OT: Digital camera that works with Minolta MD/MC lenses?

$200. Are you serious? You might be able to get a good, mid-range point and shoot for that price.

A month ago I've seen an Olympus for slightly over $200, with coupon, that had changeable lenses. It was probably "last season's" model but I don't care, and I do not need high-end. Didn't buy it because I was swamped in projects and couldn't educate myself on whether I could make my Rokkor lenses work with it.

I am still not sure because the adapters cause an increase in the distance from lens to sensor, which is one reason why I am asking here. I can't be the only one who wants to not throw away a nice lens collection.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I use Minolta lenses with my Olympus E-510. I bought an adapter ($20 or so off of ebay), never had the slightest problem with it being difficult to get off. Not that I change lenses often while shooting anyways...

There are two types of adapter available, ones that are mechanical only ($20 or so) and ones that have an attached 'autofocus' chip. The latter ones are still completely manual focus, but they enable the focus detector in the camera body so the indicator mostly works when you are focusing. Which is a big plus, since the viewfinder on 4/3 SLRs is typically smaller, dimmer, and completely lacking a ground glass, split prism, or other focusing aid. Its a completely different experience than focusing with a vintage body.

This also means that the auto aperture setting doesn't work, you have to set it before hand. Since they were designed for a 35mm camera, they also produce a much bigger image area than 4/3 lenses do, so contrast and resolution can suffer some. I haven't found it to be a big problem, but its there.

FWIW, typically the manufacturer supplied adapters are vastly more expensive than then third party ones, and in this case, with manual lenses, won't benefit you in the slightest. Buy a cheap chinese adapter off ebay.

Every camera with interchangeable lenses has a flange to focal plane specification. There are tables on the interwebs. Let's call the lens you have laying around the foreign lens, as opposed to the native lens system that goes with the camera. [The native lens is built for the body's flange to focal plane specification.] If the flange to focal plane distance of the foreign lens exceeds that of the native lens (i.e. the specification of the camera body), then you can use the foreign lens with an adapter that has no optics. This presumes you want to focus at infinity. Obviously the excess distance has to be enough so that you can actually machine the adapter.

Ebay is full of lens adapters. You just need to insure the conditions I stated are met. I have a M42 to Nikon F with a relay lens in it to get around the flange rule.

Now there is no assurance that the camera can meter the lens properly, and cheap DSLRs don't work well in manual mode. It is also unlikely the camera will be able to autofocus the foreign lens.

Most of the time the only application of putting a foreign lens on a camera is for non-action photography. For instance the old Mamiya 645 lenses have a huge flange to focal plane distance. There are adapters to convert them to use on DSLRs and provide tilt/shift at a fraction of what the native lens would cost. That is for architectural photography when you have time to set up the shot.

So if manual focus and manual metering on a DSLR is what you want, then this is doable. Just try to buy the body where you can return it in the event things don't work.

I also have an E-510 but found that the old Minola lenses go for a fortune, even on eBay. Being able to use old lenses wasn't a good enough reason to buy the E-510. I wish I could adapt my Canon lenses to a DSLR. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Thanks! That is excellent and encouraging information. I guess this means that every Olympus with a 4/3 mount should work with the Minolta lenses if I use an adapter. I'll have to figure out this autofocus thing, so far I've only seen the $20 adapters. And find a nice sale for an Olympus camera :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Luckily we have an engineer in the family who calculates such optics for a living :-)

Oh, that would not be cool. What are they lacking? Does it mean I can't do a manual focus like on the old 35mm SR-T, make sure the light situation is ok and then get a good shot?

No problem at all. I never had autofocus in my 35mm days and actually do not like it on my Nikon (can't really be done manually there).

That would almost always be the case with my photos, enough time.

Yup, will start looking for a camera then. I saw some older reviews for the Olympus E-510 that Grummble has. Back then if you bought it body only (no lens) some of the prices I saw mentioned were $200. Something like that would work. I don't want to spend a ton of money because it'll get scuffed up on EMC trips, and nowadays they make cameras from plastic which doesn't last.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I didn't know you considered a 4/3rds as a DSLR. They are mirrorless cameras, more like a video camera. Since they have no mirror, the flange to sensor distance is very small. That makes it easy to use old lenses. The sensor on a 4/3rds isn't very big. Don't expect DSLR quality.

The small sensor means it will have a cropped image. Think of your 35mm lenses having their focal length doubled. You aren't getting something for free here. Rather the image is severely cropped. However the sensor is substantially bigger than a point and shoot.

Those 4/3rds cameras aren't very beefy. You will need to be sure to hold the lens and camera at the same time rather than support the lens with the camera mount.

I'd just dump the old Minolta lenses on ebay and buy a point and shoot and be done with it.

You would be shocked at the number of press photographers using G-series Canon powershots. [They shoot raw.] This would be a backup camera and/or a camera to be with the photographer at all times. [Depending on the agency, often the agency has the photographer use gear from their pool.]

That's ok, I am not a perfectionist when it comes to photography.

That's fine as well, it was similar with the 35mm cameras where some of the big lenses I have are much larger and weigh a lot more than the camera body.

Point-and-shoot is ok for most cases. But most can't do the high-quality macro pictures I could take with my SR-T. Zoom isn't as great either as with the 250mm and 500mm aftermarket MD/MC lenses. Like when you need to point out a grounding issue way up there without climbing the structure.

So I found one for $279 but now it says "Micro 4/3" for the mount, whatever that means.

