Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings

Started Sep 30, 2013 | Discussions
ttivals Junior Member • Posts: 30
Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings
2

Have any of you read Roger Cicala's finding that's posted in today's news at DPReview?  The inference is that using 4/3 lens on a micro4/3 body will never produce as good of results as one can obtain using them on a 4/3 body. . . .  Bummer, but probably true.  I realize that they 4/3 lens have telecentric designs, so that may minimize the issue, but nonetheless . . .  I guess it's a predictable/obvious finding in a way, but seeing the actual test results is sobering.

vadimraskin Veteran Member • Posts: 3,596
Re: Let the panic set in?
6

ttivals wrote:

Have any of you read Roger Cicala's finding that's posted in today's news at DPReview?  The inference is that using 4/3 lens on a micro4/3 body will never produce as good of results as one can obtain using them on a 4/3 body. . . .  Bummer, but probably true.  I realize that they 4/3 lens have telecentric designs, so that may minimize the issue, but nonetheless . . .  I guess it's a predictable/obvious finding in a way, but seeing the actual test results is sobering.

"In real-world use shooting 3D subjects (rather than planar test charts), we've found very little evidence of lens adapters having a serious impact on image quality".

This statement is enough for me. I am not interested in the microscope level technical mumbo-jumbo. If you are trying to find any fault with the new camera you might find plenty as with anything out there. There is no perfect camera, no perfect car, no pefect person. Just accept the limitations and learn to live with them or get into another brand and you will find that the "grass" ain't THAT green there as well.

 vadimraskin's gear list:vadimraskin's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +3 more
Olymore
Olymore Senior Member • Posts: 1,775
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings

A couple of things to be aware of.

He was using the lenses wide open and it was mainly the edges that were affected.

He mentioned that the differences would not be very noticeable at normal viewing distances.

For many uses where you need the edges sharp, like landscapes, the DOF would be sufficient to make this negligible as you would be using a small aperture.

And for most thin DOF shots where you are trying to isolate the subject the edges do not matter so much.

So, if you shoot wide open and need the edges sharp then it could be a problem but as people have been using these adapters for years, probably not a very big problem.

-- hide signature --

There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

 Olymore's gear list:Olymore's gear list
Olympus E-M1
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,432
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings
9

ttivals wrote:

Have any of you read Roger Cicala's finding that's posted in today's news at DPReview? The inference is that using 4/3 lens on a micro4/3 body will never produce as good of results as one can obtain using them on a 4/3 body. . . . Bummer, but probably true. I realize that they 4/3 lens have telecentric designs, so that may minimize the issue, but nonetheless . . . I guess it's a predictable/obvious finding in a way, but seeing the actual test results is sobering.

It's also utter nonsense. I've been using FT lenses on mFT bodies with the adapters since 2008. I've compared to excruciating detail the rendering of the Summilux 25, 11-22, 50 Macro, 35 Macro, and 50-200 lenses fitted to E-5 and then to Panasonic G1. There is NO difference in imaging qualities, center to corner, at all lens openings, when you take the raw files and examine them in a 'neutral' raw converter like Lightroom. Which makes sense because the mount adapter is nothing more than a hollow tube with a pair of flanges and a set of electrical contacts.

The only thing that could make a rendering difference is if the mount adapters are significantoy out of spec, and the the difference will need to be measured with instruments. The only sobering part of his article is the one in which he himself says the difference is insignificant.

Fear and distraction to no purpose, that's all this article is.

-- hide signature --
OP ttivals Junior Member • Posts: 30
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings

Godfrey: That's reassuring.  Thanks.  I have the EM1 with the Oly adapter for 4/3 lenses on order.  I'm especially interested in using the 150mm f2, the 35-100mm f2, and/or the 50-200mm lenses.

rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,644
yep (nt)

hollow stuff

goblin
goblin Veteran Member • Posts: 3,523
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings

Godfrey wrote:

...

The only thing that could make a rendering difference is if the mount adapters are significantoy out of spec...

I second that. It can be easilly seen on the chinese MMF clones sold on Fleabay. They do a decent job with most lenses, but they can give horrendous results with a 9-18mm or 7-14mm. No such problems with original MMF adapters.

I highly value Mr Cicala's insights, but on that specific one - I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. He is talking about "various high quality adapters", which is not "OEM made by Olympus". It's "different levels of skinning the client for a piece of machined metal".

 goblin's gear list:goblin's gear list
Ricoh GXR P10 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 VC Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro +73 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,926
Motive?

Godfrey wrote:


Fear and distraction to no purpose, that's all this article is.

