Thanks, Martin. Wayne's message where he actually tried it verifies
your thoughts. You are correct that the crop factor has to be
considered when copying a 35mm slide onto 4/3 or m4/3. That's why I was
looking for a magnification of 0.5X rather than 1X as you normally do
for 35mm to 35mm or digital full-frame. I could use the Canon 5D and
the 50/3.5 macro at 1X but I was trying to figure out how to do it with
the E-M5. Unfortunately, the minimum magnification of the 50/3.5 macro
on the bellows is larger than 0.5X and you can't capture the full frame.
There is still the problem of different aspect ratios. 0.5X comes very
close to capturing all of the horizontal dimension of a mounted slide.
Mounted, the visible area of the slide is 35x23mm. So, 35mm has to fit
into the 17.3mm horizontal dimension of the 4/3 sensor and 23mm has to
fit into the 13mm vertical dimension of 4/3. If you fill it vertically
(using 0.57X) you clip almost 3mm of the horizontal dimension of the slide.
Maybe it's back to the 5D where the real problem is getting enough light
to focus accurately. I guess I should try using the adapter with AF
confirmation.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/14/2013 9:05 PM, Martin Walters wrote:
> Chuck:
> 4/3 lenses only fit on m4/3 with an adapter (MMF2 or 3, I think). So,
> your OM to 4/3 will not fit either.
>
> I thought that the crop factor on the 4/3 (or m 4/3) sensor gave greater
> magnification than on 35mm (or full frame). I'll let others correct me here.
>
> Martin
>
> On 14/05/2013 7:40 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Can someone who has both systems verify whether or not a 4/3 lens fits
>> on a m4/3 camera? I know it won't focus properly and maybe not even
>> operate electrically. My only real concern is whether a 4/3 lens (or OM
>> to 4/3 adapter) physically fits into an m4/3 body.
>>
>> The reason I ask is that I was trying to use my OM bellows and slide
>> copier today to see if I could copy slides onto my E-M5. To do that I
>> need a magnification of approx 0.5X. If I had a Zuiko 80/4 short mount
>> macro lens for the bellows I'd be OK. But my only two macro lenses are
>> my 90/2.5 Viv S1 and my 50/3.5 Zuiko.
>>
>> I don't think I can get the 90/2.5 to work at all since at 0.5X I think
>> the image of a slide is somewhere beyond the length of the bellows rail.
>> The 50/3.5 macro is only designed to do about 0.68X on the bellows.
>> The bellows itself prevents it from getting to 0.5X. The limitation is
>> imposed by the minimum separation of the lens board and camera mounting
>> board. According to my possibly dodgy calculations the image plane
>> needs to be brought forward about 14mm. If you were using an OM or 4/3
>> body that wouldn't be possible. However, I note that the 4/3 to OM
>> adapter is about 20mm shorter than the m4/3 adapter. If I had a 4/3
>> adapter on the m4/3 body I think that would give me the extra range I
>> need to bring the image plane in and get the 50/3.5 to do 0.5X or
>> slightly smaller.
>>
>> So, can someone answer the physical compatibility question between the
>> two mounts, ie, will a 4/3 lens fit onto a m4/3 mount even though it
>> might not actually work electrically and certainly can't focus even if
>> it physically fits?
>>
>> Assuming it does, anyone got a spare OM to 4/3 mount you'd like to move
>> on? Maybe an old one with no AF confirmation chip? I won't be needing
>> anything like that.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|