Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

Well I've done it....many of you will think I'm mad, but I've ordered the EM1X and it should be arriving tomorrow.

The rational was that I was never totally happy running two different Micro four thirds camera systems (The EM1.2 and the Panasonic G9). The G9 has some lovely features and feels great, but most of the things it has (that affects me), that the EM1.2 doesn't, the EM1 X has (AF Joystick, USB Charging, configurable AF arrays) etc. Also, my Olympus long glass always fitted better on the EM1.2, and had a bit of slack in the lens mount on the G9. Don't get me wrong the G9 is a cracking camera and if I didn't own so much Olympus glass I'd have probably kept it.

The deal sealer for me though was the part ex price that I got for my gripped G9 along with the additional £200 trade in allowance Olympus i running was only a few hundred below what I paid for the G9 last year. Couple with the fact that I'm also part exchanging the remainder of my Nikon gear (don't have a Nikon body anymore), then the EM1X will only cost me a few hundred pounds to change. Yes the EM1X is overpriced and will no doubt fall in price in a year or so, but I always knew it was a body I wanted when it was announced.

I'll await the berating from my dear friends on this forum who will no doubt think I need medical treatment for buying such a ridiculously expensive micro four thirds camera :D:D


Not mad at all, I'm half considering one myself (but would probably wait for the price to drop).

My EM1ii is my full guns blazing no compromise camera for occasions where that's required and on such occasions I am happy to carry something bigger if it means better performance. For most things I still use my EM5ii, which is still a fantastic camera; I guess what might scupper an EM1x is an announcement of an EM5iii.

On the other hand, an A7iii + prime looks mighty tempting...
 
Another vote for the little extra flash that you get with the Pen F and OM-D 1 MkII, surprisingly useful!
 
On the other hand, an A7iii + prime looks mighty tempting...

I don't think many would refuse that! What turns me off Sony is all of the better glass is very expensive, and I'd only be kidding myself that I could have some juicy ones over time - because well, bills and feeding children that kinda thing :D there was a time I was much more comfortable spending a tonne on my hobby but nowadays I try to keep it minimal so I stick to the one camera and bare min of lenses. I sell on anything I'm not making good use of. I do envy those who can manage to run more than one system at a time, but then I remember anytime I tried it would just end in frustration and even more GAS.

There's also the side that aggressive Sony users actually turn me right off going that direction, they'd have you believe that Sony invented photography and every added feature since the dawn of the camera. It's almost like a cult at times! :D
 
Last edited:
Cool, I've never had a go at that.

The car park is a designated dark skies location, sadly there were a few 'doggers' there last time i went.
 
did you get caught then Swissy :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Ahem...back to the more serious stuff....

Been playing around a bit more with the EM1X, and another nice undocumented (at least I've not seen it mentioned yet), is that when in image review mode, one tap of the AF joystick brings up the focus area and another quick tap zooms into 100% (just like my old Nikon cameras), and another tap of the joystick zooms right back out again.

There's also a new info screen (when you have the SCP shown on the rear screen, a press of the "INFO" button, brings up the "field data" screen showing GPS location details, elevation, temperature, heading and barometric pressure readings (my camera was indoors so couldn't achieve a GPS lock when the photo was taken). Whilst mentioning the GPS data, I also wasn't aware that by using the Olympus OI Track app (for Android or IOS), you can download A-GPS data and send it wirelessly to the camera to speed up GPS lock. I've done this and to be fair, outside, the camera only takes a few seconds to achieve full GPS lock. Quite impressive.



There's also a GPS "tracking" option, where the camera records sensor and GPS data at regular intervals to create a log. Logs can be viewed using the “OLYMPUS Image Track” (OI.Track) smartphone app. You can see the route you travelled with your camera and the locations where pictures were taken. (not tried this yet)
 
Last edited:
Ahem...back to the more serious stuff....

Been playing around a bit more with the EM1X, and another nice undocumented (at least I've not seen it mentioned yet), is that when in image review mode, one tap of the AF joystick brings up the focus area and another quick tap zooms into 100% (just like my old Nikon cameras), and another tap of the joystick zooms right back out again.

There's also a new info screen (when you have the SCP shown on the rear screen, a press of the "INFO" button, brings up the "field data" screen showing GPS location details, elevation, temperature, heading and barometric pressure readings (my camera was indoors so couldn't achieve a GPS lock when the photo was taken)

I like the implementation of the 1:1 zoom on the focus point, I use that all the time on the Nikon to check focus.

