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

[krylovsk]

I'm a happy M43 shooter with a collection of native lenses from UWA to short telephoto (mostly primes). I use GX7 and EM5 interchangeably and pretty much like both of them, planning to upgrade the Oly to EM5ii once the street price gets further down.

I liked experimenting with adapted lenses on my M43 with cheap adapters, which brought me to shooting 35mm film and I have since then accumulated several fixed-lens RF and an Olympus OM2n. Shooting film is a lot of fun and a great way to improve my photography skills, but it quickly gets quite expensive and cumbersome with quantity. 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.

Since many of you here use different platforms for the purpose and have experience with FRs I thought I would seek your advice. Here is the way I see it:

• FR for M43: will keep my kit small, simple and versatile, which this is why I got into M43 in the first place. There will be more chances that I'd make use of a good adapted lens, because I can always find a place for it with FR in my camera bag, whereas there'll be no place there for another (non-m43) camera just for that legacy lens. There is also a longer FL gap in my m43 kit that will be nicely filled (100/2.8 + FR as a cheap 75/1.8 alternative?). With an EF-M43 FR and "double adapters" it's also the cheapest option with no additional digital gear lying around loosing it's value, yet the 1.4x crop makes a 50mm affectively only a 70mm (but +1 DoF/light stop).
• APS-C: the most versatile option for adopting legacy lenses on a budget? I can get a Sony a3000 or NEX3n for $200-300 and start with cheap adapters and later add a FR to get the FF FoV +1 stop of DoF/light out of my lenses? I won't need most features of the more advanced models (just focus peaking, though EVF would be nice) and can upgrade the camera with time. Another advantage here is more adopting options for shorter flange distance lenses that won't work with EF-M43 FR + adapter on m43 (M39, Canon FD, Minolta, Konica), but I plan to stick to OM and M42 for now. With no IBIS and lower-res EVF / lack of it... is it worth it?
• FF: I guess A7 is the ultimate platform for adapting 35mm film lenses, but I don't want to invest that much for what I plan to do with it. The cheapest FF I can get seems to be an old Canon 5D (~$400), but the size of this monster and its old sensor don't seem to be appealing at all. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? The chances that I'll be taking it along with the M43 kit are even lower than APS-C, certainly not for travel. I imagine it'll be probably gathering dust until I get into an "adapted lens walkabout" mood, but for that I already have film..

 

[GnarlydogOZ]

I'm a happy M43 shooter with a collection of native lenses from UWA to short telephoto (mostly primes). I use GX7 and EM5 interchangeably and pretty much like both of them, planning to upgrade the Oly to EM5ii once the street price gets further down.

I liked experimenting with adapted lenses on my M43 with cheap adapters, which brought me to shooting 35mm film and I have since then accumulated several fixed-lens RF and an Olympus OM2n. Shooting film is a lot of fun and a great way to improve my photography skills, but it quickly gets quite expensive and cumbersome with quantity. 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.

Since many of you here use different platforms for the purpose and have experience with FRs I thought I would seek your advice. Here is the way I see it:

• FR for M43: will keep my kit small, simple and versatile, which this is why I got into M43 in the first place. There will be more chances that I'd make use of a good adapted lens, because I can always find a place for it with FR in my camera bag, whereas there'll be no place there for another (non-m43) camera just for that legacy lens. There is also a longer FL gap in my m43 kit that will be nicely filled (100/2.8 + FR as a cheap 75/1.8 alternative?). With an EF-M43 FR and "double adapters" it's also the cheapest option with no additional digital gear lying around loosing it's value, yet the 1.4x crop makes a 50mm affectively only a 70mm (but +1 DoF/light stop).
• APS-C: the most versatile option for adopting legacy lenses on a budget? I can get a Sony a3000 or NEX3n for $200-300 and start with cheap adapters and later add a FR to get the FF FoV +1 stop of DoF/light out of my lenses? I won't need most features of the more advanced models (just focus peaking, though EVF would be nice) and can upgrade the camera with time. Another advantage here is more adopting options for shorter flange distance lenses that won't work with EF-M43 FR + adapter on m43 (M39, Canon FD, Minolta, Konica), but I plan to stick to OM and M42 for now. With no IBIS and lower-res EVF / lack of it... is it worth it?
• FF: I guess A7 is the ultimate platform for adapting 35mm film lenses, but I don't want to invest that much for what I plan to do with it. The cheapest FF I can get seems to be an old Canon 5D (~$400), but the size of this monster and its old sensor don't seem to be appealing at all. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? The chances that I'll be taking it along with the M43 kit are even lower than APS-C, certainly not for travel. I imagine it'll be probably gathering dust until I get into an "adapted lens walkabout" mood, but for that I already have film..

