Site Sponsors
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 850

Thread: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

  1. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by lattiboy View Post
    Hmmmm. I guess I understand what you're saying, but 1:1 looks different on different monitors, doesn't it? So isn't it a kind of poor universal unit of measurement? Like I said, I'm using a 1920x1200 monitor. So 1:1 magnification on my monitor is something like 1456x1120 for an M43 shot. If I were to use a 1650x1080 monitor, wouldn't the 1:1 magnification be a smaller area of the picture?
    Maybe it is easier if you think of pixels rather than the absolute size of the image. The expression "100% crop" is by itself not very clear but there is a consensus of the meaning of it.

    My G1 images are 3000x4000 pixels. They don't fit the screen. Whenever an application shows me the whole image it has been interpolated to a lesser dimension, counting the pixels.

    Most image editors can be set to show the image at full size = 100% size = natural size = native size or whatever they call it. In Photoshop this is done by, for example, setting the image to 100% in the little Navigator window, or by choosing View-->Actual Pixels. Then one has to scroll around to see all parts of the image. Now every single pixel in the image corresponds to a single pixel on the monitor. That is the largest "magnification" that ever is useful for judging details in an image (pixel peeping indeed). If we set the image to more than 100% size it is enlarged and the image viewer interpolates what pixels between the native 12.000.000 should look like, similar to what it does when it shows a smaller version of the image.

    So, sometimes we want to see a 100% crop. That is a part of the image only (saves bandwidth and downloading time), but we can see it just as when the image is set to be viewed in 100% size.

    Look at my dirty B&W image above. It's resized, it doesn't tell us much about details. Before processing it I set it to 100% and marked a part of interest using the Rectangular Marquee Tool in Photoshop and copied that part to a new image. That is the color version of the girl's eye. A 100% crop. I could have marked a bigger or smaller part of her face, it still would have been a 100% crop.

    I'm sorry if I explained things you already know, and for repeating what Jonathon already said, but I hope you now have the same idea about what a 100% crop is as everybody else.

    regards,

    /Jonas

  2. #202
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    Thanks for your analysis Jonas. I have both the 20 1.7 and PL 45 2.8 and I agree with your assessment of relative sharpness of these two lenses. I like the PL 45 for its primary role as a macro lens, but I'm less enthusiastic about using it for portrait and most landscape work (the exception being landscape detail). The Contax G 45 seems to be readily available at reasonable prices so I may pick one up and see for myself how it compares with the PL 45.
    Ah, not much of an analysis I'm afraid, just some early impressions. It will be interesting to learn about your take on this if you buy a Contax G 45. The Contax G lenses are an interesting group of legacy lenses as they are made so recently, so good and still available at reasonable prices. Unfortunately the G45/2 is the only one I'm interested in. Maybe the 90mm but it's a very long lens for me and so it wouldn't see a lot of use and I have a couple of Voigtländer lenses around that focal length.

    /Jonas

  3. #203
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    284
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    Maybe it is easier if you think of pixels rather than the absolute size of the image. The expression "100% crop" is by itself not very clear but there is a consensus of the meaning of it.

    My G1 images are 3000x4000 pixels. They don't fit the screen. Whenever an application shows me the whole image it has been interpolated to a lesser dimension, counting the pixels.

    Most image editors can be set to show the image at full size = 100% size = natural size = native size or whatever they call it. In Photoshop this is done by, for example, setting the image to 100% in the little Navigator window, or by choosing View-->Actual Pixels. Then one has to scroll around to see all parts of the image. Now every single pixel in the image corresponds to a single pixel on the monitor. That is the largest "magnification" that ever is useful for judging details in an image (pixel peeping indeed). If we set the image to more than 100% size it is enlarged and the image viewer interpolates what pixels between the native 12.000.000 should look like, similar to what it does when it shows a smaller version of the image.

    So, sometimes we want to see a 100% crop. That is a part of the image only (saves bandwidth and downloading time), but we can see it just as when the image is set to be viewed in 100% size.

    Look at my dirty B&W image above. It's resized, it doesn't tell us much about details. Before processing it I set it to 100% and marked a part of interest using the Rectangular Marquee Tool in Photoshop and copied that part to a new image. That is the color version of the girl's eye. A 100% crop. I could have marked a bigger or smaller part of her face, it still would have been a 100% crop.

