<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic M6 II / EF-M mount structural integrity with large lenses in EOS DSLR &amp; Mirrorless Cameras</title>
    <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/M6-II-EF-M-mount-structural-integrity-with-large-lenses/m-p/356840#M79878</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I replaced my 60D with an M6 II a year or two ago.&amp;nbsp; Wanted something smaller that I am more likely to actually carry when hiking etc, but with enough MP for large metal prints.&amp;nbsp; Overall been pretty happy with it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, with the EF adapter, and "large" lenses like 70-300L and (as of today) 100-400L II,&amp;nbsp; the body/adapter do not seem structurally sound.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When picking up the camera with either of those lenses attached, I can see a hairline gap open at the top of the adapter/body interface.&amp;nbsp; This can't be good for image focus, or sealing, or structural longevity...&amp;nbsp; There also seems to be slight rotational slop in the adapter - can rotate it (or the lens in the adapter?) a fraction.&amp;nbsp; It's always been like this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has anyone else noticed this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NOTE - I am *not* complaining about the weight/balance - that's something I knew when I got the body, and am OK with.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:38:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>uksea</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-11-30T23:38:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>M6 II / EF-M mount structural integrity with large lenses</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/M6-II-EF-M-mount-structural-integrity-with-large-lenses/m-p/356840#M79878</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I replaced my 60D with an M6 II a year or two ago.&amp;nbsp; Wanted something smaller that I am more likely to actually carry when hiking etc, but with enough MP for large metal prints.&amp;nbsp; Overall been pretty happy with it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, with the EF adapter, and "large" lenses like 70-300L and (as of today) 100-400L II,&amp;nbsp; the body/adapter do not seem structurally sound.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When picking up the camera with either of those lenses attached, I can see a hairline gap open at the top of the adapter/body interface.&amp;nbsp; This can't be good for image focus, or sealing, or structural longevity...&amp;nbsp; There also seems to be slight rotational slop in the adapter - can rotate it (or the lens in the adapter?) a fraction.&amp;nbsp; It's always been like this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has anyone else noticed this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NOTE - I am *not* complaining about the weight/balance - that's something I knew when I got the body, and am OK with.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:38:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/M6-II-EF-M-mount-structural-integrity-with-large-lenses/m-p/356840#M79878</guid>
      <dc:creator>uksea</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-11-30T23:38:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: M6 II / EF-M mount structural integrity with large lenses</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/M6-II-EF-M-mount-structural-integrity-with-large-lenses/m-p/356846#M79879</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You should never pick up a camera with large lens attached to it by the camera body. &amp;nbsp;Your observation should make the reason for this clear. &amp;nbsp;It creates too much [torque] on the mount. &amp;nbsp;This is true of any camera body, and becomes more acute with the use of a mount adapter.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The EF-M mount adapter can make use of EF mount lens, but I would stick to the smaller, lighter lenses, which do not consume much power. &amp;nbsp;The biggest lens I ever used on my M3 was the Rokinon 14mm T3.1 cinema lens. &amp;nbsp;I tried the EF-S 55-250mm that I had, and immediately realized that this is not going to work very well.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2021 01:05:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/M6-II-EF-M-mount-structural-integrity-with-large-lenses/m-p/356846#M79879</guid>
      <dc:creator>Waddizzle</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-12-02T01:05:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

