Using legacy glass w/magnified manual focus on Oly cameras

[DHart]

I know the in-camera IS on the Pens is good for use with legacy lenses, but I am curious to know just how easy it is to use these lenses on Oly m4/3 cameras. Obviously, using magnified manual focus is something one might want to use almost every time one focuses with legacy glass.

How quick and easy is it to access magnified manual focus on the Oly cameras?

Is it quick and easy to do over and over and over again, as one would need to do with manually focusing a legacy lens on a variety of different shots?

 

[Rich M]

I only know for the E-P2.......it's a two button push....I think it is rather kludgy compared to the single thumbwheel push on the GH-2.

That being said, magnified focus view on any camera is a plus.

R

I know the in-camera IS on the Pens is good for use with legacy lenses, but I am curious to know just how easy it is to use these lenses on Oly m4/3 cameras. Obviously, using magnified manual focus is something one might want to use almost every time one focuses with legacy glass.

How quick and easy is it to access magnified manual focus on the Oly cameras?

Is it quick and easy to do over and over and over again, as one would need to do with manually focusing a legacy lens on a variety of different shots?

 

[panzerneo]

Here's my experience using the Oly Pen-2 with legacy stuff (Nokton 50mm f/1.5, Heliar 50mm f/3.5, APO-Lanthar 90mm) as well as the new M43 Nokton 25mm f/0.95:

I never use the screen to focus. Not that you couldn't, it's just that I have
the viewfinder and find it more comfortable to use.

I only use the zoom square when I'm close focusing (on the eyes for a portrait) in low light with a fast lens (Noktons...), and really only if I feel the subject is patient enough

I agree with Rich that Oly's solution is kludgy. In manual focus mode, they should allow for a custom button to zoom when pressed and un-zoom when depressed.
Instead, you have to press the info button then the center wheel, then 3 times the info button if you want to get back to the histogram...

I always shoot with the histogram so I can be sure to max out the color depth on the sensor, so for me it's a bit of an issue...

However, once you've done it a few dozens of times, you can become more efficient.

Now here's a little secret (known to a few by now I would hope
if you have a viewfinder, you don't need to zoom to focus accurately!
When your subject is in focus, aliasing (looks like a wavy pattern that super-imposes on the image) appears.
It's easy to understand why: when in focus, high resolution information is being captured by a low-resolution 'sensor', i.e., the viewfinder.
Engineers could easily have taken care of this artifact using a low-pass filter, but I suspect they intentionally left it out, because it's actually useful!

Note that you'll notice the aliasing gets stronger as you reach the best focus.
Note also, that some subjects that contain no high-res pattern would not exhibit this aliasing effect. Blue sky, uniform smooth background with no texture, for instance. But these are exceptions.

Has anyone else used this little trick?
Thoughts?

I know the in-camera IS on the Pens is good for use with legacy lenses, but I am curious to know just how easy it is to use these lenses on Oly m4/3 cameras. Obviously, using magnified manual focus is something one might want to use almost every time one focuses with legacy glass.

How quick and easy is it to access magnified manual focus on the Oly cameras?

Is it quick and easy to do over and over and over again, as one would need to do with manually focusing a legacy lens on a variety of different shots?

 

[Godfrey]

I know the in-camera IS on the Pens is good for use with legacy lenses, but I am curious to know just how easy it is to use these lenses on Oly m4/3 cameras. Obviously, using magnified manual focus is something one might want to use almost every time one focuses with legacy glass.

How quick and easy is it to access magnified manual focus on the Oly cameras?

Is it quick and easy to do over and over and over again, as one would need to do with manually focusing a legacy lens on a variety of different shots?

You don't need magnified manual focus for every shot or with every lens. I find I use it mostly with short focal length lenses when shooting dynamic scenes and more for longer focal lengths when doing more studied types of work.

