Does micro four thirds just confuse things, more than a little for you?

<p>I would likely buy an adapter to use my 200m FD, since manual focus is typically preferable on long lenses anyway. Question is will some reputable outfit manufacturer one that will fit right and accomodate a much larger rear bayonet with lots of pins and levers. It would be interesting to experiment. Good machining costs bucks though. I won't sacrifice a broken mount for fooling around. Some eBay product will appear. Will await the adapter crowd... As the buck private said brightly to his platoon leader on the ramparts..." You go first lieutenant."</p>

<p>Ye olde skeptic here, GS. (And I guess telecentricity is less important at certain focal lengths so I have read somewhere)</p>

<p>FWIW, Kindai International announced today the release of Leica-M-to-M4/3 and Canon-FD-to-M4/3 adaptors. Apparently, they are identical to Rayqual adaptors.</p>

<p>Also, today I bought another M4/3 mount adaptor made by BORG, an astronomical telescope manufacturer that is known to make various adaptors and M42 (Exacta) mount helicoids. See the attached picture. No.5011 is the adaptor with 49.8mm thread. No. 7923 is 49.8-to-57mm adaptor with internal 52mm thread. With this combo, you can use Nikon K3 and K4 rings (parts of K-ring set) to make a Nikon-F-to-M4/3 adaptor with which you can approximately achieve the 46.5mm of Nikon's flange back.</p>

<p>I bought the 5011/7923 combo for about $60, which is way cheaper than any of the 4/3 or M4/3 mount adaptors.</p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?currency=GBP&products_id=252">http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?currency=GBP&products_id=252</a></p>

<p>Akira i dont think you ever really tried out the original system if you dont get the advantages. Now if you have deep pockets of course you should have kept away from 4/3 system. But if you dont it blows everythign else away at what its good at. First is lens size.. theres not a lot of difference in short lenses of course (very small difference) but compare a 300 on a 4/3 camera with a 200 on a canon/nikon etc and the difference is stunning. And of course you can use pretty much ANY lens with a 4/3rds system period. (I know.. i have). Plus the zoom difference is a huge deal if you do telephoto. Not to say that to those who can afford it shouldnt opt for a 500/4.5 and the wagon to haul it instead of the 4/3rds 300/4.5 equivalent. But the only disadvantages of 4/3rds were ISO and of course ultrashort lenses (if you needed to go less than say 16mm).<br>

Now when are they coming out with the interchangeable sensors :)</p>

<p>Ahhh "interchangeable sensors" thats my dream too Charles.. Along with a Fulframe Digital sensor camera with Minolta MD mount.</p>

<p>Charles,<br>

I agree with you in terms of the advantage of longer lenses. I'm looking forward to a Nikon-F to M4/3 adaptor partially because of the very reason you mentioned (as well as the use of fast standard lenses as short teles). :)<br>

However, I would think this advantage is rather for niche people and the disadvantage of larger-than-announced sizes of short to normal lenses (zoom or prime, look at the HUGE Summilux 25/1.4!) and that tiny finder image were more prominent to me, which is why I shied away from the original 4/3.</p>

<p>I agree totally.<br>

The tiny viewfinder is a Huge annoyance. Get a top end Nikon or Canon and then switch to an oly and you'll be grumbling. Of course to be truely fair you'd compare the oly to the low end canon which it blows away in many areas (all in my opinion).<br>

YOu are certainly correct on niche useage. No wedding photographer in my opinion should carry an oly digital. The ISO disadvantage alone crosses them off the list. Outdoor people photography perhaps it is just different tools for the same job. If your primary were astro photography perhaps youd be best with nikanon if you're mounting on a tele or 4/3rds if not. For nature though if you dont have astonishing amounts of money to spend oly wins hands down. Trust me many a time ive thought (man i wish i had a high end canon) but honestly it was only ever for the iso or because oly hadnt yet come out with the lens i wanted.</p>

<p>BTW on your adaptor a suggestion. Remove the screws and locktite or superglue them back in. I've had two or three different adaptors come apart on me and can NOT seem to find replacement screws. Its pretty annoying holding up a 1000mm equiv lens doing astro because the mountings loose.</p>

<p>Charles,</p>

<p>Thanks for your advice on the screws holding the mount. Holding the weight of 1000mm lens should be quite burdensome for those tiny screws! One would like such a heavy lens to have its own tripod collar and let the screws hold the weight of the camera instead.</p>

<p>Exactly. Akira but strangely enough it wasnt the long lens that did them in. The adapters were mostly used to walk around with a 50/1.4 (Love that lens!!!) manual and a 100something. The screws just worked themselves loose over time and next thing you know im in the back yard with frozen fingers cursing as i try to hold the lens in place!</p>