GWC-1 - adding a filter thread

one of the criticisms of the Panasonic GWC-1 0.79x wide angle adapter is that it does not have a filter thread. On a recent discussion a fellow mentioned that he had mounted a thread on the inside of his by starting with a 55mm filter and sanding down the outside to press it into the GWC-1.

Fan-fukken-tastic idea if you aske me ... So I thought I'd give it a whack.


As you can see below, the front of the lens inner surface is smooth ... no filter thread ...

While the procedure is not for those with 10 thumbs, it certainly does not require a Master tradesman.

Please excuse the lack of process shots as while I intended to document the process, I got carried away with it and ... well soon enough it was finished and done.

method

You start with a 55mm filter,  of any kind and any cheapie on ebay will do.

Step 1:
with your dremel or small grinding wheel, you carefully work around the outside of the filter wearing it down evenly and periodically testing for fit. Basically you want it to be very snug so that it will hold itself in by fit alone (no cement or glue needed). Do not remove the glass of the filter yet, it will add support so you don't distort or bend your filter (soon to be just a metal thread). Be neat.

Step 2:
when this is accomplished you can now remove the glass from the filter (I used a small hammer with the filter on a bit of wood and tapped it lightly to smash it gently). Wearing leather gloves and using a pair of pliers carefully remove the glass shards. The retaining ring which held the glass in now, simply unscrews.

Step 3:
It will be obvious now that there is a thread at the back of the filter which is designed to screw into a 55mm threaded surface ... we don't need that, so again with your dremel tool (and again wearing gloves) carefully cut off the thread with the 'metal grinding cutting disc' ... be patient and just work your way around. When this comes off you can then just sand the back with some 240 grit paper on a flat surface (I use a large book).

Last step:
The filter is now ready to mount, so using the 67mm stepup ring screwed onto the front (as a holder so you don't bend it) carefully twist it onto the front of your GWC-1 as far as it will go by hand. This should be most of the way. Now remove the stepup ring so you can access the front edge of the filter, which will be almost flush with the front. Then using a bit of hard wood (such as say the handle of your hammer) holding the lens in one hand and the hammer handle in the other tap it in working your way round so that its then snuggled in tightly against the edge of the inside of the GWC-1

It will look like this:

You can see that next to none of the ex-filter(now thread) protrudes ... we want exactly this.

So now you can screw on the step-up up ring normally and then screw on the 67mm filter.

looks perfectly suited ... while you will need to remove the filter and stepup ring to replace your GWC-1 lens cap, and yes, the lens cap just goes on as it did before because you have not actually altered your GWC-1 in any way.

So here is the entire kit (man my house is dusty)...

Discussion

Now, I'd picked the 67mm because previous testing showed me that (with a step up ring) that was the smallest size which did not cause obstruction of the image (you know, vignetting).

There is a weee teeny bit but it is only visible if you shoot RAW and convert without any correction for distortion.

but when you shoot JPG you never see that as the reshaping applied to correct lens distortions streches them out of visible range.

perfect

Voilla ...

So with a small amount of elbow grease, you can have a GWC-1 with a filter thread

brief follow up on the GWC-1 wide adapter (checking to see if its the same as my earlier one)

I have already reviewed and compared my last 14mm and GWC-1 wide adapter here, however as I sold both those (the 14mm and the GWC .. don't ask) I thought while I was out walking around that a quick snap of a landscape with them would be in order.

I find them unchanged (suggesting that inter-copy variation is low). So just briefly:

Overview

Centers:
14mm

+ GWC-1

note: obviously the details are smaller because being wider it squeezes more into the same frame (obviously).

Edges
right hand edge

right hand edge (GWC-1)

left hand edge

left hand edge (GWC-1)

As usual, the images were converted from RAW using dcraw so as to avoid any "in camera" corrections performed on the 14mm (which will be invalid as the camera does not know of the existence of the GWC). Presented at 100% crops with no sharpening.

Hand held at about 3000th of a sec @ f4 (f2.5 was a bit of a washout)

not bad if you ask me ... you'd really need to print these at 68.0 x 45.5 cm (that's 27 x 18 inches) and have a close look  at the edges to be seeing this ... and really ... is that what you do to a print?

