A cheap camera to mount OM lenses onto

gad-westy

gad-westy

Messages
6,605
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I have been dabbling a fair bit with Olympus 35mm kit recently and have an ever changing collection of lovely little prime lenses and some film bodies. Every now and then I'd like to play around with the OM primes on a digital body (sacrilege I know) but I really can't justify spending any significant money to do so as I really would be just farting about.

I've looked into mounting them on my D300 but any Nikon requires a corrective glass adaptor or a replacement mount.

My mum has an old Minolta DSLR but again I'd be looking at corrective glass.

So what else should I be looking at instead? Something m4/3, an old Olympus DSLR maybe? Preferably something that costs £11.50 on ebay. :)
 
Have a look at SRB Griturn and see what they make in the way of adaptors. They'll be more expensive than e-bay ones but should also be better.
 
Something canon, you won't need any corrective elements in the adaptor. I would get a 300D for about 12p or so. Or treat the lenses to something they deserve and get a 5D mk 1. :p
 
Leitax Mounts, bit more involved but will make them work just dandy on Nikon.
 
Nod said:
Have a look at SRB Griturn and see what they make in the way of adaptors. They'll be more expensive than e-bay ones but should also be better.
Click to expand...

Cheers but it doesn't look like they do a Nikon to OM unfortunately.
 
menthel said:
Something canon, you won't need any corrective elements in the adaptor. I would get a 300D for about 12p or so. Or treat the lenses to something they deserve and get a 5D mk 1. :p
Click to expand...

A 5D would be nice but total overkill for me. Any idea what sort of price a 300D goes for on ebay? Is that the cheapest Canon DSLR I could use?
 
heidfirst said:
if you don't mind the crop/multiplier factor how about a NEX or m4/3?
Click to expand...

Yep, definitely keen to explore this avenue but I know jack about either. What should I be putting in my ebay search? Panasonics, Olympus, Sony's etc?
 
gad-westy said:
A 5D would be nice but total overkill for me. Any idea what sort of price a 300D goes for on ebay? Is that the cheapest Canon DSLR I could use?
Click to expand...

There is/was a 350D for £75 in the classifieds. MPB do the older bodies for around that price as well.

OM lenses do work well on Canon, the adapters with AF confirm are pretty cheap as well.
 
gad-westy said:
A 5D would be nice but total overkill for me. Any idea what sort of price a 300D goes for on ebay? Is that the cheapest Canon DSLR I could use?
Click to expand...

Not sure TBH, I liked mine but it went years ago. The camera had a really special way of rendering images though, I still love the look of the good ones I got from it!
 
Dave1 said:
There is/was a 350D for £75 in the classifieds. MPB do the older bodies for around that price as well.

OM lenses do work well on Canon, the adapters with AF confirm are pretty cheap as well.
Click to expand...

Cheers Dave. I have a feeling that my dad has a long retired 350d kicking around somewhere. I'll have a word with him.
 
gad-westy said:
I have been dabbling a fair bit with Olympus 35mm kit recently and have an ever changing collection of lovely little prime lenses and some film bodies. Every now and then I'd like to play around with the OM primes on a digital body (sacrilege I know) but I really can't justify spending any significant money to do so as I really would be just farting about.

I've looked into mounting them on my D300 but any Nikon requires a corrective glass adaptor or a replacement mount.

My mum has an old Minolta DSLR but again I'd be looking at corrective glass.

So what else should I be looking at instead? Something m4/3, an old Olympus DSLR maybe? Preferably something that costs £11.50 on ebay. :)
Click to expand...

It's not sacrilege, you'll probably get better images than you did from film. The FoV will be different though.

Anyway, you should do what I do and use your Zuiko on a Panasonic G1. You should be able to find one for well under £100 and then all you need is a £10 adapter from ebay.

I prefer the Rokkor's to Zuiko's because the aperture rings seem to be smoother and you get intermediate apertures not available with the Zuiko's. The Zuiko lenses are lovely though and their tighter mechanisms are less likely to be moved accidentally.

Using these lenses is a joy on MFT and focusing is easy with the magnified view.

I've used by Zuiko's on my 5D and they work via a cheap metal adapter but manual focusing a modern DSLR isn't fun unless the subject is big in the frame. Rokkors would need an adapter with a lens in it. Best to go MFT or even Nex IMVHO.
 
Last edited:
Like Woof, I've made extensive use of legacy lenses on a 5Dc and m4/3. Mostly Canon FD, but I have a few OM Zuikos.

No problem whatever with my Panasonic G2; indeed I use them most of the time.

As mentioned, focus is not so easy with the OMs on the 5D (the FDs won't mount properly) though the confirm-chip adapter I bought helps a lot.

It may be the adapter, but I've also found the built in metering entirely unreliable with OM lenses on the front of the 5D, so I use an external meter. I have some very nice A3 prints on my living room wall taken with a 24mm OM lens.
 
Musicman said:
It may be the adapter, but I've also found the built in metering entirely unreliable with OM lenses on the front of the 5D, so I use an external meter. I have some very nice A3 prints on my living room wall taken with a 24mm OM lens.
Click to expand...

That's odd and a pain.

It's a while since I used my Zuiko's on my 5D but I don't remember any metering issues. Mine was just a dumb metal adapter.

It's much easier on my G1 and I use legacy lenses pretty much all the time.
 
gad-westy said:
Yep, definitely keen to explore this avenue but I know jack about either. What should I be putting in my ebay search? Panasonics, Olympus, Sony's etc?
Click to expand...
looking at ebay completed prices suggests that NEX-3s go for £100 +- whereas the better NEX-5s go for nearer £200.
Currys are doing new (but old stock) Panasonic G3 (so you get an EVF too) for £249.
An Olympus m4/3 would get you in-body stabilisation for your Zuikos.
 
woof woof said:
G1 for £89 :D

http://www.ffordes.com/product/13070913411081
Click to expand...

This is more aligned with my pocket although right at the upper end of what I'd maybe thought originally. That said, if a dealer has one at £90, there has to be a reasonable chance of getting one for a good bit less privately.

I actually 'won' an auction for an olympus pen1 fir £56 but didn't meet the reserve. Just took a punt on that one but us that another model worth considering maybe?
 
I'd get a 300D/350D as well, if you don't want to buy a 5D mkI. Anything smaller than APS-C and crop factors become ridiculous.
 
freecom2 said:
I'd get a 300D/350D as well, if you don't want to buy a 5D mkI. Anything smaller than APS-C and crop factors become ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

x2 crop may seem extreme if you haven't tried one but in reality there's precious little difference to APS-C. With x2 crop a 28mm f2.8 becomes 56mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.8 becomes a 100mm f1.8, for exposure that is. For DoF it's x2 but in reality there's little difference DoF wise to APS-C and having the ability to get slightly deeper DoF for the same framing (v FF, forget APS-C,) at any given aperture can actually be an advantage for hand held shooting especially in low light such as indoor photography as you get decent DoF (the ability to get both eyes in the DoF) at a higher shutter speed/ISO.

Plus of course MFT and indeed any CSC have a massive advantage over a conventional DSLR when it comes to manual focus and you have to try these cameras (CSC's) to realise how easy they make manual focus compared to a modern DSLR. For example, with a CSC at f1.4 (or f0.95 if you like...) you can pick your point of focus along the length of an eye lash, try that with a DSLR :D
 
Last edited:
^ fair enough, that's just my personal opinion. I tend to only shoot with wide up to 75mm-85mm, which is incidentally a 50mm on an APS-C sensor.

Also, with a 2x crop, anything less than 50mm equivalent and you are delving into 24mm lenses and even smaller focal lengths - where legacy glass gets expensive and less prevalent.
 
Personally I'd stick to APS-C or full frame. Zuikos are pretty small, so would match a Nex nicely or even a Samsung NX. You could get an older NX model for peanuts (NX10 if you want a viewfinder or NX100 for a small body).

Personally though I'd stick them on a Canon EOS body. You could get an EOS 20D for around £100.00. I'd avoid the 300D as it's very slow in operation and the 10D has fiddly controls.
 
freecom2 said:
^ fair enough, that's just my personal opinion. I tend to only shoot with wide up to 75mm-85mm, which is incidentally a 50mm on an APS-C sensor.

Also, with a 2x crop, anything less than 50mm equivalent and you are delving into 24mm lenses and even smaller focal lengths - where legacy glass gets expensive and less prevalent.
Click to expand...

Well, legacy 28mm f2.8's are very reasonably priced, I have one :D I also have a very nice legacy 24mm f2.8 and a legacy 28mm f1.9 and a rather nice modern 25mm f0.95 too :D There is a real advantage in having slightly deeper DoF at faster shutter speeds and we're not talking front to back DoF here as MFT isn't that far off APS-C and as with APS-C there's easily enough scope for a shallow DoF look if that's what you're aiming for.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic :D
 
manualfocus-g said:
Personally I'd stick to APS-C or full frame. Zuikos are pretty small, so would match a Nex nicely or even a Samsung NX. You could get an older NX model for peanuts (NX10 if you want a viewfinder or NX100 for a small body).

Personally though I'd stick them on a Canon EOS body. You could get an EOS 20D for around £100.00. I'd avoid the 300D as it's very slow in operation and the 10D has fiddly controls.
Click to expand...

The problem is focusing legacy lenses through small OVF's on modern DSLR's.

You can zone focus and that'll be fine for many images especially if you go for front to back DoF but if you go for sharp focus it can be a pain. I don't mind focusing my DSLR manually if the subject is big in the frame but other than that for manual focus give me a CSC with a focus aid every time.

It doesn't cost much to try these lenses on DSLR's if you have access to a DSLR, the adapters can be had for £10. I have one, but I'd still pick my G1 over my 5D for manual focus.
 
manualfocus-g said:
LOL, we'll disagree on this forever I reckon :D I'd still vastly prefer the ovf of a 20D over a low res evf or a screen that's susceptible to bright sunshine :)
Click to expand...

Having owned a 20D for seven years I can say with certainty that a CSC with manual focusing aid is deffo easier to manual focus with. As I've said before, with a CSC you can pick your point of focus along the length of an eye lash with a "low res" EVF and that's pretty much impossible with any OVF DSLR especially a good but aging APS-C built for AF DSLR such as the 20D. Same goes for my 5D too, these cameras are just not suited to fine manual focus unless the image is big in the OVF. Of course deep DoF hides a lot but try it at f1.4 and you've got little chance.

I use manual lenses almost exclusively now and that's something that I couldn't imagine doing with a 20D, love that camera though I did but the OVF is so poor and the focus screen isn't manual focus friendly, not for anything other than a close up.

Here's an example taken with a G1+50mm, I can't remember the aperture setting but looking at the image and the shutter speed (1/1250) I'd guess it was a wide aperture, at the most f2.8 and quite possibly wider :D

Whole image...



100% crop...



I'll stick my neck out and say that getting that shot would be a matter of luck if manually focusing a 20D or a 5D at wide aperture and I think that AF would struggle at wide aperture too as who knows what the camera will choose to focus on with such a complex subject. However with the G1 I could choose my point of focus as it was viewed at high magnification and capture the shot 1st time.
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
I'm sure part of it comes down to an indivdual's eyesight as well though. I find peaking totally inaccurate yet can focus perfectly at f/1.4 with my 5d or 6d with matte screen, in low light. I've tried all the cscs bar Fuji and none of them come close for me :)
Click to expand...

Nope :D When wearing my glasses my eyesight is 20/20. I just find it impossible to believe that anyone can focus a manual lens mounted on a DSLR better than they can with a CSC with magnified view. I don't see how it's possible to focus with an unaded and unmagnified OVF view better than you can with a highly magnified EVF view as you obviously simply see more detail with the magnified view.

