p.1 #1 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
Hi!
For a longer time I have been searching for an alternative camera for my huge DSLR. Sometimes it's almost impossible or at least really frustrating to carry it with you everyday.
Panasonic GF1 seems like a nice camera, but there are some things I haven't found answers to. I guess there are a lot of like minded people here, so wanted to ask straight from you guys!
It seems, that the lenses meant for the 4/3 cameras aren't the best ones out there so I would like to invest for some nice Zeiss, Leica of Voigtlander lenses with Panasonics own M Mount Adaptor DMW-MA2M. Of course best thing would be to have nice Zeiss lens with Canon ZE mount (cause Leica M-mount adapter is not available for Canon cameras) so I could use it also with my 5D.
Is there any adapters for GF1 to use Canon lenses (or lenses meant for Canon)?
How is it possible to change the aperture with GF1 if I use ZE or M -mount adapters?
Thanks a millions! I'll come up with more questions by the time I know more things.
p.1 #2 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
I bought a Canon to m4/3 adapter for my EF lenses. Unfortunately, I realized after I got it that without a manual aperture ring on the lenses, the adapter is pretty much useless. Most people seem to have fun using older manual lenses (I have a decent collection of OM lenses) on the 4/3 system. The bonus to that is they can often be picked up relatively cheaply.
p.1 #3 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
It seems that the primary use of the EF>mFT adapter is for stacking adapters (ie OM>EF>mFT) since there will be an aperture ring in most cases. You can use Canon AF lenses, either wide open, or by presetting the aperture. You preset the aperture using a Canon EF body by setting the aperture and pressing the DOF button while dismounting the lens. The lens will stay stopped down to the preset aperture.
p.1 #4 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
My suggestion is to invest in a Nikon to micro adapter and a Nikon to EF adapter, then buy ZF glass (which, as I understand it, are optically the same as ZF.2 and ZE, but without the electronic aperture control and generally less expensive on the used market). Then you'll get the manual aperture you need for the Panny and they'll still work on the Canon.
p.1 #7 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
There aren't a lot of m43 lenses, but the ones there are are almost all very good. The 20/1.7 and both ultrawide zooms are excellent. For longer stuff, Zeiss ZM lenses (especially the 35/2) work great.
If you will be doing a lot of manual focusing, I'd recommend a G2 or something else with a good EVF.
p.1 #8 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
jussihellsten wrote:
Hi!
Hi Juss,
It seems, that the lenses meant for the 4/3 cameras aren't the best ones out there
Yup, you're right. There are a few that are "good" but no exceptional ones and some are very average-ish. (even "poor" by some's standards)
so I would like to invest for some nice Zeiss, Leica of Voigtlander lenses with Panasonics own M Mount Adaptor DMW-MA2M. Of course best thing would be to have nice Zeiss lens with Canon ZE mount (cause Leica M-mount adapter is not available for Canon cameras) so I could use it also with my 5D.
Is there any adapters for GF1 to use Canon lenses (or lenses meant for Canon)?
Nope. Not a single adapter currently in existence will offer you aperture control over EF (EOS) lenses. None. The good news is that EF is the only mount (I know of) that suffers this condition. All other mounts I've looked into offer aperture control in some way or another on the M4/3 bodies.
How is it possible to change the aperture with GF1 if I use ZE or M -mount adapters?
For M-xx and Leica-M mounts I believe most or all of those lenses have an aperture ring. So that's used in the case of those lenses.
The few ZE lenses I've looked at cannot be aperture controlled on any of the M4/3 bodies as they didn't have a manual aperture ring and no adaptor currently exists that will allow the M4/3 cameras to control it electrically.
I think it may be possible but no one has done it yet.
Thanks a millions! I'll come up with more questions by the time I know more things.
Feel free, ask away... someone here will likely know the answers...
p.1 #11 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
jussihellsten wrote:
Does the adapter affect on the larges aperture or is it still 1.4 for real?
It is still f1.4 as far as exposure is concerned, but with respect to DoF, things change considerably on a 2x crop camera.