your reasoning is the same as mine apart that I would never consider a DSLR but always a mirrorless for adapting vintage glass. The "pre-chimping" feature of a mirrorless is invaluable to me and getting the focus 100% nailed with magnification (rather then peaking) is also very important. DSLR, as you mentioned, is too bulky for me.

Don't forget IBIS on the Olympus: often I could not create the same images as I do without it. I would be leaning towards FR on Micro 4/3... with a NEX maybe second. Sony A7 yes, if it was $500. Considering that the only thing it would do better than my Olympus is get a wider angel of view. Less noise is not an issue, and for the limited use for wider angle of view for vintage glass?.... well, I don't see the expense justifies the results. Than again it is just speculations since I have not tried any of the options...

 

[krylovsk]

your reasoning is the same as mine apart that I would never consider a DSLR but always a mirrorless for adapting vintage glass. The "pre-chimping" feature of a mirrorless is invaluable to me and getting the focus 100% nailed with magnification (rather then peaking) is also very important. DSLR, as you mentioned, is too bulky for me.

Yes, this is another issue stopping me from getting a FF DSLR. Manual focusing without magnification and/or focus peaking? I think it'll take me a lot of time to master, far more than I'm ready to spend on it I'm afraid.

Don't forget IBIS on the Olympus: often I could not create the same images as I do without it. I would be leaning towards FR on Micro 4/3... with a NEX maybe second. Sony A7 yes, if it was $500. Considering that the only thing it would do better than my Olympus is get a wider angel of view. Less noise is not an issue, and for the limited use for wider angle of view for vintage glass?.... well, I don't see the expense justifies the results. Than again it is just speculations since I have not tried any of the options...

The 5-axis IBIS of EM5 is incredible, and I don't think the 1(2?) stops ISO advantage of APS-C Sony without IBIS can make up for it. I also don't think usability wise entry-level APS-C will compare to my GX7/EM5. As for A7, for $500 I'd probably jump on it, but I guess it'll take quite some time for it to get that low. In the meantime lenses seem to be a better investment.

Which lenses do you adapt on Olympus, especially on the wide end? Do you use a FR? I realise that even with a FR the wide-angle options are rather limited and I'm not looking into exotic glass like 24/2. A 35/2 however will be an interesting lens on the OM2n and a 25/1.4 on M43 with FR? I wouldn't expect the PL25/1.4 quality, but if I can get it for a decent price and the lens has interesting rendering why not.

 

[photoholiko]

If you can find a 5D for $400 I would get that, don't forget you are comparing film to this camera that sports a 12MP sensor, but size seems to be a factor for you and again you need to consider that most legacy lenses are MF, not exactly street photo equipment.

