Mirrorless for vintage glass

[MVPernula]

Hello People!

I have apparently missed the fantastic discovery on mirrorless cameras ability to match vintage glass.
Boy do I feel stupid, had I known this a year ago I would've grabbed an A7 instead of my current D800.

Anyhow, I'm looking for someone to trade systems with.. And that you can't really help me with (unless you'd like to trade).
But you can however help me with finding a good and cheap alternative.
Full frame would be the A7, but that's alot of money, and I don't have that atm.
From what I've found the Sony Nex-5 was a gift sent from above for people who wanted to shoot with vintage glass back in 2014, but I assume much has changed since then.

I've looked at the old, yet newer than Sony Nex-5, Sony A5000 and Fujifilm XM-1.
Both I'd be able to get for the exact same price. 1000kr(sek, swedish krona).
I'm well aware that these are APS-c, and will have a crop factor of 1.5 and all that jazz.

But since I'm on a budget cuts will have to be made since, as mentioned, a full frame is out of budget.
Or is it? Am I missing something glorious?

Help me out!

 

[petrochemist]

Full frame is out of my budget, but I've picked up some affordable MFT bodies for playing with vintage (and other) glass.
The FOV is quite different than most of the lenses were designed for, but they let me play with most options. I've used c-mount, OM, PK, M42, MD, FD, enlarger & projector lenses and even a few Nikon ones.
My G5 was around £250 when I got it years ago and it still takes great photos, but I'm starting to get tempted to upgrade it for focus peaking & IBIS...
There are adapters that include focal reducing optics that will recover much of the lost effects of the reduced sensor size. I use a MFT-EF version with subsequent EF-x adapter for many of my lenses, as well as adapters without the reducer, giving me 2 FOV options for each lens

 

[Ysarex]

Yep, legacy lenses is a big mirrorless advantage. I upgraded from FF to APSC Fuji some years ago and I am very pleased with my current XT-2. You noted the XM-1 which was built around Fuji's X-Trans II sensor -- excellent cameras. I've linked below to an un-cropped full-res image from that sensor to give you an idea of what you'd be getting. The photo was taken with a legacy lens that was very easy to adapt to the Fuji body (60mm Rodagon enlarging lens).

Joe

Edith

 

[Gary A.]

Fuji makes remarkably fine stuff. A bit pricey, but the primary controls on the body (no menu diving), build quality and excellent Fujinon lenses, for many of us, makes the investment worthwhile.

 

[MVPernula]

Full frame is out of my budget, but I've picked up some affordable MFT bodies for playing with vintage (and other) glass.
The FOV is quite different than most of the lenses were designed for, but they let me play with most options. I've used c-mount, OM, PK, M42, MD, FD, enlarger & projector lenses and even a few Nikon ones.
My G5 was around £250 when I got it years ago and it still takes great photos, but I'm starting to get tempted to upgrade it for focus peaking & IBIS...
There are adapters that include focal reducing optics that will recover much of the lost effects of the reduced sensor size. I use a MFT-EF version with subsequent EF-x adapter for many of my lenses, as well as adapters without the reducer, giving me 2 FOV options for each lens

Oh man that sounds fantastic!
My mind was blown when the doors of mirrorless+old glass was presented to me.

Yep, legacy lenses is a big mirrorless advantage. I upgraded from FF to APSC Fuji some years ago and I am very pleased with my current XT-2. You noted the XM-1 which was built around Fuji's X-Trans II sensor -- excellent cameras. I've linked below to an un-cropped full-res image from that sensor to give you an idea of what you'd be getting. The photo was taken with a legacy lens that was very easy to adapt to the Fuji body (60mm Rodagon enlarging lens).

Joe

Edith

Oh man that sharpness is fantastic!
I'm looking into doing all of this becuase I have my fathers, mothers and gradfathers lenses just collecting dust!
I have been DYING to put them on a camera.

The XM-1 I'm looking for I'll get for really cheap too, so you think it's a good deal?
Should I go for it?

Fuji makes remarkably fine stuff. A bit pricey, but the primary controls on the body (no menu diving), build quality and excellent Fujinon lenses, for many of us, makes the investment worthwhile.

Well.. 1000sek isn't muck for a camera, especially not that fuji as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MVPernula]

Full frame is out of my budget, but I've picked up some affordable MFT bodies for playing with vintage (and other) glass.
The FOV is quite different than most of the lenses were designed for, but they let me play with most options. I've used c-mount, OM, PK, M42, MD, FD, enlarger & projector lenses and even a few Nikon ones.
My G5 was around £250 when I got it years ago and it still takes great photos, but I'm starting to get tempted to upgrade it for focus peaking & IBIS...
There are adapters that include focal reducing optics that will recover much of the lost effects of the reduced sensor size. I use a MFT-EF version with subsequent EF-x adapter for many of my lenses, as well as adapters without the reducer, giving me 2 FOV options for each lens

Yep, legacy lenses is a big mirrorless advantage. I upgraded from FF to APSC Fuji some years ago and I am very pleased with my current XT-2. You noted the XM-1 which was built around Fuji's X-Trans II sensor -- excellent cameras. I've linked below to an un-cropped full-res image from that sensor to give you an idea of what you'd be getting. The photo was taken with a legacy lens that was very easy to adapt to the Fuji body (60mm Rodagon enlarging lens).

Joe

Edith

Fuji makes remarkably fine stuff. A bit pricey, but the primary controls on the body (no menu diving), build quality and excellent Fujinon lenses, for many of us, makes the investment worthwhile.

Bought the X-M1 with an adapter, waiting for both now!

 

[cooltouch]

I have a large collection of manual focus lenses in a variety of lens mounts. I was able to use several of the mounts with my Canon EOS DSLR, but it was most annoying that I wasn't able to use any of my rather large collection of Canon FD glass. And this was why I got a mirrorless. About four years ago, I bought a very clean used Sony NEX 7 and immediately also bought adapters for five different lens mounts. I use MF glass with this camera at least as often as I use the AF lens that came with it. Probably more often.

So I can highly recommend the NEX 7 -- or the a6000 too. Advantage of the a6000 is it has an ISO flash shoe, whereas the 7 uses that weird shoe that Minolta came up with. Both have 24.3 mp sensors -- same sensor capacity as the one on the A7. Yes, they're APS-C, but this is a plus when using long lenses. Not so much when using wides though.

I have found that usually 24.3 mp are plenty for most any situation. Having a high-capacity sensor is most useful, I've found, for when crops are necessary. There's usually headroom left after the crop.

The Sony NEX -- and other Sony mirrorless cameras -- has a focus peaking feature, as well as image magnification which helps with focusing. I find it to be most helpful when shooting macro subjects. When shooting subjects on the fly with MF lenses, instead I usually dial in enough depth of field where focusing isn't as critical, or I prefocus on a specific spot then pop the shutter when the subject enters the zone.

I'd love to have a FF digital, but like you, I just can't afford one. The biggest reason I have for wanting to own a FF digital is so my wides behave as wides. But what I'm planning to do is to use a focal reducer, such as the Lens Turbo 2. Yes, there is a bit of degradation on the corners, but it's minor and most importantly it gives me back my wides' wides!

 

[ac12]

One thing to look for . . . IBIS (In Body Image Stabilization)
Since you are planning to use older lenses, IBIS will stabilize even the old manual focus lenses
I put an old manual focus Nikon 500mm mirror lens onto my Olympus E-M1, and the IBIS worked great. Not rock solid, but a LOT more stable than I could hold it without stabilization.

Note that adapters for different camera lenses to the different mirrorless cameras do not work the same. Some functions are missing on some of the adapters.

Example, NONE of the Nikon to Micro4/3 adapters that I found (including the $400 Metabones adapter), will let the Olympus camera AF the Nikon lens, nor control the aperture. The adapters are optical only. There is NO communication between the lens and the camera. IOW the Nikon AF lens becomes a FULL MANUAL/auto-NOTHING lens. So except for the better optics, operationally the lens is back to the 1950s.​

 

[arso96]

I've been surprised in very negative ways by the Canon mirrorless, Fuji, and Panasonic MFT cameras I own -- but never had a bad surprise with a Sony. For example, Canon's M is utterly gripless and delivers poorer IQ than my original NEX-5, Fuji's JPEGs look a lot like film (which is to say they block-up on shadows and highlights), and my Panasonic Lumix GX850 disables the mechanical shutter when using a manual lens (giving nasty rolling artifacts in stills).
https://tgw.onl/digitalocean/ , https://tgw.onl/siteground/ , https://tgw.onl/ipage/

 

[petrochemist]

I've been surprised in very negative ways by the Canon mirrorless, Fuji, and Panasonic MFT cameras I own -- but never had a bad surprise with a Sony. For example, Canon's M is utterly gripless and delivers poorer IQ than my original NEX-5, Fuji's JPEGs look a lot like film (which is to say they block-up on shadows and highlights), and my Panasonic Lumix GX850 disables the mechanical shutter when using a manual lens (giving nasty rolling artifacts in stills).

Fortunately my Panasonics haven't given any issues like that!

 

[beagle100]

I've been surprised in very negative ways by the Canon mirrorless, Fuji, and Panasonic MFT cameras I own -- but never had a bad surprise with a Sony. For example, Canon's M is utterly gripless and delivers poorer IQ than my original NEX-5, Fuji's JPEGs look a lot like film (which is to say they block-up on shadows and highlights), and my Panasonic Lumix GX850 disables the mechanical shutter when using a manual lens (giving nasty rolling artifacts in stills).

Fortunately my Panasonics haven't given any issues like that!

me 2 !
(but my "vintage" lenses are only 20 years old)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[ac12]

I've been surprised in very negative ways by the Canon mirrorless, Fuji, and Panasonic MFT cameras I own -- but never had a bad surprise with a Sony. For example, Canon's M is utterly gripless and delivers poorer IQ than my original NEX-5, Fuji's JPEGs look a lot like film (which is to say they block-up on shadows and highlights), and my Panasonic Lumix GX850 disables the mechanical shutter when using a manual lens (giving nasty rolling artifacts in stills).

Fortunately my Panasonics haven't given any issues like that!

me 2 !
(but my "vintage" lenses are only 20 years old)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I had that terminology discussion in my other hobby.
How can it be vintage when I used that pen in college.
Then some of the folks in my club were not born when I was in college.

 

[Braineack]

I bought an adapter to run some of my old MF pentax lenses on my a6000 - even bought the TAIR 135 for it -- but just prefer shooting SLR.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wide to short tele M42 primes work great on my K-01.