Old lenses on new cameras, I

Digital cameras, like all other "tech" fields, have advanced extremely fast. From essentially not existing 20 years ago to the rapidly advancing market we see today. I shall try not to terribly upset serious photographers by saying lens technology is not advancing, but it is certainly not advancing at quite the same rate. A digital camera from 15 years ago is almost entirely useless today, glass from 35 years ago is however a different story. The biggest metamorphosis that SLRs have gone through is arguably* not the change to digital but rather the change to auto-focus more than a decade earlier. That is when some of the biggest changes where made, when new lens-mounts appeared and old ones disappeared. This leaves us with many good lenses that suffer from being both manual focus and designed for an obsolete mount. i.e. useless. A waste of good glass. 

Or are they? 

If you are prepared to with manual focus, then no, this is not the case at all. These lenses have no motors, and no way of electronically communicating with the camera (and nothing to say, had they the means to say it) so obviously they are never going to auto-focus, however physically fitting them to a current lens mount is no more complicated than using the right adapter. Oh the joy of fitting together two pieces of metal - use a third piece. Like this one:

Pictured: A piece of metal.

A Fotodiox M42 to EOS adapter. M42 (Pentax screw) being a very popular old manual focus 35mm film SLR (and rangefinder) screw type mount and EOS - more correctly EF or EF-S - being the current electronic bayonet mount used by Canon EOS auto-focus film and digital cameras. 

Sadly its not entirely that simple (when is it?), complications arise from the distance from lens to the sensor, if you can't get this right the lens wont focus, or at least not to infinity. I won't try to explain this here but the end result is that some moderns are utterly unsuitable for using adapters (like the Nikon F-mount) and others will require longer/deeper adapters. (Like micro 4/3 but more on that in another post.) The Canon EF mount however lends itself very well to this endeavor, so I bought myself a cheap Canon EOS 300D. 

Historically significant as the first sub $1000 DSLR, today just a cheap camera with a nasty plastic case. Notice the EF-S bayonet mount on the camera, next to it is a matching Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. At the of the lens you will see the electronic ("CPU") contacts, you will see the corresponding contacts on the camera at the bottom of the mount. The EF-S is an electronic mount - all communication between the camera and lens occurs through those contacts. (Unlike, say an Nikon F-mount.)

Here the adapter is locked into place. Actually, because EF-S is bayonet and the M42 lens is a screw mount, its easier to leave the adapter attached to the lens.

And there is our vintage lens, in this case a Chinon 55mm f1.7 M42, the same lens fitted to the EOS 300D in the first picture. As you see there are no CPU or mechanical contacts on the adapter. The only control that the M42 lens expected to receive in any case was when to stop-down the aperture - the Canon EF does this electronically so the function is lost. Aperture control occurs via a beautifully machined ring near the rear of the lens, focusing at very small apertures can be hard due to the viewfinder (already poor on the 300D, like most autofocus SLRs) getting rather dark, this one just has to live with. Likewise the poor viewfinder can make focusing itself hard, especially with the lens at f1.7. Practice is needed here, an alternate solution is to fit your camera with an old-school split image focusing screen. (Starting from around $25 from China - I am not sure yet how good these are.) The better viewfinders that higher end DSLRs possess could well make this task either - I guess I should have conducted my experiments with a EOS 20D, not a 300D...

On the Canon you get through the lens metering, meaning you can use either manual or aperture-priority modes (you control the aperture yourself from the lens) and you will probably get the correct exposure. I say probably because, especially with a fast lens like this Chinon, you can easily "run out" of workable shutter speeds in bright light.

So obviously there are drawbacks. The rewards? Well aside from the extreme cheapness of these lenses - that Chinon 55mm 1.7 cost me 120kr (less than $20) and I have a Wiestar 35mm and 135mm that cost me even less - there is some sense of satisfaction in using these old lenses, in addition to the fact that the lenses themselves are often beautiful. The Chinon is a work of art compared to the frankly icky plastic Canon kit lens pictured above. 

To summarize

Using M42 lenses on Canon EOS:

Aperture preview:               No

Camera aware of aperture:  No

Metering:                            Yes

Available modes:                 M, Av (Manual and Aperture Priority if you don't speak Canon.)