For example, the DoF of a 70mm f1.4 lens on a FF camera will be considerably less than the DoF of a 35mm f1.4 (70mm equivalent FoV) lens on a 2x crop camera (at the same aperture and camera-subject distance). The result is considerably less control of DoF on 2x crop cameras as compared to FF. This does not make the cameras unusable by any means, but it is good to be aware of what is happening and why.
(all of this has nothing to do with the adapter and everything to do with the 2x crop factor, which forces us to either increase camera-subject distance or reduce focal length to achieve the same framing as on FF, both of which increase DoF).
p.1 #12 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
Aaa, I see. Is there any way to measure how much it affects? I mean for exampl. count that 35mm f1.4 would be the same as 70mm f4 (or what ever) on fullframe camera? This would give some perspective what to expect so I wouldn't buy expensive lenses to have nice bokeh just to notice it wount work with the 4/3 the same way.
p.1 #13 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
I honestly don't know what the "rule of thumb" is but I think I recall people rounding it of to "2x", just like the crop factor. So a 35/1.4 would become a "like" a 70/2. This is probably not very accurate...
Background blur is still very much possible, it just may take more effort, and will be much more evident at closer focusing distances, of course.
p.1 #14 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
cogitech wrote:
I honestly don't know what the "rule of thumb" is but I think I recall people rounding it of to "2x", just like the crop factor. So a 35/1.4 would become a "like" a 70/2. This is probably not very accurate...
Background blur is still very much possible, it just may take more effort, and will be much more evident at closer focusing distances, of course.
2 times the actual f number i believe not the amount of light, so it would be 70/2.8.
p.1 #17 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
I haven't looked at any mathematics on the topic but I don't seem to notice any difference.
Here's the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 at 1.4 on the GH1:
Focus distance 1.2 meters
Focus distance 0.45 meters
Focus distance 2 meters
Focus distance 1.2 meters
Here's the Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Micro at 2.8 on a full frame camera:
Focus Distance: 1.2 Meters
Focus Distance: 0.9 Meters
Focus Distance: 0.8 Meters
Focus Distance: 1 Meter
Focus Distance: 1 Meter
Focus Distance: 1.2 Meters
According to the math proposed here shouldn't the DOF be pretty close to the same here? Yet the GH1 seems actually to be shallower - much shallower! Now, this doesn't account for the difference in Angle Of View as I'm comparing a 50mm on the GH1 which is the equivalent of 100mm with a 55mm on a FF film camera. Even still there doesn't seem to be very much difference between what I imagine the Nikkor E 100mm f/2.8 would look like on FF compared to the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 examples shown above. Now at focus distances of 4 or 5 meters it might show up a little more. <shrug>
Because of this and similar tests I've done (all at close focusing distances so far [5 meters and less]), I always ignore it when people say that crop sensors aren't as shallow or don't offer as much DOF control. It might be true but you can't prove it by me.
p.1 #18 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
Bifurcator wrote:
According to the math proposed here shouldn't the DOF be pretty close to the same here? Yet the GH1 seems actually to be shallower - much shallower! Now, this doesn't account for the difference in Angle Of View as I'm comparing a 50mm on the GH1 which is the equivalent of 100mm with a 55mm on a FF film camera. Even still there doesn't seem to be very much difference between what I imagine the Nikkor E 100mm f/2.8 would look like on FF compared to the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 examples shown above. Now at focus distances of 4 or 5 meters it might show up a little more. <shrug>
Because of this and similar tests I've done (all at close focusing distances so far [5 meters and less]), I always ignore it when people say that crop sensors aren't as shallow or don't offer as much DOF control. It might be true but you can't prove it by me. ...Show more →
here is where the confusion comes from: at the same focus distance 4/3 will have a narrower depth of field than the exact same lens at the same focus distance on a FF camera. this is because 4/3 sensor is just showing exactly what the we would see from the lens on FF if we cropped the center and blew it up to the size of the original.
if instead of using the same lens at the same distance you instead want identical framing to compare 4/3 vs FF you will need to put a 100mm on the FF to get the same framing as the a 50mm on 4/3. now you can take the same shot with the same framing from the same distance, it is just the lens focal lengths that are different. in these conditions the dof field will be roughly the same for 50mm on 4/3 at f/1.4 as 100mm on FF at f/2.8.
