Reading mode: Light Dark

Backwards Compatibility

Go to last post
OzRay

OzRay

Forum Pro
Messages
19,428
Solutions
2
Reaction score
10,113
Location
AU
One of the things that I really like about Olympus is that they never abandoned backwards compatibility for their 4/3 lenses. Though there was some concern for a while. As is often stated, cameras come and go, but lenses last forever (almost).

Some seem to deride the fact that there are m4/3 users that have retained their 4/3 lenses and really enjoy the high quality that they provide and which work fully on their m4/3 cameras. Why throw away lenses that are so good?

I wonder what these same people think of those that still look out for and buy 4/3 lenses for their m4/3 cameras, because these lenses are often unique and outstanding? I still keep an eye out for a bargain as well.

I guess the other beauty, not necessarily by intentional design, is that you can use just about any lens every made on m4/3 and people do. I wonder what the naysayers think about that?

And as an aside, I just had to increase my insurance coverage, because all of my 4/3 lenses have appreciated in value this year. When things of exceptional quality become rarer, they become more valuable, and I suspect that the E-M1 MkII has had some impact on this as well. :)
 
OzRay said:
One of the things that I really like about Olympus is that they never abandoned backwards compatibility for their 4/3 lenses. Though there was some concern for a while. As is often stated, cameras come and go, but lenses last forever (almost).
Click to expand...
OzRay said:
Some seem to deride the fact that there are m4/3 users that have retained their 4/3 lenses and really enjoy the high quality that they provide and which work fully on their m4/3 cameras. Why throw away lenses that are so good?

I wonder what these same people think of those that still look out for and buy 4/3 lenses for their m4/3 cameras, because these lenses are often unique and outstanding? I still keep an eye out for a bargain as well.

I guess the other beauty, not necessarily by intentional design, is that you can use just about any lens every made on m4/3 and people do. I wonder what the naysayers think about that?

And as an aside, I just had to increase my insurance coverage, because all of my 4/3 lenses have appreciated in value this year. When things of exceptional quality become rarer, they become more valuable, and I suspect that the E-M1 MkII has had some impact on this as well. :)
Click to expand...
 
I have both, 4/3 bodies and lenses and m4/3 bodies and lenses. I don't have any need for m4/3 lenses for what I do, the only benefit would be faster AF in some cases.

I look back and kind of regret selling any of the 4/3 lenses that I owned in the past. The 50-200mm was one, the 11-22mm was another and even the 50mm macro. The 14-54mm was always a great lens. I don't miss the 8mm fisheye.
 
Denjw said:
As I recall there was a great deal of consternation/negativity on the SLR forum when the E-M1 was released as a successor to the E-5 rather than a E-7.

It would be interesting to survey how many switched systems, became dual system owners, or became m43 native lens users.
Click to expand...
I was down in the dumps when after getting an E-M5, for which they threw in a free MMF3, only to find it couldn't manage to focus most of my 4/3 lenses in the time it takes to make a piece of toast. Worked fine with m4/3 lenses but there were very few at the time.

E-M1 changed all that but for a time I was hopping back and forth between the E-system and OM-D not knowing which water to put the second oar in. The 16MP photos were begging to be made with the SHG lenses.

Cheers,

Rick
 
OzRay said:
I have both, 4/3 bodies and lenses and m4/3 bodies and lenses. I don't have any need for m4/3 lenses for what I do, the only benefit would be faster AF in some cases.

I look back and kind of regret selling any of the 4/3 lenses that I owned in the past. The 50-200mm was one, the 11-22mm was another and even the 50mm macro. The 14-54mm was always a great lens. I don't miss the 8mm fisheye.
Click to expand...
 
OzRay said:
One of the things that I really like about Olympus is that they never abandoned backwards compatibility for their 4/3 lenses. Though there was some concern for a while. As is often stated, cameras come and go, but lenses last forever (almost).

Some seem to deride the fact that there are m4/3 users that have retained their 4/3 lenses and really enjoy the high quality that they provide and which work fully on their m4/3 cameras. Why throw away lenses that are so good?

I wonder what these same people think of those that still look out for and buy 4/3 lenses for their m4/3 cameras, because these lenses are often unique and outstanding? I still keep an eye out for a bargain as well.

I guess the other beauty, not necessarily by intentional design, is that you can use just about any lens every made on m4/3 and people do. I wonder what the naysayers think about that?

And as an aside, I just had to increase my insurance coverage, because all of my 4/3 lenses have appreciated in value this year. When things of exceptional quality become rarer, they become more valuable, and I suspect that the E-M1 MkII has had some impact on this as well. :)
Click to expand...
I for one have never cared what others think about what I use, in this case specifically related to the possession and use of my four thirds lenses. There is no way I would throw out the SHG, HG or even SG lenses that I have, though I admit I do not use them that often anymore, which is my loss.

Naysayers are insecure and need to justify their position. Pay them no never mind and enjoy the lenses we each paid for some time ago.

This post also reminds me I need to pair the 150mm f/2 with my new E-M1 Mark II.

Thanks for the reminder about the insurance, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Denjw said:
OzRay said:
I have both, 4/3 bodies and lenses and m4/3 bodies and lenses. I don't have any need for m4/3 lenses for what I do, the only benefit would be faster AF in some cases.

I look back and kind of regret selling any of the 4/3 lenses that I owned in the past. The 50-200mm was one, the 11-22mm was another and even the 50mm macro. The 14-54mm was always a great lens. I don't miss the 8mm fisheye.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The 4/3ds lenses were outstanding! The top tier was unparalleled. Zeiss or Leica? Canon L Series? Nope - not better. So having a way to keep on using them is fantastic.

The legacy glass from film days is a bit more of a mixed bag, but it's fun to experiment. Good stuff!

Oly
 
I don't own the E-m1 mark II, only the E-m1 mark I. I also only own the mid-range HG lenses (11-22mm, 14-54mm mark I, 50-200mm mark I, and 50mm), plus a few SG lenses (9-18mm, 70-300mm).

I got the E-m1 mark I specifically for using my 50-200mm mark I lens (it being cheaper at the time to buy an E-m1 mark I than plunk down the money for the 40-150mm pro lens).

While the E-m1 mark I does focus the 50-200mm faster than my other Pen/OM-D cameras (E-P2, E-M5 mark I, E-PM2), it still falls short when there is limited contrast. I believe this is due to the lack of cross shaped focus points in the E-m1 mark I (this is fixed in the E-m1 mark II).

While I love the E-m1 mark I for all other uses, I feel somewhat let down in terms of backwards compatibility with 4/3rds lenses. I live in Massachusetts in the USA, and I go on commercial vessels to watch the whales in Stellwagen Bank where their summer home is in the Atlantic ocean. In that particular case, there is often times limited contrast that makes it hard for the camera to focus. The E-m1 mark I will instantly acquire focus with the 14-150mm mark II lens, but it will hunt with the 50-200mm. As a consequence, when we go out this Monday (US Labor day holiday), I will bring the E-5 to mount with the 50-200mm and use the E-m1 mark I with more wide angle lenses to capture whales close by.
 
Last edited:
Insurance... I feel really bad not specifying my gear or even getting a quote. I am a great believer in insurance for everything else. Could you give me an idea of costs?? Say for a $2000 dollar lens specified for replacement for theft. Is there any way to cover it if say it is destroyed in a car accident? I presume that simply dropping it would not be covered or else be exhorbitant to cover it for that?
 
I have over $26,000 worth of gear insured at around $550, for use anywhere in the world.

That's two E-M1s, my lenses, adapters, flash x2.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
https://australianimage.com.au
 
Last edited:
There's one other thing that came to mind about the 4/3 lenses is that we have available both a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter that work on all 4/3 lenses. That adds significant flexibility to your lens kit.

It makes me wonder what has gone into the m4/3 lens design that appears to preclude teleconverters except for two lenses.
 
OzRay said:
One of the things that I really like about Olympus is that they never abandoned backwards compatibility for their 4/3 lenses. Though there was some concern for a while.
Click to expand...
I got the sense that there was considerable lamentation and gnashing of teeth! :-)
OzRay said:
Some seem to deride the fact that there are m4/3 users that have retained their 4/3 lenses and really enjoy the high quality that they provide and which work fully on their m4/3 cameras.
Click to expand...
I never owned or used 4/3 gear, but I think it's fabulous that Olympus made the E-M1 to work so well for 4/3 users, and I give them a lot of credit for not abandoning those who invested in 4/3 lenses.

I've only owned Panasonic bodies, and mostly Panasonic lenses, but just because they happened to fit my tastes a bit more. I don't consider myself a Panny fanboy, and I appreciate all that Olympus has brought to the table.

The E-M1 would have been the first Oly camera to tempt me, but the price seemed high, which I thought was mostly due to the PDAF capability for 4/3 lenses, which I would never use. Similarly, the GH4 and GH5 prices seem high, mostly due to advanced video capability which I would never use.

But, yeah, bravo, Olympus!
 
brentbrent said:
OzRay said:
One of the things that I really like about Olympus is that they never abandoned backwards compatibility for their 4/3 lenses. Though there was some concern for a while.
Click to expand...
I got the sense that there was considerable lamentation and gnashing of teeth! :-)
brentbrent said:
Some seem to deride the fact that there are m4/3 users that have retained their 4/3 lenses and really enjoy the high quality that they provide and which work fully on their m4/3 cameras.
Click to expand...
I never owned or used 4/3 gear, but I think it's fabulous that Olympus made the E-M1 to work so well for 4/3 users, and I give them a lot of credit for not abandoning those who invested in 4/3 lenses.

I've only owned Panasonic bodies, and mostly Panasonic lenses, but just because they happened to fit my tastes a bit more. I don't consider myself a Panny fanboy, and I appreciate all that Olympus has brought to the table.

The E-M1 would have been the first Oly camera to tempt me, but the price seemed high, which I thought was mostly due to the PDAF capability for 4/3 lenses, which I would never use. Similarly, the GH4 and GH5 prices seem high, mostly due to advanced video capability which I would never use.

But, yeah, bravo, Olympus!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top