Value for money and compact light weight not withstanding this is a good result if you ask me ...

Thank you Panasonic

Frequently overlooked in todays rush for bigger-better-newer-faster items that is common in the "who's dumping XXX for YYY"-zombie consumer crowd {Wangers seeking gear to make them better photographers} are the small iterative development touches which turn good products into better ones.

I've already written of my fondness of the combination of the Panasonic GWC-1 0.79x adapter which fitted to the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 gives you an upgrade path to what amounts to an 11mm f2 lens for essentially fuck all additional money (assuming you already have the 14mm).

Back in that post I wrote the following:

Fortunately its really quick and simple to take the lens on and off the front but brings with it a small issue. You can't just put the lens cap back on the 14mm because the plastic adapter is in the way.

As it happens I don't find that a big problem because the plastic adapter is itself a functional protector of the lens, as the front of the 14mm lens is recessed back in there a little way. It almost acts as a sort of lens hood anyway.

With a please develop note to Panasonic

it would be a simple thing for Panasonic to make another plastic cap to include with the kit, that attached to the lens side of the adapter to click on and click off, giving you a lens cap to use when you leave the adapter ring on the 14mm lens.

Well either someone was listening or its a coincidence but they now are doing exactly that.

I just recently bought another GWC1-1 (don't ask, its a long story) and this was sourced new. It came with exactly such a lens cap.

So to "recap" on the system, you have the compact little 14mm pancake on your  compact m43 body of choice and the light weight GWC1 along with it:

Note that the GWC-1 comes with  front and rear caps, the bayonet adapter flange, and now the between use lends cap.

So you pop off your lens cap, and screw the bayonet mounting flange onto the thread of the 14mm...

and then you can choose to mount the GWC-1 ...

or when you don't want as wide (or want to stuff it back into your pack) you can pop it off quickly and put the cap on ...

Thus keeping your front element protected with a cap and making it easy to switch between you having an 11mm and a 14mm on your camera.

Just this weekend I was out at a fantastic 1 man sawmill shed and found the 11mm to be very handy to take in all the stuff there.

So thanks again Panasonic ... you made buying another of your GWC-1 adapters for my 14mm (yes I bought another of them, really ... don't ask) well worth it.

I like it when a good thing gets better.

a different slant on things

Back in December I was near an old log cabin and thought I'd ferret around for a nice angle. I ended up liking this one:

I was still farting around with the Sigma 30mm f2.8 at that time and wanted to see if it would work for me (without my glasses) on the GF and automagically pick the right thing to focus on. Naturally I was shooting at f2.8 just to make it clear to me if it had picked focus where I wanted it.

Wondering if it was worth taking my Toho 4x5 out there I thought today I'd whack my 'tilt adapter' onto the Olympus OM28mm lens and take the GH1 instead. Well the sun has risen in the sky since the solstice (duh) and so I didn't get that same lovely light (drat), but the effect of the tilt is perhaps really quite clear

Now its important to note that both images were taken at f2.8, but note the totally different DoF that is visible here? This is actually why Large Format cameras employ tilts / swings and shifts, to allow such control over the focal plane.

So when the subject is at a slanted angle, you tilt the lens to alter the focal plane. This is called the Scheimpflug principle (if you didn't know that already) and is a cornerstone of Large Format photography.

This diagram suggests tilting so as to get all the ground in focus (common in landscape photography), but can equally be applied sideways to get a receding wall in focus too.

The idea is not the same as Depth of Field, as it actually changes the plane of focus.

In a typical camera the focal plane is totally parallel with the sensor (film or CCD) and so the focus is exactly in a line across the picture more or less equal distance from the camera. When you tilt the lens you get to change that to any angle you like.

Looking closely at the segment from the Sigma lens (not tilted) ..

its pretty clear that only a very narrow portion of the image is in focus. Classically it becomes more blurry either side of that focal plane

But in the lens tilt example:

it is clear that the focus follows different rules. Look for instance at the metal hinge and the barbed wire. The hinge is clear further away from the wall in this image, but its base is blurry. Compare that to the image above where as its further away from the barbed wire (at an angle receding from the plane of focus) it gets blurrier (as does the wall).

