FD to mirrorless

[bill_force]

<p>I want to buy a mirrorless camera both as a travel cam and a camera to utilize several FD lenses. I tried (loan) NEX-5 but am not impressed using FD's, actual size and weight is not too important, IQ is.<br>

I would like to call on your experiences with mirrorless cams because there are so many it's akin to buying wallpaper. Any sensor over 12 MP is more than sufficient for me. Balance, ergonomics are somewhat important especially if you have a particular dislike for some item. </p>

[philip_wilson]

I bought a Panasonic G1 a few years ago for this purpose. The main issue is the 2x FL equivalent so I mainly use my 17

mm and 24 F2 on the G1 (I also use my Contax G lenses). The canon zooms also work fine - I mainly use the 35-105

F3.5. In terms of IQ the m43 body is fine so long as you are 400 ISO or less (I suspect the newer ones are better) and 12

MP is enough. The better canon lenses are the ones to use - I have very few cheaper FD lenses but my 28 F2.8 for

example shows CA as do a few other lenses. I would suggest that you get a body with an EVF as I find rear screen

focusing a bit of a pain on these small bodies. The G1 is an SLR styled model and if I bought another body today I would

buy an SLR style one to work with FD lenses as they are bigger and heavier than the m43 lenses and make the camera

feel awkward. I am also a Leica shooter and looked at the NEX7 and found it did not handle well although the IQ is good

and many people like it. I do shoot a digital Leica and this is the best handling experience - it does not feel like a digital

camera as you never use the digital bits (occasionally you change ISO or format a card and you may even look at a

histogram but in general you shoot it like a film camera). I find the handling of almost all of these small CSCs is poor and

the controls are quite fiddly - my Canon DSLRs handle a lot better but of course they are much bigger.

 

I would suggest that you try a few and also look at the images from them. The images from some of these cameras look

a bit artificial (almost a computer generated air) even in RAW which is what I almost always shoot. The advantage of

Samsung, Sony or Fuji is that the larger sensor makes your FD lenses more usable than M43. As I said earlier a good

EVF is important and something to hold the body with. It is best if you can find the controls to zoom into the image for

focussing without taking your eye away from the viewfinder. Some of the bodies have built in image stabilization which

you may like. For what it is worth my FD lenses work better on the Panasonic that the (more expensive- the current kit is

a cheaper lens) kit lens. Even in RAW the Panasonic (and I suspect others) apply correction to their own lens - the lens

even has its own firmware. I played with long lenses on the G1 (300 F2.8) in theory it is a great idea - in practice not so

good. Thus if you are hoping for a situation where you can shoot wildlife with a 600 F2.8 equivalent - forget it the big

lenses don't work well on these tiny bodies. Similarly I tried the 35 tilt shift and it is really difficult to use on the m43 body

and not worth the effort. The 50 macro does work very we'll as a 100 mm equivalent portrait lens.

[pmind]

<p>I've been using FD lenses via Novoflex adapter for a couple of years now; first with the NEX-5, and now with the NEX-7. I have to say that I am very impressed with the performance of those lenses on the Sony body. Among others, the lenses that I use most are: 50mm f/1.2L, 50mm f/3.5 macro, 85mm f/1.2L, 17-40mm f/4, 20-35mm f/3.5L and the 200mm f/4; all in nFD mount. Can you elaborate on what you found lacking in your results?</p>

[bill_force]

<p>Paul,<br>

primarily ergonomics. Most of my FD's are zoom lenses and too overwhelming on the Nex-5 body. Second the button structure on the Nex-5 is too small for my hands, nothing wrong with IQ. Third I really prefer or even demand a VF of some kind, can't get used to not locking a camera against my face to steady it, arms length is almost impossible.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>Bill, I'm happy now a couple of years using several of my FD primes (35 f2 concave and 85 1.8) on Panasonic G2 camera. The Gx series is basically a scaled down slr form factor. Seems like around this time of year to Christmas B&H heavily discounts the pansonics, which is when I've purchased my G2 and Gf1. I don't care for the FD lenses on the gf1, even with the added viewfinder.</p>

<p>I also tried the canon 500 f8 mirrorless on u4/3, and definitely need a tripod.</p>

[philip_wilson]

My issue is also handling - as I said I use the G1 (almost the same as WT's G2). The issue with these bodies is the 2x.

My 85 works fine but as a effective 170mm lens it is a bit long for portraits and shooting at F1.2 is hard to focus.

[bill_force]

<p>Thanks, sounds like the G2 might be what i was looking for, I'll try one at the photo store.</p>

[philip_wilson]

The current model is the G5 buy you can also get a good deal on a G3 as this is just being replaced (4 is an unlucky

number in some countries), you should also look at Olympus - there OMD E M5 has been greeting good reviews but it is

a lot more expensive than the Panasonic models. Remember with these m43 cameras you do have to live with the 2x

effective focal length multiplier so I hope you have some very wide angle lenses such as the 14mm, 17mm or 20mm.

B&H et al have the G3 for $390.

[pmind]

<p>Bill, I agree that the button configuration and lack of EVF on the NEX-5 is awkward, especially the notorious video capture button that can't yet be disabled view menu option. However, I will say that the NEX-7 is big step in the right direction and might be worth a look; the addition of the EVF and the two control wheels are what sold me.</p>

[max_pfingsthorn]

If you like the NEX-7, the NEX-6 should be even more interesting. It has a very nice EVF and a PASM wheel. In general it

feels very solid, I think a little bit more so than the NEX-7, and it's cheaper, too. I tried it out at photokina and was

impressed. On the other hand, I was even more impressed by the Fuji X-E1. If it just had focus peaking...

[nagoda]

<p>You might also consider the Panasonic GH2 - since the GH3 has been announced the price should keep coming down and it can produce some wonderful images. <br>

I use the GH2 with FD lenses quite a lot, especially for film, and it's really great fun. The ergonomics are better (in my opinion) than any of the other current M43 offerings, but it's still quite an adjustment from my 5D, of course. All of the functions are there, they just aren't as convenient to get to as I might like. For travel, though, or just for walking around, it's priceless. </p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>I have been using a few of my old FL and FD lenses on my Sony NEX-5 with good results; primarily my FD 50mm f:1.8 and my FL 135mm f:2.5. The manual focus assist on the camera is a real help. However, I do not find longer telephoto lenses (200mm and 300mm FD) on the camera to be useful. I think that a single-lens-reflex camera, either film or digital, to be much easier to hold and focus than a large lens attached to a small camera. An EVF finder would certainly help, but the camera would still not compare favorably to a real SLR with a bright optical pentaprism finder and no shutter lag. </p>

[User_1577653]

<p>I was surprised by statements a couple people made that they didn't find the long FD lenses useful with their mirrorless cameras, or that the combination didn't work well in practice. What in particular were the issues? I ask because my experience has been just the opposite. In fact, the very reason I purchased my Panasonic G1 was for use with my long FD glass. I set out explicitly to put together a wildlife setup based on my 300/2.8 and 150-600/5.6L lenses, and so far those combinations haven't disappointed me.</p>

<p>Was it perhaps just the relative difficulty of working with large lenses generally? It is true enough that working with the big heavy glass can be awkward, that having lens mounted to a tripod with a little camera sticking off the end of it may seem strange at first, and that working with a very narrow field of view requires careful technique. But that's just the nature of the beast, and in fact was true when working with FD bodies. For me having worked with long glass and FD bodies previously, that aspect of it at least wasn't really that much of a transition when I started adapting to a mirrorless body.</p>