FR for M43, entry-level APS-C (w/ FR), or old FF?

ProfHankD said:

krylovsk said:

Reading the comments in this thread makes me realise I should be more realistic and discard the DSLR and entry-level APS-C cameras if I want to get something usable compared to my M43 kit. If I start adding numbers though, a higher-end APS-C like a6000 ($400) + FR ($150) + 35/f2 lens ($300) is pretty much the price of the Nokton, and yet it is another camera to take with you.

Click to expand...

Well, I've always advocated only getting equipment when what you have is preventing you from making the images you want to make... it doesn't sound like you have much of a problem with your micro4/3 stuff.

Click to expand...

ProfHankD said:

That said, my favorite 35mm f/2 is an M42 Tak that costs between $100-$200... but you've got a lot of money in micro4/3 glass, and moving everything to a new sensor size would probably mean a lot of lens expense in the longer term. I think the move is eventually worthwhile for you, but you don't need to start yet. It's also worth noting that your M5 new actually cost as much as an new A7 does now, despite the M5 having a sensor that probably cost a order of magnitude less -- the money is being spent on very different things in those two cameras, and it's no shock that the A7 doesn't have as many nice features in that light.

Click to expand...

mapgraphs said:

krylovsk said:

Reading the comments in this thread makes me realise I should be more realistic and discard the DSLR and entry-level APS-C cameras if I want to get something usable compared to my M43 kit. If I start adding numbers though, a higher-end APS-C like a6000 ($400) + FR ($150) + 35/f2 lens ($300) is pretty much the price of the Nokton, and yet it is another camera to take with you.

Click to expand...

If the idea is to keep it uncomplicated but get the most out of the kit, the Noktons (and the Leicas) are the route. If you are contemplating legacy manual focus primes combined with a FR, you will probably spend a lot more money trying to find anything equivalent - in the long run. The Noktons are that good. The only reason to use m4/3 is the Noktons IMO. I have three m4/3 bodies, one Nokton, an unused kit lens and a handful of adapters.

The a7 route is the other realistic option, long term. If you look at what you think you want to add to your current kit and what that will cost vs the cost of an a7 plus legacy glass and adapters, you might be surprised at how competitive the a7 route is.

Cost is only one part of the equation however. The rendering characteristics and image quality of the Noktons sets them apart, as does the a7xx with comparable legacy glass. Spend some time looking at various combinations on flickr... Look before leaping ; - ) (It took me about a year and a half.)

Click to expand...

1. Purchase a refurbished kit from Amazon ($190 shipped), or buy used. I may have gotten lucky, but the refurb I bought a few weeks ago had a shutter count of 00002(!), so it was new or as good as new.
2. Sell the SEL1855, which will be in like new condition, to bring the cost of the A3000 down to $100, give or take. Just wait for mine to sell before listing yours - don't oversaturate the market
3. Purchase the LT II for roughly $150 (perhaps in EF since you want to stick to M42 and OM).
4. Purchase simple M42 to EOS and OM to EOS adapter rings.

• Both are very light-weight and can adapt to just about any lens.
• To me, the grip of the A3000 is essential for hand holding adapted telephoto lenses or anything heavy. With smaller lenses, I've actually grown to prefer the grip (or lack thereof) on the 3N.
• As many have said before me, the EVF on the A3000 is bad, but that is not to say it isn't useful. Once you learn to trust it, you'll feel better about it. The hard eyecup doesn't work well with eyeglasses. Focus peaking and focus magnification alleviate some issues with the EVF. The fixed rear screen is also sub-par. The 3N's screen is better and good enough.
• I believe the 3N is the first Sony MILC to allow wired remote controls via the MTP port (there are extra pins hidden behind the normal USB ones). Models released after it also have this port. A third-party intervalometer can be had for peanuts.
• LENR cannot be turned off on the A3000. The 3N can turn it off.
• RAW is not in the A3000's menu - one needs to use RAW+JPG.
• The A3000 has the bulk of a small DSLR, so when you add the length of the lens adapter and the adapted lens, it's potentially less compact than a small DSLR setup.
• The A3000 apparently has a very thin filter stack.
• If I had to choose between the A3000 and the NEX-3N, I'd choose the 3N. If I could afford an A6300, I'd just get an A7 series and ignore video

