Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I used an Olympus E3 for a while, and still have the lenses. I eventually sold the E3 in exchange for a Pen E-P2. I tried the E-P1 but could not get used to using the little monitor on the back for composing photographs, apart from when tripod mounted. I chose the Olympus over the Panasonic GF-1 (I already have a GH1, 14-140 zoom and 20 f1.7) since it autofocuses (s-l-o-w-l-y) the legacy 4/3 lenses, and has in body stabilisation for any focal length lens which can be manually set for non-electronic lenses. I have not checked how well the IS actually works though. I already had a 4/3 to Leica R adapter for the E3, and got the expected superb results from my R lenses, they really are the best SLR lenses by a long way IME. When I got the GH1 I bought the Panasonic 4/3 to micro 4/3 (mFT) adapter for using my existing lenses, and could continue to use the R lenses by doubling up on the adapters. I also got the mFT to Leica M adapter and mFT to Canon FT adapter from an ebay vendor in China. Like most others who have tried it I am not impressed by the WA Leica M lenses on the mFT cameras, the 50 and 90 are stellar and not so hard to use, with the electronic viewfinder boosting brightness if the lens is stopped down and the extra magnification available for manual focussing being pretty effective once you are used to it. The mFT to Canon FT adapter is slightly out in the rotational sense, so with my 300 f2.8 Canon FT on the camera the tripod mount does not quite set the camera level in its detent position. This is a pain, but otherwise a very good, small, light, easily focussed, image stabilised 600mm f2.8 equivalent, super for hiking where there may be interesting wildlife. For me, for normal photography, none of the mFT stuff is small enough to make the compromise worthwhile using one rather than an M9, with the occasional exception of GH1 with 20mm f1.7. The 20mm is a very good lens in the absolute sense, and everybody praises the 7-14mm Panasonic, which I have not used. The Olympus 7-14, whilst huge, was a good enough reason to buy a 4/3 system IMO, being way better tan any other make of WA for SLR before the Nikon 14-24 appeared and matched it. The 14-140 is quite noticeable better than the Canon 35-350, which is the only other equivalent zoom which I have used, and tiny by comparison. Overall, my favourite mFT camera is the GH1, though the Pen E-P2 is versatile with legacy and adapted lenses so a more flexible choice, but pricey. Neither the GF1 nor Pen E-P1 suited what I wanted to do because of my viewfinder problem. FWIW Frank D. On 13 Jun, 2010, at 09:11, Steve Unsworth wrote: > Based on my experience of trying M lenses with a GF-1 I'd prefer the GF-1 > lenses to M or R ones (ok, the only lens I have at the moment is the > fantastic 20mm <grin>). Mainly because using an M lens is so slow, and > I've fond that using the rear screen for critical focussing is near > impossible in bright daylight because it's impossible to see enough detail > to judge the focus point - maybe the viewfinder would improve matters. > > Steve > > On 13 Jun 2010, at 07:36, Jim Laurel wrote: > >> I am using my Leica R 60mm Macro on the Panasonic GF-1 and GH-1 with the >> Panasonic DMW-MA3R adapter. Works wonderfully. I was thinking of getting >> the Leica 45mm Macro (m4/3), but thought "hey, why not just get the >> adapter and use the R macro I already have?" > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information