Thinking about going to the A7iii from 5Diii. What to do for a 70-200.

Croasdail wrote in post #18767447
The MC 11 was not intended for Canon Lenses.... so it's performance will lag the Metabones. The MC-11 works really good with MC-11 certified glass from Sigma, but everything else is hit or miss. I absolutely don't have any hunting unless it is really dark... but then again my son had a tennis match last night and he was sporting all black - no contrast lines what so ever - and it still managed to decently focus. Had far more issues with the cycling lights. I was shooting at ISO 5000, F 2.0 (metabones speed booster), and 1/320 on an old a6300 - a much slower focusing camera compared to a7 family.

G-Master will be best, but please, I shoot lots of sports with a Canon lens adapted via metabones to sony bodies. G-master way better, no doubt. But if your budget doesn't allow for new Sony glass....there are options.

If you shoot sports and they are at a long distance I think the DOF and breathing time for AF is adequate with adapted glass.

I took photos with my A7iii with mc11/Canon 70-200 f/2.8mk2 at a bird show at Grouse Mountain in North Vancouver. This shot was incredibly difficult to take due to the close proximity and speed of the bird. However If I had to take photos of sports 50 meters away I think I have a much better time to let the AF do it's thing with adapted glass.

AlanU wrote in post #18767458
If you shoot sports and they are at a long distance I think the DOF and breathing time for AF is adequate with adapted glass.

I took photos with my A7iii with mc11/Canon 70-200 f/2.8mk2 at a bird show at Grouse Mountain in North Vancouver. This shot was incredibly difficult to take due to the close proximity and speed of the bird. However If I had to take photos of sports 50 meters away I think I have a much better time to let the AF do it's thing with adapted glass.

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=187​67458&i=i119966781
forum: Changing Camera Brands

I tried shooting the same bird show with my Fuji X-t2 with 50-140mm and I also found it to be quite difficult for close proximity shooting at birds. Mind you that is not an easy thing to begin with in a crowd with the show at your "feet". If I owned the X-t3 I know I would have had an easier time in that situation.

Using native glass the Sony and GM70-200 is stupid fast and so is the 5dmk3/4 with 70-200mk2. My Fuji X-t2 is very good too but it's still lacking in speed compared to the new Fuji X-t3 AF system. This is where good light the Fuji x-t3 would be a machine gun for this type of shooting.

In my case I'm holding off on any fuji gear (only consideration for me is the niche GFX Medium format) and considering an A9 (or mk2), EOS R mk2/3, or 5dmk 5 The A7iii and 5dmk4 has spoiled me in incredible performance in every aspect of modern gear. What I notice is how I just don't complain about noise these days when I push the sensor in low light. Coming from Canon I just find the learning curve hard to adapt to post processing Sony files as they definitely react differently to LR. Fuji on the other hand is a walk in the park easy to get pleasant nice colours.

Since you actually HAVE GM lenses, you should definitely consider the A9, not great for advance video shooters, but still very good for that. I have a hard time going back to the R3 even for snapshots. The sheer quickness of the camera, especially with capable cameras is really in another league, you won't find a DSLR like it. That blackout free is something else. I have a few native Sony lenses and wow..... It locks and stays locked better. Needs firmware updates to be more close to the R3, but adapting third party lenses is nearly as good as the R3 with native lenses, and a better shooting experience without blackout. With a few native lenses that can do 20fps, simply in a different league. I imagine the 70-200gm to be a total monster on the A9, you must try it!

Charlie wrote in post #18767182
mc11 + 135A or batis 135

prior years past, there wasn't even eye focus with adapted lenses, since then, long strides have been made, and you can definitely get by if you just bite down and pay a little more

I'd prefer to continue using Canon 135L, because I already have it and I really like it. I use it more than 70-200 ii because it's smaller and lighter and has f2. Sigma 135A is certainly great lens, but it costs 1300€ and is 380g heavier than Canon. Batis costs 1900€ and has "only" f2.8. It may be "a little more" for someone but it's quite a lot for me now.

phphoto wrote in post #18767480
I'd prefer to continue using Canon 135L, because I already have it and I really like it. I use it more than 70-200 ii because it's smaller and lighter and has f2. Sigma 135A is certainly great lens, but it costs 1300€ and is 380g heavier than Canon. Batis costs 1900€ and has "only" f2.8. It may be "a little more" for someone but it's quite a lot for me now.