 

[GnarlydogOZ]

Which lenses do you adapt on Olympus, especially on the wide end? Do you use a FR? I realise that even with a FR the wide-angle options are rather limited and I'm not looking into exotic glass like 24/2. A 35/2 however will be an interesting lens on the OM2n and a 25/1.4 on M43 with FR? I wouldn't expect the PL25/1.4 quality, but if I can get it for a decent price and the lens has interesting rendering why not.

honestly I don't adapt much wide glass on M43: there is not a lot around that really is wide on a x2 crop factor unless bulk and expense is no issue. I don't see much point on trying to get something out of vintage lenses that native Micro 4/3 can do. However I like using lenses that become a telephoto on my Olympus: anything from 40mm on. The bokeh is very noticeable on longer lenses compared to a wider lens and therefore much more important to me. The widest vintage glass I have for M43 is 18mm. I have a cine lens (for 16mm film) in M-mount (DIY adapter) that is tiny and gives crazy bokeh, then there is a 24mm from the Pentax-110 SLR which is almost too small, really. The Pentax-110 24mm f2.8 is sharp but nothing particularly outstanding as far as rendering goes. The 18mm is yet to be used enough to formulate my opinion. On the other hand the 50mm f2.8 from the Pentax-110 system (and the 70mm f2.8) are truly amazing. Check out this, if interested: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarlydog/albums/72157666759819355

I can't do this with my M.Zuiko glass


Pentax-110 50mm f2.8

 

[krylovsk]

If you can find a 5D for $400 I would get that, don't forget you are comparing film to this camera that sports a 12MP sensor, but size seems to be a factor for you and again you need to consider that most legacy lenses are MF, not exactly street photo equipment.

It's a good argument about comparing the "old canon sensor" to film, and perhaps you are right. The size is a big concern to me though and so is the manual focus without aids. I'm not planning to "adapt" old AF lenses, although I think getting a 5D you can't pass on the dirt-cheap Canon 50/1.8, but that is a different story. While I imagine I could get a split prism focus screen for 5D, I think it'll be quite challenging to adopt to DSLR shooting with chimping and switching back and forth with mirrorless. I've had a DSLR before and I don't want to go back.

 

[krylovsk]

Which lenses do you adapt on Olympus, especially on the wide end? Do you use a FR? I realise that even with a FR the wide-angle options are rather limited and I'm not looking into exotic glass like 24/2. A 35/2 however will be an interesting lens on the OM2n and a 25/1.4 on M43 with FR? I wouldn't expect the PL25/1.4 quality, but if I can get it for a decent price and the lens has interesting rendering why not.

honestly I don't adapt much wide glass on M43: there is not a lot around that really is wide on a x2 crop factor unless bulk and expense is no issue. I don't see much point on trying to get something out of vintage lenses that native Micro 4/3 can do. However I like using lenses that become a telephoto on my Olympus: anything from 40mm on. The bokeh is very noticeable on longer lenses compared to a wider lens and therefore much more important to me. The widest vintage glass I have for M43 is 18mm. I have a cine lens (for 16mm film) in M-mount (DIY adapter) that is tiny and gives crazy bokeh, then there is a 24mm from the Pentax-110 SLR which is almost too small, really. The Pentax-110 24mm f2.8 is sharp but nothing particularly outstanding as far as rendering goes. The 18mm is yet to be used enough to formulate my opinion. On the other hand the 50mm f2.8 from the Pentax-110 system (and the 70mm f2.8) are truly amazing. Check out this, if interested: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarlydog/albums/72157666759819355

I can't do this with my M.Zuiko glass


Pentax-110 50mm f2.8

Very nice album, thanks for sharing! I've heard about the Pentax-110 lenses, but haven't seen much examples. Your shots are showing they are indeed very interesting. I think the 70/2.8 would be a great addition to my kit, especially considering it's size. Which adapter are you using? The aperture can't be controlled, right?

As about adopting wide lenses, my conclusion after using cheaper adapters were pretty much the same: anything wider than 50mm is probably not worth it and one would be better off saving for native lenses, which is what I did and got 17 and 25 f1.8 (I like both and not planning to part with them). Now I was just thinking of re-visiting this topic considering a FR. But I should probably focus on adapting telephoto lenses on m43 anyway, and if the DoF bug keeps biting me start saving for Noktons.

