Your favourite M4/3 camera body for use with vintage manual focus lenses

Now that I have a neo OM-1, I need to revisit this theory. The backside sensor on the OM-1 has much shorter wells, and so should (in my hypothesis, at least) work better on non-telecentric lenses.
In terms of the absorption depth, the difference between a front-side and back-side illuminated sensor is negligible. I presume the OM-1 will still have the standard MFT thick sensor stack (to work with native lenses), so I presume the performance with non-native lenses will be essentially the same as previous MFT bodies.

Regards,

Alan
 
Now that I have a neo OM-1, I need to revisit this theory. The backside sensor on the OM-1 has much shorter wells, and so should (in my hypothesis, at least) work better on non-telecentric lenses.
In terms of the absorption depth, the difference between a front-side and back-side illuminated sensor is negligible. I presume the OM-1 will still have the standard MFT thick sensor stack (to work with native lenses), so I presume the performance with non-native lenses will be essentially the same as previous MFT bodies.

Regards,

Alan
I know very little about optics so I cannot discuss it from a technical point of view and rely on our friends on the forum who have better knowledge and experience than I have.

But as a pure(ly) user I don't have great issues with legacy 135 firm format lenses on M4/3 bodies. As a pure rule of thumb better quality lenses generally do better on M4/3 as they do better on FF sensor bodies.

Furthermore are we allowing for the the fact that the 4/3 sensor crops off the image circle of a 135 film format lens and therefore does not have to replicate its full size on to the 4/3 sensor. Unless of course the image is focal reduced (concentrated) but that leads off to another story.

Furthermore the pixel density of a 20mp 4/3 sensor is quite high compared to the pixel density of a FF sensor already. Not sure what the exact relativity is but it is very obviously much higher than on a 20mp FF sensor. Therefore, with a broad brush it might seem that there are quite enough pixels on the 4/3 sensor to deal with a smaller captured (cropped) part of a 135 format lens. Better than the lens resolving power of some of them?

Pixels are smaller in this case of course but I think that the technology has improved to lessen the disadvantage of high densities of small pixel sensors. Just so as they are cramming quite a lot of pixels on to some FF sensors these days. But notably Sony uses a lower pixel count sensor on its low light specialist camera bodies.

But I have been buying top range oem M4/3 lenses for some time now (in lieu of perhaps a smaller investment in FF camera bodies). What becomes obvious is that the small 4/3 sensor can be supercharged by the very best lenses. Just so as it becomes very obvious that high quality optics beats cheap(er) affordable fun lenses hands down and this includes legacy lenses. (Just ask a traditional Leica RF lens enthusiast :) )

So it seems to me that there might be more issue with the quality of the legacy 135 format film lenses when used on M4/3 bodies than an issue with the 4/3 sensor. I might presume (only) that a FF sensor might give a cheap old lens a better jump off point on FF than it might do with 4/3. Larger image, more light, .... generally more impact?

But basically the very best lenses from 135 film format days will still give a quite credible response on M4/3 bodies and somewhat better if they are focal reduced.

Not sure what the thicker sensor stack might show up as visually-wise when using legacy MF lenses but it has not persuaded me enough to start switching their use to a FF sensor camera body.
 
I know very little about optics so I cannot discuss it from a technical point of view and rely on our friends on the forum who have better knowledge and experience than I have.
I’m not an optical engineer, but I’ve picked up a lot building instruments for telescopes.

The thick filter glass will cause spherical aberration in all lenses and also astigmatism in non-telecentric lenses. You can think of a telecentric lens as one where the cones of rays reaching all parts of the sensor do so at 90 degrees to the sensor rather than inclined angles. The degree of both aberrations will be worse in faster lenses.
But as a pure(ly) user I don't have great issues with legacy 135 firm format lenses on M4/3 bodies. As a pure rule of thumb better quality lenses generally do better on M4/3 as they do better on FF sensor bodies.
I’d suspect that most legacy 135 mm lenses are not too fast and also quite close to telecentric, at least over the crop of an MFT sensor, so they probably suffer from only a little bit of spherical aberration.
Furthermore are we allowing for the the fact that the 4/3 sensor crops off the image circle of a 135 film format lens and therefore does not have to replicate its full size on to the 4/3 sensor. Unless of course the image is focal reduced (concentrated) but that leads off to another story.
Yes, it crops of the nice part of the images and then does nasty stuff to it with the filter stack! :-)
Not sure what the thicker sensor stack might show up as visually-wise when using legacy MF lenses but it has not persuaded me enough to start switching their use to a FF sensor camera body.
I’d suggest it would be worse with fast, wide-angle rangefinder lenses. I vaguely remember the non-telecentricity of these lenses caused problems with coupling to the microlenses early A7-series sensors.