    I'm sorry if I explained things you already know, and for repeating what Jonathon already said, but I hope you now have the same idea about what a 100% crop is as everybody else.

    regards,

    /Jonas
    Thanks for being very clear about the explanation; I do understand what both you and Jonathon are saying, but I guess this is more theoretical than practical question:

    What if you had a 3000x4000 resolution monitor and clicked "native size" in Photoshop? Your 100% crop would be a full "view" of the picture, wouldn't it? If that is true, why wouldn't the inverse be true if you have a 1200x800 resolution monitor?

    Wouldn't something like a set number of pixels (say 20% of the whole image, so 240,00 pixels on M43) be a better measurement of detail/sharpness/noise?
    Last edited by lattiboy; 7th February 2010 at 14:11.

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by lattiboy View Post
    (...)
    What if you had a 3000x4000 resolution monitor and clicked "native size" in Photoshop? Your 100% crop would be a full "view" of the picture, wouldn't it? If that is true, why wouldn't the inverse be true if you have a 1200x800 resolution monitor?
    Hmm. If I had such a monitor and viewed the image at 100% I wouldn't need to scroll around. As I would see everything at the same time it wouldn't be a crop.
    With a 1200x800 monitor and a situation where I look at the whole image the image viewer has downsized the image from the original 3000x4000 pixels. Interpolation has taken place. I am not looking at one pixel from the image file corresponding to one pixel of the screen.

    [/QUOTE]
    Wouldn't something like a set number of pixels (say 20% of the whole image, so 240,00 pixels on M43) be a better measurement of detail/sharpness/noise?[/QUOTE]

    That can be discussed for a long time. We choose 100% crops as the pixels are native, untouched, not interpolated. Interpolation will affect "sharpness". With a 100% crop we all know what we are looking at and we can download, resize a little an sharpen (if we want to, with some training it is easy to judge a 100% crop as either sharp or not).

    Noise is best judged at print size. When comparing noise between cameras I think the best method is to resize all the images to the same size.

    When i look at my own images at home I often prefer 50% crops as it is better compared to my print size than a 100% is.

    that's my cents on this,

    /Jonas

  5. #205
    Subscriber Member Jonathon Delacour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    We choose 100% crops as the pixels are native, untouched, not interpolated. Interpolation will affect "sharpness". With a 100% crop we all know what we are looking at and we can download, resize a little an sharpen (if we want to, with some training it is easy to judge a 100% crop as either sharp or not).

    Noise is best judged at print size. When comparing noise between cameras I think the best method is to resize all the images to the same size.

    When i look at my own images at home I often prefer 50% crops as it is better compared to my print size than a 100% is.

    Jonas
    Exactly. Because a 100% crop is showing us native, non-interpolated pixels, we then have a common frame of reference for comparing images made with different lenses at the same aperture (or the same lens at different apertures). Many thanks, Jonas, for your clear and helpful contributions to this discussion.

  6. #206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    284
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Thanks fellows. Nice discussion and explanation.

    As to my other question, has anybody used both the 35mm and the 45mm Contax lenses? I've got a chance to get the 35mm for $230 with caps, hood, filter.......

  7. #207
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chonburi Thailand
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by lattiboy View Post
    Thanks fellows. Nice discussion and explanation.

    As to my other question, has anybody used both the 35mm and the 45mm Contax lenses? I've got a chance to get the 35mm for $230 with caps, hood, filter.......
    I use the 35, 45 and 90 Contax G lenses on my GF1 with the RJ adapter

    The latter two are awesome. Whilst the 35 is very good it is generally regarded as less sharp and less contrasty than the others and indeed this is what I have discovered.

    This was shot wide open on the 90mm from the back of a very crowded area at 640 ISO




    These links will show the 45mm detail (no artistic intent)

    Full size
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/...ba979b59_o.jpg
    100% Crop
    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/...a5726a33_o.jpg

    Hope this helps

  8. #208
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    IMHO the 35mm has an undeserved internet reputation simply because the MTFs that Zeiss publishes are not quite to the high levels of the other G lenses. I would describe it as nothing less than excellent. Other G lenses are superb.

    Geared adapter now in production in California.

  9. #209
    Punchman
    Guest

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    That's great news Monza! When will actual products be available? Can't wait to read buyer reviews.

  10. #210
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    284
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Thanks Monza and ReeRay. I can't decide about the 35/2. I think the extra 10mm would make a big difference, but it might be a little too close to the 20mm to make sense for me. I'm not a super-serious shooter and don't want to re-develop a terrible case of G.A.S. Eh, we'll see....




    PS ReeRay, those pictures of yours are what made me go after Contax stuff. Glad I saw them!

  11. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chonburi Thailand
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by lattiboy View Post
    Thanks Monza and ReeRay. I can't decide about the 35/2. I think the extra 10mm would make a big difference, but it might be a little too close to the 20mm to make sense for me. I'm not a super-serious shooter and don't want to re-develop a terrible case of G.A.S. Eh, we'll see....




    PS ReeRay, those pictures of yours are what made me go after Contax stuff. Glad I saw them!
    The 20mm equates to 40mm whereas the 45mm is the equivalent of 90mm (35mm format)

    Don't forget to double everything!

  12. #212
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles CA
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Monza,

    Thank you for the update. Now that the adapter is in production, when do you expect that it will be available for distribution to users?

    Howard

  13. #213
    FaradayCage
    Guest

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Geared adapter now in production in California.

    Ready to hear details!

  14. #214
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    More initial results. They aren't surprising but it is good to learn that all I've heard is true.

    G1, Contax G Planar 45/2:


    A Zeiss made in japan, very sharp, as it often is with Zeiss lenses. When running a series of images through IMA-test the lens performed as good as other classic very good lenses (comparable to OM90/2Macro (sharper than Leica Elmarit-R 100/2.8 Macro APO) and a tad better than the OM50/2Macro and ZD50/2 Macro also if not visible in small prints).
    The borders are sharp at f/2 and f/2.8, then they are very sharp.
    The corners are sharp at f/2.8 and very sharp at f/5.6.
    As IMA-test targets are even more boring than USAF charts I post the later:




    Very good


    The lens also passed a simple flare test. Not only passed, it performed among the best I have seen. When mounting a filter it got worse but not worse than one can predict. Below is the f/2 result, no filter:



    Very very good


    In real life it means one doesn't need to worry. It's great with a late standard construction. Here is a simple sample from a short walk yesterday, shooting distance may have been around 8 meters or so:



    Wide open, in a back yard of an office, overcast. I know, Barnack says "No statues" but...

    And finally, a 100% crop taken from the image above:

    You judge

    It's like having a new reference lens.

    regards,

    /Jonas

  15. #215
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    More initial results. They aren't surprising but it is good to learn that all I've heard is true.

    G1, Contax G Planar 45/2:


    A Zeiss made in japan, very sharp, as it often is with Zeiss lenses. When running a series of images through IMA-test the lens performed as good as other classic very good lenses (comparable to OM90/2Macro (sharper than Leica Elmarit-R 100/2.8 Macro APO) and a tad better than the OM50/2Macro and ZD50/2 Macro also if not visible in small prints).
    The borders are sharp at f/2 and f/2.8, then they are very sharp.
    The corners are sharp at f/2.8 and very sharp at f/5.6.
    As IMA-test targets are even more boring than USAF charts I post the later:




    Very good


    The lens also passed a simple flare test. Not only passed, it performed among the best I have seen. When mounting a filter it got worse but not worse than one can predict. Below is the f/2 result, no filter:



    Very very good


    In real life it means one doesn't need to worry. It's great with a late standard construction. Here is a simple sample from a short walk yesterday, shooting distance may have been around 8 meters or so:



    Wide open, in a back yard of an office, overcast. I know, Barnack says "No statues" but...

    And finally, a 100% crop taken from the image above:

    You judge

    It's like having a new reference lens.

    regards,

    /Jonas
    Very nice. Thanks for the lens evaluation Jonas. Here is an interesting discussion of lens testing with some reference to the G1 and kit lens.
    http://technology.lenswork.com/2010/...s-testing.html
    Carl
    Gallery

  16. #216
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    284
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Yeah Jonas, thanks for doing this in a more scientific manner than "OMFG SOOO SHARP!!", which is essentially what I was doing The only mark against this setup would be the bokeh. It's fine once you get to f/4, but it is quite busy beforehand. If I'm not mistaken, this is true of all Zeiss stuff.

