Have you taken advantage of the on-screen magnfication which is accessed via the "magnifying glass" button which will then allow you to focus on a specific SPOT within the frame that you are pointing the camera at?

While it may not be exactly what you want, it may satisfy your focusing needs when using your m4/3 camera body OR any other mirrorless camera body.

Thanks ...

Manual focusing was used, of course.

OF COURSE, if the camera is clumsy in the user's hands, then it can be a drawback to the images one produces ...

.....Discontent in how a camera feels is undoubtedly why there are many barely used cameras on eBay ...

.....And, why I can't say it often enough how important a "thumb grip" is for a mirrorless camera!

Fortunately, the feel-and-layout of most cameras are well thought out, now.

Oh, geez ...

I really don't want to extend this manual-v-autofocus discussion unnecessarily ...

BUT, apparently YOU didn't read what I wrote ...

AND/OR, you don't have a very high regard for the OP ...

Regardless, what you & I expect a digital camera body should have-or-do are poles apart ...

.....No bells ...

.....No whistles ...

.....Ultimately, I just need the body to capture the image ...

Regardless, I think I pretty clearly stated that the lens adapters to which I was referring were "dumb" with all that it inferred ...

And so, YOUR earlier remarks did not warrant a reply at the time.

.....Yes, yes, YES!?!

Do you think that anyone believes that putting an old, 60s vintage Nikon F lens (as an example) on a new, fancy-schmancy, state-of-the-art Nikon DSLR (as an example) will turn it into an autofocus lens?

Well, wouldn't it be quite a neat trick to turn an old, manual focusing lens into an autofocusing lens by simply attaching a sub-$20 tube between the lens and some digital camera body?!?

You do understand that when you attach an unauthorized lens to one of your digital camera bodies that the camera can still make an appropriate exposure unless you are so far off the mark with the ISO or aperture that there is a gross over-or-under exposure, don't you?

Video?

The manual focusing lenses does not preclude using the video function.

With a manual lens, it's simply a matter of pointing the camera in the desired direction and then turning that focusing ring ...

And then, checking the exposure ...

And, visual content.

N'est-çe pas?

.....Manual focusing can actually be faster than waiting for the camera-or-lens to focus and/or refocus!

BTW. While MANY people who apparently inhabit this Forum are keen to buy new gear, the OP's photographic needs were originally stated as being minimal ...

.....In MY experience, "Landscapes ,flowers and portrait" do not require an autofocus lens/camera.

Also, unless one is procuring for a government agency, spending $100-to-$200 is more economical than spending all of one's allocated budget ...

WHY PAY MORE?

Or, to put THAT in another way, it doesn't hurt for most us to be a wise shopper when spending our own money and that often/sometimes/typically means not buying more camera than one needs for the foreseeable future ...

YMMV.

Hey!?!

I don't think a person has to be Luddite to prefer using manual focusing.

I know that there were definitely times when I would have liked to have been able to conveniently be more selective with the focusing when using my "Bridge" camera ...

.....I guess that I could have eventually become adept at using it for more than P&S pics ...

.....Presuming it can be done!?!

.....However, I'm not even sure that it's possible!

So, even if the autofocusing on a high zoot DSLR is faster than whatever my "Bridge" camera OR m4/3 bodies can accomplish just how convenient-or-inconvenient is it to switch to manual focusing on a DSLR's autofocus lens OR alternatively to indicate where you want the a DSLR to focus if in 'auto' mode?

FWIW. I agree that some m4/3 bodies are almost too small ...

.....Again, the "thumb grip" is very beneficial toward making the body feel right ...

..........Just remember, an accessory shoe on the body is required to use one.

But, the m4/3 bodies aren't much smaller than a vintage Leica rangefinder camera & copies ...

The first generation 4/3 body (e.g., Panasonic L1) is clumsy looking, but is actually very well balanced.

.....Undoubtedly, sizing was based on a typical 35mm SLR camera (see comparison with a Nikon F body).

.. :thumbup: :thumbup:

FWIW. I agree that a "Bridge" camera may be a good option to consider ...

.....There are REAL pluses to so-called "Bridge" cameras which need to be weighed against the minuses ...

.....The image quality is typically very good ...

.....My very vintage Panasonic FZ15 has a good size & weight ...

BUT, I suspect that the current crop of Bridge cameras have the same, comparatively small sensor size (about the size of a fingernail) which my Bridge camera has.

Bridge cameras are less expensive than a DSLR, but they aren't "free" ...

Regardless, a disadvantage (besides usually having a comparatively small sensor size) is that the "close" focusing capability typically isn't ... but, that isn't a problem for most images ... and, THAT limitation can often be compensated by zooming in on the object ...

.. :thumbup: :thumbup:

HMmmmm ...

....Interesting ...

I'm all for shooting in Instamatic-mode (absolutely NOTHING wrong with that!), but when did focusing become so difficult?!?

Regardless, for how-and-what pegnich wants to use the camera, there is (IMO) often little reason to have MORE camera with all the accompanying bells-and-whistles which a "modern dslr" has ...

....Video (just ONE example)?

............Really?!?

If you don't need the features (e.g., auto-focus), then Why pay more?

After all, not everyone looks at photography as a hobby worthy of their non-essential funds.

