Tell us WHY you shoot adapted!

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,019
Lots of reasons!

Good question and so many reasons already supplied.

I have to add a few more:

I did not adapt.   But my history was 100%  film slr and PK mount then the 100% wonder of Canon AF and EOS EF lenses.  Not a heavy investment by later standards but my PK lenses were shelved when I went EF (a waste?).

So when digital became  the obvious future - where should the careful Scot go?  Of course Canon dslr made use of EF lenses and therefore they would not be wasted. But my first truly great, expensive, lens was bought for my dslr  adventure with Canon. I rarely used my existing entry level EF mount lenses afterwards.

Naively thinking that the dslr was the camera of the future invested heavily in EF lenses.

Then it  became apparent that Canon were going to make the most out of staying with (milking?) “dslr” until the market dried up.  This was well after it had become obvious that the dslr was not going to be “forever”.

I had an adventure with the Ricoh GXR with its mount module. At this point there were few adapters available for Leica M mount and none whatsoever for EF.

But adapters for LM quickly arrived which was almost surprising to me as the very niche GXR seems to have driven it.  At the time  Leica was still very much MF and I suppose that if you were going to use a lens on a Leica body it would be best if it was Leica-RF-aware.

But the GXR-M changed all that as it had an extremely good version of focus peaking.  It was also a MF-only camera body, but digital, and designed from the ground up for MF use only. (Oh …. that it had had a built in evf!).

I liked the freedom that the GXR-M gave me to use lenses from a wide variety of legacy MF sources.  The tied-in nature of the EF mount chafed - especially when I had such a large investment in these lenses and I had become out of love with further investment in the dslr body type which was obviously going to die sooner or later.

The Metabones released  their EF-E/FE electronic adapter and suddenly there was an alternative host for my EF lens collection.  Pity that the first A7R was so awkward to use. The shutter was so noisy (I knew it was bad before I bought it but failed to recognise that it was designed to wake the dead). It also was a very poor performer in low light and its then Sony  CDAF was so hopeless that even years later with many firmware updates the Metabones adapters still struggled with it despite the great advanced made with EF-M4/3 adapters and later series A7 bodies that used PDAF.  It wasn’t “just CDAF” it was “Sony-CDAF” as Panasonic CDAF was quite acceptable for EF-M4/3 adaption.

So I simply kept my ageing Canon 5D for years and years for special shoots and my Ricoh GXR (with only legacy MF lenses) for my pleasure in mastering many old lenses.

I vowed not to get myself tangled up with locked in mount systems ever again.

Adapting lenses doesn’t (or shouldn’t) tie the user into whatever camera body types a manufacturer chooses to offer their devoted customers.

The EF mount has now become the interchangeable electronic mount system of choice. My legacy MF lenses can be used on most current mount systems - I can swap around the new breeds of mount systems should I choose to do so.

I did break my vow and bought oem M4/3 mount lenses - but basically because the M4/3 mount system offers a very wide range of camera body sizes and styles.  From the tiny GM5 right through to the quite massive E-M1x.

What did Canon offer to its EF customers?  All sorts and sizes and price brackets (within reason) of the dslr body type (only) … What have they since done? - switched their mount to RF and now offer faux-dslr bodies and a nice new range of lenses to replace your EF lenses with. In the meantime  … yes, you can adapt your EF lenses to RF.  But so can I even if my main shutter squeeze is M4/3.  The door has not been shut.  I could even “do” EF-M should I choose.

But if I buy RF lenses, or Nikon Z, or L-Mount, …. Or whatever new mount system I will be back where I started - stuck with one mount system and whatever type of camera bodies that manufacturer chooses to make.

M4/3 gets a waiver - I suppose it is because I can make my kit compact with a GM5 camera body, even mount an EF lens on it ….   Or use their impressive G9 with their wonderful oem Panasonic 200/2.8 - with or without a 2x teleconverter.   I even bought several Sigma DC (aps-c) lenses in EF mount  for use expressly adapted on M4/3 without without focal reduction.

I can use 99% of a very large collection of lenses on M4/3 mount which to my way of thinking is a good way of providing a wide interest in mastering a collection of lenses and an object lesson in not getting locked into one new mount system where the manufacturer wishes to keep churning out much the same sort of camera body with continual makeovers.

I am more into testing my skills to get the best out of whatever lens I might be using rather than looking for the nth degree capability in lens quality. Nevertheless I did not stint myself with EF or M4/3 mount lenses even though my Legacy MF lenses are more like what the cat dragged in - nevertheless I get a lot of fun out of using any adapted lens. The enjoyment is as much the process on making the image rather than the end-result image itself.

Digital gives me that - test a “new” legacy lens to see what it does, check the result, and then try to make it better, repeat …..  Wonderful.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow