Sony a7R III

kat.hayes wrote in post #18482396
Are there any downsides to using canon lenses with the adapter on a newer sony like the a9, a7r3? how does the size/weight of the lens vs. the smaller body feel?

With regards to the a9, no downsides in terms of performance. Ergonomically, the grip on Sony mirrorless bodies is not tall enough to comfortably hold large lenses..be them native or adapted glass. The biggest issue for me is not being able to fit my pinky on the grip, thus impacting my grip strength. Sony addressed this by releasing a grip extension with the a9, but I've been using leather half cases, which add more height and girth to the grip.

mystik610 wrote in post #18482410
Adapters are basically extension tubes WITH lens contacts, but for pure PDAF, those lens contacts are simply transmitting data. Pure PDAF calculations where you just need the lens to communicate distance info back and forth with the body, is a pretty brand agnostic thing. When it comes to pure PDAF, there is no difference between a $50 adapter or a $450 one in terms of AF performance, because they are just moving data.

How sure of this are you? Unless you're an engineer for Canon or Metabones I'm not entirely convinced; the Canon communications protocol and Sony protocol are surely different, so there is still translation going on between lens and body. From what I understand all third-party manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma, Metabones, etc.) had to reverse engineer the Canon protocol; some may have done a better job than others. Considering that Canon lenses often autofocus better (or more reliably) than Sigma/Tamron lenses on Canon bodies, the reverse engineering may not be 100% correct in all cases.

yellowt2 wrote in post #18482441
How sure of this are you? Unless you're an engineer for Canon or Metabones I'm not entirely convinced; the Canon communications protocol and Sony protocol are surely different, so there is still translation going on between lens and body. From what I understand all third-party manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma, Metabones, etc.) had to reverse engineer the Canon protocol; some may have done a better job than others. Considering that Canon lenses often autofocus better (or more reliably) than Sigma/Tamron lenses on Canon bodies, the reverse engineering may not be 100% correct in all cases.

Based on the very consistent AF performance between adapters when using pure PDAF, pretty damn sure.

The difference is that Sony bodies are specifically designed to accomodate non native lenses, and that the e-mount AF specifications are open source. No need to reverse engineer anything or do any significant processing between the camera and lens.

Again there are adapters that do additional processing to trick the body into thinking a native e-mount lens is attached, but those are not necessary with the a9.

Lastly, most of the issues with third party lenses on DSLR's are microfocus issues. These do not exist on mirrorless bodies.

mystik610 wrote in post #18482484
Based on the very consistent AF performance between adapters when using pure PDAF, pretty damn sure.

The difference is that Sony bodies are specifically designed to accomodate non native lenses, and that the e-mount AF specifications are open source. No need to reverse engineer anything or do any significant processing between the camera and lens.

OK, I'll take your experience that functionally they are all very similar, but just to be nitpicky I still disagree with your second paragraph. This would be true for Sony E extension tubes or teleconverters, but Canon EF mount lenses do not adhere to the Sony E mount communications. As soon as you're adapting an EF lens you need to translate the open-source E-mount commands coming from the camera into non-open-source reverse-engineered Canon EF-mount commands for the lens to understand.

It sounds like in your experience all the adapter manufactures do an acceptable job of this; I've only used Metabones on an A6500 so I can't speak to other adapters or the A9

yellowt2 wrote in post #18482441
How sure of this are you? Unless you're an engineer for Canon or Metabones I'm not entirely convinced; the Canon communications protocol and Sony protocol are surely different, so there is still translation going on between lens and body. From what I understand all third-party manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma, Metabones, etc.) had to reverse engineer the Canon protocol; some may have done a better job than others. Considering that Canon lenses often autofocus better (or more reliably) than Sigma/Tamron lenses on Canon bodies, the reverse engineering may not be 100% correct in all cases.

well, there's speculation, and there's experience. You're simply over analyzing the situation. Mirrorless behaves differently than DSLR. In many ways, Canon lenses DO WORK BETTER on the A7/9 Series cameras. You can debate protocols till you're blue in the face, and it doesnt matter. It's pretty apparant that the sony system just super complex protocols. As long as you can adjust movement, sony can give accurate results. The TAP adapter for instance, allows you to turn MF lenses to AF. No need for proprietary protocols unless you want to access more in depth features.

For most canon lenses, I'de rather use it on the A7rii since it has better coverage. I frame how I like, complete confidence in accurate, and stabilized when needed. That matters more than absolute driving speed.

yellowt2 wrote in post #18482582
... but Canon EF mount lenses do not adhere to the Sony E mount communications. As soon as you're adapting an EF lens you need to translate the open-source E-mount commands coming from the camera into non-open-source reverse-engineered Canon EF-mount commands for the lens to understand...9

It can't be that complicated though. The lens just doesn't do all that much.

I feel sorry for people here in Australia that plan to get this body, it's very overpriced here. Most stores are selling it for around 4.9k but it should be more like 4.1k if you convert it from USD.

If AF is as good as native with Metabones and Canon don't come out with a FF Mirrorless, I may consider this in a year or so once prices drop.

Im semi expecting a new metabones to go with sonys new releases

elitejp wrote in post #18483650
Im semi expecting a new metabones to go with sonys new releases

I think it will likely just be a firmware update to existing. That’s what they done with the a9

dolina wrote in post #18480797
104MB/s max read/write for 1st slot is UHS-I
312MB/s max read/write for 2nd slot is UHS-II

Ideally both slots should be UHS-III with a max read/write of 624MB/s.

This would allow essentially an unlimited buffer.

I hope this forces some innovation from the 5Ds R Mark II that will come out before 2020

Also looking forward to the new 5DsRII for some time, hope it's not a let down, that's the one that could bring back a lot of Canon shooters

dolina wrote in post #18480797
104MB/s max read/write for 1st slot is UHS-I
312MB/s max read/write for 2nd slot is UHS-II

Ideally both slots should be UHS-III with a max read/write of 624MB/s.

This would allow essentially an unlimited buffer.

New sensor with increase ISO/DR, better ergononimic body, 2 UHS II slot, 4k 60fps is just some of the feature they held back to get you buy the A7RIV.

The a7r3 does have better dynamic range, I dont know about high iso perfomance yet as new firmware etc can also help in this area. Ergonomics is a peronal thing, what you like may not be what someone else likes so I dont really put that requirement high on my priority list. 2 uhs ii slots would be better but I just wonder how many pictures do you actually need to take before that buffer runs out, and why do you need so many pictures before you can get a decent keeper. 4k60p? I guess some people need it, many more want it and most just like to complain that they dont have it. But if you want to go to canon, nikon or fuji to find what you are looking for than they also have options available. Of course I dont know if they have these specific requirements all in one body.

I got to play with a pre production version of the camera today. It's very much a faster version of the a7rii...which is a good thing. The venue I was in had piss poor light and I was playing with the 24-105 and the 100-400. AF is noticeably faster

mystik610 wrote in post #18488112
I got to play with a pre production version of the camera today. It's very much a faster version of the a7rii...which is a good thing. The venue I was in had piss poor light and I was playing with the 24-105 and the 100-400. AF is noticeably faster

As far as af speed is it at least 5d m3 level?

Jotto123 wrote in post #18488203
As far as af speed is it at least 5d m3 level?

The a7rii has 5D3 af speed never mind the a7riii. (Talking about locking focus not tracking, not sure if you meant tracking or not)