Speedbooster does not work on EM1
Metabones informs that the Canon FD Speed Booster will NOT work on the E-M1. On the video on top Robert Shaw shared some more tidbits about why it doesn’t work. Pity 🙁
E-M1 Store Links:
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto, Amazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
141 Responses
What a pity.
Now Olympus, how about a little em5 firmware update? I’m sure stabilisation on magnification plus proper focus peaking could be added.
And more framerates for Video :p
stabilisation in magnify mode is working
I don’t think so, then Olympus would sale less new cameras… Probably Fuji would do something like that, but Olympus?
As already pointed out, stabilization with magnification is already there, and actually has been from the start. The only issue with it is that it must be enabled and is in a somewhat obscure location in the menus.
Focus peaking? Doubt they’ll add it to the E-M5, but who knows. They did add new features to the E-M5 firmware in the past, such as IBIS support legacy lenses when used for video, or support for the VF4.
That FUJI delivers a camera with unfinished and rather beta quality firmware, and completes the firmware from income generated by an unfinished product is one thing, doesn’t mean all have to copy them really.
Where do I find this option? Thanks for your help!
Currently not at home, so have to write this from memory.
What it comes down to however is ensuring you have “S on half press” enabled in the ‘release’ menu, and have the ael button for manual focus mode set to AF. Now get into magnified view and press ael, and IS will kick in.
If you need more help, say so and I’ll write something more detailed once I get back home.
I’m so glad they were sold out when I went to buy one. I think this will be an easy fix for Metabones though. All they have to do is shave the metal at a 45 degree angle and I bet it will fit.
Easy enough fix. Just get out the Drexel kit and the permanent black markers?
Drexel Kit = Dremel Kit. ( damn spell checker got me again, LOL!)
Yep it should, Metabones emailed me and said they are working on a revised version that will work on the EM1 ASAP. I just updated the video with that note.
Haha, me too! Lucky us!
Thank you very much for this info. Actually quite surprising, yet understandable as well.
I have always said that faux pentaprisms are A BAD THING.
Isn’t there stuff up there like the bits that make the IBIS and the EVF go?
Unfortunate, but can’t blame Olympus really. Unless some native m4/3 or 4/3 lenses also don’t work, I think it’s on metabones. I’m sure they’ll revise their adapters.
FT lenses is not a problem as the adapter used to mount them will fit.
I’m sure the EM-1 conforms to the micro 4/3 standard, which metabones does not pay licenses to, and thus probably didn’t have the specifications to know what the clearance is for lenses. 100% metabones blunder and I would be pretty pissed if i bought one and it didn’t fit a camera upgrade.
It isn’t just metabones. I was shooting with a friend last week, and he went to mount his f-mount tilt-shift adapter on the EM1 for the first time and what do you know… the same exact problem. It seems the EM1 has the least clearance of all m43 bodies in front of the lens mount (G and GH series never caused a problem, though on the EM5 it was just about scraping). I imagine a number of lens adapters will have similar problems being mounted.
LOL 😉 typical it`s third part.
Another thing is the E-M1 doesnt have focus peaking on manual lenses, but the GX7 does…
Of course focus peaking works on manual lenses on the E-M1. It great, especially at night. Maybe you confused with the GX7 not having image stabilization in video.
It only works if there is a electrical connection.
……… errh. No. It works. I got it and A BUNCH of manual lenses.
Just assign a key for that…
Assign a button to the peak function and it works totally fine for manual focus lenses.
Maybe, just maybe you should kinda research your ‘facts’ a bit before opening your big mouth?
I recently seen a review of the E-M1 from the camera store. He attached a speed booster or something, and he said the FP doesn’t work. If I’m wrong, then okay. No need to be a 12 year old about it. Wait, you’re a Olympus Fanboy? Oh, continue…..
You are the one acting like a juvenile! Especially with your fan boy comment. Hiw about next time, stand corrected, say you were wrong, then put a sock in it?
I did…. obviously you have selected reading AND a fanboy, to respond to my comment! “Put a sock in it”… HAHAHA! Oh, how Retro we are with the lame attacks… carry on…
i’ve tried E-M1 focus peaking with manual lenses and it works, but for me magnify is better aid
You can combine the 2 if so desired.
I certainly agree there are cases where magnify simply works a lot better, especially when considering relatively static situations.
Focus peaking works, period.
I used my new Em1 + Voigtländer 17.5mm yesterday in Venice (amazing combination).
Truth is that the new EVF is so good you don’t feel the need of focus peaking.
I can’t say the same for GX7 though.
Hi Marco, I sent you an email about Venice a few days back (obtained the address from what looks like your website), was wondering if you had received it yet?
OMega
Hi OMega! I haven’t received any email, and I think I know the reason: there’s another photographer who has exactly my same name and works in the same area, though he takes photos at sport events.
The best way to contact me is sending me an email through Flickr: my account is obviously MarcoSartoriPhoto.
Find me and write me there! Are you going to visit Venice?
Hi Marco, You are correct in your assumption. The jist of my email was to ask if you are a resident of Venice, picked up from an earlier thread, where you mentioned seeing an E-M1 in a Venice store. I used to use Flickr but since it’s revamp I no longer look into it as it started to exceed my download limits, it has become something of a joke. It is a shame we are unable to pass private comments to others in here, sometimes we need to exchange information to others which we don’t wish to make public, yet it is not possible.
Yes I will be travelling to Venice early next year.
Picked up my E-M1 last Friday afternoon, had very little time to play with it so far, but manual focus is very nice indeed with the new EVF. Adding focus peaking helps a bit still, it makes fast manual focus with lenses like the Tokina 300/6.3 very easy really, and of course also works well for shorter, brighter lenses. Been playing a bit with a (R mount) Summilux 50/1.4, and that was really nice as well.
My E-M1 with 12-40mm is waiting for me to pick up. Like you I use a 50mm 1.4 as well though in my case a Zuiko, very nice lens for portraiture. Also cannot wait to see how it handles a Zuiko 200mm f4 with 2XA convertor.
Marco whats you your detailed opinion about the EVF E-M5 vs E-M1.
Ulli, are you still in Indonesia? If not, there currently are a few E-M1s available in Utrecht if you want to try for yourself. Yesterday, Foto Prisma was having the body available, and Fem Foto was having the 12-40 kit available. Didn’t look today, and they seem to sell well, so may need to hurry..
Yaa, no i was only 4 days there for a few shoots…Thank you for that info, I might be able to test them in store, but buying is no option for now, as the budget went to my trip 🙂
Hi Ulli: actually I was surprised by the improvement over the EM5 EVF. This new one is brighter, smoother.
On EM5 definition was good in daylight, and noisy in dimlight when magnified.
Now it’s good enough even in dimlight, and focus peaking results to be “just” an option: now I don’t feel I need it, but it’s nice to have it.
I was used to EM5 EVF, and I still have to get used to this, because it’s bigger.
I would say it’s too big, but it’s like complaining that now you have a 42″ tv and the old one was 36″.
Two little complains, in my opinion, and based on a one day use: focus peaking can only be white or black. I wish people could choose a different color, yellow or red or blue for example. At night black peaking is hard to see, and under bright light, expecially shooting in b&w, white color is hard to see. Open a lens at f0.95 and the better solution is to magnify without focus peaking.
The other complain is about the eyecup: I wish it was a little bit bigger. It’s not a problem though.
Sorry for the late reply!
Hey no problem, thank you very much Marco!
Actually what’s the difference? The resolution of GX7 EVF is a bit higher (at least on X axis) and the magnification is not much smaller. Why do you still consider the E-M1 EVF would be far superior to the one from GX7?
Better eye relief, no color tearing on scenes that include fast motion, and obviously (through not related to the viewing experience) weather sealing.
If those things matter to you is a different thing, I’d rather think ‘better’ is a bit of a matter of personal preference and priorities in this.
Because the GX7’s EVF is using a sequential display which is, for a large minority of users, literally a headache.
The main reason Panasonic went with it are probably
1/ all other display manufacturers couldn’t provide in time as their production was ear-marked for Sony or Olympus
2/ the sequential display in the GX7 is based on technology in par owned and produced by Panasonic
3/ it’s been suggested that at least for reason 3 it’s cheaper to procure
4/ it’s been suggested that it allowed for a more compact design and lower power consumption
I did put up with sequential display when there was nothing with the same resolution, refresh rate and color fidelity (as was the case for the G1), but since then it’s no longer the case, other technologies offer results at least as good.
The lower power use is likely true.
The reason for this is the use of lcos technology, which is reflective in nature. Reflecting light is going to be a lot more efficient then passing light through an lcd alike panel, eventho Panasonic is throwing away 50% of the light due to the need for a beam splitter.
The reflective technology has another potential advantage, it could be made to brighten/darken the EVF to reflect environmental conditions without affecting its dynamic range, but so far Panasonic failed to make good use of this.
I’m extremely happy with G5 viewfinder which uses the same technology but on lower resolution. No visible tearing, no headache and also no gaps at all between the pixels.
GX7 viewfinder could be just better.
That’s why I’ve asked you.
No great loss. Anyone knowledgeable enough to be using a Speed Booster wont be using an Olympus for video anyways.
Even if that was true, there is as much value for using it in stills as well.
The EM-1 does have focus peaking with manual lenses. I used it today. You have to assign focus peaking to one of the Fn buttons, and turn it on manually after mounting the lens. It works incredibly well.
Is there a way to enable it by default without having to use on of the Fn?
Well.., yeah, when you use a lens with electric connections and touch the focus-ring, it can turn on focus peaking as one of two MF-assist modes.
Just for the record, when assigning it to an fn button, pressing the button toggles it on/off, so you do not have to keep the button depressed all the time while focusing. Press once and its just ‘on’.
Can anyone confirm that CY-m43 SB works on EM1 or not? metabones customer service is shit, sent them emails days ago but never replied.
See images below, CY looks like it will work fine just like the Nikon. I think only the FD adapter is effected, it has a much larger circle extended around the mount compared to the other MFT adapters.
CY adapter
http://www.metabones.com/images/stories/virtuemart/product/mb_spcy-m43-bm1_06s.jpg
FD adapter:
http://www.metabones.com/images/stories/virtuemart/product/mb_spfd-m43-bm1_04-s.jpg
hm. the metabones site says “Disclaimer: we are NOT licensed, approved or endorsed by Canon.”
does it suggest they are approved by Olympus? 😀
Err. How about other speedbooster adapters. I was thinking of getting the Nikon.
I want a Speedbooster for Nikon to m43 too
I think it would be fair to say that any speedbooster produced so far will have the same design issue.
HA ! I’ve been a critic of the freaking hump since day one and people went out of their way to justify this technologically unnecessary fake POS for years, saying a camera like the GX7 was impossible, that you just absolutely needed a hump to allocate for the EVF (even though Sony had their slim NEX6&7s out already and Fuji had the X series). FINALLY there’s a practical example that demonstrates why this is utter nonsense: THERE’S NO JUSTIFICATION NOR PRACTICAL REASON FOR HUMPS ON MIRRORLESS CAMERAS, PERIOD !!!
It’s called mirrorless for a reason: No mirror = no prism = no hump
Let’s see the facts for a minute:
– Sony has slim and cameras with evf = no hump for EVF
– Fuji has small cameras with corner evf = no hump for EVF
– Pany has a camera no bigger than E-P5 with EVF = no hump either
– Olympus itself has a camera with 5 axis IBIS inside a flat top plate (E-P5):
No hump needed for IBIS either
So, besides a (subjectively justified) aesthetic reason, why is Olympus the only company that needs a hump for an EVF (Sony A7 has enough space for an EVF withour a hump, so don’t go there)?
Oly, get your head out of your own ass and release an E-P7 with EVF already!
ok…. thanx for the info…….. The hump is just there as a convenient place to put the EVF with the optics required + other design considerations.
I like the hump. … I like humps. … my humps my humps….. etc.
Because the EVF resides in the hump. Get over it.
The hump was there first.
If you don’t like it, don’t buy it! You sound like friggin cry baby. I DON’T WANT A HUMP! I DON’T WANT A HUMP! I DON’T WANT A HUMP! I DON’T WANT A HUMP! I DON’T WANT A HUMP!
Olympus doesn’t produce the camera he wants because of your hump faggotry
And you sound like what ? A mature adult ? get your head out of your a-hole and learn to read other people’s comments, you make yourself look like someone with a reading comprehension problem as well as some delusional brand advocate loyalism.
¨If you don’t like it don’t buy it¨ that’s the most repetitive, predictable and down right nonsensical BS phrase in the internet EVER, tell your mom to teach a new one. Of fcking course I won’t buy it, I haven’t and most importantly, I don’t have to ! I’m not defecating on top of the OMD line, I explicitly said that aesthetic reasons ARE a valid excuse for a hump, I’m just saying that there’s absolutely NO TECHNICAL REASONS WHATSOEVER that justify it. Nothing wrong with the OMD, having a centered EVF is certainly a valid ergonomic reason, I’m just saying the humo is just cosmetics, thus the Pen line can have an EVF (like the GX line did).
Yes the hump is just cosmetics, get it into your head, IT IS NOT NEEDED FOR THE EVF NOR THE 5 AXIS, it’s been proven by Sony, Fuji, Panasonic AND OLYMPUS!
Is it needed for 5 axis ? NO. The E-P5 demonstrated that wonderfully.
Is it needed for the EVF ? NO. The GX7 cleared that debate quite elegantly as well as Sony and Fuji, which had EVFs with no humps a long time before the EM5.
I’m not saying there should be no more cameras with humps, the OMD line is awesome and serves a purpose in the line up, it’s good to have variety in m4/3. I’m simply saying that people (trolls, fanboys, low IQ people like you, etc) should just STOP using the hump as an excuse for Olympus to continue denying an EVF to Pen users around the world.
The Hump is not a technical excuse for the lack of EVF on the Pen flagship, period.
Please show us how the hump is critically needed for the EVF in the GX7, NEX 6, NEX 7, X100, XPro1, XE2 ? Show us why the hump was needed in the E-P5 for the 5 Axis ? I’m not arguing about the hump on the OMDs, I’m arguing about the lack of EVF in the PEN and the idiots that justify such omission ¨because..er..umm…hump¨, just stop that BS propaganda.
Currently there’s no 5 axis IBIS system with EVF in range finder style. It may be possible in next generation cams due to ongoing shrinking of parts. OM-D design is at least 2 years old, so they had to use what’s available at thaht time.
