I've been sitting on some four thirds lenses, and an E-500 for a while now and managed to get a Panasonic DMW-MA1 adapter. However, using this adapter to connect the lenses to my OM-1 body results in nothing. For what I've read, the adapter should be practically identical to the olympus MMF-1/2.I've tried to update all firmwares trough OM-workspace but it just states that the firmwares are up to date. Am I being a complete retard, or should this just work? At least someone on dpreviews said he'd got that combo working just fine.I'm thinking, the issue might be the lenses I've been trying to use. The ones I have with me right now, are the 14-45 f3.5-5.6 and 40-150 f3.5-4.5. I could be, that these lenses are simply too old to function with such a new body. Please don't use this thread to start another sensor wars talk. I'm only trying to enjoy my old lenses on a modern body. Thank you.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2005:08:30 09:38:31Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/20.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/20.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length117.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2126Image Height1535
Yeah, throw the old lenses out, its not like youre loosing anything with those shitty f3.5+ zooms...
>>4377799I'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-MA1replace 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
>>4377802I'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.
>>4377803The 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).
>>4377797the winning move with m43 is to sell it and to buy bitcoin
>>4377803The 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).
>>4377944WR 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.
>>4377953are we talking MSRP or actual prices? from a quick glance they're neck and neck especially on the used marketsomething tells me you're just baiting for a water resistance shitpost argument though
>>4377803>>4377802Oly version has gaskets for weather-sealed lenses
>>4377852no>>4377944yes. You can still use lens IS if you don't use body is. I think for longer focals that would make sense.>>4377953Yes, and no. Now fuck off.>>4378008It'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.>>4378125Yeah, 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 MakeOM Digital SolutionsCamera ModelOM-1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Color Filter Array Pattern928Focal Length (35mm Equiv)34 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2024:10:19 23:26:28Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4378149Pleasant 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.
It's so over, MFTbros...
>>4378794It's always been over, you're just becoming aware of the truth that everyone else already knows
>>4378794>>4378801this is not the place for that circlejerk. maybe try m43 general. at least there someone will get triggered. thanks.
>>4378175>people were using in lens VR/Stab for decades>zoomer consoomer retard: NOOO I CANT SHOOT WITHOUT DUAL IS dumb child
>>4378794noooo not him
>>4378804m43 general is dead because the only m43 user on this board sold his equipment to buy shitcoins
>>4378815Good. 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.
>>4378815Its not unusual for people to only tolerate m43 for a couple months kekThe 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.
>>4378927It'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 pedoFriend, you might need to be more specific about that.Are we talking about sugar or the dogfucker?
>>4378989To be fair that could be like... ten other anons
>>4378986Meds.
>>4378983i 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>>4378937You 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 OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4378927Its not unusual for people to only tolerate full frame for a couple months kekThe only way to go longer is to cope, because its all the downsides of APS-C 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 Medium Format kit, and equivalence copes are bull.
>>4378937It's crazy when you think about even used full frame is not cheaper than medium format. People are on purpose going out of their way to not buy medium format 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.
>>4379139>>4379140>"full frame">"medium format"you failed the iq test anon
>>4379129Update; 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.