I used the Panasonic G1 for two years, which requires a two button press sequence to obtain MF assist magnification. The two button press never bothered me, and proves mostly pretty convenient whether focusing with either the EVF or LCD. Panasonic's interface also cancels the magnification when you touch the shutter release, which makes it very fluid in use. Later Panasonic models put the magnification enable into a one button press of the click wheel ... well, sometimes I liked it and sometimes I didn't.

Olympus puts the magnification into a display mode, both on the Pens and on their DSLRs that support Live View. It means switching to that display mode first, then enabling it. It does not disable automatically on pressing the shutter release. So far I've found it a trifle more awkward to use than the Panasonic G1's design, but it's by no means difficult. There are various ways to customize the button operation to make it a bit more convenient.

Overall, using adapted manual lenses on the G1 or one of the Pens with the VF2 accessory finder is, to me, so fluid I actually prefer it to using the MicroFourThirds lenses most of the time. It "just works" ... the viewfinders stay bright and clear for most lighting situations, even when stopped down and in modest light levels, and are good enough to nail critical focus even without assist magnification in most situations, with most lenses longer than 24mm.

 

[Tesselator]

Now here's a little secret (known to a few by now I would hope
if you have a viewfinder, you don't need to zoom to focus accurately!
When your subject is in focus, aliasing (looks like a wavy pattern that super-imposes on the image) appears.
It's easy to understand why: when in focus, high resolution information is being captured by a low-resolution 'sensor', i.e., the viewfinder.
Engineers could easily have taken care of this artifact using a low-pass filter, but I suspect they intentionally left it out, because it's actually useful!

Note that you'll notice the aliasing gets stronger as you reach the best focus.
Note also, that some subjects that contain no high-res pattern would not exhibit this aliasing effect. Blue sky, uniform smooth background with no texture, for instance. But these are exceptions.

Has anyone else used this little trick?
Thoughts?

Yes, that aliasing thing becomes apparent the first time one focuses on something with a texture. After the self-evedence hits you as to what just happened it becomes a natural inclination to repeat and rely on. I would think everyone with an EVF equipped camera uses this technique.

From what I hear and what I've experienced the GH2 aliases far far less and is therefore much much more difficult to MF without the 15x MF zoom thingy.

 

[Rich M]

Yes, that aliasing thing becomes apparent the first time one focuses on something with a texture. After the self-evedence hits you as to what just happened it becomes a natural inclination to repeat and rely on. I would think everyone with an EVF equipped camera uses this technique.

From what I hear and what I've experienced the GH2 aliases far far less and is therefore much much more difficult to MF without the 15x MF zoom thingy.

That seems correct to me.....the EVF on the GH2 has significantly less aliasing than the VF2 on the E-P2.

What part of the alphabet have I not covered??

R

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, that aliasing thing becomes apparent the first time one focuses on something with a texture. After the self-evedence hits you as to what just happened it becomes a natural inclination to repeat and rely on. I would think everyone with an EVF equipped camera uses this technique.

From what I hear and what I've experienced the GH2 aliases far far less and is therefore much much more difficult to MF without the 15x MF zoom thingy.

The G1 and GH2 viewfinders are the same, and I could see it easily with the G1 viewfinder. It's somewhat subject dependent.

 

[DHart]

Great. Thanks for your comments!

I ask because, as if I don't have enough camera gear already, I was thinking an Oly body with IBIS might be very useful to me when shooting my legacy lenses. I'm deeply invested with GF-1 and GH2 gear and many lenses and very happy with the Pannys, but thought I might just ADD an Oly body as a, mostly, dedicated legacy lens body. Looks like E-PL2 would be the way to go for that.

Anyone here have and shoot with both brands alternately? I'm sure one could get accustomed to doing so, though it might feel a bit awkward going back and forth for a while.

 

[Godfrey]

Great. Thanks for your comments!

I ask because, as if I don't have enough camera gear already, I was thinking an Oly body with IBIS might be very useful to me when shooting my legacy lenses. I'm deeply invested with GF-1 and GH2 gear and many lenses and very happy with the Pannys, but thought I might just ADD an Oly body as a, mostly, dedicated legacy lens body. Looks like E-PL2 would be the way to go for that.

Anyone here have and shoot with both brands alternately? I'm sure one could get accustomed to doing so, though it might feel a bit awkward going back and forth for a while.

Since I went back to FourThirds SLR exclusively with the Olympus E-5 and sold my G1, I've considered what to for a narrow focus, compact camera. The Fuji X100 is one possibility, and a strong one. The other possibility has been an Olympus E-PL2 with VF-2. I could use it with my FourThirds SLR lenses as a compact body, or I can just also acquire a Nokton 25/0.95 just use it with that exclusively. Fit the Lumix G 20/1.7 and an optical viewfinder, it becomes yet another, somewhat different kind of camera.

The E-P2 with viewfinder is a nice balance of size, weight, features, and hand-holdability .. something that the G1 was and for some reason the GF1 wasn't for my hands.

The only thing that might concern me swapping between a GF1 and a Pen E-PL2 is whether the differences in control logic would cause too much confusion. We all have different tolerances in that domain.

 

[DHart]

The only thing that might concern me swapping between a GF1 and a Pen E-PL2 is whether the differences in control logic would cause too much confusion. We all have different tolerances in that domain.

That's my concern as well. I have no intention of abandoning my Panny kit at this point, so the Oly would be an addition to and I'm wondering how well I could tolerate the differences in control logic. Right now I only have to be fluent in two worlds: Canon 5DMkII and Panny (GF-1, GH2, LX5).

 

[Godfrey]

That's my concern as well. I have no intention of abandoning my Panny kit at this point, so the Oly would be an addition to and I'm wondering how well I could tolerate the differences in control logic. Right now I only have to be fluent in two worlds: Canon 5DMkII and Panny (GF-1, GH2, LX5).

Given that mix of cameras already, I'd just put the money back in the bank and not bother. You've got both your heavy axe and lightweight needs well-covered. IS isn't that important.

Once I had the E-5 and decided it would be my primary tool of choice, I sold the G1 and L1, kept the E-1. Controls, batteries, accessories are more similar between E-1 and E-5, I feel that simplicity and minimizing the opportunity for dumb errors (I make enough of them without encouragement!) are much more valuable than multiple different control paradigms to manage.

My eye is mostly on the X100 as it looks to be an utterly simple camera to learn with it's so traditional layout. And the fact that it's a fixed lens, "nothing else to buy except a lens hood and a case" deal is actually a very appealing plus.

 

[DHart]

Yes, good point... adding yet another UI to learn and juggle may be too high a price for the somewhat minor benefit of IS for legacy glass. I'm a bit of an equipment junkie, which is a tendency I should resist a little more than I have been!

 

[Tesselator]

The G1 and GH2 viewfinders are the same...

What? Panasonic says different. I guess I could have misread it. Can you provide a link to this - as that doesn't even seem to make sense to me.

 

[Godfrey]

What? Panasonic says different. I guess I could have misread it. Can you provide a link to this - as that doesn't even seem to make sense to me.

I didn't open up someone's spec sheet, i looked through the cameras. If they're technically different, ok. But they look and act exactly the same to my eye: I see no difference at all.

Despite them possibly being technically different (I still haven't looked it up), if they don't appear any different to my eye, they're the same.

 

[Tesselator]

Ah, I see. Yeah, there's a different refresh rate, a different number of pixels, and slightly different signal processing between the two.


The G1 should do the aliasing thing more than the GH2. <shrug>

 

[Godfrey]

Ah, I see. Yeah, there's a different refresh rate, a different number of pixels, and slightly different signal processing between the two.


