spylaw4 Posted March 22, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted March 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just a brief heads-up to anyone wanting to use a non-standard lens via an adapter on the L1/D3. Â If, like me, you find the shutter doesn't fire, have a look at the menu setting for "No release without lens"! If it's on - turn it off! That should fix it. Â Oh and I have the Func 1 button set to select My Film1, 2 etc. - that doesn't seem to work with an adapter fitted lens. Any clues about why that should be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Hi spylaw4, Take a look here Non-standard lenses on L1/D3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MJLogan Posted March 22, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted March 22, 2007 Function 1 becomes a dedicated aperture control when a lens other than a 4/3 system lens w/ aperture ring is fitted. Even, it seems, when using a fully-manual lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pygoscelis Posted March 22, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted March 22, 2007 Hi Brian - what lenses have you got? And how satisfying is the process? I am looking for a fixed lens that will give a 35mm equivalent of about 35mm while being considerably smaller than the kit lens...Lloyd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share #4 Â Posted March 22, 2007 Lloyd, So far only the Elmarit R 90/2.8 - arrive today so no ideas as to outcome or satisfaction. More anon. To get 35mm equiv you'll be looking at around 18mm actual. e.g. there's a 17mm/f4 Rokkor, or possibly a Contax. Ideally it would be nice to have a CV but I'm not sure if there's an adapter for those, alas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dist Posted March 23, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Fellow L1/D3 users, do please enlighten me. These discussions about using old glass keep popping up. I, too, have some old glass sitting on the shelf (a few M lenses, an old Nokton) but it never occurred to me what the merit of using this kind of lenses on a modern 4/3 camera should be, except maybe for the "novelty" aspect. You forego practically all of the advantages of using a modern camera body (exposure control, AF, IS). You gain - what exactly? Ah, those pancake lenses are so much more compact than the kit lens (or any other available 4/3 lens for that matter). True. But if a compact and unobtrusive camera is so important as to warrant the loss of all amenities, then why did you pick an L1/D3 in the first place? Don't get this post wrong - I am not trying to ridicule or put down anybody. I would like to understand. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tranquillity Posted March 23, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Fellow L1/D3 users, do please enlighten me. ............ I would like to understand. Cheers, Â You understand very well! Â I can understand "adapting" and living with limitations for a combination like a favourite R lens on say a Canon full-frame digital SLR - but otherwise? Â merry mix and matching anyway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrique Santa Posted March 23, 2007 Share #7  Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Brian, Zuiko 11-22 is standard an isn´t Leica, but is the best lenses I ever had. Take a look at this lenses. I have posted some pics taken with this lenses here: Flickr: Photos from montoablasa take a look if You like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugby Posted March 23, 2007 Share #8  Posted March 23, 2007 Brian, ...regarding the Film1 setting....  I've really formed the opinion with the L1, that the in-camera Jpegs are ...'ho-hum' and nowhere near as good as those generated from the L1-RAW on a PC.  So I'm not so fussed whether to tweak the FILM1 settings beyond what we discussed before  But I am super keen to learn from your R-glass experiences on the 4/3, I'm ready to buy some of these if the results are positive.  So let us know when you post these samples please.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #9 Â Posted March 23, 2007 @Enrique: I agree that the 11-22 Z is a very good lens, but right now I find the 14mm of the standard lens wide enough for my purposes, especially considering the Z's expense! I have to recover from the current outlay first! Maybe later! Great photos by the way! Â @Dugby: I've tweaked the Film 1 settings as previously discussed, and set Film 2 up to give B&W images. However with the 1.1 firmware allowing rapid/burst RAW shooting the need (as with the D2) to go jpeg is not nearly as essential. I have also set the jpegs that come with RAW to the smaller M size as they will get discarded after a quick pre-process review. Â Patience one and all please! I'll post R lens shots as soon as I can. Â Interestingly I have just weighed both the 90/2.8 and the 14-50 standard. 