Old lenses and the new M4/3

[preston_nielson]

Will you be able to use old lenses like Om MD K F FD and the rest on the new M4/3? will it still meter? will there be adapters to use them

with M4/3, or will you need to get them adapted to 4/3 then use the 4/3 to M4/3? I'm interested in the G1, and i just want to know if this will

be possible!

[GerrySiegel]

This PDF may be relevant:

 

http://www.biofos.com/esystem/_img/eaccss/mf1inst.pdf

[GerrySiegel]

And this one. If they figure a way to use old FD lenses let me know right away.

 

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/any-lens.html

[patrick j dempsey]

Purely from a physical aspect, just about any interchangeable lens from a 35mm camera should be able to me

mounted to the M4/3 mount, including rangefinder optics as well as SLR optics. At some 20mm, it's the shallowest

mount of any of those 35mm cameras. Lenses that technically could NOT be mounted to it would be any lens that

protrudes back really far into the camera body, as seen with some early Leica and Contax rangefinder super

wide-angle lenses.

 

Part of the M4/3's standard is an adapter that allows for 4/3's lenses on the M4/3's mount. Therefore, any

adapters available for 4/3's could be stacked on top of the 4/3's-M4/3's adapter and used... including OM, F, M42

and a wide variety of others. MD and FD mounts are available for 4/3's already as well, although an adapter from

MD or FD directly to M4/3's would be much larger and sturdier.

 

The question remains if Panasonic and Olympus M4/3's cameras will meter with Manual Focus optics. I have yet to

see any reviews tackling this question, so what I'm about to say is purely opinion:

 

I would be really surprised if it didn't. The last few years has shown camera makers that lots of people are

interested in using classic lenses, not just luddites who don't want to give up their old lenses. There is an

entire market dedicated to

adapters and the used lens market is very steady, with prices on lenses still very high while prices on film

bodies are dirt cheap. It's partially because even an expensive manual focus lens is still cheaper than a new

digital AF lens, and partially because of the lack of availability of a huge lens line with the 4/3's line.

Since Olympus and Panasonic have not secretly been developing dozens of new lenses for M4/3's to release the

cameras as a complete "system" there is an even smaller supply of lenses available just for M4/3's. What that

means is that basically it would be stupid for them to not allow metering of manual focus lenses because it would

turn off many users. No-one is going to invest in a brand new system with no lenses if they can't also adapt

other lenses to it, no matter how cute it is. It would also be strange to build a camera around the Leica ideals

and be small enough to mount Leica lenses, but not allow you to meter with them! Again, that's just my opinion,

but it would seem strange to "cripple" the G1 in this way, when it offers so many other "professional" features.

[john_robison3]

I would imagine the enterprising Chinese will build adapters for direct use of OM and other mounts to the micro 4/3 mount. Thats if Pana/Oly don't rig the camera so that the contacts in the camera have to "talk" to the lens before the camera will function. I've one of the cheap adapters from Hong Kong and it seems to work fine except that I already notice brassing on the chromed surface after what is no more than 200 lens lens changes. That's what I get for being cheap I guess. Solution with these cheap mounts is to get one for each lens you are adapting and not take them off.

[john_robison3]

Patrick, your reasoning on why Pana/Oly would not rig the mount to exclude legacy lenses makes sense. Before the regular 4/3 camera was released it seemed Olympus resisted very hard any attempt to let OM lenses be used on the new mount. Their attitude seemed to be..."OK, if you must, but don't expect them to work very well" This could have been to protect the market for their digital specific lenses, understandable. Or perhaps they thought customers would blame the camera if results didn't equal that obtained with their film bodies. What ever the reason the flood of aftermarket mounts, some even with chips soon rendered moot any objection on their part. I'm eagerly waiting to see what this new setup produces. What I'd really like to see is an Olympus RC sized camera with a good EVF and compact primes, yummy.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I hope that they make a Leica M bayonet mount adapter so all these great lenses finally can go digital.

[paul_p3]

I can't see why they wouldn't (except for a purposly written command in the firmware that a m4/3 camera won't work without a m4/3rds lens... and why would they purposely restrict on a possibly big unique selling point?)

 

m4/3 cameras use the main imager to meter so what difference does it make as to what lens is in front? [Though I'll qualify that statment by saying lenses brighter than f1.4 ma not meter correctly as that value is outside the 4/3rds lens range so who knows how the metering firmware will react?]

[paul_p3]

http://a.img-dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/Images/features/mirror_02.jpg<div></div>

[wharridge]

"I hope that they make a Leica M bayonet mount adapter so all these great lenses finally can go digital."

 

Well what about the Leica M8 ?

 

...Wayne

[vivek iyer]

Metering: Yes you can! :)

 

Focus selection aid (a special feature with the EVIL focusing): ditto.

 

Everything works except OIS (that is with the lens).

 

See here for a crude test shot:

 

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3973

 

You can choose multi-pattern (is that what it is called?), center-weighted and spot. Even the pop up flash flashes accurately.

 

Coming from Nikon land, using a Panasonic cam, all the talk there (Nikon land) about metering, compatibility, etc being inaccurate if a matrix chip is absent is a bunch of bull.

[rdm]

anyone know the flange back distance of the C-mount lenses? would be interisting to know if they could work too

[vivek iyer]

A bit short for M 4/3rds. Besides, most C-mount lenses may not cover the 4/3rds format.

[rdm]

Yea i know, but then again some might. As for the ones that didnt, i was hoping to see that vignetting effect and

possibly some color seperation at the edges.. Kinda like looking through a peepe hole, and then i could crop it

square,:) .But the point is moot anyway, as the distance is too short. I know that a 35mm movie camera lens would

cover. i wonder if the inexpensive russian ones that i see for sale can be adapted to the m4/3 or even the regular 4/3.

[kok_fook_cheang]

<p>This is how i mount the Contax Vario Sonnar 80-200 lens to M4/3</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/zhanggf/image/108011420/large.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[kok_fook_cheang]

<p>here<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/zhanggf/image/108011425.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /></p>

[rdm]

<p>hey theres another thread where i got al the Cmount questions answered and you may want to post there insted of this old one Kok. Its called <a href="00RwSe">Recent G1 and u4/3 lens adapter web discussion</a> .</p>