Sony A7III

fminus wrote in post #18603665
I was wondering if anyone had an experience with the Sony A7III or even A9 since it uses the same AF system in relation to the Canon 5DMKIV? How well does it AF moving subjects, as well as low light?

I would be using native Sony glasses, as I have tried adapter rings before but it was not reliable enough.

I've never shot the 5DIV, but the a9 tracks better than the 5DIII. I shot a couple of weddings with the a9 and lowlight AF is very good, even with adapted glass. (a7rIII doesn't do as well in low light with adapted glass)

mystik610 wrote in post #18603736
I've never shot the 5DIV, but the a9 tracks better than the 5DIII. I shot a couple of weddings with the a9 and lowlight AF is very good, even with adapted glass. (a7rIII doesn't do as well in low light with adapted glass)

I wasn't impressed with the A7RIII AF in low-ish light compared to the A7III either actually, even with native glass, the A7III seems to AF as good as the 5D4, but with the added bonus of larger AF area and eye AF. I can't wait to put this A7III thru its paces, and I hope native glass can track at high FPS better than adapted glass

71sbeetle wrote in post #18603640
So, other than tracking at high speed all my Canon lenses and my sigma work great:
16-35 f4 L IS
24-70 II
70-200 II
100-400 II
85 1.8
135 Art

Dohhhh I forgot to add the 100L to the list, edited it now

71sbeetle wrote in post #18603738
Dohhhh I forgot to add the 100L to the list, edited it now

Was there any IQ issues with the 16-35? I've read it doesn't perform as well adapted as it does on Canon bodies, depending on the adapter.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18603742
Was there any IQ issues with the 16-35? I've read it doesn't perform as well adapted as it does on Canon bodies, depending on the adapter.

??? the 16-35 performed well all the way back to the original A7r. If you have a non flocked adapter, you can run into flare like issues with internal reflections. It's just kind of a big lens when adapted, and sony users have a lot of wide and smaller options.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18603742
Was there any IQ issues with the 16-35? I've read it doesn't perform as well adapted as it does on Canon bodies, depending on the adapter.

Nothing I could see, I took shots with that lens at ISO 6400 and sent them to my friend overseas he was blown away

Eye focus in this feels like cheating. It shouldn't be this easy.

Raymond Lin wrote in post #18604031
Eye focus in this feels like cheating. It shouldn't be this easy.

It's revolutionary.

it may feel and even sound gimmicky at first, but after years of use, it becomes normal (and how all cameras should behave). Catching a small toddler that's constantly moving, trying to keep the framing good, and eye focus.... you truly start to appreciate the ability. Otherwise, moving points with an active toddler can be a total hassle.

it never gets old, it becomes normal.

Charlie wrote in post #18604042
It's revolutionary.

it may feel and even sound gimmicky at first, but after years of use, it becomes normal (and how all cameras should behave). Catching a small toddler that's constantly moving, trying to keep the framing good, and eye focus.... you truly start to appreciate the ability. Otherwise, moving points with an active toddler can be a total hassle.

it never gets old, it becomes normal.

Man....I'd love that feature. It sucks on the a6500....IMO it's useless unless you are within 6 feet and the person is looking right at the camera.

Charlie wrote in post #18604042
It's revolutionary.

it may feel and even sound gimmicky at first, but after years of use, it becomes normal (and how all cameras should behave). Catching a small toddler that's constantly moving, trying to keep the framing good, and eye focus.... you truly start to appreciate the ability. Otherwise, moving points with an active toddler can be a total hassle.

it never gets old, it becomes normal.

This!

Ideal for small kids who don’t want to stay still for photos

I was hoping to put the Fasten-R for my rapid strap on the metabones but I guess that's not happening lol

I am thinking about the A7III for portraits. I will be keeping my 1DXII for any type of action shots. How is the focus with adapted lenses, using either the MC-11 or Metabones? It is especially important that eye AF works well with adapted lenses.

I had the A7RII a couple years ago, and it seemed to struggle at times using adapted lenses, even when doing still photos.

tim1970 wrote in post #18604248
I am thinking about the A7III for portraits. I will be keeping my 1DXII for any type of action shots. How is the focus with adapted lenses, using either the MC-11 or Metabones? It is especially important that eye AF works well with adapted lenses.

I had the A7RII a couple years ago, and it seemed to struggle at times using adapted lenses, even when doing still photos.

I'm happy to report that eye AF works great on all my lenses with metabones 5 adapter, my mc 11 arrives tomorrow

Just got my MC-11 and did a quick test real quick for eye AF on my sigma 135 Art in not very well lit area, out of 5 pictures (focus with eye AF, take shot, defocus, refocus with eye AF, take shot etc) 3 were oof, and 2 were slightly front focused. Also the lens focusing motor makes a different noise than when on my 5D4 or Metabones V adapter.

71sbeetle wrote in post #18604757
Just got my MC-11 and did a quick test real quick for eye AF on my sigma 135 Art in not very well lit area, out of 5 pictures (focus with eye AF, take shot, defocus, refocus with eye AF, take shot etc) 3 were oof, and 2 were slightly front focused. Also the lens focusing motor makes a different noise than when on my 5D4 or Metabones V adapter.

Is this with updated mc-11 firmware?