I recently decided to make the switch from a Canon DSLR to a Canon R mirrorless. It was easy to learn since I'm already used to Canons. I bought the EF to RF adapter (with the adjustable ring) so I could use my DSLR lenses with it. My only complaint is that Canon should give you the adapter free (they used to!) when you buy the camera. So far, it's taking good photos, and I decided to buy the kit lens that goes with the camera, so I can use it for all-around use when I'm out and about. I have a very nice Sigma macro lens that I bought at the same time, which needs the EF to RF adapter, but it takes very nice macros on this camera. I'm glad I bought it.

I got this for my Sony A6500 camera and it was very sturdy. The only thing I would advise to anyone who wants to use Big lenses is to size up to the bigger one. this one is comfortable for up to a 50mm lens I would say. Great product

So you finally decided on getting the EOS M (it's flaws considered). I assume you are a canon user, have a couple of good (canon EF/EF-S mount) lens lying around and would like to be able to use those on you EOS M. Just like me, you love your canon dslr but sometimes wish you can travel light but still be able to enjoy the canon ecosystem that you have grown to love. If you are what I assume you are, get this lens adapter.I took a gamble and bought a "like-new" used from a seller at Amazon and was very happy with a purchase. For anything more than $150 I probably would think twice. But I am not taking a start out because of the price. This adapter handles every canon mount lens I threw at it. The build quality is nice. The design (the way it attaches to the eos m; the included, detachable tripod mount) is well thought of... just perfect.

Canon EOS M Mount adapter is a must have for all Canon EOS M users if they have other Canon EF and EF-S lenses. The construction is solid and heavy. I used several Canon EF-S and EF lenses and they work fine with the adapter. Highly recommended.

I have a Canon EF to EOS R adapter for an EOS RP camera and I bought this adapter to reduce the swapping. From what I can see it works as well as the Canon one. I tested it on a 17-40 F4L and on a Sigma 100-400 5-6.3 C and I saw no difference. So I'm very happy with it.

My experience with Canon has been with the T3i, T6, 7dmk2 and 6dmk2. Each of these cameras were good in their own ways, but were not perfect. IQ was my biggest complaint, especially in low light.The R6 definitely has better IQ than these previous cameras and performs much better under low light conditions. The eye focus feature is helpful but takes some practice to learn. The images I get with my R6 compared to my 6dmk2 are noticeably sharper and show better tones overall.I am currently using only EF lenses on my R6 thanks to Canon's brilliant adapter! All my EF lenses work flawlessly on my E6 thanks to Canon's adapter. I'm waiting for Canon to release more primes in the near future to keep my R6 kit lightweight.As for the negatives, I'm not a fan of electronic viewfinders. Nothing beats the optical viewfinders of Canon's older dslr's. Also, a top lcd display would have been nice, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.Overall, I highly recommend the R6, especially if you own multiple EF lenses (just remember to purchase the adapter).

A few years ago, Peng-Toh and I were talking about mirrorless cameras. At that time, I'd spent some time with the EPL-1. The EPL-1 did a good job of pretending to be a good camera: shutter speeds were fast, and previewed images looked sharp and beautiful. But once you imported the images into Lightroom, the results were ugly: you quickly discovered that most of the time, the focus was off, and while the images were sometimes usable, they were never ones you were proud to share. Even photos from point and shoots such as the S90 were better. The consensus between Peng-Toh and I was that Canon would enter the mirrorless market, and do it right.Canon did enter the mirrorless market a few years ago, in the form of the EOS M, but it did everything wrong. Apparently, auto-focus was awful, so much so that I didn't even consider the camera. Peng-Toh did buy one, but he was disappointed. The one thing that Canon did right, apparently, was that the image quality was superb, but that was apparently insufficient to overcome all the other flaws.Canon had an EOS M3 sale during the holidays (and it's still running today). At $430, it's not cheap (though in the same ballpark as say, the Sony A6000), but online reviews indicated that Canon had solved the autofocus issues with the camera. The photo community seems to think that Canon isn't serious about mirrorless, and to some extent they're right: there are only 4 dedicated EFM lenses, and the M3 doesn't sport any high end features such as in-body image-stabilization, and Canon doesn't have any full frame mirrorless cameras like Sony.Pit against that, however, is that for any long lens work, you might as well stick the full frame EF lenses on the camera. Sure, the lens is huge compared to the camera, and you could have shaved a couple of hundred grams off the lens if you weren't carrying so much glass, but when you have a long lens that weight difference is really lost in the noise. Furthermore, those full frame mirrorless Sony cameras are very expensive, and when you come down to the same price level of the EOS M3, you get cameras like the Sony A6000. Even a cursory glance at the sample images comparing the EOS M3 to the A6000 using the kit lens easily reveals that the combination of a Canon lens and the EOS M3 utterly destroys the Sony equivalent as far as image quality. And if you're knowledgeable, you won't be shooting with the kit lens!With that in mind, I took the plunge and got the EOS M3 for my wife on her birthday. Along with the body, I purchased the EF-M 22/f2 and the EOS M mount adapter. We also bought and returned the EFM 18-55mm zoom. The zoom was surprisingly nice, but it had a strange color cast that I didn't find appealing.When building a new system, my philosophy is where possible build it around primes that provide roughly a doubling of focal length. So paired with the EFM-22, I got out my ancient EF 50mm/1.8. The two lenses yield a full-frame equivalent of a 35mm lens and an 80mm lens, which nicely covers the "normal" range, with the 80mm providing a great portrait lens. The 50mm together with the EF mount weigh just 80g more than the zoom, but provide a 1.8 maximum aperture which lets you isolate a subject in its surroundings. If Canon had made a wide angle prime EF-M lens, I would have bought it as well, since that's what's missing.When the camera arrived, I was impressed by how small it was, especially with the 22mm prime attached. It was tiny, just a bit bigger than the Sony RX100. But what blew me away was that my wife tried the camera, and then declared that she wasn't going to shoot with just her phone again. The biggest feature for her was the NFC wireless transmittal of photos from the camera to her smartphone. She'd always hated having to use lightroom to extract photos from a camera: by contrast, photos that go into her smartphone are immediately available for sharing and posting onto social networks. And the quality difference was obvious: this clearly is a DSLR in a point and shoot body.The nice thing about the EOS M3 if you're already a Canon user is that all your existing accessories work with it. My flashes and my collection of EF lenses were immediately compatible. When you put that together with high quality primes, it blew away anything produced by anyone who owns a crappy 18-200mm zoom instead of a decent lens. To put it all together, we went to a physical store and picked up a Think Tank Mirroless Mover 25i (after trying a bunch of other bags). It fit a flash, a mini tripod, the charger, and various other accouterments for serious shooting. In practice, Xiaoqin mostly carried it around with just the 22mm/f2 attached. With a 24MP image output, even severe cropping still grants usable photo quality.In practice, the camera produces superlative images. Low light performance is impressive:The biggest flaw in the camera is that shot-to-shot times are slow in one-shot mode, and the 50mm tends to hunt a bit. (An upgrade to the latest and greatest 50mm STM would probably solve this problem) But by far the biggest benefit is that the camera's much likely to be traveled with than my ancient EOS 5D2. That alone made my wife decide to keep the camera instead of sending it back to Amazon.Since I'm not the primary user of this camera, don't expect any long term reviews from me. But if you're a Canon user looking for a travel setup (especially if you're a landscape person who needs a camera for backcountry camping or cycling), I won't hesitate to recommend this to you. The image quality is superb, it's small and light (it's smaller than even the G series of point and shoots), and a landscape shooter won't have any issues whatsoever with the shot-to-shot times. Canon might not have "done it right" yet, but for someone who's got 2 kids and would like to travel with a serious camera that's nevertheless still light enough to bring on a trip, the M3 is an great alternative to the DSLR and produces far better photos than even the Sony RX100.Recommended.

Adapter works great, it lets me attach my EF and EF-S lenses to my Canon EOS M without any issues.