Lens Mount with Auto Focus for Canon, Nikon, and/or (non-micro) 4/3" Lenses?

[Ripple]

Hello,

What lens mounts are currently available for the AF100 (and GH2) that provide full functionality with Canon, Nikon, or non-micro 4/3" lenses?
By "full functionality," I'm thinking of autofocus and auto aperture, and anything else that's controlled by the camera or provides information to the camera. (I assumed that a lens adaptor that would work on the AF-100 would work on a GH-2. If this is wrong, please correct me).

A lens mount that provides full functionality for non-micro lenses would be nice (it appears there is still no micro 4/3" f/2.8 zoom, for example).

A lens mount that provides full functionality for Canon lenses would be better (EF preferred to EF-S).

And a lens mount that provides full functionality for Nikon G series (non screw driven) lens would be a bonus (FX preferred to DX).

Re: non-micro 4/3" lens adaptors, Wikipedia says, "...The flange diameter is about 38 mm, 6 mm less than that of the Four Thirds system. Electrically, Micro Four Thirds uses an 11-contact connector between lens and camera (Four Thirds: 9 contacts). Despite this difference, Olympus claims full compatibility of existing Four Thirds lenses with Micro Four Thirds bodies, using an adapter...." But, "...It has been suggested that the contrast-detection autofocus used by compact cameras and Micro Four Thirds requires powerful focusing motors and may not operate properly on at least some of the existing Four Thirds lenses designed for phase-detection autofocus..."

(I read the three page thread on lens mounts here, but the responses do not appear to answer these questions).

Thanks in advance.

 

[nugat]

autofocus adapters

autofocus adapters

the problem is speed and continuous autofocus. "push autofocus" can work on most lenses with AF, it's the matter of right firmware and adapter connections/electronics. AF100 inherited m43 contrast detection, for that method to work optimally (speed, accuracy, continuous autofocus)it's best to have purpose built lens. some panasonic 43 lens (eg 25/1.4) work on panny m43 bodies , however noisy and slow.

 

[Barry_Green]

As of today, the only electronic adapter on the market is one for Four Thirds lenses to be used on Micro Four Thirds bodies.

We're a little less than a month away from Birger launching their Canon EF/EF-S full-functionality electronic adapter.

There may be something coming for Nikon after that; they said they were going to focus on the Canon one first.

 

[Ripple]

I apologize for the late reply. My e-mail did not inform me of your responses...

As of today, the only electronic adapter on the market is one for Four Thirds lenses to be used on Micro Four Thirds bodies.

We're a little less than a month away from Birger launching their Canon EF/EF-S full-functionality electronic adapter.

There may be something coming for Nikon after that; they said they were going to focus on the Canon one first.

With this (regular) 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter and a (regular) 4/3 lens, is the "constant autofocus" as smooth, accurate, and quick as with using Micro 4/3 lenses (on the AF-100)?

Do constant AF results vary from lens to lens (that is, between regular 4/3 lenses)?

the problem is speed and continuous autofocus. "push autofocus" can work on most lenses with AF, it's the matter of right firmware and adapter connections/electronics. AF100 inherited m43 contrast detection, for that method to work optimally (speed, accuracy, continuous autofocus)it's best to have purpose built lens. some panasonic 43 lens (eg 25/1.4) work on panny m43 bodies , however noisy and slow.

Could you please say more about this? What is your experience with the Micro 4/3 to (regular )4/3 adaptor, when used with various (regular) 4/3 lenses (for constant AF) with the AF-100?

Thanks for your time.

 

[nugat]

I did some simple tests with the Zuiko 4/3 and Panasonic m4/3 lens, with and without remote control (here manfrotto 521pfi)

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?235096-Zuiko-Lumix-glass-Manfrotto-521PFI-remote-(focusing-test)

 

[Barry_Green]

With this (regular) 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter and a (regular) 4/3 lens, is the "constant autofocus" as smooth, accurate, and quick as with using Micro 4/3 lenses (on the AF-100)?

Do constant AF results vary from lens to lens (that is, between regular 4/3 lenses)?

Autofocus performance is strictly up to the lens to provide. The camera can only tell it to move, it's up to the lens to do so smoothly, quietly, and efficiently. Some lenses are way better at this than others.

 

[Ripple]

... Wikipedia says... "...It has been suggested that the contrast-detection autofocus used by compact cameras and Micro Four Thirds requires powerful focusing motors and may not operate properly on at least some of the existing Four Thirds lenses designed for phase-detection autofocus..."

...(continuous focus needs a contrast detection purpose built lens on Panny m43 bodies)....

(from your link)

...AF100 inherited m43 contrast detection, for that method to work optimally (speed, accuracy, continuous autofocus)it's best to have purpose built lens...

Autofocus performance is strictly up to the lens to provide. The camera can only tell it to move, it's up to the lens to do so smoothly, quietly, and efficiently. Some lenses are way better at this than others.

Barry, you seem to be saying that regular four thirds lenses with lens adaptor are as compatible as the micro four thirds lenses, so long as the lens focuses "smoothly, quietly, and efficiently." Are there any compatibility issues with continuous AF with the AF100 plus lens adaptor plus regular four thirds lenses, other then a lens' ability to focus quickly (i.e. does "contrast detection AF" create compatibility issues?)

nugat,
I read your link.
When you say, "it's best to have a purpose built lens," or "continuous focus needs a contrast detection purpose built lens on Panny m43 bodies," you seem to be saying that the reason some regular four thirds lenses do continuous AF poorly is due to factors of compatibility with the AF100 (not just AF speed, etc.). But I do not want to put words in your mouth. Is this what you are saying?

Thanks again for your time. It sounds like there are a variety of experiences here.

I'll probably stay away from this camera until there's more reports of consistent continuous AF with lens adaptors and various non-micro two thirds lenses.

 

[nugat]

google the link on (m)4/3.org for the lens compatibility tables. even within the same standard lenses and bodies are not cross-compatible in functions. notoriously , bigger 4/3 glass will not offer full features on m4/3 even within the same manufacturer! some panaleica 4/3 glass will offer more functionality on panny m4/3 bodies than other, latest firmware is important. on Olympus they' ll not work or work poorly. zuiko4/3 will work better on Oly bodies, on Panny often not at all. AF100 is not really a 4/3 product, the basic standard requirement of 21,63mm image circle is not fulfilled (not to mention it does not take still pics). the existing lens compatibilty table is not complete; eg. zuiko35-100 is not there, but in fact it works nice with push AF or remote.
curiously , the panny 20/1.7 pancake does not have any autofocus on AF100, manual only!
maybe it's the question of firmware. and this lens is really fast focussing on m4/3.
to sum it up, you won't realy know which lens work and how until you test them.

 

[Ripple]

nugat,

After your posts, I lost interest in the HF100. Not that I was exactly ready to buy one...

Just started thinking about a GH2, though. Maybe used. It's light, so I could use it with a SteadyTracker (mini version). I assume they work with the same lenses, but I could be totally wrong.

What fast lenses will do continuous AF on the GH2? (By fast, I mean f/2 or less, maybe f/2.8, but that's really pushing it.) In 35mm equivalents, a 30mm to 50mm prime would be enough to make the camera fun.

Thanks again for your time.

 

[alpi69]

Ripple you will have problems finding ANY lens on ANY filmcamera with smooth autofocus throughout. It simply doesn´t exist yet.

A friend of mine just shot with a 100x-Canon-B4 lens, brandnew and apparently had working autofocus. Of course this lens weighs about 20kg and costs probably something around € 70.000.

Film will maybe never use autofocus, because you simply can´t leave the decision on what is supposed to be in focus to a chip, it will have to be made by a human. Very often the part that´s in focus is hidden behind a foreground and once you start dollying and moving it will be even harder for a machine to know what you as cameraman tzry to achieve.

AFAIK the 14-140 is the only lens that is close to what you wish for, but then I read it is not working as smoothly as you might hope.

 

[Ripple]

Alpi69,

...AFAIK the 14-140 is the only lens that is close to what you wish for, but then I read it is not working as smoothly as you might hope.

Hugh. Even the f/4-5.8 doesn't work well? I understand the conversion for DOF in f/stops is maybe a two stop difference from a 9mm 2/3" sensor and a 18mm "4/3." I have a Lumix with a 8mm sensor and a f/2-f/2.8 lens, which should mean that it provides similar OOF blur as the 14-140 on 4/3" sensor (at the same FOV and distance to the subject). Maybe the look is, as they say, the same as "super 16," but it does not look like what I think of when I think of a "film,” or probably more accurately, “cinema.”

Does Sony’s Interchangeable Lens Handycam not do continuous focus well enough (albeit with at 60i only, with slow glass and about three other lens options)? I hate Sony, perhaps more than I should hate a company who has an R&D and marketing budget big enough to “buy” away HDDVD from Warner Brothers, but continuously will not give us what we want in gear. But I don't mind the sensors they make for Nikon. And I might buy Sony if they make something that Panny does not better within a year.

I am an enthusiast, who has accidentally come to be known as “they guy with the video gear.” I can’t even pan and tilt in a way that looks professional to me (excluding my small city’s local news), but I’ve shot a few seminars for money, using a couple static cameras, with “good enough” results. I would have thought the AF100 would be ideal this kind of thing (although it seems to be used by most for creative work).

It seems like it should be easy enough for a camera to just focus on the nearest point within a user-defined area. This would add production value to static camera seminars without needing professional skill and thus production costs. Also, who would want to pull focus on the whole thing? Maybe the people here could do it for two hours straight, without error. I wouldn’t want to, which is immaterial because I will also lack the skill.

From my recent experience shooting stills with my crop sensor DSLR and f/1.8 primes, I do see what you mean regarding the need for very selective focus for cinemagraphic/artistic purposes. At f/1.8 and a FOV of 2 ft., I have to focus on the nearest eye or it’s a little blurry. The D7000 tracks pretty well, so if the if I back up so the FOV is 3-4 ft, DOF is 3” or more, the subject is usually in focus if the AF point just locks somewhere on the face (not the ear).

QUESTION:

THIS SAID, AF tracking aside, can any large sensor (sub $10K) camcorder do continuous focus on just a single AF point? I do think I could make some nice handled footage (with SteadyTracker Ultralite) of my wife picking flowers (for example), if I could just tell the camera to “you bastard, just do continuous focus on the nearest point within this area of the frame.” Anyway, this would help me understand where the technology is now.

Ripple you will have problems finding ANY lens on ANY filmcamera with smooth autofocus throughout. It simply doesn´t exist yet..

Thanks for the “downlow.” Now I can take a break from my forum obsession... (Just kidding, I would need more visits to my shrink for that).

...A friend of mine just shot with a 100x-Canon-B4 lens, brandnew and apparently had working autofocus. Of course this lens weighs about 20kg and costs probably something around € 70.000...

Not sure I could handhold this lens... You do make me wonder, though, did it do continuous AF?

Please pardon my typos and my tangents. The more I try to make this post clear, the more extraneous stuff I seem to add...

-Ripple