90/2.8 - 600g or 1lb 5 oz. 14-50 - 536g or 1lb 3 oz And yet the R lens subjectively feels very much heavier, more solid; possibly due to it being more compact? The lens is about the same length as the standard one, but much thinner - maybe 3/5 to 2/3 the diam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 23, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted March 23, 2007 I, too, have some old glass sitting on the shelf (a few M lenses, an old Nokton) but it never occurred to me what the merit of using this kind of lenses on a modern 4/3 camera should be, except maybe for the "novelty" aspect. FYI, none of those lenses will work on a 4/3 camera without an adapter containing an additional lens element and I don't know that one of these even exists. Â You forego practically all of the advantages of using a modern camera body (exposure control, AF, IS). You gain - what exactly? Perhaps some of us don't need or want those modern "advantages?" The M8 doesn't have either AF or IS yet it still seems to be quite well received... Â Frankly, the L1/D3 appeals to me precisely because its design and operation is nearly as retro as it gets for a digital camera. Personally, I rarely use autofocus, don't really need IS for most of what I shoot, and aperture-priority exposure metering is fine for me most of the time. I managed to resist buying one of the all-singing, all-dancing, 35mm format plastic "wonder cameras" that first appeared in the mid-80s because I didn't like the way they operated compared to my Minolta XK and I have resisted buying a serious digital camera for nearly a decade now for exactly the same reasons. Had the L1/D3 been designed any differently, I would have very likely continued to hold out. Â Ah, those pancake lenses are so much more compact than the kit lens (or any other available 4/3 lens for that matter). True. But if a compact and unobtrusive camera is so important as to warrant the loss of all amenities, then why did you pick an L1/D3 in the first place? Well, the L1/D3 have some image quality advantages over other, smaller cameras. And again, there's the whole operation issue ... are there any other similarly-priced cameras with a comparable set of features? If so, then I'm not aware of them. The fact that I can use other lenses on it was simply a bonus, however, not the deciding factor. Unlike others, I'm not as impressed by 14-50's performance relative to my favorite Contax lenses (the "pancake" 45mm Tessar in particular), so in combination with the other factors I've cited above, I'm happy to use them in stop-down mode in order to imbue my images with their basic character. There's no novelty aspect at work here at all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
designdog Posted March 23, 2007 Share #11  Posted March 23, 2007 I will be joining the "non-standard" lens for an L1 group today, when I take delivery of a used Contax Planar 85mm 1.4. There were three reasons behind my decision:  1. the lack of fast primes for the 4/3 system (I own the Oly 50mm macro and am not a Sigma fan)  2. the lure of a highly regarded lens at a good price  3. the challenge of manual focus and not being able to be lazy.  I would also add the "retro" look of the L1 and the aperture ring on these lenses as a factor.  -ddog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #12 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Do let us know how you get on with the Contax ddog. I thought about that lens as well as the Rokkor 85/1.7, but the R 90/2.8 came along first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
designdog Posted March 23, 2007 Share #13 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Brian: Â The lens arrive an hour ago and I immediately tried it out. Here are my impressions thus far: Â I put the adapter on the camera (Fotodiox) and then the lens. Previously I had disabled the "no lens" choice in the L1 menu. The lens shows up as "0" aperture, and you have to manually change aperture and shutter speed to get a good exposure. The green dot does not come on. Â "Exposure", which was controlled separately in either A or S mode is not an issue. You are doing it with the aperture and lens speed only. Â Focusing through the viewfinder is no problem at all, but sometimes it was difficult (was a sunny afternoon) to see the exposure settings there. Conversely, with Live View I could readily see exposure, but not focus. Â Took about 30 shots, most of which were blown out beyond recognition. Attached is one of the few good ones. Also took some indoors at f1.4, no flash. Be careful of dof! Attached is one of those as well. Â This is a great lens, and a like-new copy, thanks to KEH camera! Probably will get a 28mm 2.8, but no more, as this is a lot of work! A good option, for someone without the Oly macro is the 60mm 2.8 Makro, which is an amazing lens. Â Anyway, this will be a lot of fun, and a learning experience... Â -ddog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.