The G1 should do the aliasing thing more than the GH2. <shrug>

Stuff like this is what I hate these long debates based on numbers and specification trivia. Putting both cameras on the table, side by side, and playing with three lenses, there was NO difference whatever in the viewfinder to my eye. Invisible advantages are of no value to me.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Isn't magnification a 1-button push on the E-PL1 and E-PL2?

I have the E-P1 and am okay with it, even though it's somewhat kludgy and could definitely be better. I wish half-pressing the shutter would stop magnification.

But the aliasing thing definitely helps too. I try to rely on that more than magnification.

 

[Tesselator]

Stuff like this is what I hate these long debates based on numbers and specification trivia. Putting both cameras on the table, side by side, and playing with three lenses, there was NO difference whatever in the viewfinder to my eye. Invisible advantages are of no value to me.

Why would anyone hate specifications? Or even the discussion of them? I don't understand. They are meaningful and they do make a difference even if you personally didn't see it while sitting at your table. So, I'm not really getting that. ???

As just one example the different kind of refreshing and the new speed reduces the rainbow bar-terring thing that happens when you move your eye rapidly across the frame. If you didn't do that then it might be "invisible" to you but there's still a difference. As another example the increased number of pixels reduces the amount of aliasing when looking at very fine detail. If you didn't look at very fine detail through these cameras for your comparison then the differences might have been "invisible" to you but you would notice it as soon as you looked at fine detail. I can see the difference just looking sign print in the shops for example. Not to be obnoxious but to me the fact that you couldn't see the difference only means that you couldn't see the difference - not that there were none - if you get me.

You sound like me 6 years ago justifying my 24" TN LCD panels. "Nyaaa, they're good enough, I can't see the difference." Was what I told myself. And in many cases it's held true. But there are differences and they are noticeable in many other circumstances. And, it's very worth discussing and comparing those differences IMO.

 

[Godfrey]

Why would anyone hate specifications? Or even the discussion of them? ...

I didn't say I hated specifications.

I said I hated the endless, idiotic debate, meaning the idiotic debate about the quality of a camera based on numbers and charts and specifications alone. And the debate within those debates about whose numbers are really really the right numbers and why the ones YOU said characterized the camera might not be right. And the even more idiotic debates about why those numbers might not be really really right because some reviewer prefers one brand over another, the conspiracy of advertising merchants and brand owners to dupe consumers ... etc.

That's what I hate.

Good specifications and test results, presented in an informed manner with the methodology of acquiring them and a conceptual abstract explaining how they might be interpreted, what they mean ... That's not a debate, that's a presentation of data from which I can draw useful conclusions upon examining the camera for myself.

For instance, in this case, I had both cameras on the table and I saw no difference in their viewfinder display looking through them while doing the same things with the same lenses. I now know that there are technical differences between them, so the next time I have occasion to see them both together, I'll try to see if I can find a situation that exhibits behavior showing the superiority of one implementation over the other. If I can't, then, they're STILL the same thing to my use regardless of whether the specs say they are different.

Too many people read a spec list and make assumptions that are unwarranted, just parroting specifications as if they were some kind of gospel dogma to be accepted as inviolable and correct, and without ever actually verifying if their inferences from that dogma actually had any observable value of benefit.

 

[Tesselator]

OK, yeah, I'd hate that too if I ever saw that happening. I can imagine it happening but in ~5 years of reading through about 10 to 15 thousand threads I've not seen it. I've seen people make assumptions and then get set straight but that's cool, that's a learning thing. I've also seen where people trying to put a finer point on terms, definitions, and the reasons behind them will use otherwise fairly meaningless specs usually in some combination, to show causality or etc. But that's cool too. The more I know about what and why; the more specs become meaningful to me. I'm formally trained as an engineer and my father being one as well my brain is just wired like that anyway. It's probably why I rub some folks the wrong way as well. I guess I'm a bit like Spock in that I see the variables and values and will speak directly about them and their affects without regard for how people "feel" about it. I mean, like, where is the emotional content in the formula and responsible factors of lens flare for example?