 

[Robert Schroeder]

For me, the biggest issue of adapting legacy lenses to the (Micro) Four Thirds format, beside the 2x focal length multiplication factor, was the image quality loss due to the 4-mm-thick glass block (filter stack) on Four Thirds sensors (other manufacturers use less glass, mostly around 2 mm). System lenses take that into account in their optical design, whereas legacy lenses obviously don't – but good focal reducers like the Metabones Speed Boosters do, and retroactively correct legacy lenses for the M43 system/sensor design.

So while I was still using a Four Thirds DSLR, to which I already could adapt my Minolta SR lenses mechanically, but for which no focal reducers could be made, I actually bought a cheap Sony NEX (NEX-3, and later a NEX-C3) specifically to use my Minolta lenses "digitally". (And, on pixel level, which should have been virtually the same, the 16 MP Sony images were clearly better with adapted lenses than the 12 MP Olympus images were.)

When I finally moved to Micro Four Thirds 1½ years ago, I sold the NEX and bought a MD/MFT Speed Booster, and since then I'm actually quite happy with my Minolta lenses now, the difference to using them without focal reduction is enormous, and I've actually acquired more of them since then, like the MD 24mm f/2.8 which, giving a 17mm f/2, I thought would be a decent substitute for the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 which I didn't want to buy because of many negative reports – but ended up buying, too, because I got one cheap, and I definitely keep it, too, because I've found it to be much better than I had suspected. While the Minolta solution does really come close in terms of image quality.

I wouldn't want to use legacy lenses ever again without either a good EVF or IBIS, and I wouldn't want to carry a second body just to adapt legacy lenses. For me, I've found the focal reducer solution with Micro Four Thirds to be just what I need, even if the remaining effective 1.4x focal length extension still limits the usefulness of adapted wide-angle lenses.

The legacy (Minolta) lenses which I've found to be liking most and using most often are, by tendency, faster ones, some of which give a Micro Four Thirds user options they wouldn't have with system lenses, or only for lots of money: 35/1.8 (25/1.3), 50/1.4 (35/1.0), 85/2 (60/1.4), 135/2.8 (100/2.0). The fun with the Metabones focal reducer is that all of them are already quite usable wide open.

Cheers,
Robert

 

[krylovsk]

For me, the biggest issue of adapting legacy lenses to the (Micro) Four Thirds format, beside the 2x focal length multiplication factor, was the image quality loss due to the 4-mm-thick glass block (filter stack) on Four Thirds sensors (other manufacturers use less glass, mostly around 2 mm). System lenses take that into account in their optical design, whereas legacy lenses obviously don't – but good focal reducers like the Metabones Speed Boosters do, and retroactively correct legacy lenses for the M43 system/sensor design.

So while I was still using a Four Thirds DSLR, to which I already could adapt my Minolta SR lenses mechanically, but for which no focal reducers could be made, I actually bought a cheap Sony NEX (NEX-3, and later a NEX-C3) specifically to use my Minolta lenses "digitally". (And, on pixel level, which should have been virtually the same, the 16 MP Sony images were clearly better with adapted lenses than the 12 MP Olympus images were.)

Interesting. I haven't heard much about this other than that the GX7 has a particularly "thick" filter stack. I have a 55mm Micro-Nikkor f3.5 and the results I get with it on GX7 are plenty sharp so that I have no lust for Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro lens. I didn't try comparing it to EM5 (which supposedly has a thinner filter stack?), perhaps it's worth a try to better know my gear.

It would be interesting to hear if someone has tested the cheaper FRs (in particular the Mitakon Lens Turbo ii) whether they have such correction or not. My guess is not, but I think as long as the FR doesn't make IQ worse I'll be happy with the result.

When I finally moved to Micro Four Thirds 1½ years ago, I sold the NEX and bought a MD/MFT Speed Booster, and since then I'm actually quite happy with my Minolta lenses now, the difference to using them without focal reduction is enormous, and I've actually acquired more of them since then, like the MD 24mm f/2.8 which, giving a 17mm f/2, I thought would be a decent substitute for the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 which I didn't want to buy because of many negative reports – but ended up buying, too, because I got one cheap, and I definitely keep it, too, because I've found it to be much better than I had suspected. While the Minolta solution does really come close in terms of image quality.

