[wim]

Given the number of native mirrorless lenses these days I'm not sure why adapter solutions are still needed ... except tilt/shift maybe.

How many native MFT lenses are there ? 50+? I stopped counting at some stage.

 

89 at my last count, but there may be more, probably around 120 now including 3rd party manufacturers.

 

Adapter solutions are great if one does not want to spend extra for a specialist lens, or an expensive lens. I happen to own all 4 TS-E's, plus the M-PE 65, and it is fun to occasionally shoot at F/0.6 with a 50L or 85l ,

 

Kind regards, Wim

[davidmanze]

There's a very good metabones adapter...

 

http://www.metabones.com/products/detail...FG-m43-BM1

 

But this would counter the idea of a small body, no? You already have a great APS-C. Put Nikon glass in front of any tiny mirrorless - where's the point?

 No point at all, my post was tongue in cheek JoJu. 

[davidmanze]

Given the number of native mirrorless lenses these days I'm not sure why adapter solutions are still needed ... except tilt/shift maybe.

How many native MFT lenses are there ? 50+? I stopped counting at some stage.

 

  Surely for those Nicanonites just wanting an affordable compact body without resorting to selling a kidney/ lung or some other useful bodily organ in order to buy yet another passing phase of inessential photographic equipment!  B)

[JJ_SO]

Well, I don't know about Nikon, but the EF-MFT Metabones adapters do allow IS, AF, and pass on Exif information. It works with any of the EF lenses I have used so far, like 85L, 135L, 100-400L IS II ....

In that aspect (unfortunately not only in that  ) Nikon is pretty stoneage: The G-adapter of metabones has no aperture transfer (or even the aperture number to put back into the Exif), no AF transfer. Aperture is mechanically change db a ring which tells you "2 f-stops closed compared to wide open". I have a mechanical only adapter for Fuji, it's the same.

 

With the latest Nikon glass with electronic aperture actuation (instead of mechanical by body) you have constant wide open aperture.

 

So, adapting Nikon glass to any mirrorless doesn't bring more comfort than any giben Leica glass from the last century  :unsure:

[Sylvain]

Eyes set on that 12-60 indeed :-). Just need to know at what FL it becomes F/4... might make it a tough choice with the 12-100 f/4.

 

 

 

 

<div style="color:rgb(29,33,41);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">
<div>Lot's of new stuff from Panasonic
</div>

<div> 
</div>

<div>Leica 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ASPH Power OIS (gimme, gimme, ...)
</div>

<div>http://www.panasonic.com/au/consumer/lum...2060e.html
</div>

<div> 
</div>
 
 
 

</div>

 

[Guest]

Is that picture comparing the size of the 12-100 to the 12-60 ?

 

Eyes set on that 12-60 indeed :-). Just need to know at what FL it becomes F/4... might make it a tough choice with the 12-100 f/4.

[wim]

Is that picture comparing the size of the 12-100 to the 12-60 ?

 

Yes, correct.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

In that aspect (unfortunately not only in that  ) Nikon is pretty stoneage: The G-adapter of metabones has no aperture transfer (or even the aperture number to put back into the Exif), no AF transfer. Aperture is mechanically change db a ring which tells you "2 f-stops closed compared to wide open". I have a mechanical only adapter for Fuji, it's the same.

 

With the latest Nikon glass with electronic aperture actuation (instead of mechanical by body) you have constant wide open aperture.

 

So, adapting Nikon glass to any mirrorless doesn't bring more comfort than any giben Leica glass from the last century  :unsure:

 

A good reason to switch to Canon, IOW .

 

Actually, I did shoot a Nikon 14-24 F/2.8 a couple of years ago on my Canon, with an adapter. This after trying out a Sigma 12-24 and becoming very disappointed with it. It did more or less allow for setting of apertures, but it was a real pain.

 

I actually sold it when I effectively replaced it with a TS-E 17 . That was a better lens anyway .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

These days I would prefer the Tamron 15-30 instead of the Nikon with it's "flare-magnetism". Without strong light sources involved, it's still fine glass.

 

Still, Nikon has the better sensors 

 

Oh, and of course an "amazing service". I just got an envelope with the rubber cover for the battery grip (of the body). I only needed to mail twice and it happened - whoopsy - within just 3 weeks. Of course, no unnecessary paper (like a "how-to glue the bloody thing back on the plastic"), just a plastic bag with the rubber pad and another with double sided tape. So I can fix a 1 1/2 year old body without bothering the very valuable service personnel. I feel so highly estimated and trustworthy 

[wim]

These days I would prefer the Tamron 15-30 instead of the Nikon with it's "flare-magnetism". Without strong light sources involved, it's still fine glass.

 

Still, Nikon has the better sensors 

 

Oh, and of course an "amazing service". I just got an envelope with the rubber cover for the battery grip (of the body). I only needed to mail twice and it happened - whoopsy - within just 3 weeks. Of course, no unnecessary paper (like a "how-to glue the bloody thing back on the plastic"), just a plastic bag with the rubber pad and another with double sided tape. So I can fix a 1 1/2 year old body without bothering the very valuable service personnel. I feel so highly estimated and trustworthy 

 

As to sensors, it has been a leapfrog game as long as I can remember, not just with sensors, mostly between Canon and Nikon. Of course, Nikon is cheating (and so is Sony), by doing an 80% of pixels noise reduction in Raw, making it look much better than it is, and effectively fooling DxO . A few researchers actually showed that if you do the same with Canon (in PP of course, there si no other way), you get very similar noise and DR results, at the most with a 0.3 or 0.4 stop difference. This with the previous generation of cameras.

 

Lately Canon seems to be on the rise again; give it another few years and they will likely have the best sensors, for a few years, next Nikon/Sony again, etc.

 

To me it does not matter, I am happy with a DR of 8 to 10 stops, and I rarely shoot 3200 iso, let alone 6400 iso, an I never needed anything faster anyway .

 

Considering this, MFT is fine for me, no problem whatsoever . Oh, and I would like to see what Nikon/Sony/Canon would get from a 20 MP MFT equivalent sensor (40 MP APS-C, 80 MP FF ).

 

Also considering that at 6 to 8 MP we got already as much out fo a dslr as the best analog amateurs out there, and at 12 MP the same as pros, I don't really think we're missing out at all, we're really quite spoilt. more MPs just mean you have more detail when printing, and even way back when I thought the results I got from Pan-X at 25 iso was outstanding anyway .

 

Personally, I will likely do one more upgrade of my FF camera, in order to make it stand out from the MFT cameras I have. I use FF in a much different way anyway; MFT with me all the time (I travel a lot for work), and FF for very specific self-initiated photo shoots . I am using FF in a way as medium format these days, no longer the way I used to shoot with analog gear. Funnily enough, MFT gear is about the same size as my old analog (Pentax) gear, which I incidentally sold a few weeks ago.

 

And as to fixing stuff oneself, with a body still under warranty: I would only do so if I could not miss the camera for the period of time they would need to do that. Crazy...

 

Kind regards, Wim