Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Using odd lenses on Micro 4/3rds cameras
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Manual Focus Lenses  Cine lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Klaus.

Rino asked for some portraits. Here are my kids with the Cooke Kinic:







Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's amazing, thanks for pictures! Really nice results!
So I understand that you can use cine lens on micro4/3 because of registration length. So same lens on eos mount wouldn't be able to focus to infinity?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
egidio wrote:
That's amazing, thanks for pictures! Really nice results!
So I understand that you can use cine lens on micro4/3 because of registration length. So same lens on eos mount wouldn't be able to focus to infinity?


yes of course would they not.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really like the composition of #1
very powerful.
I love profile portraits, they have a strenght that the frontal portraits often lack.
Unfortunately people today don't seem to favour profile portraits anymore. I think many perceive profile portraits as old fashioned. I love them the most.
In my selected 2009 images in Contest forum, first one is a profile portrait that I personally arranged with the model. After she saw it she was very happy with it. All other photographers only asked her frontal portraits.

As for this lens, I like it, it looks really Helios-40ish.
For EOS users, I think the Helios-40 can successfully approximate this result.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Egidio and Orio for the compliments.

I agree that a Helios-40 on a full frame camera can deliver results that are a good approximation of the Cooke Kinic, the only difference being the Helios weights a hefty 885g, while the Cooke is only 121g for the same f/1.5 aperture!

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:24 am    Post subject: The lenses Reply with quote
Here are the pictures of some of the lenses I use on the E-P1. First, the Cooke Kinic 1" F/1.5:





The Pentax 110 70/2.8:





The Pentax 110 18/2.8:





The Olympus Pen 42/1.2:





And last but not least, the Pentax Limited 77/1.8:





Cheers!

Abbazz

Last edited by Abbazz on Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz,

The first set of photos made me a bit dizzy.

I like the portraits, though. Very strong.

Is it possible to put D mount lenses on this (or similar) cameras?

I have some D mount Kern Paillard and Som Berthiot 8mm cine lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Superb Abbaz! Many thanks! Art small... I especially like portraits! Why did you pickup Olympus and not Pana ?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cheesegears wrote:
Abbazz,

The first set of photos made me a bit dizzy.

I like the portraits, though. Very strong.

Is it possible to put D mount lenses on this (or similar) cameras?

I have some D mount Kern Paillard and Som Berthiot 8mm cine lenses.


Thanks for your comments cheesegears. It seems difficult to put a D mount lens on a Micro 4/3rds camera for two reasons. First, because the image circle (diagonal) of a 8mm movie picture is 5.94mm, while it is 21.63mm for Micro 4/3rds, meaning that these lenses will usually not cover the bigger format, leading to a small circular image on a black background. Second, because the registration distance (flange focal distance) is 20mm on a Micro 4/3rds camera and only 12.29mm on a D mount lens, meaning the adapter would need to have a part protruding 7.71mm into the camera, dangerously close to the shutter assembly.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Superb Abbaz! Many thanks! Art small... I especially like portraits! Why did you pickup Olympus and not Pana ?


Thanks Attila, I appreciate the kind comments.

I picked the Olympus because it was better suited to my needs:
- built in stabilization
- better image quality in JPEG
- LCD screen brighter in full daylight. I like to work on a large viewfinder image so, for me, a ground glass or an LCD screen is better than an eyelevel viewfinder. The viewfinder is also not very well suited to tropical climate, where perspiration gets into the eyepiece, blurring the image. I tested both cameras and I found the image on the E-P1 more readable in bright sun (important here!). The GF1 screen was a little bit more detailed (not as much as I would have thought), but the image was more difficult to read IMHO.
- better compatibility with 4/3rds lenses. The Panasonic doesn't autofocus with most of the 4/3rds lenses, the Olympus does.
- I love the double electronic level when framing with a wide angle lens. With this feature and the built-in stabilizer, no need for a tripod!
- compatibility with third party batteries. With Panasonic, you are forced to buy the branded batteries for $80 a piece!
- As I don't use on-camera flash, the lack of a built-in flash was not a problem for me.
- Autofocus speed is also not an issue, because I don't shoot sports and I use mostly manual lenses.
- As for the Olympus kit lens being inferior to the Pana, I found it not so bad -- but I may be partial because I love collapsible lenses -- anyway, you are free to buy the E-P1 body only and then use any Pana lens on it!

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you as always!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:57 pm    Post subject: Monkey see, monkey do Reply with quote
There was a monkey raid on the local market during my lunch break. Fortunately, I was there with the Cooke Kinic. Here's the full report:

















Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow what a nice serie and great images this Cooke F1.5 produces! Are they shot wide open?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
JerryMK wrote:
Wow what a nice serie and great images this Cooke F1.5 produces! Are they shot wide open?


Thanks Jerry. I am in love with this lens, because I dig the dynamic effect it produces. All the Kinic pictures in this thread were taken wide open, except for the monkey series, where pictures #2 and #6 were taken at F/3.5 and picture #3 at F/5.6. Pictures #2, 6, 7 and 8 were also slightly cropped.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for posting these great pictures - and for the background info on the Kinic lenses. I have an older uncoated one that is currently out for cleaning (with a few others) and seeing your pics, I can't wait to get it back and play. I have tried a few dozen c-mount lenses, and this one really stands out with the swirly bokeh.