On MFT, I’d expect to see spherical aberration (since they are fast) coupled with astigmatism (since they are not telecentric). However, the MFT crop might help with the astigmatism by excluding the outer parts of the FF field where the lens is likely to be furthest from telecentric.

Regards,

Alan
 
The thick filter glass will cause spherical aberration in all lenses and also astigmatism in non-telecentric lenses. You can think of a telecentric lens as one where the cones of rays reaching all parts of the sensor do so at 90 degrees to the sensor rather than inclined angles. The degree of both aberrations will be worse in faster lenses.
Oh, it also causes a focus shift, but that is typically compensated in the adapter.

Regards,

Alan
 
I know very little about optics so I cannot discuss it from a technical point of view and rely on our friends on the forum who have better knowledge and experience than I have.
I’m not an optical engineer, but I’ve picked up a lot building instruments for telescopes.

The thick filter glass will cause spherical aberration in all lenses and also astigmatism in non-telecentric lenses. You can think of a telecentric lens as one where the cones of rays reaching all parts of the sensor do so at 90 degrees to the sensor rather than inclined angles. The degree of both aberrations will be worse in faster lenses.
But as a pure(ly) user I don't have great issues with legacy 135 firm format lenses on M4/3 bodies. As a pure rule of thumb better quality lenses generally do better on M4/3 as they do better on FF sensor bodies.
I’d suspect that most legacy 135 mm lenses are not too fast and also quite close to telecentric, at least over the crop of an MFT sensor, so they probably suffer from only a little bit of spherical aberration.
Furthermore are we allowing for the the fact that the 4/3 sensor crops off the image circle of a 135 film format lens and therefore does not have to replicate its full size on to the 4/3 sensor. Unless of course the image is focal reduced (concentrated) but that leads off to another story.
Yes, it crops of the nice part of the images and then does nasty stuff to it with the filter stack! :-)
Not sure what the thicker sensor stack might show up as visually-wise when using legacy MF lenses but it has not persuaded me enough to start switching their use to a FF sensor camera body.
I’d suggest it would be worse with fast, wide-angle rangefinder lenses. I vaguely remember the non-telecentricity of these lenses caused problems with coupling to the microlenses early A7-series sensors.

On MFT, I’d expect to see spherical aberration (since they are fast) coupled with astigmatism (since they are not telecentric). However, the MFT crop might help with the astigmatism by excluding the outer parts of the FF field where the lens is likely to be furthest from telecentric.

Regards,

Alan
Thanks fro sharing your wisdom Alan. I will presume that I am blind to lens faults and only know a good image from a bad one. Faults or otherwise.

In fact i have historically used Canon dslr bodies with optimum EF mount lenses for my serious work where I only had one chance to get the images and they 'had better be good'. Culminating with a 5D which I continued to use for those special events for over 10 years after I found the proposed Sony A7R lacking about half way down the time scale.

In present time I have found adapted EF lenses on M4/3 bodies or good quality native M4/3 lenses on M4/3 bodies quite up to my set 'good enough' standard for my old dslr kit so the 5D, if not the lenses, has been retired.

I have lots of legacy MF lenses which I cycle round my camera bodies - mainly, but not exclusively, my tiny GM5 bodies. These are for my 'fun' and personal use kit and I get a lot of pleasure out of their use. They might have technical errors in some but I don't go looking for them. If the errors were so bad as to be shockingly obvious I would surely notice them - I might be casual but I am not that casual.

It seems a curse of enthusiast photography that we continually search for an utter perfection that seems unobtainable. Keeps us chatting and keeps us buying .... :)

I am more into the impact of the image rather than its technical quality. I have no real issues from using 135 film image circle legacy MF lenses on the 4/3 sensor.

Not suggesting in any way that the issues that get talked about are not there - simply that if the image is regarded as 'good enough' then the issue is marginalised.
 
I have the Olympus EM-5-III and use it with many adapted lenses.

Should I switch to an EM1-III? It is more expensive and heavier. But does it provides better image quality and / or better handling compared to my EM-5-III?

I am taking all kind of photos, but not photos that require high speed. No sport photography for example. I am more into urban photography, architecture, landscapes, wild life, flowers, and more recently astro photography.
 
