Olympus OM lens with a Olympus DSLR
Peter Stacey
lens bellows etc. Finally considering getting a DSLR, (E-1?) and am tempted
to go on a path that will allow me to utilise the old equipment, rather than
to scrap it or virtually give it away. Presuming that there is negligible
need/value in the old film gear. An adapter is available to use the old lens
with the 4/3 camera fitting.
Being used to manual focus etc. I thought that I would not feel too
disadvantaged by not having everything automated as is the case nowadays.
However I did think that getting a good 'standard' lens with the new
camera/body would be a good idea.
Has anyone done this and how did it work out? I realise that one can become
emotionally attached to our gear, when from a practical or financial view
the decision is a no brainer. :-(
TIA
Cheers Peter S.
Le Patriote
Forget the 4/3. They already had problems with noise with the E1 (5mp).
Sensor is too small to get anything good (noise) from these cameras.
They also only have 3 AF points , even the D50 has 5 AF points.
Slow flash sync (1/180) and slow frame rate too (2.5fps).
Olympus is dead for me.
Grab a 30D with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 if you can afford it.
Apparently Canon will have new kits/prices starting april 2. One comes with
a 28-125 USM IS (not very wide, but very cheap apparently. We will know more
monday.)
J. Clarke
Thing to be aware of--the 4/3 sensor is half the size of a 35mm
frame--your 24mm effectively becomes a 48mm.
There are adapters on the market that allow OM mount lenses to be used
on Canon bodies. Again, the inexpensive bodies have small sensors,
1/1.6 the size of a 35mm, so your 24mm effectively becomes a 38mm. In
exchange for this you get very good performance at high ISOs.
The 5D and the 1DS have 35mm sensors, your OM lenses will give the same
field of view on them as on your OM, but they're not cheap.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alfred Molon
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
We have over 12000 users of Olympus cameras, mostly DSLRs.
(and forget the dumb advice given by the Canon users - I always wonder
why they need to jump into Olympus threads)
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
J. Clarke
> Ask here:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>
> We have over 12000 users of Olympus cameras, mostly DSLRs.
>
> (and forget the dumb advice given by the Canon users - I always wonder
> why they need to jump into Olympus threads)
Because Canon is the right answer to that particular question.
Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends using
Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
JG
> Go Pentax, Canon or even Nikon.
Why? The OP has already mentioned Olympus? Not everyone wants to be on
the Canon bandwagon, many choose Olympus for other reasons rather than
sheer sledgehammer specification.
>
> Forget the 4/3. They already had problems with noise with the E1 (5mp).
> Sensor is too small to get anything good (noise) from these cameras.
And the others are perfect? Noise is a very complex issue with many
tweaks and workarounds. The E1 has proven itself time and again and if
you were able to broaden your horizons you would know this. Very few
cameras for me match the quality of E1s colour. For me it is the perfect
picture taking machine.
>
> They also only have 3 AF points , even the D50 has 5 AF points.
Sometimes less can be more. The photographer decides not the camera.
>
> Slow flash sync (1/180) and slow frame rate too (2.5fps).
This may not be an issue for the OP. And the frame rate is 3.0 FPS
>
> Olympus is dead for me.
Well you seem to need to prove a point.
>
> Grab a 30D with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 if you can afford it.
Yes sir right away.....
Alfred Molon
says...
> Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends using
> Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
Why do Canon users feel the need to jump into an Olympus thread and
recommend their brand? The OP is asking about an Olympus DSLR.
dj_nme
> In article <euf1a...@news3.newsguy.com>, jclarke...@cox.net
> says...
>
>
>>Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends using
>>Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
>
>
> Why do Canon users feel the need to jump into an Olympus thread and
> recommend their brand? The OP is asking about an Olympus DSLR.
The obvious response Mr Molon, is that because Peter Stacy is starting
from scratch (with digital), he has no investment in FourThirds
equipment and that by using an OM lens on a Digital EOS body there will
be a better use of the glass and the "crop factor" can be 1.6x, 1.3 or 1
(no crop) depending on the body used.
The only digital bodies offered by Olympus all have a 2x crop factor, so
you lose even more of the wide-angle than the smallest sensor EOS (1.6x
crop factor) bodies.
