Johannes Zander: The video doesn't show anything you can't do with native 4/3 lenses.Adapters are always a crutch.
Richard:So I mount an f/1.4 lens and end up with an f/2 lens. I repeat Metabones fail to keep their rather misleading promise of increasing aperture. That was my point all the time.
MrTaikitso: Interesting, we inherited an old Leica from my father (who got it from his father), and it looks like that Hansa. I wonder who influenced who, my history of old gear is not good. I know the Leica had this clever prism that connected to the viewfinder so you could take pictures around corners! Sneaky! I had a water pistol that could do that too, and shot my physics lecturer in the face at point blank range by mistake with it after he stepped out of the staff room in the path of my target! I had to write out lines or something, but it was funny at the time - he was a dufus. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes, Kwanon!
Leica invented 35mm and the rangefinder. No doubt which influenced which.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Not the stupid "increases maximum aperture" BS again!As DPR stated earlier, "since we’re then going to mount it on an APS-C camera, we have to multiply these numbers [focal length and the supposed maximum aperture given by the speed booster] by the camera's 'crop factor' if we want to compare this lens-plus-adapter combination to a full frame camera." So if you have an f/1.4 lens on APS-C with the Mentalbones,your purported f/1 lens-adapter combo is actually f/1.5 - slightly worse than the original. And that is if you are Yabokkie and accept that there is an 'aperture equivalence' (there isn't). Snake oil, that's what I call it. And why does everybody go field of view this and aperture that and nobody seems to spare a thought about image quality? Shouldn't that matter? This thing induces horrible amounts of chromatic aberration and vignetting.The price? Don't even get me started...
Badi, I based my comment on a rather long quotation from DPR. If that's not enough for you - and you seem to be a bit at a loss to grasp sarcasms -, let me say this: There is no equivalent focal length or equivalent aperture. There is, however, what some people call "crop factor". When you mount a lens with a given focal length on a body with a sensor smaller in area than the one the lens is meant to work with, the latter doesn't increase focal length or transmit less light. What happens is akin to cropping the image by the borders (hence "crop factor") in image edition, which means the picture will appear as if it were taken closer than with the camera said lens was designed to be mounted on. That's all there is to it.And aperture is not as important in terms of depth of field as most people seem to think. Focal length and distance from subject are much more important. Still, if this "equivalent aperture" nonsense helps Mentalbones sell more adapters, who am I to get in the way...
Badi: you're right, I'm such an ignorant. I should spend less time with frivolities like, you know, photographing, and concentrate on reading all these beautiful theories that will make me photograph much better. As a matter of fact, if I know the equivalent aperture equations by heart, I'll be able to find more interesting subjects and push my quest for originality and content. Thank you so much for your kind words of advice. I promise I'll read the literature you've linked to; it will be much more entertaining and instructive than, you know, photographing, or any other futilities.
Just Another Canon Shooter: let's both stop. Why should we try to get in the way of people spending money senselessly and believing absurd theories? It's their money and their brains. It's not our business.
Badi, I don't need to try snake oil. I know 'prima facie' it is a scam. If I see a trap on my way, I don't go like "what happens if I put my foot on it?" because I know it's a trap. The only advantage of this Speed Buster thing is field of view, and even that can be compromised by vignetting, so why bother?
Badi: you can fool yourself with that "equivalent aperture" mambo-jambo for as long as you like. It is clear, however, from the numbers you state, that the adapter fails to live up to its promise of increasing aperture: in practical terms you're using a narrower aperture. It may be hard to see it when you're so infatuated about these adapters, but it's true.On the other hand, I don't think adding chromatic aberration and vignetting is such a great contribution to image quality, but you're obviously entitled to think otherwise.I see all the brainwashing about "equivalent aperture" we're being impinged on has produced its effects...
Adapters can be nice if they're purely mechanical, i. e. have no glass elements. I use an adapter to mount my Zuiko OM lenses on an m4/3 body and it just does its job unobtrusively. It's when you add glass that the problems begin. There's nothing more detrimental to image quality than a teleconverter and, from what I've seen around the web, this Mentalbones thing is - let's put it this way - not without its problems. You can buy a Mentalbones Speed Buster and an used EF lens - or you can get an Olympus prime for the same price (or even less). You'll have better image quality and trouble-free autofocus. A no-brainer.
Not the stupid "increases maximum aperture" BS again!As DPR stated earlier, "since we’re then going to mount it on an APS-C camera, we have to multiply these numbers [focal length and the supposed maximum aperture given by the speed booster] by the camera's 'crop factor' if we want to compare this lens-plus-adapter combination to a full frame camera." So if you have an f/1.4 lens on APS-C with the Mentalbones,your purported f/1 lens-adapter combo is actually f/1.5 - slightly worse than the original. And that is if you are Yabokkie and accept that there is an 'aperture equivalence' (there isn't). Snake oil, that's what I call it. And why does everybody go field of view this and aperture that and nobody seems to spare a thought about image quality? Shouldn't that matter? This thing induces horrible amounts of chromatic aberration and vignetting.The price? Don't even get me started...
tinternaut: It doesn't look too bad at all, though it's a pity they didn't include a built in flash. There are likely a lot of owners of the 12mp models, who would find this a good upgrade. At the moment, the asking price is awfully close to that of the superior EM-10.
Regarding usability, I always find it a fight to activate a number of features when I use an Olympus camera for the first time:
- There's the fight to activate SCP - The fight to activate highlight/shadow warnings- And the fight to get Large Super Fine working.
As I said before: blame Olympus' people, not me. However, the formula is for the ideal distance to the subject, beyond which the light will be too dim to illuminate anything.
Ben O Connor: First Question: Where is the built-in flash ? Second Question: WHY !
"WHY!" is not a question. "WHY?" is.
Yeah right. It's not my foprmula, so go tell that to the guys who wrote te FL14's manual.10 metres from a GN6 flash? You're joking, aren't you? If that's so, a GN300 flashgun will reach 500 metres! No question of shooting portraits: the portrayed person will get blind!You really have no idea of what you're talking about, have you?
Applying the formula m = GN x ISO + f, which I found in Olympus' FL14 flashgun's user guide, that'd be 17,2 inches, or 43,68 cm. Useful, but still weak and a compromise I'd find unacceptable. Using this camera at ISO 800, with all the noise you'll get? No way! And f/1.4 is hardly of any use, unless you really *must* get the picture. Your pictures will look bleached - and the flash won't do them any favours. So what's the point? You'll never convince me a GN6 flash is a powerful one.
Mike, is f/1.4 fast enough for you? Oh, yes, 6 GN is very useful: it will light the tip of the lens perfectly. I can see it triggering external flashes, but it won't have any further use. It's just too weak. I have the FL-14 external flash and it's weak, so why should I find 6 GN useful?
Mike FL: Most, if not all, M43 cameras are unable to compete with cheapest mirror-less APS-C such as $450 Fuji XA1 and $500 Fujifilm X-M1 in IQ.
BUT, Most, if not all, M43 cameras has IBIS which keeps M43 still alive.
If Fuji and/or Sony put IBIS in mirror-less APS-C, M43 will be DOOMED. The day will come...
Contrarily to M43, Sony is dooming itself by not offering a decent lens collection for their mirrorless cameras. The latter will be OK if you're one of those people who are happy with the kit zoom lens, but others will want lenses that fulfill their needs. The strength of M43 is not "IBIS", but a very wide lens line-up.
A built-in flash? What's the use for a flash that would be 6 GN or thereabouts?
This camera makes me wonder whether there will be a need for an E-P7.
Brian Alpert: i wonder how many terabytes of RAM you'll need to process these 200 mp images in lightroom.
Richard: and a bargain to boot...
mpgxsvcd: Is this camera just going to point out all of the imperfections of the lenses?
It is the body that limits what the lens can capture, not the opposite. You don't use the ubiquitous 18-55 zoom lens at this level.
Danny: monkey business
I see what you did here.