, and what is that OM-to-LTM adapter good for then ?

There must be something I don't understand ...😕

Thanks,
Stefan.

 

[Ezzie]

I would have thought it would work. My thoughts would be that depending on the quality of the adapters, poor tolerances in one adapter may have a slight, hardly noticable effect, but if both are rather sloppy (both too thick ot both too thin) then that could have a distinct effect. Have you tried hyperfocal focusing at f16 or 22?

 

[gliderbee]

I would have thought it would work. My thoughts would be that depending on the quality of the adapters, poor tolerances in one adapter may have a slight, hardly noticable effect, but if both are rather sloppy (both too thick ot both too thin) then that could have a distinct effect. Have you tried hyperfocal focusing at f16 or 22?

I did try hyperfocal focusing at f16 (that were the only pictures I tried). I'll give it a new try this evening or tomorrow, and I'll let you know.

Thanks,
Stefan.

 

[Ezzie]

At f16 the hyperfocal distance is 2m48cm for a 28mm on the R-D1. Everything between 1m24cm and infinity should be in focus, but not necessarily sharp.

 

[SteveM(PA)]

Maybe this was supposed to be a Visoflex thing (my Viso 1 is LTM)?

 

[Ezzie]

Isn't the OM flange to film distance greater than the M-mount? so much so that an adapter can be made retaining full focusing abilities? M-mount FFD is 28.8mm, OM is 46mm.

 

[gliderbee]

Well, I tried again with a Zuiko 28mm and 24mm, both on f16. I couldn't get any picture sharp, no matter the distance, but since it's nearly dark over here, I couldn't test systematically.

I'll try tomorrow or during the weekend on a fixed distance with different settings on the lens.

Any suggestions on a distance that should work at a certain setting (yet to be found) ? E.g., if I set the camera at 2m from an object, should there be some distance to set the lens on to get it in focus (apart from the possibility of a misleading indication) ?

 

[kkdanamatt]

It won't work

It won't work

The OM body is thicker than any LTM or M camera. Any lens adapter only makes it worse because the OM lens sits further away from the sensor. There is no full frame 35mm SLR lens that I know of which will focus to infinity on a Leica RF or similar camera, either film or digital. Using a Visoflex with plumbing and adapters might work with some lenses, but that's not what you want, I'm sure.

 

[gliderbee]

Maybe I'm missing some theoretical knowledge here:

Since the OM body is thicker then a LTM or M camera, the OM-lenses sit farter away from the film plane, and I thought that's one of the things (besides adapting the mount) the adapter has to take care for: to set the lens at a further (in this case) distance from the film plane.

In short: thickness of (LTM-body + adapter) + OM-lens = thickness of OM-body + OM-lens.

I always thought that was the reason I couldn't use LTM-lenses on my Nikon or Olympus SLR's (so the opposite of what I'm trying now).

Where is my mistake ?

The OM body is thicker than any LTM or M camera. Any lens adapter only makes it worse because the OM lens sits further away from the sensor. There is no full frame 35mm SLR lens that I know of which will focus to infinity on a Leica RF or similar camera, either film or digital. Using a Visoflex with plumbing and adapters might work with some lenses, but that's not what you want, I'm sure.

 

[Ezzie]

My point too. It should work

Now the other way around will result in a macro setup. My M-mount lenses on my Nikon focus only up to a couple of feet, since Nikon body + adapter way exceeds 28.8mm

 

[ChrisN]

A useful reference: Camera mounts sorted by register

And a photo of a OM to M adapter formerly sold by Cameraquest.

 

[gliderbee]

A useful reference: Camera mounts sorted by register

And a photo of a OM to M adapter formerly sold by Cameraquest.

Does that adapter even has RF coupling ? Mine doesn't ... If somebody knows one like that for sale ...

Stefan.

 

[gliderbee]

A useful reference: Camera mounts sorted by register

From that list, I understand the M-mount is 27.95, the OM-mount is 46. That then means an adapter should have a thickness of 46-27.95 = 18.05, right ?

My adapter only adds 10.75mm ... I never tried it on a filmcamera, but I don't think that would make a difference.

Stefan.

 

[gliderbee]

I just tried this:

First picture with the both adapters (M-LTM) and (LTM-OM) installed normally, Zuiko 24mm. Picture is very unsharp.

Then I unscrewed the LTM-OM adapter as far as I dared, so that it just stayed on the camera, but the lens was a bit farther away from the camera. The picture was noticably sharper; not sharp yet, but clearly better.

The adapter is marked Olympus Baj/Leica M-39; am I being sold a completely useless "fake" adapter ?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Stefan,

It could be a bellows adapter: completely useless for your application, but not for all applications.

Unless the 'sandwich' (OM>LTM + LTM>M) = 18.05, it ain't gonna work. Can you get a 7.3mm extension tube in LTM? That would solve it (10.75 + 7.3 = 18.05). I'm assuming that the 10.75 includes the 1mm of the LTM>M adapter, otherwise you need 6.3mm which is very close to 1/4 inch (= 6.35mm).

No, there are no RF coupled adapters. Too difficult. How do you translate the SLR focus movement to an RF cam?

Cheers,

R.

 

[gliderbee]

Dear Stefan,

It could be a bellows adapter: completely useless for your application, but not for all applications.

Unless the 'sandwich' (OM>LTM + LTM>M) = 18.05, it ain't gonna work. Can you get a 7.3mm extension tube in LTM? That would solve it (10.75 + 7.3 = 18.05). I'm assuming that the 10.75 includes the 1mm of the LTM>M adapter, otherwise you need 6.3mm which is very close to 1/4 inch (= 6.35mm).

No, there are no RF coupled adapters. Too difficult. How do you translate the SLR focus movement to an RF cam?

Hi Roger,

Ok, thanks for the tips. I indeed forgot to account for the thickness of the LTM>M adapter.

As for the RF coupled adapter: the one of which Chris posted the URL seems to have a distance scale near the body. I imagine you can move the RF patch with that and then manually transfer that measured distance to the lens. Would that be possible ?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

Ok, thanks for the tips. I indeed forgot to account for the thickness of the LTM>M adapter.

As for the RF coupled adapter: the one of which Chris posted the URL seems to have a distance scale near the body. I imagine you can move the RF patch with that and then manually transfer that measured distance to the lens. Would that be possible ?

Dear Stefan,

Yes, entirely possible, but I didn't know that anyone had already done it. (I worked out the same idea independently a while back). Of course a lot depends on hw you define 'coupled' at this point: the adapter is RF coupled, but not the lens.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ferider]

As for the RF coupled adapter: the one of which Chris posted the URL seems to have a distance scale near the body. I imagine you can move the RF patch with that and then manually transfer that measured distance to the lens. Would that be possible ?

I have that adapter, and it works like you describe.

OM registration distance is 46mm, Leica LTM is 28.8mm, so a correct OM/LTM adapter should be 17.2mm thick. If yours is different, it was made for a different M39 application (for example M39 SLRs, Visoflex, or something else).

Roland.

 

[gliderbee]

Ok, thanks all. Things are clear now: I bought an adapter that probably is made for a different purpose than I intended. I don't have any use for it at this moment, but the value isn't worth selling it, so I'll be on the lookout for another adapter that does what I hope.

Stefan.