I loved my OMD-EM1. Fortunately for the person that received it as a gift, I never found a good reason to use it as compared to my FF camera.
 
I have the Olympus EM-5-III and use it with many adapted lenses.

Should I switch to an EM1-III? It is more expensive and heavier. But does it provides better image quality and / or better handling compared to my EM-5-III?

I am taking all kind of photos, but not photos that require high speed. No sport photography for example. I am more into urban photography, architecture, landscapes, wild life, flowers, and more recently astro photography.
I am a Panasonic user. I do have an E-M1 which is a very useful camera but compared to the Panasonic interface I find it very different ergonomically. It sits well in my hand the the shutter button and wheels are perfectly positioned. But there it ends - the rest of the controls are pure slr with the additional controls just shoe-horned in ad hoc wherever they might fit. The firmware grew like topsy and for a brand that made a big name out of IBIS setting same IBIS with a MF lens requires the user to remember to do so and then do a little button and wheel finger dance to adjust it.

Nowhere could I find any indication just what MF IBIS strength is in use until I invoked the setup routine.

Of course with oem AF lenses the IBIS is monitored and set automatically - just like all other brands.

But I still find the E-M1an interesting camera and can understand that once and Olympus person then always an Olympus person. However the simple fact was that the Panasonic interface is basically a clean room design made for digital camera bodies and that the lack of film camera body heritage is something of an advantage where no film era tradition is involved.

It is easy to use multiple Panasonic camera bodies as they work similarly. Switching between Panasonic and Olympus requires learning two interfaces and I chose the easiest one.

The E-M1ii had great feedback and as far as I know the E-M1iii was a makeover model that did not offer a huge swag of improvements. If money were a factor it might be possible to buy the ii more economically than the iii.

But the Panasonic G9 is also much appreciated and is a current model that has been around for a few years. This has not diminished its worth but the street price has reduced and it might be worth a look.

In my Panasonic eyes it is very capable, ergonomically sound, and a delight to use. No need to upgrade it as it is likely to be being used and revered for quite some time to come.
 
I loved my OMD-EM1. Fortunately for the person that received it as a gift, I never found a good reason to use it as compared to my FF camera.
Yes it is a bit like different strokes for different blokes ...

I was a very early convert to FF camera bodies and had a Canon 5D quite early after it was released. The sort of camera that a Pro-shooter might use when you only had one chance to get the images and your success and reputation hung on managing a reasonable number of keepers. The 5D never let me down and kept on clunking away for my more serious needs for over 10 years in the end.

I did try and replace it with a Sony A7R at once stage but that camera was not ready for prime time.

Meanwhile I learned more about the process of photography from a series of Ricoh GRD bodies with fixed prime lenses. Ricoh was and remains the last camera company that made technically superior compact cameras (that were expensive). Whilst all the other manufacturers tried to sell cheap compact cameras to the uninterested masses Ricoh pursued the enthusiast niche. Right up until they moved from sliver sensor to aps-c with the GR.

It was as a refugee from the GR that I bought my first Panasonic camera with the M4/3 mount system. The first GM1 I saw as basically the GR with access to the whole gamut of M4/3 lenses - which was an extensive range indeed. Instead of being stuck with 28mm (FF fov eq) fixed prime lenses. Immediately I bought Olympus 12/2.0 and Panasonic Nocticron 42.5/1.2 IS lenses. (24mm and 85mm FF fov equivalent) and not long afterwards a 35-100/2.8 OIS internal focus and zoom. This made the GM1 body which was much the same basic size as the GR into quite a little rocket ship. The later GM5 added a useable evf and made it a complete camera tool. I made myself an open loupe device for the GM1 so that I could use the lcd as a faux-evf.

But the real strength of the M4/3 system has been the wide variety of camera body sizes and styles offered for it. Most of us mix and match lenses on a single camera body size/style. With M4/3 you can also mix and match body size/type. It wasn't long before I had a GX7 and now my main use cameras are a clutch of GM5 bodies plus GX9 (RF-Syle flat top) and G9 (faux-dslr style). I also have other bodies accumulated along the way - my GM1 bodies, as mentioned, a single E-M1, (upgrade GX85). None of these have been completely superseded or even in danger of being overlooked.

Whilst other brand types tend to make the same type of camera body in endless permutations and price points so that there is a sort of serial update and redundancy going on whilst one camera is always the one usually in the hand - M4/3 seem to encourage using multiple bodies. Now nine years and counting from my switch to M4/3 none of my (now many) M4/3 bodies has been relegated to the scrap heap.

The GM series are still making credible images as they always did when I first bought them. Perhaps it is because I easily satisfied? But I think not.

It is rather interesting that the enthusiast photographer is always interested in new and better gear. Ten years ago what was around enthused these enthusiasts as much as the present crop also enthuse. But I would argue that ten years ago that enthusiasm was not misplaced and that the pace of improvement has slowed considerably. Perfection might not be quite there, it never will be achieved, but good enough has been around for quite a while now.

I even went and bought a Canon 5Ds so that I would have an example of one of the very best dslr bodies ever made for EF mount lenses .... Seems a very old fashioned interface these days but it did command quite a lot of money when it was first released.
 
I loved my OMD-EM1. Fortunately for the person that received it as a gift, I never found a good reason to use it as compared to my FF camera.
Yes it is a bit like different strokes for different blokes ...

I was a very early convert to FF camera bodies and had a Canon 5D quite early after it was released. The sort of camera that a Pro-shooter might use when you only had one chance to get the images and your success and reputation hung on managing a reasonable number of keepers. The 5D never let me down and kept on clunking away for my more serious needs for over 10 years in the end.

I did try and replace it with a Sony A7R at once stage but that camera was not ready for prime time.
I think I was lucky because I arrived a bit later, almost before A7III release so the A7II was so cheap, and they fixed most of the big issues with the A7I / R while at the same time adding IBIS (for me, mandatory).
Meanwhile I learned more about the process of photography from a series of Ricoh GRD bodies with fixed prime lenses. Ricoh was and remains the last camera company that made technically superior compact cameras (that were expensive). Whilst all the other manufacturers tried to sell cheap compact cameras to the uninterested masses Ricoh pursued the enthusiast niche. Right up until they moved from sliver sensor to aps-c with the GR.

It was as a refugee from the GR that I bought my first Panasonic camera with the M4/3 mount system. The first GM1 I saw as basically the GR with access to the whole gamut of M4/3 lenses - which was an extensive range indeed. Instead of being stuck with 28mm (FF fov eq) fixed prime lenses. Immediately I bought Olympus 12/2.0 and Panasonic Nocticron 42.5/1.2 IS lenses. (24mm and 85mm FF fov equivalent) and not long afterwards a 35-100/2.8 OIS internal focus and zoom. This made the GM1 body which was much the same basic size as the GR into quite a little rocket ship. The later GM5 added a useable evf and made it a complete camera tool. I made myself an open loupe device for the GM1 so that I could use the lcd as a faux-evf.

But the real strength of the M4/3 system has been the wide variety of camera body sizes and styles offered for it. Most of us mix and match lenses on a single camera body size/style. With M4/3 you can also mix and match body size/type. It wasn't long before I had a GX7 and now my main use cameras are a clutch of GM5 bodies plus GX9 (RF-Syle flat top) and G9 (faux-dslr style). I also have other bodies accumulated along the way - my GM1 bodies, as mentioned, a single E-M1, (upgrade GX85). None of these have been completely superseded or even in danger of being overlooked.
I'd probably have loved and purchased an EM1 with a FF sensor. I have the lenses, and I loved the EM1 in every other way. Very capable, more features than the Sony. They were early movers and for what I need, they'd have been a great FF.
Whilst other brand types tend to make the same type of camera body in endless permutations and price points so that there is a sort of serial update and redundancy going on whilst one camera is always the one usually in the hand - M4/3 seem to encourage using multiple bodies. Now nine years and counting from my switch to M4/3 none of my (now many) M4/3 bodies has been relegated to the scrap heap.

The GM series are still making credible images as they always did when I first bought them. Perhaps it is because I easily satisfied? But I think not.

It is rather interesting that the enthusiast photographer is always interested in new and better gear. Ten years ago what was around enthused these enthusiasts as much as the present crop also enthuse. But I would argue that ten years ago that enthusiasm was not misplaced and that the pace of improvement has slowed considerably. Perfection might not be quite there, it never will be achieved, but good enough has been around for quite a while now.

I even went and bought a Canon 5Ds so that I would have an example of one of the very best dslr bodies ever made for EF mount lenses .... Seems a very old fashioned interface these days but it did command quite a lot of money when it was first released.
I also liked the 5D so much. Had it for 18 years. It's way more limited but has what had always impressed me, which is great image quality, in spite of lower DR and no live view, etc. It's almost the best hybrid between film experience and digital. The central AF point does a lot...that that single point almost always does the work.
 
