Someone finally got it right!

[Tesselator]

Judging from my purview of the on-line communities in combination with knowing the sales volume of two adapter venders on the auction sites I would guess that well over 50,000 M4/3 USA users have adapted legacy glass at one time or another. I would put the number actually at two or three times that myself but I'll stick with 50k just to be safe. And that's ONLY the USA users/customers (actually N. America but Canadians never count. ).

Apparently there are a lot of oddballs who own M4/3 cameras.

 

[pellicle]

And my CD walkman is even MORE advanced! Ooops... it costs $50.

If they're really charging $700 for it I bet they sell less than 50 a year and then only for the first year or two.

while I love this little creature and would likely buy one at $200 I know it'll be more. How many walkmans did Sony make? how many years did development feed into the cycle to get that?

its one thing to have the "AF" indicator chips to fake a lens being present, but its quite another to translate control signals on the fly fast

but I hope I'm wrong and you're right

 

[Tesselator]

Well, currently, I'm wrong. They state on their announcement that it will sell for $700. Now my only hope is a feature scaled version for still photographers. And there's been no talk of such a thing that I've come across.

After all, still photogs don't need focus pulling (wired or wireless), we don't need to collimate zooms, we don't even need EXIF data. All that's really needed is iris control. AF and IS would be nice as extras but again, not really needed. So, here's to hoping!

 

[pyro_]

what about using the adaptor from kipon? not as good since it has its own iris rather than using the one in the lens but still beter than nothing.

saw info on it here: http://philipbloom.net/2010/12/17/ne-adaptor-for-using-you-canon-eos-lenses-on-gh1-gh2-af101/

 

[RichA]

Sorry to burst your collective bubbles but it's going to cost about $700. That's a very advanced little ring of electronics there.

Yes, if Novoflex's and those other manual overpriced adapters are $250+, then this thing will be a lot higher. But there really is no other way (thanks Olympus, Panasonic) to get some lens types.

 

[Godfrey]

Judging from my purview of the on-line communities in combination with knowing the sales volume of two adapter venders on the auction sites I would guess that well over 50,000 M4/3 USA users have adapted legacy glass at one time or another. I would put the number actually at two or three times that myself but I'll stick with 50k just to be safe. And that's ONLY the USA users/customers (actually N. America but Canadians never count.).

Apparently there are a lot of oddballs who own M4/3 cameras.

In your imagination, I'm sure there are. Show any legitimate proof of the numbers and I'll give your speculation something more than a laugh.

 

[pellicle]

Show any legitimate proof of the numbers and I'll give your speculation something more than a laugh.

but most days I can use a good laugh ;-)

 

[Godfrey]

but most days I can use a good laugh ;-)

Here's another one:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheV...I/can-we-talk-very-frankly-about-serious.html

 

[photoSmart42]

Judging from my purview of the on-line communities in combination with knowing the sales volume of two adapter venders on the auction sites I would guess that well over 50,000 M4/3 USA users have adapted legacy glass at one time or another. I would put the number actually at two or three times that myself but I'll stick with 50k just to be safe. And that's ONLY the USA users/customers (actually N. America but Canadians never count. ).

Apparently there are a lot of oddballs who own M4/3 cameras.

The only thing you can safely claim is that 100% of people who've adapted lenses to m4/3 systems have adapted lenses to m4/3 systems. Looking at online communities is certainly not in any way a representative sample of the photographic population out there. Some of the most popular m4/3 communities have around 4000 members total, and of those I'd say at most 50% have used adapted lenses. I'd say that's likely the range of users who have adapted lenses on m4/3 systems. 2,000, not 50,000, or 150,000 like you claim.

 

[Riley]

Actually I think the market prospects for an EOS to mFT adapter would be quite good. Going by the numbers the 50 million EOS lenses (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10012901canon50mef.asp) is somewhat stronger in potential than the 4/3rds to micro adapter device which already exists. I see a lot of Canon users out there either contemplating or using micro cameras, so whether the device works for them or not I feel they are still likely to try it. Add to that, the utility of some EOS lenses might be quite worthwhile on their own, consider the 100-400 just for one. Thats 200-800mm EFL for $2300 with adapter.

I think the whole field of conversions is interesting in itself. Previously looked at Contax N to EOS (I already run a Distagon 18/4 on FF), then there were EOS to Sigma SA which were only ever tackled at an amateur level, and which apparently meets 3 requirements,
* the physicality of differences in the mount
* the differences in voltages
* simple re-routing of the wiring to different pinouts between bodies and lenses.

As an item I accept that Birgers adapter is way too expensive, for it is not intrinsically all that more difficult to manufacture than say a 4/3rds to mFT adapter, the hard part is sorting out the wiring and voltages which is a research project that could take a month or so to engineer. However for those that spot the utility of such a device I guess having it confirmed as being within the art of the possible is warming. If one firm can do it, so can another and another.

Where after all no system offers a perfect set of choices, adapters conquer a hurdle for users who may feel locked into one particular system. In the changeable world of an individual photographers growth in the challenging world of photography, having a capacity for hardware choice is no a bad thing, its a good thing.

I'm all for it, and I say bring it on.

 

[ustein]

> the hard part is sorting out the wiring and voltages which is a research project that could take a month or so to engineer.

If it would be simple we would have many choices. This adapter not only controls the aperture but also the focus motor.

 

[Riley]

> the hard part is sorting out the wiring and voltages which is a research project that could take a month or so to engineer.

If it would be simple we would have many choices. This adapter not only controls the aperture but also the focus motor.

and you would probably scrap a lens or two in the process. The good thing is I would expect the circumstances of one lens be true to all others, although IS might be more of a problem but you could leave it disconnected.

Interesting to me that this comes up with micro which not only physically has the space for an adapter, is a more diversified community of users seeking an alternate path. I think if forums were less segregated there would have been more interest in this at the user level.

 

[Photomorgana]

I'm not an expert, but I don't really see a big market for EF to µ4/3 adapter.

There are so many better and lighter option that can go to µ4/3. Tons of legacy Photo glass, plus super Cine lenses. But if you really want to use modern AF glass why not use Zuiko-D? (12-60, 50, 7-14, 35-100mm are super hard to beat)

And for those who have EF glass already, why not use it on your Canon body. Surely extra 400g is not going to "make it or break it".

To me, the main attraction of µ4/3 is its size, so why not stick to Leica-M, Contax-G, Zuiko-Pen, Arriflex, C-mount, etc...

 

[ustein]

>And for those who have EF glass already, why not use it on your Canon body.

Do you see a Canon body that allows pro video like the AF100?

 

[photoSmart42]

>And for those who have EF glass already, why not use it on your Canon body.

Do you see a Canon body that allows pro video like the AF100?

I think we're in agreement that for people who can afford the AF100, the $700 cost of the adapter is not an issue. It's more of an issue with the rest of us considering the use of this adapter on consumer m4/3 systems like the GH series. I think for that price someone would really, really want/need to have this adapter in order to spend that kind of cash on it. As Godfrey pointed out, it's not meant to be a high-volume product at this point.

 

[Riley]

Personally If you had Canon and micro you would be nuts not to check out an adapter. It doesnt have to be anything like as sophisticated as an AG AF100, it might be a GH1 body to an owner of EF lenses with one of their bodies.

Also to micro users what would be the problem checking out something like any one of the fast AF lenses like 50/1.4, 85/1.2 etc etc, Gezus after all theyve tried everything else what would be the difference here ?

 

[Photomorgana]

>And for those who have EF glass already, why not use it on your Canon body.

Do you see a Canon body that allows pro video like the AF100?

No, I don't. I was talking stills, since some people were talking about it. But if you talk pro-video (RED, AF100), I guess this adapter will be useful in limited circles.