I didn't realize how truly small this Olympus is, until I overlayed a Barnack.
I have a Cosmicar 12.5/1.4 on the shelf here, but it needs some modification to be usable on the G1 ... the lens mount flange needs to be relieved such that it will fit in the Cmount adapter ... and I'm not sure there's enough meat in the mount or adapter to do it.
(My street kit at present is the ZD 25/2.8 normal, G.Zuiko 40/1.4 portrait, and a Nikkor 20/3.5 or the kit zoom for wide... the wides are a bit slow.)
Just to add to the banter What is the IQ likely to be like on this E-P1? Similar to the 620 do you think?
Hi Tim, good question... they could go with 10Mp or the GH1 sensor... either way I'm sure IQ will be close to any other Oly DSLR.
The lens will have a more significant effect on IQ, imho.
Based on the rumors I've been tracking, a sensor similar to the GH1's seems likely. The Oly PEN site has been updated and now shows the PEN F (my personal fave is the PEN FT). T-minus 7 days and counting!
I wonder... that Olympus Pen F animation looks absolutely beautiful. If this is an early 'unofficial' leak then maybe there's a chance Olympus will use the front control dial for aperture control?
Just an idea!
*The original F (the one with the cool gothic "F" engraved on the front) supposedly was prone to erratic shutter speeds when the camera was held vertically.
Well Brian, the top shot showing the mode dial lists "M" as one of the operating mode. Safe to guess that it means "Manual". The lens is a "G-type" (Nikon term = no aperture ring on lens) so I'm guessing that manual controls are set via the body, probably by a menu. Touchscreen perhaps? Since there is no viewfinder, pressing one's nose against the glass is a non-issue and a shoe mounted EVF could have a sensor to disable the touchscreen when pressed up to the eye (similar to what the iPhone does when you put it to your ear.)
The dial on the front of Pen F/FT/FV is the shutter speed dial. It pulls out to adjust ISO on the FT (the only model with meter.)
Ranger, I have replaced the semi-silvered mirror in FTs with a first surface mirror, the viewfinder measured 2 stops brighter...you are right, the meter is dorky, and luckily many FTs have dead meters anyway, so I just pull the meter.
I have an idea for how to solve the problem but it will require mods to the mount adapter. Whether it's worth it is a question.
On the c-mount adapters:
The Rabe adapter (the first to show up) and the Hawk adapter (version II, I believe) have registry shorter than the regular c-mount registry and would let these Cosmicars and Computars to focus to infinity (after machining). The Cosmicars and many TV lenses have a registry of ~16mm.
The RJ adapter (IMO, the best machined of all) has the exact c-mount registry and is only good for movie lenses.
Vivek, you are correct about the Hawk. I've placed shims between the lens and the Hawk adapter for a closer match at infinity. Haven't seen the other two c-mount adapters.
The primary reason I'm looking for an alternative is for a compact and fast wide. I'm not so concerned with distortion and a little smearing ... but it has to be inexpensive. (For more serious work, I have the Olympus ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 which is a great lens. It's a bit on the bulky side but a no-brainer when it comes to image quality!)
I only shoot film very occasionally and usually to fool with a neat old camera I have already, like a Minox C, Pen EE, Dial 35, Contax Tix or Rollei 35.
If it was black, it was an FT.
Cool, I've finished a couple of FVs in black paint, this one shipped to Kuala Lumpur a couple of days ago. Sure hope the new Oly will be offered in black...
What is the deal with the kitzoom (14-42) and the rumored price ($900/-)?
Who needs another kitzoom (and kit only cam)?
This is what I get with a Computar (modified to fit the hawkPeng adaptor)
Its nice but because of the vignetting I find that I need to crop significantly. If I'm after a look, great, as the image has a different character to the Kit lens. But if I'm after wide I might as well use the Kit lens and end up with the same view.
Square would work but it makes use of only a small area of the sensor and framing is often a major problem. Very frustrating to say the least.
Computar (or Cosmicar) 12.5mm
LOL ... Your comment suggests more about your predilections than it does about the lens' capabilities. I happen to like working with square framings quite a lot. Beyond the notion of whether you like square framings or not, let's think about resolution.
The G1's 12Mpixel loses 3000 pixels, 1500 on each side of the frame, for a center-square crop, making a square still a 9Mpixel image ... 75% of the G1 full resolution ... which is quite enough for lots of uses. Both the E1 and L1 (5 and 7.5 Mpixel respectively) produce very satisfactory 13x13 inch (or even larger) prints from square compositions like this:
Olympus E-1 + ZD 11-22mm f/2.8
flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/2283494632/
There's certainly a point at which you'll run out of enough resolution for a good print, but I don't participate in the current "every print must be capable of being printed to humongous size" fad. Few photographs really need to be so big imo. ;-)
I'm just still not so sure that it's worth the effort to modify lens and mount adapter to use this lens purely from a time and use perspective. It will cost me more in time and machining work to make it fit than I've got into the lens and adapter already, which is less than $70, and I'm not sure how much I'll actually use it. I'm on the fence...
On the last point- modification to fit the adapter is easy.
Just remove the c mount flange from the lens and use a nail file (hey, even I could do it!) to trim away the excess metal. These are brass so, they file away nice and easy. the finish won't look like what Robert showed but they will never even show once mounted in the c-adapter. Takes about ~30minutes (trial and error to get the distance right).
The most serious problem, as I mentioned is the framing. It isn't about the pixels or the print size.
BTW, I have dismantled these (Cosmicars and Computars)- the lens design is similar to a wide angle Nikkor or a Distagon- nothing less (imagine how much they would have cost had they been labelled Zeiss, Nikon or heavens forbid Leica). They are superb optics. It is shame that the coverage is inadequate.
For RJ's adapter, there's a substantial amount of meat that has to come off the Cosmicar 12.5mm lens mounting flange ... it's a larger diameter than the recessed hole in the adapter, which is 2.6mm deep. That 2.6mm means cutting the mount right up into the securing screws' threads. I don't know how I'd want to do that with a nail file, or how I'd secure the flange back onto the lens.
I went to Ebay and couldn't find "hawk" or "hawkpeng" as sellers with a search. Do you have a link to the right mount auction?
All a matter of what you want out of it. Me, I'll be happy if I can get it to work. ;-)The most serious problem, as I mentioned is the framing. It isn't about the pixels or the print size.
Also, provided you use "live view," two strips of gaffer's tape on the LCD works wonders as a framing aid for square-format compositions. If you position them carefully and get the resulting image perfectly centered, you can then automate the cropping-to-square process in PS by simply specifying the crop area as 3000 x 3000 pixels and the program will center the marching ants for you automatically.
Voila ... a digital pseudo-Hasselblad for cheap!
For those who do not want to or can not bother modifying lens flanges, there is an easier solution. As Ranger found and reported here, there is this older version 12.5mm f/1.9 (a tad slower) Cosmicar lens that would fit the RJ adapter and would focus to infinity without any modification.
I found a sample after seeing Ranger's report here and can confirm what he reported on the coverage and performance. It is a sweet lens as well.
Just wondering, how would the Cosmicar 12.5 compare to the Canon TV-16 13/1.5 in terms of sensor coverage and IQ, does anybody have both? Here are two quick shots at the market with the Canon, one in 4:3, the other in 16:9. Overall, I like it and think especially the 16:9 is really useful.
P.S. Just wondering, how did we get here from the original topic?
I once fitted a Pentax DA14 onto a Pentax MX film body to see what I could get. Square format due to vignetting, but nearly the exact FoV of my beloved old Hasselblad SWC. Unfortunately, not easy to work with as the DA14 lens was designed for on-body aperture controls.
I just happened to shoot some photos this evening with my Cosmicar 12.5/1.9 (this is the older one Vivek mentioned that fits the RJ adapter without milling.) I've attached one that isn't a brilliant image, but has enough background to give a rough coverage comparison.
Offhand, it looks as if they have about the same overall coverage on the 4:3 format, but the Canon doesn't roll off as much toward the edges of the image circle; then again, that could be because I shot my photo at maximum aperture -- whereas I'd guess your Canon photos were stopped down moderately.
The attachment is actually a Lightroom screenshot, and if you look at the 1:1 detail area at the right side, you'll see that the Cosmicar captures a lot of detail even at f/1.9, at least in the center of the frame; the edges do get a bit softer, but clean up nicely as you stop down.
Shot with a Panasonic G1 at ISO 1000.
Yeah, how did we get so far afield from the Olympus picture leak? Oh, well, that speculative fun will all be over in a few days...
Nice example, Ranger.
I just couldn't handle those circles. Here is one more from the custom 12.5mm
(blew the focus, yes it needs precise focus).
Let us hope that Olympus, once they start, will be coming up with nice small wide angle primes.
Hope I can get this camera without a lens. Looks like it would be ideal (no protruding grip) to use on a sliding 4x5 back for stitching large landscapes, assuming that the LCD quality is at least as good as the G1.
yehh...that's [email protected] going to be handy for the ultra fast manual focus crowd...
Actually, this could be very sad. Perhaps, it will make the G1 owners appreciate its features even more....
The blurry black lens, is that the kit zoom?