Non digital lenes with new digital SLR ?

[Peakbagr]

Bravo on the new forum.

Here's another question for the knowledgeable...

I have a number of really nice Olympus Zuiko lenses and understand that Olympus has a attachement for their digital SLRs that allows you to use non digital lenses.

Does anyone have any experience with this, how good are the Olympus digital SLRs, or am I better off biting the bullet, starting up with a new brand of Digital SLR and go with their digital lenses?

Thank you

 

[David Metsky]

The adapter is the MF-1 OM. Here's a list of what you can expect - link (pdf)

There's a 2x crop factor, so your 100mm lens will act like a 200mm. But if the glass is good, it's could be worth the $100 for the adapter.

-dave-

 

[Peakbagr]

Dave,

Thanks.

Alan

 

[darren]

Wow, a crop factor of 2x would be tough for me to use. What type of photos do you liketo take? If you shoot birds and animals, then your 400mm lens becomes a 800mm and you would be psyched. If you liketo shoot landscapes then your trusty 24mm lens becomes a 48mm or more like a normal 50mm.

You might find it tough to take landscape photos with a restriction like that. You would then have to buy one of their ulra-wide angle lenses and that will set you back like another $400-$700.

I don't have any experience with olympus cameras so I can't comment on how good they are.

- d

 

[nartreb]

A 2x crop factor has a small drawback for wildlife photography too: a 2x crop factor means you are taking advantage of only half the light that comes through the lens. This makes it somewhat more important to have a fast lens (or be willing to live with higher ISO) if you want to shoot handheld (or fast-moving subjects) in low light or at a distance. And all my good wildlife sightings seem to occur in low light when I don't have time to set up a tripod (even if I carried one, which I usually don't). So again it depends on whether the lenses you've already got are much good.

At $100 it's probably worth a try - cheaper than all new lenses for sure.

 

[David Metsky]

Well, he doesn't have a dSLR yet so it also means buying an Oly camera body. Frankly, the reviews of the E-350 and E-500 aren't overwhelming. I'd be more inclined to go with Nikon or Canon right now.

Unless you've invested an awful lot in those lenses I don't think it's worth it. You lose auto-focus, and that would be a deal killer for me.

-dave-

 

[darren]

A 2x crop factor has a small drawback for wildlife photography too: a 2x crop factor means you are taking advantage of only half the light that comes through the lens.

Maybe technically partially true, but not true enough to matter. The crop factor means that the sensor is smaller than a 35mm neagtive. A crop factor of 1.5 means that the sensor is 66% the size of a 35mm neg and a crop factor of 2 means the sensor is 1/2 the size of a 35mm negative.

The lens passes the same amount of light through it. The sensor is smaller, so it only uses 1/2 of it (in the 2x case). Because you use 1/2 the light does not mean you must double your exposure time. The sensor is still getting the same amount of light per square unit of area. So exposure stays the same.

For example, my 100mm lens on my film body will use the same exposure under the same conditions if I put the same lens on my DSLR with a 1/6x crop factor (making it a 160mm).

The benefit of the crop factor (other than making your telephoto lenses huge - my 400mm becomes a 640mm!) is that the sensor is only using the center part of the image created by the lens. The center is the sharpest part of a lens. The edges of a lens generate much more distortion. So a crop body DSLR uses the very best part of lenses and therefore takes very sharp pictures. A 2x crop factor should use just the very best part of an old film lens and assuming the sensor is good it should take very sharp pictures.

That put aside, a 2x crop factor seems very unwieldy. Forget indoor photos or wide landscapes. As for the reviews, take Dave's word for it.

In your shoes, I would probably take the plunge and go Canon or Nikon. Anyone you know have Canon or Nikon lenses you can borrow? That might influence you decision. As for Canon or Nikon, both are tops. I've always found Canon lenses are the same quality but a little cheaper than Nikon. I made the commitment to Canon over 10 years ago when Canon came out with Image Stabilization (IS). Nikon just came out with their Vibration Reduction (VR) so that is a non-issue now I guess.

- darren

 

[Peakbagr]

When the Olympus cameras and the Olympus Zuiko lenses came out, they were state of the art and all the reviews said they were the first cameras and lenses that were a match to the German engineering and lenses. Thats why I got them. They were expensive then, and deserving so. My base lens was a 1.2 and a 1.4, with a couple of wide angle and teles.

Besides some family photos, 95% of my photos have been mountain and photo-scenic images.

If I decided to get the Olympus dSLR, the only lenses that might be generally useful would be with wide-angles. And even them, take the effective range and doubling it, would get to the equivalent of a 50mm lens, but would lose the auto focus and then be concerned about what the visual affect might be of pushing a 28mm lens to get it to 'regular'.

In the scheme of things, I'd like to be able to use great Olympus lenses, but don't want to be saddled with a dSLR system that is substandard, or buy a camera body that doesn't get reviewed well, just to save on the lenses.

Dave, I haven't been overwhelmed with the reviews for the Olympus digital SLRs, but hoping people here might have heard/read some better things to say.
If I had to buy in 2007, it would probably be Nikon or Canon.
I just wish Olympus was at the vanguard like they were 20 years ago.

 

[darren]

Hey, look at it this way.....the more money you spend the more motivated you will be to use it!

- darren

 

[Tim Seaver]

Oly Oly Oly!

I just wish Olympus was at the vanguard like they were 20 years ago.

I join you in that lament!

I cut my teeth on an OM4-T. It's precise spotmeter, compactness and readiness to shoot was first rate.

But this pining digression shows my age, so I'll shutup now....

 

[DougPaul]

Hey, look at it this way.....the more money you spend the more motivated you will be to use it!

You will also be helping the economy...

I just picked up a Canon Digital Rebel XT and a couple of lenses a few months ago--it's been a lot of fun. Somehow, I don't think my old film SLR is going to get much more use...

Doug

 

[darren]

One other thing to think about. If you are used to shooting slide film, a digital camera will pay for itself in no time. Every time I went on a two week trip I would spend about $400 in slide film and processing. With digital you can shoot all you want and not spend anything. My initial DSLR camera purchase paid for itself pretty quickly.

- darren

 

[Peakbagr]

How heavy are the new Digital SLRs and lenses in comparison to their film SLR counterparts?
And are they durable?
My Olympus bodies are almost all metal externally, but lightweight.

I know when I see the DSLR cameras along the trail, they look much larger than their film predecessors and I'm always grateful for the deck of cards sized pocket digital I'm 'toting'.

 

[DougPaul]

How heavy are the new Digital SLRs and lenses in comparison to their film SLR counterparts?
And are they durable?

The weights for some of the Canon gear (simply because I happen to know them--others will have to chime in for other models and brands):
Digital Rebel XT body: 17oz.
kit lens (18-85mm) 6.7 oz
55-200mm lens: 10.9 oz
75-300 mm lens: 16.8oz
17-85 mm IS lens: 16.1 oz
70-300 mm IS lens: 22.4 oz
IS=image stabilized

* The DR-XT is smaller and lighter than most other DSLRs.
* IS lenses are nice, but heavy and expensive.
* The 35mm equivalent focal lengths are x1.6, so 17mm -> 27mm, 300mm -> 480mm.
* body is plastic over an internal metal frame
* Durability?: I'm not going to drop mine to find out...

I know when I see the DSLR cameras along the trail, they look much larger than their film predecessors and I'm always grateful for the deck of cards sized pocket digital I'm 'toting'.

My P&S is small and light, but the DSLR is far more versitile--much better when it comes time to take a pic.

Doug