No wonder Sony did not bother...

Started 1 month ago | Discussions
Paniolo M Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
1

Jonneymendoza2 wrote:

Yup I have and it blows the canikon

You’ve shot fast moving objects and under artificial light with electronic shutter and it’s better than “canikon”.

I see.

 Paniolo M's gear list:Paniolo M's gear list
Sony a7R IV Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,185
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
7

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

My contention is that they are only working on those lenses for Sony FE. When- and it's definitely a matter of when, not if- they crack the RF/Z protocols, those 1.2 primes will be made for those mounts as well.

But until now E-mount is the most profitable area for Sigma.

Did they say that?

If F/1.2 lenses aren't your concern why bring them up?

Just curiosity why you are so raving about if yourself no plan to acquire them any time soon

The same reason you brought up Sigma lenses you have no need for

But Sigma and Sony will answer the challenge and will deliver those fast f1.2 portrait lenses on E-mount, no doubt about. Sigma just delivers FE 35/1.2 Art and reasonably believe they are working on 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 Art. We all hope they succeed, right?

Sure.

Until then you can get Sigma FE 35/1.2 Art at $1500 and will have discount a few months later. How much for RF 35/1.2L? Oh, only in rumor and guess will be very expensive

Yes, first party lenses cost more than third party versions. This is nothing new. And the RF 35/1.2L is just as imaginary as the Sigma 50/85 1.2 ARTs you brought up. Funny how it's only wrong when someone elsedoes it

You can get Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 at $1100 while EF 24-70L/2.8 IS costs whopping $2300, more than double

Or I can adapt EF mount 2.8 zooms and get full functionality and almost full performance

For example right now I have an old Tamron 24-70 G1 for sale on Ebay. I'll be happy to get $400 for it............. but it's every bit as sharp as the Sony GM 2.8 standard And with the nice human hand sized grip the extra 100-150 or so grams are no big deal. My R with a 70-200 2.8 is more comfortable than my A7R2 was with lenses half as heavy.

so I "believe" it is only a matter of time before all FF MILCs have access to those lenses. Sigma makes glass for EF-M and even made glass for Pentax and Sony A mount for Christ's sakes.... there's no way they are stopping at Sony and L mount.

It's difficult that Canon and Nikon have either authorized Sigma and Tamron to work on RF and Z mount lenses, or Sigma has to take time and effort to reverse-engineer the mount that no guaranteed in future compatibility as happened to EF and F mounts. It will take while for Sigma to port Art lenses to RF and Z mounts.

But at least Sigma offers alternative to OEM lenses, as good as but much cheaper.

It's a challenge but I think they can do it. For RF mount, at the absolute worst they can just launch them with the adapted EF protocol, then update to the full RF protocol later. But think they want to get everything 100% out of the gate.

Lots of wishful thinking. Adapted lenses never an ideal solution but only temporary otherwise never can match native lens AF-C tracking performance including eye-AF.

Maybe in Sony land........................

I've had my R for a few months and have used it with native and adapted glass. There's very little difference in AF performance. If there are any limitations it's on the lens (i.e. the old FE 50 1.8 style AF motors aren't as fast or quiet). But with 9 new lenses per year, and Canon's consistently high level of optical and manufacturing quality, adapter limitations will soon be a worry of the past, while Sony FE users looking for a decent 24-xx lens still have to shell out four figures, nearly 7 years into the system. When it comes to lens selection, quantity <> quality

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,606
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
4

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

My contention is that they are only working on those lenses for Sony FE. When- and it's definitely a matter of when, not if- they crack the RF/Z protocols, those 1.2 primes will be made for those mounts as well.

But until now E-mount is the most profitable area for Sigma.

Did they say that?

Of course, how long E-mount existed and what Sony ML market share compared to EOS R and Z mounts? No doubt.

If F/1.2 lenses aren't your concern why bring them up?

Just curiosity why you are so raving about if yourself no plan to acquire them any time soon

The same reason you brought up Sigma lenses you have no need for

On your logic. I could easily invest into Sigma fast portrait lenses if that is really important. But instead I invested into fast Voigtlander CV prime lenses as more important to me, and also they can take portrait photos.

But Sigma and Sony will answer the challenge and will deliver those fast f1.2 portrait lenses on E-mount, no doubt about. Sigma just delivers FE 35/1.2 Art and reasonably believe they are working on 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 Art. We all hope they succeed, right?

Sure.

Sure don't play zero-sum game. We all hope they succeed.

Until then you can get Sigma FE 35/1.2 Art at $1500 and will have discount a few months later. How much for RF 35/1.2L? Oh, only in rumor and guess will be very expensive

Yes, first party lenses cost more than third party versions. This is nothing new. And the RF 35/1.2L is just as imaginary as the Sigma 50/85 1.2 ARTs you brought up. Funny how it's only wrong when someone elsedoes it

Sigma Art lenses are as good as OEM lenses but much cheaper.

You can get Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 at $1100 while EF 24-70L/2.8 IS costs whopping $2300, more than double

Or I can adapt EF mount 2.8 zooms and get full functionality and almost full performance

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

For example right now I have an old Tamron 24-70 G1 for sale on Ebay. I'll be happy to get $400 for it............. but it's every bit as sharp as the Sony GM 2.8 standard

LOL, your expectation is very low. No way.

And with the nice human hand sized grip the extra 100-150 or so grams are no big deal. My R with a 70-200 2.8 is more comfortable than my A7R2 was with lenses half as heavy.

Not my experience. My A9+vertical grip is more comfortable than my 1D III which has the same shape/size/weight as 1Dx II or D5.

so I "believe" it is only a matter of time before all FF MILCs have access to those lenses. Sigma makes glass for EF-M and even made glass for Pentax and Sony A mount for Christ's sakes.... there's no way they are stopping at Sony and L mount.

It's difficult that Canon and Nikon have either authorized Sigma and Tamron to work on RF and Z mount lenses, or Sigma has to take time and effort to reverse-engineer the mount that no guaranteed in future compatibility as happened to EF and F mounts. It will take while for Sigma to port Art lenses to RF and Z mounts.

But at least Sigma offers alternative to OEM lenses, as good as but much cheaper.

It's a challenge but I think they can do it. For RF mount, at the absolute worst they can just launch them with the adapted EF protocol, then update to the full RF protocol later. But think they want to get everything 100% out of the gate.

Lots of wishful thinking. Adapted lenses never an ideal solution but only temporary otherwise never can match native lens AF-C tracking performance including eye-AF.

Maybe in Sony land........................

LOL, you never experience so you don't know. Show me any adapted Canon EF lenses could have such performance? By adapting EF 135L/2.0? 135 GM blows 135L outs of water. I have this setup now, blazing fast. I'd wait to see if 135L adapted on R5 can shoot 20fps in such eye-AF performance?

FE 135 GM @f1.8 wide open sharpness on 61mp A7r IV, hand-held, likely at least as sharp as if not sharper than 135L @f2.8

I've had my R for a few months and have used it with native and adapted glass. There's very little difference in AF performance.

Right, until you shoot sports and wildlife. All reviews said Sony real-time AF-C is quite better than Canon and Nikon ML's AF tracking.

If there are any limitations it's on the lens (i.e. the old FE 50 1.8 style AF motors aren't as fast or quiet). But with 9 new lenses per year, and Canon's consistently high level of optical and manufacturing quality, adapter limitations will soon be a worry of the past,

Heard RF 70-200L has front focus and needs FW update

while Sony FE users looking for a decent 24-xx lens still have to shell out four figures, nearly 7 years into the system. When it comes to lens selection, quantity <> quality

How much for RF 24-70L IS? $2300, cheaper than Sony GM? While now you can get excellent Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 Art at $1100, less than half of Canon RF. But you don't own this RF zoom either, right? So don't understand why you're so excited

All my Sony lenses, Zeiss, Tamron and Voigtlander collected at this moment have excellent optical quality, world class in respective area.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +18 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,185
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

SQLGuy wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

They are definitely working on L too. L is the "priority", but I see that being about as viable as the last Sigma mount. They are going to push those lens designs to every mount they can sell to.

Really? Between Leica and Panasonic you don't see L doing any better than SA? Seems like Panasonic is already doing pretty well with their S1 lineup.

When I think of Sony, Nikon and Canon FF MILC customers, I can paint a very clear picture of each. Outside of video pros getting the S1H, who is the L-consortium customer? I don't think any of the cameras are great at AF-C, which rule them all out for sports/wildlife and even just general family stuff. There are several MILCs and DSLRs that are cheaper (and in many cases lighter) for landscapes. The Leica stuff has all of the cost but none of the M-mount cool. And even for video, you're kind of limited to manual focus for the Panasonic bodies due to DFD. So who is the L-mount customer? Seems like its appeal is limited to contrarians.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,185
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
5

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Did they say that?

Of course, how long E-mount existed and what Sony ML market share compared to EOS R and Z mounts? No doubt.

Can you post a link?

On your logic. I could easily invest into Sigma fast portrait lenses if that is really important. But instead I invested into fast Voigtlander CV prime lenses as more important to me, and also they can take portrait photos.

My point is you asked why I'm discussing 1.2 glass if I don't use it. Again, probably for the same reasons you do

Sure.

Sure don't play zero-sum game. We all hope they succeed.

Of course. You just hope Canon doesn't succeed as much or more than Sony

You can get Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 at $1100 while EF 24-70L/2.8 IS costs whopping $2300, more than double

Or I can adapt EF mount 2.8 zooms and get full functionality and almost full performance

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

For example right now I have an old Tamron 24-70 G1 for sale on Ebay. I'll be happy to get $400 for it............. but it's every bit as sharp as the Sony GM 2.8 standard

LOL, your expectation is very low. No way.

Easy layup... here you go (the G2 is actually softer than my G1 but both are easily within range or even BETTER than the GM)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1105&Camera=1106&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1144&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

And with the nice human hand sized grip the extra 100-150 or so grams are no big deal. My R with a 70-200 2.8 is more comfortable than my A7R2 was with lenses half as heavy.

Not my experience. My A9+vertical grip is more comfortable than my 1D III which has the same shape/size/weight as 1Dx II or D5.

What does your 1D have to do with my R? With no battery grip or grip extender the R is more comfortable than A7/A9 bodies.

How much for RF 24-70L IS? $2300, cheaper than Sony GM? While now you can get excellent Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 Art at $1100, less than half of Canon RF. But you don't own this RF zoom either, right? So don't understand why you're so excited

RF 24-105 is currently on sale for $1100 but has been as low as $900 and is every bit as good as the $1300 FE version. New 24-105 4-7.1 STM is $400 and is almost guaranteed to be better than the FE 28-70 and FE 24-70/4 at the same apertures/FLs. And again, EF glass works better on the R than native FE glass works on most Sony FE bodies. A9/A7R4 aren't the only bodies in Sony's lineup and given that they cost nearly double or more than the R it's stupid to compare them.

