MattKing
Moderator
Yes and no.
They will work as cameras. But with some lenses and adapters, the metering system won't give accurate results.
Yes and no.Not with all EOS bodies though, some are incompatible with these adapters.
No doubt there are differences in AF algorithms between the top of the line to the other. With the EOS3, I tried a cheap 2X tele + 70-200mm f2.8 L and it can autofocus just fine but not so with a Rebel I had.
Yes and no.
They will work as cameras. But with some lenses and adapters, the metering system won't give accurate results.
I can sell my FDn 135mm f/2 and buy an EF 135mm f/2L and maybe have a few dollars left over. The price of these FD lenses are crazy high right now.Canon perhaps made many FD mount users angry when they suddenly obsoleted this mount, but they made the right choice.
They can be used on several mirrorless cameras with the right adapter, so FD mount lenses have become much more expensive lately...I can sell my FDn 135mm f/2 and buy an EF 135mm f/2L and maybe have a few dollars left over. The price of these FD lenses are crazy high right now.
Yup. I use mine on my Fuji X-T4. I have a couple of cheap adapters, plus one Metabones focal reducer. Won't be selling any of my FD lenses anytime soon!They can be used on several mirrorless cameras with the right adapter, so FD mount lenses have become much more expensive lately...
I think I jinxed my EOS 3. This weekend, the shutter quit firing mid-roll. Ugh.The T-90 and EOS 3 were notorious for problems with the magnetic shutter release. I was able to buy my EOS 3 for something like US$50 because the owner said it was broken. After banging the camera a few dozen times on my carpeted floor, the shutter started working again. I gave it a lot of exercise by tripping the shutter a few hundred times and since then I have not had the shutter freeze occur.
When mine did this, at least in the beginning, this affected only the high Spears, 1/2000 ans higher IIRCI think I jinxed my EOS 3. This weekend, the shutter quit firing mid-roll. Ugh.
I actually started enthusiastically shooting in the mid '70s with my trusty Kodak X-15 Instamatic
Not right to blame AF for the tiny viewfinders. Blame that on all the information presented within the viewfinder...the focus screen magnification had to shrink in order to make space for the information displayed all around. The Olymput OM-1 had an immense viewfinder magnification while the OM-4 was tiny by comparison, and both where manual focus cameras.For me the tiny viewfinder magnifications of all AF cameras makes focus confirm important. In hundreds of rolls shot with the EOS3, I never once missed critical focus and quickly with my L lenses.
Not right to blame AF for the tiny viewfinders. Blame that on all the information presented within the viewfinder...the focus screen magnification had to shrink in order to make space for the information displayed all around. The Olymput OM-1 had an immense viewfinder magnification while the OM-4 was tiny by comparison, and both where manual focus cameras.
Back to OP topic, I was an Olympus OM system user and I decided to try a Canon EOS camera to see how I liked AF back in the 1990s. I remember that i was not really impressed enough to keep the camera, although admittedly the model that I tried was not middle- or top-of-line, which might have been why I was not impressed enough to stick with upgrading. It took another 10 years, with the digital EOS, before I became a convert.
It's probably fair to point out that when the EOS line of cameras came out a lot of pros (probably the majority of them) ended up switching from Nikon to Canon. I think most of them weren't purists or camera snobs. They just found that Canon helped them to do their job better than their previous gear, so they switched. I think this may have been especially true for sports photographers. When image stabilization came a long it just cemented the change. Correct me if I am wrong.
At the other end of the film SLR world I believe the the Canon Rebel 2000 (under its various names around the world) ended up being selling more 35mm SLR cameras than any 35mm SLR camera model in history, not just among the Canon brand but among all brands. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
They just found that Canon helped them to do their job better than their previous gear, so they switched. I think this may have been especially true for sports photographers. When image stabilization came a long it just cemented the change.
Ok it was also good that the camera bodies were robust in the pro range but IMO it was the Canon lenses, especially the L range, that was the reason for many a professional to change to Canon
Not right to blame AF for the tiny viewfinders. Blame that on all the information presented within the viewfinder...the focus screen magnification had to shrink in order to make space for the information displayed all around. The Olymput OM-1 had an immense viewfinder magnification while the OM-4 was tiny by comparison, and both where manual focus cameras.
I was just making a casual observation and assumed that since all AF cameras have tiny magnification viewfinders that must be because for the most part they rely on the AF to achieve critical focus. From all I have seen, it seems the high magnification manual focus cameras are in the minority. I mean even in the interchangeable viewfinder versions, I've only found one that offered an actual range from low to high.
I have the OM1 - 4 and it is a shame that the 3 & 4 went with smaller VF magnification.
That may be correct. I do know that when I shot professionally with Canon L lens and Sigma, the autofocus with the Canon was super fast and spot on every time. The Sigma was slightly slower and missed the odd time. That to me would suggest the lens motors and not the sensors and chips.I think it was more the sensors and chip set than the micro motors, Sigma uses micro motor driven lens as well
Sigma had two motor technologies: micro motor and hypersonic motor (HSM). Their HSM was on-par with Canon's USM, but not quite as fast. I have a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro with a micro motor and it's loud, slow and occasionally hunts. I also have a few Sigma lenses with HSM and they are near silent, speedy and accurate, especially on mirrorless cameras.I think it was more the sensors and chip set than the micro motors, Sigma uses micro motor driven lens as well...
Sigma had two motor technologies: micro motor and hypersonic motor (HSM). Their HSM was on-par with Canon's USM, but not quite as fast. I have a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro with a micro motor and it's loud, slow and occasionally hunts. I also have a few Sigma lenses with HSM and they are near silent, speedy and accurate, especially on mirrorless cameras.
We know beam splitting in dSLR forced the less-accurate focus screen because the camera manufacturers needed to keep the focus screen brighter. But it certainly was the 'a lot of info' display in the viewfinder which caused the decrease in apparent magnification of the image area in the SLR about 5 decades ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?