GnarlydogOZ said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Furthermore I hardly notice what IBIS does for me - I cannot tell just by observation on an image whether it was Olympus 5-axis, Panasonic 3-axis (GX7), none (GM series) or whether OIS on a Panasonic lens has saved my day. Surely the non-stabilised longish Olympus 75mm f1.8 works really well on an unstablised GM series camera. IBIS capability does not infuence my choice of gear.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

krylovsk said:

mapgraphs said:

krylovsk said:

Reading the comments in this thread makes me realise I should be more realistic and discard the DSLR and entry-level APS-C cameras if I want to get something usable compared to my M43 kit. If I start adding numbers though, a higher-end APS-C like a6000 ($400) + FR ($150) + 35/f2 lens ($300) is pretty much the price of the Nokton, and yet it is another camera to take with you.

Click to expand...

If the idea is to keep it uncomplicated but get the most out of the kit, the Noktons (and the Leicas) are the route. If you are contemplating legacy manual focus primes combined with a FR, you will probably spend a lot more money trying to find anything equivalent - in the long run. The Noktons are that good. The only reason to use m4/3 is the Noktons IMO. I have three m4/3 bodies, one Nokton, an unused kit lens and a handful of adapters.

The a7 route is the other realistic option, long term. If you look at what you think you want to add to your current kit and what that will cost vs the cost of an a7 plus legacy glass and adapters, you might be surprised at how competitive the a7 route is.

Cost is only one part of the equation however. The rendering characteristics and image quality of the Noktons sets them apart, as does the a7xx with comparable legacy glass. Spend some time looking at various combinations on flickr... Look before leaping ; - ) (It took me about a year and a half.)

Click to expand...

Thanks for another interesting opinion. The opinions on Noktons I hear on the Internet seem to be quite polarized: those who have them praise their quality and those who don't think their asking price is too high for what they offer on paper. I should definitely look into them before putting that much money into another system. The truth is, at the moment I'm not really ready to pay that much money to get 10% of what my 17/f1.8 can't. I probably won't until I start shooting more on that FL and for 25mm there is the Mitakon Speedmaster.

What are your favourite adapted lenses to complement Noktons?

Click to expand...

krylovsk said:

Acquiring higher quality and expensive lenses (on the list are 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/2, 100/2.8), I am now thinking of upgrading my digital platform to make more use of them.

As much as I like my M43 cameras, the 2x crop factor limits the use of adapted 35mm film lenses to pretty much telephoto decreasing the shooting envelope for me as I'm not much of telephoto guy. This makes me considering the following upgrade paths: getting a cheap FR for M/43 ($100-150) - 1.4x crop +1 stop DoF/light, an entry-level APS-C ($200-300) - 1.5x crop, or even an old FF like 5D (~$400). As this is mainly for experimenting, I don't want to invest much, especially in the digital gear that quickly loses it's value.

Click to expand...

baxters said:

Buying expensive film lenses in the 24mm and 35mm range is a losing proposition, in my opinion. I suspect it's also true for Fuji and NEX, but I know it;s true for M43. The native lenses offerings in this range are going to be better. The Sigma 19mm and 30mm are $199 lenses, and few film lenses can approach their optics. You have the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm pancakes, both available for under $200 used. The Olympus 25mm f1.8 will rock most any old film 24mm.

Click to expand...

Tons o Glass 0 Class said:

I'm in the same boat. I have a feeling the camera you and I both want just doesn't exist yet, at least at a price we're willing to pay. Perhaps it's better for us to avoid adapting wide angles altogether, and to stick to modern native or third-party options when we need a wider field of view. I practically cried when this turned out to be too good to be true, haha.

RE: FR for MFT - you gain light and end up with *less* of a crop, but still a crop nonetheless. I feel like legacy wide angle lenses would still not be wide enough. Getting something like a Rokinon 12/2 for roughly $300 is another option. At the end of the day, I don't think any cheap legacy wides will be a match for it in terms of cost and field of view. One thing to consider, however, is that a properly designed focal reducer can actually increase the MTF of a given lens.

Click to expand...

