What is the impact on using EF mount adapters on the M and RP?

Hi, After recently asking about an upgrade to my M5 and Thanks for all who gave advise.

A question came up regarding the effects of using the EF adapter I guess it would be similar on both the M and RP.

What should one take into consideration when using the adapter?

Thanks again speed.

Nothing really.

Some clone adapters have matt black inside to stop/reduce reflections.

But otherwise, it's just electrical connections.

Alan

I notice the weight of the adapter!

Particularly on my otherwise very compact M.  On my M5 it's less noticeable...  But it opens the way to using my stock of EF and EF-S lenses.

speed1268 wrote:

Hi, I was actually meaning IQ and focusing type things with the distance between the sensor and the lens.

Thanks

No difference at all. The IQ is identical to using them on a DSLR with same sensor. So, any EF or EF-S lens on the M6II will have identical IQ to what it would have on the 90D (same sensor). As for AF, I've found that all my EF and EF-S lenses AF better on the M6II than on any DSLR I've used them on.

speed1268 wrote:

Hi, Thanks for that, nice to here from someone with lots of cameras!

The more I look into things perhaps staying with a crop sensor is the way to stay!
Either m6ii or new M5ii when available.

Cheers

It might be controversial - but I use a speedbooster.

You get the best of both worlds and it lets you carry less lenses.

Use with the M adaptor to get aps-c crop when you need reach - such as getting a 300mm lens to 480mm.

Speedboost when you need wide or more speed. Mount my 17-40mm f4 Canon L and it becomes a 19-45mm lens at f2.8.

(The DOF doesn't change, but the exposure is 1 stop faster).

I use the Viltrox at the minute, which has some poor corner sharpness wide open, but I will buy the metabones once it gets to a decent price 2nd hand.

Reviews and some pixel peeping indicates there is practically no loss of sharpness on the MB speedbooster.

This will give me a small full frame camera with reach from 19mm all the way to 480mm (and I use a TC, so I get to 672mm) with 2 lenses.

I also carry a nifty fifty, which is practically full frame 50mm (56) on the booster, but now lets in f1.4 worth of light.

I find the M system with a Speedbooster gives access to a phenomenal ecosystem of using top grade Canon glass. Once the R system comes down in price as well, there's an upgrade path on to R as well, for the sake of a £50 adapter.

If you want thin and light as well, the Canon M kit lens (18-55) is a good enough boring kit lens and there is a decent 300mm small zoom (but that's not enough for me )

A bunch of people have said this already, but I want to highlight the weight and size difference with an adapter. For me it's significant on the M100. It's a tiny camera, so the adapter is a significant portion of its total weight. Maybe less noticeable on an RP or larger M camera, but for me my enthusiasm in using an adapted lens is lower.

In all other respects my cheap $40 adapter has performed as well as a native lens.

We've heard a lot of bad things about adapters ad failing AF, and I still hear those but it comes from peoples that use cross brand adaptors like EF glass on Sony bodies,

Canon is not stupid, EF and Ef-S lenses work like native lenses on EOS M bodies,

Now we still hear about weight... The adapter is a high precision tube with contacts, the lightest lens there is is still heavier than the adapter, may be not the all plastic 50mm about the same weight and body plus adapter is still lighter than DSLR

The only impact would be that you use lenses designed for bodies with quite larger grip than the EOS M bodies so you need to adapt the way you carry the camera and hold lenses you would not hold on a DSLR

If this is an issue you can get a larger grip,