    Also, It figures I'm finally able to afford glass this good and I find the focusing to be so maddening.

  17. #217
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    Very nice. Thanks for the lens evaluation Jonas. Here is an interesting discussion of lens testing (...)
    Lol, asking for more?
    But really, it is amazing how much one can learn from taking an image of a flat surface with lines on it. I liked the PDF file in that article, it gave some food for thoughts.
    Thank you for the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by lattiboy View Post
    Yeah Jonas, thanks for doing this in a more scientific manner than "OMFG SOOO SHARP!!" (...)
    Thank you for looking/commenting. Pseudo scientific, but a way for me to learn about lenses I figure I may use a lot.
    a) Yes, Zeiss is often like that.
    x) My results can't be compared with results from other tests, be they made by a single person somewhere, or by Photozone or somebody else. But I can compare to my own results.

    Here, for example, some flare results, all at f/2:

    (So much for DPR not finding any flare in the G20/1.7)

    regards,

    /Jonas

  18. #218
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Chester, PA
    Posts
    199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    So any updates on the adapters? I see the kippon ones but am interested in the one by monza. I tried sending a PM, but his PM box is full.

  19. #219
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Just waiting for the first production...will post more when I have reliable data.

    Jonas, how did you do those flare tests?

  20. #220
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Hi monza, will the gear be bigger than the ones from the other adapter?

    Thanks! And yes keep us all posted!

  21. #221
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Yes, diameter is quite a bit larger.

  22. #222
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    That's great monza, will the adapter be made to accept 21mm 28mm without modification of the lenses. Was curious about that too. Thanks in advance!

  23. #223
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    No, it will not. It could be done, but the lenses would not reach infinity.

  24. #224
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    Jonas, how did you do those flare tests?
    Robert,

    The flare "test" is a simple setup: I use a Maglite Mini torch focused on the camera, distance is about 100xFL, the lens focused on the torch, rules of thirds, always the same exposure and development settings. One series from wide open and down, and more but with a UV filter mounted. Geeky, but it is quickly done and gives me an idea about what to expect from the lens.

    /Jonas

  25. #225
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    For those who were brave enough to cut the "legs" off their 21mm and 28mm. If you had a choice between the two using the Contax G adapter which would your prefer? Definitely, the 21mm lenses have gone up in price but the 28mm you can find for a decent price. Just wondering for the 21mm users if it's worth the price tag and the modification. Thanks!

  26. #226
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Recently received a trio of nice Contax G lenses and a Contax G2. Here are the lenses (90mm f/2.8 Sonnar, 35mm f/2 Planar, and 45mm f/2 Planar) with the GF1. I briefly tried using the Fotodiox m43 adapter from Amazon, but did not like the focusing mechanism nor the construction of the adapter so I sent it back. Waiting now for Robert's new geared adaptor and meanwhile I'll be using the G2 with some film for a change of pace.


    A few shots taken with the 35mm f/2 on the GF1 before I gave up on using the adapter.





    Carl
    Gallery

  27. #227
    koji
    Guest

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Gmoe,

    here is G-Biogon 28/2.8's examples >
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/top.../1#lastmessage

    and G-Biogon 21/2.8 (M-mounted)'s small set of examples >
    http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/inbox

    I would think there is no merit to shorten the legs (lens' rear protector) of those
    wide angle G-Biogons. Of course you can still use them, but loose re-sale value.

  28. #228
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    (...) using the Fotodiox m43 adapter (...) Waiting now for Robert's new geared adaptor
    Carl, that 35mm lens seem to work fine. Is it as an avid landscape shooter you find it necessary to have both the 35 and 45mm lenses? Or did you get the lenses as a set?
    I'm sorry the Fotodiox adapter didn't make it. The geared Kipon adapter works OK, hopefully Robert's adapter will be even better.