If you use the joystick to move the AF point can you press and hold it to move from one side of the screen to the other or do you have to press it for each movement like you do on the d-pad of the other ollies?

I read somewhere that the EM1-X has store AF point by orientation, is this true? Really bugs me the EM1-II doesn’t have this.
 
As you hold the joystick the AF point continues to move (even diagonally), so you don't have to keep nudging it one point at a time, it's a continuous movement.

And yes, the 1X gets AF by orientation which can not only remember the AF position, but also the AF mode you were set to in each orientation

 
Just for comparison as well I've just weighed my Fujifilm X-T3 (on the same scales as yesterday) - so X-T3 body, two SD cards, battery grip and the 3 batteries.

Total 925g vs EM1X @ 1,010g

Just thought some on here might be interested ?
 
As you hold the joystick the AF point continues to move (even diagonally), so you don't have to keep nudging it one point at a time, it's a continuous movement.

And yes, the 1X gets AF by orientation which can not only remember the AF position, but also the AF mode you were set to in each orientation

Three great features, gives me hope for the EM1-III ;) TBH I don't see why they cant't implement the AF point and mode by orientation on the EM1-II with a firmware update, fingers crossed :)
 
Three great features, gives me hope for the EM1-III ;) TBH I don't see why they cant't implement the AF point and mode by orientation on the EM1-II with a firmware update, fingers crossed :)

A lot of the X features could be added to the Em1II via FW I'd imagine - whether or not Oly will do it is another story.
 
Three great features, gives me hope for the EM1-III ;) TBH I don't see why they cant't implement the AF point and mode by orientation on the EM1-II with a firmware update, fingers crossed :)

But even Fujifilm (known for their update) haven't rolled this feature out across all models, it came on an update for the x-t2, has been included on the X-t3, but I would love it on an X100F - the Fuji version has 3 points remembers, one for horizontal (normal way up) and one each for both the possible vertical orientations. There isn't one for upside down though!!! Remembering the AF mode on the EM1-X is neat though.

Just for comparison as well I've just weighed my Fujifilm X-T3 (on the same scales as yesterday) - so X-T3 body, two SD cards, battery grip and the 3 batteries.

Total 925g vs EM1X @ 1,010g

Just thought some on here might be interested ?

No real surprise there, for me though I'm happy without the battery grip to keep weight down.
 
A lot of the X features could be added to the Em1II via FW I'd imagine - whether or not Oly will do it is another story.
But even Fujifilm (known for their update) haven't rolled this feature out across all models, it came on an update for the x-t2, has been included on the X-t3, but I would love it on an X100F - the Fuji version has 3 points remembers, one for horizontal (normal way up) and one each for both the possible vertical orientations. There isn't one for upside down though!!! Remembering the AF mode on the EM1-X is neat though.
.

Olly tend to be pretty good with their updates though so I'm hopeful, for AF point by orientation at least (y)
 
Whilst I'm finding the EM1X a real joy to use, I still very much love the smaller lighter package of the EM1 MK II as well, and it will most like remain my travel camera (with the 12-100 F4 Pro), so like Snerkler and Cagey, I'd love to see some of those features trickle down via firmware updates. I think this would also help Olympus by keeping the EM1 MK II relevant and in the public eye until the MK III arrives (when ever that is), as I appreciate the EM1X isn't for everyone and could be out of a lot of people's reach financially anyway.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I'm finding the EM1X a real joy to use, I still very much love the smaller lighter package of the EM1 MK II as well, and it will most like remain my travel camera (with the 12-100 F4 Pro), so like Snerkler and Cagey, I'd love to see some of those features trickle down via firmware updates. I think this would also help Olympus by keeping the EM1 MK II relevant and in the public eye until the MK III arrives (when ever that is), as I appreciate the EM1X isn't for everyone and could be out of a lot of people's reach financially anyway.
I can't see an EM1-III out for a while tbh so would expect some features to be added to the Mark II. I think the EM5-III will be next and I've not heard anything about that yet either.
 
I don't think many would refuse that! What turns me off Sony is all of the better glass is very expensive, and I'd only be kidding myself that I could have some juicy ones over time - because well, bills and feeding children that kinda thing :D there was a time I was much more comfortable spending a tonne on my hobby but nowadays I try to keep it minimal so I stick to the one camera and bare min of lenses. I sell on anything I'm not making good use of. I do envy those who can manage to run more than one system at a time, but then I remember anytime I tried it would just end in frustration and even more GAS.

