lens mount – Will Canon’s EF and EF-S lenses work better for Canon’s mirrorless cameras than mirrorless cameras from other brands?

Canon has an official adapter for using EF and EF-S on their mirrorless cameras, but I have read that the focusing is slower when using this adapter than the native (EF-M) lenses.

Assuming the respective bodies are from the same marketing tier and have similar resolution sensors, you’ll never get worse performance, either optically or in terms of AF speed/accuracy, out of an EF-S or EF lens when used with a Canon EF to EF-M adapter on an EOS M body (all of them use APS-C size sensors) than when using that same lens on a comparable Rebel or x0D body.

Again, EF-S and EF lenses will perform just as well on an EF-M or RF mount Canon body as they perform on APS-C and FF bodies, respectively, in the EF mount system when the cameras being compared have the same level of sensor technology and AF technology.

I have read that the focusing is slower when using this adapter than
the native (EF-M) lenses.

Unlike when using an EF/EF-S lens on a non-Canon mirrorless camera, no EF autofocus or any other lens to camera communication has to be “translated” by the adapter when adapting any EF/EF-S lens to any EOS M or EOS R camera. The only reasons an adapter is needed at all is to account for the differing registration distances and shapes of the mounting bayonets between EF/EF-S, EF-M, and RF lenses.

Where you lose out when using EF and EF-S glass with EOS M and R Series cameras is when comparing them to the newer EF-M and RF mount lenses. The best RF mount lenses tend to be sharper and faster focusing than the best EF mount lenses with the same focal lengths and maximum apertures. They also tend to be modestly to exceedingly more expensive. As the saying goes, you usually get what you pay for.

Remember, there are more expensive and/or newer EF mount lenses that focus faster on the same EF mount bodies than cheaper and/or older EF mount lenses focus on those same EF mount bodies. Many EF/EF-S mount lenses also focus faster on higher tier and/or newer EF mount bodies than those same lenses focus when used with cheaper/older EF mount bodies, too.

The EF-M autofocus protocol is exactly the same as the latest revisions of the EF/EF-S AF protocol. If EF-M lenses focus faster on the same EOS M body than an adapted EF/EF-S lens, it’s because the EF-M lens has a faster AF motor than the EF/EF-S lens, just as there are some EF/EF-S lenses that focus faster on the same EOS bodies than other EF/EF-S lenses can focus on that same EOS body.

Incidentally, due to the very small 2mm difference in the registration distances of the EF-M an RF mounts, as well as the differences in throat diameter and the shape and depth of the bayonet lugs (which exceeds 2mm), it’s physically impossible to adapt an RF lens to an EF-M camera and have focus at any distance beyond macro distances without using additional optical elements that also act as a teleconverter.

The Canon RF autofocus protocol is an enhanced extension of the EF protocol that is fully backwards compatible with the EF AF protocol. EF and EF-S lenses will perform no worse on an EOS M camera or RF mount camera than they are capable of performing on an equivalent EF body. In some cases, second generation RF mount cameras like the R5 and R6 can focus the same EF/EF-S lens noticeably faster than the lower tiered EF mount Rebel series and older models of the x0D series of cameras can focus those same EF/EF-S lens. (Newer EF mount cameras, such as the EOS 90D, can sometimes AF faster with certain EF/EF-S lenses than an older or lower tier EOS M body can AF with the same lenses, though.)

Sure, EF-M cameras will almost certainly focus slower than Canon 1-Series cameras that use the EF mount when using the same lens, but entry level Rebel cameras that use the EF mount also focus the same lenses slower than their 1-Series counterparts, even though they are both EF mount camera bodies.

If you use an EF-S lens with a full frame EOS R body, the image will be automatically cropped to use only the center of the FF camera’s sensor that is the same size as APS-C sensors. So that 20MP FF EOS RP becomes an 8MP APS-C camera when adapting an EF-S lens to it. The 45MP EOS R5 becomes a 17MP APS-C camera when an EF-S lens is adapted to it. This is necessary because the usable image circles of EF-S lenses are only large enough to cover that smaller APS-C sized area.