Oh man, this is going to be a complicated process until I find what I need. That was easier in the olden days, always the same mount and in rare cases where things jibe you could often re-plumb to a C-mount.

Depends on the quality level of the publication they work for. I have a relative who designs lenses and it seems that good photographers easily pay thousands for those. One lens can cost more than the top-of-the-line camera.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

The powershot is a backup camera. Failure is not an option. [Well the option is you can be fired.] Most press photographers are using Canon EOS DSLR, usually 2nd from the top of the line unless they are doing sports. However, my point is the powershot is very good for the price.

I was in Cantoo (high end Bay Area imagery shop) one day and the lab techs were gushing over a Fuji poster size print done off a G10. These are people that have 40Mpixel high end studio gear used to shoot fine art, so they know quality.

If you don't need to take a photo in a hurry, the 4/3rds will probably work. But it won't be automatic. But you say you don't care about quality one time, then complain you want quality another time. If you want quality, dump the Minolta and get a Canon or Nikon DSLR.

No, I don't need super-duper quality, it just has to be good enough to document EMI issues and things like that. This does require macro shots and the usual point-and-shoot cameras are so limited in that domain that I occasionally had to resort to holding magnifiers in front. With the Minolta I never had to do that. Those are quality cameras but not useful anymore because they are 35mm film cameras and the procesing places are largely gone. Some of the lenses I have are rather high-end, like a

250mm mirror lens.

Now I just need to find out whether the Olympus works well with the Minolta lenses. Hand-operation is fine and, in fact, I've never liked auto-focus. Just as I do not like to drive cars with automatic transmissions. Have to find out whether setting the aperture by hand will work since Minoltas kept it all open during search and if you wanted to check the DOF you have to press a button. The other issue is that I've read that infinity focus didn't always work with the adapters. Can be corrected but only via a lens tear-down. That's something I really do not want to do. But I've got time, I do not need the camera tomorrow and I can make my Nikon work via a strong rubber band around it, for a while.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

If you study the flange rules, infinity focus should be possible. [Remember, since you have the lens, you need to pick a camera with a shorter flange to focal plane distance. Probably at least 5mm.] With a

4/3rds, since there is no mirror, the adapter could possibly protrude beyond the flange if need be, but I don't know this for a fact.

Note the Canon powershots have macro-adapters in addition to a good macro mode:

If you are documenting PCBs, then focus at infinity isn't an issue.

The problem with Minolta, Pentax, Ricoh, etc is they didn't win the DSLR race. Only Nikon kept some compatibility between their film cameras and DSLRs. Canon FD wasn't the winner back in the day, so they junked all compatibility when they started EOS. Most people think they won the race, though Nikon can do a few things better in studio applications than Canon.

If the adapter manufacturer did the flange right. Unfortunately that doesn't always seem to be the case. But the ones from Fotodiox look ok so far.

The adapter is fairly long for a micro-4/3 camera, looks like 1/2", but not for a full-size 4/3 camera.

I was surprised by the amount of adapters offered, including huge macro bellows. But I have a really nice Minolta 28mm-70mm lens with macro function, it's probably going to be the lens I'd use most.

For me it is because I'll also have to document open field EMC setups, take photos of EMI sources in the distance, and so on. True story: System fell off the rocker every few seconds. Desperation could be seen in the eye of the engineers. So we stood there at the window, gazing at the serene setting of pastures with cattle and all that, pondering what we could test next. "Hey, what's that thing that glistens on that mountain there in the distance every few seconds"? ... "Ah, nothing, just a military Radar installation" ... BOINK!

AFAIK Minolta was bought by Sony and the stayed in the race. They make high-end cameras and supposedly the older lenses fit. But now were are talking $1k class.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg schrieb:

Hello,

a digital camera with a sensor of the size 24*36 mm would be far too expensive. The sensor size used in todays cameras is much smaller.

Bye

Joerg schrieb:

Hello,

the 4/3 sensor is too small for your Minolta lenses. It would be similar to taking pictures on film, but not using the full size of 24*36 mm, but to cut only a small rectangle of 13*17.3 mm of it and discard the rest. Your nice wide-angle lens with 28 mm focal length would degrade to a lens with an apparent length of 56 mm and no wide angle at all. A standard lense with 50 mm would work like a short telefoto lens with

100 mm, but with bad quality because only a small part of ist "Bildkreis" is used. The lenses would have not enough resolution to fit to the resolution of the sensor.

Bye

I know, it's essentially focus times two. But many people have taken some stunning photos that way:

The best was from Monument Valley using the E-PL1 and a 50mm Rokkor lens but I can't find that back on the Internet. Personally, when I was young all I had was a 45mm Rokkor lens and I did years of nice shots with that. Since I have a 28mm fixed plus two zoom lenses that go down this far I shuold be ok.

Yes, I'll have to try to get a 15mm lens somewhere, and maybe I find a good deal on the Olympys Zuiko 17mm lens some day. But for "dinner party" photos which is the only real application we can use the old digicam. What I need this for is technical documentation, and my Rokkor

28-70mm macro lens should do fine there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

This one is about have the width and length of 35mm film. Which is pretty large for a digital camera. It's like 2x for the lenses, meaning my 28mm would be roughly what a 50mm does on film. Meaning a 250mm lens is like 500mm. That would be nice for wildlife photographers.

Problem ist the lens aberrations, they show much worse on CCD versus ye olde 100-ASA film. But on the web I've seen photos that were stunning, using the setup with micro-4/3 camera plus adapter plus Minolta lens. Some used Leica lenses, for even better shots. But I am not Mr.Rich-Guy :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/