I was hesitant to get the 17/1.8 too, but got it as a birthday present, and love it. This lens basically taught me that sharpness is not the only property of a lens to look for.

I wouldn't want to use legacy lenses ever again without either a good EVF or IBIS, and I wouldn't want to carry a second body just to adapt legacy lenses. For me, I've found the focal reducer solution with Micro Four Thirds to be just what I need, even if the remaining effective 1.4x focal length extension still limits the usefulness of adapted wide-angle lenses.

Thanks. This is the kind of opinion from more experienced folks I was hoping to hear. I think the size and features of the higher-end M43 cameras have got me spoiled and I'll hardly get to like an entry-level APS-C or big FF DSLR.

The legacy (Minolta) lenses which I've found to be liking most and using most often are, by tendency, faster ones, some of which give a Micro Four Thirds user options they wouldn't have with system lenses, or only for lots of money: 35/1.8 (25/1.3), 50/1.4 (35/1.0), 85/2 (60/1.4), 135/2.8 (100/2.0). The fun with the Metabones focal reducer is that all of them are already quite usable wide open.

These indeed sound compelling as the lack of shallower DoF is one of the compromises of M43 I have to live with.

 

[Robert Schroeder]

For me, the biggest issue of adapting legacy lenses to the (Micro) Four Thirds format, beside the 2x focal length multiplication factor, was the image quality loss due to the 4-mm-thick glass block (filter stack) on Four Thirds sensors (other manufacturers use less glass, mostly around 2 mm). System lenses take that into account in their optical design, whereas legacy lenses obviously don't – but good focal reducers like the Metabones Speed Boosters do, and retroactively correct legacy lenses for the M43 system/sensor design.

So while I was still using a Four Thirds DSLR, to which I already could adapt my Minolta SR lenses mechanically, but for which no focal reducers could be made, I actually bought a cheap Sony NEX (NEX-3, and later a NEX-C3) specifically to use my Minolta lenses "digitally". (And, on pixel level, which should have been virtually the same, the 16 MP Sony images were clearly better with adapted lenses than the 12 MP Olympus images were.)

Interesting. I haven't heard much about this other than that the GX7 has a particularly "thick" filter stack. I have a 55mm Micro-Nikkor f3.5 and the results I get with it on GX7 are plenty sharp so that I have no lust for Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro lens. I didn't try comparing it to EM5 (which supposedly has a thinner filter stack?), perhaps it's worth a try to better know my gear.

All Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds cameras (except Blackmagic camcorders, which is one of the reasons there are dedicated Speed Boosters for them) have the 4 mm filter stack; it's part of the system design and cannot be changed without negative effects on the image quality of existing system lenses.

The old manual focus macro lenses were all excellent. That, and the fact that the glass block on the sensor affects slower lenses less than faster ones, explains why your Micro-Nikkor is sharp even with a simple adapter. It's the same with my Minolta MD 50mm f/3.5, which isn't really much worse than the excellent ZD 50mm f/2 I've retained from my Four Thirds days. I never wanted to buy the M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 either – but I did, after Olympus gave me focus bracketing by firmware update and it was the only sensible option I saw to be able to use it for macro...

It would be interesting to hear if someone has tested the cheaper FRs (in particular the Mitakon Lens Turbo ii) whether they have such correction or not. My guess is not, but I think as long as the FR doesn't make IQ worse I'll be happy with the result.

I've seen a comparison between the Speed Booster (even the latest, improved "Ultra" version) and the Mitakon Lens Turbo II which attests both to deliver similar image quality, so I guess at least the LT II has. While I had the Lens Turbo I for E-Mount when I still had the NEX and was rather disappointed, today I'd probably try the Lens Turbo II before paying the premium for the Metabones option – as long as the Lens Turbo II was available for the mount in question (from the Mitakon homepage, I gather that the MFT version of the Lens Turbo II is now available for quite a number of lens mounts: Canon EF, Nikon G, Canon FD, Minolta MD, M42).