Last edited:
So, which Olympus M4/3 model (mirrorless/DSLR) do you think is the best for use with vintage manual focus lenses and why?
I use my Lumix G9.
Bonus questions:
  • What are the pros and cons of your favorite body?
+ Very good IBIS helps a lot.
+ Single button focus assist magnification for better focusing
+ Ex.Tele for an additional x1.4 punch in
- Not as small and light as my G7 :P
  • How do you manual focus with it (describe the process)?
Press button for MF assist, use full screen magnification, slowly focus and confirm with peaking.
  • Does your favorite body have IBIS and how well does it work?
It does, and it's one of the best ones out there.
  • Does your favorite body have a database function one can build up in the body that stamps the lens name into the Exif and sets the IBIS right (if it has IBIS)?
No idea / I don't use that.
  • Does your favorite body support adapted lenses in any other good way?
Ex.tele feature provides that extra tiny bit of zoom.
IBIS prompt asks to confirm lens mm setting (since it cannot speak to the vintage glass in any way)
  • Which MF adapter brand and type (tube type with or without optics) do you use with your favorite body?
KF Concept? (I think) No optics.
  • Which camera body from Olympus M4/3 that you have tried, should be avoided for manual focus vintage lenses and why?
G7 (for video at least), unless you
+ use tripod
+ stabilise in post
  • Is there in your view a budget body from Olympus M4/3 for manual focus vintage lenses that would be good for a beginner or someone with a lower budget and why?
Probably a used G80/85 which in my opinion is an upgrade to the G7 (IBIS capable upgrade).
 
  • Does your favorite body have a database function one can build up in the body that stamps the lens name into the Exif and sets the IBIS right (if it has IBIS)?
No idea / I don't use that.
  • Does your favorite body support adapted lenses in any other good way?
Ex.tele feature provides that extra tiny bit of zoom.
Not sure what that is. Are you talking about so-called "digital zoom?"
IBIS prompt asks to confirm lens mm setting (since it cannot speak to the vintage glass in any way)
No sense trying to convert an P user to O (or vice-versa), but having IBIS interrupt me to ask questions would drive me nuts.

Many (most?) Olympus/OMDS bodies have a "registry" where you can enter an EXIF name, focal length, and maximum focal ratio. Then, when you use that lens, all you have to do is select it in the registry.

It's limited to ten items, which is a pain if you use focal reducers and tele-extenders, but it's better than having the camera ask you, "What's the focal length?" each time you change manual lenses.

It is real nice to have your non-electronic lenses identified in EXIF data! Does Panny do this?

I program the front two buttons on the E-M1.2 and OM-1 to 1) select from the list of ten manual lenses, and 2) focus peaking. Makes manual lenses so easy to use!
 
The elderly 5D aced the A7R for performance in lower light - the latter was not helped by my insistence that I used my "to die for" Canon EF lenses with it and Sony CDAF was awful*

To cap it off the human interface of the A7R was so awful that one might of wondered how much sake the design team had been drinking.

I was so piddled off with the A7R that I have not been back to Sony since. They should have recalled the lot and replaced them with the A7RII at no cost. How the A7R was ever inflicted on the buying public in such a poor stage of development defies me. Furthermore how easily the public used to churn-over of updates forgave Sony is also a surprise.

Might have been a different story for me if I had held off until the A7RII. Or had the wit to at least bought the A7S instead when I had the chance to do so.

The 5D was making much better images years before the A7R was released. Its 12mp sensor was not a negative issue and was extremely capable. The PDAF was instant focus in any light condition and *Sony CDAF gave CDAF such a bad name that Panasonic's most excellent CDAF still wears the same aroma. This is also despite the Metabones adapters for M4/3 working exceptionally well with adapted EF lenses on Panasonic bodies from the get go and well before the magical illusions of the DFD that presumably works but my Panasonic bodies with or without DFD seem to focus just as fast S-AF with DFD-less Olympus lenses.

Brian Caldwell (no relation) made my oft referred to comment that the adapted EF lenses on the A7RII bodies focused 'almost as fast (S-AF) on it as they did with on M4/3 bodies". (Heh? CDAF zaps PDAF when adapted?)