There is no difference in convenience, as to use an OM lens on a
FourThirds body requires an adapter which does not couple the aperture
in any way to the body, which is the exactly same as using it on an EOS
with an adapter.
Yoshi
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2075759a9...@news.supernews.com...
Alfred, its a mystery to me too. For some reason, some Canon users feel the
need to endlessly cheerlead for their cameras. Any mention of a Nikon,
Olympus, or Pentax is like waving a red flag at a bull. They come charging
in to inform the poster that he's a fool for using anything but the "Totally
Digital 20D" or some such rubbish. Seems like they suffer from some sort of
insecurity. Photographers make photographs, equipment is just a means to
that end. This endless touting of ones brand loyalty gets tiresome.
Yoshi
John Bean
<alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <euf1a...@news3.newsguy.com>, jclarke...@cox.net
>says...
>
>> Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends using
>> Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
>
>Why do Canon users feel the need to jump into an Olympus thread and
>recommend their brand? The OP is asking about an Olympus DSLR.
All brands have their blinkered fanboys and I agree that
Canon seems to have more than their fair share of them - but
that's only because there are more Canon users out there
anyway.
Best to ignore them.
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level
and then beat you with experience."
"Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able
to tell the difference."
--
John Bean
J. Clarke
So what Olympus digital camera lets one use a 24mm Olympus OM lens as a
wide angle?
Yoshi
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:euggp...@news3.newsguy.com...
> So what Olympus digital camera lets one use a 24mm Olympus OM lens as a
> wide angle?
>
> --
> --
> --John
Not the point. There are many photograhers that simply have no interest in
the Canon fanboy ranting.
If you enjoy your Canon, use it. Raving about Canon at every opportunity is
simply annoying and serves no purpose.
Yoshi
Le Patriote
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:euf1a...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > Ask here:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> >
> > We have over 12000 users of Olympus cameras, mostly DSLRs.
only 12000 ? lol
J. Clarke
That _is_ the point. The guy has existing OM lenses including a 24mm
that he wants to continue to use. What Olympus camera should he get
that lets him continue to use them like he used them with his OM? If
there is one please identify it. If there isn't one then please explain
why suggesting an alternative that does allow this is "fanboy ranting"?
Yoshi
mentioning the word "Canon". I'm really not interested in Canon evangelism.
Go preach to the converts.
Yoshi
J. Clarke
So you have no recommendation at all for him? You're saying what, that
he shouldn't get a digital camera at all? That he should toss his OM
lenses in the trash? What?
As for having 244 archived posts containing the word Canon, RichA
probably has vastly more than that containing the word "plastic". From
that are we to conclude that he is a "plastic fanboy"?
John McWilliams
> mentioning the word "Canon". I'm really not interested in Canon evangelism.
> Go preach to the converts.
That's because Mr. Clarke doesn't trim too often. I'd hardly classify
him as a zealot for any brand anywhere. Oh, I believe he's anti-Mac, but
not rabidly so.
And, so, Yoshi, who are you? Have you been posting here under a
different name, and might you tell us what?
--
john mcwilliams
dbd
To go back to the OP's question,
Here's a web site that includes discussion and reviews of OM lenses on
EVOLT bodies:
http://fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/
Good luck!
Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
J. Clarke
> Yoshi wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>
>> Exactly the point. You have 244 archived posts in this newsgroup
>> mentioning the word "Canon". I'm really not interested in Canon
>> evangelism. Go preach to the converts.
>
> That's because Mr. Clarke doesn't trim too often. I'd hardly classify
> him as a zealot for any brand anywhere. Oh, I believe he's anti-Mac,
> but not rabidly so.
I don't have any problem with Macs per se. Its' the bunker mentality of
many of the users that gives me trouble. That and their stupid
advertisements.
> And, so, Yoshi, who are you? Have you been posting here under a
> different name, and might you tell us what?
--
Centella Cajon
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>So you have no recommendation at all for him? You're saying what, that
>he shouldn't get a digital camera at all? That he should toss his OM
>lenses in the trash? What?
>
>As for having 244 archived posts containing the word Canon, RichA
>probably has vastly more than that containing the word "plastic". From
>that are we to conclude that he is a "plastic fanboy"?
