mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Thanks for your help.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Thanks for your help.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Thanks for your reply.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Thanks for your reply.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Thanks for your reply.

User ID

However it may vignette. Not severely but noticeably. With luck, no problem.

A DX lens needs an image circle of about 28mm. A 71% version of that circle would be 20mm ... barely what’s needed for m4/3. So if all goes well with the usual inevitable minor variables and tolerances there would be NO vignetting. If things go less than well it should be only a slight case of vignetting, visible but no disaster.


“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””


Enjoy that EM-5II. Think of the EM-1 as the “Nikon F” of m4/3 realm while the EM-5 is the Nikkormat ... a verrrry capable high quality second string player, actually preferred by some for reasons having nothing to do with price.

When you later ask “the collective wisdom” for opinions on native m4/3 lenses you’ll trigger a looong thread with so many differing opinions that no distinct solution will shake out. Rather than tell you MY faves, I’ll just point out that the body is weather resistant, so a weather resistant lens would be worth considering.

A less universal concern is focus stacking, but if that is of interest to you then do be aware it requires certain lenses to enable that function.

User ID

.

SIZE MATTERS !!!

Well, more accurately, magnification is what matters but conversationally we’ll call it size. Accurately speaking, formats have size but images have magnification.

What you neglect to consider, FF-wise, is that 12-24mm is still 12-24mm despite the vignetting. It doesn’t matter if the FF vignetting is due to smaller diameter elements (DX lens on FF body) or to an undersized lens hood on an actual FF 12-24 extreme ultra wide (user error).

NOTE WELL:
When you mount that 12-24 DX on a FF body it’s not a functionally practical ultra wide ... that much you already know. But HERE is why it’s STILL a very real 12-24: IMAGE SIZE.

Image Size is NOT Field of View.

Size is absolute, not relative to format dimensions. Format dimensions affect field of view (assuming a large enough image circle). Field of view is thus relative, not absolute.

Although the image from the DX lens doesn’t cover the FF sensor, whatever subject matter is visible, it’s exactly the same size on the sensor as if from an FX 12-24. The vignetting of the DX lens does NOT affect its image size. Discarding part of the image doesn’t alter image size.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I prefer to use Olympus or Panasonic lenses with my Olympus bodies. I can understand that you are not ready for those lenses and want to use what you have now. The 14-42 kit lens is very affordable in the second hand market and it is a good start till you sell your gear if you prefer that way or till you can afford other lenses for your Olympus.

My Zuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro is an excellent optic and it is what I use more often with my Olympus bodies.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Don't know that this adds to the discussion, but...
The "crop frame" sensor is smaller than the FF thus the magnification factor is greater. Magnification is:
horizontal width of the sensor divided by the horizontal width of the angle of view.
The formula - m= H/FOV

uhaas2009

I don’t do math when I look through the viewfinder......lol...... I never used a 4/3 camera, maybe it’s time to check it out.

tomcat

I hear this subject come up often in UHH and other sites. But the bottom line, to me, is why does it matter what the numbers are? You are going to zoom out to the max focal length anyway if needed. So why is it so important to know that a 200mm lens at FF now becomes an equivalent 300mm with a crop factor of 1.5? I personally don't care to do the math because I know that shooting in DX mode will give me a different number, but again the numbers don't mean anything to me.

Am I missing the point here? Just curious......Because all I do is stick the lens on and go shoot.......

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

You do know that the speed booster is more expensive than many M4/3 lenses and in the Nikon version only allows manual control?

User ID

No. There is no “magnification factor”. There’s just some cropping. As you said, ‘not adding to the discussion’ ... but please don’t add to the confusion.

Ok yes this seems a picky rhetorical point and in other context it would be.

But here the OP is about trying to understand the concept, involving reduction optics combined with the issue of format dimensions, and so BOTH cropping and magnification are involved and need to be understood independently of each other.

Without the reduction optics, looser use of terminology would hardly matter.

User ID

Dollar-wise thaz true but he wants to repurpose a somewhat pricey lens that he already owns, and as a DX lens it won’t be overly huge on his m4/3 camera.

Other than loss of convenience there’s a real issue of optics. Speed boosters are native to the cine/video world. In THAT world’s economy they’re relatively inexpensive money saving accessories.

But video has motion and sound so no one really sees the optical loss from adding a few more elements to a lens design. I’ve got cheapie, midpoint, and Metabones speed boosters. The more you pay the less loss of IQ, but it’s never really right ... and I’m no pixel peeper.

To get what a typical stills photography enthusiast considers very good sharpness you hafta play optical roulette to find the “booster friendly” lenses. I can do that cuz I have decades of lenses accumulated. Not all users can shop their own closet so roulette gets expensive.

It gets worse. With a “friendly” lens, if you want pretty decent sharpness by typical enthusiast standards, you still hafta stop down at least two stops. The first stop is a freebie ... it WAS the speed boost, but now it’s gone, and one or two more stops must be sacrificed. So much for The “Speed Boost”.

It’s not a scam. It’s just I’ll-informed stills shooters dabbling in video accessories. And then the stills users complain about the PRICE of the “inferior” device. I repeat: In cine/video terms the price is cheap and the results are generally way more than adequate.

Best bet for an interim optic until proper ones are acquired is a $30 adapter (avoid the $12) with no optics. The Crop Factor from DX to m4/3 is a livable 1.3X. Plus instead of optical compromise you get reduced distortion and brighter corners.

The DX wide zoom become a wide-to-normal zoom thaz still plenty wide at the short end ... a fine “go to” lens for $30, saving hundreds vs a Speedbooster so you’re halfway to real Zuiko lens. My 14-150 LIVES in my EM-5 II, a great compact weather resistant do-it-all setup. Look for a used one !

fetzler Loc: North West PA

The focal length of the lens that is marked on the lens is the true focal length. It does not change with the type of camera that you mount in on.

Equivalent focal length is an attempt to estimate the field of view of a lens on a particular body. Many photographers are familiar with the field of view of various focal lengths on 35mm film cameras (of FF sensor cameras.

A normal lens for 35mm is approximately 50mm. For and APS-C camera the crop factors is 1.5. 50mm/1.5 =33.3 ~ 35mm. Thus a normal lens on a APS-C camera is 35mm. Similarly for Micro 4/3 50mm/2 = 25mm.

A 50mm lens mounted to a full frame camera, a 35mm lens mounted to APS-C camera and 25mm lens mounted to a m 4/3 camera are expected to have very similar fields of view. Images taken from the same shooting position would be similar.

I have a 16-80mm Nikon DX lens. The marked focal lengths are true focal lengths. If this lens were mounted to a FF camera vignetting would occur as DX lens is does not fully cover the FF sensor.
My Nikon lens has a FF field of view corresponding to a 24 mm - 120mm mounted to a full frame camera. Focal lengths are multiplied by 1.5

If I mount my Nikon lens on my Olympus camera (no speed booster) the field of view will will correspond to a
32- 160mm lens mounted to a FF camera. The focal length is multiplied by 2.

A FF Lens of 24-120mm, a DX lens 16-80mm and a micro 4/3 lens of 12-60mm will have equivalent fields of view. Indeed, I have the latter 2 for just this reason.

In the film days photographers had this same challenge when using cameras of different formats.( eg, 35mm, 6 x 6cm, 4 x5 in ). The normal focal length for any format corresponds to the diagonal dimension of the sensor or the film . In reality normal lenses approximate this dimension. Double this focal length and you have a 2X telephoto for that format. I don't recall film photographers having a problem with this.