So I don't miss the Sony body update churn - A7R to A7RIV (?) followed by the A9 and A1 if you want to be nearer perfection. I keep saying that they might have the A7R fully fixed by the A7RV but I suspect that perfectionists have now graduated to the A1 by now. Unfortunately that sounds a bit like myself - on a Sony orbit I might had a couple of A7R updates followed by and A9 and now be the proud owner of an A1 - quite a few shekels down the track and still only using a single camera body. (probably already thirsting for the inevitable A1ii :) )

So M4/3 might be the poor-sister here but at least Panasonic saved me a lot of money by not updating the GM5 which of course allows me to have the latest and greatest of that type to enjoy 8-9 years later down the track. Just like the 5D - after a while you realise that the gloss of later models is often just gloss and that the joy of a camera body well built and quite useful can be extended for quite a good number of years if the images that they make remain good enough if still not perfect.

The G9 also remains king of its heap even though it has been around for a while - just gets to show that if a manufacturer gets it right first time then there is little need or possibility of making a churn up version that can offer anything much better.

I also invested in a 5Ds - so I have the latest and greatest - more or less in the mount systems I have chosen even if they are somewhat getting long in the tooth.

Maybe older and "finally" wiser ....
 
  • Does your favorite body have a database function one can build up in the body that stamps the lens name into the Exif and sets the IBIS right (if it has IBIS)?
No idea / I don't use that.
  • Does your favorite body support adapted lenses in any other good way?
Ex.tele feature provides that extra tiny bit of zoom.
Not sure what that is. Are you talking about so-called "digital zoom?"
No, it is crop-sensor zoom. Just as much as the 4/3 sensor appears to give a 2x zoom effect compared to FF sensor image then a crop sensor can give the appearance of a great image by simply using a smaller part of the sensor (less pixels) but the 20mp sensor does allow some spare pixels that can allow this to happen in a reasonable manner.

This is actually a fairly common practice. Bridge cameras with tiny sensors could use the crop sensor technique to claim impossibly high technical levels of zoom by further cropping an already tiny sensor. Ricoh did the same starting with its GRD but was more honest about the apparent zoom by clearly advising that this zoom was accompanied by rapidly deceasing numbers of pixels used.

FF camera usually use the same technique of auto crop sensor for aps-c lenses when attached. Many are quite amazed at the fact that aps-c lenses can be used with no apparent reduction in quality of the image.

For example the L-Mount FF S1 camera body normally uses the full 20mp sensor with FF capable lenses but when a functioning AF lens with aps-c image circle is mounted it only uses 10mp of that sensor and the lens appears to be working normally as an aps-c lens with the quality of its aps-c image circle making an excellent 10mp image.

No - crop sensor 'Ex.Tele" is not the same as digital zoom.
IBIS prompt asks to confirm lens mm setting (since it cannot speak to the vintage glass in any way)
No sense trying to convert an P user to O (or vice-versa), but having IBIS interrupt me to ask questions would drive me nuts.
Yes it can be slightly annoying being nagged at start up to check that if you have now changed your MF lens setting for IBIS. But this seems to be what 'all' (other) camera manufacturers seem to do. It is cancelled by a soft press of the shutter button which does not seem to be a great burden. On the other hand how many Olympus users of MF lenses forget to change the IBIS setting when they swap lenses? Then there is the issue that on my E-M1 at least there is no way to check what your current IBIS setting is other than to commence the button and wheel spinning dance to set about changing it. Did I change it or didn't I? In practice a lot more complex than the Panasonic 'nagging'.
Many (most?) Olympus/OMDS bodies have a "registry" where you can enter an EXIF name, focal length, and maximum focal ratio. Then, when you use that lens, all you have to do is select it in the registry.
Yes the registry is a good idea but is selecting a lens from your registry any more simple than a simple soft press to confirm or a left arrow and a once only easy access dial spin to change the setting?
It's limited to ten items, which is a pain if you use focal reducers and tele-extenders, but it's better than having the camera ask you, "What's the focal length?" each time you change manual lenses.
It is worse than that the nag screen pops up every time you switch the camera on the with a MF lens attached. But soft press and it goes away and if you do happen to have changed your lens it is a handy reminder that your IBIS needs changing and it is so easy to do so.
It is real nice to have your non-electronic lenses identified in EXIF data! Does Panny do this?
No. But I have several hundred MF lenses and counting - 10 slots are not nearly enough :) Managing a ten-slot limit with a larger-pool number of lenses in use is going to be an exercise in frustration that I would find much more of a nuisance than not remembering which lens I had used.
I program the front two buttons on the E-M1.2 and OM-1 to 1) select from the list of ten manual lenses, and 2) focus peaking. Makes manual lenses so easy to use!
I have focus peaking on 100% and in fact the later Panasonic models allow focus peaking to be shown even with oem M4/3 lenses. I like to see confirmation visually of just what extended parts of my image appear to be in focus even when using that AF system.

I don't need to fiddle with my focus peaking setting but I could assign it to a button if I really needed to do this.

Having it fro AF also helps to catch the occasional mis-focus on the wrong subject matter by our AF system.

So M4/3 is good and we at least have great variety of choice in our camera body styles unlike some other brands we could mention. :)
 
So, which Olympus M4/3 model (mirrorless/DSLR) do you think is the best for use with vintage manual focus lenses and why?
Olympus E-M1iii

I like having a decent EVF. Some old Olys or Pannys have a nice look, but in use the lack of viewfinder and ergonomics just make it unfun for me, except for like C mount lenses, very small funky primes, that sort of thing.
Olympus only ventured for a moment into the dslr for the 4/3 mount. M4/3 is much better established and Panasonic is very much part of that scene.

Bonus questions:
  • What are the pros and cons of your favorite body?
Easy to use with good focus aids and IBIS. You can store a lens name for the adapted lens in-camera (why don't all mirrorless do this???).

Cons? none for adapted lenses.
  • How do you manual focus with it (describe the process)?
Look at subject. Focus. Maybe use enlarging function or peaking. Maybe no need.
  • Does your favorite body have IBIS and how well does it work?
Works well.
  • Does your favorite body have a database function one can build up in the body that stamps the lens name into the Exif and sets the IBIS right (if it has IBIS)?
Yep.
  • Does your favorite body support adapted lenses in any other good way?
Bazillions of adapter available or even focal reducers.
  • Which MF adapter brand and type (tube type with or without optics) do you use with your favorite body?
Various and sundry.
  • Which camera body from Olympus M4/3 that you have tried, should be avoided for manual focus vintage lenses and why?
The really old Olys and Pannys; just bad ergonomics. But still very doable, so I wouldn't use them as a daily driver, but wouldn't dissuade a beginner from trying them.
  • Is there in your view a budget body from Olympus M4/3 for manual focus vintage lenses that would be good for a beginner or someone with a lower budget and why?
E-M10 line. Best beginner camera out there bar none. Or Gx85.
 
  • Does your favorite body support adapted lenses in any other good way?
Ex.tele feature provides that extra tiny bit of zoom.
Not sure what that is. Are you talking about so-called "digital zoom?"
No, it is crop-sensor zoom…

No - crop sensor 'Ex.Tele" is not the same as digital zoom.
Still a bit confused.

I thought "zoom" was a term-of-art that meant having stepless focal length changes.

Is that what "ex.tele" does?

I know a lot of people confuse "telephoto" with "zoom," but I didn't think any on this list would.
 
  • Does your favorite body support adapted lenses in any other good way?
Ex.tele feature provides that extra tiny bit of zoom.
Not sure what that is. Are you talking about so-called "digital zoom?"
No, it is crop-sensor zoom…

No - crop sensor 'Ex.Tele" is not the same as digital zoom.
Still a bit confused.

I thought "zoom" was a term-of-art that meant having stepless focal length changes.

Is that what "ex.tele" does?

I know a lot of people confuse "telephoto" with "zoom," but I didn't think any on this list would.
Jan, I am sorry if I am a bit loose with my description.

"Ex-tele" is not stepless zoom in the sense that the telephoto can vary seamlessly from one focal length to another. It is usually a single closer telephoto length that is obtained by cropping part of the centre of the sensor to do so. In effect if you were using an aps-c lens in a camera with a FF sensor and it did auto crop sensor it would be putting the image from the aps-c lens on to an aps-c slice of the sensor and recording that only. It would come with the same reduced pixel count and 1.5x crop factor that the aps-c slice of the sensor provides. That is a 100mm lens would become a 150mm telephoto in the process and there should be no image degradation other than that caused by less pixels used from a smaller area of the sensor.

In the case of other cameras such as the Panasonic M4/3 bodies this is a firmware crop of a smaller part of the 4/3 sensor which in effect gives a telephoto effect as if it were 'magic'. But if you check the captured size of your files you will find them smaller.

Going back to the later Ricoh GRD bodies and the more recent GR model - they have a single prime lens and had more than one extra telephoto length - each one resulting in an even smaller cropped capture off the sensor. The aps-c models obviously had more technical room to crop than the older smaller sensor versions. The pixel count rapidly decreases at higher telephoto values.

On the other hand 'digital zoom' (again the confused naming) give a telephoto effect by adding in pixels via an algorithm which might appear to be ok but falls down quite sharply if you look closely. As far as I know the actual pixel count is not reduced as much as the crop sensor method. But digital zoom has a poor reputation and i doubt if many still use it.
 
So, which Olympus M4/3 model (mirrorless/DSLR) do you think is the best for use with vintage manual focus lenses and why?
Olympus E-M1iii

I like having a decent EVF. Some old Olys or Pannys have a nice look, but in use the lack of viewfinder and ergonomics just make it unfun for me, except for like C mount lenses, very small funky primes, that sort of thing.
I have to defend Panasonic a little here. The only mainstream Panasonic body without an evf in the last ten years as far as I know was the tiny GM1 which was quickly sorted out by the equally tiny GM5 which had one. The later entry level GF7-GX850 only had a tilt lcd and no evf - but it was not a camera meant for prime time shooting - it even was sold by promoting its 'jump shot' feature. The smaller field sequential evf units were only used on RF-style (flat top) bodies presumably to keep them compact. Although they get unwarranted bad press for their compact dimensions those that use them find them quite acceptable and Panasonic has sold quite a few flat top style camera bodies - which are easier to pack because of their shape. Moving to the faux-dslr style nobody seems to criticise the larger evf units on this type of Panasonic body for the last ten years at least - in fact the dpreview test of the G9 lauded its evf as "the best in the business".

On the other hand Olympus ended to sell their flat top bodies without evf or with a clip on only although some models had built in evf - these were as large as the GX7-GX9 series and much larger than the GM5.

Basically "some old" therefore means going back more than ten years which is an eon in the digital camera time line.
Olympus only ventured for a moment into the dslr for the 4/3 mount. M4/3 is much better established and Panasonic is very much part of that scene.

Bonus questions:
  • What are the pros and cons of your favorite body?
Easy to use with good focus aids and IBIS. You can store a lens name for the adapted lens in-camera (why don't all mirrorless do this???).
I suspect that a limit of ten such stored lenses might be limiting for some. With my collection of multiple bodies and many more than 10 MF lenses the housekeeping required to keep this all in order would drive me insane. A limit of ten without an ability to easily transfer the database between camera bodies is not good enough. But could be very useful for those who have one camera body and a modest (sensible) set of lenses in use.

Furthermore there is little interest back at firmware HQ in adding features that don't benefit the sale of oem AF lenses.

Just as much as focus peaking could be improved but once provided each manufacturer has ticked their feature list and forgotten to enhance it further.
Cons? none for adapted lenses.
  • How do you manual focus with it (describe the process)?
Look at subject. Focus. Maybe use enlarging function or peaking. Maybe no need.
  • Does your favorite body have IBIS and how well does it work?
Works well.
  • Does your favorite body have a database function one can build up in the body that stamps the lens name into the Exif and sets the IBIS right (if it has IBIS)?
Yep.
  • Does your favorite body support adapted lenses in any other good way?
Bazillions of adapter available or even focal reducers.
  • Which MF adapter brand and type (tube type with or without optics) do you use with your favorite body?
Various and sundry.
  • Which camera body from Olympus M4/3 that you have tried, should be avoided for manual focus vintage lenses and why?
The really old Olys and Pannys; just bad ergonomics. But still very doable, so I wouldn't use them as a daily driver, but wouldn't dissuade a beginner from trying them.
Really old tends to obscure the fact that in the last 10 years M4/3 bodies have improved and proliferated mightily in size and types. I would not restrict a prospective user to seeking such old camera bodies - it is much the same as suggesting to a beginner not to touch a 10+ year old dslr body. In that I would agree.

Furthermore Olympus and Panasonic have two quite different human interface models. Olympus has tended to start from their slr lines and add buttons and wheels ad hoc to suit the extra capabilities of digital bodies. Panasonic seems to have started from a clean-sheet approach and designed their cameras from the get-go for digital - I find the Panasonic human interface less awkward but Olympus users who have always used Olympus obviously prefer the interface they are used to. Nothing wrong with that but it is easy to wipe off Panasonic with faint praise.
  • Is there in your view a budget body from Olympus M4/3 for manual focus vintage lenses that would be good for a beginner or someone with a lower budget and why?
E-M10 line. Best beginner camera out there bar none. Or Gx85.
Yes I agree, but if a beginner were to buy a GX9 or E-M1iii they might not find the need to upgrade their camera body - nor feel the need to move to a larger sensor mount format.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top