The reason I bring this up (well aside from that its interesting) is that I get tired of the foaming at the mouth Kingdom of Wang people who are not even one-eyed, they're blind (you know, Wangers), who go on about how infinitesimally accurate lens adaptors need to be or the image will just be crap. You know, down to microns (Daddy, what's a micron? Well Son its smaller than a mites antennae), while this image was made quite with some mm of tilt. And yet this vintage 1976 OM28mm lens (vintage used as in the context of wine year, not vintage like care) , taken hand held even, still gives sharpness like this (100% crop, right click to open in a new window as its scaled a little in blogger):

The problem with Wangers is they focus (hey that's a pun) on how lenses perform on test targets (where such alignment will make a difference because the board and the camera are square), not on how they render images. However for those of us who take photographs of "things" or people such issues are irrelevant.

The reason I love micro43 is because I can get creative lens choices that are simply not possible in Full Frame and for peanuts.

I don't know about you, but I'm into photography as a creative outlet .. not to brag about my lens test chart results. I leave that to the Wangers.

bottom line

start focusing on your creative juices not on the camera specs. Go grab any adapter you want on eBay and use it with the legacy lenses you want to help your creative vision and your enjoyment of photography ... and stop looking at charts.

I hope you've enjoyed this brief introduction into Lens Tilts ... I'll leave you with an image taken with my LF camera to demonstrate Tilt to a mate.



Lastly a very rough and ready video showing the effect as it happens. Sorry its rough and pardon my voice-over



:-)

(not just) another FD lens adapter review

Lens adapters for using Manual Focus lenses (from mainly 35m cameras) on my micro 4/3 is something which I've not written much about for some time.  Well really not much has changed, until I spotted this little guy on the market.

As you can see its a reasonably vanilla looking basic lens adapter. To me there is not much difference between the various FD adapters on the market except if they do or do not have an iris engagement pin ring on the adapter, this does.

What does stand out immediately to me however is this adapter also has a tripod mount on the adapter.

Now to me thats something to mention!

I'd seen a few of these pop up in the in the past, but as this was so bloody cheap I thought I'd just get one.

One of the problems that you have with cameras is when they have a big lens mounted on them that does not have a tripod mount on the lens. Now normally lenes don't have a tripod mount on them but bigger lenses do. 200mm seems to be the turnaround point where they may or may not, but by 300mm they usually do.

That can become a slight problem for balance on the tripod (when you adjust the tripod the lens just goes 'whack' down from the cantilever). Also I feel that there is more likely to be vibration in the tripod + camera mount with the lens a cantilever on the camera that's on the tripod.

Back when I used 35mm gear I often wished there was a tripod collar for my EF100-300mm lens because of all the above reasons. When I was after the EF200mm f2.8 I really was surprised that it didn't have such. I guess its because on full frame 200mm is on the edge of hand holding and so many use it that way : thus no tripod collar needed.

I have an FD200mm f2.8 which is more or less the same design as the EF and when using it on the micro 4/3 (it being an effective 400mm) there are many times I'd like to have it on a tripod. When using my GH1 and that lens I've often thought it would be more well balanced that way too. So here it is on the adapter on the tripod...

and then with the camera mounted behind it.

which to me now feels much better.

Now in going around the internet forums people often seem to obsess with the effect of the weight of the lens on the front of the camera. The confident newbie veteran (of 5 months experience with owning a camera, but years of forum banter) knows that using a lens of such weight on the camera will lead to 1) inevitable damage their pride an joy and 2) lead to unfathomable grief.

This adapter will go a long way towards ameliorating those issues, and probably one more too (which is not an issue IMO).

The other issue which seems to be a source of anxiety among the newbies veteran photographers who are obsessed with image clarity is that of the effect of the lens not being 'tight in the mount' or that the mount may not be precise enough.

It seems that the stress of the mass of the lens on the mount may cause the lens to "tilt" and loose accuracy. Something like a few microns is all thats needed I read. This sort of incredible accuracy is the stuff which NASA would also like to obtain as well as makers of instruments such as the Hubble telescope. Microns of tilt mean that you will loose precious resolution from the system. No wonder people with large format cameras have been struggling with image clarity over the years. Such miserably flimsy wooden cameras as used by Ansel Adams could not have allowed him to produce anything of quality.
 
Such reports have been circulating the net recently. No evidence, just "a well trusted source". Probably its Jason who was being creative with his macBook Pro.

So, if the main thing you photograph is test targets on precision glass with your camera rigidly mounted then probably don't bother using anything other than native lenses. Some photographers may also require a "high speed lubricant", look for low temperature high speed in the specs. Always wear safety glasses in case something comes off.

Anyway, back to the adapter ... as I mentioned this adapter has a ring for 'engage' and 'disengage' of the FD lens iris. This has two benefits:

1. you can mount the lens easier
2. you can set the lens to (say) f5.6, "open" it to focus more accurately (than you could with it stopped down) and then close it again to take.

Compared to previous adapters I've tried with this system this one has kept the ring a bit more compact and doesn't get in the way of my fingers.

Please read this blog post about the operations of the iris and the lock / open ring. However what I said of relevence there was to engage and disengage the iris control this adaptor gets around the problem of needing to engage the FD iris coupler during the mounting process and the iris coupling is engaged by turning the ring after mounting.



To mount the adapter, first move the ring to "open". There is a red dot on FD lenses, so line this up with the red dot on the adapter. Then mount and turn the lens to engage normally.

At this point the iris is not yet engaged, to to engaged (and allow it to be stopped down) turn the ring on the outside of the adapter (which moves the engaging pin as in the diagram above).

The last point that I'd like to raise on this adapter is the tripod mount.
This is essentially a foot made of a single piece of alloy that is then bolted to the adapter with two small bolts (really small) that run up the center of the foot. The kit came with two spare bolts (should you loose / break one) and a 'patch' to cover the area if you decided to take the foot off.

The image to the left here shows the foot taken off and the bolts I mean.

The foot "keys" into a surface of the adapter so as to minimize twist, but if you had an accident with it, then its possible you could bend a bolt or shear one. So its nice to have some spares.

I'm intending to put a smear of fingernail polish on these bolt threads when I put it back together as a form of 'poor mans locktight'. This will actually be a good thing because:
* it will provide a firm bed for the threads to meet
* will prevent any metal expansion differences (the adapter body is alloy, the bold steel) which in winter can cause bolts to loosen
* keep them from vibrating loose over time.

such things are common in manufacture, but are absent here.

Actually it would perhaps be good to do the same with the three stainless steel threads on the front surface as I've found them to come loose after time too.

drawbacks

As you may guess, the entire system can't be rotated. So unlike proper collar designs (as on my FD300mm f4). I really like the FD lens tripod collar, it allows smooth and precise adjustment of camera alignment (vertical and horizontal) and is very nice on a mono-pod. The tension on the clamp is adjusted by rotating a knob on the side



and can be released by pulling it out popping open the clamp to allow you to quickly remove the lens from the tripod (if you decide to go hand held or pack it away leaving the clamp on the tripod.
This is something this adapter can't do ... but then you previously couldn't mount the lens on a tripod anyway ;-)

UPDATE: usage observations

Today out in the field with it I was attempting a HDRI and found that the camera was 'moving' around in the horizontal plane. I checked the tripod and found that it was actually the adapter foot moving on the mount. So I'll need to add some locktight there too. The keying of the foot into the adapter is not precise enough.

Then I discovered that I forgot to 'engage' the aperture stop down. So I ended up taking everything at f4 even though I was intending f5.6 ... not a "big" deal but a lesson. Get used to an adapter and have that in your routine so as to not introduce to many factors into your routine.

conclusion

So there you have it. A low priced adapter (in this case for FD) to put your longer lenses onto your micro4/3 camera and mount the lens on the tripod (rather than mounting the camera onto the tripod). For the price I reckon you just can't loose.

Now if precision is your gig (and it might not be) then I reckon you can't  go past the adapters made by ciecio7 who sells on ebay (and aside from having bought his adapters and thought them great have no financial kickbacks or interests). His stuff is top shelf, machined from a single bit, he even declares the materials his adapters are made from!

His adapters like this one are $90, so you get what you pay for (in this instance higher quality ;-)

Panasonic 0.79 adapter on camera

well after looking at my post on the image quality of this adapter (over here) I thought I'd add a little of what the adapter looks and feels like on the camera as well as putting it onto the camera.

From the image below you can see that it adds a little onto the front of the GF1 with the 14mm mounted. 

Since the 14mm is already a snuggle little lens its actually not a big issue but certainly means I can't just stuff the camera into my backpack side pocket. Fortunately its really quick and simple to take the lens on and off the front but brings with it a small issue. You can't just put the lens cap back on the 14mm because the plastic adapter is in the way.

As it happens I don't find that a big problem because the plastic adapter is itself a functional protector of the lens, as the front of the 14mm lens is recessed back in there a little way. It almost acts as a sort of lens hood anyway.

NOTE TO PANASONIC

it would be a simple thing for Panasonic to make another plastic cap to include with the kit, that attached to the lens side of the adapter to click on and click off, giving you a lens cap to use when you leave the adapter ring on the 14mm lens.

{update: Panasonic has now addressed this issue, see my quick review of that here}

The wide adapter with its caps on slips into a pocket no problems.

One of the things which bewildered me when I was first researching this lens was the comments on various forums about how clumsy it was to use. People remarking that it unscrewed when you removed the GWC1 from the lens side mount. Clearly they aren't looking or reading the manual. I think that the lens is so intuitive to use, that even if you can't read (to be able to write on a forum) you should see the symbols on the lens side of the adapter which make it clear what to do. <shrug>

Basically after you thread the adapter ring onto the 14mm, the GWC1 attaches with a twist. You twist in the same direction to put it on as you do to get it off. In this image green is on, red is off.

• put down, 
• twist
• use
• twist same way
• lift off

 

This has the effect of tightening the plastic adapter collar to the right tension, so any questions on how tight should I screw it on are answered by the device itself.

Simple. I've put together a quick video of this to show this (as well as why I'm not involved as a TV presenter) in case it wasn't obvious my meaning in the above image.



So there you have it. A low priced alternative to get you into wide angle on your micro 4/3 camera. Of course if you already have the 12mm lens in your focal lengths its hardly worth it, but if you have instead the 14mm prime (as it came with your camera ... or even just the 14-42) this adapter will give you that extra width for minimal weight penalty and just a few bucks.

For instance:

• $800 for the 12mm f2 (130g)
• $1000 for the Oly 12-40 f2.8 (382g)
• $1300 for the 12-35 zoom f2.8 (300g)
• $500 for the 12-50 zoom f3.5 ~ 6.3 (211g darker and quite a bit bigger too) 
• curve ball : $330 14mm f2.5 + $150 0.79 adapter = $480

or just $120 to put this onto your existing pancake 14mm when you just want that wee bit wider than the 14 gives. The adapter only weighs 70g so including the 55g of the 14mm lens you have a total weight of 125g (which you don't have to keep on the camera at all times). This is lighter than anything in the zoom range and about on par with the 12mm f2 (and actually nearly exactly the same size too).

Think of it as nearly the Olympus 12mm f2 but as a 2 for one lens and cheaper ;-)

Here is a composite showing the GF with (left to right) the 12mm, the 14mm and the 14mm + the GWC-1

Bugger all difference in size between the 12mm and the 14mm + 0.79 ... and you can take it off making it a "more compact lens" without taking the lens off the camera...

In fact, I like it so much I've sold my 9-18mm zoom

:-)

Panasonic 0.79 wide adaptor on the 14mm (image quality)

background: why?

I happen to like wides. As a kid with 35mm I just couldn't afford wide enough, the typical zoom back then was 35-80 or perhaps 28-70 and most affordable wide primes were 28 anyway.

When I got my first 24mm lens I was quite happy, finally I could see things as I liked to see them.

Some people see things up close only in 'mental macro' and focus on the details, but as I move in closer to things I like to look around and see the shapes, the relationships to the backgrounds and to see the perspective of being close.

28mm (on a full 35mm frame) is just not wide enough for me, 24mm or 21mm is where I like it most, although modern lenses have shown me that sometimes I like it that bit wider.

Sadly I just can't afford the 15mm or the 12mm lenses which can really only be used for very specific subjects (to me). Of course most of that sort of thing can now be done with stitching. Stitching images also gives increases in resolution which is good too.

Anyway, on my G series cameras I have lamented that there isn't really much in the wide area which is compact (and affordable). For some time I have been using the Olympus 9-18mm zoom via an adapter on the G series cameras and have been really happy with it optically. I've written about that lens back in 2009, and found it to be a great lens except for its bulk. Note that this comparison shows my 9-18mm on its adapter ready to use alongside my 14-45 and my friends 7-14 beside his 14-45 ... it was the only way to compare them ... its a long story (read the blog post from 2009 if you are interested ;-)

So you can see that the Olympus 9-18mm on the adaptor is actually a bit larger than the kit 14-45 and even bigger than the 7-14 Panasonic.

With my G1 / GH1 the 7-14 may be attractive, but with my GF1 its not an attractive alternative (and certainly not a cheap one) because its not compact. When I bought the GF camera it had the 14mm f2.5 pancake lens on it, which is exactly what I was looking for as a compact camera. However its not really very wide, it being the equivalent of a 28mm lens, which isn't what I'm really fond of.

Enter the Panasonic DMW-GWC1 0.79x adapter

I was initially skeptical that the adaptor would be optically any good, as my experience in the past was that such things were not any good. The adapter would turn the 14mm lens into a 11mm lens or in full frame context a 22mm lens. This is right in my ballpark. So, rather than keep wondering I bought one to see. The image below shows the 14mm with the adapter already mounted on it, beside my Olympus 9-18mm 4/3 lens.

As you can see even when the adapter is mounted on the 14mm its significantly smaller than the Olympus 9-18mm 4/3 lens. Now the 9-18 there is the ZD lens for 4/3, which of course needs an adapter to use on micro 4/3 (you know, because its gone without the mirror to make everything more compact) With the 9-18mm on the adapter it looks less attractive.

Now the purpose of the adapter is to hold the lens that bit further away from the sensor to allow the mirror to flap around (recalling SLR cameras have mirrors between the sensor and the eyepiece). this of course adds to the price of the ZD 9-18mm zoom.

The reason I mention this is that it has been an option for me to consider getting a compact regular 4/3 body (like the Olympus E-420) and putting the 9-18mm onto that ... as when its mounted on the body the whole thing really just doesn't feel much bigger than it did on my G1 ... and the laughingly called "micro" 4/3 lens isn't really that micro at all. Sure when you see it sitting beside the three lenses (the ZD 9-18 without an adapter, the "new" 9-18mm and the Panasonic 7-14) it looks a bit smaller than the old Oly ...

However when you consider that to actually use the stupid thing it has to 'unfold' and telescopes up, it becomes more or less exactly the same size as the ZD 9-18mm for 4/3 cameras anyway.

So much for the promise of compact.

All marketing bullshit if you ask me, which drives me spakko. Worse than this from what I read the new 9-18mm designed for micro4/3 is not optically as good as the older ZD lens anyway ...

So we're back to the wide angle adapter on the pancake 14mm as the most compact alternative (and lower cost too).

So getting back to the 14mm with the 0.79x VS the 9-18mm zoom what do images look like?

Well below is an overlay of 3 shots taken with camera on a tripod just the other day, widest is the 9mm end of the 9-18mm zoom, middle (orange frame) is the wide adapter on the 14mm and the inner most image the segment (green frame) of the image that the 14mm sees.

So the step from 9mm to 14mm is huge, but the 11mm is (as expected) right in the middle. Knowing that I'm already happy with the view of a "24" (full frame) then this 11mm (equaling a 22mm) will be wide enough for me, and as you can see is quite a bit wider than the 14mm view. The overviews are taken from the JPGs

So, lets have a look at some of the edges. To make this 'even' I have used dcraw to convert the RAW files.

Why dcraw? Well dcraw can produce regular exposures and uncompensated images this allows me to see the lens as it is, without any corrections. It is important to remember that with micro4/3 (especially Panasonic) that lens corrections are recorded in the camera system and JPG images are developed in-camera including these corrections. Many RAW converters also use this metadata to build in the corrections into what you see too ... thus using dcraw allows me to side step this and see exactly what the lens produces. Essentially it means also that final images can be improved from there.

Below are 100% crops from the images above. Tone and contrast vary from the above because these come from linear TIFF conversions from the RAW files.

9mm LHS

adapted LHS

You will need to load these in windows and look carefully to see the differences. This of course means that the reality is you won't see differences on anything other than the largest prints...

Now, over to the right hand side:

9mm RHS

adapted RHS

Again there is some subtle difference in quality between the two images, but its not chalk and cheese. One is really pixel peeping here, and so unless its a prize shot which you are going to blow up to A3 sized print its going to be neck and neck really.

The Olympus 9-18mm zoom has a long standing reputation as being a solid performer and a well corrected optic. It comes from back in the days where lens corrections were part of lens design, not post processing. The 14mm requires corrections and with the adapter more so again. While the 14mm is corrected in JPG (and you can really see the differences when you look at the uncorrected RAW files) it is not corrected in combination with the adapter (well, and if you think about it it can't be as the lens won't know that its looking through the adapter).

So what this means is there is room for improvement in the images with the simple addition of a tool like PTLens. I've used PTLens on other lenses in the past with very pleasing results. As it only costs $25 to buy you can then essentially get even better output from the 14mm + 0.79 adapter than we see here.

Currently the combo is not part of PTLens's database of lens combos, but I will hopefully submit some test images to the author of PTLens soon and then it will be supported.

Conclusion

The 14mm is a compact lens, and if you already have it the 0.79x adapter makes it into a nice wide lens. The adapter is quite modestly priced (about $150), so bang for buck this gets you into the area of a 9-18mm at less than 1/4 of the price!

If you happen to be after a wide and don't want to spend a lot of money then this pair is the ticket. The adapter dismounts from the 14 when you don't want it on there, so you essentially get a "28" walk around wide lens for your micro4/3 camera with a slap on conversion to make it a "21" for those times when you want that wider look.

The down side is that you have to handle an adapter ring and put the lens on and off. That sort of required a blog post of its own, so I'll do that soon ;-)

Part 2 now done

And that post is here
PPS after having sold this set I bought another (because I found I missed it, and liked it so much) so I've added another brief comparison here.

Ciecio7 - new FD micro 4/3 adaptor

While things may seem to have slowed down a little on the micro 4/3 front it seems that at least one maker of adaptors is iteratively developing his line of adaptors.

As it happens my first adaptor for my G1 was the FD adaptor. The first one was a simple affair which just did the functional job of allowing me to put FD lenses onto my G1. Mounted using this adaptor they could focus and had (manual) aperture control. Don't forget being manual focus lenses they focus manually too ;-)

I wrote a post about that first one here and then wrote about the updated "second series" one here.

the mask

Back some time ago there was a discussion that the Rayqual adaptor had a "mask" in the back of the adaptor to shield the internal of the camera from the extra light that would be falling around when using adapted 35mm lenses.

If this is a new idea to you, then essentially its about the concept that the image circle of 35mm lenses will be way larger than the 4/3 sensor.

If you look at this diagram I've drawn in blue the tightest circle that a lens can throw and evenly illuminate a 35mm frame / sensor (which I've indicated in blue). As you can see this is way larger than needed for the 4/3 sensor (and a reason why I'm very interested in a tilt adaptor for the 4/3 system as there is plenty of coverage).

Well, so what?

As it happens having all that extra illumination in there has the potential to increase the amount of internal reflection and thus reduce the contrast of the lens by having stray light reflecting around in the area between lens and sensor. Its the reason (incase you never thought of it) that the area behind lenses in SLR cameras is painted black.

I never thought it was an issue, but didn't give it much more thought before that discussion. I wasn't about to pop the bucks for a Rayqual adaptor, so it was essentially a question I could not answer ...

Well, when I saw that Ciecio7 had a new adaptor out which had just such a mask (like the Rayqual one), I asked if he would send me one for evaluation, which he very kindly did.

So I thought I would compare his "series 2" with this new one (should it be the series 3?).

Bottom line early

couldn't see any difference in images, but the adaptor is really nicely made. His stuff gets better every time I see one.

This in itself is a good thing and I personally prefer this adaptor over any other I've tried.

Findings

The first thing which bears a mention is that this new adaptor is not just a series 2 with a mask added. Its subtle but there are other differences. Clearly he's been making a few tweaks to the design.

The first thing I noticed when putting the adaptor onto the lens was that he's snuggled the "grip" area closer to the lens.



which becomes clearer when you compare this to the series 2:



It does make the adaptor look much nicer now.

It helps to cover up the back of the FD lens attachment system (which is normally mounted hard against a camera), this is something I made reference to in my first review of these adaptors. It may be a point of entry for dust, but at that time felt it wasn't anything to get worked up about.

The new adaptor has the alignment dots on the outside and they're nicely placed. The extra dots on the case make it easier to align the adaptor to mount it and the lens. I see that he has now added a youtube video of how to do this on his ebay site so I didn't have to do that one myself.



Anyway, back to the adaptor.

I took a few images using RAW and examined them to see if there was any difference. I used my 28mm and my 50mm lens and took images at f2 and f5.6 to see if there was any effect noticeable as a result of wider angles or aperture. I found nothing different. Here is one sample:

The 50mm test image


And two 100% samples from it. The taking conditions are outside in full sunlight, with the lens well shielded from stray light.

series 2


series 3


I had thought to find some more difference than I did, but I didn't ... so as the old saying goes:

Why is it so...

Well the first thing which comes to my mind is that there is perhaps very little internal bouncing around inside the micro 4/3 "mirror box" in the first place .. probably because there isn't one!

I mean you can probably go grab your micro 4/3 camera and look, but as you can see here from where the lens or adaptor mounts onto the camera there is only a few mm for light to bounce around in.

There is a nice stepped area around the shutter (reduces reflections) and very little other opportunity between the sensor and the back of the mount.

So if there is to be any light bouncing around in there it will most likely have to be between the back of the FD lens and the inside of the adaptor.

This is where the Ciecio7 adaptor perhaps has an advantage.

The first series of the Ciecio7 and most of the other adaptors use a simple pin to engage the lens's iris engagement pin. However from the second series the Ciecio7 uses a gap in an internal system which is essentially a baffle.

You can see this in the image below (which is one of the images Ciecio7 has on his eBay page)


Apart from a few gaps to allow lens components in it essentially is a baffle that runs around the interior of the lens.

Mask (shown here) has far less to do than similar items on the backs of 35mm lenses.



Series 2


Series 3


So looking at them like this it seems that there really isn't much for the "mask" do to in cutting down on internal reflections ... is there?

So, what's the advantage? should you buy the new one?

If you already have the series 2, then probably no. If you don't have an FD adaptor or are after another one, then this adaptor is one of the best made you can get on the market for any price. Compared to many other adaptors its carved from a single billet of alloy and you won't be getting any issues of screws being or coming lose (as I had on the RJ Camera one).

The construction of this adaptor is excellent. The sample I had fitted all my FD lenses perfectly and infinity focus was spot on with 28mm and 50mm lenses (length is more critical with the shorter focal length lens).


Another advantage is that the price of this new adaptor is slightly less than I paid for the series 1 adaptor. The seller is actually the maker (as I understood things) and so you're not just buying something from on-seller. As I've stated on my blog before, I'm a big fan of the free market and supporting that with information to help that along. So like Adam Smith wrote:

By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

So buying a well made product that does the job well at a good price (way lower than a Rayqual) you not only get a better bit of gear, you essentially vote for a business who was among the first to make this kind of product, but also one of the few who keeps trying to make it better (unlike many of the el cheapo eBay sellers).

:-)

The mask is certainly not hurting anything.