rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Here's a link to demonstration of an electronic adapter prototype from NEX mount to Canon EF mount. Basically it looks like they've been reverse-engineering the Sony E-mount protocol and are trying to officially license it, in order to produce adapters to NEX mount for Canon EOS lenses with full autofocus and aperture support.
http://support.conurus.com/viewtopic.php?t=626
Here's a link to the demonstration video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1Nm6ZDWJs
Conurus is the same company that makes the fully-electronic adapters for autofocus Contax N lenses to EOS mount, so I guess they could pull it off.
http://support.conurus.com/viewtopic.php?t=626
Here's a link to the demonstration video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1Nm6ZDWJs
Conurus is the same company that makes the fully-electronic adapters for autofocus Contax N lenses to EOS mount, so I guess they could pull it off.
flip
良かったね！
More options is nice, but I kinda cringe at the idea of a Canon zoom simply dwarfing the Nex. Wouldn't be sure what to hold. :-D
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Can't wait to read the "Goodbye Canon 1Ds Mark III!" posts 
flip
良かったね！
gads
that's quite a canon
that's quite a canon
jarski
Veteran
small NEX battery no doubt will be fine turning those big EOS-IS-AF-zoom motors
dexdog
Veteran
I don't know the rating of the batteries off hand, but the NEX battery is pretty much the same size as the one in my Canon 40D. During vacations when I am taking 300 images per day, the Canon battery lasts for 2-4 days while driving a 17-55 auto-focus zoom. Maybe the NEX battery is capable of similar performance.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
One battery alone, I can take about 800 JPG photos, about 500 RAW with my Canon 50D, about 700 with my M8 and about 1000 with my Lumix GF1.
If I use the 70-200 L f/4 IS, however, (with IS on) that number goes down by a few hundred JPG, but about the same RAW. I'm sure there's a reason, and of course, the reason is not linear.
If I use the 70-200 L f/4 IS, however, (with IS on) that number goes down by a few hundred JPG, but about the same RAW. I'm sure there's a reason, and of course, the reason is not linear.
dexdog
Veteran
Yeah, definately non-linear, with lots of variables. Agree that shooting RAW eats more power. I used to have a Canon powershot that used the same battery as my 40D, and the powershot would drain 1.5 batteries per day in taking 300 or so photos per day.