Fuji Why Olympus OM?

[kevistopheles]

Unfortunately not. I like the EM-5 a lot and tried one for a short time but after all prefer the kits I have now. However, looking at how many folks go for the semi-manual experience (Leica, film, legacy glass on mirrorless bodies, ...) and all the companies that still produce and sell manual glass there's at least some market potential for such a hybrid, no-nonsense beast and the hope dies last. I personally don't miss film that much but rather the direct, transparent shooting experience.

I agree, I've been shooting legacy glass on my NEX (and now Fuji) for years. If act I just got my first native lens in 4-5 years and while it is certainly a nice lens that really does try to capture some of the feeling of legacy glass (it even has an aperture ring) it's not the same. I do think however that unless you are using something like M glass legacy lenses can be problematic in that you will often run up against their limitations optically of adapting 40 year old lenses.

That said the experience of using legacy glass is typically much more satisfying than most native lenses. As to a simple body designed to use these lenses and modern glass designed to be manual focus only...where do I sign up?

 

[Kay]

I agree, I've been shooting legacy glass on my NEX (and now Fuji) for years.

I still use my Zeissies(?!) and other old glass on the NEX but not so much on the Fuji anymore.

I do think however that unless you are using something like M glass legacy lenses can be problematic in that you will often run up against their limitations optically of adapting 40 year old lenses.

... which more often than not gives those images a pretty unique look, if that's what you're after in the first place. I've got some really weird old glass stored in a box somewhere but I have to wait until I have moved all my stuff to my new home which might take another while.

As to a simple body designed to use these lenses and modern glass designed to be manual focus only...where do I sign up?

I thought about such a camera more than once in the last few years. These days it should be fairly easy to raise some interest on the forums, to collect ideas, discuss designs and so forth. Who knows where it all leads unless someone makes a start. I could imagine that this has already been discussed elsewhere but can't remember having run into anything of that sort, at least not SLR related and I'd highly prefer a real OVF with exchangeable screens, OM or Nikon F like, even if that doesn't exactly help to get rid of a slapping mirror and the necessary mechanics.

 

[Lawrence A.]

I'm not sure manufacturing "sample variation" can be blamed on problems with a thirty or forty year old lens. My 24 mm f2.8 was exceptional, but also exceptionally well cared for. I agree about the 28mm f3.5. For a lens that you can get for a song it is pretty extraordinary, even wide open.

 

[Lawrence A.]

Well, I ordered the Fotodiox adapter for the X-Pro to use my drawers full of OM lenses. I get good results on the E-M5 with them, so it seemed worthwhile to try them out. Why Olympus? Because that's the 35mm system I shot - and occasionally still shoot - and I have a lot of lenses around. I may well take the unjustly maligned 75-150 to Laos with me to have a long lens for the Bull fights during Hmong New Year in Phonsavan. (They are not the gory spectacles that "bull fight" makes you think of.) Or I may get the XC 50-230 the is so inexpensive used.
The shot below was taken with the E-M5 and the 75-150.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It's fine for what I use it for, though the slides I shot with it do look better.

 

[docfox]

Olympus built some really wonderful lenses for its OM-series of film cameras. They can serve your m4/3 camera quite brilliantly today. Read about this hacker's experience at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8bLj0xncj6URjRmblFzeW5JVm8/view?usp=sharing


Good luck and good hacking,

George

 

[Lawrence A.]

This was shot today on the X-Pro 1 with the old OM Zuiko 75-150 - racked out almost to 150. I always thought it was a very good lens, and unlike many I loved those OM two ring zooms. As the one above was shot with an E-M5, I thought I'd add a X series shot.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Lawrence A.]

I'm fooling around again with OM lenses on digital bodies, the Pen-F this time. With the original Sony a7 coming down in price used, I thought I might get one and use it with my old film lenses. I enjoy the process of manually focusing lenses, and although it has gotten better, the manual focus on most digital lenses just doesn't "feel" like I'm focusing.

Does anyone have any experience shooting the a7 with so called legacy lenses. I realize that full frame will challenge them more, as most lenses are sharpest in the center. I never found my OM film lenses wanting back in the day.