And, FWIW, in my case I know that I simply want(ed) a digitial camera body which substituted/(-s) a digital capture vs. film; so, everything beyond being able to mimic what a roll of film does is more than I needed OR need.

In other words, if a person has almost any 35mm camera lens (there are exceptions, of course), then for $100 a person can buy a lightly used m4/3 camera body + the "dumb" adapter via eBay and probably-or-possibly have a better camera configuration for taking simple* digital images.

....* of course, many "simple" images are actually quite sophisticated!

Don't get me wrong ... an m4/3 camera body is far from perfect ... it would be great if it had a full size sensor because then I would be able to use my 17mm lens as a true ultra-wideangle lens, etc. ...

....For the time being, the "kit" (14-42 zoom ... 28mm-84mm equivalent) lens which I have will have to suffice for when I want to use a wideangle lens.

While I agree that a potential disadvantage of a mirrorless camera is its small size & light weight, some would consider the size & weight to be a PLUS.

Regardless, when most lenses from a 35mm camera are mounted, then I think the balance becomes just-about-right for hand held shooting with-or-without an auxiliary viewfinder ...

And, for people who do not use a tripod, the fore mentioned "thumb grip" is possibly the best accessory which one can spend $10 on when using most mirrorless cameras (an accessory shoe is required which precludes using one on some mirrorless & P&S cameras) when a auxiliary viewfinder is not being used ...

FWIW. In the very distant past, I shot quite a bit of sports photography ...

The better that YOU understand the sport, the better your pics will probably be ...

In other words, YOU need to anticipate the action ...

And, pre-focus on a spot on the field/court/wherever ... which means, the manual focusing of a PRIME lens (yes, I am suggesting that you may as well attach the best 35mm camera's telephoto lens that you can afford which has the focal length you want to use + adapter on your Canon EOS) will probably give you the best results AFTER you learn to anticipate the action rather than having the camera follow the random action on the field.

Of course, you don't have to use a vintage 35mm camera lens, but (IMO) if YOU are manually focusing then you will get more-bang-for-your-buck if you buy a vintage, single focal length lens than either a "new" Prime lens OR a zoom lens.

In other words, you probably are not going to be able to achieve Sports Illustrated quality images if you continue to allow the camera body to focus a comparatively inexpensive zoom lens.

Do you currently/still have a 35mm SLR + lens(es)?

If you do, then an option which will cost you less than $200US will be a USED m4/3 camera body + "kit" lens + dumb (hollow) tube lens adapter for your current 35mm lens(es) via eBay.

OLYMPUS bodies have Image Stabilization (IS) in the body (a good thing!!) ...

PANASONIC bodies have their own advantages ... older m4/3 bodies have the IS in the lens ... only the latest Panasonic bodies have the IS in the body.

IMO, most mirrorless (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc.) cameras benefit GREATLY when used with a $10 "thumb grip" (unfortunately, using a thumb grip precludes the use of an optional Electronic Viewfinder ... an expensive & NOT a necessary option).

A Panasonic L1 is a 4/3 SLR ... large/bulky ... very usable with 35mm lenses + a dumb adapter ... very inexpensive ($200-to-$400+), now ... if you can handhold a 35mm SLR then you can use a Panasonic L1 or its Leica equivalent.

FYI. The dumb lens adapters are generally under $20 via eBay when shipped directly from China.

There are 35mm-to-m4/3 adapters for almost all post-War camera mounts (Praktina is the probable exception) ...

There are only a few 35mm-to-4/3 adapters (e.g., Nikon, Canon, Olympus OM, Leica-R, Exakta ...) ...

SOME reviewers have indicated that there is a difference between a $15 adapter (via eBay) and an $80+ adapter (via a domestic retailer) ... maybe, maybe not.

Okay.

I think I understand ... but, if you can post a picture it would help ...

And, FWIW, it's why I indicated that you only wanted to use a pin head dab of epoxy ...

BTW. In the past, those selector knobs were typically secured with a "screw"-or-bolt ...

The "head" is accessed by removing the "label" which has the PASM/etc. on it.

If the diameter of the shaft is large enough AND if you are confident in your skill, you could (re-)tap the shaft and secure the knob, accordingly ...

OR, if you can find an appropriate diameter tubing (e.g., 1/16" ID brass tubing) which will sleeve over the spindle, then you can either make a tiller OR a receiver for the bolt which you choose to use to secure the knob.

OF COURSE, another option (presuming a plastic shaft) is to scribe a notch into the top with a Flat jeweler's screwdriver which you will use to turn to the selection you want (Do you really change modes that often that you need to change it? Can you choose ONE mode which you prefer to use 90+% of the time and/or simply make the camera a "fixed" mode which you could change on an ad hoc basis with the fore mentioned jeweler's screwdriver?).

Will the knob nest on its spindle?

OR, is it just a matter of a stripped spline?

If you are DIYer, do you think that you might be able to re-secure it with a pin head dab of J B WELD epoxy?

BTW. If you opt to re-secure the knob with epoxy, do NOT use a "clear" epoxy because the resin will age over time & degrade whereas the "grey" epoxies are stable."

Are you saying that the dial won't turn so that you cannot change the MODE?

AND, it is currently in a Mode which you do not want to use?

OR, are you saying that the knob fell off & cannot be re-secured on its spindle?

OR, something else?