There's also the side that aggressive Sony users actually turn me right off going that direction, they'd have you believe that Sony invented photography and every added feature since the dawn of the camera. It's almost like a cult at times! :D

Yes, our twins are 4 weeks old so the time of splashing cash on toys will be gone very very soon so this would be a final throw, as it were.

But, I rather like my m43 gear and really dislike the pious-full-frame-brigade and like that when I do post photos absolutely no one comments on the camera it was taken on. OTOH, Continuous eye-AF (Oly is only S-AF)and a f/1.8 prime would be a wonderful thing to have for when the twins start moving...
 
Yes, our twins are 4 weeks old so the time of splashing cash on toys will be gone very very soon so this would be a final throw, as it were.

But, I rather like my m43 gear and really dislike the pious-full-frame-brigade and like that when I do post photos absolutely no one comments on the camera it was taken on. OTOH, Continuous eye-AF (Oly is only S-AF)and a f/1.8 prime would be a wonderful thing to have for when the twins start moving...

I would love to have a simple FF set up on side. Which is funny, because when I did have it I wanted to have a smaller set up on side :D and I did try many good compacts to go with, the Rx100, the X100s, had the X10 too along with various others. None of them fit the bill at the time. And I got fed up with FF ... always felt I needed my images to be up to a certain standard to justify having that big hefty gear.

I Have pondered on many options, even something as simple as a 6D and 50 1.8, specifically for portrait or very dim light situations. For all else I'm happy with my wee G80 and 12-40, it's all i really use atm because I've not been shooting near as much as I'd like. But, It's spring again, and along with the sudden 'must do up the house' phase we go through, along comes the GAS!
 
I would love to have a simple FF set up on side. Which is funny, because when I did have it I wanted to have a smaller set up on side :D and I did try many good compacts to go with, the Rx100, the X100s, had the X10 too along with various others. None of them fit the bill at the time. And I got fed up with FF ... always felt I needed my images to be up to a certain standard to justify having that big hefty gear.

I Have pondered on many options, even something as simple as a 6D and 50 1.8, specifically for portrait or very dim light situations. For all else I'm happy with my wee G80 and 12-40, it's all i really use atm because I've not been shooting near as much as I'd like. But, It's spring again, and along with the sudden 'must do up the house' phase we go through, along comes the GAS!
I still love the shallow DOF of FF but I hate carrying all the weight around (I use heavy zooms and am not generally a prime shooter). Recently I've been looking into the whole 3D look, I hear/read time and time again that FF has a more 3D quality than smaller formats, and I've even said this myself but I'm not sure why and the more I think about it the more it doesn't make sense. I'm not talking about the 'pop' that shallow DOF gives. Now I've seen it said that it's because you're cropping into an image, but this again doesn't make sense as you're not. M4/3 lenses produce an m4/3 sized image circle and so you're not cropping anything. I've seen it said that FF has better micro contrast but I don't know about this, isn't micro contrast more down to the lens rather than sensor size? That being said what I have noticed is that my Olympus images often don't reach the edges of the histogram in LR, whereas my Nikon ones almost always do (one or the other or both). I know that the scene is the biggest determining factor but it's just an observation that the Olly files don't reach the edges of the histogram far more than with Nikon.

All that being said I've been scouring Flickr this past week and I stumbled across some images that appeared to have that FF 'depth' to them but when I checked the EXIF they were images taken with an old Rokkor 58mm f1.4 on an Olly Pen EP1. So is it FF that gives this so called depth or is it lenses? If it's the latter then why don't more m4/3 lenses appear to give this effect? I commend the sharpness of m4/3 lenses, but I do wish that you could get more with that 'depth'. The PL 42.5mm f1.2 is probably the best I've seen in this regards, but I'm starting to wonder if I'd be better off looking at some old legacy lenses and adapting them to m4/3 and getting used to using manual focus?

TBH though I think this is a general trend for lenses, it appears that 'we' need to have them as sharp as possible without taking as much consideration of the overall rendering. It's like the Leica SL lenses, from the images I've seen they're sharp as hell but lost that classic Leica look.