Anyway, these two were shot at f8 using the Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro, which is a terrific macro and also a very good general purpose lens.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[tonyturley]

I've owned the A7 and A7II, and used to use them with older lenses from Konica, Pentax, Minolta, and others. One of the best was the Konica AR 40/1.8, which is pretty small, even with an adapter. I don't have either camera any more, and don't do much legacy lens work these days. I found my keeper rate seemed to be declining, although with practice I was pleased with how most of my efforts came out in the October "Single in" challenge.

 

[mike3996]

Does anyone have any experience shooting the a7 with so called legacy lenses. I realize that full frame will challenge them more, as most lenses are sharpest in the center. I never found my OM film lenses wanting back in the day.

I believe it's the opposite. Bigger pixels, more forgiving of the lens. YMMV and so on.

The A7 is what, 24 megapixels? The Pen-F for example is equivalent to an 80-megapixel FF sensor so you may appreciate how and why that might be.

As an extra challenge you'll get shallower DOF so you have to be more careful.

 

[Lawrence A.]

I believe it's the opposite. Bigger pixels, more forgiving of the lens. YMMV and so on.

The A7 is what, 24 megapixels? The Pen-F for example is equivalent to an 80-megapixel FF sensor so you may appreciate how and why that might be.

As an extra challenge you'll get shallower DOF so you have to be more careful.

The DOF shouldn't be a problem; I shot a lot of 35mm and 120 film back in the day. I'll have to see how the other stuff pans out if, indeed, I get an a7. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Petrochemist]

Does anyone have any experience shooting the a7 with so called legacy lenses. I realize that full frame will challenge them more, as most lenses are sharpest in the center. I never found my OM film lenses wanting back in the day.

I use legacy lenses quite a bit on my A7ii (well worth the moderate extra cost over the original A7 IMO, even if only for the IBIS).

Many lenses from the 80's & later don't stop down easily on the cheapest adapters, OM lenses have an advantage here as the DOF preview button is on the lens, rather than on the film camera body.
My favorite lenses are frequently rangefinder ones, but I also use PK, M42, T2, adaptall, OM, FD... as well as a wide range of other lenses from enlargers, projectors, etc.

This one was shot using a M42 mount flektagon 35mm/2.4

Rufus resting by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

and this one via a LTM (rangefinder) mount Industar 50

industar 50 + crystal by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

I find digital in general challenges lenses more than film did for most. In film day's I usually only saw the print at 7x5, now it's usually filling a 17" monitor, with zooming in readily available. When I print these days it's only to A4 & bigger. Even a 6MP APSC camera could show how dire some of the film era zooms were. Fortunately primes of moderate focal lengths tended to be much better!

 

[Lawrence A.]

I use legacy lenses quite a bit on my A7ii (well worth the moderate extra cost over the original A7 IMO, even if only for the IBIS).

Many lenses from the 80's & later don't stop down easily on the cheapest adapters, OM lenses have an advantage here as the DOF preview button is on the lens, rather than on the film camera body.
My favorite lenses are frequently rangefinder ones, but I also use PK, M42, T2, adaptall, OM, FD... as well as a wide range of other lenses from enlargers, projectors, etc.

This one was shot using a M42 mount flektagon 35mm/2.4
View attachment 283998Rufus resting by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

and this one via a LTM (rangefinder) mount Industar 50
View attachment 283999industar 50 + crystal by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

I find digital in general challenges lenses more than film did for most. In film day's I usually only saw the print at 7x5, now it's usually filling a 17" monitor, with zooming in readily available. When I print these days it's only to A4 & bigger. Even a 6MP APSC camera could show how dire some of the film era zooms were. Fortunately primes of moderate focal lengths tended to be much better!

Thanks. The images look great - particular like the cat snd the kid, great shot. Thanks for your input. The oldest lens I would try out on it woild be a 1949 90mm elmar LTM and a 1952 50 mm Summicron. Ijve gotten good shot with them on the Pen F, but they do require special processing.