I'm curious if anyone has updates to this thread. This is *potentially* fantastic for FD users. Everything above looks a little soft, but if they'll clean up in PP, it would be great.
I'd love to use some of my fast/wide FD lenses for digital. I'm assuming that you get the 2x crop, but I'm also wondering, am I going to lose light as well? Any info is appreciated if anyone knows.
in FD, I've got the following lenses so after the crop it would be equivalent to:
24mm f/2.0 would be 48mm f/2
35mm f/2.0 would be 70mm f/2
50mm f/1.2 would be 100mm f/1.2
50mm f/1.4 would be 100mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.2 would be 170mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.8 would be 170mm f/1.8
I lose the wide angle stuff, but perhaps the 24-50 could be used on the street and I could use my 85L for digital.
You're referring to my shots above?? They are pixel sharp at 100% at focus point--considering they were all shot at f/2.8 and f/1.8--shallow DOF which I wanted--or needed the wider aperture because they were shot in very low light (I feel that embedding Pbase shots, already compressed, does degrade the photos a bit). I would put the sharpness up against my 5D shots shots similarly and processed as RAW and shot quite wide open also (as long as I visually get the focus correct which is the only way you can focus the alternative lens with adaptors). They have had capture sharpening and sharpening after resizing for web--I don't like oversharpened photos (IMO), so it may be you like yours sharpened more than I sharpen mine. I use capture in LR and PKS for output.
I added an FD 35 f/2.8--rather wish I could have found an f/2, but can live with one stop slower for now (and found a really inexpensive set of extension tubes for macr with my 50 f/1.8). The lens I'm most interested in is the native Pan 20 f/1.7 but its not supposed to be available until Fall so I may have to consider a faster lens since I really do like using shallow DOF creatively and f/2.8 isn't quite fast enough for me--it throws me back to my 5D for that kind of shooting.
Oh, sorry, forgot to answer your direct question LOL. No, you lose no light. The lenses work as normal in aperture priority with the adaptor (I have the CAmeraquest/Rayqual one).
picnic wrote:
You're referring to my shots above?? They are pixel sharp at 100% at focus point--considering they were all shot at f/2.8 and f/1.8--shallow DOF which I wanted--or needed the wider aperture because they were shot in very low light (I feel that embedding Pbase shots, already compressed, does degrade the photos a bit). I would put the sharpness up against my 5D shots shots similarly and processed as RAW and shot quite wide open also (as long as I visually get the focus correct which is the only way you can focus the alternative lens with adaptors). They have had capture sharpening and sharpening after resizing for web--I don't like oversharpened photos (IMO), so it may be you like yours sharpened more than I sharpen mine. I use capture in LR and PKS for output. ...Show more →
Actually, I was referring to the shots above yours. I like yours quite a bit and if they match your 5d, then that should be good enough for anything I'll do.
I added an FD 35 f/2.8--rather wish I could have found an f/2, but can live with one stop slower for now (and found a really inexpensive set of extension tubes for macr with my 50 f/1.8). The lens I'm most interested in is the native Pan 20 f/1.7 but its not supposed to be available until Fall so I may have to consider a faster lens since I really do like using shallow DOF creatively and f/2.8 isn't quite fast enough for me--it throws me back to my 5D for that kind of shooting.
You'll have to look to find a 35mm f/2.0. They're a little rare, but available. I purchased my FD lenses used, so I had to be patient and kept looking for the right lens. I did end up getting a few losers in the process, but I got what I needed in the end.
Oh, sorry, forgot to answer your direct question . No, you lose no light. The lenses work as normal in aperture priority with the adaptor (I have the CAmeraquest/Rayqual one).
Diane
Glad to hear there's no light loss. I couldn't understand why there would be, but I remember reading something where people kept insisting you would lose something. Didn't make sense to me though..
burningheart wrote:
Jim which ones, I can give you more detail. Yes I agree there is a softness in the WA.
Actually, most look somewhat soft. I know better than to judge something based on a low-res jpeg, but the dog shots (love the second one) and the 50L stuff just doesn't look crisp anywhere.