Sorry for rambling, just 'talking' out loud really ;)
 
I still love the shallow DOF of FF but I hate carrying all the weight around (I use heavy zooms and am not generally a prime shooter). Recently I've been looking into the whole 3D look, I hear/read time and time again that FF has a more 3D quality than smaller formats, and I've even said this myself but I'm not sure why and the more I think about it the more it doesn't make sense. I'm not talking about the 'pop' that shallow DOF gives. Now I've seen it said that it's because you're cropping into an image, but this again doesn't make sense as you're not. M4/3 lenses produce an m4/3 sized image circle and so you're not cropping anything. I've seen it said that FF has better micro contrast but I don't know about this, isn't micro contrast more down to the lens rather than sensor size? That being said what I have noticed is that my Olympus images often don't reach the edges of the histogram in LR, whereas my Nikon ones almost always do (one or the other or both). I know that the scene is the biggest determining factor but it's just an observation that the Olly files don't reach the edges of the histogram far more than with Nikon.

All that being said I've been scouring Flickr this past week and I stumbled across some images that appeared to have that FF 'depth' to them but when I checked the EXIF they were images taken with an old Rokkor 58mm f1.4 on an Olly Pen EP1. So is it FF that gives this so called depth or is it lenses? If it's the latter then why don't more m4/3 lenses appear to give this effect? I commend the sharpness of m4/3 lenses, but I do wish that you could get more with that 'depth'. The PL 42.5mm f1.2 is probably the best I've seen in this regards, but I'm starting to wonder if I'd be better off looking at some old legacy lenses and adapting them to m4/3 and getting used to using manual focus?

TBH though I think this is a general trend for lenses, it appears that 'we' need to have them as sharp as possible without taking as much consideration of the overall rendering. It's like the Leica SL lenses, from the images I've seen they're sharp as hell but lost that classic Leica look.

Sorry for rambling, just 'talking' out loud really ;)

Rambling is good :D it' often during these ramble rants we find our 'Eureka!' moments.

It's possible the Rokkor image you saw was mounted on a focal reducing adapter, this brings it closer to FF in terms of equivalence and DOF, you also gain a stop of light at any given aperture, overall 3/4 of the way there at least.

I know that I found it much easier to separate subjects from a backdrop, especially non close ups, when I shot FF. It's a really nice effect when desired, but I don't want it all the time. I see many FF users harp on about shallow DOF, and every image they take needs to have it or it's somehow not good enough. They clearly forget, or don't know that the forefathers of photographer frowned upon shallow DOF. That the likes of Ansel Adams had what would be akin to a pro photographer society that they named f64! An aperture they often used for their incredible landscapes. Of course they were using actual large sensors, not teensy tiny 35mm :D They wanted sharp front to back, to capture the world as it was [albeit without colour for the most part] they didn't want to mask out half the image with 'bokeh' And you know, their images remain some of the best ever displayed to this day. I could stare at one f his B&W landscapes for ages just admiring the detail.

I think there is this need or almost a pressure, to always produce high quality pro images when you shoot FF, whether this is set by peers or by ourselves. Like I say, to justify the use of the more pro level gear. I also think on the other hand a lot of it is Placebo effect, as we see many images posted up, shot using FF sensor combined with even more expensive lenses, and they can be ... well, 'meh' - I often think to myslef 'I could produce better with my G80 and a nice prime'.

In saying all that, I still find myself wanting that extra power now and then, I also still have urges to give Fuji another try too - not for the bigger sensor though, but the overall experience. It's the cushy extras like touch screen and excellent IBIS that prevent me from doing so. Well, that and I'd have to sell all my current gear and selling used is a PITA at the best of times. The XH1 has come down a heck of a lot though and is getting more and more tempting, I could learn to live without touch screen if I can still have a nice grip and IBIS.
 
Last edited:
Rambling is good :D it' often during these ramble rants we find our 'Eureka!' moments.

It's possible the Rokkor image you saw was mounted on a focal reducing adapter, this brings it closer to FF in terms of equivalence and DOF, you also gain a stop of light at any given aperture, overall 3/4 of the way there at least.

I know that I found it much easier to separate subjects from a backdrop, especially non close ups, when I shot FF. It's a really nice effect when desired, but I don't want it all the time. I see many FF users harp on about shallow DOF, and every image they take needs to have it or it's somehow not good enough. They clearly forget, or don't know that the forefathers of photographer frowned upon shallow DOF. That the likes of Ansel Adams had what would be akin to a pro photographer society that they named f64! An aperture they often used for their incredible landscapes. Of course they were using actual large sensors, not teensy tiny 35mm :D They wanted sharp front to back, to capture the world as it was [albeit without colour for the most part] they didn't want to mask out half the image with 'bokeh' And you know, their images remain some of the best ever displayed to this day. I could stare at one f his B&W landscapes for ages just admiring the detail.

I think there is this need or almost a pressure, to always produce high quality pro images when you shoot FF, whether this is set by peers or by ourselves. Like I say, to justify the use of the more pro level gear. I also think on the other hand a lot of it is Placebo effect, as we see many images posted up, shot using FF sensor combined with even more expensive lenses, and they can be ... well, 'meh' - I often think to myslef 'I could produce better with my G80 and a nice prime'.

In saying all that, I still find myself wanting that extra power now and then, I also still have urges to give Fuji another try too - not for the bigger sensor though, but the overall experience. It's the cushy extras like touch screen and excellent IBIS that prevent me from doing so. Well, that and I'd have to sell all my current gear and selling used is a PITA at the best of times. The XH1 has come down a heck of a lot though and is getting more and more tempting, I could learn to live without touch screen if I can still have a nice grip and IBIS.
Ooh, I’ve never heard of a focal reducing adapter I need to look into that (y).

I think my feelings about Fuji have been well documented on here ;) Of they went back to bayer sensors I could see myself considering them, although bulk of the tele lenses is still considerably greater.
 
Are the focal reducers also known as Speed boosters or maybe they are something quite different?
 
Are the focal reducers also known as Speed boosters or maybe they are something quite different?

Same thing, they have a glass magnifying element inside - unlike 'dumb' pass through adapters. They convert any mounted lens to 0.71x the focal length and you get an extra stop of light. Say a 50mm F2, it becomes more equiv to a 35 f/1.4. You can get them for many mounts, AF ones are pricier of course and more limited. Like the Viltrox EF-M2 for mounting Canon EF to M43

Ooh, I’ve never heard of a focal reducing adapter I need to look into that (y).

I think my feelings about Fuji have been well documented on here ;) Of they went back to bayer sensors I could see myself considering them, although bulk of the tele lenses is still considerably greater.

It was one of the niggles for me too, the you-know-whats :D but I can live with that as I believe the software, like LR, has gotten better at dealing with these issues. And it also really only effects the type of shot I don't tend to shoot
 
Last edited:
Same thing, they have a glass magnifying element inside - unlike 'dumb' pass through adapters. They convert any mounted lens to 0.71x the focal length and you get an extra stop of light. Say a 50mm F2, it becomes more equiv to a 35 f/1.4. You can get them for many mounts, AF ones are pricier of course and more limited. Like the Viltrox EF-M2 for mounting Canon EF to M43

Thank you, one of those things I had seen mentioned, but didn't know what they were.
 
Same thing, they have a glass magnifying element inside - unlike 'dumb' pass through adapters. They convert any mounted lens to 0.71x the focal length and you get an extra stop of light. Say a 50mm F2, it becomes more equiv to a 35 f/1.4. You can get them for many mounts, AF ones are pricier of course and more limited. Like the Viltrox EF-M2 for mounting Canon EF to M43
With glass like that do they reduce IQ then?

It was one of the niggles for me too, the you-know-whats :D but I can live with that as I believe the software, like LR, has gotten better at dealing with these issues. And it also really only effects the type of shot I don't tend to shoot
I can’t :p
 
With glass like that do they reduce IQ then?

I can’t :p


The better quality ones don't hinder IQ, or at least not so much you'd notice without extreme pixel peeping. There are some that soften images, cheap Chinese jobbies - and there's always variation even across one brand. The likes of the Viltrox are very highly rated, been considering trying one myself but held back as I want to see if I'll stay M43 or not. They also do a non speed booster type that offers AF and exif data for EF lenses, but you don't get the extra light or DOF.

On the speed booster thing, I think Metabones, the really expensive ones, have copyright on that, hence why the others name theirs focal reducers.

Here's an example of a Canon FD to M43 focal reducer: https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Focal-Reduc...241663?hash=item2a6216187f:g:0SwAAOSwQItUE~np
 
Last edited:
I use a Metabones EF -M4/3 Speedbooster Ultra on my Lumix GH3 and EM1.1, both have grips. These are very high quality items with similarly very high prices, at least if bought new. Mine came secondhand from an LCE Branch for circa £239. I can't discern any downsides to adding the extra glass elements between the lens and the sensor, some claim it actually improves resolution. My EF mount 24-70 and 70-200mm F2.8 lenses both focus nicely and the image stabilisation works just as on my Canon DSLR. With the extra light gathered, these lenses morph into effective F2 lenses and produce noticeably sharp images, I feel I don't need to rush out and purchase any other Pro Olympus lenses or the Lieca 100-400mm for the kind of shots I take. Focus times for the GH3 and EM1 are very closely matched; it seems in these circumstances, the Olympus does not use phase detect to gain any advantage. The corrected F stop shows correctly in EXIF data, but the focal length does not, the Sigma 70-200 shows mainly a focal length of 141mm regardless on the EM1. At maximum zoom with this lens, the Olympus IBIS produces much sharper images compared to using the Lens OS, when comparing shots at 1/60 second.

I also have the Zhongi Lens Turbo II, which is a dumb EF to M43 Speed reducer. I fitted an OM to EF adapter to the front of this and use my old OM glass, obviously all manual control, but this is now down to £110 and another option for just manual lenses.

Owning the Metabones Speedbooster has changed my lens purchasing stategy. I have a FF Canon, an EOS M100 and both Olympus and Panasonic cameras. Whenever possible, I try to consider the usefullness of a given full frame EF lens on any of these cameras. I have the Canon EF to EF/M glassless adapter, but this is only using a portion of the lens image circle, I would like a quality EF/M Speedbooster in due course. In this context, the Speedbooster has given me a whole set of new lenses to use on M43 cameras for less than one Olympus Pro lens cost.

This isn't going to work for sports photography, BIF or aeroplanes, but I'm a sniper shooter rather than a machine gunner, I tend to photograph people, trains and landscapes. For lightweight travel, I simply revert to my smaller M43 cameras and use native lenses.
 
I use a Metabones EF -M4/3 Speedbooster Ultra on my Lumix GH3 and EM1.1, both have grips. These are very high quality items with similarly very high prices, at least if bought new. Mine came secondhand from an LCE Branch for circa £239. I can't discern any downsides to adding the extra glass elements between the lens and the sensor, some claim it actually improves resolution. My EF mount 24-70 and 70-200mm F2.8 lenses both focus nicely and the image stabilisation works just as on my Canon DSLR. With the extra light gathered, these lenses morph into effective F2 lenses and produce noticeably sharp images, I feel I don't need to rush out and purchase any other Pro Olympus lenses or the Lieca 100-400mm for the kind of shots I take. Focus times for the GH3 and EM1 are very closely matched; it seems in these circumstances, the Olympus does not use phase detect to gain any advantage. The corrected F stop shows correctly in EXIF data, but the focal length does not, the Sigma 70-200 shows mainly a focal length of 141mm regardless on the EM1. At maximum zoom with this lens, the Olympus IBIS produces much sharper images compared to using the Lens OS, when comparing shots at 1/60 second.

I also have the Zhongi Lens Turbo II, which is a dumb EF to M43 Speed reducer. I fitted an OM to EF adapter to the front of this and use my old OM glass, obviously all manual control, but this is now down to £110 and another option for just manual lenses.

Owning the Metabones Speedbooster has changed my lens purchasing stategy. I have a FF Canon, an EOS M100 and both Olympus and Panasonic cameras. Whenever possible, I try to consider the usefullness of a given full frame EF lens on any of these cameras. I have the Canon EF to EF/M glassless adapter, but this is only using a portion of the lens image circle, I would like a quality EF/M Speedbooster in due course. In this context, the Speedbooster has given me a whole set of new lenses to use on M43 cameras for less than one Olympus Pro lens cost.

This isn't going to work for sports photography, BIF or aeroplanes, but I'm a sniper shooter rather than a machine gunner, I tend to photograph people, trains and landscapes. For lightweight travel, I simply revert to my smaller M43 cameras and use native lenses.
Interesting. So using such an adapter does a 24mm FF EF lens give you a genuine 24mm FOV on m4/3?

Do you notice a difference to the ‘depth/3D look’ using the same lens on your Canon as you do on the m4/3, or does the FF sensor provide more depth to the image as people say?

Am I right to assume there’s no such adapters for Nikon glass due to their lever system rather than full electronic lenses?