Yep, not saying it's an easy decision, choices are limited. I use the 135 + 28-75 f2.8 for event style shooting, and happy. If I could lose the extra 400g, I would, but since I already made the 135L to S135 upgrade, guess no point going back. The S135 also does video AF, so there's that.

Early adopters penalty. The system could use a lot more options. I didn't like giving up the 135L but that's only one of many I shoot with, so I bit my lip and didn't it. I had a variety of 70/200's and went with an ultra inexpensive one "just in case". Not a 70-200 guy myself, but can be useful.

AlanU wrote in post #18767418
I still use focus/recompose for hired events photography getting incredible hit rate. Moving the focus point is snailed pace and does not work for me.

For the sony world focus/recompose is extremely bad. I use continuous AF and customize my AEL button to "Focus hold". So basically the camera constantly is in constant AF and when I want to lock I just press the AEL button. That works well but my brain must go into "SONY camera mode"

With my A7iii i can use eye focus no problem using the Sigma MC11 adapter with my L glass. Canon adapted glass just sucks if you have fast moving subjects.

For the sake of sensor performance the Fuji system is great for the aps-c world. The issues I have with Fuji is that Adobe LR can cause "worms" even when you sharpen at moderate levels. Many Fuji lovers join the fan club for Capture 1 because it seems to work well for with the x trans sensor. Capture 1 can be found free with limitations or pull out your wallet for the licensed version. Since I shoot 3 systems I will NOT spend money on capture 1 just for Fuji. Oddly in FB some Fuji pros are mocking the "FUJI crowd" for all jumping on the Capture 1 band wagon. Indeed the C1 processes better than Adobe for fuji raws.

If your going into the mirrorless world Sony is the leader at the moment for FF sensor bodies. I never in my life ever considered Sony. Now I am finding this confidence in producing virtually guaranteed clean images at ridiculous high iso. My 5dmk3 raw files falls apart much sooner and I can see a limitation due to older sensor tech. My X-t2 has made me feel like throwing it against the wall at times due to hunting AF in low light but it has slightly better iso performance than the 5dmk3. Using an external flash the red focus assist makes the 5dmk3 incredibly solid in the low light AF department. It's noticeably better than my Fuji X-t2 (Xt3 is suppose to perform better). DO NOT just take it from me and do your research from open minded non biased photographers.

If you want more confidence in raw files NOT falling apart the current FF offerings from the nikon d810 (I know your not a nikon shooter), 1dxmk2, 5dmk4 and cheaper Sony A7iii will be a big step from the 5d3. If you dive into the Fuji Xt3 world it'll be closer if not better in performance to your 5d3. Only zinger is the Fuji 90mm f/2 (135mm equiv approx f/3 dof compared to FF) is not on par with the much older "loved" 135L f/2 on a full frame sensor.

If I shoot in good light I do appreciate my Fuji system. However I find my sony system very manageable in size/weight with my GM16-35mm f/2.8. The Canon 85 f/1.8 isn't huge neither is the Sony 85 f/1.8 or Batis 85 f/1.8.

No system is perfect so your style and demands may or may not meet your needs. Don't be surprised if you bought an Canon EOS R (specs do not meet my needs), A7R3, A7iii and be spoiled in the high iso and AF performance. You will say WTF if you compare it to the 5dmk3 in some cases. RAW files will not fall apart like the 7dmk2/80D.

I did consider X-T3 + 100-400 to replace my 7d2 + bird lenses, but I'm worried about Fuji + LR (I've read that too) and lens softness at 300-400mm. I've also read good things about Fuji's 90mm and 50-140mm, but of course they wouldn't be the same as f2/f2.8 in FF when in very low light.

The biggest cons for me in 5d3 is the lack of eye af. Of course I wouldn't mind to get also more resolution and fps, bigger buffer and so on. Wish Canon had made mirrorless 5d4... Maybe it's coming, but I think it will be priced over 4k.. So about similarly priced as A9...

Charlie wrote in post #18767527
Yep, not saying it's an easy decision, choices are limited. I use the 135 + 28-75 f2.8 for event style shooting, and happy. If I could lose the extra 400g, I would, but since I already made the 135L to S135 upgrade, guess no point going back. The S135 also does video AF, so there's that.

Early adopters penalty. The system could use a lot more options. I didn't like giving up the 135L but that's only one of many I shoot with, so I bit my lip and didn't it. I had a variety of 70/200's and went with an ultra inexpensive one "just in case". Not a 70-200 guy myself, but can be useful.

I have 10 EF lenses, so yes, not an easy choise to switch systems... But never say never. A9 sounds very tempting, except the price. I doubt Canon can compete with A9 in the near future, except with the price. But I could manage also with a little lesser camera than that, I don't necessarily need (and right now cannot afford to) the best in the market. Just give me a little better than R.

When do you think A9ii comes? Then I might find the money for used A9...

Croasdail wrote in post #18767447
The MC 11 was not intended for Canon Lenses.... so it's performance will lag the Metabones. The MC-11 works really good with MC-11 certified glass from Sigma, but everything else is hit or miss.

WAIT, WHAT?


I was under the impression that the huge majority of people say the MC-11 is the better choice if you shoot canon. Am I reading it all wrong?

I have the 16-35 is f4/L, the 135 f2/L and the 70-200 is ii/L. I am planning to sell my 5d3 and tamron 24-70 to buy the 28-75 and new flash triggers.

What adapter should I be looking at for the canon glass?

People go back and forth as to which adapter is better, but I would say it is a minority opinion that the MC-11 is significantly worse than the metabones with Canon lenses.

Sigma with Sigma glass works well. Sigma with Canon glass - not so much. In particular with the 70-200L. Sigma is not in the business of enabling Canon glass with Sony Cameras. It is expressly not supported by Sigma. The MC-11 makes Sigma glass work almost like native glass on the Sony. No so with Canon glass.

The thing is if you have a series II 70-200 f2.8 L - you've got about 2k invested in it. It you get the MC-11 or metabones standard adaptor, your adding 200-300 more. By this point your nearly at the cost of new gmaster 70-200.... which works very well. So all things being equal, the Sony lens is a better choice. But if your a chap like me that has feet in both camps....I still adapt my lenses.

Saturday before it began to snow.... I show about 800 images at a tennis tournament. I had about 85% keepers. Those 15% were not because the camera wouldn't focus, but because it randomly found the net, or chain link fence. It always had a subject in focus, it just didn't always match what I wanted it to be in focus. The is about the keeper rate that I get with my 1Dx as well... with the same issues.

The biggest draw back is I didn't have eye focus, and I shot at a lot slower frame rate. I didn't get anywhere near 10 fps. More like 3 or 4. For some, thats a big deal. I didn't want 2,000 plus frames.... so I was fine and just shot carefully. There was minimal to no lag. It always locked, never hunted. It just sometime didn't pick the right subject.

Scoobert wrote in post #18767599
WAIT, WHAT?

I was under the impression that the huge majority of people say the MC-11 is the better choice if you shoot canon. Am I reading it all wrong?

I have the 16-35 is f4/L, the 135 f2/L and the 70-200 is ii/L. I am planning to sell my 5d3 and tamron 24-70 to buy the 28-75 and new flash triggers.

What adapter should I be looking at for the canon glass?