As for low light, nupe, the CSC wins again :D

I've tried direct tests between my 5D and G1 and the G1 beats it every time in simply low light as with the EVF gain you can see more detail than can be seen by eye. When DSLR AF gives up I can still see and manually focus with my G1.

There are only two "wins" for the DSLR manual focus wise against a CSC. The first is that my G1 causes me severe eye strain in near darkness due to the high light output from the EVF so an OVF is easier on the eye. The second is that the EVF lacks dynamic range and in darkness (and I mean out of town darkness not "darkness" on a well lit street in town) it blacks up and fails to display outlines that are still visible through an OVF. In darkness the OVF equipped DSLR therefore allows more accurate framing whilst my G1 can only be pointed roughly in the direction of the scene and position needs to be adjusted after chimping.

Sorry, but if you think you can manually focus a 5D better than a CSC you're either doing something wrong or kidding yourself. It's simply a small optical view v a magnified view on a small TV screen and the magnified view will win every time (except in darkness.)
 
Last edited:
No, really I can. And my vision is better than 20/20 unaided :) using bulky lenses on light, mirrorless cameras is a faff. Why should have to zoom in on an area of the frame to focus when I can do it straight off the bat with an OVF?

55/1.2


_MG_1286 by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr


_MG_1286_crop by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr


_MG_1999 by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr

85/1.4

1032__MG_7130_1.jpg


75/1.5


_MG_1261 by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr


_MG_1266 by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr

Not many cscs can do shallow dof like that :)
 
But those flower shots look very soft and I can't see where the point of focus is.

Can you post sharp 100% manual focus crops like I can? :D

manualfocus-g said:
No, really I can. And my vision is better than 20/20 unaided :) using bulky lenses on light, mirrorless cameras is a faff. Why should have to zoom in on an area of the frame to focus when I can do it straight off the bat with an OVF?

55/1.2


Not many cscs can do shallow dof like that :)
Click to expand...

Well shallow DoF is a different argument and your 55mm f1.2 can't produce the shallow DoF I can get from my 25mm f0.95 for the simple fact that you can't focus that 55mm as close as I can focus the 25mm.

As to why you'd want a magnified view... it's perfectly obvious. You can focus much more accurately.

Sorry... but for manual focus I'm sold on CSC's as the accuracy is IMVHO far beyond anything that's possible with an unmagnified OVF. Whatever you can frame with an OVF you can frame with a CSC and then view it at high magnification. That simply has to allow greater focus accuracy.

It's the difference between looking down the barrel of a gun and using a scope.

That's not a serious challenge to post 100% crops as I think I've taken this thread too far off... gthe infor is there for the OP or anyone else thinking about using old legacy lenses on a digital camera.
 
Last edited:
If you are going to manually focus a shot a magnified view will allow more accuracy, that's simply undeniable.

If you aren't going to focus the shot you can zone focus or use hyperfocal or Merklinger.
 
manualfocus-g said:
No, really I can. And my vision is better than 20/20 unaided :) using bulky lenses on light, mirrorless cameras is a faff. Why should have to zoom in on an area of the frame to focus when I can do it straight off the bat with an OVF?
Click to expand...
AF DSLR/SLRs focus screens don't show true DoF (& hence what is/isn't in focus) at wide apertures. http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/21/live-view-versus-the-cheating-dslr-viewfinder/
& that's assuming that you don't have any focus shift when stopping down at all.
With an EVF or rear screen taking it's image directly from the sensor at taking aperture neither is a problem.
 
My cameras do show true dog as I have the high precision Canon matte focus screens fitted. And proper f/1.4 in your viewfinder is amazing :)

I think myself and woof woof may be at cross purposes though. For tripod work and close ups, magnifying the view with liveview is always the easiest way to shoot. I'm talking about general shooting, I can't be going around framing an action shot, zooming in to check focus, zooming out to check composition again...it just doesn't work for me, wheras I have a very high hit rate through the ovf of my dslr.

I'm really not into flower shots, so perhaps that's why I don't have the need generally to use liveview. BTW, the 55/1.2 used in the other shots was the old Nikkor lens, looks great on the camera but glows like mad wide open :)
 
Hi
I suppose the obvious answer would be a olympus E series body of some sort the price of these seem to be quite low at the moment owing to the doubt about it's future, there is an E400 on ebay at the moment for £44.99 inc postage.
Regards Bob. :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
I think myself and woof woof may be at cross purposes though. For tripod work and close ups, magnifying the view with liveview is always the easiest way to shoot. I'm talking about general shooting, I can't be going around framing an action shot, zooming in to check focus, zooming out to check composition again...it just doesn't work for me, wheras I have a very high hit rate through the ovf of my dslr.

I'm really not into flower shots, so perhaps that's why I don't have the need generally to use liveview. BTW, the 55/1.2 used in the other shots was the old Nikkor lens, looks great on the camera but glows like mad wide open :)
Click to expand...

I use my G1 and manual lenses for walkabout stuff and for most shots I call up the magnified view. With the G1 it's a two button press job but on other cameras I believe it's just one button and if you have an AF lens you can set the magnified view to come up automatically when you move the focus ring so even in AF mode it's possible to intervene and get really precise manual focus.

Anyway, with the G1 calling up the magnified view to focus really doesn't take too long as pressing the buttons and getting on with it is second nature to me now. I'm not a machine gunner and I don't mind taking my time and it only takes (hang on I'll just time myself... :D) literally 4-5 seconds to call up the magnified view and focus and take a shot, actually I think that calling up the magnified view saves brain processing and thinking time as you don't have to think "is the shot in focus yet?" as you see immediately that it is. Another advantage of these cameras is that you can move the focus point easily across the scene.

I too do a huge number of flower shots and achieving good focus accuracy for macro and pseudo macro is possible with a DSLR as the image is big in the VF, however, I can still get even more precise focus with my G1 simply because I can clearly see much more detail and can see the exact point of focus with much more clarity and precision than I could ever see through an unmagnified optical viewfinder.

When EVF's become usable for night time shooting I'll not see any need to use an OVF again.

Examples, 35mm manual lens shot. Whole image followed by 100% crop. This will not look as sharp here as on my screen as it's via Photobucket but I could literally pick which little "hair" I focused on :D





For any framing it should be obvious that with a magnified view you have the ability to see more detail and therefore achieve more accurate focus and also to more easily see and actively choose what the point of focus is.

25mm f0.95 at (I think f2)...





:D
 
Last edited:
I think it must be a subjective thing then to be honest! I'm not trigger happy either (and I have to say it drives me nuts when I see people firing 20 shots of the same static subject :D) but I do like to just turn, focus and shoot. I tend to only shoot wide open in the dark (which perhaps makes life easier) but when shooting my primes I tend to settle for about f/2.8 which gives nice subject pop.

I owned a G1 previously for a while and it's a wonderfully well built camera. I just couldn't get on with the controls though which is why I think this is all subjective.

To the OP, I would always recommend trying a few cameras where you can. Even if it's a newer model, just to get an indication of size and handling. For example, most of teh Nex bodies are fairly similar and the EOS range again are all similar.
 
Loads of great input here for me to digest. Very much appreciated everyone.

Must say I'm still leaning a little towards m4/3 only because it's something a little different that I haven't played with yet where as I have the SLR t-shirt. Been keeping my eye on Panasonic GF1's and 2's but haven't bought anything as yet.

Quick question that I feel I should know the answer to but I'm having a slow night. If I stick a 50mm 1.4 on a m4/3. Wide open, will I be seeing similar DOF and overall look to a scenario where I'd used a 100mm 2.8 on a 35mm camera? I think the answer is yes but I seek verification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top