As an owner of both Olympus and Canon digitals, I assure you that you
are, indeed, an annoying ass.
Peter Stacey
about.
Alfred Molon, I have taken your advice and looked/signed up at MyOlympus.
Cheers and thanks again. Peter Stacey.
******************************
"Peter Stacey" <lps_...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a05a4$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
>I have a range of Olympus OM 1 &2 gear,
<SNIP>
Finally considering getting a DSLR, (E-1?) and am tempted
> to go on a path that will allow me to utilise the old equipment, rather
> than
> to scrap it or virtually give it away.
<SNIP>
J. Clarke
Was that directed at me or Yoshi?
Fred McKenzie
"Yoshi" <otak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:euggp...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > So what Olympus digital camera lets one use a 24mm Olympus OM lens as a
> > wide angle?
>
> Not the point. There are many photograhers that simply have no interest in
> the Canon fanboy ranting.
> If you enjoy your Canon, use it. Raving about Canon at every opportunity is
> simply annoying and serves no purpose.
That is exactly the point.
I also have a nice collection of Olympus OM lenses and bodies, but have
a few other camera brands as well. Of all, my favorite would be the
Olympus. In spite of that, I'm aware of the improvement in quality when
less enlargement is required to produce a given image size. Therefore
my digital cameras have the largest sensors I can afford. The OM lenses
aren't all TWICE as sharp as other brands' better lenses.
The main reason I would not go the route of adapting the OM lenses, is
that it is difficult to manually focus a lens on an AF body. They just
weren't designed to do that. Unless you could find an AF body with a
split-image focusing aid, manual focus would be just an exercise in
proving you can use the old lenses in spite of the nuisance.
If you are die-hard Olympus, then by all means use an Olympus digital
body and an adapter for the OM lenses.
Fred
Alfred Molon
says...
> The main reason I would not go the route of adapting the OM lenses, is
> that it is difficult to manually focus a lens on an AF body. They just
> weren't designed to do that. Unless you could find an AF body with a
> split-image focusing aid, manual focus would be just an exercise in
> proving you can use the old lenses in spite of the nuisance.
It is possible to add a split focus screen to an Olympus DSLR. Here is a
long thread about that:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/message/72245
(you have to register to be able to view it - it's a very long thread
and I can't post it here).
John Bean
reason I would not go the route of adapting the OM lenses,
is
>that it is difficult to manually focus a lens on an AF body. They just
>weren't designed to do that. Unless you could find an AF body with a
>split-image focusing aid, manual focus would be just an exercise in
>proving you can use the old lenses in spite of the nuisance.
You can buy a split-image screen for any AF camera that has
replaceable screens: http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/
Personally I don't like them; when I had OM cameras I
usually changed the standard screen for a plain matte
version. I've never had any problems with MF on the fine
matte screens of my Pentax *istD or Olympus E-1 ether, but
the small dim screens of the other Olympus bodies may be
more of a challenge.
The Olympus E-330 has "live view", one mode of which
displays a magnified view of the focus screen you see
through the finder - a sort of built-in Zigview. I'm told by
users that it's excellent for MF.
There are lots of sensible ways to use old MF lenses on a
modern digital body - including Olympus bodies.
--
John Bean
Guy
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Ask here:
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>>
>> We have over 12000 users of Olympus cameras, mostly DSLRs.
>>
>> (and forget the dumb advice given by the Canon users - I always wonder
>> why they need to jump into Olympus threads)
>
> Because Canon is the right answer to that particular question.
>
> Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends using
> Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
>
Sorry, but no; Canon is not the right answer. The OP asked about
experience using OM lenses on new Olympus DSLRs not your advice on using
them on Canon bodies. You "answer" was irrelevant and self indulgent.
Enjoy your Canon gear quietly unless asked. And no, nobody asked me
either. -Guy
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Ask here:
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>>>
>>> We have over 12000 users of Olympus cameras, mostly DSLRs.
>>>
>>> (and forget the dumb advice given by the Canon users - I always
>>> wonder why they need to jump into Olympus threads)
>>
>> Because Canon is the right answer to that particular question.
>>
>> Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends using
>> Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
> Sorry, but no; Canon is not the right answer.
Then what is the right answer? What digital camera should someone with
existing OM lenses use to get the most benefit out of those lenses and
why?
I notice you Olympus zealots being real bit on insulting anyone who
actually tries to help somebody while not offering one single word of
actual useful information yourselves.
> The OP asked about
> experience using OM lenses on new Olympus DSLRs not your advice on
> using them on Canon bodies. You "answer" was irrelevant and self
> indulgent.
Actually it was quite civil compared to the post to which it was a
response.
> Enjoy your Canon gear quietly unless asked. And no, nobody asked me
> either. -Guy
Is it all right with you if I also enjoy my Nikon, Panasonic, Yashica,
Mamiya, and Leica gear?
And who appointed you moderator?
Guy
> Guy wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> Ask here:
>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>>>>
>>>> We have over 12000 users of Olympus cameras, mostly DSLRs.
>>>>
>>>> (and forget the dumb advice given by the Canon users - I always
>>>> wonder why they need to jump into Olympus threads)
>>> Because Canon is the right answer to that particular question.
>>>
>>> Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends using
>>> Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
>
>> Sorry, but no; Canon is not the right answer.
>
> Then what is the right answer? What digital camera should someone with
> existing OM lenses use to get the most benefit out of those lenses and
> why?
The "right answer" would at least address the question or issue
directly. By leaping to a tangential argument you dismiss the OPs
question/concern as irrelevant. If you addressed the question directly
then segue to your preferred solution with logical arguments connecting
the two you will respect your reader. I doubt there is one "right"
answer anyway.
>
> I notice you Olympus zealots being real bit on insulting anyone who
> actually tries to help somebody while not offering one single word of
> actual useful information yourselves.
>
I wouldn't call myself an Olympus zealot, I don't own one but I do own 2
Canons.
>> The OP asked about
>> experience using OM lenses on new Olympus DSLRs not your advice on
>> using them on Canon bodies. You "answer" was irrelevant and self
>> indulgent.
>
> Actually it was quite civil compared to the post to which it was a
> response.
I didn't say you were un-civil... just irrelevant and self indulgent. If
you want to grind your own ax, don't be surprised when people notice.
>
>> Enjoy your Canon gear quietly unless asked. And no, nobody asked me
>> either. -Guy
>
> Is it all right with you if I also enjoy my Nikon, Panasonic, Yashica,
> Mamiya, and Leica gear?
>
Sure, why not and thanks for asking permission. Just keep quiet about
them too.
> And who appointed you moderator?
>
Me. You post publicly, I responded publicly. The Internet is amazing,
just ask Al Gore. -Guy
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Guy wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> Ask here:
>>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>>>>>
>>>>> We have over 12000 users of Olympus cameras, mostly DSLRs.
>>>>>
>>>>> (and forget the dumb advice given by the Canon users - I always
>>>>> wonder why they need to jump into Olympus threads)
>>>> Because Canon is the right answer to that particular question.
>>>>
>>>> Now why do you feel it necessary to slam anybody who recommends
>>>> using Olympus lenses on Canon bodies?
>>
>>> Sorry, but no; Canon is not the right answer.
>>
>> Then what is the right answer? What digital camera should someone
>> with existing OM lenses use to get the most benefit out of those
>> lenses and why?
>
> The "right answer" would at least address the question or issue
> directly. By leaping to a tangential argument you dismiss the OPs
> question/concern as irrelevant. If you addressed the question
> directly then segue to your preferred solution with logical arguments
> connecting the two you will respect your reader. I doubt there is one
> "right" answer anyway.
>> I notice you Olympus zealots being real bit on insulting anyone who
>> actually tries to help somebody while not offering one single word of
>> actual useful information yourselves.
>>
> I wouldn't call myself an Olympus zealot, I don't own one but I do
> own 2 Canons.
Then what exactly are you on about? Are you just bitching to be
bitching?
>>> The OP asked about
>>> experience using OM lenses on new Olympus DSLRs not your advice on
>>> using them on Canon bodies. You "answer" was irrelevant and self
>>> indulgent.
>>
>> Actually it was quite civil compared to the post to which it was a
>> response.
