Pros/cons of using M lenses on G1

N

noimmunity

scratch my niche
Local time
8:39 PM
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
3,102
I'm excited about this u4/3 format that allows the possibility of using so many different kinds of lenses, especially M mount ones. This isn't a question about the crop factor per se. But rather I'd like to learn about what trade offs are involved in using high class glass with such an extreme crop factor. I've seen photos of the G1 taken with a ZM C Sonnar, and frankly, it seemed to me to defeat the purpose of that lens, whose character comes out in the transition from center to edge. Then there are lenses like the ZM Biogon 25/2.8 that have very even center to edge sharpness. So I don't know what to think. But in the end, won't it probably be just better to use the lenses (esp. the prime(s) like the 20/1.7) designed specifically for the u4/3 system?
 
It will definitely change the character of the lens. Every lens put on the camera not designed for it will use just the central part of the lens, usually the sharpest area. Whether this is desirable or not will depend on the user. But the lenses will clearly lose their "signature." But to a degree, this also happens when a Leica lens is put on an M8. The effect will just be more pronounced.

In the end, I don't think this will matter much to those who want a cheap digital body to mount their old lenses on.
 
after using the g1 with only the kit lens for the past week or so...

i look forward to the new 20/1.7 lens as this should make a truly compact combo and i like the 40 mm pov.
while i also look forward to my adapter arriving, i see the use of m mount lenses as an added bonus and not necessarily a reason to own a g1.
i hope the 25/2.8 will make a great 'normal' lens and i think the 35/2.8 is gonna be a killer short tele but in truth i hope they retain the 'zeiss look' that i like about them.
for me only time will tell.
 
From my tests, the lenses retain their signatures. The view is simply cropped. If a lens has a certain bokeh 'look' for example, it will have the same look on the G1.

If you shoot with a 50/1.5 Sonnar on film and crop the center, it's the same except cropped in the camera.
 
This was taken with 50/1.8 Nikkor AIS, the field of view is narrower on the G1 but the signature Nikkor 'look' is still there.

red.jpg
 
digitalintrigue said:
From my tests, the lenses retain their signatures. The view is simply cropped. If a lens has a certain bokeh 'look' for example, it will have the same look on the G1.

If you shoot with a 50/1.5 Sonnar on film and crop the center, it's the same except cropped in the camera.
Click to expand...

with the sonnar in particular I would see that as regrettable.

ZM lenses in general have fantastic color rendition, so I'd expect that they would add a nice look to G1 images.

But I don't see u4/3 as a really viable digital platform for M lenses. I think it is just a question of time before lenses specifically designed for the format take precedence. Hopefully, Olympus' input will really help, and if only Leica would get involved...
 
The µ4/3 system was not designed to be a camera built for M lenses, but the fact that it can (and the fact it can also work with a huge array of other legacy lens mounts) makes it a fantastic platform.

Here's how I look at it: it's a $300 camera body and a super sharp $200 wide-to-tele VR zoom. What more can one ask for? :) (And yes, I paid about $500 for mine.)

Granted, the field of view is narrower. If full frame is the feature that cannot be compromised, well, it isn't here yet in the form of a small, discrete camera. I'd rather not wait a few years, I can easily live with the crop.
 
where did those pics come from?

i look forward to the 7-14 (though it might be too pricey for me) and to the fast 20.

joe
 
noimmunity said:
But in the end, won't it probably be just better to use the lenses (esp. the prime(s) like the 20/1.7) designed specifically for the u4/3 system?
Click to expand...

IMHO it depends on what look you want.

From the vintage look of a Summar, to the modern look of an ASPH 'cron, you can.

Fast tiny 40mm equivalent -- the 20/1.7. Super wide, use the 7-14 zoom.

If you want to be able to use the same lenses that you use on your Nikon D700, no problem. Legacy AIS Nikkors will meter properly, unlike the small Nikon DSLRs!

The G1 can live by itself or can complement nearly anything one already has.

Geez, it's about time I got on the Panasonic payroll. ;)
 
I don't see how these lenses will retain their "signature." From my experience with crop sensor Canons I know from experience that you can take an average or less performing lens designed for 35mm and it becomes very good because you are only using the central part of the lens, the harder to correct edges are simply gone. So much of the "look" of Leica lenses people describe is attributable to various aberrations and other uncorrected or under-corrected anomalies exhibited by the lens, which of course get worse toward the edges, particularly in older lenses.

Every lens should be sharper and bokeh clearly different when using only the central portion of the lens.
 
pity that 20 and the 7-14 wont be image stabilized, especially the 20 for the low light shooting that people here are bound to use it for.
 
The overall rendering, 'look', or 'signature', depending on how one describes it, is the same, it's just a cropped view. OK, that cropped view may eliminate poor corner performance of older lenses. But I don't know all that many people that really enjoy looking at poor corner performance.

A Sonnar is a Sonnar, a first version Summilux is a first version Summilux, whether it's film or digital, full frame or crop.

A lot of people don't like 40mm Nokton bokeh. But if you take a shot with that lens on film, M8, and G1, the bokeh will look the same. I know, I've done it. :)

There are lots of people using Leica R glass on cropped Canon DSLRs. They wouldn't be doing it (sacrificing auto aperture and autofocus and having to buy lens adapters) if the signature Leica look was lost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes its true that lenses do carry over some of their signature with digital (not so much in black and white IMO) which I know from using zeiss lenses on nikon dslr's compared to their counterpart nikkor lenses. I am really looking forward to getting my Zeiss M mount lenses on that camera. In fact I am about to walk out the door to go to computer city to get some new ear buds and im afraid if I see the G1 there again I will buy it because I came oh so close last time....wheres me blindfold?
 
It is next year.

That said, yes, in body stabilization just makes sense, but photography did survive quite a while without it.

We can make due if we must.
 
rover said:
It is next year.

That said, yes, in body stabilization just makes sense, but photography did survive quite a while without it.

We can make due if we must.
Click to expand...

Indeed it did but if you ask me a small digi cam should have IS in it just because they are small and harder to hand hold at slower shutter speeds. Just one of the perks of the modern digital camera as being able to have such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom