# Breakthrough Photography announces the all-new EF to RF filter adapter



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 17, 2020)

> September 16, 2020 – San Francisco, California – Breakthrough Filters today introduced an all-new EF to RF filter adapter, making it the first non-Canon EF to RF drop-in filter adapter. The new EF to RF Drop-In Filter Adapter will start shipping on November 16th and is available for pre-order here.
> 
> The all-new EF to RF Drop-In Filter Adapter delivers a number of new hardware improvements including Autofocus, Image Stabilization, full EXIF support, all-metal construction, dust, and water-resistant weather-sealing, and a detachable tripod foot for mounting to ballheads, arca plates and other mounts.
> Breakthrough Filters is selling the new drop-in filter adapter for $199, and the first 500 units ordered will receive an X4 Clear for free.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## marathonman (Sep 17, 2020)

Clearly Canon is *******. Who is now going to pay Canon the $129 for the clear filter?


----------



## Kit. (Sep 17, 2020)

I wonder if it's possible to make an adapter with both a drop-in filter and a control ring/wheel.


----------



## toodamnice (Sep 17, 2020)

Why would someone buy this company's $199 Drop-In Filter Adapter and sell their $299 Canon adapter to this place for $149? Is it that much better?


----------



## degos (Sep 17, 2020)

Buy-back for the basic Canon adapter at $69, genius when they're in short supply and listing for $160+ on eBay.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 17, 2020)

_“*a number of new hardware improvements including Autofocus, Image Stabilization, full EXIF support, all-metal construction, dust, and water-resistant weather-sealing, and a detachable tripod foot for mounting to ballheads”*_

I think the only thing on this list that the Canon does not include is the detachable foot. And I’ll bet the AF works better with the Canon one.


----------



## juststeve (Sep 17, 2020)

As has been stated many times previously, the electrical contacts of the EF-RF adapters are straight pass through. There are no electrical components involved. Autofocus performance will be the same as with the Canon adapters.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 17, 2020)

DBounce said:


> _“*a number of new hardware improvements including Autofocus, Image Stabilization, full EXIF support, all-metal construction, dust, and water-resistant weather-sealing, and a detachable tripod foot for mounting to ballheads”*_
> 
> I think the only thing on this list that the Canon does not include is the detachable foot. And I’ll bet the AF works better with the Canon one.



I could be wrong, but I think these adapters (both Canon and third-party) simply provide the metal contacts to connect lens contacts to body contacts. There is no processing or circuitry in the adapter itself. As long as the contacts touch firmly, AF should be exactly the same, regardless of the adapter maker. I guess it's possible that Canon does have some circuitry to tell the camera that it's made by Canon so that if a third party adapter is attached, the camera dumbs down the AF, but I highly doubt it.

Anyone know for sure?

EDIT: Looks like you answered my question as I was posting it. Thanks, juststeve!


----------



## Famateur (Sep 17, 2020)

So...I'm assuming the clear filter is to close up the adapter for weather/dust sealing when you don't need a polarizing or ND filter. Is there any other use for it? Why do they use clear glass instead of just an empty frame? Or is the glass in the filter part of the weather sealing?

The standard and control ring adapters don't have glass, though, so...what's the deal?

I'd be tempted to remove the glass from the clear filter so I don't have anything that could reduce image quality from the lens...


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 17, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> Why would someone buy this company's $199 Drop-In Filter Adapter and sell their $299 Canon adapter to this place for $149? Is it that much better?


I think that if you're already invested, there is no good reason to do that. Save maybe the tripod foot option. I think the buyback thing is mainly to get people to switch at less of a cost. Once you have it, they're betting you'll buy more filters. 

If you haven't bought one yet, then you can get their version cheaper. And even then get credit for your basic adapter. Then once you have it, you'll probably buy more filters....

-Brian


----------



## Etienne (Sep 17, 2020)

At $200 including the clear drop in it's a very good deal. Less than 40% the price of Canon


----------



## MattMagd (Sep 17, 2020)

Hopefully the filter doesn't randomly fall out like the Canon one does, I was very disappointment in my canon one.


----------



## Atlasman (Sep 17, 2020)

Do these filters fit Canon’s drop-in adapter?


----------



## Kit. (Sep 17, 2020)

Famateur said:


> So...I'm assuming the clear filter is to close up the adapter for weather/dust sealing when you don't need a polarizing or ND filter. Is there any other use for it? Why do they use clear glass instead of just an empty frame? Or is the glass in the filter part of the weather sealing?
> 
> The standard and control ring adapters don't have glass, though, so...what's the deal?
> 
> I'd be tempted to remove the glass from the clear filter so I don't have anything that could reduce image quality from the lens...


Glass is changing the focusing distance (especially for wide-angle lenses). Clear glass is used to change it for the same amount as the actual filter would.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 17, 2020)

Famateur said:


> So...I'm assuming the clear filter is to close up the adapter for weather/dust sealing when you don't need a polarizing or ND filter. Is there any other use for it? Why do they use clear glass instead of just an empty frame? Or is the glass in the filter part of the weather sealing?
> 
> The standard and control ring adapters don't have glass, though, so...what's the deal?
> 
> I'd be tempted to remove the glass from the clear filter so I don't have anything that could reduce image quality from the lens...


I've been looking at the Canon adapter, and the problem is that when you don't want a filter, then there is a big hole to let in light.
I think I'd also prefer a blank filterless holder just for sealing. Whilst having glass reduces focus change, I'd not mind refocusing but YMMV

If anyone's curious, here's a short look at using the adapter with a TS-E17mm. BTW Has anyone actually checked the electrical connection between EF and RF on the basic adapter, since the number of pins is different?


----------



## degos (Sep 17, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Glass is changing the focusing distance (especially for wide-angle lenses). Clear glass is used to change it for the same amount as the actual filter would.



Only for lenses designed with drop-in filters ( like big whites ) in which the filter acts as a dust-cover for the rear lens element.

For other lenses there is no need for a glass filter. In fact you'd be better without one on account of the optical defects it could introduce.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 17, 2020)

degos said:


> Only for lenses designed with drop-in filters ( like big whites ) in which the filter acts as a dust-cover for the rear lens element.
> 
> For other lenses there is no need for a glass filter. In fact you'd be better without one on account of the optical defects it could introduce.



I think it was in an interview with Rudy Winston where he mentioned that the adapter is slightly different from the others to account for the extra glass you're introducing. I wonder if that can actually be measured at home with callipers.


----------



## weixing (Sep 17, 2020)

degos said:


> Only for lenses designed with drop-in filters ( like big whites ) in which the filter acts as a dust-cover for the rear lens element.
> 
> For other lenses there is no need for a glass filter. In fact you'd be better without one on account of the optical defects it could introduce.


The filter is install between the lens rear element and the sensor, so the filter actually change the back focus distance of the lens (if you compare all the EF to EOS R adapter, you'll notice that the Drop-In Filter EF-EOS R adapter is slightly longer), so if you use the Drop-In Filter EF-EOS R adapter, you'll need to insert a clear filter even if you don't need to use any filter. This is also the reason why if you mod your camera to remove the low pass or IR blocking filter of the sensor, you need to replace a clear filter with the same thickness.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 17, 2020)

MattMagd said:


> Hopefully the filter doesn't randomly fall out like the Canon one does, I was very disappointment in my canon one.



for real? yikes

I want an EF to RF adapter and would prefer having options but hte cost + the canon solution needing to have a filter always in made me hesitate... this seems to fit the bill, but haven't heard if its any good.

would love a polarizer and ND.. but wasn't clear how much the adapter itself is, just the filters.


----------



## XL+ (Sep 17, 2020)

I love the idea to own an filtersystem, where I own a lot of different filters. Not different in diameter, but different in function and effect.
The new adapters from canon do offer an polarizer or an ND. So I ordered it. But you need another 100 Euro Filter (clear) to use this adapter as an normal adapter and not only with the polarizer indside. And the clear filter has still not arrived. So an very expensive system for me. (BTW because of this missing clear filtert, another adapter had to be bought). Expensive again. Now I own three adapters - I got the third one as an giveaway.

But my question to breakthrough-photography - that had not be answered by now - is, if I need the breakthrough adapter to use their filters. An shop answered my question and adviced to buy the breakthrough adapter. Not good, as an non-geniune adapter always has the danger not to work like the genuine one from Canon.

BTW: The 200€ polarizer drop-in filter is optically dark and working well, but the wheel is smooth and the postion changes easily. There my older prime 52mm drop in filters for the 600 II and 500 II are better constructed. too bad...


----------



## Fast351 (Sep 17, 2020)

juststeve said:


> As has been stated many times previously, the electrical contacts of the EF-RF adapters are straight pass through. There are no electrical components involved. Autofocus performance will be the same as with the Canon adapters.



On my R6 the adapter shows a firmware version, so I kind of doubt it's just a passthrough. Although mine is a control ring version so maybe that's the difference.


----------



## addola (Sep 17, 2020)

If Breakthrough Photography can work with the RF autofocus, then I don't what's holding back Sigma & Tamron from releasing RF-mount lenses. Samyang/Rokinon already have two RF-mount AF lenses. 

Anyways, I doubt the AF would be as good as the Canon adapter.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 17, 2020)

Atlasman said:


> Do these filters fit Canon’s drop-in adapter?



I believe they should. The filters themselves were announced a few weeks ago. It was posted here and they were to fit the canon adapter at that time. Now they make their own adapter too. 

-Brian


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Sep 17, 2020)

How do we know if we're in the first 500?


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 17, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> Why would someone buy this company's $199 Drop-In Filter Adapter...


Absolutely agree. Canon makes pretty good stuff, right?


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Sep 17, 2020)

Two reasons two buy this, or at least two features it has that the Canon one doesn't, is the tripod mount and the price.

With how light the RF cameras are, it probably makes a lot of sense to have the tripod mount a little further up than at the body itself to help with balance.

The 10-24 and the wider Tilt-shift lenses in particular are pretty heavy, and they didn't come with a tripod collar like the telephoto zooms do.


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Sep 17, 2020)

I wish the outside could be flush with the adapter, the photos of the canon seem to be pretty good. Vs breakthrough


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 18, 2020)

addola said:


> If Breakthrough Photography can work with the RF autofocus, then I don't what's holding back Sigma & Tamron from releasing RF-mount lenses. Samyang/Rokinon already have two RF-mount AF lenses.
> 
> Anyways, I doubt the AF would be as good as the Canon adapter.


The adaptor just passes the signal from the lens thru, it does not autofocus a lens, 

That's a huge difference from building a lens that has to interact with a R camera and autofocus using the proprietary and likely patented signals. If RF signaling needs a encryption decoder , laws make it illegal to break the encrypted code. It seems unlikely that its encrypted because we'd be seeing lots of lawsuits. We know that EF works when passed to the appropriate contacts. There is something on or in the lens electronics that puts the Camera in RF signaling mode. 

We saw a couple of patents for that 3 years ago, it seemed pretty simple like a signal line from the lens going high or a switch on the camera body.


----------



## CvH (Sep 18, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Glass is changing the focusing distance (especially for wide-angle lenses). Clear glass is used to change it for the same amount as the actual filter would.



That doesn’t explain why the basic and control ring adapters don’t have the glass.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 18, 2020)

Chz said:


> That doesn’t explain why the basic and control ring adapters don’t have the glass.


Those two adapters are not designed to take a glass filter, so only air is in the light path. Once glass is in the light path, it has a different refraction index from air, and changes the back focus distance. So the adapter overall lengths are slightly different.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 18, 2020)

addola said:


> If Breakthrough Photography can work with the RF autofocus, then I don't what's holding back Sigma & Tamron from releasing RF-mount lenses. Samyang/Rokinon already have two RF-mount AF lenses.
> 
> Anyways, I doubt the AF would be as good as the Canon adapter.



passing the signal along is pretty straight forward, how to program the signals to do what you want is a whole lot more complex, especially if you have to reverse engineer the code, its a lot of guesswork.


----------



## weixing (Sep 18, 2020)

Chz said:


> That doesn’t explain why the basic and control ring adapters don’t have the glass.


I create a simple diagram to illustrate this. The drop-in filter adapter is actually longer than the non-drop in filter adapter (basic and control ring adapters) to compensate the change of back focus due to the drop-in filter. If you use a drop-in filter without any filter, you might not be able to focus to certain distance... same reason why when you put an extension tube, you can't focus to infinity.


----------



## Atlasman (Sep 18, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I believe they should. The filters themselves were announced a few weeks ago. It was posted here and they were to fit the canon adapter at that time. Now they make their own adapter too.
> 
> -Brian


Thanks Brian. Joseph


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 19, 2020)

I’d love one that’s for FD lenses.


----------



## CvH (Sep 21, 2020)

weixing said:


> I create a simple diagram to illustrate this. The drop-in filter adapter is actually longer than the non-drop in filter adapter (basic and control ring adapters) to compensate the change of back focus due to the drop-in filter. If you use a drop-in filter without any filter, you might not be able to focus to certain distance... same reason why when you put an extension tube, you can't focus to infinity.



Thanks! I thought all the ef-rf adapters are same length.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 21, 2020)

interesting, youtubing suggested a review of ND filters, including Breakthrough and it caught my eye. While it didn't include the drop in adapter filters, it did show the differences between their X2 and X4 line (their website could use some improvements) and looks like their X4 line is pretty serious and good... which they also produce for the adapter.. so that's pretty good, but also pretty expensive .. 

anyways neat video if any are interested


----------



## Robbie_B (Sep 21, 2020)

I was looking for a Canon control ring adapter but they are rarer than hens teeth at the moment. However the Amazon man has just delivered a Viltrox EF-R2 control ring adapter and after an hours playing with it, all appears to be fine set to ISO for now. At £89 from Amazon UK and probably cheaper on eBay definitely worth a punt for the amateur user.


----------



## melgross (Sep 21, 2020)

Famateur said:


> So...I'm assuming the clear filter is to close up the adapter for weather/dust sealing when you don't need a polarizing or ND filter. Is there any other use for it? Why do they use clear glass instead of just an empty frame? Or is the glass in the filter part of the weather sealing?
> 
> The standard and control ring adapters don't have glass, though, so...what's the deal?
> 
> I'd be tempted to remove the glass from the clear filter so I don't have anything that could reduce image quality from the lens...


The glass has likely been computed as part of the lens optics, at least on the part of Canon. Thickness, type of glass, coating, etc.


----------



## melgross (Sep 21, 2020)

A question that always has to be asked about third party adapters, because it has been a problem, is build quality and quality control. Digiloyd has done testing and found that a number of third party adapters for various bodies and lenses are not parallel across the sensor, and some are off in length. It only has to be by a tiny extent to cause a oroblem with today’s high rez sensors. I’d trust Canon’s, but not sure about these.


----------



## melgross (Sep 21, 2020)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Two reasons two buy this, or at least two features it has that the Canon one doesn't, is the tripod mount and the price.
> 
> With how light the RF cameras are, it probably makes a lot of sense to have the tripod mount a little further up than at the body itself to help with balance.
> 
> The 10-24 and the wider Tilt-shift lenses in particular are pretty heavy, and they didn't come with a tripod collar like the telephoto zooms do.


The tripod adapter could be useful with lenses that don’t have one. But I wish people would stop think8ng about bodice for everything. Canon’s are not expensive. Until we see some useful, critical testing on these, I’d tend to be wary. Cheap is often telling us something about that.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 24, 2020)

While I would normally avoid 3rd party adapters and cheap filters, Breakthrough seems to have a very good reputation. Bryan Carnathan gives their regular filters a very high recommendation - and I have seen many such endorsements. I guess we'll have to wait and see regarding his product and the accompanying filters, but Breakthrough does not seem to make cheap, poorly made products. In fact, their circular polarizers and ND filters are VERY expensive.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 14, 2022)

Has anyone actually received an adaptor from them? This is what they are currently advising: 'Yes! The EF to RF adapter is in production and will be manufactured after the PL to RF Mounts. No ETA.'. Perhaps they manufacture once they have a certain number of orders.


----------



## R1-7D (Jan 14, 2022)

OMG. Are people still waiting for these? I ordered in 2020 and, when it seemed apparent that Breakthrough was never going to deliver, I cancelled my order in spring of 2021. If people are still waiting... yikes.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Jan 14, 2022)

I also gave up and cancelled the two filters I had ordered mid 2021. Just looked at their site for both the adapters and drop-in filters. Only one (X4-Clear - likely the easiest to make) now says "In Stock and Shipping" - out of the eighteen varients listed. Whether it really is available is another question that I don't care to explore.


----------

