shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I haven't seen a definite count, but the type of lens adapters for 4/3rd should be par with whatever Canon has. The shorter distance between the sensor with the lens mount on the 4/3rd system pretty much made it technically possible to make an adapter for anything out there.
As for the crop factor benefit, the same positive argument can be made on the other end of the spectrum; for those who enjoy telephoto (thanks to the 2x crop factor). Now you can use a 200mm/4 lens as a 400mm/4 without the price, bulk, and sacrificing handhold-ability.
I think if Olympus wants to stay in the game, at some point they have to come up with something that equals 35mm film size for their sensor. And knowing Olympus, they probably surprise us again with yet another innovation. So let's wait and see...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I use various M42 and Contax/Yashica mount Zeiss lenses. Notably the biotar, flektogon, planar, distagon.
On the zuiko, I use the 35/2 and 18/3.5.
kuzano
Veteran
OK... got that... I have some Zuiko OM stuff, but
OK... got that... I have some Zuiko OM stuff, but
One more question. Whose adaptor are you using to mount the lenses on front of your e300 4/3rds mount?
OK... got that... I have some Zuiko OM stuff, but
One more question. Whose adaptor are you using to mount the lenses on front of your e300 4/3rds mount?
Axel
singleshooter
For example there are no adapters for Pentacon-six or Kiev66-lenses I have ever seen in fourthirds mount. But that can be an old information and sure its not the "killer-feature" for everybody ;-)
Thats right but the price is a big lack on the wide side. You have to use expensive lenses to get a "all days" field of view on fourthirds and the small sensor only uses the inner half of the glass. In other words a crop you can do easyly in every picture later by software, too.
Sure that all are points to remember when planning to step in one or the other system. There is no general worse or better.
The trigger for me to post in this thread was the marginal difference in the size of the bodies from E-4xx and EOS3/4xx (and some others, too).
Regards, Axel
Last edited:
kalokeri
larger than 35mm
Thanks for all the comments. Interesting thoughts.
I myself don´t like the Canon bodies. I don´t get comfortable with them.
Considering the E-420 with the pancake lens as a complement to a rangefinder because it´s a small package seems comprehensible to me. In example: this combination is assumed to fit in a Billingham Alice (L2) together with a M2 and Summicron.
Thomas
I myself don´t like the Canon bodies. I don´t get comfortable with them.
Considering the E-420 with the pancake lens as a complement to a rangefinder because it´s a small package seems comprehensible to me. In example: this combination is assumed to fit in a Billingham Alice (L2) together with a M2 and Summicron.
Thomas
Axel
singleshooter
Thomas, when it comes to the size of a digital alternative / supplement for an Leica M my point of view is different.
So if I want to save space in my photobag my choice is my Ricoh GX8. With about half of the space and weight of any small DSLR-Body I have a range from 28 to 85mm and a very fast and quiet little camera.
If I miss the good finder of my M I take an external on the GX8. This works also with the GRD and the actual GX100.
Regards, Axel
So if I want to save space in my photobag my choice is my Ricoh GX8. With about half of the space and weight of any small DSLR-Body I have a range from 28 to 85mm and a very fast and quiet little camera.
If I miss the good finder of my M I take an external on the GX8. This works also with the GRD and the actual GX100.
Regards, Axel
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Axel, first of all let me say that I enjoy discussing this with you. Unlike some "discussions" that degenerates into an emotional argument, you presented your points well and check your attitudes at the door
Secondly, let me mention my intention with this discussion, it's not to establish the general "better" or "worse", but more as a dissemination of information. Why? because you can find lots of information about adapting lenses to a Canon system *anywhere*, but there are fewer people who know about 4/3rd system being a valid alternative (with the plus and minus we've discussed so far).
With that, I'll go back to responding to your points above:
- Yes, apparently there's no commercially available Pentacon-six lens adapter for the 4/3rd system
- Price-wise, again it depends on what kind of photography you're talking about. For wildlife and outdoor, in general, you won't get much complain about the availability of extreme wide-angle lenses, but they will care if they can get a fast, telephoto lenses without having to pay through their nose. Admittedly, I'm talking about probably a very minor portion of this type of photographers who still relies on manual focus lenses
I don't think you'll find too many 170mm/f1.8 lenses (or similar) out there that is not super-expensive, if existed at all. But that's exactly what I've been using by attaching my 85/1.8 OM Zuiko lens on the E-300.
And let me add another emphasize on bulk. You just won't be able to carry around a 140-420mm/f3.5 zoom lens in a camera bag pouch, all day long at the Grand Canyon. But that's exactly what I did using the tiny RMC Tokina 70-210mm/f3.5 lens on the E-300.
- Cropping-wise. Cropping using software is *not* the same as using a longer focal length. Unlike software, using a longer-focal length records the same amount of information as when you use wider lenses, including different DOF effects. Let me put it this way: If you can *always* simulate longer focal length with software cropping, there will be no one using a telephoto lens, correct?
- Something we haven't discussed yet. The longer mirrors on Canon DSLR's are prone to problems with some lenses (including some desirable Zeiss and Leica R lenses). 4/3rd mirror box is much smaller, so this is a non-problem.
Now I'm going to the subjective territory:
Color rendering. I do think that Olympus overall did a much better job than Canon when it comes to reproducing colors (Both through the lenses and through the sensor's factory adjustments). But again, this is subjective, but I am not alone in this, talk to any Olympus users, most likely they will agree with me on this.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I use the Olympus-made one for the OM-adapter. Yes it's expensive, but it's very well-made.
I got the M42 and C/Y adapters from a guy who probably just bought it off the bay. No markings, but they work just fine.
kuzano
Veteran
I want to thank both Axel100 and Shadowfox....
I want to thank both Axel100 and Shadowfox....
To use Shadowfoxes term, this discussion is far from breaking down into the "Artificial Dissemination" of information as happens in so many postings. Thank you for that.
I have garnered considerable information here that helps me with my choice of Oly 4/3 selection. I originally chose the OLY 4/3 mount because of camera size and the incredible reports of image quality and color rendition of the E1 and subsequent models. The new features of the x20 and E3 models are large steps ahead in development.
Regarding the 2X crop factor, it all leads to a formidable advantage in making the system transportable. I am not a professional photographer, so the half size sensor is far more adequate than I need. In fact, I suspect the image quality is more than adequate for a huge number of professionals who have allowed themselves to believe it takes a FF sensor to meet their needs. I don't believe that for a moment. Certainly not in all professional markets, such as journalism and sports or active event photography. I believe that the need to capture bursts of images and get them to the card is eventually going to favor smaller, more well developed image sensors.
Hence, 4/3rds is well positioned to slip into that marketplace.
Plaudits to you both for a well mannered dialogue, and I am even more sold on my choice of the 4/3rds mount allowing me to carry lenses and camera's that are much smaller and lighter than most.
At the same time the image quality for the Oly exceeds my needs. I have printed many of my images up to 13X19 and been delighted with the results.
I want to thank both Axel100 and Shadowfox....
To use Shadowfoxes term, this discussion is far from breaking down into the "Artificial Dissemination" of information as happens in so many postings. Thank you for that.
I have garnered considerable information here that helps me with my choice of Oly 4/3 selection. I originally chose the OLY 4/3 mount because of camera size and the incredible reports of image quality and color rendition of the E1 and subsequent models. The new features of the x20 and E3 models are large steps ahead in development.
Regarding the 2X crop factor, it all leads to a formidable advantage in making the system transportable. I am not a professional photographer, so the half size sensor is far more adequate than I need. In fact, I suspect the image quality is more than adequate for a huge number of professionals who have allowed themselves to believe it takes a FF sensor to meet their needs. I don't believe that for a moment. Certainly not in all professional markets, such as journalism and sports or active event photography. I believe that the need to capture bursts of images and get them to the card is eventually going to favor smaller, more well developed image sensors.
Hence, 4/3rds is well positioned to slip into that marketplace.
Plaudits to you both for a well mannered dialogue, and I am even more sold on my choice of the 4/3rds mount allowing me to carry lenses and camera's that are much smaller and lighter than most.
At the same time the image quality for the Oly exceeds my needs. I have printed many of my images up to 13X19 and been delighted with the results.
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I had a chance to actually test out this camera yesterday, and I was kind of disappointed in it, ergonomically. It's very light and plasticky feeling--in fact at first I thought that I was holding a nonfunctional display model! I had just spent the morning, however, shooting with the Pentax Spotmatic F I just got, which feels amazing and is very heavy...the E-420 felt like a toy, by comparison.
I wish somebody would put out an inexpensive, stripped-down SLR made of METAL, with no freaking face detection or other worthless crap. Like the SLR equivalent of the Leica M8 or Epson R-D1, except, you know, affordable. I really love my Canon EOS 40D (which does feel good in the hand and is nice and heavy)...but if I could get that sensor into the Spotmatic F, I would be in hog heaven. Maybe throw in a little AE, too.
The M8 is a niche market, but would the above-described DSLR be?
I wish somebody would put out an inexpensive, stripped-down SLR made of METAL, with no freaking face detection or other worthless crap. Like the SLR equivalent of the Leica M8 or Epson R-D1, except, you know, affordable. I really love my Canon EOS 40D (which does feel good in the hand and is nice and heavy)...but if I could get that sensor into the Spotmatic F, I would be in hog heaven. Maybe throw in a little AE, too.
The M8 is a niche market, but would the above-described DSLR be?
photogdave
Shops local
Well you have to expect SOME compromises for the world's smallest, lightest DSLR.
I've handled it enough now to know I will probably buy it. Weight is extremely important for my intended use of this camera and it seems well built.
I'm glad you posted your impressions. Do you have any images you can share?
Thanks!
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
No, no, I just messed with it at the store and only saw images on the in-camera LCD. The ones I've seen online look terrific, though--I think you're good in terms of IQ!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
With that, I'll go back to responding to your points above:
- Yes, apparently there's no commercially available Pentacon-six lens adapter for the 4/3rd system
Aha, I just found out that there is a Pentacon 6 to M42 adapter, which will make it fit into the M42 to 4/3rd adapter on my E-300. Nice! imagine a 360mm/f2.8 Olympia Sonnar
... sweeeet!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Uh, not to argue, but this comparison applies to any DSLR out there (except for the real high-end pro bodies). In other words, you're a comparing all 1980-2008 plastic SLR's to 1940-1970 metal SLR's. Of course the metal ones will feel more solid, that's why we like them, yes?
E-420, comparable to other "entry-level" bodies from other brands, is very well-made and feels refined. It kinda reminds me of a round-cornered OM-4. If it looks like a toy, it's more from it being small. Like a Rollei 35, it's all metal, but it still looks like a toy
Don't get me wrong, I'm as big into metal bricks as you are, but let's compare apples to apples.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Fair enough.
kalokeri
larger than 35mm
Thanks to all of you
Thanks to all of you
First of all thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts. I really appreaciate all of your comments.
I do agree with this. I really like these well-made little cameras of the 70ties like OM, MX or FM/FE. Still using my FM2 and the FE I bought in spring. But I have to accept that these times are gone.
The E-420 is well build considering today´s standards. It´s light and small, together with the pancake lens something different than - let´s say for example - a 40D or 300D. I admit both are heavy and big - nothing I would go for. Using a D80 which is smaller and lighter but still thinking about another digital slr I considered the E-420. Your thoughts and comments helped a lot. Because Olympus offers a 50mm equivalent with the pancake lens this package will get a fair chance. I would like to have a digital M but can´t justify spending nearly EURO 5.000,--.
Thomas
Thanks to all of you
First of all thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts. I really appreaciate all of your comments.
I do agree with this. I really like these well-made little cameras of the 70ties like OM, MX or FM/FE. Still using my FM2 and the FE I bought in spring. But I have to accept that these times are gone.
The E-420 is well build considering today´s standards. It´s light and small, together with the pancake lens something different than - let´s say for example - a 40D or 300D. I admit both are heavy and big - nothing I would go for. Using a D80 which is smaller and lighter but still thinking about another digital slr I considered the E-420. Your thoughts and comments helped a lot. Because Olympus offers a 50mm equivalent with the pancake lens this package will get a fair chance. I would like to have a digital M but can´t justify spending nearly EURO 5.000,--.
Thomas
gavinlg
Veteran
I had a play with an e-420 at the Australian PMA a few weeks ago. I have an e-410 which is a fantastic little camera so I have something to compare to.
As far as body feel, the e-420 is improved a LOT. Just little things, but it feels like a quality little camera. The dials and switches are nice and solid with no play.
It seems to me the 25mm pancake lens meets the zuiko standards - which are pretty high really. The image quality is definitely better than th e-410 - better highlight handling and slightly better noise.
I'll get one this year.
As far as body feel, the e-420 is improved a LOT. Just little things, but it feels like a quality little camera. The dials and switches are nice and solid with no play.
It seems to me the 25mm pancake lens meets the zuiko standards - which are pretty high really. The image quality is definitely better than th e-410 - better highlight handling and slightly better noise.
I'll get one this year.
gavinlg
Veteran
I had a play with an e-420 at the Australian PMA a few weeks ago. I have an e-410 which is a fantastic little camera so I have something to compare to.
As far as body feel, the e-420 is improved a LOT. Just little things, but it feels like a quality little camera. The dials and switches are nice and solid with no play.
It seems to me the 25mm pancake lens meets the zuiko standards - which are pretty high really. The image quality is definitely better than th e-410 - better highlight handling and slightly better noise.
I'll get one this year.
As far as body feel, the e-420 is improved a LOT. Just little things, but it feels like a quality little camera. The dials and switches are nice and solid with no play.
It seems to me the 25mm pancake lens meets the zuiko standards - which are pretty high really. The image quality is definitely better than th e-410 - better highlight handling and slightly better noise.
I'll get one this year.