*I argue that it is.

My 2010 VW POLO TSI GT DSG

My Mk5 Polo, or to use its full grandiose title, Polo TSI GT DSG Car of the year edition. Though it only says Polo TSI on the back. GT is a spec level in Sweden, I believe the UK equivalent would be SEL. The Car of the year edition was a limited run model to celebrate winning COTY and was 1.2 TSI GT Polo with DSG box and RCD310 satnav system. It was the only way to get a 1.2 TSI Polo in Sweden in 2010 and so I bought one.
I bought it as an economical commuter car and a counter point to my weekend toy, a 1988 535i. It replaced a 2007 320i and this should be kept in mind as it colours my view of the Polo.

I feel that the Polo Mk5 is, alongside the Jetta 6, one of the best looking cars VW have ever produced. But we are not here to discuss styling…
The two most interesting features of this car are the TSI engine and DSG box, and they do indeed define its character. The 1.2 TSI manages 175MN, the same as a typical early ‘90s 2.0, but more amazingly this is all available from below 2000rpm, giving a very un-small feeling. The rapid changing DSG gearbox adds to the surrealness of the experience. In normal town driving the engine virtually never exceeds 2000rpm and there is really no need to. Full throttle will easily break the traction of the 215 16” tyres, on winter tyres you are limited to part throttle.  Very diesel-like, aside from the 6000rpm redline.
I bought this car remembering the small fun VWSA products of my youth, specifically the CitiGolf (Golf Mk1) and Polo Playa (Seat Ibiza Mk2). The Polo is small, light and powerful but comparatively so refined that a lot of the excitement is lost. Make no mistake, this can be a good thing, a 300kms trip was to be dreaded in a Golf 1, the Polo takes it in its stride.
But somehow you never get the same feeling driving it fast on small roads. Its utterly undramatic. The steering is electric, and while it has excellent feel compared to say, a Fabia or Clio, it doesn’t give you the detailed feedback that you need to become one with the car. The throttle response is best described as distant – you’re merely giving orders to engine room, not pulling the lever yourself – and the DSG7 gearbox is simply never in the right gear. Push down violently on the throttle and there is a delay, an embarrassing pause as if the ECU is asking itself “Did he mean to do that?”, come suddenly off the throttle, especially in Sport mode, and the engine will linger, roaring at high revs, as if caught out by your lack of consistency. This is all really a pity because on the odd occasion that you and the car get it all right, the power delivery is very impressive. So much torque, so little weight, and the gearbox holding the engine in its powerband – by small car standards seemingly endless acceleration. Compared to the almost amateurish behavior of the powertrain the handling is very polished. The damping is as good as it is reasonable to expect from a small, simply-sprung car, the compromise between roll control and comfort excellently chosen, the ride adequate despite 35 profile tyres. But it isn’t very interesting, the back simply follows the front, there is no adjustability, no subtlety to it. It’s amusing purely from how quickly you can move from point to point on country roads, with confidence and at speeds you would simply never match in most of its competition.
In winter however if’s a very different story. This is a car that relies on grip.  Without it there is abundant understeer which if you try to push through, as you can on some cars, you risk swinging out the tail or simply sliding sideways. Put simply the Polo does not cope well in conditions of low grip. It always feels skittish and unstable and any attempts to play are quickly interrupted by the typically-VAG overbearing ESP system.
For the keen driver then, and even more so someone with memories of small VWs of the past, this car is, and indeed has been to me, a disappointment. However to a normal sane person it is a great car. The quality of the interior is excellent , its an outstandingly easy and relaxing car to commute in, and it does around 6.0L per 100kms  (someone else can translate that into ridiculous MPG) even in heavy traffic. My lighter footed and more conscientious wife can easily achieve less than 5.5L per 100kms, in other words easily less than the real world figures for a wretched eco-diesel.

MORE POWER FOR THE PEOPLE! A 3.0 SIX FOR EVERYONE.

Or: The frustrating paucity of genuine road test data.

Being able to read in more than one language allows you to read even more road tests. Only reading English can give one a skewed perspective; What the Americans say about cars is best ignored, the Australian and South African markets are somewhat insular and irrelevant. The British, while masters of the language, only appear to care about diesels. 

And so I was reading a Swedish comparative road test: The (then - early 2010) new Volvo S60 2.0T vs its competition from the usual German triplets. I was actually reading this test (does one need a reason, really?) for more into the featured ethanol burning A4 2.0 TFSI Quattro when I glanced across to the figures for the BMW 325i, a car I had hitherto ignored - because obviously no one can afford to run a normally aspirated 3.0 straight 6 in this day and age of downsizing and forced induction - when I was socked to see it was the most economical car in the test, beating it’s 1.8 and 2.0 blown 4pot competition. Surely not? But no, the testers were quite sure, despite being the fastest and most powerful car on test it used the least fuel. (and put out the least CO2, if you care about or even believe in that sort of thing - I assure you, your taxman does.) For the kind of practical and sensible reasons that could only be understood by a Swede the Audi was still pronounced the winner, but that’s hardly the point here. The point is that here is a “big six” you could afford to commute in, and what’s more, how did I not know about this?

Now having something to set my obsessive mind to, much very enjoyable research followed. The late 2007 facelift of the BMW e90 included, in addition to the “Efficient Dynamics” set of modifications, the new direct injection N53 in place of the the Valvetronic N52 but only in Europe. In the case of the 325i the engine was now a 3.0 instead of a 2.5. Power remained the same, torque increased slightly but the headline is the dramatically improved economy. Comparing tests done on the pre- and post-facelift 325is done by the same Swedish mag, a dramatic improvement indeed. Suddenly there is no need to bother with a Golf GTi or Skoda Octavia RS. 
This knowledge of course, in addition to requiring visits to the nearest BMW dealer to check their “Premium Used” section, and replacing excitement at the launch of the new forced induction only f30 with a slightly bittersweet feeling, also lead me to suddenly wonder about a e60 5-series. Didnt it also receive the N53 and Efficient Dynamics kit - yes, in Europe it did. Doesn't that mean it will also be amazingly economical? Should I not in fact perform my daily commute in a 530i auto? No, apparently not, in the single tests each I can find of the post 2007 525i and 530i is was pretty thirsty. Sad. How can it use so much more fuel than the (only) 220kg lighter e90?

I don’t know and I am unlikely to find out due to the paucity of information I am forced to work with. Why does nobody test these cars? When someone tests a 3-series, why it is always 320d? (or a 335i?) Why wasn't more fuss made of the N53 and its amazingly economy? Why where we being told to buy 2.0 turbo 4s, when we could have had one of the last attainable normally aspirated sixes? Why it is so hard to find any test on any BMW with name ending in -25i? Yes I know I am very boring, I want to sit and read fuel consumption figures, I want to compare the e90 and e60s and work out some kind of pattern - because I live in the real world were petrol costs money and what to see what the real costs are. 

I am sick of this massive diesel preference, specifically in the English motoring press. Comparing the tested figures of the last, now sadly gone e90 325i to the 320d of the same time show that you’d really have to do a lot of mileage for total cost of ownership (ignoring depreciation) of the 325i to be greater than that of the 320d. Now don't get me wrong, the 320d is a great car. I dont like diesels but I am forced to admit that it is excellent…but compared to the incredible joys of a 3.0 BMW straight6? For similar money, can you get your head around that?

And yet nobody knows, for these cars are simply ignored.

Edit 16 months later:
It appears, sadly, that the N53 suffered a fair amount of reliability issues, specifically injector problems and now appears to be largely dead. Even in the F10 its place has been taken by the new turbo 4 bangers. I say appear because, as always, there is virtually no information on this, and in any case relatively few N53 engined E90s were sold. (Because you were all to busy buying diesels, weren't you?)

But to end this on a more positive note, here is the article in the original gansta: (Excuse the language.) http://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://gtdriver.tumblr.com/post/17656547265/more-power-for-the-people-a-3-0-six-for-everyone&sa=U&ei=umqwUc3hJO-N7AaEsoCYBw&ved=0CCoQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNHn6JuJURy5DG6q5kre93rr_l2oMg