Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/)
-   -   Cosina anounces an Voightlander lens adapter for M43 cameras (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/cosina-anounces-voightlander-lens-adapter-m43-cameras-154444/)

zig-123 Apr 25, 2009 6:09 PM

There appears to be some consensus among some that the micro four thirds concept is a viable camera system and shows opportunities to make some money. Cosina announced that they will be supplying adapters that will allow the use of voightlander lenses on m43 cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0904/09...inaadapter.asp

I believe that Camera Quest also is supplying adapters to fit various makes of lenses onto the m43 based cameras. You can find information relative to that on Luminous Landscapes.

Speaking of Luminous Landscapes, Michael Reichmann wrote an interesting piece on the use of legacy lenses with the Panasonic G1 camera. He does a good job of summerizing that, although it may be possible to effectively use Leica, as well as other lenses, on the G1, why would you when you really don't gain any benefit from an image quality perspective.

I basically agree with what he says. as far as I can see, using legacy lenses on the Olympus camera may be fun, but why do it when ZD lenses are designed for digital, the camera can do a much better job of auto focusing than we typically can and give much better results-consistently.

That doesn't mean that i'll dump my OM lenses on EBay anytime soon. It just puts things in proper perspective. It also keeps me focused(pun intended) , on looking to add ZD lensesto my lens collection as opposed to throwing money away on non digital 35mm slr lenses-no matter how romantic the notion might be.

Sorry, didn't mean to get on a soap box.

zig

mr.sneezy Apr 28, 2009 10:20 PM

It seems to be fairly cheap to get adapters for the 4/3 (not m4/3) cameras, so at least trying to 'recycle' old glass is not a bank breaking thing. Got to agree from what I read about the place too, that a 'made for the job' ZD is a safe way go regardless.

I have an adapter coming (it was $20) to try out an oldTamron mirror 500mm F8. I have a 2x for that too, so if any light is left at all at the end of the tunnel the results should interesting. Not getting too excited though...

fldspringer Apr 28, 2009 10:37 PM

I see nothing wrong with using M-series lenses other than the fact that few can play with those toys. Small, simple primes seem to be ideal for the m4/3, but at a couple grand a throw, I doubt I'll be standing in line.

If I get into m4/3 it will be because Olympus has created lenses worthy of the concept. I think the Leica m-series is a good concept for them to follow.

As a side note, I was shocked how thick that adapter is. It just goes to show how short the registration distance is in the m4/3.

Greg

zig-123 Apr 29, 2009 6:13 AM

mr.sneezy wrote:
Quote:

It seems to be fairly cheap to get adapters for the 4/3 (not m4/3) cameras, so at least trying to 'recycle' old glass is not a bank breaking thing. Got to agree from what I read about the place too, that a 'made for the job' ZD is a safe way go regardless.

I have an adapter coming (it was $20) to try out an oldTamron mirror 500mm F8. I have a 2x for that too, so if any light is left at all at the end of the tunnel the results should interesting. Not getting too excited though...
Hi,

Good luck on using the Tamron mirror lens, Although, I agree that the Tamron coupled with a 2XA converter will require a huge amount of light to get any decent results. More likely , you'll have better success with the Tamron alone.

Do post some of your results.

zig-123 Apr 29, 2009 6:23 AM

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:

I see nothing wrong with using M-series lenses other than the fact that few can play with those toys. Small, simple primes seem to be ideal for the m4/3, but at a couple grand a throw, I doubt I'll be standing in line.

If I get into m4/3 it will be because Olympus has created lenses worthy of the concept. I think the Leica m-series is a good concept for them to follow.


Greg
Hi Greg,

For fun last night, I tried using a 135mm f3.5 and 50mm f1.8 OM on the E30. While focusing was considerabley easier to achieve through the larger OPV of the E30, as opposed to focusing with my E510-the results I got were just not as good, IMO, as what I'd consistently get with either the 14-54mm or the 50-200mm.

I had intended to post some results. But, quite honestly, I got nothing worth showing.

Wish I had a couple of Leica m-series primes. I'd sell them and buy a 35-100mm ZD:?

Zig



fldspringer Apr 29, 2009 7:59 PM

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:

Wish I had a couple of Leica m-series primes. I'd sell them and buy a 35-100mm ZD:?

Zig


The Leica's cost WAY more per pound:-)

Greg

Greg Chappell Apr 30, 2009 3:18 PM

zig-123 wrote:
Quote:

It just puts things in proper perspective. It also keeps me focused(pun intended) , on looking to add ZD lensesto my lens collection as opposed to throwing money away on non digital 35mm slr lenses-no matter how romantic the notion might be.


Agreed. It would be an equal waste for me.

Every time I see a new report on Kodak it's obvious we are not the only ones. Film-based product sales dropped another 31% year over year.Things have gotton so bad they are now making everyone with the company take a mandatory week off during the year without pay, they've completely done away with theirdividend, which they had paid in some amountfor over a century, management is taking a 15-20% paycutand the number of employees at Kodak has dropped from over 140,000 at its' highin 1988 to less than 20,000 today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1241...p;mod=yahoo_hs


tkurkowski Apr 30, 2009 6:59 PM

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:

Every time I see a new report on Kodak it's obvious we are not the only ones. Film-based product sales dropped another 31% year over year.
Hi, Greg

The current fadfor management consultants is to beat the drum of "thinking outside of the box". Kodak really tried to do that. Years ago when the price of silver started to rise, they became worried about the consequent rise in the cost of film, and spent years trying to find an organic compound with the light sensitivity to replace silver in film, without success. Ironically, the alternative (digital sensors) was way outside their box. I find it sad that they never really invested in the sensor technology, but it's a real example of how difficult it is to make a complete leap to a new technology that's way, way outside of corporate knowledge and experience.

They did a lot of good for photography andI really do hope they survive. I still use a set of Kodak "Color Separation Guide and Gray Scale" cards to test a new DSLR to see what it's really doing. E.g. do I need to setthe exposure setting or contrast to a different default? No one else makes such an aid as far as I know.

Ted


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:41 PM.