All my Sony lenses, Zeiss, Tamron and Voigtlander collected at this moment have excellent optical quality, world class in respective area.

I'm sure they are and it's very important you let the world know that

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,606
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
4

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Did they say that?

Of course, how long E-mount existed and what Sony ML market share compared to EOS R and Z mounts? No doubt.

Can you post a link?

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/sony-wins-mirrorless-race-beating-canon-and-nikon-for-2019-full-frame-sales

This is entire FF market, ML+DSLR.

So you want us to believe in such short history Canon sold much more EOS R and RP than all Sony A7/A7r series combined in last 3 or 4 years? I saw many users now use Sony bodies in my recent trip to the Chilean Patagonian area, and have not seen anyone used EOS R/RP or Nikon Z7/6 but traditional DSLRs.

On your logic. I could easily invest into Sigma fast portrait lenses if that is really important. But instead I invested into fast Voigtlander CV prime lenses as more important to me, and also they can take portrait photos.

My point is you asked why I'm discussing 1.2 glass if I don't use it. Again, probably for the same reasons you do

The difference is that I actually own and use CV FE 40/1.2 and CV FE 21/1.4 Nokton, plus Samyang FE 85/1.4 and Sony FE 135/1.8 GM, all very fast lenses. As I said portrait is not my main area otherwise I'd have no doubt to get Sigma FE 35/1.2 Art and 50/1.4 Art.

While you quoted and boasted Canon very expensive top portrait lenses but you actually never own any of them that is hilarious.

As on Sony system, you continue use the crippled adapted lenses on A7r II or EOS R.

Sure.

Sure don't play zero-sum game. We all hope they succeed.

Of course. You just hope Canon doesn't succeed as much or more than Sony

Not as you are so busy jumping back into this system after moving to Canon. Did you ever see I jumping over Canon R forum and bash Canon?

You can get Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 at $1100 while EF 24-70L/2.8 IS costs whopping $2300, more than double

Or I can adapt EF mount 2.8 zooms and get full functionality and almost full performance

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

For example right now I have an old Tamron 24-70 G1 for sale on Ebay. I'll be happy to get $400 for it............. but it's every bit as sharp as the Sony GM 2.8 standard

LOL, your expectation is very low. No way.

Easy layup... here you go (the G2 is actually softer than my G1 but both are easily within range or even BETTER than the GM)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1105&Camera=1106&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1144&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

DXO has different tests and seem confirmed by Lensrental indirectly via Canon and Sigma EF 24-70/2.8.

Tamron G1 on 50mp 5DsR has 24mpx while GM on 42mp A7r II has 28mpx.

Then check Lensrental test, the Tamron only has lukewarm review.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/sigma-24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-art-sharpness-tests/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/

In addition, GM is the native lens that can shoot 20fps on A9 and 10fps on A7r IV with real-time AF-C tracking. What AF-C performance of adapted Tamron lens on EOS R? Any Canon sport PJs use this lens on R? While GM is widely used. In another thread you finally admitted there will be a compromise in adapted lenses now you are denying again?

And with the nice human hand sized grip the extra 100-150 or so grams are no big deal. My R with a 70-200 2.8 is more comfortable than my A7R2 was with lenses half as heavy.

Not my experience. My A9+vertical grip is more comfortable than my 1D III which has the same shape/size/weight as 1Dx II or D5.

What does your 1D have to do with my R? With no battery grip or grip extender the R is more comfortable than A7/A9 bodies.

By your logic big/heavy is better. While I have an opposite experience that brick 1D III caused my palm numb after holding it several hours on such big flat surface. I hand-held A9 with vertical grip several hours comfortably that still lighter/smaller than 1Dx II or 1D III.

How much for RF 24-70L IS? $2300, cheaper than Sony GM? While now you can get excellent Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 Art at $1100, less than half of Canon RF. But you don't own this RF zoom either, right? So don't understand why you're so excited

RF 24-105 is currently on sale for $1100 but has been as low as $900 and is every bit as good as the $1300 FE version. New 24-105 4-7.1 STM is $400 and is almost guaranteed to be better than the FE 28-70 and FE 24-70/4 at the same apertures/FLs. And again, EF glass works better on the R than native FE glass works on most Sony FE bodies. A9/A7R4 aren't the only bodies in Sony's lineup and given that they cost nearly double or more than the R it's stupid to compare them.

I am talking a 24-70/2.8 lens but you switched to 24-105, sigh. Maybe to you they are the same between f2.8 and f4.0. I am just wondering when you will get RF 24-70/2.8 that costs $2300? Or you want to convince others and those sport PJs that f4.0 = f2.8 ;-). Sony also has excellent FE 24-105/4.0 OSS that seems as good as Canon's RF version.

All my Sony lenses, Zeiss, Tamron and Voigtlander collected at this moment have excellent optical quality, world class in respective area.

I'm sure they are and it's very important you let the world know that

Yeah that is the huge difference. As you can see I am enjoying the system I actually own and taking photos while you boasted on exotic Canon lenses that you actually don't own any of them. What's point?

Wait to see your R5 review with adapted cheapo lenses By somehow with the magic brand name, 30mp can exceed 42mp and rumored close to 40mp can surpass 61mp.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +18 more
SQLGuy Veteran Member • Posts: 8,532
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

sportyaccordy wrote:

SQLGuy wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

They are definitely working on L too. L is the "priority", but I see that being about as viable as the last Sigma mount. They are going to push those lens designs to every mount they can sell to.

Really? Between Leica and Panasonic you don't see L doing any better than SA? Seems like Panasonic is already doing pretty well with their S1 lineup.

When I think of Sony, Nikon and Canon FF MILC customers, I can paint a very clear picture of each. Outside of video pros getting the S1H, who is the L-consortium customer? I don't think any of the cameras are great at AF-C, which rule them all out for sports/wildlife and even just general family stuff. There are several MILCs and DSLRs that are cheaper (and in many cases lighter) for landscapes. The Leica stuff has all of the cost but none of the M-mount cool. And even for video, you're kind of limited to manual focus for the Panasonic bodies due to DFD. So who is the L-mount customer? Seems like its appeal is limited to contrarians.

Pretty sure the L mount customer is the very vocal group that can be seen here that wants a bigger, heavier, camera. The S1 is bigger, and heavier. So is the Leica SL. They're both supposedly quite good cameras, too. Not much mass appeal, maybe, but certainly appeal to those that like mass.

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Nikon D200 NEX-5T Sony a7R II +21 more
Lawn Lends
Lawn Lends Senior Member • Posts: 2,141
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
2

SQLGuy wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

SQLGuy wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

They are definitely working on L too. L is the "priority", but I see that being about as viable as the last Sigma mount. They are going to push those lens designs to every mount they can sell to.

Really? Between Leica and Panasonic you don't see L doing any better than SA? Seems like Panasonic is already doing pretty well with their S1 lineup.

When I think of Sony, Nikon and Canon FF MILC customers, I can paint a very clear picture of each. Outside of video pros getting the S1H, who is the L-consortium customer? I don't think any of the cameras are great at AF-C, which rule them all out for sports/wildlife and even just general family stuff. There are several MILCs and DSLRs that are cheaper (and in many cases lighter) for landscapes. The Leica stuff has all of the cost but none of the M-mount cool. And even for video, you're kind of limited to manual focus for the Panasonic bodies due to DFD. So who is the L-mount customer? Seems like its appeal is limited to contrarians.

Pretty sure the L mount customer is the very vocal group that can be seen here that wants a bigger, heavier, camera. The S1 is bigger, and heavier. So is the Leica SL. They're both supposedly quite good cameras, too. Not much mass appeal, maybe, but certainly appeal to those that like mass.

Sounds like a good camera for the Vatican's official photographer.

 Lawn Lends's gear list:Lawn Lends's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a7R III
Tim O'Connor
Tim O'Connor Veteran Member • Posts: 5,497
LOL(nt)
-- hide signature --
 Tim O'Connor's gear list:Tim O'Connor's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon D500 Sony a7R IV Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +11 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,185
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
5

PWPhotography wrote:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/sony-wins-mirrorless-race-beating-canon-and-nikon-for-2019-full-frame-sales

This is entire FF market, ML+DSLR.

So you want us to believe in such short history Canon sold much more EOS R and RP than all Sony A7/A7r series combined in last 3 or 4 years? I saw many users now use Sony bodies in my recent trip to the Chilean Patagonian area, and have not seen anyone used EOS R/RP or Nikon Z7/6 but traditional DSLRs.

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that "E-mount is the most profitable area for Sigma"?

The difference is that I actually own and use CV FE 40/1.2 and CV FE 21/1.4 Nokton, plus Samyang FE 85/1.4 and Sony FE 135/1.8 GM, all very fast lenses. As I said portrait is not my main area otherwise I'd have no doubt to get Sigma FE 35/1.2 Art and 50/1.4 Art.

While you quoted and boasted Canon very expensive top portrait lenses but you actually never own any of them that is hilarious.

As on Sony system, you continue use the crippled adapted lenses on A7r II or EOS R.

On the A7R2, sure. On the R they aren't crippled. At least not by the adapter.

Sure.

Sure don't play zero-sum game. We all hope they succeed.

Of course. You just hope Canon doesn't succeed as much or more than Sony

Not as you are so busy jumping back into this system after moving to Canon. Did you ever see I jumping over Canon R forum and bash Canon?

You never owned (and probably never used) Canon R, so what insights could you offer there? For example you keep saying the EF-RF adapter is "crippled"... have you ever used one? If anything, as an actual user and owner of both mounts, I am more qualified in this discussion than you

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The A9 can't shoot adapted glass with full AF/AE at 20FPS though. They are limited to 10FPS. Aren't you supposed to be a Sony expert?

Easy layup... here you go (the G2 is actually softer than my G1 but both are easily within range or even BETTER than the GM)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1105&Camera=1106&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1144&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

DXO has different tests and seem confirmed by Lensrental indirectly via Canon and Sigma EF 24-70/2.8.

Tamron G1 on 50mp 5DsR has 24mpx while GM on 42mp A7r II has 28mpx.

Then check Lensrental test, the Tamron only has lukewarm review.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/sigma-24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-art-sharpness-tests/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/

In addition, GM is the native lens that can shoot 20fps on A9 and 10fps on A7r IV with real-time AF-C tracking. What AF-C performance of adapted Tamron lens on EOS R? Any Canon sport PJs use this lens on R? While GM is widely used. In another thread you finally admitted there will be a compromise in adapted lenses now you are denying again?

