Functionality loss with third-party lenses

[Arch Stanton]

What functionality loss is there with third-party lenses? I know you have to focus manually, but what else?

 

[Chris Light]

i just got my GH1 today, and the manual explains a lot.

 

[Ben_B]

The lens needs to have a physical aperture ring if you want to control aperture, and you won't be able to do it on the camera, only on the lens.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I'll still be able to use the manual exposure assist and manual focus assist, right?

 

[Cassius]

Yes. It's just automatic lens functions that don't work, focus and aperture. I actually prefer the manual aperture rings anyway.

 

[Barry_Green]

And obviously you would lose the image stabilizer. So no auto-iris, no autofocus, no image stabilizer.

 

[Ben_B]

I actually prefer the manual aperture rings anyway.

Agreed.

The physical focus rings that don't just spin forever are also nice.

 

[designbydave]

Olympus 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for 4/3 mount with 4/3 to m4/3 adapter - The camera can control the electronic aperture, but not the focus. fwiw

 

[saaby]

Agreed.

The physical focus rings that don't just spin forever are also nice.

Not to mention predictable. Impossible to rack focus and hit a mark with the kit lens, because there's no predictable ratio of how much you turn the ring to how much it actually changes the focus. For this reason I find myself using my "old school" lenses a lot more than I imagined I would.

 

[Ben_B]

Not to mention predictable. Impossible to rack focus and hit a mark with the kit lens, because there's no predictable ratio of how much you turn the ring to how much it actually changes the focus. For this reason I find myself using my "old school" lenses a lot more than I imagined I would.

Totally...which is another reason I haven't found myself buying the follow focus I'd assumed I'd need yet...but I probably will as I start to do more larger crew stuff..