[LRflex] Re: OT: Leica Look-alike
- From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:54:09 -0700
Hi Richard, Steve & all:
The problem with Phase detection is that it usually requires separate sensors -
often found in the base of the mirror box.
Contrast detection is used in P&S cameras (and all mirrorless cameras, to date)
because there is no mirror with which to deflect some of the light to the phase
detectors, via a semi-silvered spot & secondary mirror and because it can be
accomplished right off the sensor, which is already being used for "live view".
For more on phase-detection AF, see: http://tinyurl.com/brjru49
Oly now have a patent which provides for some of the regular sensor pixels to
be used in a phase-detection setup.
see: http://tinyurl.com/bfacknx
Is this the solution they'll use? I don't know... only time will tell.
Cheers!
David.
> Hi Steve great info!
> I forgot about you being an Oly shooter.
> (The Neurontin I take is helping me absolutely wonderfully & it's also
> functioning as a mild amnesiac making new memories unsticky and old one
> tougher to get recalled.)
> IIRC there was an interview not long ago where Oly Management was
> discussing the coming pro m4/3 Body and made strong statements
> describing using the legacy 4/3 lenses functioning in an uncompromised
> manner. For whatever that's worth.
> To hypothesize a bit, I strongly suspect the current problems with
> sluggishness and hunting seen in the 4/3 to m4/3 Adapter have as much to
> do with software algorythims as it does to the differences between
> passive and phase detection autofocus. Soooo as with any programming
> problem there is always a way to fix a software issue given time & money
> and with this long time acoming pro m4/3 body & it's hefty price point
> I'd say it's certainly possible they would be able toget a 4/3 lens to
> near parity in function on it.
>
>
> I look forward to seeing what comes.
>
>
> Meanwhile I'll be sticking with my pristine $500 EOS-1DmkII for my slr
> needs. When I can get a pro level m4/3 for that pricepoint, I'll
> certainly give it sharp look-n-see :)
>
> Richard in Michigan
> _____________________________________
>
>
> The string of typographical symbols comic strips use to indicate
> profanity ("$%@!") is called a grawlix.
> _____________________________________
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 10:46 AM, David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> Steve Barbour asked:
>>
>>> Will OM-D cameras currently available use older m43 lenses made for
>>> E1
>>>
>>> E3 bodies etc? No adapter?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Steve!
>>
>> First of all, Steve, you have to distinguish between Four-Thirds mount
>> lenses (43) and micro-Four-Thirds (m43) mount lenses, which are not
>> compatible, because of the much smaller registration (distance from
>> lens flange to film/sensor) due to the lack of a mirror box on the m43
>> cameras.
>>
>> As to your question... Sadly, no. However, there is an adapter
>> available which allows the 43 lenses to be used on a m43 body. List
>> member, Peter Klein, has one, and told me that it does work, but that
>> performance is not very satisfactory, with the lenses "hunting" a lot.
>>
>> The problem seems to be that the E-series (E1, E3, & E5 and E420, 520,
>> 620 etc.) use Phase detection AF sensors ... while the mirrorless
>> cameras, of all stripes, use contrast detection, similar to all point
>> & shoot varieties.
>>
>> The rumoured "pro-level" OM-D series camera (due this fall) is
>> supposed to work with the original Four-Thirds lenses to their full
>> potential. Because the registration of the two mounts is different,
>> an adapter will be required. But, if it works properly, I won't mind.
>>
>> Olympus have good engineers, who have filed several recent patents
>> that work towards this. However, whether they can pull it off remains
>> to be seen.
>>
>> I, for one, am hoping they can manage it, for if they can I'll be
>> upgrading as soon as I can!
>>
>> David.
>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 10, 2013, at 7:23 AM, David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Neil, Richard, and all...
>>>
>>>
>>> I have used my R glass on my Oly Four-thirds camera for years.
>>>
>>> Occasionally,
>>>
>>> also older Pentax & Nikon glass, as well. I find the results to be
>>>
>>> absolutely excellent.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you wish to get focus confirmation (an audible "beep", when
>>> optimum
>>>
>>> focus is achieved), you need to use a "Dandelion" chip, glued into
>>> the
>>>
>>> adapter. Details can be found here:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.main.furnfeather.net/Links/OFC-1.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> I already own adapters for the micro-Four-Thirds (m43) mount, in
>>>
>>> anticipation of the "pro" level OM-D series camera, rumoured to be
>>>
>>> coming this fall. So,
>>>
>>> when I had a chance, last fall, to borrow a friends OM-D, m43
>>> camera, I
>>>
>>> tried them. Here are a few of the less common lenses to be found on
>>> a
>>>
>>> m43 camera.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.furnfeather.net/Temps/OM-D-other.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I chose the Olympus models because of their in-body-image
>>> stabilization
>>>
>>> (IBIS). Panasonic have been proponents of the in-lens method. While
>>>
>>> arguments may
>>>
>>> rage about which is better, the fact remains that IBIS makes even my
>>> 40+
>>>
>>> year old Telyt 400/6.8 an image stabilized lens! A BIG factor when
>>>
>>> converting R-glass.
>>>
>>>
>>> My own experience has shown the Olys to be remarkably reliable, and
>>> you
>>>
>>> can
>>>
>>> find my posts, in the archives, about Oly's stellar repair service.
>>> (My
>>>
>>> friend had to send her OM-D in for a minor recall, and it was turned
>>>
>>> around in 24 hours!)
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, using R-glass on any other camera, via adapters, means
>>> manual
>>>
>>> focus (no problem here!) and Aperture Priority exposure control only.
>>>
>>> Since most
>>>
>>> people I know use only "A" priority nearly exclusively, this too,
>>> should
>>>
>>> not be a big problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Last point. I have found Fotodiox and Roxsen adapter to be both very
>>>
>>> reasonable in price and very well made. Cheaper ones appear on the
>>>
>>> various auction sites, and surprisingly, all that I have tried work
>>>
>>> well, too. However, the cheaper ones often suffer minor
>>> difficulties -
>>>
>>> such as the top of the lens being on
>>>
>>> the side, when the adapter is used. The difference in cost is seldom
>>>
>>> more than $2 to $5, so I suggest not "cheaping out"!
>>>
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Neil,
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I can't comment on the operational aspects of using Leica R lenses
>>>> on
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Micro or even Regular 4/3rds Cameras, but the ability to hook the
>>>> two
>>>>
>>>
>>>> together definitely is available.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-R-Lens-To-Micro-M4-3-Body-Adapter-
>>>> Mount-
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Panasonic-GF3-GF2-OM-EP3-EPL3-AV27-
>>>>
>>>
>>>> /281091422379?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item41725ab8ab
>>>>
>>>
>>>> (That's just an examplar link-I've never bought anything from the
>>>>
>>>
>>>> seller!
>>>>
>>>
>>>> ) Richard in Michigan
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I was one who didn't care for the feel of the R8/9 compared to
>>>>> my R5,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but I have to say that if the Lumix can be adapted to accept my R
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> lenses, Panasonic has sold me!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>>
>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>>
>>> Archives are at:
>>>
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>
>>> ------
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>>
>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>>
>>> Archives are at:
>>>
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