 

[GnarlydogOZ]

Very nice album, thanks for sharing! I've heard about the Pentax-110 lenses, but haven't seen much examples. Your shots are showing they are indeed very interesting. I think the 70/2.8 would be a great addition to my kit, especially considering it's size. Which adapter are you using? The aperture can't be controlled, right?

There is a thread started by Tom about the Pentax-110 70mm f2.8 here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57656890

There are images of a DIY adapter I made for those lenses that has an adjustable 2-blade iris harvested from a Pentax-110 camera. It gives unusual bokeh.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I still have my bought new Canon 5D - an excellent camera but you would be wasting your time unless you bought prime time EF lenses to go with it. Cheap EF lenses might be of limited appeal and although you could use MF lenses with it the mirror ovf is not the best way to travel when mirrorless evf is a much nicer way to use pure MF lenses.

In general I think that you are casting your net far too wide to get a sensible answer. You might be able to rephrase your muliple queries over a numbe rof separate threads in order to get more than very general responses.

 

[ProfHankD]

• APS-C: the most versatile option for adopting legacy lenses on a budget? I can get a Sony a3000 or NEX3n for $200-300 and start with cheap adapters and later add a FR to get the FF FoV +1 stop of DoF/light out of my lenses?

Yup. An A3000 + cheap focal reducer was more versatile (because of the with/without FR choice... and nearly as good IQ) as an A7. Still definitely the best bang-for-the-buck.

However, an A6000 is so cheap now, I don't think the A3000 or NEX3n makes sense.

BTW, I regularly shoot with NEX-5, NEX-7, A7, and A7II.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Coming from Panasonic to an Olympus E-M1 body highlights the more bitty, rough around the edges feel of the Olympus interface with all the touches of unfinished genius where the tidying up has not been given enough attention. I could list these but it would seem that I was having a slam at Olympus but in reality I quite like the E-M1. It is just that by comparison the Panasonic interface is smooth and finished and has many fewer loose ends.

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.

Maybe my hands grow steadier as I age or maybe even IBIS cannot fully compensate as I wave the lens about?

I think I have it "all worked out" as I have standardised on the M4/3 mount and use a series of plain and focal reduction adapters for MF lenses, some oem M4/3 lenses and Canon EF lenses by electonic FR and plain adapters.

My only lenses left in a corner are two Samsung NX mount lenses and a couple of LTM mount lenses whose extreme rear protrubrance means that they will not fit inside the camera body cavity. In other words I can use 99% of my lenses on the M4/3 mount system.

That is the way I prefer to be heading and it was quite a long wait before I could effectively re-purpose my EF lens fleet on something not Canon. Sony bodies were simply not up to it in my humble opinion.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[GnarlydogOZ]

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.

 

[Robert Schroeder]

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.

do you take many images around 1/8 sec? 1/4 or 1/2? with a 50mm lens?

Occasionally I do and there is no way I could get a usable images if I switched the IBIS off. Even more so with native lenses of 14mm I often pull off rather sharp pix with 1/2 sec exposures... I used to have a E-PM2 with 3 axis and while it was good I think (no tests, just results back from the field) I can get less blurry pix with handheld situations in low light with 5-axis. Maybe my technique has improved but I thought that after 30 years + at doing it I reached a peak in "steadyness" ? who knows

My experience is similar. I still don't always make the best of it, even though I have the E-M1 (5-axis) for quite some time now. Sometimes I still have to remind myself that, as long as the scene is static, in lowish light (say, 14mm f/3,5 1/20s) I don't even need to shoot wide open, I can actually stop down the lens, be it to increase IQ or DOF or both, to, say, f/8, while still getting a sharp result at 1/4s.

The E-M10 (3-axis) that I've added recently probably has a more effective IS than the E-PM2, but sometimes the difference to the E-M1 is noticeable. I find it sufficient in most situations, though.

