Camera lens adaptors vs. buying a new lens

I have a few lens for my Olympus OM10 slr..

Is there an adaptor available to allow connecting to my New E500 digital camera..

Is it worth it? Whats the pros and cons if there is an adaptor available..

If its not worth it, How much are these lens worth.?

[img]http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c148/satman124/lens006.jpg[/img]

Thanks

G

I can only comment about Canon products... There are adaptors available to convert between most lenses. The advantages are that the adaptor is usually cheaper than buying a new lens, and it doesn't affect photo quality. The disadvantage is the additional weight and size, although this varies according to the specific adaptor.

STB has hit the nail on the head: Adaptors = cheap. New lenses = expensive. Selling old lenses = not very much money.

There are a couple other problems with adapters. They tend to cause about a half to a full stop reduction in light getting through to the film/sensor. They also cause some loss & distortion.

Another consideration is digital vs. analog: the lenses are designed to focus on differently sized areas. There are some adaptors designed to allow you to use your old analog lenses on digital cameras but using them can result in tunneling (darkened corners), distortion, fish-eye, and poor focus control.

woof.

Fortunately Grinner you are in an area known for its high concentration of second hand camera shops (Munich). Unfortunately there you will not get much for the analog lenses you wish to sell (which I recommend). If you wish too unload I would go Ebay. I know state side Olympic lenses are not in high demand, but in Europe I do not know.

Secondhand lenses flood the market. In fact, I'm not sure why anybody would buy a new lens ever again.

Funny thing is that I recently discarded my digital camera and have gone back to analog after Mme. Sin kept on at me that either she hadn't seen any pics I took with the digital, or that they never ended up in a form you can hold in the hand, or in the worst cases, where I deleted pictures. When I recently went on a trip to England with Sin Jnr. I only took the ancient old Pentax MX and 3 lenses; I was back in the realm of the picture being taken at the exact point I wanted it taken (and not a second after I had depressed the button), and I had artistic control over metering, depth of focus, fine focusing and shutter speed, all lost with the digital cameras unless you want to spend a fortnight reprogramming the little bastard.

However, I do conceed that digital is far better than analog for those pictures that you'd rather not let the developer, et al, see. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more. 'Photography', he said knowingly.

I am actually glad digital has taken command of the market. Due to this second hand lenses are much cheaper now for the analog fans (hell I still shoot with Polaroid). Most of the items I needed when I came back here have been acquired very cheaply. The only thing missing is the daylab 120. Here is to Tri-X 125, Ektar 64, Polaroid SX - 70, Fuji Vevia (50) etc. etc...

Sin: you only get delays in the low end. Try a Canon 30D.

Perdido: sadly lenses for middle format remain Ex-Pen-Sive as hell.

woof.

And I guess that this is more expensive than I can afford... and would leave me needing *cough* adaptors for my range of Pentax-K lenses to fit. Oder?

That what Poloroid cameras are for. (Apparantly.)

I still use a film camera, although I do order a CD at the same time and work with that. As I only take 8 or 10 rolls each year, there's no financial incentive to go digital.

Try a west coast dealer when you are back in the states. If in the Portland area I recommend Blue Moon camera.
*poof*

If you decide to go for the adapter, make sure you test the lens with your DSLR before you commit. I can show you some horrible effects, especially terrible far-field bokeh with aperture wide open. I'm talking objects being doubled, not something mild. Take into mind that these objectives weren't designed for digital sensors.

8 or 10 rolls a year, what does that cost to get developed? I don't actually know as I've been totally digital for years now. However, unless you're wanting a lot of physical photos in your hand there's definitely a financial incentive.

Get a PSP. You can see your pictures on it, it fits in your hand, and you can also use it to watch pornography, which is what I originally though this thread ws about (early morning, eyes not quite working yet, or maybe I'm going blind. Probably due to watching pornography on my PSP)

Nah Don, you just need to get your ring adapted.

And it saves people time trying to figure out whether or not you're a twat. They can see straightaway.

Depends, the cheapest is around 4-5€ and goes up to mid €20 range for the better quality processing. So financially digital is the better option but then you loose on quality too.

For developing one roll, I pay about €6 for a CD and some tiny photos that I throw away or pass on. Since a good digital SLR costs upwards of €500, it would take a long time to pay itself off. I don't want a cheap digital camera because the quality is generally worse than even the old 35mm compact cameras.

email skgrimes@skgrimes.com. www.skgrimes.com They are experts at camera lens adapters. If it already exists they'll point you to it. If not, they can make almost anything. They're in the states, but I'd bet shipping a brand new one from the States is still cheaper than buying a new lens.

Doesn't anyone print from Digital pics? We do we have a Canon i5000 which prints upto A4 and unless you get an eye glass out you would be hard pressed to tell the diference between a analog print and a digital print, and now you can just take your card down to quite a few photo shops and they will just print what you want