Your fanaticism is so strong you can't even accept an inconvenient truth right in front of your eyes

For starters in your first link the Tamron pretty much holds its own... it's sharper at 24mm, which is arguably a more important FL for sharpness given how people use that FL, and weaker at 70mm. Your second link doesn't mention Tamron at all

What does your 1D have to do with my R? With no battery grip or grip extender the R is more comfortable than A7/A9 bodies.

By your logic big/heavy is better. While I have an opposite experience that brick 1D III caused my palm numb after holding it several hours on such big flat surface. I hand-held A9 with vertical grip several hours comfortably that still lighter/smaller than 1Dx II or 1D III.

My logic is better is better. My EOS R weighs the same as most gen 2+ FE bodies, but is way more comfortable. It's even more comfortable than them with a base grip.

All my Sony lenses, Zeiss, Tamron and Voigtlander collected at this moment have excellent optical quality, world class in respective area.

I'm sure they are and it's very important you let the world know that

Yeah that is the huge difference. As you can see I am enjoying the system I actually own and taking photos while you boasted on exotic Canon lenses that you actually don't own any of them. What's point?

Wait to see your R5 review with adapted cheapo lenses By somehow with the magic brand name, 30mp can exceed 42mp and rumored close to 40mp can surpass 61mp.

If you're scared, say you're scared.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
tqlla Veteran Member • Posts: 5,387
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
7

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video, 10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

 tqlla's gear list:tqlla's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony a99 II Sony a7R III Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,606
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
3

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/sony-wins-mirrorless-race-beating-canon-and-nikon-for-2019-full-frame-sales

This is entire FF market, ML+DSLR.

So you want us to believe in such short history Canon sold much more EOS R and RP than all Sony A7/A7r series combined in last 3 or 4 years? I saw many users now use Sony bodies in my recent trip to the Chilean Patagonian area, and have not seen anyone used EOS R/RP or Nikon Z7/6 but traditional DSLRs.

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that "E-mount is the most profitable area for Sigma"?

So E-mount has the most market share and the fact Sigma has released many Art lenses but zero on RF and Z mounts while L-mount seems doesn't sell well. No brainer E-mount is the Sigma most profitable market. Why that difficult to figure out?

The difference is that I actually own and use CV FE 40/1.2 and CV FE 21/1.4 Nokton, plus Samyang FE 85/1.4 and Sony FE 135/1.8 GM, all very fast lenses. As I said portrait is not my main area otherwise I'd have no doubt to get Sigma FE 35/1.2 Art and 50/1.4 Art.

While you quoted and boasted Canon very expensive top portrait lenses but you actually never own any of them that is hilarious.

As on Sony system, you continue use the crippled adapted lenses on A7r II or EOS R.

On the A7R2, sure. On the R they aren't crippled. At least not by the adapter.

You admitted there is a compromise in another thread now you are denying again? As I said you only can convince us if Canon R owners adapted long lenses such as super-tele in fast sport and wildlife. Yes the compromise is in AF-C tracking, similar to adapt most EF lenses on E-mount.

Sure.

Sure don't play zero-sum game. We all hope they succeed.

Of course. You just hope Canon doesn't succeed as much or more than Sony

Not as you are so busy jumping back into this system after moving to Canon. Did you ever see I jumping over Canon R forum and bash Canon?

You never owned (and probably never used) Canon R, so what insights could you offer there? For example you keep saying the EF-RF adapter is "crippled"... have you ever used one? If anything, as an actual user and owner of both mounts, I am more qualified in this discussion than you

Yes I had test EOS-R quite thoroughly in store, in show etc. Adapting always crippled AF-C tracking otherwise why Canon and Nikon are so rush to release native RF and Z lenses?

You're more qualified? LOL Show us your fast BIF and sport photos from such crippled adapted lenses on EOS-R, guess you don't have. You only shoot most static photos that your old A7r II also does very well by adapting Canon lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums/72157684431079244/page3

You see above I adapted EF 100-400L IS II on A7r II (not III or IV or A9) via MC-11 with EXIF 'DT 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 SAM'. I did very well, right? But tried on fast BIF, sport etc, that will fall apart quickly. The same as EF lenses adapted on R body, maybe better but still crippled.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The A9 can't shoot adapted glass with full AF/AE at 20FPS though. They are limited to 10FPS. Aren't you supposed to be a Sony expert?

So the same that will apply to adapted lenses on R. Wait and see those adapted lenses such as your Tamron can take 20fps on R5? Very unlikely. Now you need native RF lenses.

Easy layup... here you go (the G2 is actually softer than my G1 but both are easily within range or even BETTER than the GM)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1105&Camera=1106&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1144&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

DXO has different tests and seem confirmed by Lensrental indirectly via Canon and Sigma EF 24-70/2.8.

Tamron G1 on 50mp 5DsR has 24mpx while GM on 42mp A7r II has 28mpx.

Then check Lensrental test, the Tamron only has lukewarm review.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/sigma-24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-art-sharpness-tests/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/

In addition, GM is the native lens that can shoot 20fps on A9 and 10fps on A7r IV with real-time AF-C tracking. What AF-C performance of adapted Tamron lens on EOS R? Any Canon sport PJs use this lens on R? While GM is widely used. In another thread you finally admitted there will be a compromise in adapted lenses now you are denying again?