So all that's kinda meaningless to me but someone asked me something in PM that I'd like to bring public because it is interesting and I think meaningful. He said:

"When you have a few minutes would you explain this [Aliasing] to me as it applies to my [camera] and how it is used as a MF aid.

...I do appreciate your technical observations and explanations.

I purchased my [camera] based on some of your EVF observations and it has made a world of difference in my ability to manually focus legacy glass.

Thank you!

Well it's going to be a little hard to describe the differences between the G1/GH1 and the GH2 in a static text/image reply because some of it has to do with temporal perception and how our brains process information. The G1 and GH1 update it's live view EVF at 24fps displayed within a 60 cycle second or "60Hz refresh rate". The GH2's new chip however allows for a full 60fps without splitting, tearing, or dropping any frames. So each pixel in the EVF is the result of the camera system sampling the scene 60 times every second and pixel detail can change in intensity, color, and of course position much faster - almost 3 times faster. This is called temporal resolution and it has a massive affect on perceived resolution in what we usually think of in terms of x/y screen space. Literally the individual pixels can and do anti-alias so to speak, temporally - and our brains will mash this together to form what we perceive as a scene with recognizable objects and all that.

Additionally and at the same time the X/Y resolution also increased from 800x600 on the G1/GH1 to 852x600 over the same sized EVF display device giving a higher DPI resolution as well. Higher spacial resolution also means less aliasing. The two temporal and coordinate (spacial) resolution increases, combine to provide well over three times the perceived resolution and far far less aliasing overall.

I'm asking myself if this increased rez. is really a good thing or not. I've briefly conjectured a few times here and elsewhere that it may not be. And that the higher resolution while great for video, may actually be a detriment for still photography. Here's why:

When a digital image is viewed in the EVF, a reconstruction also known as an interpolation, is performed by EVF display of the data fed in from the much larger sensor data, and by the eyes and the brain as described above. Because the EVF resolution is too low, the reconstructed image will differ from the original sensor image, and an alias is seen. An example of spatial aliasing is the Moiré pattern one can observe in a poorly pixelized image of a brick wall. Since such patterns typically only occur around small sharp contrasting detail and not smooth gradients such as seen in OOF areas the effect is actually a pretty good tool for manually focusing without having to go in and out of the zoom (MF Assist) mode all the time. I've read others mention that they use this as a tool as well. I've also read others mention that they miss it when using the GH2.

These are't great examples because Photoshop's reconstruction filters are too good but I hope they give some idea. I use the aliasing effect in two ways:

For fast moving objects or large changes in focus points where there's not a lot of time to enter the two button MF assist mode and then frame and then fine focus. When I'm shooting with a lens and settings that produce a fairly shallow DOF relative to the subject this aliasing kicks in right at the general focus peak. For example 25 meters away from a 10cm Kingfisher the FD 300/4L at 4.0 gives me about a 15cm depth of perfect focus. If the Kingfisher is within 10cm in front of or behind this range his feathers will alias in the EVF. The aliasing will disappear when he's outside that (35cm total) range. That's usually good enough that 1 in 3 continuous drive mode shots are very sharp. I could also extend the total range to a few meters by using f/8 or something but then I lose my fast shutter potential and there becomes too much variance in the peak aliasing - as his feathers will now alias from 1.5m in and out of the absolute perfect focus spot. Of course if he's flying toward me I may want that but anyway, that's one of the ways I use it.

100% crop​

The other is for fine focusing both in and out of MF assist (zoom) mode. On the GH2 for example those two focus points look identical in the EVF in both MF assist and in the full-view. They would of course also both look in focus in any OVF I can think of. On the GH1 however that little tit sticking up aliases bright when it's in peak focus in MF Assist mode. It's almost like a visual focus confirmation. And as you can see here, just that tiny bit of difference in focus (about 3mm here) changes the dynamics of the scene quite a lot.