Fear of Adapters (Page 5): So if I read you right, communication was interrupted by very dirty contacts ? Thaz how digital works, its all or nothing. Theres no "slower" AF from an...

User ID

burkphoto wrote:

Well, I HAVE experienced it. After 46,000+ exposures, a mid-range Canon SLR and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom on it failed to communicate with one another.

So if I read you right, communication was interrupted by very dirty contacts ?

Thaz how digital works, its all or nothing. Theres no "slower" AF from an "increased resistance", supposedly from use of lens mount adapters.

User ID

imagemeister wrote:

Why do the FPS of adapted lenses slow the frame rate down- this is doumented. The doubling of the number of contacts and mechanical connections has the potential for higher contact resistance from "dirty" contacts or the mechanical connection of the contact can become distorted by looseness or fitting tolerances in the mountings....affecting the resistance of signal transfer.

That is such a crock. Where do you get this stuff ? I notice you claim its "documented". Thaz simply your confession that you make claims not of your own experience.

Documented ? You apparently dont actually know how to read or select such documents.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

User ID wrote:

So if I read you right, communication was interrupted by very dirty contacts ?

Thaz how digital works, its all or nothing. Theres no "slower" AF from an "increased resistance", supposedly from use of lens mount adapters.

It just worked erratically, in an unpredictable, on-off fashion, and eventually displayed an error message on the top screen (Canon EOS 30D).

All was normal again after a good cleaning. So no, it did not *slow down* the actual speed of the AF. AF worked haltingly, and that could be considered slow to the user. Wiggle the lens and it would stop and start.

317tman Loc: Indianapolis, In

photoman43 wrote:

For me it is not fear. It is more a change in balance and how the camera and lens is used. Change in balance becomes an issue as the focal length of the lens increases. In my case, using an adapter for a 105mm macro lens presents no issues. For a 500mm lens, balance issues need to be addressed especially if you are using a tripod or monopod.

I find just the opposite, the 500 f4 is so big I hardly notice the adapter.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

You can beat yourself to death with all that tech stuff adaptor for canon works

Canisdirus

Straw man argument.

But it is no secret that adapters will lower performance somewhere.

It's just physics...place an extra piece of kit in the pipeline...something has to give.

Adapters are a compromise.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Canisdirus wrote:

Straw man argument.

But it is no secret that adapters will lower performance somewhere.

It's just physics...place an extra piece of kit in the pipeline...something has to give.

Adapters are a compromise.

The $129.00 to $250.00 question is, is it a relevant compromise?

For many folks who have a bag or a locker full of EOS-EF glass (or Nikon's equivalent), the cost of an adapter is trivial and inconsequential in contrast to the cost of trading in old lenses for new. It's a, "You might as well try it..." purchase.

Are the new, "made for mirrorless" lenses better? Yes, if for no other reasons than the new designs are engineered for a shorter flange-to-sensor distance. Certainly there are other technical differences that favor the new lenses, too.

But the question is, "Will these marginal improvements make a noticeable difference in the impact of my imagery, or will they just make me feel good?" Only the individual user can answer that.

My advice would be to buy the adapter and try it with all your lenses. Rent any 'R' or 'Z' lens you think might be a step up, try it, and compare images of identical subjects taken with your old lens and the new one. Decide from there...

Canisdirus

Still a compromise...any way you slice it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Canisdirus wrote:

Still a compromise...any way you slice it.

Excluding Canon R - and up to now, it has been commonly accepted knowledge that with ALL adapters you loose SOMETHING. Does Canon R somehow change this ? Are Canon R algorithms exactly the same as EF ?? While it is possible - but not probable - and there is still the electro/mechanical considerations of doubling the contacts.

Yes, as a practical matter, I do understand that MOST people find no discernable functional downsides to the CanonR-EF adapter in particular.

Canisdirus

imagemeister wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

I've read the reviews of the Canon adapters...nothing new in there...nothing special.

I do think Canon users have become a bit desperate and will swallow the pill that marketing concocts.

All adapters bear some cost.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Canisdirus wrote:

I've read the reviews of the Canon adapters...nothing new in there...nothing special.

I do think Canon users have become a bit desperate and will swallow the pill that marketing concocts.

All adapters bear some cost.

A few items seem to need to be said. Electronic autofocus is a few things, 1, an ultrasonic motor in the interchangeable lens, and 2, the programming of the AF system. When that USM lens operates on a new EOS-R system, not only is the programming different (new), the method of focusing / determining focus is changed. So, the anecdotes from both Canon and Nikon DSLR owners of their legacy lenses focusing better, with adapters on mirrorless bodies, those are not just wishful thinking. And yet, even now in October 2023, the DSLRosaurs deny all mirrorless realities ...

Canisdirus

CHG_CANON wrote:

A few items seem to need to be said. Electronic au... (show quote)

I don't doubt that even with the adapter the mirrorless is better than the old bodies with the lens.

But it's not as good as native R lens on the native R mount...

Most companies are more than willing to screw its customers...but they don't try to screw themselves.

In that category...Canon reigns supreme.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Canisdirus wrote:

I don't doubt that even with the adapter the mirrorless is better than the old bodies with the lens.

But it's not as good as native R lens on the native R mount...

Most companies are more than willing to screw its customers...but they don't try to screw themselves.

In that category...Canon reigns supreme.

But, we're not comparing apples to apples when considering the new and better mirrorless designs to lenses sitting in front of a flapping mirror, whether an adapter is needed or not.

User ID

burkphoto wrote:

The $129.00 to $250.00 question is, is it a I rel... (show quote)

Replying to Dirus is pointless. He posts unsupportable nonsense for his personal amusement. Check the archives and see.

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

"Replying to Dirus is pointless. He posts unsupportable nonsense for his personal amusement. Check the archives and see." — UserID

Even so, he provides a forum from which to make the simple argument — a mantra of mine — that gear isn't the message. It is a medium to transport the message. That's why I say, if I have a dSLR lens that can get the job done with an adapter, it is difficult to argue that the mirrorless version will make enough difference to justify the purchase of a native lens. (Now, if you're the person who just won that $billion plus lottery, you probably don't care.)

No one cares whether we use Brand X or Brand Y. They only care about what we show them, and the value of what they felt, learned, remembered, or were enabled to do as a result.