Stefan


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow! super monkey Kinic Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:02 pm    Post subject: Pentax 25/1.4 Reply with quote
Thanks Stefan and Poilu for the kind words, I feel very honored.

Now for a different lens, here are some pictures taken with the Pentax 25/1.4, also in C-Mount. This is a lens for CCTV and video surveillance cameras, which doesn't quite cover the 4/3rds format, leaving some dark corners, even when stopped down. Here's how the image looks like, at F/5.6 and with the default aspect ratio of 4/3:



You can see that there is a very good contrast and that the center of the frame is very sharp (also when the lens is used wide open), but the borders are blurred and the image circle doesn't reach the corners of the frame. By using the 1/1 square aspect ratio, the black corners are cropped away and most of the image becomes sharp:



Same for the 16/9 aspect ratio (wide open):



The bokeh is a bit swirly when shooting close up and wide open, but much more policed than on the Cooke Kinic:



There is also a lot of distortion (F/5.6):



Sometimes, the vignetting can be a real nuisance:



But on some pictures, it is hardly apparent (F/5.6):





Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well Sebastien,

you with your impressive results were the last thing needed to push me "over the edge" towards trying the mft system - and I got me a Lumix GH1 kit. Embarassed

Well now the hunt for good adaptors in on...to see how many of all my lenses can be used on that new system. I expect quite some surprises Wink

Congrats again to the wonderful presentation here!


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Well Sebastien,

you with your impressive results were the last thing needed to push me "over the edge" towards trying the mft system - and I got me a Lumix GH1 kit. Embarassed

Well now the hunt for good adaptors in on...to see how many of all my lenses can be used on that new system. I expect quite some surprises Wink

Congrats again to the wonderful presentation here!

Klaus, you know as well as me that you needed this camera. Cool

Please report your findings regarding the huge pile of lenses you're sitting on.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Sebastien for that "confirmation" - I needed that!! Very Happy

Sure will I report about my findings, sourcing good adaptors right now.

Which c-mount adaptors could you recommend? There seem to be different ones on the market.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
cheesegears wrote:
Abbazz,

The first set of photos made me a bit dizzy.

I like the portraits, though. Very strong.

Is it possible to put D mount lenses on this (or similar) cameras?

I have some D mount Kern Paillard and Som Berthiot 8mm cine lenses.


Thanks for your comments cheesegears. It seems difficult to put a D mount lens on a Micro 4/3rds camera for two reasons. First, because the image circle (diagonal) of a 8mm movie picture is 5.94mm, while it is 21.63mm for Micro 4/3rds, meaning that these lenses will usually not cover the bigger format, leading to a small circular image on a black background. Second, because the registration distance (flange focal distance) is 20mm on a Micro 4/3rds camera and only 12.29mm on a D mount lens, meaning the adapter would need to have a part protruding 7.71mm into the camera, dangerously close to the shutter assembly.

Cheers!

Abbazz


Abbazz,

Much obliged for your thorough explanation. Pity those 8mm can't be used. They're small and light. Take up no space at all.

Cheesegears

PS I like monkey shot 4 by the way (circular effect with monkey in middle)


PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cheesegears wrote:
I like monkey shot 4 by the way (circular effect with monkey in middle)

This circular effect is present in many old lenses, especially when shooting wide open a subject at minimum distance against a more distant background. Here are a few pictures taken with an uncoated Leitz Summar from 1936:


F/2.0



F/2.0



F/2.0



F/2.0


The 50/2 Summar is the first double Gauss lens engineered by Max Berek for Leitz. It was sharper than the archrival Zeiss Sonnar, but had a lower contrast and was more prone to flare, because it had had more glass-air surfaces than the Sonnar formula, and this was a big drawback at a time when lens coatings were not available. Nowadays, the low contrast and muted colors can easily be corrected in post production, but it is not always suitable to do so, because low contrast might be a good point in order to accommodate the rather limited dynamic range of digital imagers. The muted colors and lower contrast can also lead to pleasing results for portrait photography:

F/2.0


F/2.0


When used for landscape, it's better to close the diaphragm quite a bit, because wide open the borders were not so sharp, as with most of the fast lenses of that time:

F/2.0


F/5.6


F/5.6


Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just got a nice 1" Cooke KINIC (Petzval design) lens for my GH1, too.
Thanks Sebastien for bringing that to our attention!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:

... and I got me a Lumix GH1 kit. Embarassed



Wow! Congrats, Klaus. I would love to get this one as well, with the 1.7/20. But there is no budget at the moment. Sad


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
I just got a nice 1" Cooke KINIC (Petzval design) lens for my GH1, too.
Thanks Sebastien for bringing that to our attention!


You're welcome, Klaus. Congrats on the purchase, I hope you will enjoy using yours as much as I enjoy mine!

Cheers!

Abbazz
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Manual Focus Lenses  Cine lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5