I want the camera to be easier to carry around for long sightseeing/tourism trips, but still be customizable with lenses.

With regard to smaller and lighter, though, there’s not really much of a loss of total size/weight when going from the best EF lenses on EOS EF mount bodies to the best RF lenses on EOS R bodies. Much of what you lose with the body is often gained with the lens. There’s also less difference in size/weight when going from the smaller, lighter lenses with narrower maximum apertures in the EF-S system to the lenses in the EF-M system than there is when going from larger and heavier higher performing EF lenses to smaller and lighter EF-M lenses with narrower maximum apertures. There’s even less difference when using the same EF/EF-S lenses with an EOS M body plus adapter than when using the same EF/EF-S lenses with one of the smaller and lighter EF mount bodies.

This is also the case with most other manufacturers of mirrorless systems. Have you seen the size of some of the Sony GM E-mount lenses? Or the Sigma ART lenses for mirrorless mounts? They’re about as small and light as a full mayonnaise jar. Sure, most EOS M bodies are smaller and lighter than most EF bodies. The EF mount Rebel SL series might be slightly smaller than the largest EOS M cameras, though. The Rebel SL series is certainly smaller than the larger models in the EOS R series.

In the specific case of your 60D, the only EOS M camera that has comparable performance in terms of things such as Servo AF, frames per second, etc. is the EOS M6 Mark II, which also happens to be one of the larger/heavier EOS M bodies, especially if one adds the optional EVF to the M6 Mark II hot shoe. (Of course tying up the hot shoe as the only way to have an eye level viewfinder, coupled with the lack of a PC port¹ is the M6 Mark II’s Achilles heel, in my opinion, as it means one can not use an eye level viewfinder and control external flash at the same time!)

To get an RF lens that performs as well as, say the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, one must use the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS, which is just as large and heavy as the comparable EF lens.

¹ PC in the context of flash photography has nothing to do with a personal computer. It is an abbreviation of Prontor/Compur. Prontor has its origins in the Italian word pronto (quick) and was a brand of shutter produced by Alfred Gauthier in the 1950s. Compur, derived from the word compound, was the shutter brand of the Deckel Company. Both companies were based in Germany and both counted Zeiss as an influential stockholder when they introduced the standard 1/8″-inch coaxial connector for shutter/flash synchronization.

equipment recommendation – I want a great value Mirrorless camera for urban, street, bif and landscape photography

I shoot with a Nikon D750. At the end of the day I am tired of holding the camera, my hands shake with fatigue. I have tremors. I love the D750, but I know as I get older and the tremors get worse, I won’t use it. I want a light weight but capable Mirrorless. With ibis. My photos are blurred by camera shake at 1/125. I am retiring and will travel. I love to edit using Photoshop and Lightroom amongst many other programs.I walk the downtown area and shoot pictures of people and buildings. I have spent time at protests photographing the drama as it has unfolded in front of me. I have no children or grand children and don’t usually photograph parties or events. I have, however, photographed concerts and local plays using available light. In many cases a silent shutter would come in handy. I love to go to the duck pond and photograph birds, so I want a good FPS. I have done and enjoyed time lapse and Milky Way photography. Not married to Nikon or full frame. I like options and customizable camera settings. I don’t shoot video. I may not buy another camera in quite a while as I will be on a retiree’s income. Thanks in advance for your help.Total budget lenses included, about 3 thousand US dollars. I don’t mind used. I have used keh and mpb as well as Adorama and b and h and have never been disappointed buying used. I will be happy to clarify to get better recommendations.

Do I need a copy stand to digitize negatives with a Sony Mirrorless Camera

I want to digitize negatives with a Sony mirrorless camera. Do I need a copy stand?

Adding Weather Sealing to Mirrorless Camera

I am on the hunt, to move from my D850 to a mirrorless system.

The problem is, no system appears to be no system as good as my D850, for my style of Landscape / Cityscape photography.

The Z7 would be great, but the lens support for my Tamron lenses and a lack of affordable direct replacements (15-30 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8) or similar is sort of a deal breaker.

Canon’s dynamic range is sort of concerning, although after using the EOS R briefly (in store) it was a great second choice.

Sony, is currently my top choice, but the problem is weather sealing.

I shoot out on backbacking trips (hence wanting a lighter system). Trips can also include trips abroad can include being out in the snow, the rain forest, the dessert, in a kayak going between islands or on a beach with spray. My Nikon’s have survived all of these things. I need the next system to do the same.

Which brings me to the question:

In Japan I’ve seen a lot of shooters with “Camera armor”. It’s primary purpose is to protect the paint and chrome bits of the camera. But I’m wondering if a thing exists that is more or less a weather sealing silicon sleeve for the camera?

Is it possible to add weather sealing to a camera?

I’d like to exclude anything that:

  1. restricts the system to a single lens (like under water kits).
  2. Adds significant weight or bulk
  3. Is just a fancy bag that would interfere with using the camera (viewfinder, with gloves etc.)

How fragile are mirrorless cameras in terms of vibration and bumps while in a case in a backpack while mountain biking?

I like to bring a camera when I go mountain biking and occasionally stop to take photos. I have heard that vibrations and bumps can cause cumulative micro damage to a camera. I have a mirrorless fujifilm x100f. The camera itself of course would be cushioned in a nice case but I’m just wondering if still with enough bumps and vibration it could do damage to internal parts of a camera.

equipment recommendation – Why choose an APS-C mirrorless kit over a full-frame SLR kit?

The Sony α6000 is $500. Show me a full frame for that price, and I will accept your argument that even the body, let alone the lenses, are the same for a full frame dSLR as they are for an APS-C compact mirrorless. The only full frame camera I know of that matches even the α6300 or Fuji X-T10 in price is the α7(which is showing its age!), which is also mirrorless.

Compare APS-C dSLRs to APS-C mirrorless cameras, and full frame dSLRs to full frame mirrorless. Do that and I think you’ll find the price and quality differences will become vanishingly small. You shouldn’t ignore lens system, features, handling and ergonomics – these are really the biggest differences, and won’t change much over time. Price and quality will come down to differences on brand and model more than fundamental aspects of mirrorless/dSLR systems as a whole.

Pick the brand, feeling, design system, ergonomics and philosophy(Sony is all about sensors, Fuji is more retro and widely better received ergonomics, just to mention a few) of the company you like best. It sounds silly, but those are the constants in this ever-changing world, and the cost of switching later goes up as you buy in.

Remember that the body is only a small part of the expense if you plan on getting deep into photography. Good luck!

Full frame DSLRs just as cheap as APS-C Compact Mirrorless

Ok, with several examples I can now make a comparison. The Nikon D600 and the Canon 6D were both launched in 2012.They are aging for sure. Even the α7 is getting old. This doesn’t make them “bad”, but it comes with it’s own set of downsides. Things like autofocus, video, and ISO won’t be as good as their current full frame counterparts. In many respects, much newer mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X-T10 and Sony a6300 will have caught up. In video, the α6300 is certainly better. In base ISO range, the Canon 6D is rated up to 25600 – exactly the same as the α6300. This is a huge blow to what I would consider a key advantage of full frame. Granted, this is mostly on paper, the full frame Canon’s outdated sensor is still probably better “in real life”, but the differences are eroding.

What you end up with is all the weight of the full frame, with all the costs of the lenses (which do not come down in price dramatically over time like bodies do), but many of the advantages have been eroded by time. If you have never felt the difference, it is a very different feel from holding a little α6300 vs the heft of a good old full frame dSLR. Not something you casually walk around with. Now, especially in professional settings, that solidity, size, and heft screams professionalism, so that’s something to take into consideration.

So, if video and weight are beans to you, and cost of full frame lenses has been taken into account, then the older cameras may be great. If the needs favor APS-C crop factor(so-called “reach”), or other newer features like 4k video, or you care about weight and bulk, APS-C is the way to go.

Ultimately, I’d go with the one that you see yourself using the most, even into the future. If you really, really want to go full frame, but can’t afford a newer body yet, you might take the disadvantages of an older camera and then upgrade in the future(today’s hot new cameras are the α7’s and 6D’s of tomorrow), without having to sell your old lenses.

autofocus – Does the number of phase detect auto-focus points affect focus accuracy in mirrorless cameras?

Does the number of phase detect auto-focus points affect focus accuracy in mirrorless camera? And if so, how and why?

I am considering burying either a Nikon Z6 II or a Z7 II. They have 273 and 493 AF points respectively. For comparison, the Sony A7iii has 693 AF points, a lot more. I have read/heard that the Z6 struggles a bit with focusing the iris of the eye. Does this have anything to do with how many AF points? Perhaps less focus points means a lower chance the point will be in the right position on the subject?
Or maybe the contrast detect will work together with phase detect and the issue is not the number of points?

I will appreciate any informed answers.

equipment recommendation – What should I be careful about while buying used mirrorless camera and lenses?

I am interested in purchasing a new mirrorless camera. I am new to photography but am quite interested in pursuing it. I have used a super-zoom for a while on priority modes and occasionally on manual mode, so I have some basic understanding of the workings of a camera.

I am confused whether I should purchase a new camera and lens or a used one. While I think that I should get a used one for first few years while I learn and invest in (or save money for) good lenses in the meantime, I am worried that I don’t know what to look for while purchasing used cameras to avoid being cheated. Especially, when I am purchasing them online as opposed to in store. I have the same concern with the lenses. Since I didn’t find a nice guide for new buyers I hope that this question also motivates people to answer in a fashion that might be helpful for others in future.

Coming to some personal choices: my budget is about $1000 with body and lens but I am a little flexible. Right now, I have options for purchasing Fuji X-T2 (fairly used $500), X-T3 (claimed to be like new $980) and X-H1 (claimed to be new $870) all used on a website in Switzerland (I believe I can negotiate the prices). Since I plan to shoot landscapes I am giving importance to weather sealing and not considering X-T#0 series. I also have the option to purchase Fujinon 16-55mm 2.8 R LM WR (claimed to be like new for $880) or XF 18-55mm (fairly used for $400, sold along with X-T2 with a myriad of other lenses that I am not interested in).

I could just get a new X-T3 with XF 18-55mm for slightly more cost too but I am tempted by X-T2 as a beginner since it is considerably cheaper especially if I am able to negotiate the price further. Any help on what I should look for when going to have a look at the camera will be greatly appreciated.

lens – APS-C lenses on full frame Mirrorless bodies

Since the adapter moves the lenses further from the sensor, I’d imagine that the coverage of the lens would be larger, and that the adapter or body alters focus to compensate. Is this thinking correct?

No.

The entire point of the EF→RF adapter is to place an EF or EF-S lens at exactly the same distance from the sensor when used with an RF mount camera as the lens is placed when used with an EF mount camera.

The adapter moves the lens away from the camera so that the lens is the same distance away from the sensor as it would be when mounted on a camera for which it is designed. The image circle at the sensor is the same size whether an EF-S lens is used with an APS-C EF mount camera or with an RF mount camera + EF→RF adapter. The EF-S lens will always converge focused light 44mm behind the flange ring.

The design registration distance (sometimes colloquially referred to as the flange focal distance) for EF-S lenses is 44mm. This is the distance from the sensor to the flange on EF mount cameras, including all FF, APS-H, and APS-C models.

EF and EF-S lenses are designed to focus the light they project 44mm behind the lens flange ring.

The design registration distance for RF cameras and lenses is 20mm. This is the distance from the sensor to the flange on all RF mount cameras.

RF lenses are designed to focus the light they project 20mm behind the lens flange ring.

The EF→RF adapter is 24mm thick. When placed on an RF mount camera it provides a flange 44mm in front of the sensor on which an EF or EF-S lens can be mounted. The light projected by the EF-S lens will then come into focus 44mm behind the lens flange, just as it would when the lens is mounted on an EF mount camera.

Your intuition is partly correct, though, in a reverse sort of way. If it were possible to mount the EF-S lens closer than 44mm from the sensor of an RF mount camera, the image circle would be smaller than it would be at 44mm behind the lens’ flange ring. Of course, in such a case if the lens were focused at infinity the sensor would be too close to the lens and the entire image would be too blurry.

To increase the image circle of an EF-S lens larger than the size it is projected onto the sensor of an EF mount camera, the lens would either need to be moved even further forward than the 24mm the EF→RF adapter provides or magnifying optical elements would need to be placed between the lens and the EF→RF adapter. It would be exactly the same as using extension rings or a teleconverter/extender on an EF mount camera, except the extension rings or teleconverter/extender would need to be placed in front of the EF→RF adapter when using an EF-S lens on an RF camera.

I guess it depends upon the specific lens, but does anyone know of a list of EF-S lenses that provide full sensor coverage?

With some zoom lenses the projected image circle enlarges as the lens is zoomed to longer focal lengths. If one uses such an APS-C only zoom lens on a full frame (FF) camera, at the longer focal lengths the image circle might expand enough to fill the FF sensor. There would be no guarantees about how the image quality in the areas that would be larger than an APS-C sensor would hold up as the lens is zoomed, though, since the lens as designed was not intended to use those portions of the enlarge image circle in images created using an APS-C camera.

Though not an APS-C lens, the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4 L Fisheye is a lens that has an expanding image circle as it is zoomed. We’ll use it as an illustration.

  • At 8mm, the entire image circle is enclosed within a FF sensor.
  • At 10mm, the image circle is large enough to cover an APS-C sensor.
  • At 12mm, the image circle is large enough to cover an (now defunct) APS-H sensor.
  • At 15mm the image circle is large enough to cover a FF sensor.

enter image description here

Based on the way the image circle of the EF 8-15mm f/4 L Fisheye works out, one might be able to predict that an EF-S lens without a baffle at the rear (which would crop the expanding part of the image circle by blocking that light from passing through the back of the lens) would need to be zoomed to about 2X the lens’ focal length at its widest angle of view. An 18-55mm lens, for example, may need to be zoomed to about 35mm or longer to expand the image circle enough to cover the FF sensor. Lenses that use a rectilinear, rather than fisheye, projection may or may not follow the same ratio, though.

Any EF-S lens that zooms in this way might be used with a FF camera when zoomed to the longer part of its range of focal lengths. That’s assuming that the camera would allow one to use the camera in FF instead of “crop” mode when an EF-S lens is attached to the EF→RF adapter. When an EF-S lens is adapted to an RF camera, the camera automatically crops the image to APS-C size dimensions in the center of the sensor. I’m not sure if any of the RF mount cameras have a menu item that would allow the user to override that. The menu item that allows for cropping third party APS-C only EF mount lenses¹ may or may not allow for telling the camera to use a Canon EF-S lens in FF mode.

¹ Every third party EF mount APS-C only lens I’ve seen has a standard EF mount, rather than including the extra tab used on Canon EF-S lenses that prevent them from being mounted to Canon FF cameras. The third party APS-C lenses will mount on FF Canon EF cameras, but of course the image circle will not be large enough to cover the full 36mmx24mm sensor. Apparently there is no electronic communication from the third party lens informing the camera that it has a smaller than FF sized image circle.

Adapter to use DSLR lens on Mirrorless cameras

Using native lenses is bound to give you a better experience than with a mount-adapter. Assuming, an adapter that is purely mechanical – as most are – there will be no reduction in image-quality because all these adapters do is create space between the mirrorless mount and the flange distance for the DSLR mount.

Although image-quality is bound to be the same, the adapter has to be well built with tight tolerances or it could affect infinity or close focusing. Most importantly is that most such adapters have no electronics to control the lens, so you have to focus and set aperture manually. The big caveat is that some lenses lack an aperture ring and so it becomes impossible to shoot at anything but one aperture!

The are adapters that feature electronics to control the aperture but you have to check with the particular model what combination of lenses and body is supported. Even though you said Canon/Nikon lens, you will get better functionality with Minolta lenses because Sony makes their own adapters for them and the E-mount was built to supersede the A-mount which Sony acquired from Minolta who had merged with Konica. Note that Sony has 5 such adapters available and only 3 are compatible with full-frame cameras.