Edit, some slightly contradictory info here, initially it says manually controlled aperture only (as usual with Nikon adapters), but in the last paragraph under smart system additional features it says you can control aperture in camera :confused:
https://www.parkcameras.com/p/M245273N/lens-adapters/metabones/nikon-g-micro-43-speed-booster-071x

Also, it says it reduces focal length by 0.71x, does this mean if you use a 50mm lens it’s a genuine 35.5mm on m4/3, or its 35.5mm that you then have to apply the 2x crop factor so 71mm effective fov? If the aperture increases by 1 stop is this just in terms of light gathering or is this in terms of DOF too?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. So using such an adapter does a 24mm FF EF lens give you a genuine 24mm FOV on m4/3?

Do you notice a difference to the ‘depth/3D look’ using the same lens on your Canon as you do on the m4/3, or does the FF sensor provide more depth to the image as people say?

Am I right to assume there’s no such adapters for Nikon glass due to their lever system rather than full electronic lenses?


Edit, some slightly contradictory info here, initially it says manually controlled aperture only (as usual with Nikon adapters), but in the last paragraph under smart system additional features it says you can control aperture in camera :confused:
https://www.parkcameras.com/p/M245273N/lens-adapters/metabones/nikon-g-micro-43-speed-booster-071x

Also, it says it reduces focal length by 0.71x, does this mean if you use a 50mm lens it’s a genuine 35.5mm on m4/3, or its 35.5mm that you then have to apply the 2x crop factor so 71mm effective fov? If the aperture increases by 1 stop is this just in terms of light gathering or is this in terms of DOF too?


Not quite, you multiply by 0.71 [at least for the more common focal reducer] so 24mm [pre-equivalence] becomes 17mm, drop a stop in aperture - so if it was say a 2.8, it'll now be F2, and then carry on with that as it were added to your M43. So you end up with an equivalent 34mm F2 [as opposed to using a dumb adapter where you'll end up with equiv of 48 2.8] - tricky to explain this stuff, hope it makes sense

From what I know, only Canon EF lenses work well with AF adapters, Nikon - MF only I'm afraid but they are usually cheaper for that reason
 
Last edited:
Not quite, you multiply by 0.71 [at least for the more common focal reducer] so 24mm [pre-equivalence] becomes 17mm, drop a stop in aperture - so if it was say a 2.8, it'll now be F2, and then carry on with that as it were added to your M43. So you end up with an equivalent 34mm F2 [as opposed to using a dumb adapter where you'll end up with equiv of 48 2.8] - tricky to explain this stuff, hope it makes sense

From what I know, only Canon EF lenses work well with AF adapters, Nikon - MF only I'm afraid but they are usually cheaper for that reason
So pretty much what I said then ;) :p

It got me thinking last night, I've been looking at the Sigma 56mm f1.4, but this gives me a slightly odd 112mm FOV. I then thought I could buy the e-mount version plus adapter and get a 79.5mm FOV f1.0 lens. However, £329 (grey) for the lens plus £399 for a speed booster you're then stepping into Panny Leica 42.5mm f1.2 price territory (grey), and I think I'd rather have the PL lens. Then looking into it further you can't get an e-mount to m4/3 speed booster anyway :facepalm: :LOL:

Don't know if you're interested but these are the images I found using the ROKKOR on the Pen EPL1 (about 1/3-/1/2 way down the page). They really remind me of old 35mm film pics, proper nostalgia ;) I'm wondering if it's just a 'dumb' adapter though as I can't find a speed booster for Minolta/Sony A-mount to m4/3 speed booster?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/teaboneski/albums/72157624794724784/with/4922534000/
 
Within the Metabones FAQ page, there is comment about depth of field when using speed boosters, in short using a speed booster will result in an APSC senor giving broadly FF sensor results. I think it likely that an M43 sensor will produce a DOF equivalence to an APSC sensor and this will apply to any make of speed booster having the same focal reducer factor, typically 0.71.

https://www.metabones.com/article/of/faq

I think the most effective lenses to adopt are fast aperture medium to long lenses, which work well in conjunction with the MFT crop factor. I could adopt my Sigma 12-24mm lens but once adopted, it really isn't very wide 17-34mm equivalent. There is no (non fisheye) full frame lens available (8.5mm) to be adopted which results in an equivalent 12mm wide angle on an MFT camera.
 
A cracking lens Alf. You won’t be disappointed.
 
I almost ordered the 17mm f1.2.... still arguing with myself! Got as far as entering the weekend discount code. I agree with Andrew, re the 40-150 - cracking lens. I want that converter too!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top