    /Jonas

  29. #229
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    Carl, that 35mm lens seem to work fine. Is it as an avid landscape shooter you find it necessary to have both the 35 and 45mm lenses? Or did you get the lenses as a set?
    I'm sorry the Fotodiox adapter didn't make it. The geared Kipon adapter works OK, hopefully Robert's adapter will be even better.

    /Jonas
    I had purchased the 35 first and then got the 45+90 as a set. The 35 is actually very nice and I haven't seen any problems with corner sharpness. I used to have a Zeiss 35 biogon in M mount that did produce some corner softness.
    Carl
    Gallery

  30. #230
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by koji View Post
    Gmoe,

    here is G-Biogon 28/2.8's examples >
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/top.../1#lastmessage

    and G-Biogon 21/2.8 (M-mounted)'s small set of examples >
    http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/inbox

    I would think there is no merit to shorten the legs (lens' rear protector) of those
    wide angle G-Biogons. Of course you can still use them, but loose re-sale value.
    Alex,
    Thanks for posting the links to your nice series of test images. The 45 looks really good, but as you noted the 28 has the unfortunate wide angle corner smearing problem with the m43 sensor.
    Carl
    Gallery

  31. #231
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Thanks Koji for those links and info.

    Darn, such a shame to see the smearing on the 21mm and 28mm.

    I guess I may go for the 35mm then.. to pair up with my 45mm and 90mm

    Thanks!

  32. #232
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    I baught the Kipon adapter, see the pictures and the examples. Mounting and dismounting is easy with both glasses, the 90 and the 45. Focusing is soft and exact, with the Planar 45 it is smoother. So far, I like the combi, you can work with it, not much slower than with my Nokton 40/1,4 or the Pen 40/1,4.
    The Planar is nearly too sharp for portraits

    Karl

    Portraits all ISO 800 and Planar 45 at F2,0, hand held 1/160 sec to 1/320 sec.

  33. #233
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Friedel View Post
    I baught the Kipon adapter, see the pictures and the examples. Mounting and dismounting is easy with both glasses, the 90 and the 45. Focusing is soft and exact, with the Planar 45 it is smoother. So far, I like the combi, you can work with it, not much slower than with my Nokton 40/1,4 or the Pen 40/1,4.
    The Planar is nearly too sharp for portraits

    Karl

    Portraits all ISO 800 and Planar 45 at F2,0, hand held 1/160 sec to 1/320 sec.
    Looks very good Karl. Thanks for posting these shots. I love "too sharp" lenses so I'm looking forward to working with the 45 Planar.
    Carl
    Gallery

  34. #234
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chonburi Thailand
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    GF1 and Zeiss G 90mm via RJ adapter

    1/30th wide open at ISO 400 handheld

  35. #235
    zivk
    Guest

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Bravo!

  36. #236
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles CA
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    ReeRay,

    Excellent photo with the 90mm and wide open. I am waiting for Monza's geared adapter, but I am happy to see there are other adapters that work.

  37. #237
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chonburi Thailand
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard View Post
    ReeRay,

    Excellent photo with the 90mm and wide open. I am waiting for Monza's geared adapter, but I am happy to see there are other adapters that work.
    Thanks for the compliment.

    I'm looking forward to Monza's adapter also.

  38. #238
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul/Turkey
    Posts
    339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Jonas,

    Thanks for your post. Very informative for me.

    Seyhun

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    Lol, asking for more?
    But really, it is amazing how much one can learn from taking an image of a flat surface with lines on it. I liked the PDF file in that article, it gave some food for thoughts.
    Thank you for the link.



    Thank you for looking/commenting. Pseudo scientific, but a way for me to learn about lenses I figure I may use a lot.
    a) Yes, Zeiss is often like that.
    x) My results can't be compared with results from other tests, be they made by a single person somewhere, or by Photozone or somebody else. But I can compare to my own results.

    Here, for example, some flare results, all at f/2:

    (So much for DPR not finding any flare in the G20/1.7)

    regards,

    /Jonas
    H3DII-31, 5DII, M8, NEX-3 and Camera collection
    http://seyhun.com
    Facebook Page

  39. #239
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by s.agar View Post
    Jonas,
    Thanks for your post. Very informative for me.
    Seyhun
    Thank you for that comment, Seyhun.