And E-M1 got a larger EVF, no chance to integrate this like the much smaller GX7 one.
Just get serious.
The hump is necessary for ergonomic reasons. The EVF needs to go above the display. The hump means that the shoulders of the camera are lower and as such can be easier equipped with controls that are easier to access while shooting. You can see that easily with the current cameras where the EVF is placed on the left side. Those cameras are boring boxes with unused space, where there are dials on the E-M5 and E-M1. DSLR style is the most successful body concept for a good reason.
Centered EVF needs to protrude up if you want space for a large enough LCD.
Centered EVF also needs to protrude on eye side for obvious reasons.
Indeed, no aesthetics in there. All ergonomics.
Arguably however, it doesn’t need to protrude on lens side, specially considering that EM hump doesn’t house any flashes.
“Is it needed for 5 axis ? NO. The E-P5 demonstrated that wonderfully.”
But has no integrated EVF
“Is it needed for the EVF ? NO. The GX7 cleared that debate quite elegantly as well as Sony and Fuji, which had EVFs with no humps a long time before the EM5.”
But have no 5-axis IBIS.
Regardless of if I agree with your point (yes I actually do, there is no real reason for the hump, it could be solved in a different way) your examples totally fail to make your point, actually your examples are just wrong and plain stupid. The ONLY example that would demonstrate your point is a camera with integrated EVF AND 5-axis IBIS without a hump. Since that simply doesn’t exist (for now) there actually are no good examples for making your point. Tough shit.
the hump is not just cosmetic! it is filled with several components.. evf, ap2 port, parts of ibis..
this has been discussed so many times before. repeating the ’empty hump is just for design reasons’ argument over and over again does not make it valid.. ignorance is bliss I guess.
The E-M5/1 hump is large because of AP2 and its electronics. EVF is positioned very low. Considering the only two useful addons compatible with AP2 are macro lights and SEMA microphone input ( only needed for E-M5 ), its size and shape are purely marketing driven. But since it’s been copied by Sony and Nikon recently, one may conclude Oly’s design has been successful :).
Some might consider that penpal bluetooth adapter quite useful.
Also, the ap2 is used by the included clip-on flash, no that one cannot work from the hotshoe alone because it wouldn’t be able to use the camera for its power.
Then do as Robert Shaw suggests ‘shave it off’ but in your case shave the entire hump off, the camera will probably not work then but the chances are you don’t own one anyways, so please shut up.
+1
Hump’s there only because of the looks. They could easily relocate the parts and make a boxy camera with EVF in the corner.
But now Panasonic made a m4/3 camera with corner EVF and IBIS, there’s no reason to complain. It’s Oly that will lose money, we’ve got the camera we’d asked for. Who cares.
BTW, Fuji’s not as small as other models you mentioned.
Indeed, you’re right, I just loose my patience around these retrds using the hump as an excuse to fck with Pen users and painting a fake reality for Olympus when they go around reading forums. The GX7 is exactly the dream camera MANY had asked FOR YEARS on this very same site, since the GF1. I only want Oly to include an EVF in the PEN because of 5 axis and more competition, I can absolutely guarantee that such a PEN would kill in the market and these trolls would shout their mouths and be all over it and then they’ll start to defecate on the GX7 (not that a Pen with EVF wouldn’t be superior IMO). Trolls will be trolls I guess.
Yes the fujis are indeed bigger, but not because of the EVF (sony also uses APS-c and has EVF just like Fuji, so it’s probably aesthetics as well, a pen with evf should be no bigger than GX7)
The more you sing the praises of the GX7, the less adequate it actually feels.
The GX7 isn’t bad, but let’s be frank, in build quality it’s no E-P5/E-M5, the P mode is seriously annoying, the half-assed IBIS is entirely out of place and the technology chosen for the EVF is a disgrace.
Maybe next time Panasonic will take it seriously and do a real premium GX… at the moment, at that price point, it feels like being ripped off.
I don’t care paying, but I want it to be worth my money and if I’d rather keep my GX1 than get a GX7, it means that for the segment of the market I represent, Panasonic screwed up.
GX7 IBIS is on par with E-M5 IBIS – for stills. It’s not half-assed by any means…
No it’s not, it may well be superior to Olympus 2-axis IBIS though.
Below that it’s highly dependent on what you shoot and under which conditions, for my purpose, it was basically worthless.
Just accept for once that it’s not the end all be all camera that should satisfy everyone needs, that it is, like every damn camera out there, flawed and that, consequently, some people will not like or find it lacking when it comes to their needs, you sniveling sycophant.
“No it’s not, it may well be superior to Olympus 2-axis IBIS though.”
I don’t see significant difference, at least for things that matter to me, low light shooting:
http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/the-gx7-vs-the-om-d-e-m5-battle-for-my-affection-round-1-ibis-evfs-lcds/ .
Lousy Spin… Try harder.
-The GX7 has a Magniesium Body. That’s not cheap at all. Feeling and being are two different things.
-Don’t know what you mean about P mode, but you’re a fanboy and a hater so no big deal… I shoot in AP mode anyway.
-Jokers like you don’t know any better and are crippled by ibis… What are you going to do if the camera doesn’t have Olympus ibis? You’re not going to buy it? Congrats, you just let a function hamper your photography. My, what did you do before ibis? By the way, I love how fanboys try to downplay the fact that the GX7 has ibis. It’s a BIG THING, which is why the GX7 is selling very well.
-The EVF problems that fanboys and reviewers alike, are overly complaining. I wear glasses and I have no complaints, aside from smearing my glasses.
In all honesty, y’all Fanboys are in the MINORITY. The Majority of these camera purchases don’t even come to these sites. Y’all are spewing hate in a desert. Nobody hears you, nobody cares. I’m just letting y’all know.
I also have a GX1… I refuse to sell it because I like that camera a lot. The GX7 is better than the GX1 in everything but size. OBVIOUSLY, Panasonic listened to us and gave us what we wanted, and then some! Panasonic didn’t screw up, YOU DID.
In P mode GX7 likes to stop down lenses, putting aperture down to F9 or F11. Not a big deal for me, as I don’t use P mode much. Not being able to use Auto ISO in M mode is worse omission IMO.
As for build quality, it’s got nothing to do with performance and features of the camera, so I don’t understand complaints about it. It’s not that the buttons and dials are falling off, that happened to another manufacturer ;).
Whatever Panasonic has done wrong, there’s no modern compact ILC with IBIS, flash and EVF in the corner.
There’s no OTHER modern compact ILC with IBIS, flash and EVF in the corner.
So MrALLCAPS, how much does Panasonic pay you to sell the idea that the GX7 is the best thing since sliced bread and that it is entirely devoid of flaw ?
DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN FCKING READ OTHER PEOPLE’S COMMENTS !?
All the responses to my initial post are filled with comments about stuff I ALREADY MENTIONED, go back to primary school and train your reading comprehension you bunch of uneducated low lifes. Seriously.
@ Ha:
I actualy agree with your points, It’s more than feasible that Oly had no other option at the time, but now it does so there’s no excuse. There, I got serious.
@mahler:
¨The hump is necessary for ergonomic reasons¨ THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I FCKING SAID !!!
And the DSLR form is the way it is because of the mirror and prism, both of which do not exist in mirrorless, the ammount of succes it had the past decades is only due to the lack of a better technology i.e. Liveview and EVFs, you know, like in mirrorless.
@Martin K.
¨repeating the ‘empty hump is just for design reasons’ argument over and over again does not make it valid¨
No one has said the hump is empty, I’m just saying it’s not mandatory for having an EVF built into a mirrorless camera, much less a PEN. I any case the EVF only takes about half the height of the hump (I’ve posted schematics and cut out models MANY times in the past), the rest are just electronics which Oly has already miniaturized in the E-P5.
@OMega
Dude, chill out no one is defecating on your precious camera, I’m not against the hump on the OMD line (or G & GH), it serves a justifiable purpose (even though it’s pure aesthetics). As you said I don’t own an OMD, mainly because I’M NOT FORCED TO (thanks to Pany) but I don’t need to waste $1000+ just to make an observation about said product, I know the specs, I’ve handled one, I know the alternatives, thus, I don’t have to own one to criticize one of its features, so no I don’t need to go buy an EM1 just to shave of the OMD. My main and only argument is that people (see above) justify the lack of an EVF in the PEN line on the basis that a hump is absolutely needed for such a feature, which is just BS.
Jesus christ you’re up tight – I suggest you go get laid and get over your own hump, which is evidently bigger AND uglier than Oly’s.
“Y’all are spewing hate in a desert. Nobody hears you, nobody cares. I’m just letting y’all know.”
Well, the simple fact that you replied shows that at least one person cares, you.
Beyond that, its actually you spewing hate here, please go outside and enjoy your GX7 instead of all the silly complaining.
In all honesty, I just came back in from shooting with the GX7. Fall leaves with the right light is nice this time of year. There’s a nice breeze blowing all the leaves around.
As soon as I laid the denim down on a bed of leaves, the wind picked up and blew some on it. I didn’t even have to do any addl. dressing.
That seems about right.
From reading all your comments over the last weeks I knew your not a pro. And I suspected that you are not a prosumer either.
But now you tell me that you took pictures of leafs.
Why do come here everyday and try to convince people that your camera purchase is so much betters than others when you are clearly a total beginner and probably have taken less then 500 pictures in your lifetime?
(And no im not a oly fanboy, am actually in the market for a gx7 as fun point and shoot.)
They sound wonderful, be sure to let us know where you post them.
“The GX7 is exactly the dream camera MANY had asked FOR YEARS on this very same site”
You make the very basic mistake of thinking that many if not most people must want what you want.
That there are very vocal people wanting a camera like the GX7 is true, you being a prime example of such a person. But the amount of noise such people make says absolutely zero about how many such people are around.
It is however pretty typical for such vocal people to be totally incapable of realizing others may not have those same desires.
Oh, and could you please explain why people with a different take on this are ‘retarded’ in your view? Do you really think you are doing your argument any good with such comments?
Maybe you should go out and take some pictures instead, posting here is obviously not good for your health if it causes you such fits of frustration.
Actually, it’s true… Especially after the NEX 7 came out. Everyone was disappointed why the GX1 didn’t look like that. The GX7 should have been the GX1. Or at least the GX1 should have had an EVF in the first place.
No, its not true. Point in case, I wasn’t among those, so not ‘everyone’ did that.
Please, learn to speak for yourself and not for others, and especially not for ‘everyone’.
With that out of the way, I think its great that Panasonic created the GX7, there certainly is a market for such a camera, but I do hope for them that the amount of noise some people make does indeed indicate a big enough market for it to exist and see further development of future models along the same lines.
That however is something totally different from the absurd claims that EVERYONE wanted this. See, there exist people that actually want the viewfinder on top of the lens, or even better, directly behind it. You don’t? totally fine, just for gods sake accept that there are people who think differently then you do.
And that all is unrelated to if Olympus should have released a PEN with an EVF, in a way they did, its called E-M5. Oh, but its not really a PEN, it should have been the E-P5!! Uh? why? Why does every camera have to match your specific need? Don’t you think having choice is actually better, broadens the market, and actually lets you benefit from economics of scale for accessories and lenses?
The only “retard” I keep seeing hate spewed from is you. Don’t like the hump? Go work your way through Olympus design or marketing and convince them to change it. Otherwise, your incessant whining and hand wrininging does nothing good for your health, mental OR physical. Also, BUY SOMETHING ELSE then. Isn’t that simple?
Lets see a few additional facts:
– Sony’s NEX EVF is a pita for so many reasons it isn’t funny
– GX7 EVF sucks for people wearing glasses (not to mention the color tearing gets me a headache, but that isn’t a consequence of size)
No, not saying the hump is needed, just saying that the examples you give actually do have notable disadvantages directly related to the limited space available for implementing them.
To be fair, every EVF or VF sucks for people wearing glasses. I remember having smudged/displaced glasses everytime I use a D90. And there’s always light leak. The GX7 EVF is just so small that there’s more of that leak.
As for tearing… I haven’t experienced it.
@yaa
You’re new to this site aren’t you ? Do a little research, I’ve been here since before the E-PL1 was released (probably since the E-P1 days) and the ONE thing people had been asking for since day 1 was a Pen with EVF, people somewhat calmed down and resigned with the E-P2 and VF-2 but then things got heated when the E-P3 had no EVF and then Sony and Fuji had their alternatives with integrated EVF available. Yes, there’s always the vocal minorities but that’s not the case here.
Before the EM5 came out there were only Pen users, all of which were clamoring for an integrated EVF, after the OMD line was announced that group divided into two groups, those who just wanted an Olympus camera (in any form) with EVF and were satisfied with the SLR look and those who still explicitly wanted a Pen with EVF. Why do you think the EM5 was such a success ? because many people were waiting for an integrated EVF solution, the rest were just not thrilled by the form factor/design.
Do yourself a favor and look around, most relevant bloggers commented and echoed this issue back in the day, look for the archives right here in m43rumors, look anywhere else for that matter. Besides, I doubt Pany would’ve gone through the trouble of making the GX7 just for me, companies just don’t go around wasting R&D money like that, there was and still is a high demand for RF-styled bodies otherwise Pany wouldn’t have released the GX7, not would have Sony and Fuji released multiple cameras in the same form factor.
I’m not calling people retarded because they have different views than mine, most of the time they don’t, I’m calling them retards because they lack the minimum IQ level to read my comments and realize they’re repeating the same arguments I’ve already made in my own post against me and then deviating into topics totally foreign to the discussion (like thinking I’m criticizing the OMDs when I’m not)
@Dave
¨ Don’t like the hump? Go work your way through Olympus design or marketing and convince them to change it¨
Could you please go back and actually read my post ? I’m not against the hump on the OMDs, I don’t care about the hump, It’s not in my radar, it’s awesome that everyone has options in m4/3. I’m actually saying that using the hump as an excuse for Oly to neglect putting an EVF into the PEN flagship is no longer a valid.
Life is too short to read all of your many prolix posts. The signal to noise ratio approaches zero.
And after all those years you still can’t click on the proper reply link.. sadly your skills regsrding actually understanding what you are reading is just crap.
1. People have been wanting a m4/3 camera with evf from olympus since the day the e-p1 was introduced. That didn’t have to be a pen for most, as evident from the e-m5.
The point being, it wasn’t about a corner EVF but about having it integrated and not occupy the hotshoe.
So no, for most it was never specifically about a pen, but during e-p1/2/3 times, pens were all there was from Olympus.
Agree that a VF and glasses isn’t an ideal combination, but the specific issue is that many people with glasses won’t be able to see the picture in the GX7 EVF in its entirety, something the G1-6, GH1-3, E-M5, E-M1 and the like don’t suffer from, and neither do many OVFs. Some do, and they are just as annoying to use.
The tearing is in part a function of the scene you are looking at, and also a function of how sensitive you are to such things. I can clearly see the flicker of a 60hz CRT display, while many people only notice its slightly unstable, yet others don’t notice at all. Sensitivity for this quite affects how much of the tearing effect you’ll see.
I wear glasses with a serious prescription. I have no problem with the evf… People are spoiled and like to complain, I guess…
Possibly people got spoiled by VFs that let them see the entire picture? 🙂
But in all fairness, the issues are typically minor for most people, but to me they are pretty evident when doing a direct comparison.
So, serious question…is there anything in that hump that would be damaged by shaving a bit of the plastic off to fit the speedbooster? Disregarding the aesthetics and the fact that you would be hacking into your expensive new camera is it possible?
At the very least you’ll be seriously damaging your warranty.
And maybe the weather sealing.
I’d rather first investigate the possibility of shaving the speedbooster.
I’ll let you borrow my grinder so you can grind away some of the name plate for extra clearance.
Get back to us on how successful you are with it. 😉
Why go by the video and think about grinding the camera?! Grind that adapter to fit the camera.
In today’s market adapters and lenses are holding value much better than bodies, I expect to save 50 or more on used bodies… Sometimes much much more but a used lens or adapter only looses 20 percent a couple of years later or less. Compare ebay Panasonic 20mm lens next to bodies released the same year.
Had a similar problem with the Kippon tilt and shift adapter OM-m43. Wont sit on the EM5, so I use it on my EPL2.
Olympus cant design a camera to suit every single adapter out there, and plenty of cameras have the VF sit over the lens mount. That is why the Olympus Cameras have excellent eye relief while some other cameras mentioned here dont.
Also lensbaby composer has the same issue with em1.
we’re talking taking a chamfered edge off the back of the metabones ring to create a reduction in it’s diameter. I think they can retool something like that soon enough. Why it didn’t meet mft specifications is the question? If it was Olympus that didn’t follow those same specs … that would be an interesting blunder!
Guys, I have the strange feeling that exactly this will happen to Nocticron 42,5/1,2 as well, as this lens also has an unusually large base circle.
Though the Metabones adapter design can be easily updated to fit E-M1, it’s a bit shame for Olympus.
I somehow doubt your comment there, the Nocticron has a very deep bevel around the mount as can be seen very clearly on the images displayed on this site a few days ago.
You may be right. Though the question is whether the bevel is deep enough or not.
Come on, you are talking about a native m43 lens, meaning its compatible with all m43 mount cameras.
The point is that I’m not sure if E-M1 itself is really ‘fully M43 compatible’.
And what are your reasons for thinking so, I mean, do you see any other hints aside from the fact that the FD Speed Booster doesn’t fit because of its unusually wide base?
I would think that the MFT standard has defined some sort of maximum diameter for the mount base, of which Metabones might have not known the exact value. It seems more likely to me that Metabones didn’t know for sure how wide the mount base is allowed to be than that Olympus made the mounting surface of the E-M1 smaller than it should be by a set standard that I’d assume exists. I wouldn’t want to tule out the latter, but doesn’t it seem less likely for a camera body bearing the MFT logo?
You are not sure, so you write things like:
“Guys, I have the strange feeling that exactly this will happen to Nocticron 42,5/1,2 as well, as this lens also has an unusually large base circle.”
So, based on not being sure, you go ahead and post a silly assumption…
“Though the Metabones adapter design can be easily updated to fit E-M1, it’s a bit shame for Olympus.”
It is?
And what if it so happens that the E-M1 actually complies with the m4/3 standard? Its still a bit of a shame for Olympus?
Lets take a little peek at reality for a bit…
We have 2 brands: Olympus and Panasonic, who together created the m4/3 specification. We also have a 3rd party that isn’t involved in this standard, but creates things that are supposed to work with it. Now, something doesn’t fit specifically with that 3rd party, so… who would you think to be most likely not complying with the spec? One of the 2 creators of that spec? Or an otherwise uninvolved 3rd party?
I have the feeling there is a lot of fear in you, fear of a world conspiring against you.
Sorry, but ALL MFT bodies but E-M1 fits the Metabones adapter. And it happens just due to an unnecessary, moreover a bad looking design element: the bevel below the fake pentaprism hump. It‘s a shame for Olympus, even if the mount itself might fulfill the M43 standard. With a minimal good intent they would have designed the body to fit bigger adapters, like GH3.
And it would still be the metabones adapter that is out of spec. What you are asking for is stretching the spec because someone failed to implement it properly.
That you consider the hump ugly, each to his own, just please stop acting as if you speak for anyone other then yourself, because your opinion isn’t exactly universal.
Actually… seeing how other manufacturers are imitating it, you might want to consider that many people do not agree with your view on it.
Also, if you actually used an E-M1 for more then a few seconds, you’d have noticed that a lot of attention has been payed to usability. Sure it would be nice if that metabones adapter fit as well, and metabones will make it fit, but considering how amazingly small the market of metabones m4/3 adapter users is, there not being any statements from Olympus about supporting such adapters, let alone that specific adapter, it being the only adapter having such an issue, and metabones claiming they support m4/3, where really do you think the problem lies and the solution should come from?
Saying its an unfortunate oversight? Totally agree. But putting blame, and suggesting the camera might not be according to the spec? Sorry, thats one bridge too far.
Looking at it I’d say it is, not forgetting the fact the Nocticron is a Panasonic Lumix lens so I cannot imagine there being the slightest possibility there would be any issues in marrying the two items together.
Does this apply to all MFT speed boosters? Waiting for my Minolta version…
I think it will apply to all manufactured to date, seeing as the issue is on the body end of the booster and not the lens end, therefore one can expect the body end to be the same on all boosters to date. The present design must have a considerable overlap of the mount plate to foul that part of the body though.
sounds reasonable..
But the FD version (and others?) does have this on/off thing, which the MD version does not have. Maybe that’ll affect the construction a bit. Waiting for answer from Metabones support, fingers crossed…
All the other MFT Speed Boosters have a by far smaller mount base and their diameters very:
http://www.metabones.com/images/stories/virtuemart/product/mb_splr-m43-bm1_06s.jpg Leica R
http://www.metabones.com/images/stories/virtuemart/product/mb_spnfg-m43-bm1_4.jpg Nikon
http://www.metabones.com/images/stories/virtuemart/product/mb_spmd-m43-bm1_04-s.jpg Minolta
http://www.metabones.com/images/stories/virtuemart/product/mb_spcy-m43-bm1_06s.jpg Contax/Yashica
http://www.metabones.com/images/stories/virtuemart/product/mb_spfd-m43-bm1_04-s.jpg FD
So you really can’t assume the problem applies to all other MFT Speed Boosters.
just got confirmation from metabones that MD version is not affected
And who cares?
Great to see that FD 85 1.2 lens. I hope he will do some more serious testing on the E-M5 as i found his samples pictures rather uninspiring.
Sold my speed booster anway. It was not sharp enough with a 85mm F1.5 lens wide open. If I have to stop down, I may as well use native AF lenses.
I meant F1.4.
Doesn’t that depend on the lens? It’s not like the Speed Booster promises to make any lens sharp wide open.
Lol, you M43 folks are quite funny. Always talking about M43 “small” size and the M43 “superior” lenses. Now you all want the big EM1 with adapter so you can put non M43 lenses on the body. Maybe its time to move on and grow up…..
Shenkie, it’s time you just move on, your comment range is limited to the same old broken record. Get some meaning in your sorry life. Right now it’s quite pointless …
No, I don’t want that.
At least we have the option. We can make it big. Or use it small. We can use use almost anyones lenses from the 35mm era and later and some others as well.
We have options and we have choices. What do you have? One of this big! One of that big!
Ahh well. We all feel sorry for you.
Try to have a good day anyway.
You move down and grow up, punk: with speed booster you gain 1 stop of light. So we can be very happy not to carry around your anvil-like cameras, but just the optics, gaining light (and often definition). At just one portion of the weight… And we still have the option of smaller and lighter lenses. Not considering that many of us still have some of those lenses of yours, rotting, unsold, on some shelf…
Does anyone else not think it’s sort of sloppy that metabones doesn’t make the back end of their mFT adapter the EXACT same diameter as say … all other mFT lens mounts up to now? This is kind of an obvious premise; but I suspect that the Canon FD adapter, may have been _adapted_ from some other larger mount? As in one they may have made first? {APS-C Sony anyone?}
Also, the description in the video talks about how the lens or body, I can’t remember [lens I believe] only attaches to the adapter if you get it precisely aligned? While he makes that sound like tight tolerance, visually and audio results, it may very well be just the opposite? His on video actions don’t instill the confidence and feeling that the thing is all that precisely machined. Even though he states in his opinion it is. But, then he can’t figure out that to fix the problem, you bevel the back of the adapter, so I an not really inclined to take his comments as gospel.
Quite a frequent promblem in underwater photography:) One my friend had to work with dremmel on new 2500$ underwater case for D800, to make pop-up flash works(for optical synchronisation)
Why can’t we get a speed booster for M42 lenses.
I have also been asking for that, but – http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2047675.m570.l2632.R2.TR2.TRC1.A0.Xm42+fd&_nkw=m42+to+fd&_sacat=78997&_from=R40