Tons o Glass said:

RE: APS-C - With a booster you'll be getting a 1.1x to 1.13x crop, so a 24mm would be roughly 27mm with the same extra stop of light you'd be getting with your MFT option. In other words, wides are still wide. Is it close enough to full frame? That's for you to decide. The Rokinon's still an option here, where it will have a 16mm-17mm equivalent field of view. I own both a NEX-3N and an A3000 and am also contemplating getting a focal reducer. Both cameras can be had for less than the $200-300 you had in mind. In fact, you could potentially have an A3000 and a Zhongyi LT II for under $300:

1. Purchase a refurbished kit from Amazon ($190 shipped), or buy used. I may have gotten lucky, but the refurb I bought a few weeks ago had a shutter count of 00002(!), so it was new or as good as new.
2. Sell the SEL1855, which will be in like new condition, to bring the cost of the A3000 down to $100, give or take. Just wait for mine to sell before listing yours - don't oversaturate the market
3. Purchase the LT II for roughly $150 (perhaps in EF since you want to stick to M42 and OM).
4. Purchase simple M42 to EOS and OM to EOS adapter rings.

Deciding between a NEX-6/5R/3N/5T/A3000/A5000/A5100/A6000/A6300 + FR is a dilemma in and of it self. Here are some opinionated things to note about the NEX-3N and the A3000.

• Both are very light-weight and can adapt to just about any lens.
• To me, the grip of the A3000 is essential for hand holding adapted telephoto lenses or anything heavy. With smaller lenses, I've actually grown to prefer the grip (or lack thereof) on the 3N.
• As many have said before me, the EVF on the A3000 is bad, but that is not to say it isn't useful. Once you learn to trust it, you'll feel better about it. The hard eyecup doesn't work well with eyeglasses. Focus peaking and focus magnification alleviate some issues with the EVF. The fixed rear screen is also sub-par. The 3N's screen is better and good enough.
• I believe the 3N is the first Sony MILC to allow wired remote controls via the MTP port (there are extra pins hidden behind the normal USB ones). Models released after it also have this port. A third-party intervalometer can be had for peanuts.
• LENR cannot be turned off on the A3000. The 3N can turn it off.
• RAW is not in the A3000's menu - one needs to use RAW+JPG.
• The A3000 has the bulk of a small DSLR, so when you add the length of the lens adapter and the adapted lens, it's potentially less compact than a small DSLR setup.
• The A3000 apparently has a very thin filter stack.
• If I had to choose between the A3000 and the NEX-3N, I'd choose the 3N. If I could afford an A6300, I'd just get an A7 series and ignore video

RE: FF - Yes, an A7[X] Mk. [Y] would likely be the best solution. It would save you time, effort, agony over decisions, and is the most direct route to full frame legacy lens use. You don't have to worry about the optical quality of a focal reducer, you'll have focusing aids for which a plain 5D OVF has no substitute (aside from an aftermarket focusing screen), and you'll get the full field of view for any FF lens you can get your hands on.

Then you'll only have to worry about things like sensor reflections, ghosting, adapter flare, filter stack thickness, shutter shock, light leaks, etc. *devil face*

Click to expand...

Robert Schroeder said:

[...]

Robert Schroeder said:

Buying expensive film lenses in the 24mm and 35mm range is a losing proposition, in my opinion. I suspect it's also true for Fuji and NEX, but I know it;s true for M43. The native lenses offerings in this range are going to be better. The Sigma 19mm and 30mm are $199 lenses, and few film lenses can approach their optics. You have the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm pancakes, both available for under $200 used. The Olympus 25mm f1.8 will rock most any old film 24mm.

Click to expand...

That's quite true, except that what makes old lenses worse often are the four millimeters of glass on the Micro Four Thirds sensor, rather than the lens itself being poor. Things suddenly look completely different when the focal reducer comes into play – lenses thought to be unusable at large apertures suddenly become perfectly usable wide open, which even is one stop wider than before. My Minolta MD 35/1.8, attached by Speed Booster, gives a 25/1.3 that does in no way need to hide from the M.Zuiko 25/1.8 and is a very attractive option for me. The Minolta MD 24mm f/2.8 (17/2.0) comes very close to the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, too.

Of course, the most attractive lenses for using on Micro Four Thirds, be it with or without a Speed Booster, usually aren't the cheapest ones, after the used-lens market has been turned upside down by the increased demand of mirrorless camera users. An exception are many legacy "standard" primes which, I think, are always a good start for trying adapted lenses on a focal reducer.

Click to expand...