    Thanks also to Carl and Karl for their nice images!

    /Jonas

  40. #240
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Zeiss G 2,8/90 at 2,8

    Karl

  41. #241
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    I walked around the commons today to get some street snaps at the annual chili cook-off festival. Loosened up the Fotodiox adapter and tried again with the 35 f/2 on the GF1, but still a struggle to focus. My hit rate was only about 50% for this series. Looking forward to Robert's new adapter.









    Carl
    Gallery

  42. #242
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,763
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    45

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Friedel View Post
    Zeiss G 2,8/90 at 2,8

    Karl
    Hi Karl,
    It's a lovely image! Best regards, Leica 77.

  43. #243
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,763
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    45

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    I walked around the commons today to get some street snaps at the annual chili cook-off festival. Loosened up the Fotodiox adapter and tried again with the 35 f/2 on the GF1, but still a struggle to focus. My hit rate was only about 50% for this series. Looking forward to Robert's new adapter.


    Hi Carl,
    Nice expressions on the ladies' faces! Best regards, Leica 77.

  44. #244
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    scho, I was down there too, with my Zorki-3M and J-8! Scanning the film right now. I couldn't stay long, the crowd was so damned huge I was getting the heebie-jeebies. And I kept bumping into my students.

    If I'd seen a guy with an m4/3 camera with a Contax G lens grafted to it, I would have fallen down laughing. Such things are only real on the internet...

    BTW, the Adult Outlet renovation went beautifully, didn't it? It used to be the ugliest storefront in town--now it's probably down to third or fourth place.

  45. #245
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
    scho, I was down there too, with my Zorki-3M and J-8! Scanning the film right now. I couldn't stay long, the crowd was so damned huge I was getting the heebie-jeebies. And I kept bumping into my students.

    If I'd seen a guy with an m4/3 camera with a Contax G lens grafted to it, I would have fallen down laughing. Such things are only real on the internet...

    BTW, the Adult Outlet renovation went beautifully, didn't it? It used to be the ugliest storefront in town--now it's probably down to third or fourth place.
    I'm determined to get something to use for grafting those G lenses onto the GF1 that will focus smoothly. I know what you mean about the commons festival crowds. I can't take more than an hour of that without getting claustrophobic.
    Carl
    Gallery

  46. #246
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leica 77 View Post
    Hi Karl,
    It's a lovely image! Best regards, Leica 77.
    Thank you Leica 77. I think they were saying something like "If those people only knew what we put in this chili." There were some bad heartburn cases down there today.
    Carl
    Gallery

  47. #247
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brampton, ON Canada
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Here's a few with the Kipon adapter and the 45/2 on the E-P1. The first 4 are processed in CaptureOne and cropped a bit. The flowers are ~ at MFD. The brick wall is the out of camera jpg, resized and sharpened a bit (I was mainly looking at the lack of distortion).










  48. #248
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by CVickery View Post
    Here's a few with the Kipon adapter and the 45/2 on the E-P1. The first 4 are processed in CaptureOne and cropped a bit. The flowers are ~ at MFD. The brick wall is the out of camera jpg, resized and sharpened a bit (I was mainly looking at the lack of distortion).
    Beautiful images CVickery. The performance of the Contax G lenses on m43 continues to amaze me.
    Carl
    Gallery

  49. #249
    poffer
    Guest

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Hi All,

    I joined your forum just to let you know there seems to be a new provider of Contax G to 4/3. I have absolutely no connection with the supplier (I am actually a long time Contax G user thinking of getting a digital body - same interest as yours, but from the other end of the lens )

    This one got my interest, as it has a proper focussing ring
    Here are a couple of videos - looks pretty good:
    http://bdyoutube.com/profile/riaphoto/videos/

    And here is the ebay listing number:
    380209260478

    If anybody buys one - please let me know how it goes!

    Cheers

    Peter

  50. #250
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by poffer View Post
    (...)
    This one got my interest, as it has a proper focussing ring
    Thank you Peter. Interesting. And for once somebody listens... no, perhaps not but I wished for a ring like that in post 147 of this thread.

    If it works smoothly and doesn't brake down... great!

    /Jonas

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •