Yeah, throw the old lenses out, its not like youre loosing anything with those shitty f3.5+ zooms...

>>4377799
I'm perfectly happy with the lenses and their apertures. I was hoping I'd get the adapter working, so I could try out some four thirds lenses I have not bought yet. 300mm f2.8 comes to mind.

>>4377797
>Panasonic DMW-MA1
replace it with the olympus version, the lens contact must not be doing its job. you might be able to wiggle the panasonic in just the right way to get it to connect

>>4377802
I'll check the contact alignment, thanks. Presumption still would be that since Panasonic MFT lenses work just fine with this body, the adapter should be no different. I have no Panasonic four thirds lenses to test.

>>4377803
The contacts align on both sides. The only thing that could be, is that the adapters springs could be loose... so maybe one of the pins is not extending well. There are some screws on the part, so maybe by loosening them it could be brought forward a bit. Other than that, I can't see that the contacts should cause any issue (if they are intact inside the adapter).

>>4377803
The unfortunate part about the M43 mount is that the mount itself is standardized and basically nothing else is. Even on first party modern lenses, you have Panasonics with aperture rings that are non-functional on Olympus bodies, Oly focus clutches that don't trigger MF assists on Pana bodies, and lens+body combo Dual IS only working within its home brand (probably because even Lumix kit lenses have IS while even the lowliest Oly PEN has IBIS, so you'd get Dual IS for like $200 and shit all over their handheld shutter speed contests instead of the $2000 they want you to pay).

>>4377944
WR isnt even cross brand because the screw holes and excess flange are not standardized. Unfortunately for lolympiss fags, panasonic has all the small, reasonably priced WR lenses. Lolympiss gear is a massive scam. Literally.

>>4377953
are we talking MSRP or actual prices? from a quick glance they're neck and neck especially on the used market
something tells me you're just baiting for a water resistance shitpost argument though

>>4377803
>>4377802
Oly version has gaskets for weather-sealed lenses

File: PA190517-2.jpg (1.6 MB, 2000x1442)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4377852
no
>>4377944
yes. You can still use lens IS if you don't use body is. I think for longer focals that would make sense.
>>4377953
Yes, and no. Now fuck off.
>>4378008
It's pretty much toe to toe. I think Panny G9 can be gotten cheaper than the Oly equivalent but that's just because it's such a huge camera to be mft.
>>4378125
Yeah, I think the MMF-3. If I can't get this piece of shit to work I'm returning it to the seller so they can check if it even worked to begin with. I noticed that one of the pins didn't return fully so that might be the actual issue. Could not get it to come up, so the spring is probably fucked. The problem with these is that the MMF adapters are pretty hard to come by. I think Viltrox makes a 3rd party adapter but I've heard that it's pretty shit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OM Digital Solutions
Camera Model	OM-1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	928
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	34 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:19 23:26:28
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	17.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4378149
Pleasant colours on those trees.
>You can still use lens IS if you don't use body is.
Okay cool, so that's still gimping the potential performance which is fucked. I'd have more respect for them if the cheap dual IS was possible.

Ended up taking the adapter back, and after testing it with multiple lenses&bodies with the seller we came to the conclusion it's broken. Thank you all for attending this thread.

Post your own adapted old digital lenses. If this hasn't been killed by the time I find another adapter, I'll post results.

File: itssoover.png (204 KB, 444x308)

204 KB PNG

It's so over, MFTbros...

>>4378794
It's always been over, you're just becoming aware of the truth that everyone else already knows

>>4378794
>>4378801
this is not the place for that circlejerk. maybe try m43 general. at least there someone will get triggered. thanks.

File: triality-of-p.jpg (52 KB, 679x554)

52 KB JPG

>>4378815
Good. Next up we get rid of the Nikon general and just have a Brandwar General for everyone to fling shit around in like a containment thread.

>>4378815
Its not unusual for people to only tolerate m43 for a couple months kek

The only way to go longer is to cope, because its all the downsides of 1" and under cameras with none of the upsides. A lot of the bodies and lenses are close to the size and price of low end used APS-C kit, and equivalence copes are bull.

>>4378927
It's crazy when you think about even used m43 is not cheaper than full frame. People are on purpose going out of their way to not buy full frame then proceed to spend massive amounts of mental energy coping over it. I'm convinced it's the same psychological pathology as women who jump from abusive relationship to abusive relationship.

>>4377797
>Panasonic DMW-MA1
Could be that the panasonic adapter doesn't support phase detect AF, as many panasonic bodies don't have it anyway.

Reminder to newfags who don't know, that 100% of the m43 hate is by that fat nikon pedo that had a multiple month long episode about his inability to hit focus with an autofocus camera. There's like 17 posts in this thread by him alone.

>>4378986
>by that fat nikon pedo
Friend, you might need to be more specific about that.

Are we talking about sugar or the dogfucker?

>>4378989
To be fair that could be like... ten other anons

>>4378986
Meds.

File: P1018415_93.jpg (2.25 MB, 3264x2448)

2.25 MB JPG

>>4378983
i kek'd at this. it's basically a knockoff mmf-1 afaik so it should have been fine. as posted earlier, faulty adapter. I ordered the viltrox one, expect it to suck but it might get the job done. I've heard the lenses 'work' with the older panasonic bodies, but the focusing can be painfully slow (and very hit-or-miss).

>>4378927
>>4378937
You buy into a system for the optics, not the camera body. This thread was created, because I am fond of the (limited) set of four thirds optics that were made some 20 years ago. This is why, you could take any dslr ever made, slap a leica lens on it and (with skill) take very good photos.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

File: common-digital-sensor-sizes.jpg (45 KB, 2000x1451)

45 KB JPG

>>4379139
>>4379140
>"full frame"
>"medium format"
you failed the iq test anon

>>4379129
Update; the viltrox adapter works fine. Autofocus is slow, albeit faster than with the old DSLR body. These lenses handle 20mp relatively well, but the CA is absolutely horrendous. They have that 'pop' character to the drawing, though. I'll post results once I've had time to go out and shoot something interesting.