Are there 100% crops that show good detail? I'm not sure all my FD lenses are as sharp as some of my EF lenses. As long as what Picnic said above is true (= 5d shots) I think it's going to be great.
Thanks for posting all this stuff though. This is the most exciting thing I've seen in years. All the ho-hum camera releases with a few more MP and nothing else. Now if only I had the equivalent of a 40-50mm f/1.2 lens that would work on the G1....
All my other Canon gear can languish if I can use my FD stuff.
Jim, since focusing is totally dependent upon one's own ability to do that visually (there is no focus confirmation with the MF lens), then depending upon the speed one tries to focus, or if you focus without using the MF assist--focus could be less than 'right on' I would guess. You can move that focus area around on the subject in MF assist also and so its very flexible for focusing--but still dependent on the photographer for sharp focusing.
I think the idea of m4/3rds is very exciting. I've loved shooting with DSLRs for years--and the 5D for well over 3 years now--but they are big, heavy--lens are big, heavy (even my small primes are a fair amount larger than the 'native' Panny lenses) and I think one of the reasons I keep picking up my G1 instead of my 5D or other bodies is that it not only brings back a 'fun factor'--esp. with MF lenses ---but also just allows one to not think about 'gear' but the shot.
Feedback is great I appreciate it. It is important to share information of the shots and processing so we can all benefit.
4 of the first 5 shots were all touched up with Noise Ninja and the default settings, I wasn't aware of a profile for the G1. The noise levels in the orginal shots were extreme. All 5 were handheld at high ISO's it was the first night I had the camera and I resorted too being a point n shooter but doing the dreaded hold up the camera look at the LCD and shoot. All all 5 were at maximum aperture so depth of feild was very small. I do agree with you on the softness.
The 2nd set of shots some were hanheld and tripod mounted. By then I learned how to use the EVF for focussing. Some softness can be attributed to movement as I do not yet have a cable release it is on order. Also many shots were close to MFD. The 100% veiws of someshots are much crisper and as Diane states just as good as the 5D. The ones with the 150-600 and 80-200,100 macro, 400 prime in particular.
Now this brings me to the Wide Angles, I do find them soft 20-35L, 35-105 at 100%. I even tried a Nikon 14-24 any attached at F22 and was not satisfied. Though I will be trying the Nikon more once I receive the adapter that I'll modify to control the aperture lever.
Yes you will find that is a general comparison of FD and EF lens the EFs are sharper. Once I got into the EF world I found that as Canon released new EF lens they were much better than the FDs. Even when I compare the MTF of the FD L's (from Christians site FD documentation) and the EF's I saw that to be true.
The 50L FD is my 2nd copy the first was much sharper than this one, sadly an accident happened and it quit working, I still have it and keep thinking one day I put the glass in a working one. I also have not really used it much yet, but I do know it is more capable than the samples above.
Diane is right on the focus confirmation (lack of). Many of my shots thus far are wide open so softness is expected and my focus points may not always be in a spot others would pick. Though with wildlife the attempt is on the eye, but if it moves,...
Anyways Jim, Diane thanks for the comments hopefully we can all benfit in the longrun with the G1, I'm with you Diane on the 'fun factor'.
Now go finish washing up and it is fun factor day today, off to the mountains for some G1 and Full Spectrum Modified 5D MKII photography.
picnic wrote:
Jim, since focusing is totally dependent upon one's own ability to do that visually (there is no focus confirmation with the MF lens), then depending upon the speed one tries to focus, or if you focus without using the MF assist--focus could be less than 'right on' I would guess. You can move that focus area around on the subject in MF assist also and so its very flexible for focusing--but still dependent on the photographer for sharp focusing.
Thanks Diane,
As long as it's possible to focus accurately I'm OK. Though no where near as fast as I used to be I'm hoping it will be like second nature again. I've grown quite lazy as I only use FD MF lenses every couple of months, and all my TSE lenses have focus confirmation.
I think the idea of m4/3rds is very exciting. I've loved shooting with DSLRs for years--and the 5D for well over 3 years now--but they are big, heavy--lens are big, heavy (even my small primes are a fair amount larger than the 'native' Panny lenses) and I think one of the reasons I keep picking up my G1 instead of my 5D or other bodies is that it not only brings back a 'fun factor'--esp. with MF lenses ---but also just allows one to not think about 'gear' but the shot.
Diane
I know how you feel and many of us are looking for more than the next huge MP monster to come along. I love shooting film on my 1VHS - though large - and still use my F-1 and 3 or 4 other FD bodies. I like the size and the ability to carry several bodies if necessary in the space a single 1 series or 5d w/grip consumes. A bag full of fast FD lenses, a small digital body, and it just seems exciting. It's kind of like the best of both worlds. I feel almost like a kid in a candy store and I don't even own the camera yet!
Feedback is great I appreciate it. It is important to share information of the shots and processing so we can all benefit.
4 of the first 5 shots were all touched up with Noise Ninja and the default settings, I wasn't aware of a profile for the G1. The noise levels in the orginal shots were extreme. All 5 were handheld at high ISO's it was the first night I had the camera and I resorted too being a point n shooter but doing the dreaded hold up the camera look at the LCD and shoot. All all 5 were at maximum aperture so depth of feild was very small. I do agree with you on the softness.
The 2nd set of shots some were hanheld and tripod mounted. By then I learned how to use the EVF for focussing. Some softness can be attributed to movement as I do not yet have a cable release it is on order. Also many shots were close to MFD. The 100% veiws of someshots are much crisper and as Diane states just as good as the 5D. The ones with the 150-600 and 80-200,100 macro, 400 prime in particular....Show more →
I missed some of that the first time (low light, hand held, etc.) and that explains it. Reading that you also think the shots are similar to the 5d is fantastic.
Now this brings me to the Wide Angles, I do find them soft 20-35L, 35-105 at 100%. I even tried a Nikon 14-24 any attached at F22 and was not satisfied. Though I will be trying the Nikon more once I receive the adapter that I'll modify to control the aperture lever.
Yes you will find that is a general comparison of FD and EF lens the EFs are sharper. Once I got into the EF world I found that as Canon released new EF lens they were much better than the FDs. Even when I compare the MTF of the FD L's (from Christians site FD documentation) and the EF's I saw that to be true.
The 50L FD is my 2nd copy the first was much sharper than this one, sadly an accident happened and it quit working, I still have it and keep thinking one day I put the glass in a working one. I also have not really used it much yet, but I do know it is more capable than the samples above. ...Show more →
I have a regular 50 f/1.2 (not the L) and it's "OK", even after a trip to the shop last year for an overhaul. Then again, my EF 50 f/1.2L was nothing special from 1.8 t0 4.0, so nothing has changed there except the price was $1200.
Diane is right on the focus confirmation (lack of). Many of my shots thus far are wide open so softness is expected and my focus points may not always be in a spot others would pick. Though with wildlife the attempt is on the eye, but if it moves,...
Is it easier to focus in low light now that you've played with it a little? I think the beauty of this is going to be the size (relatively inconspicuous) and I'd really like to use it on the street. I can't wait to try it...
Anyways Jim, Diane thanks for the comments hopefully we can all benfit in the longrun with the G1, I'm with you Diane on the 'fun factor'.
Now go finish washing up and it is fun factor day today, off to the mountains for some G1 and Full Spectrum Modified 5D MKII photography.
Sounds fun.
Full spectrum 5d2? Meaning an IR modified camera (assuming visible/IR capable).
jamesf99 wrote:
As long as it's possible to focus accurately I'm OK. Though no where near as fast as I used to be I'm hoping it will be like second nature again. I've grown quite lazy as I only use FD MF lenses every couple of months, and all my TSE lenses have focus confirmation.
regards. Jim
Yes, I know how nice that focus confirmation is on the TS (I have the 45 TSE), but in actuality I find MF with the G1 and FD lenses easier (and I do have the clutzy anglefinder C).
When/if you get the G1 and try them, you'll see. I wear glasses most of the time (must have for reading LOL), but I just set the diopter on the EVF and its good. Then--of course, the MF assist, which sounds 'kludgy' really isn't. I agree with some on other forums that a one button would be even nicer than the 2 button now, its still so easy--hmmm--can't really say HOW easy LOL. Someone here or on another forum (Kirk Gittings I think) described how he hits the left 4 way button and OK on the way to his eye so he's ready to focus immediately. I have to say I haven't really done it quite that way, but may try it. I tend to compose, hit left button, move it to focus area I want, then the OK to make the zoom area fill the very large, bright EVF--and focus with ring. And--often times, esp, with wider lens, its quite possible to focus without the MF assist. I have checked myself a number of times with the MF assist after just focusing with the ring--on the 24 f/2.8--and I was so close it wouldn't likely matter.
Wish I was going to the mts to shoot--its raining cats and dogs here in western NC--but we need it *smile*
I have several Canon FD lenses and SLRs, and just recently learned about the Lumix G1. I also have a Canon EOS D Mark II, but I'm looking for an additional smaller, less obtrusive digital camera. I was thinking of the Canon G10 until I learned about the Lumix G1. Can anyone comment on the comparable IQ of the Lumix G1 w/ the kit lens, the Lumix G1 w/ an adapter and a Canon FD 24 f/2 lens, and the Canon G10? Also, how sturdy is the FD adapter and Lumix lens mount combination? Could it support, say, Canon FD 85 f/1.2 or FD 135 f/2 lenses?
Rob, I shoot with a 5D, a number of lenses but bought a G1 as my 'small' cam. I have the G9 but have been frustrated more than once with it and have an awful time composiing/focusing in just normal daylight---added a Voigtlander VF--but still rarely shoot with it.
I was following the Sig DP1 but decided it wasn't ready--for me--yet. When the G1 was announced I was skeptical, I admit. I read the Panny forum at dpreview primarily--and then after it was out and people were shooting with it--both the Panny lenses and alternatives with adaptors--I frequented the getdpi.com forum. I asked lots of questions--even found one to handle--took my G9 with me to compare for size since I bought a used 400D last summer for my 'small' cam LOL.
I decded that it was probably a good bet for me and finally---I won an auction from a Canadian store end of Dec. at a very good price ($530 USD) and got my own. I soon added the 45-200 and then wondered about FD lenses--as I still had my one last old FD 50 f/1.8 just to mount on the AE-1 sitting around.
Bought the Cameraquest FD adaptor which is the same as the Rayqual. Its very well made, mounts extremely easily and is rock solid.
I'm using all smaller FD lenses--in fact the 3 I bought were chosen for small/light as I plan to add the panny 20 f/1.7 and probably the 7-14 f/4. I do think it wouldn't have any trouble with any of the FD lenses with hand support under the lenses--which is how I tend to shoot anyhow.
I have to say I'm enthusiastic about the camera--manual focus is a dream, really like EVF after I got used to it, ISO to 800 is fine for me generally with well exposed photos. I would recommend exposing to the right if you plan to pull up shadows==and I do always shoot RAW as I have for years (others do like the jpegs though).
I've had more fun with this camera than I've had in a long time. I love my 5D and wide assortment of lenses, but--well you know (and I don't have a 1 series LOL). I will continue to use the 5D (I suspect) for landscapes, VERY low light--but so far since I've gotten it, those haven't arisen. They will as the year goes along and I'll see. Right now--I'm shooting almost all the time with the G1. I really REALLY want a quite fast lens--should have bought the 24 f/2 and/or the 50 f/1.4--maybe still will---or maybe a different alternative. It offers so many possibilities once one has adaptors (and some are quite cheap).
As the G1 with legacy MF lenses, story unfolds concerning the described soft corners of MF lenses, it seems that the ones that produce this are M mount lenses where the lens element is closer to the sensor and/or SLR wide angle lenses with same. It has also been revealed that the mFT lenses are retro focus in design, meaning the lens groups are farther away from the sensor in order to keep the angle if incidence as high as possible, but there is some file manipulation of RAW files going on in software to augment IQ of mFT lenses..
The FD lenses don't seem to have this problem. I've followed it on another forum, but I shoot with a 24 f/2.8 and 35 f/2.8 (both FDs) both wide open and stopped down without issue.
R. Bowman wrote:
(...) Can anyone comment on the comparable IQ of the Lumix G1 w/ the kit lens, the Lumix G1 w/ an adapter and a Canon FD 24 f/2 lens, and the Canon G10? Also, how sturdy is the FD adapter and Lumix lens mount combination? Could it support, say, Canon FD 85 f/1.2 or FD 135 f/2 lenses?
Hi Rob,
I can't do the exact comparison you are asking for but I have experience from the 5D, some Olympus 4/3 cameras and now the G1.
I have used the G1 mainly with alternative lenses as I don't care a lot for the slow kit lens which I use at the wide end only. The µ4/3 system is in need of a lot more lenses but I get by a bit so-so with the kit lens, a semi fast normal (FD24/2 and Hexanon UC 28/1.8 AR) and a mix of alternatives for longer focal lengths.
The 85 and 135mm lenses you mention are probably on the limit. Panasonic recommends not to use lenses weighting over 1000g. I prefer lenses weighting less than so...
The FD24/2 works well enough. It is not super "sharp" wide open where it lacks a little in contrast and resolution (we are dealing with a high pixel density here) but it works fine with some PP. With my adapter (RayQual) and my lens it doesn't focus to infinity but DOF covers infinity when stopping down a couple of stops.
The image quality... compared to the G10 the G1 wins hands down. ISO from 100 to 800 are OK. Handling and ergonomics cause no troubles and the camera really shines when used with legacy lenses. Not everything is perfect, some details can be improved but the general impression from following discussions about the camera is that very few are disappointed.
On lens discussion: I bought the G1 for the size, the EVF and the lens mount. It has worked out as expected with one exception; several Leica M-mount lenses don't go to well together with the camera. Some wide angle and normal (where is a normal is up to 30 or 35mm) cause mild or severe smearing at borders and corners.
In situations where the corners doesn't matter you can use a lot of interesting, small and cheap lenses:
For the short tele area I wouldn't use the big and heavy FD lenses. It's no point to me really mounting those as I just as wel can use my 5D when I care to carry weights. A short tele (around 50mm) is no problem; there are a lot of available nice 50mm lenses and right now I have the Zuiko OM 50/2 Macro in the bag. The FD 50/1.4 works just fine. When I want a somewhat longer reach I use the Voigtländer 75/2.5 Color Heliar. There are a lot of options.
JimBuchanan wrote:
As the G1 with legacy MF lenses, story unfolds concerning the described soft corners of MF lenses, it seems that the ones that produce this are M mount lenses where the lens element is closer to the sensor and/or SLR wide angle lenses with same. It has also been revealed that the mFT lenses are retro focus in design, meaning the lens groups are farther away from the sensor in order to keep the angle if incidence as high as possible, but there is some file manipulation of RAW files going on in software to augment IQ of mFT lenses..
I think this is partly true and partly FUD. Whatever, it is interesting.
I was very disappointed finding that i got smeary borders and corners with the CV28/2 Ultron which I had planned to use as a good non-aspherical and nice normal lens. Since sending that lens back I have tried the Canon FD24/2 and it works just fine. Now I'm using a hexanon UC 28/1.8 and it is just fine. Right now I don't have anything wider to try as 24mm is the widest I use with my 5D.
For the M-mount lenses it seems as more or less all of them with focal lengths lower than 50mm cause some smearing when looking closer to the images.
I don't know what this may mean for the µ4/3 system and the future. Right now many of us are waiting for the Panasonic G20/1.7. Will it perform? I'm in doubt I personally will l like it as I'm not too fund of most aspherical lenses and really wonder how Panasonic can make a pancake shorter and faster than the mediocre Olympus ZD25/2.8 to perform. Time will tell.
There is nothing going on with raw files - they are OK. There is however some corrections made automatically, and not possible to turn off, when developing G1 raw files using ACR/Lightroom or Silkypix (which comes with the camera). This happens only if the images are taken with a Panasonic lens.
Is that good or bad? Well, the fact there is no possibility to turn the lens correction off makes me feel bad about it. OTOH it is easy to see that the lenses can be smaller and easier to design if some aberrations are allowed for later correction. Pros and cons.
Thanks, Diane, Jim and Jonas for your helpful replies--and to others who have posted information on the topic. I am now seriously considering the G1, to be used with my Canon FD 24 f/2, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.2L, and 100 f/2 lenses. If you will indulge me, I have a few more questions.
From what I have read, at least some lenses do not infinity focus with the G1. Is this a function of the lens, or of the lens adapter that one chooses?
Can someone comment on the brightness and accuracy of manual focus with the G1's EVF and FD lenses? Just as a point of reference, in the 35mm FD film world I am used to the Canon New F-1 and T-90 finders.
I assume with the FD lenses and adapter, exposure with the G1 is somehow accomplished with stop-down metering, is that correct?
Is it correct that RAW files shot with manual focus lenses and an adapter have no in-camera corrections applied? Is it also correct that Adobe Lightroom 2.x can read the RAW files?
From postings here and there, it seems at least 3 or 4 FD-MFT adapters are available--CameraQuest (RayQual?), one called or sourced through jinfinance, and one referred to as the "Polish" adapter. There is also reference to an adapter from Novoflex. Is there discussion anywhere of the pros and cons of the adapters?
Again, thanks. And by the way, the photos posted here are wonderful.
R. Bowman wrote:
Thanks, Diane, Jim and Jonas for your helpful replies--and to others who have posted information on the topic. I am now seriously considering the G1, to be used with my Canon FD 24 f/2, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.2L, and 100 f/2 lenses. If you will indulge me, I have a few more questions.
From what I have read, at least some lenses do not infinity focus with the G1. Is this a function of the lens, or of the lens adapter that one chooses?
Adapter issues. Mostly slightly thick M mount adapters have been the issue. Any SLR lens will achieve infinity focus with a proper adapter on a m43 body.
Can someone comment on the brightness and accuracy of manual focus with the G1's EVF and FD lenses? Just as a point of reference, in the 35mm FD film world I am used to the Canon New F-1 and T-90 finders.
The VF will be similar in size or slightly smaller than the T90 depending on settings (I've you use the overlayed data setup the VF is effectively larger than the SLR-sty;e display). Accuracy of manual focus is better than any SLR, especially if you make use of the MF Assist which magnifies the display. Brightness will be a bit lower in good light, but much brighter in poor light as the EVF can amplify the output. Colours will be muted (NTSC gamut, very poor compared to the actual files) and dynamic range of the EVF is mediocre (again, the files are much better).
I assume with the FD lenses and adapter, exposure with the G1 is somehow accomplished with stop-down metering, is that correct?
Yes, Stop-down metering in Aperture Priority or Manual modes.
Is it correct that RAW files shot with manual focus lenses and an adapter have no in-camera corrections applied? Is it also correct that Adobe Lightroom 2.x can read the RAW files?
Yes, the lens corrections are only applied to known lenses, which effectively means the m43 native lenses only. The latest version of Lightroom can read the RAW files.
From postings here and there, it seems at least 3 or 4 FD-MFT adapters are available--CameraQuest (RayQual?), one called or sourced through jinfinance, and one referred to as the "Polish" adapter. There is also reference to an adapter from Novoflex. Is there discussion anywhere of the pros and cons of the adapters?
Again, thanks. And by the way, the photos posted here are wonderful.
Rob
The CQ/Rayqual adapters are the best, the jinfinance ones are the cheapest but still usable. I've not heard any solid info on how good the Novoflex or "Polish" adapters are.
I like yours quite a bit and if they match your 5d, then that should be good enough for anything I'll do. 
. No, you lose no light. The lenses work as normal in aperture priority with the adaptor (I have the CAmeraquest/Rayqual one).