>
> I didn't say you were un-civil... just irrelevant and self indulgent.
> If you want to grind your own ax, don't be surprised when people
> notice.
What axe is that?
>>> Enjoy your Canon gear quietly unless asked. And no, nobody asked me
>>> either. -Guy
>>
>> Is it all right with you if I also enjoy my Nikon, Panasonic,
>> Yashica, Mamiya, and Leica gear?
>>
> Sure, why not and thanks for asking permission. Just keep quiet about
> them too.
>> And who appointed you moderator?
>>
> Me. You post publicly, I responded publicly. The Internet is amazing,
> just ask Al Gore. -Guy
I see. So you think you're the moderator on an unmoderated newsgroup.
<plonk>
Alfred Molon
says...
> I notice you Olympus zealots being real bit on insulting anyone who
"zealots" - now who is insulting who?
For your information the OP joined the myolympus forum, posted the
question there and got five useful and detailed replies. Instead here,
this thread became a pissing contest as soon as Canon users jumped in.
J. Clarke
> In article <eumqu...@news2.newsguy.com>, jclarke...@cox.net
> says...
>
>> I notice you Olympus zealots being real bit on insulting anyone who
>
> "zealots" - now who is insulting who?
>
> For your information the OP joined the myolympus forum, posted the
> question there and got five useful and detailed replies. Instead here,
> this thread became a pissing contest as soon as Canon users jumped in.
And who did all the pissing?
ASAAR
>> For your information the OP joined the myolympus forum, posted the
>> question there and got five useful and detailed replies. Instead here,
>> this thread became a pissing contest as soon as Canon users jumped in.
>
> And who did all the pissing?
"You'll wonder where the yellow went,
When you clean your jeans with Pepsodent."
Rich
> Go Pentax, Canon or even Nikon.
>
> Forget the 4/3. They already had problems with noise with the E1 (5mp).
> Sensor is too small to get anything good (noise) from these cameras.
>
> They also only have 3 AF points , even the D50 has 5 AF points.
>
> Slow flash sync (1/180) and slow frame rate too (2.5fps).
>
> Olympus is dead for me.
>
> Grab a 30D with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 if you can afford it.
>
> Apparently Canon will have new kits/prices starting april 2. One comes with
> a 28-125 USM IS (not very wide, but very cheap apparently. We will know more
> monday.)
He could do that AND use his Oly lenses with an adapter, many higher-
level Canon users do already. Some even go so far as to shave down
the mirrors in their 5Ds and use other lens brands to get decent image
quality. BTW, there is one major difference between the E-1 and Canon
gear, the E-1 has rarely failed in rough service.
Kennedy McEwen
<guy.j...@comcast.net> writes
>
>Sorry, but no; Canon is not the right answer. The OP asked about
>experience using OM lenses on new Olympus DSLRs
No he didn't - I suggest YOU and the others complaining about non-Oly
focusses responses read the original post again, carefully this time!
"I have a range of Olympus OM 1 &2 gear, including 24mm, 35-70mm
75-150mm lens bellows etc. Finally considering getting a DSLR, (E-1?)
and am tempted to go on a path that will allow me to utilise the old
equipment, rather than to scrap it or virtually give it away."
He is quite generally considering "a DSLR" and merely questions where an
E1 would be suitable to meet his needs.
Responses suggesting ANY dSLR camera, whether Canon, Pentax, Nikon, or
SuperHabadashi for that matter, are just as relevant responses to what
the OP asked as those suggesting Olympus cameras.
Sadly, as an Olympus OM user of over 33 years standing, when faced with
exactly the same question as the OP, Olympus was NOT the answer.
After decades of using well loved OM glass, I was not about to let
Olympus Corporate's 4/3 detour down a blind alley restrict me to using a
QUARTER of my lenses field areas and specifically throw away the very
areas (edges and corners) where they excelled over other glass. A Canon
30D, Pentax K10 or Nikon D200 isn't the answer to that either.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Guy
<SNIP>
>> Me. You post publicly, I responded publicly. The Internet is amazing,
>> just ask Al Gore. -Guy
>
> I see. So you think you're the moderator on an unmoderated newsgroup.