The biggest difference of course was a Panasonic G6 I had for a couple of days. I think it's a very nice camera, but the lack of IBIS was a major problem for me. (And contrary to others, coming from Olympus, I cannot adapt well to the Panasonic user interface; I never really got to the point where I could have said the G6 does not stand in my way when shooting. But then again, a couple of days was probably too short...)

 

[krylovsk]

• APS-C: the most versatile option for adopting legacy lenses on a budget? I can get a Sony a3000 or NEX3n for $200-300 and start with cheap adapters and later add a FR to get the FF FoV +1 stop of DoF/light out of my lenses?

Yup. An A3000 + cheap focal reducer was more versatile (because of the with/without FR choice... and nearly as good IQ) as an A7. Still definitely the best bang-for-the-buck.

However, an A6000 is so cheap now, I don't think the A3000 or NEX3n makes sense.

BTW, I regularly shoot with NEX-5, NEX-7, A7, and A7II.

I've come across your article comparing the NEX-7 with FR to A7. It's an interesting and educational read, certainly adding to my motivation in considering this option.

What is most compelling for me on the APS-C/FF road is where M43 comes short: getting more DoF control at wider FoV (28-40mm EQ in FF) relatively cheaply. To get a 35/f2 on M43 the only viable option seems to be the Nokton that would set me back $900, and that is still MF only. I'm not planning to replace my Olympus f1.8 primes here, they give me plenty of DoF for 90% of my shooting and they are so tiny. Instead, I'm looking for specialty solutions that I'll use occasionally to cover that missing 10%.

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.

 

[krylovsk]

Coming from Panasonic to an Olympus E-M1 body highlights the more bitty, rough around the edges feel of the Olympus interface with all the touches of unfinished genius where the tidying up has not been given enough attention. I could list these but it would seem that I was having a slam at Olympus but in reality I quite like the E-M1. It is just that by comparison the Panasonic interface is smooth and finished and has many fewer loose ends.

I actually like the Olympus menu structure better, but I agree that overall the software controls of Panasonic make an impression of being more polished and consistent. Take alone the focus point adjustment with touch screen while looking through EVF on GX7.

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.

Maybe my hands grow steadier as I age or maybe even IBIS cannot fully compensate as I wave the lens about?

My experience is quite different, but then it's quite little
With EM5 I'm able to make usable portraits of adults with 45/f1.8 at up to 1/10, which I would never be able to do with GX7, although I don't have an OIS lens other than the 14-42 kit to compare. And then with EM5 on the street I can pull of shots like this without a tripod:


17mm f1.8 at 1/6

I think I have it "all worked out" as I have standardised on the M4/3 mount and use a series of plain and focal reduction adapters for MF lenses, some oem M4/3 lenses and Canon EF lenses by electonic FR and plain adapters.

What is your most used FL range for adapted lenses?

 

[ProfHankD]

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.

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.

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.

 

[mapgraphs]

• APS-C: the most versatile option for adopting legacy lenses on a budget? I can get a Sony a3000 or NEX3n for $200-300 and start with cheap adapters and later add a FR to get the FF FoV +1 stop of DoF/light out of my lenses?

Yup. An A3000 + cheap focal reducer was more versatile (because of the with/without FR choice... and nearly as good IQ) as an A7. Still definitely the best bang-for-the-buck.

However, an A6000 is so cheap now, I don't think the A3000 or NEX3n makes sense.

BTW, I regularly shoot with NEX-5, NEX-7, A7, and A7II.

I've come across your article comparing the NEX-7 with FR to A7. It's an interesting and educational read, certainly adding to my motivation in considering this option.

What is most compelling for me on the APS-C/FF road is where M43 comes short: getting more DoF control at wider FoV (28-40mm EQ in FF) relatively cheaply. To get a 35/f2 on M43 the only viable option seems to be the Nokton that would set me back $900, and that is still MF only. I'm not planning to replace my Olympus f1.8 primes here, they give me plenty of DoF for 90% of my shooting and they are so tiny. Instead, I'm looking for specialty solutions that I'll use occasionally to cover that missing 10%.

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.

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.)