Your fanaticism is so strong you can't even accept an inconvenient truth right in front of your eyes

For starters in your first link the Tamron pretty much holds its own... it's sharper at 24mm, which is arguably a more important FL for sharpness given how people use that FL, and weaker at 70mm. Your second link doesn't mention Tamron at all

Funny is that when I shot with Canon DSLRs, I saw many reviews between Canon EF 24-70L/2.8 II and Tamron (G1 and G2) and Sigma 24-70/2.8. They all pointed out Canon EF II version is overall sharper, as said by above Lensrental tests. Now my Tamron FE 28-75 is sharper than Canon EF II adapted via MC-11 or MB4 in the shared FL range. The new Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 Art and Sony GM is only slightly sharper in edges from what I have read. Adapting also compromise optical quality bit especially at edges.

What does your 1D have to do with my R? With no battery grip or grip extender the R is more comfortable than A7/A9 bodies.

By your logic big/heavy is better. While I have an opposite experience that brick 1D III caused my palm numb after holding it several hours on such big flat surface. I hand-held A9 with vertical grip several hours comfortably that still lighter/smaller than 1Dx II or 1D III.

My logic is better is better. My EOS R weighs the same as most gen 2+ FE bodies, but is way more comfortable. It's even more comfortable than them with a base grip.

We heard enough from you. I know your hands are so big and special. I have tried all these bodies and I disagree. My hands are not small but I have thin fingers. Handling and ergonomic are personal subjective. We just have different opinions.

But in other side, my A7r III, II and A7r IV beat EOS R IQ hands down - DR in entire ISO range, Sony dual-base-ISO, resolution/sharpness, AF-C tracking especially from A7r IV's real-time AF-C tracking. EOS R is not even close. Let's wait and see R5 can match? Until now Canon is significantly lagging behind sensor technology and ML AF-C tracking. DPAF is good for AF-S but not that great in AF-C. So far no Canon professionals use DPAF in sport and wildlife is a proof.

All my Sony lenses, Zeiss, Tamron and Voigtlander collected at this moment have excellent optical quality, world class in respective area.

I'm sure they are and it's very important you let the world know that

Yeah that is the huge difference. As you can see I am enjoying the system I actually own and taking photos while you boasted on exotic Canon lenses that you actually don't own any of them. What's point?

Wait to see your R5 review with adapted cheapo lenses By somehow with the magic brand name, 30mp can exceed 42mp and rumored close to 40mp can surpass 61mp.

If you're scared, say you're scared.

Why I am scared? It seems you are lacking of confidence so need frequently coming back here to justify your move. In the other side I don't need to jump to R forum and bash their cameras as I am so confident.  Funny thing is that you boast some Canon exotic fast RF lenses but you don't own any of them, not sure what is your point?

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +18 more
PWPhotography Veteran Member • Posts: 9,606
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

But it has compromise, more or less. Let's wait to see AF-C tracking with EF long lenses especially super-tele lenses adapted on R5. I don't believe that hype. Sooner or later Canon and Nikon also have to design and release native RF and Z long lenses to fully leverage potential of their future ML 1Dx III and D6 cameras.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video, 10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

Probably the original design limits that. I don't have any Sony A-mount history. I moved from Canon FF DSLR.

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

I highly doubt intentionally but just limited by technology. Anyway I have replaced entire EF lenses to FE counterparts (only missing is future FE 500/4.0 GM). I strongly believe native mount lenses. The same as Canon and Nikon are also rushing out native RF and Z lenses.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +18 more
tqlla Veteran Member • Posts: 5,387
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
4

PWPhotography wrote:

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

But it has compromise, more or less. Let's wait to see AF-C tracking with EF long lenses especially super-tele lenses adapted on R5. I don't believe that hype. Sooner or later Canon and Nikon also have to design and release native RF and Z long lenses to fully leverage potential of their future ML 1Dx III and D6 cameras.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video, 10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

Probably the original design limits that. I don't have any Sony A-mount history. I moved from Canon FF DSLR.

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

I highly doubt intentionally but just limited by technology. Anyway I have replaced entire EF lenses to FE counterparts (only missing is future FE 500/4.0 GM). I strongly believe native mount lenses. The same as Canon and Nikon are also rushing out native RF and Z lenses.

The DEFINITELY intentionally limited the LA-EA3 adapter as well as A-mount.  Its proven.   Sony limits A-mount to F3.5 for video AF.   The A77 had a work around where you could use adjust the aperture in video while using AF.  Sony introduced a firmware to disable it.  Alternatively you can tape the aperture lever open and it will autofocus fine.

Sony can do 10FPS with the LA-EA3 and A9, but not on the A7iii or A7Riv which came out after?   And it was mighty suspicious that firmware 2.0(additional focus Zones) came out the same time the Canon EOS R came out.  IMO, that firmware was more about supporting Canon lenses than throwing a bone to their own LA-EA3 users.

How shameful is that, better support for Canon EF users migrating than their own A-mount users.

Of course I would love to replace all my lenses with native lenses immediately.  But not all of us can afford an 1DXiii, A9, A7Riv, A7Riii.  I have to migrate a lens at a time, and Sony seems intent on making that a difficult transition period.  A-mount users are Sony's oldest users.   Sony could at least try to reciprocate some of that loyalty.

I have my Batis 85mm now, Sigma 24-70 in the future and will move to other NON-Sony lenses in the future.   Whereas I have 9 Sony Zeiss/G lenses for A-mount.

 tqlla's gear list:tqlla's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony a99 II Sony a7R III Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
SQLGuy Veteran Member • Posts: 8,532
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
3

PWPhotography wrote:

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

But it has compromise, more or less. Let's wait to see AF-C tracking with EF long lenses especially super-tele lenses adapted on R5. I don't believe that hype. Sooner or later Canon and Nikon also have to design and release native RF and Z long lenses to fully leverage potential of their future ML 1Dx III and D6 cameras.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video, 10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

Probably the original design limits that. I don't have any Sony A-mount history. I moved from Canon FF DSLR.

The LA-EA2 was released in 2012. At that time, the A55 AF module it used was not that old, but was still a lower end offering. The LA-EA4 was released in 2013, using the same APS-C AF module as the LA-EA2. This despite the fact that the A99 had been out for about a year. That looks quite clearly intentional that Sony did not want to make the adapters too attractive or functional. Yes, it's limited by design. Quite intentionally. Not limited by technology or even by already available components.

The bigger insult to A mount customers is that they haven't done anything new about adapters in the last seven years... other than one LA-EA3 firmware update to ensure faster functionality for some lenses on only the A9.

They also ignored legitimate bugs. To me the most glaring example is handling of AF assist flashes with the LA-EA2/4. AF assist flashes work fine with the AF modules in these adapters, but Sony's firmware disables them. It makes sense that the AF assist pattern is disabled for other situations, but the camera certainly knows when an LA-EA2 or 4 is in use and should not be disabling the AF assist in this case.

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

I highly doubt intentionally but just limited by technology. Anyway I have replaced entire EF lenses to FE counterparts (only missing is future FE 500/4.0 GM). I strongly believe native mount lenses. The same as Canon and Nikon are also rushing out native RF and Z lenses.

I highly doubt it was anything but intentional. Just as they were suddenly able to offer additional focus zones and adapted lens Eye AF in the III models, but not before then on cameras using the same processors as their predecessors.

About the only benefit of the doubt I can throw to Sony, and I think this is the likely case, is that they maybe didn't explicitly cripple anything, but simply prioritized "good enough" functionality above the cutoff lines for each release, did a bit of extra work (like adding, enabling, maybe just testing, adapted Eye AF), but then didn't prioritize any work to backport the functionality to older cameras that probably could support it.

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Nikon D200 NEX-5T Sony a7R II +21 more
MILC man Senior Member • Posts: 3,850
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
3

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

canon made ef-m incompatible with eos-r, that's not a win, it's a fail.

Nikon doesn't have any screw-mount adapter for people migrating to z-mount.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video,

a-mount has had limitations all along, like fixed f/3.5 aperture with af in video mode... it's been well-documented, see this link from 2011:

"A65/A77: Why 3.5 aperture limit in video?"

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3115946

I would have expected that a-mount owners were already aware of that.

10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

no, canon still limits the af area size in dslrs, even with the new 1dxmk3.

why didn't canikon expand the af area with the their latest dslrs?

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

it's more shady that Nikon totally abandoned it's own screw-drive lens owners with the z-mount milc bodies, that canon made ef-m incompatible with eos-r, etc.

HFLM Senior Member • Posts: 1,973
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...
1

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

But it has compromise, more or less. Let's wait to see AF-C tracking with EF long lenses especially super-tele lenses adapted on R5. I don't believe that hype. Sooner or later Canon and Nikon also have to design and release native RF and Z long lenses to fully leverage potential of their future ML 1Dx III and D6 cameras.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video, 10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

Probably the original design limits that. I don't have any Sony A-mount history. I moved from Canon FF DSLR.

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

I highly doubt intentionally but just limited by technology. Anyway I have replaced entire EF lenses to FE counterparts (only missing is future FE 500/4.0 GM). I strongly believe native mount lenses. The same as Canon and Nikon are also rushing out native RF and Z lenses.

The DEFINITELY intentionally limited the LA-EA3 adapter as well as A-mount. Its proven. Sony limits A-mount to F3.5 for video AF. The A77 had a work around where you could use adjust the aperture in video while using AF. Sony introduced a firmware to disable it. Alternatively you can tape the aperture lever open and it will autofocus fine.

Sony can do 10FPS with the LA-EA3 and A9, but not on the A7iii or A7Riv which came out after? And it was mighty suspicious that firmware 2.0(additional focus Zones) came out the same time the Canon EOS R came out. IMO, that firmware was more about supporting Canon lenses than throwing a bone to their own LA-EA3 users.

How shameful is that, better support for Canon EF users migrating than their own A-mount users.

Of course I would love to replace all my lenses with native lenses immediately. But not all of us can afford an 1DXiii, A9, A7Riv, A7Riii. I have to migrate a lens at a time, and Sony seems intent on making that a difficult transition period. A-mount users are Sony's oldest users. Sony could at least try to reciprocate some of that loyalty.

I have my Batis 85mm now, Sigma 24-70 in the future and will move to other NON-Sony lenses in the future. Whereas I have 9 Sony Zeiss/G lenses for A-mount.

That is something you can complain about, agree.

If you add the new 17-28 from Tamron, a fabulous landscape lens in my opinion, you have a great set for every day use (the Tamron 28-75 isn't bad either as an alternative to the Sigma. I bought that for my students and it is better than expected). The Batis 85 is fantastic, imo.

 HFLM's gear list:HFLM's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a7 III Sony a9
SQLGuy Veteran Member • Posts: 8,532
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

MILC man wrote:

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

canon made ef-m incompatible with eos-r, that's not a win, it's a fail.

Meh. It's par for the course with Canon. They didn't want migration from EF-M and they didn't want people using EF-S lenses on EF bodies.

Nikon doesn't have any screw-mount adapter for people migrating to z-mount.

