[Q] best 4/3 dslr for manual lenses in mid '09

<p>Hello,<br>

new to the board, but have been reading/searching many forums for long time.<br>

I have gotten in the last 4-5 years a pretty big collection of old lenses and cameras.<br>

Now would like to use some of them on a DSLR. The lenses I would like to use the most are<br>

Olympus 35mm 2.8 shift<br>

Minolta MD mount 50 1.4, 100, 200 rokkor f 3.5<br>

Canon FD mount 90mm vivitar macro</p>

<p>MD mount is my priority 1 and the olympus shift lens is priority 2.<br>

In my research it appears that only 4/3 or now the new mini 4/3 systems can mount the lenses above without any glass adapters<br>

(but will double in focal length).</p>

<p>I would like to be able to have image stabilization, at least some metering with flash mounted on the camera, and focus confirmation.<br>

I also would like not to modify my lenses to fit (I have read about MD aperture ping neededing filing for some of the bodies).<br>

I have seen the new Olympus 620 and Panasonic G1 and GH1, however I am not clear if those cameras support things like AF<br>

AF confirmation (with appropriate 4/3 adapter), and whether they will allow MD lenses to be mounted without modification<br>

(most of the information on the web is about older models). Also if it is even feasable to ever have a mini 4/3 model<br>

with in-body IS (since panasonic does not have that)</p>

<p>Is Oly E 620 the best (and the least expensive) currently<br>

available for me -- or does it miss something that did not even think of yet, but important for manual focus</p>

<p>Woud like to ask also on this forum the most recent updates of experience/info<br>

(or perhaps rumors of the upcoming models in the 4/3 world that<br>

would be most well suited for use with manual lenses). </p>

<p>Thank you in advance.</p>

<p>Welcome aboard, Vlad!</p>

<p>However, I'm sorry to give you info that might discourage you. MD-to-4/3 adaptor seems to be a little difficult to make. Rayqual is the only company (at least in Japan) that makes MD-to-4/3 adaptor and it is a little clumsy to use if you have more than one MD lenses: the adaptor has to be fixed to the lens using a tiny fastening screw. I don't know why but there may be some mechanical reason.</p>

<p>If the image stabilization function is necessary for you, Olympus is the only chice (any current models will do for you). However, you should bear in mind that manual focusing in the optical viewfinder is very difficult because the finder image is very small (way smaller than on the film cameras), although you can use AF confirmation. Manual focusing on the LCD in live view mode is very convenient, but you may find the use of this mode a little clumsy because Olympus DSLRs are not dedicated to this mode.</p>

<p>Panasonic G1 and GH1 are dedicated live view cameras and manual focusing is a breeze both on the LCD and EVF. Both cameras will brighten the finder image automatically in dim situations, which help the focusing a great deal, although the finder image becomes a little jumpy (frame rate is sacrificed for brighter view). However, image stabilization is not available and you need an additonal 4/3-to-Micro4/3 adaptor (DMW-MA1, costs around 140-150 USD) to mount MD and OM lenses. Rayqual makes FD-to-M4/3 adaptor (supposedly also for Cameraquest).</p>

<br />

I'm afraid I cannot provide a clear answer but the decisive point is, I think, whether you REALLY need image stabilization. I don't think you would miss focus confirmation in live view mode. Metering with flash mounted on the camera would not be possible because there is no way for the flash to know the selected aperture value.<br />

<p>Vlad P wrote: <br /> <br /> <em>> ...Now would like to use some of [these old lenses] on a DSLR. ...<br /> > Olympus 35mm 2.8 shift<br /> > Minolta MD mount 50 1.4, 100, 200 rokkor f 3.5<br /> > Canon FD mount 90mm vivitar macro</em><br /> <br /> OM to FourThirds is easy, several adapters available from $30 to $100. <br /> <br /> Minolta MD adaptation is difficult for FourThirds SLRs because of the Minoltas' very short mount register. You need an adapter for each lens to be feasible since it has to be secured to the lens to work properly, due to the slimness of the adapter. Minolta MD can be adapted easily to micro-FourThirds, a direct adapter is available for $95 through Ebay. <br /> <br /> Canon FD mount can only be adapted to work on micro-FourThirds: the mount register is too short to adapt to FourThirds SLR and achieve infinity focus. Direct adapters for micro-FourThirds are easily available from Ebay for $95-130. <br /> <br /> <em>> In my research it appears that only 4/3 or now the new mini 4/3<br /> > systems can mount the lenses above without any glass adapters<br /> > (but will double in focal length).</em><br /> <br /> Lenses mounted on a FourThirds format sensor do not <em>"double in focal length".</em> The sensor format is 13x17.3 mm, so the angle of view is smaller than it was with a 35mm film camera (format 24x36 mm), that's all. The diagonal of FourThirds format is ~21 mm, the diagonal of 35mm film is ~43 mm, so the approximate angle of view of a focal length on FourThirds is about 1/2 the angle of view of the same focal length on 35mm format. The format proportions are difficult so this "crop factor" equivalence is only an approximation at best.<br /> <br /> <em>> I would like to be able to have image stabilization, at least<br /> > some metering with flash mounted on the camera, and focus<br /> > confirmation. I also would like not to modify my lenses to fit (I<br /> > have read about MD aperture ping neededing filing for some of the<br /> > bodies).</em><br /> <br /> - As above, the Olympus OM and Minolta MD lenses could be used on Olympus bodies that have IS. The Canon FD lenses cannot. None of the currently available micro-FourThirds bodies have in-body IS, it's not yet known precisely what Olympus' upcoming micro-FourThirds body will support in this regard. <br /> <br /> - No manual, adapted lens like these can support AF at all, on any body. Similarly, iris control is entirely manual - the lens must be manually stopped down to shooting aperture. Aperture priority AE and metered manual exposure modes work on all bodies. Flash metering with a dedicated flash unit also works, but some bodies do this better than others. <br>

<br /> - With the G1/GH1 bodies, focus confirmation is unnecessary: the EVF is superb and allow a clear view for critical manual focusing, including Manual Focus Assist magnification. The same is true of the LCD. <br /> <br /> - With SLR bodies, those that support the LCD for Live View are similar to the G1/GH1. The best optical viewfinders are in the E-1 and E-3 bodies. Third party alternative focusing screens can be fitted to most with traditional optical focusing aids like split image rangefinders, etc. Focus confirmation is only rarely precise enough for critical focus accuracy at large apertures and doesn't work at all when the lens is stopped down too far. <br /> <br /> - MD lens adaptation for FourThirds SLRs requires some modification to most lenses, but none at all for micro-FourThirds cameras. <br /> <br /> Without any doubt, the micro-FourThirds Panasonic G1/GH1 are the best bodies for using adapted manual lenses on at this time. The viewfinder is simply better than any of the SLRs for this purpose. Olympus has yet to show their micro-FourThirds offerings, although rumors are flying, so any comments there are purely conjectural.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for such thorough response. So micro 4/3d is the mount I need (I did not realize the now have the<br>

direct adapters for MD and FD)<br>

I will wait for another couple of month to see if any<br>

micro 4/3d offerings have image stabilization. It seems that the micro-4/3d will let me use MD and FD without problems with the live preview.<br>

Basically I want the 'digital' results from my lenses and was trying to figure out how to make it happen within 1200 $US range this year.<br>

Nikon Coolscan scanner or Sony Alpha camera with glass adapters or 4/3d or micro 4/3d -- which one of those would offer<br>

best image quality for prime manual (FD,MD and OM) lenses from 24 to 200. And right now, it seems like micro 4/3d is with live preview bodies<br>

will keep image quality the best from those lenses (loosing almost 50% of field of view of course).</p>

<p>Thank you again</p>

<p><em>> ... Nikon Coolscan scanner or Sony Alpha camera with glass adapters<br /> > or 4/3d or micro 4/3d -- which one of those would offer best<br /> > image quality for prime manual (FD,MD and OM) lenses from 24 to<br /> > 200. And right now, it seems like micro 4/3d is with live preview<br /> > bodies will keep image quality the best from those lenses<br /> > (loosing almost 50% of field of view of course). ... </em><br /> <br /> What is "best" is really up to you: your goals, your needs, how much effort you want to put into this, etc. <br /> <br /> - Scanning film is hugely more complex and time consuming than digital capture. You can get excellent results presuming top notch focus, exposure and film processing, but it is a great deal more work, time and expense to do so. <br /> <br /> - I don't have any personal experience with the Sony Alpha cameras with optical adapter setup. My experience with optical adapters, converters, etc of any kind indicate image degradation and other issues to be the norm however. <br /> <br /> - Using these older manual lenses on digital bodies has its plusses and minuses. Limitations on camera functionality, the differences in field of view, etc all have their issues depending on your goals and needs. These lenses weren't designed with the specific properties of a digital sensor in mind: sometimes lens and imaging defects surface that were unheard of in their use on film. But overall for many SLR lenses in the 20mm and up focal length range, performance can be very good and they are available at reasonable prices. <br /> <br /> So you have to decide what works best for your goals in making photographs. No one else can do that for you. <br /> <br /> The good news is that it's fun to use these nice old lenses on the G1 ... so that even if they don't perform perhaps on the same level as the best of modern lenses, it's fun to do work with them and they can make some exceptional photographs. I enjoy the endeavor, which is why I have the G1 and use *mostly* adapted lenses on it. :-)</p>

<p>thank you again for your answers<br>

My goals/needs are pretty simple.<br>

1) Want to spend as little time and money as possible in getting a high res image file<br>

2) Want to combine my 'hobby' of collecting old cameras and lenses (for no particular purpose) with my wife's hobby of taking good pictures and emailing them to our family :-).<br>

Such that every time I get a new lens -- she feels that it benefits her as well :-)<br>

3) want to see images the way I see them with naked eye (same color/shadows/etc)<br>

4) want to be able take images indoors without a flash, so high iso sensitivity and image stabilization would be a nice-to-have<br>

5) of course, want to use my old lenses for the above (which is really the 2) ) :-)<br>

6) want to brag about purchasing a 20 year-old lens for 30 dollars that has the sharpness of a 500-dollar lens on the final image<br>

(even though it makes absolutely no difference to anybody but me :-) )<br>

I read that olympus will annouce their camera on June 15th, it does not have a built in flash (at least from the pictures) , and will not do movies (unlike GH1) -- but much more compact and invokes nostalgic note (so if it has that wonderfull live viewinfder you mentioned -- may be it will a 'better' for smaller, not-so-heavy manual lenses)</p>

<p>Sounds to me like <i>"Buy a G1"</i> unless the Olympus has the same EVF. </p>

<p>"3) want to see images the way I see them with naked eye (same color/shadows/etc)"<br>

You should be aware that it will take some post-processing to get the same colours in your pictures than what you see. And you should also be aware that a relatively small sensor as 4/3d ( and also APS-C) has a smaller dynamic range than what our neurophysiological system can perceive.<br>

6) want to brag about purchasing a 20 year-old lens for 30 dollars that has the sharpness of a 500-dollar lens on the final image<br>

Your 35mm lenses are designed for a much larger format than the 4/3d sensor. So their resolution is much less than modern Zuikos for DSLRs. You can get good results from them but don't expect too much. They won't be as good as on your film bodies.<br>

Be also aware that your 35mm shift lens becomes the equivalent of a 70mm shift lens - not really something one wants very often.<br>

If you or your wife just want to share some photos via email, a flatbed scanner like the Canon 8800 will do the job.<br>

I don't want to open another digi vs. film discussion, I use film cameras and a E-410, but the use of old lenses clearly has limitations one should be aware of.</p>

<p>Suitability of cameras for mounting old lenses, in this order, best to worst:<br>

Olympus E-3 - Excellent<br>

Olympus E-1 - Good<br>

Olympus E-30 / Panasonic G1/GH1 - Tied, one being optical, the other being EVF.<br>

Olympus E-4/5/6 cameras, Panasonic L10/L1 are really not suitable, especially with slower lenses, the viewfinder system is simply not good enough to accurately focus MF lenses with.</p>

<p>Vlad, since I'm already doing what you want to do, I'll tell you how it's gone for me. I use the Rokkor 58mm f1.4 and the Reflex Rokkor 250mm f5.6 on my E-410. I use an MD-to-4/3 adapter supplied by JinFinance of Shanghai: it doesn't require a screw to lock on to the lens.<br>

I use aperture-priority auto and focus manually using the viewfinder. It's, surprisingly, a bit easier with the 250mm, but neither lens is a problem. Image quality is no better than with the Zuiko kit lens, but the point is, these are unusual lenses and I don't know, or can't afford, the Zuiko nearest equivalent. </p>

<p>thank you Brian, does 410 have any focusing aids, or should I just assume regardless -- that G1/GH1 would be easier than 410?<br>

Also did you have to shave 0.3mm from the pins on the lenses (my understanding from the comments above that none of needs to be done with m4/3)<br>

I am thinking that for my 35mm shift lens I will have to stay with manual setup still, as I probably would not be able to effectively use it on an dslr</p>

<p>And last question, I came up with recently: we have and really like our Olympus C 7070 wide zoom it is 7mp sensor and works very well (except in low-light situations). Is the sensor on the G1 or new olympuses larger in size (not jus in pixes) than 7070?</p>

 

<p>

<p>Vlad, </p>

<p>The Olympus C7070 sensor is 7.18 x 5.32 mm, 0.38 cm^2, in size where the G1's FourThirds format sensor is 18.00 x 13.5 mm, 2.43 cm^2, in size. That's a little less than 6x the area. Even considering that the G1 sensor has about 70% more photosites, the photosites are still nearly 4x the area each compared to the ones in the C7070. </p>

<p>IMO, the E-410 viewfinder is nowhere near as good for manual focusing as the G1 EVF. Not even in the same ballpark. I had the opportunity to compare them side by side at the camera shop just last week... </p>

<br />

</p>

<p>I'm hoping that you're wrong Godfrey and Richard (and Brian is right).I just picked up an E-330 from a PN member. It seems to have the same LCD that the 410 has, except it is an articulating one. I won't know until the adapter arrives, God knows when. My first disappointment is that it's about 33% bigger than I expected. But I have a slew of Zuikos waiting for it.</p>

<p>Jack, </p>

<p>All the SLRs with Live View work about the same in Live View mode using the LCD. the E-330's Live View A mode isn't particularly great for manual focusing ... it's the equivalent of using a small sensor camera to focus with, which can be tricky ... where the Live View B mode is quite similar to the E-410 Live View (and others). </p>

<p>I was referring to the eye level viewfinder ... optical on SLRs, EVF on the G1. I find the G1's EVF provides a superior manual focusing environment compared to any of the SLRs' OVFs. </p>