Rol Lei Nut

Basically yes. It has some quirks and limitations, but it can be very useful. Heavier lenses should be / need to be supported by hand (the manufacturer gives 700 grams as the safe limit, but I ...

That's another advantage of adapted lenses: you can just shim the adapter until infinity is "right on" (or close enough). I've seen negligible change in the hard stop accuracy between hot & cold ...

Did you install a replacement ("Tough") mount on the A7R?

The Leica M Tele-Elmar is very, very good (practically an Apo) and affordable. Drawbacks are f/4.0 (though fully usable wide open) and being heavy for its specs.

Just about any manual lens can be adapted to Lecia M mount, which in turn fits the Pronto and the Techart... I use C/Y, Olympus OM, Pentax K, Leica R, Canon FD, Rolleiflex QBM as well as M mount ...

Yet some people thoroughly enjoy the Sony system, without native lenses, heartache, longing or even heartburn... Perhaps a bit of curiosity and mental flexibility helps...  ;-)

Back in the day, before trying Zeiss & Leica, I though Nikon was as good as lenses could reasonably get and the 35mm 2.0 was my favorite lens. I got a good deal on a 35mm 1.4, used it a while and ...

I got my Canon lenses after getting a Sony FF mirrorless (for various reasons, I don't really like Sony lenses). For my use, the the loss of AF speed (if any) and a few "features" (gadgets?) is ...

Depends. Sometimes my "normal" lens is a zoom, sometimes a 24mm, sometimes a 28mm and sometimes a 35mm. Others like 50mm (I consider it a short tele now). 24mm: Olympus OM 24 2.8 MC, OM 24 2.0 28mm ...

It's a nice camera in iteself, but it doesn't have the same feel as the classical M line (some people do like bigger cameras though). More seriously, it almost put Leica out of the camera business...

Actually not: the M5 was only made between 1971 and 1975 and was considered to be a great failure. No other Leica M body has had a metering arm or any other light path impediment since.

Exactly, mine was a snap taken today just to show that some rangefinder wides can behave quite nicely.

I can, on any landscape scene. Try it with a TS lens.

In the picture I posted, the poblem was flat lighting, because it was, well, flat. No lens would have changed that.

This is what happens when you put the tiny Minolta M-Rokkor 28mm 2.8 on an A7RII (also works well on the A7). It's one of the "good" rangefinder lenses on the Sony FF bodies. The dull, flat light ...

Leaving out rangefinder lenses (there are some wides which work very well), you've probably never used an Olympus OM 24 2.8, 21 3.5 or 28 3.5, Rollei Zeiss 35 2.8, Pentax 35 3.5 and many others...

In the Olympus OM world, the f/3.5 & 2.0 versions are better considered than the 28 2.8. The 2.0 has very smooth tonal gradations (a bit like some Leica lenses). At the opposite end of the scale ...

There are also some who've gone down that road and see no reason to not keep the Canon...

Got it. With the MB IV & MC-11 at least that isn't an issue (always leave the camera in AF-C). I set the IBIS FL manually in camera & don't bother doing it on the adapter.

Why is that? The only problem I have going from Canon EF lenses to using the Techart is forgetting to set the camera's f-stop to 2.0 and wondering why everything looks so bright in the viewfinder...