4/3 is really only is a serious limitation to dof field control at wide angles in my opinion. a 100mm at f/4 lens on FF or 50mm f/2 on 4/3 can give you a plenty narrow dof at the working distances where one typically wants it. however, your mileage may vary. i know people just can't accomplish what they want without a medium format camera. if you really like the look of the shots on zeiss 35mm f/1.4 thread, forget using 4/3, it's not really possible. if you only use narrow dof for portraits and closeups 4/3 is fine.
p.1 #19 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
Bifurcator wrote:
According to the math proposed here shouldn't the DOF be pretty close to the same here? Yet the GH1 seems actually to be shallower - much shallower! Now, this doesn't account for the difference in Angle Of View as I'm comparing a 50mm on the GH1 which is the equivalent of 100mm with a 55mm on a FF film camera. Even still there doesn't seem to be very much difference between what I imagine the Nikkor E 100mm f/2.8 would look like on FF compared to the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 examples shown above. Now at focus distances of 4 or 5 meters it might show up a little more. <shrug>
Because of this and similar tests I've done (all at close focusing distances so far [5 meters and less]), I always ignore it when people say that crop sensors aren't as shallow or don't offer as much DOF control. It might be true but you can't prove it by me. ...Show more →
sebboh wrote:
here is where the confusion comes from: at the same focus distance 4/3 will have a narrower depth of field than the exact same lens at the same focus distance on a FF camera. this is because 4/3 sensor is just showing exactly what the we would see from the lens on FF if we cropped the center and blew it up to the size of the original.
if instead of using the same lens at the same distance you instead want identical framing to compare 4/3 vs FF you will need to put a 100mm on the FF to get the same framing as the a 50mm on 4/3. now you can take the same shot with the same framing from the same distance, it is just the lens focal lengths that are different. in these conditions the dof field will be roughly the same for 50mm on 4/3 at f/1.4 as 100mm on FF at f/2.8. ...Show more →
OK. I believe you and everything but I'm just wondering what those differences are - specifically - in terms of look and feel. I mean, a 100mm f/2.8 is one flat mofolo! The narrowness of DOF from a 100mm at f/2.8 is pretty extreme! Well if it's like the 50mm 1.4 I posted as you say, then you can see it right there I suppose.
I guess, I think, perhaps, that's flat enough to satisfy anyone's artistic proclivities toward "DOF control" - on the narrow end. And if true who cares about the numbers? It delivers. And if that's true it then would be wrong IMO to suggest to users that M4/3 doesn't allow for the same DOF control - for most intents and purposes. At least that's how my logic plays out. As you can see above, it's not completely foundationless.
4/3 is really only is a serious limitation to dof field control at wide angles in my opinion. a 100mm at f/4 lens on FF or 50mm f/2 on 4/3 can give you a plenty narrow dof at the working distances where one typically wants it. however, your mileage may vary. i know people just can't accomplish what they want without a medium format camera. if you really like the look of the shots on zeiss 35mm f/1.4 thread, forget using 4/3, it's not really possible. if you only use narrow dof for portraits and closeups 4/3 is fine.
I agree about the WA part of that statement. I mean, I don't see many 25mm f/0.7 lenses around - which would be needed to "perfectly" match the 50/1.4 on a FF. (although I have a 12.5mm f/1.2 ) Still, I have to say I don't think I've seen any images on this site that I thought I couldn't duplicate the angle and DOF of - in general. There's a few I can't touch the DR of (without multiple exposures), and quite a few I would need to spend a lot of money to match the length-and-sharpness of... but... So which images are you talking about specifically?
p.1 #20 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses
BIF,
All you have to do to see the very obvious difference in DoF/blur is a direct comparison of the same shots (same framing) with (for example) a 50mm lens on 2x and a 100mm lens on FF. The DoF/blur differences between FF and 1.6x are very obvious when these types of direct comparisons are done, so the 2x crop comparison should pretty much slap you in the face. The shots you posted are not comparable in any way whatsoever, which is why you are drawing such conclusions.
