Thanks, Wayne. That answers my question; the 4/3 mount is not
physically compatible with the m4/3 mount. But I'm afraid OM tubes
won't solve my problem. My problem is that the OM->m4/3 adapter is
already too long for what I'm trying to do with the bellows and slide
copier. I can't connect with the slide copier using tubes alone and
adding tubes to the bellows would make the problem worse.
Steve Barbour sent me links to the 4/3->m4/3 adapter (thanks, Steve) but
that won't help me either. I would still have to connect that up to an
OM adapter which gets me right back to the length problem I'm trying to
overcome.
What I need is an OM->m4/3 adapter with a 15-20mm section sawed out of
the middle. The 80/4 is probably the right solution but I don't have
one of those. :-) I'll have to think about this some more. What I need
is something like an m4/3 lens flange glued directly to the back of an
OM body flange. Basically an m4/3->OM adapter without the tube between
the two mounts.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/14/2013 11:28 PM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> I tried to mount one of my OM->4/3 adapters on my E-P1 - too big. I'm not
> surprised actually as I reckon Oly would have copped it from a whole lot of
> customers who mounted a 4/3 lens on an m4/3 body and found it didn't focus.
>
> Perhaps pick up some cheap OM tubes, they seem to be plentiful on that
> auction site.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>>
>> Can someone who has both systems verify whether or not a 4/3 lens fits on
> a
>> m4/3 camera? I know it won't focus properly and maybe not even operate
>> electrically. My only real concern is whether a 4/3 lens (or OM to 4/3
>> adapter) physically fits into an m4/3 body.
>>
>> The reason I ask is that I was trying to use my OM bellows and slide
> copier
>> today to see if I could copy slides onto my E-M5. To do that I need a
>> magnification of approx 0.5X. If I had a Zuiko 80/4 short mount macro
> lens for
>> the bellows I'd be OK. But my only two macro lenses are my 90/2.5 Viv S1
>> and my 50/3.5 Zuiko.
>>
>> I don't think I can get the 90/2.5 to work at all since at 0.5X I think
> the image
>> of a slide is somewhere beyond the length of the bellows rail.
>> The 50/3.5 macro is only designed to do about 0.68X on the bellows.
>> The bellows itself prevents it from getting to 0.5X. The limitation is
> imposed
>> by the minimum separation of the lens board and camera mounting board.
>> According to my possibly dodgy calculations the image plane needs to be
>> brought forward about 14mm. If you were using an OM or 4/3 body that
>> wouldn't be possible. However, I note that the 4/3 to OM adapter is about
>> 20mm shorter than the m4/3 adapter. If I had a 4/3 adapter on the m4/3
>> body I think that would give me the extra range I need to bring the image
>> plane in and get the 50/3.5 to do 0.5X or slightly smaller.
>>
>> So, can someone answer the physical compatibility question between the
>> two mounts, ie, will a 4/3 lens fit onto a m4/3 mount even though it might
>> not actually work electrically and certainly can't focus even if it
> physically fits?
>>
>> Assuming it does, anyone got a spare OM to 4/3 mount you'd like to move
>> on? Maybe an old one with no AF confirmation chip? I won't be needing
>> anything like that.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>> --
>> __________________________________________________________
>> _______
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|