>
> <plonk>
>
A sense of humor like a rock. Remember, all things in moderation. -Guy
willx34
lenses on current Olympus DSLR's in any of the responses posted, but hey,
there were many responses and it's late at night.
I recently purchased an Evolt 500 <my first DSLR> and I still have my old
Zuiko 50mm 1.8 and 28mm 2.8 lenses from my old OM-1 and OM-2n days.
Is is worthwhile to go ahead and buy the Olympus MF-1 OM adapter to use my 2
old lenses? Would I lose/gain anything in terms of image quality, etc.? I
don't mind spending the $100.00 for the adapter if the pluses outweigh the
minuses. Any help on the matter would be greatly appreciated by this DSLR
newbie.
"Peter Stacey" <lps_...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:460a05a4$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
>I have a range of Olympus OM 1 &2 gear, including 24mm, 35-70mm 75-150mm
> lens bellows etc. Finally considering getting a DSLR, (E-1?) and am
> tempted
> to go on a path that will allow me to utilise the old equipment, rather
> than
> to scrap it or virtually give it away. Presuming that there is negligible
> need/value in the old film gear. An adapter is available to use the old
> lens
> with the 4/3 camera fitting.
>
> Being used to manual focus etc. I thought that I would not feel too
> disadvantaged by not having everything automated as is the case nowadays.
> However I did think that getting a good 'standard' lens with the new
> camera/body would be a good idea.
>
Alfred Molon
r...@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
> No he didn't - I suggest YOU and the others complaining about non-Oly
> focusses responses read the original post again, carefully this time!
>
> "I have a range of Olympus OM 1 &2 gear, including 24mm, 35-70mm
> 75-150mm lens bellows etc. Finally considering getting a DSLR, (E-1?)
> and am tempted to go on a path that will allow me to utilise the old
> equipment, rather than to scrap it or virtually give it away."
>
> He is quite generally considering "a DSLR" and merely questions where an
> E1 would be suitable to meet his needs.
Title of this thread: "Olympus OM lens with a Olympus DSLR" not "Olympus
OM lens with a DSLR"
nospam
<wil...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I'm not certain that I found the actual answer to the question of using OM
> lenses on current Olympus DSLR's in any of the responses posted, but hey,
> there were many responses and it's late at night.
>
> I recently purchased an Evolt 500 <my first DSLR> and I still have my old
> Zuiko 50mm 1.8 and 28mm 2.8 lenses from my old OM-1 and OM-2n days.
>
> Is is worthwhile to go ahead and buy the Olympus MF-1 OM adapter to use my 2
> old lenses? Would I lose/gain anything in terms of image quality, etc.? I
> don't mind spending the $100.00 for the adapter if the pluses outweigh the
> minuses. Any help on the matter would be greatly appreciated by this DSLR
> newbie.
image quality? not really.
field of view? yes.
the 50mm will have an equivalent field of view as a 100mm f/1.8 and the
28mm will be equivalent to a 56mm f/2.8.
depending on what you shoot, that might be good or bad. a 100mm f/1.8
could be quite useful, for instance, but if you enjoy wide angle, the
28mm won't be wide at all.
Kennedy McEwen
<alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <hCJmp3E3p$DGF...@kennedym.demon.co.uk>,
>r...@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
>
>> No he didn't - I suggest YOU and the others complaining about non-Oly
>> focusses responses read the original post again, carefully this time!
>>
>> "I have a range of Olympus OM 1 &2 gear, including 24mm, 35-70mm
>> 75-150mm lens bellows etc. Finally considering getting a DSLR, (E-1?)
>> and am tempted to go on a path that will allow me to utilise the old
>> equipment, rather than to scrap it or virtually give it away."
>>
>> He is quite generally considering "a DSLR" and merely questions where an
>> E1 would be suitable to meet his needs.
>
>Title of this thread: "Olympus OM lens with a Olympus DSLR" not "Olympus
>OM lens with a DSLR"
But that isn't the question asked!
John Bean
<wil...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Is is worthwhile to go ahead and buy the Olympus MF-1 OM adapter to use my 2
>old lenses?
One option is to buy one of the similar cheap adaptors from
ebay. They are not as well made as the Olympus one but they
do the job at a fraction of the cost, usually less than $20
shipped. If you find yourself using them a lot you could
then buy the better engineered MF-1, and if not you haven't
wasted $100.
>Would I lose/gain anything in terms of image quality, etc.?
The OM lenses have better character than many of the digital
versions, certainly not sharper, but generally smoother
"bokeh". They also have lower contrast but that isn't really
an issue with digital. In short the give a different "look"
to the images. Try it :-)
--
John Bean
J. Clarke
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 04:49:21 GMT, "willx34"
> <wil...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> Is is worthwhile to go ahead and buy the Olympus MF-1 OM adapter to
>> use my 2 old lenses?
>
>
> One option is to buy one of the similar cheap adaptors from
> ebay. They are not as well made as the Olympus one but they
> do the job at a fraction of the cost, usually less than $20
> shipped. If you find yourself using them a lot you could
> then buy the better engineered MF-1, and if not you haven't
> wasted $100.
Danger Will Robinson (that's a TV reference if you're too young to get
it).
I found out the hard way that the cheap adapters aren't precise fits and
may shed crud as they wear in, which crud gets all over the inside of
the camera. Some of the crud is metal filings which can scratch
whatever they land on (DAMHIKT) and may result in repair costs exceeding
the cost of the adapter. If somebody had _told_ me that I'd be about
400 bucks richer now--fortunately I tried to clean the focusing screen
first and when it got scratched up I paid a pro shop to clean the rest
(and replace the screen), telling them up front that there were metal
filings in the camera. If I'd gone after the sensor first I'd be out a
camera.
With some systems you can get easily find an older or dead body with the
same mount and use it to wear in the adapters. 4/3 are new enough on
the market that that's pretty much not an option, but who knows, you may
luck into one sombody dropped off a cliff or something. Another way to
do it is to get an extension tube and use it to wear in the adapters,
but unless you want an extension tube anyway that route will cost you as
much as an Olympus adapter will.
>> Would I lose/gain anything in terms of image quality, etc.?
>
> The OM lenses have better character than many of the digital
> versions, certainly not sharper, but generally smoother
> "bokeh". They also have lower contrast but that isn't really
> an issue with digital. In short the give a different "look"
> to the images. Try it :-)
--
Fred McKenzie
"willx34" <wil...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I recently purchased an Evolt 500 <my first DSLR> and I still have my old
> Zuiko 50mm 1.8 and 28mm 2.8 lenses from my old OM-1 and OM-2n days.
>
> Is is worthwhile to go ahead and buy the Olympus MF-1 OM adapter to use my 2
> old lenses?
Will-
Perhaps it depends on the model you purchase, but I read somewhere that
Olympus would send you a free adapter if you asked. If that is true,
you have nothing to lose. Even if you have to pay, it would probably be
handy to have the adapter anyway.
What would you gain? Two lenses.
What would you lose? Field of view. Loss of sharpness due to
additional 2X enlargement required to produce the same final image.
(Compared to use on the OM body.)
This loss of sharpness isn't all bad, since lenses specifically designed
for the 4/3 sensor face the same amount of enlargement. Additionally,
the fixed-focal length lenses are probably noticeably sharper than a
zoom lens such as the kit lens that may have come with the Evolt 500.
Fred
John Bean
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>I found out the hard way that the cheap adapters aren't precise fits and
>may shed crud as they wear in, which crud gets all over the inside of
>the camera. Some of the crud is metal filings which can scratch
>whatever they land on (DAMHIKT) and may result in repair costs exceeding
>the cost of the adapter. If somebody had _told_ me that I'd be about
>400 bucks richer now--fortunately I tried to clean the focusing screen
>first and when it got scratched up I paid a pro shop to clean the rest
>(and replace the screen), telling them up front that there were metal
>filings in the camera. If I'd gone after the sensor first I'd be out a
>camera.
You have a 4/3 camera? Which cheap adaptor caused the
problem?
I have several, I have no problem with any of them.
--
John Bean
J. Clarke
The adapter was one of the ones sold on ebay. If you have had no
problem that is nice, but it's better that someone be aware that it can
happen than be surprised with a camera full of crud that has to be
professionally removed.