What would be their motive for said "fear and distraction"? Clearly he wasn't focused on sinking olympus's solution to a new 4/3 body, but was talking about lens adapters in general. I'd be shocked if a adapted lens would mount to a body as perfectly square etc as a native lens mount would provide.

Is this going to be seen in "real world use"? Probably not, but then again most of the stuff in any of these lens tests is never seen in "real world use". People can't post links to certain microscopic testing as proof that some lens is great, and then discount other tests as -these type tests don't really matter is use-.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7 +19 more
goblin
goblin Veteran Member • Posts: 3,523
Re: Motive?
1

Stacey_K wrote:

Is this going to be seen in "real world use"? Probably not, but then again most of the stuff in any of these lens tests is never seen in "real world use". People can't post links to certain microscopic testing as proof that some lens is great, and then discount other tests as -these type tests don't really matter is use-.

...

Indeed. I believe that even though he was specifically talking about the article, Goddfrey's reaction was more on this:

..The inference is that using 4/3 lens on a micro4/3 body will never produce as good of results as one can obtain using them on a 4/3 body...

That one is utter FUD.

Again - an out of spec adapter will do all sorts of bad things. The same will be true for a faulty or decentered lens and for defective hardware in general.

Oly's adapters (MMF) and their Panny counterpart (an MMF-1 clone with a Panny logo and a way lower sticker price on it) have proven to me to be in specs, including with my 7-14mm. Get an out of spec adapter - it becomes endless fun.

 goblin's gear list:goblin's gear list
Ricoh GXR P10 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 VC Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro +73 more
TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
That was my experience as well
2

Have never seen any evidence that using 4/3 glass on a M43 body with the Oly MMF adapter yielded any alignment issues. Resulting photos are sharp, edge to edge. I've also been putting 4/3 glass on M43 bodies since around 2008, with the EP1.

I am a bit surprised that, as thorough as he was with the lab tests, he didn't run down to the neighborhood Harbor Freight, pick up a $20 micrometer, and find out if those adapters were out of spec.

Gheghevic
Gheghevic Regular Member • Posts: 490
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings

I'm completely agree with Godfred...

The adapter is only a spacer between the lens and the sensor... So there are not optical parts inside that could degrade the quality!

The remaining parts of the adapter are only electric contacts.

 Gheghevic's gear list:Gheghevic's gear list
Olympus E-510 Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +8 more
mapgraphs
mapgraphs Senior Member • Posts: 1,322
Re: Agreed

Godfrey wrote:


Fear and distraction to no purpose, that's all this article is.

Agreed. Controversy is always good for generating traffic and click-throughs (which seems to be a focus recently).

We already know that ##microns out of tolerance on low end adapters can result in not allowing infinity focus or allowing focus beyond infinity. Off center issues have been discussed too. It's nice that Roger has a new toy to play with to remind us of these things that can be measured.

Rich Z
Rich Z Veteran Member • Posts: 9,552
Well said-n/t
Skeeterbytes Forum Pro • Posts: 15,534
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings
1

ttivals wrote:

Have any of you read Roger Cicala's finding that's posted in today's news at DPReview?  The inference is that using 4/3 lens on a micro4/3 body will never produce as good of results as one can obtain using them on a 4/3 body. . . .  Bummer, but probably true.  I realize that they 4/3 lens have telecentric designs, so that may minimize the issue, but nonetheless . . .  I guess it's a predictable/obvious finding in a way, but seeing the actual test results is sobering.

This isn't quite what I take away from the linked article (and let's give a shout-out to DPR for illustrating with an optical converter, not an adapter). He seems to be looking at the use of better quality ("name brand") after-market adapters for adapting non-system lenses to various brand cameras, simulated on testing gear.

His main point seems valid: any misalignment will make it impossible to achieve perfect critical focus on a perfectly parallel plane (presumably with shallow DOFs). Is anybody surprised that every additional flange increases the odds of misalignment?

At least WRT the use of an OEM adapter to connect an OEM lens to an OEM camera--what we have with an MMF-# to connect a 4/3 lens to a µ4/3 body--everything should meet the manufacturer's tolerances. Oly's in this case.  Will we get the same accuracy as that lens on a 4/3 body? Possibly not. For example, it might be better to do copy stand work with a 4/3 body rather than adapt your 50/2.0 to a µ4/3 body. But that's a pretty unique task that wouldn't preclude adapting that lens for, say, portraits or chasing butterflies.

Have long suspected this is the genesis of Oly's caution to not use 4/3 teleconverters and extension tubes with µ4/3. The alignment with THREE flanges may fall outside their tolerances.

I have something like four µ4/3 adapters other than the MMF for the hobbyist’s pursuit of fun camera-lens combinations. I'll never need them for commercial work and frankly, the many artifacts one gets from a 50 YO lens can be the very reason we try these combinations. Some render wonderfully, if disastrously for pixel-peepers.

OTOH, somebody tackling a critical project using an adapted non-system lens probably needs to know whether they're facing poor optical performance from the combination. They're well advised to test the setup to their satisfaction, because the problems the article uncovers might present some real-world difficulties.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain

sirharold
sirharold Contributing Member • Posts: 550
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings

Keep me posted on your findings with the F2.0 optics. Most of my work is shooting sports.

Thanks

Chris

 sirharold's gear list:sirharold's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus E-330 Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 +27 more
Jouko Senior Member • Posts: 1,580
Re: Using MMF-3 Adapter - Roger Cicala's findings

The reason for Cicala's adapter testing was finding a reliable way to test lens performance. Not to take photographs.

Lens rentals company are actually renting lenses, and they need to know the variance of some particular lens type performance - and, if you have read some of his articles, that variance can be quite large in itself. Adding the adapter into that test routine adds one more variable, and can be measured.

In real world we seldom shoot same kind of things - at least I don't. But every item between the  subject and sensor can affect to the result: the adapters by adding some (minor) wobbling and shaking, tilt, decentering, misconnections... Use of an adapter is not the perfect solution, but after long use of MMF1, EP3 and FT-lenses I would say I'll take the risk: I have not seen any evidence of loosing IQ with this setup yet in real world use, 3D subjects etc. A couple of times I have had to clean the contacts, anyway.

Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/

mike_smith_uk Regular Member • Posts: 390
Re: Hardly rocket science.....
1

This has been an issue since the days of using legacy Zeiss/Leica on Canon 1Ds bodies.  It is well known that there is sample variation in cheap adapters.  The issue is whether there is enough leaway in depth of field to overcome machining accuracy issues.  Shooting wide open with a quality wide aperture lens will show up uneven/skew mounting issues at the image edges

To get the best out of a lens you have to pay for a quality adapter that is properly adjusted.  Olympus will know what they are doing, Cameraquest know what they are doing, Chinese knocks offs do not.  The reason why you pay £50 vs £3 for an adapter is that the former is properly machined and corrected and the latter one is simply mass produced without checking.

Its exactly the same argument as the massed produced gimbal heads that came out of India vs Wimberley products.  They superficially look the same but perform vastly differently.

I can see no reason why a true "square' machined mount adapter with perfectly parallel mounting flanges should cause an image issue - its simply  a hollow tube moving the lens away from the sensor plane. provided it sits truly square on the body there cannot be an issue.

Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,926
Re: Hardly rocket science.....

mike_smith_uk wrote:

I can see no reason why a true "square' machined mount adapter with perfectly parallel mounting flanges should cause an image issue - its simply a hollow tube moving the lens away from the sensor plane. provided it sits truly square on the body there cannot be an issue.

The difficult part isn't machining parallel surfaces but making sure the lens stays centered. Note he wasn't testing "Chinese adapters" either.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7 +19 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,926
Re: Motive?

goblin wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

Is this going to be seen in "real world use"? Probably not, but then again most of the stuff in any of these lens tests is never seen in "real world use". People can't post links to certain microscopic testing as proof that some lens is great, and then discount other tests as -these type tests don't really matter is use-.

...

Indeed. I believe that even though he was specifically talking about the article, Goddfrey's reaction was more on this:

..The inference is that using 4/3 lens on a micro4/3 body will never produce as good of results as one can obtain using them on a 4/3 body...

That one is utter FUD.

Not sure unless someone does test -these- adapters.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7 +19 more
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,432
Re: Hardly rocket science.....
2

Stacey_K wrote:

mike_smith_uk wrote:

I can see no reason why a true "square' machined mount adapter with perfectly parallel mounting flanges should cause an image issue - its simply a hollow tube moving the lens away from the sensor plane. provided it sits truly square on the body there cannot be an issue.

The difficult part isn't machining parallel surfaces but making sure the lens stays centered. Note he wasn't testing "Chinese adapters" either.

He didn't state what adapter he was testing, whether they were Chinese made or not. He just stated that they weren't $30 adapters.

A $90 Metabones Leica M to Micro-FourThirds adapter I bought was so badly designed that it would only lock the lens properly on 2 out of 10 of my lenses, and they all had easily felt radial slop. Sent it back, replaced it with a Novoflex adapter: every lens locks correctly, no slop, etc. The same is true for my two Rayqual adapters, and for the Voigtländer adapter. And for both the Panasonic and Olympus FT->mFT adapters.

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads