4/3 lens on EM10?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
dougjgreen1 Senior Member • Posts: 3,337
Re: In my experience, the clone adapters are equal quality to OEM

Skeeterbytes wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Michael Meissner wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Personally, unless you go the E-M1 + weather sealed route, and thus could rationalize an MMF-3 weather-sealed adapter, I'd just get a clone adapter, as they can be gotten for $20-25 on the 'bay. At that price, it's worth the gamble. I use one of these with my EM-1 and my 14-54 and 11-22 lenses and it seems to work fine.

I tend to agree with you, but I was trying to set expectations that using the adapter at 9-10mm that there might be issues. For $20, it is worth a shot.

Too many reports of misaligned/off-centered 3rd party adapters for me to trust them, at least for WA and UWA lenses like the 9-18.

As a middle path, a used MMF1 or Panny adapter would cut the cost, and they're made of manly metal!

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

I'm sorry, but there is ZERO evidence that the Olympus or Panasonic adapters are any better as a rule than the clone adapters. I've seen examples of bad name-brand adapters too. Most of these online reports can be chalked up to the placebo effect.

In my entire time using 4/3 and m4/3 I have bought and used probably 30+ adapters for different lens mounts. In all of that time, exactly two of them had issues with quality and fit, and caused any issues.

I would estimate that had I bought ONLY genuine OIympus or Panasonic branded adapters, I'd have wasted about $600, and I would have had to forego the use of all my great Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and Leica glass on these cameras.

If you feel better based upon hearsay to spend close to $100 rather than $25 on something that is a passive piece of metal and plastic in either case, and where both items functionally identical, based upon hearsay, that's your prerogative, but frankly, it's a waste of resources.

I don't have the energy to dig them up but we've had demonstrations of just that here in the forums. So yes, there's evidence backed up with examples. At least four problems can arise: mount plates that are not parallel, mounts that are off-center, adapters not the proper total thickness (can lead to loss of infinity focus, bad machining/fasteners. There may be others.

Anybody with the time and resources can certainly buy and test, and not every lens-camera pairing is a technical challenge. I have all kinds of format "X" to m4/3 and 4/3 adapters and most have been fine, but a couple have not. But there are also no "official" adapters available so one is obliged to go 3rd party, where certain makers seem reliable.

What is or is not "waste" remains in the eye of the beholder.

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

Every one of those problems can and occasionally does crop up with the branded adapters as well.  Showing that there are rare bad examples proves NOTHING with respect to how the overall quality of the clone adapters compares to the Olympus or Panasonic branded ones.   As I said, I personally have had two bad clone adapters out of the 30+ ones I've bought.   At $10-20 apiece, I either get a refund or throw them out.  Not nearly so painless if I dropped over $100 on the adapter - of which there are also plenty of documented examples of bad ones.

Sorry, but for every one of these posts, there are 100 perhaps 1000 or more examples of perfectly good results using cheap clone adapters.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow