Do lens adapters reduce quality?

[PIlllIE]

I'm looking into getting a new camera soon, since I've had to borrow cameras from my school/friends for a while now and I've been getting into a lot more photography and videography. I'm pretty much set on the Sony a6000, since I've weighed all that I want to use it for and it seems like its my best option, but getting it and lenses would be very expensive. I do, however, have a lot of lenses for my old Canon TX that I got from my grandmother, and they're all in great condition and work well, and much of them would be very costly to replace and just wouldn't be cost effective to do (Like the Telescope lens and the Fisheye). I realize I won't have autofocus and things like that, but will I still be able to take good pictures with these until I work up enough money to get lenses designed for the a6000?

[ALwin]

The ones without any optical elements do not affect any quality.  The ones with optical correction elements affect the quality depending on the quality of the corrective element.

 

Aside from that, if the adapter is not precisely machined, it can affect whether the lens can correctly focus to infinity or not.

[PIlllIE]

Okay, thank you!

[ALwin]

Just now, PIlllIE said:

Okay, thank you!

The A6000 uses Sony E-mount which has one of the shortest flange distances, so Canon lenses can be mounted with an adapter without corrective elements inside.  Unless you want a speedbooster...

[PIlllIE]

4 minutes ago, ALwin said:

The A6000 uses Sony E-mount which has one of the shortest flange distances, so Canon lenses can be mounted with an adapter without corrective elements inside.  Unless you want a speedbooster...

Speedboosters are way out of my price range sadly, being a full time student. Maybe some day

[ALwin]

20 minutes ago, PIlllIE said:

Speedboosters are way out of my price range sadly, being a full time student. Maybe some day

You can buy non-electronic telecompressors for your Canon lenses to the A6000 mount.  They should be cheaper, however I can't guarantee the quality of the optical element the manufacturers use.

 

Here's an example:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1072740-REG/mitakon_mtktlm2fd2se_lens_turbo_mk2_for.html

[cc143]

I was looking at adapters for FD lenses a couple of days ago for my a6000, I could find some for under £10! From what I gather though, its basically a metal tube with an FD mount on one end and an E mount on the other. 

 

However, I wouldn't use that for anything other than a prime or maybe a portrait zoom lens. That being said, there is very cheap glass out there, I'm sure more so even if you are in the US. 

 

If you are going to go that route, this site I found may prove useful. http://cameraplex.com/list-every-canon-fd-lens-ever-made/

 

What I would advise caution on however is that sony lenses are very expensive, and frankly I don't like them that much for what they offer, sure their £2000 offerings can be very good, and are collaborated with zeiss, but for half the money you could get the same lens as Canon L, and I'm sure Nikon wouldn't be that off either. The canon EF24-70mm f2.8L is £1450 for example (new) while the sony equivalent is at £1999, and that's not taking the used market into consideration. 

 

Bottom line is, you are most probably going to need one native all purpose lens, so think about that before you go with the a6000, or any sony for that matter. On a side note, I was looking through amazon UK and found an a7ii for 650 quid used, while the a6000 is currently at £500, might be worth a look. 

[xQubeZx]

A normal adapter for canon mount lenses (without any af support) will cost you around 10-20 bucks on Amazon without affecting image quality. (since there is no glass just an extension tube pretty much.)

[PIlllIE]

10 hours ago, cc143 said:

I was looking at adapters for FD lenses a couple of days ago for my a6000, I could find some for under £10! From what I gather though, its basically a metal tube with an FD mount on one end and an E mount on the other. 

 

However, I wouldn't use that for anything other than a prime or maybe a portrait zoom lens. That being said, there is very cheap glass out there, I'm sure more so even if you are in the US. 

 

If you are going to go that route, this site I found may prove useful. http://cameraplex.com/list-every-canon-fd-lens-ever-made/

 

What I would advise caution on however is that sony lenses are very expensive, and frankly I don't like them that much for what they offer, sure their £2000 offerings can be very good, and are collaborated with zeiss, but for half the money you could get the same lens as Canon L, and I'm sure Nikon wouldn't be that off either. The canon EF24-70mm f2.8L is £1450 for example (new) while the sony equivalent is at £1999, and that's not taking the used market into consideration. 

 

Bottom line is, you are most probably going to need one native all purpose lens, so think about that before you go with the a6000, or any sony for that matter. On a side note, I was looking through amazon UK and found an a7ii for 650 quid used, while the a6000 is currently at £500, might be worth a look. 

Do you have any suggestions for other mirrorless cameras in that similar price range? The a6000 seemed like my best bet in that price range but I am certainly open to other suggestions.

EDIT: I should probably mention that I want something mirrorless because this is something I'm going to take with me literally everywhere, and I find full fat DSLR's rather cumbersome, especially while hiking and things like that, and I'd really like something that can do both photo and video well, and the 11 fps picture capture and fast autofocus are big draws (I know I won't get the autofocus with the FD lenses, but for the all purpose this will be useful, since I do sports photography for my school's journalism club sometimes.)
 

Edited September 4, 2016 by PIlllIE
clarifying what I need the camera for

[cc143]

Just now, PIlllIE said:

Do you have any suggestions for other mirrorless cameras in that similar price range? The a6000 seemed like my best bet in that price range but I am certainly open to other suggestions.

I understand the a6000, and in general the sony range are very well regarded in the category of mirrorless cameras, the only viable alternative in my opinion would be dslr. 

 

To be honest, had the Eos M3 had an evf, I would probably pick that up instead, but that's because there is a native canon EF-M to EF adapter, and I would love to use my glass effectively, I prefer that than just trying to buy lenses for both systems, I would ideally have 5 lenses, and I am quite easy to satisfy even, but they are expensive lenses, buying them twice is not really an option, and the metabones adapter is just too expensive, and if the only advantage of mirrorless over DSLR is size, how is it better if I attach the same lens with an adapter to it... 

[PIlllIE]

10 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I understand the a6000, and in general the sony range are very well regarded in the category of mirrorless cameras, the only viable alternative in my opinion would be dslr. 

 

To be honest, had the Eos M3 had an evf, I would probably pick that up instead, but that's because there is a native canon EF-M to EF adapter, and I would love to use my glass effectively, I prefer that than just trying to buy lenses for both systems, I would ideally have 5 lenses, and I am quite easy to satisfy even, but they are expensive lenses, buying them twice is not really an option, and the metabones adapter is just too expensive, and if the only advantage of mirrorless over DSLR is size, how is it better if I attach the same lens with an adapter to it... 

Yeah the lack of an EVF is a pretty big factor for me. I've never liked using rear displays for photos and living in florida theres almost always too much glare to use it anyways, so viewfinder is essentially a must. 

[cc143]

2 minutes ago, PIlllIE said:

Yeah the lack of an EVF is a pretty big factor for me. I've never liked using rear displays for photos and living in florida theres almost always too much glare to use it anyways, so viewfinder is essentially a must. 

If size isn't an issue, whyu don't you consider a DSLR? you should be able to get something like a 700D with similar money as the a6000, and I believe there are EF tro FD adapters available, at least that way you are investing in the canon ecosystem which is bigger and cheaper, especially in the used market. 

[PIlllIE]

Just now, cc143 said:

If size isn't an issue, whyu don't you consider a DSLR? you should be able to get something like a 700D with similar money as the a6000, and I believe there are EF tro FD adapters available, at least that way you are investing in the canon ecosystem which is bigger and cheaper, especially in the used market. 

Size is definitely an issue. I need a camera thats going to be going with me virtually everywhere, and I find that DSLR's are a bit too bulky and cumbersome, especially when doing things like hiking.

[cc143]

Just now, PIlllIE said:

Size is definitely an issue. I need a camera thats going to be going with me virtually everywhere, and I find that DSLR's are a bit too bulky and cumbersome, especially when doing things like hiking.

I never had an issue with my dslr while hiking, I prefer it even, they are not as cumbersome as you think, they are much more ergonomic than mirrorless, and the a6000 gets tiring after a while because its so small. 

 

If you are gonna need it on overnight hikes or even carry it around all day, keep in mind battery life is awful on mirrorless, I have 3 batteries for my a6000, and I am sure they wouldn't last me a full hike, dslr's are also more durable and more weatherproof. 

 

Still, if size is such an issue you'd be hard pressed to find something better than the a6000.