Older versus "modern" equipment dilemma

[bjorke]

The upside for Canon was that they had a lensmount system optimized for autofocus.

Also a mount with a wider flange than any other 35mm system, and even THEN a shorter flange distance (lens to film) than Nikon, Leica R, or Contax -- so you can use any of those mounts on an EOS with an adapter... though not FD lenses, which had been made for the very narrow FD Canon bodies.

 

[mcgrattan]

The list of mounts that can be adapted to EOS bodies is long, but, unfortunately, it doesn't include Pentax K-mount lenses. Which is a shame.

 

[Edimilson]

That's another reason why I opted to get an EOS 3. I got an M42 to EOS adapter and Takumar lenses I really like.

 

[Lee Shively]

Here's some more information on adapting lenses to the Canon EF mount:
Dead Link Removed

Here's an FD to EF adapter:
Dead Link Removed

...but, as noted by Flying Camera, there are a lot of limitations involved in using this adapter.

Edimilson, I think you will find the EOS 3 will handle considerably better than the Rebel. Enjoy it!

 

[gr82bart]

<snip> My dilemma is: should I trust my instincts and let go of a "modern" camera like the Rebel Ti and stick to older equipment? <snip> Has anyone here ever been in a situation like this?

What dilemma? Get both.

Regards, Art. (You got GAS?)

 

[Edimilson]

Lee,

Thanks for the links. And I am eager to try the EOS 3!

Gr82bart,

I'm not in a dilemma anymore. I AM going to stick to both. I'll use the EOS 3 in situations in which time for composition will not be a problem. But as this camera doesn't seem apropriate to carry around all the time, I intend to fit my Olympus 2000 with a Zuiko 35-105 so that I'll always have a camera at hand for unexpected opportunities.

All the best!
Edimilson