Hard call on what adapter. I tested side by side a new metabone vs MC 11 with an A7iii w/ adapted Canon 24-105 f/4ISmk2. The AF speed actually felt quicker with the MC11. Infact a Canadian Sony rep was present with me and he even suggested going MC11.

phphoto wrote in post #18767530
I did consider X-T3 + 100-400 to replace my 7d2 + bird lenses, but I'm worried about Fuji + LR (I've read that too) and lens softness at 300-400mm. I've also read good things about Fuji's 90mm and 50-140mm, but of course they wouldn't be the same as f2/f2.8 in FF when in very low light.

The biggest cons for me in 5d3 is the lack of eye af. Of course I wouldn't mind to get also more resolution and fps, bigger buffer and so on. Wish Canon had made mirrorless 5d4... Maybe it's coming, but I think it will be priced over 4k.. So about similarly priced as A9...

Experience from an actual user:

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #18767876
another wren shot using the fringer adapter and Canons ef100-400mm MkII Zoom. Loads of great detail when this "L" lens is combined with Fuijis xtrans sensor . Not to mention getting an extra 1.6x focal length vs what I can get on my 5DSR with no hit to F stop like an extender would do. Gives me approx 640mm @ f5.6 at the long end which certainly comes in handy when shooting tiny birds like these fairy wrens.

Hosted photo: posted by clipper_from_oz in
./showthread.php?p=187​67876&i=i53810124
forum: Fuji Digital Cameras

Really the thing about these 'worms' still going around I find funny. Adobe have that well under control these days, anyway you can always download Capture One for Free as Fuji and Phase One have developed a version of the software and it's free to use as much as you like, no trial.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18768312
Experience from an actual user:

Really the thing about these 'worms' still going around I find funny. Adobe have that well under control these days, anyway you can always download Capture One for Free as Fuji and Phase One have developed a version of the software and it's free to use as much as you like, no trial.

Thanks for your thoughts! I was worried about XF100-400, not EF. How does that Fujis lens compare to other 100-400mm lenses (EF, FE, Sigma) in sharpness at 300-400mm? And focus speed?

As far as I know, I should pay about 300€ from Capture One.

I don't know about the sigma/canon/nikon 100-400 so couldn't make a comparison with fuji, also I'm not a birder... Focus speed can vary depending on the body the X-T3 is very fast with zero blackout and up to 30FPS & with a pre capture mode that is interesting to use. I had the 100-400 for one day to try out, it's an interesting lens but not for me, here's one at 400mm using an X-PRO2

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/237Y​p78

You can always ask clipper for his hit rate...

Why do I use Capture One? Well it's part of the flow for another camera I get to shoot with now and again so I have it for that but up until recently there wasn't full support for the other camera system I shoot with hence Lightroom. Also, now that there is a free version (if you shoot Fuji or Sony) that has everything a lot of shooters will need, but if you need or want more... Yes it makes the most of the files, a much better choice for any camera IMO. If you haven't spent the time to learn even the basics of it you'll never know, just the colour control alone is worth a look.
As far as C1 and Fuji raw files go, Phase One and Fujifilm cooperated in bringing C1 Fuji to market so it works really well.

I made many posts about how to avoid those over-sharpening artefacts with Lightroom and the X-Trans sensor, none of them difficult & lightroom have made changes too, the problem there is that Adobe still can't get the detail right so users tend to add to much sharpening and bang, artefacts. Phase One have no such issues, I find the default sharpening settings perfect as you might expect considering they worked with Fuji on this.

Lightroom comes free with Photoshop & was great for cataloguing images but it's far to slow to use and a total resource hog. Adobe don't seem to be willing or able to make any improvements on that front, no wonder that so many competitors and making headway with users. Capture One (from version 10) includes some really great DAM tools, the list goes on for me. So to answer your question, 'Isn't LR good enough' my answer is not in 2018, not even close.

I guess to be back on track with the OP's question, in my experience native glass has always worked best when you need to push things so if you shoot Sony buy Sony glass. I've limited [read none] experience with their 70-200 though.