As stated many times before, Nikon stopped using screw drive a long time ago (they never had a screw mount). Sony still has screw drive lenses in their lineup. Nikon also doesn't support the use of screw drive lenses on their lower end F mount bodies. Sony still supports screw drive in the latest A68... not because they really want to, but because they never got around to replacing all the screw drive lenses in the catalog.

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Nikon D200 NEX-5T Sony a7R II +21 more
Philnw2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,658
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

SQLGuy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

But it has compromise, more or less. Let's wait to see AF-C tracking with EF long lenses especially super-tele lenses adapted on R5. I don't believe that hype. Sooner or later Canon and Nikon also have to design and release native RF and Z long lenses to fully leverage potential of their future ML 1Dx III and D6 cameras.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video, 10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

Probably the original design limits that. I don't have any Sony A-mount history. I moved from Canon FF DSLR.

The LA-EA2 was released in 2012. At that time, the A55 AF module it used was not that old, but was still a lower end offering. The LA-EA4 was released in 2013, using the same APS-C AF module as the LA-EA2. This despite the fact that the A99 had been out for about a year. That looks quite clearly intentional that Sony did not want to make the adapters too attractive or functional. Yes, it's limited by design. Quite intentionally. Not limited by technology or even by already available components.

The bigger insult to A mount customers is that they haven't done anything new about adapters in the last seven years... other than one LA-EA3 firmware update to ensure faster functionality for some lenses on only the A9.

They also ignored legitimate bugs. To me the most glaring example is handling of AF assist flashes with the LA-EA2/4. AF assist flashes work fine with the AF modules in these adapters, but Sony's firmware disables them. It makes sense that the AF assist pattern is disabled for other situations, but the camera certainly knows when an LA-EA2 or 4 is in use and should not be disabling the AF assist in this case.

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

I highly doubt intentionally but just limited by technology. Anyway I have replaced entire EF lenses to FE counterparts (only missing is future FE 500/4.0 GM). I strongly believe native mount lenses. The same as Canon and Nikon are also rushing out native RF and Z lenses.

I highly doubt it was anything but intentional. Just as they were suddenly able to offer additional focus zones and adapted lens Eye AF in the III models, but not before then on cameras using the same processors as their predecessors.

About the only benefit of the doubt I can throw to Sony, and I think this is the likely case, is that they maybe didn't explicitly cripple anything, but simply prioritized "good enough" functionality above the cutoff lines for each release, did a bit of extra work (like adding, enabling, maybe just testing, adapted Eye AF), but then didn't prioritize any work to backport the functionality to older cameras that probably could support it.

There are emergency situations where the ability to turn on the camera's "flashlight" for illumination could be lifesaving. All Sony or any mfr would need is a "manual" mode for that AF illumination so that it could be turned on whenever needed. It was a real downer when i discovered on an early morning foggy day, that i was unable to focus my tripod mounted camera because there was no way to get the camera to turn on its light. So these days i carry a $5 flashlight because my 2015 A7rII $3200 camera was so poorly designed. Arrgh. Why don't reviewers mention oversights like this?

The most popular cameras in my 30 person photography club are the Fuji ones. The Fuji company has a deserved reputation for supporting their customers, AFTER the sale is made with frequent firmware updates. Sony, Canon, Nikon - not so much.

How would one tell that i'm shooting my Sony next to you - well i'm the one with a flashlight duct taped to the Sony camera. Not really - just kidding.

Please note that smart phones allow one to manually turn on its flashlight whenever desired.  "Real" cameras are less smart.

-- hide signature --

Phil B

 Philnw2's gear list:Philnw2's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +4 more
tqlla Veteran Member • Posts: 5,387
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

MILC man wrote:

tqlla wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

LOL. As I said let wait and see when R5 released that adapted lenses can shoot full 20fps with full AF/AE? I know you have a wishful thinking. Hope you will get a R5 and test then but I will not count on it

The fact that Canon supports all of their current EF lenses via adapter with full AF and AFC is a big win for Canon vs Sony, in the transitional user support department.

canon made ef-m incompatible with eos-r, that's not a win, it's a fail.

Nikon doesn't have any screw-mount adapter for people migrating to z-mount.

Sony has constantly thrown hurdles in the way of migrating users. 3FPS, no AFC in video,

a-mount has had limitations all along, like fixed f/3.5 aperture with af in video mode... it's been well-documented, see this link from 2011:

"A65/A77: Why 3.5 aperture limit in video?"

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3115946

I would have expected that a-mount owners were already aware of that.

Yeah, and it was explained as a nonsense limitation in the post you quoted, but you conveniently left that part out.

10 year old AF for the LA-EA4. In fact they only allowed for the additional AF-zones with the LA-EA3+A7iii, because they were "Forced to" by Canon.

no, canon still limits the af area size in dslrs, even with the new 1dxmk3.

why didn't canikon expand the af area with the their latest dslrs?

Your response has nothing to do with this conversation.

Also its shady that Sony only allows for adapted 10FPS with the A9. Whereas Sigma and Metabones can 10FPS and video AFC for many lenses on the A7iii.

it's more shady that Nikon totally abandoned it's own screw-drive lens owners with the z-mount milc bodies, that canon made ef-m incompatible with eos-r, etc.

It sounds like you dont know this, EOS-M is APSC and already mirrorless.

Nikon doesnt have a large contingent of current screw drive lenses, whereas 1/3 of the A-mount lenses CURRENTLY on Sony's website are screw driven.

 tqlla's gear list:tqlla's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony a99 II Sony a7R III Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads