Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on December 02, 2015, 03:57:29 am
-
Hi,
Interesting article by Michael Reichmann.
I am actually sailing the A7rII ship and have just ordered my second Canon lens, a 16-35/4 zoom. The first one is the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII.
Now, I would say that I am a bit skeptical of the benefits of putting a Sony on a Canon lens, unless some Sony features are needed that Canon lacks, like small size, great DR, wide AF area, Eye-AF, electronic viewfinder and perhaps some others.
The reason I buy the Canon 16-35/4 is that:
- It can be used on my HCam Master TSII adapter giving tilt and some shift capability from 16-35 mm. From 40 mm and up my Hasselblad lenses fill the bill.
- It is clearly cheaper than 16-35/4 from Sony
- It may perform better than the Sony lens in a significant part of the application area I intend it for.
The minus side may be that there are some credible indications:
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/elMiEjlE_Bk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And also some less credible ones:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-10-16-a7r2-5dsr/index.htm
This may relate to different thickness of the optical assembly between Canon and Sony. The "cover glass" introduces astigmatism on lenses having large beam angles. But there is not a great difference between "cover glass" thickness between Canon (1-2 mm) and Sony (around 2 mm). Just to mention, the Sony FE lenses seem to measure best with 2.0 mm of optical glass according to Lensrentals MTF measurement.
Anyway, I will soon find out…
Best regards
Erik
-
Even so, it still doesn't make me want to shoot a Sony.
-
Provocative, yes, interesting, maybe not really? It reads as another plug in for the "DSLR is dead" band wagon...
I am sure that Sony will sell a few more A7RII's because of the functional adaptors, but so what? For most people, it is still a very expensive camera. So what do we end up with?
1. If I do not have a camera or any lens, and want to buy a FF one, and choose a Sony A7 - will I buy a 3rd party lens plus adaptor? Probably not.
2. If I have a Canon or Nikon FF camera, plus a bunch of native lenses, and I am eyeing a Sony A7 with interest, would I sell my previous camera and get a Sony? Probably some would do, I know I did:) I replaced my Canon cameras and lenses for a Sony A7 equivalent system. So yes, some potential growth for Sony here.
But I would not really go the way of the electronic adaptor, one more piece of tech that might go wrong...
-
I'm buying a Sony. Been using Canon since the A1 in 1981. Will slowly change over to Sony or Zeiss lenses but in the interim will use the Canon glass.
Works for me.
-
Interesting article and one which I agree with mostly.
Being a Canon CPS Platinum, I own quite a bit of Canon glass, since my conversion (from Pentax) to EOS way back in the film days with the EOS 650. I also own a Sony A7R2 having upgraded from the original A7R. I bought a Metabones adapter (version III) and it was dire. It autofocused, but it was soooo slow.
Fast forward to the much vaunted version IV and on the A7R2, there was only one lens that did not work. I believe that the 135L is an older design which may be the reason. But the newer lenses, including my 200-400 1.4x, just worked. It was a moment in which I could now consider whether the Sony or the Canon 16-35, 24-70 or 70-200 was better for the job in hand.
Will I keep my Canon kit? Yes, because I am lucky enough not to need to sell it, but it will cover those situations in which a mirrorless camera cannot deal with. I'm talking motorsports etc.
So, while I'd say that lens mounts still matter, they matter a little less.
-
Or do they?
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hot-rumor-nikon-bought-samsung-nx-mirrorless-tech/
If the above rumour turns out to be true, and Nikon develops a professional mirrorless system, then no need for Nikon users to use their lenses with another camera brands via adaptors.
Very interesting move, following on the first stab from Leica with the SL. Especially if Nikon decides to go full force (full frame) into it, and keep it's F mount.
If Nikon does it, then Canon will have to do it.
-
''Son(n)y,you are not the first terrific who was born talented and died hope''told the sleepy canikon,opened an eye.
-
Or do they?
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hot-rumor-nikon-bought-samsung-nx-mirrorless-tech/
If the above rumour turns out to be true, and Nikon develops a professional mirrorless system, then no need for Nikon users to use their lenses with another camera brands via adaptors.
Very interesting move, following on the first stab from Leica with the SL. Especially if Nikon decides to go full force (full frame) into it, and keep it's F mount.
If Nikon does it, then Canon will have to do it.
what prevents Nikon from simply buying Samsung APS-C sensors w/o spending money on everything else though ? can you imagine Samsung refusing to sell sensors alone to Nikon w/o unloading what Nikon does not need ?
-
People who show us close crops of the corners from pictures that were focused in the center are doing us no service at all.
Ken Rockwell's pictures show us that EITHER the adapter is soft at the edges OR that it's making the field less flat, OR some combination of the two. If you don't take pictures of test charts pasted to walls, it's simply not an interesting test at all. I can't blame him, because this is what everyone does, because they're not actually interested in giving away, or discovering, information, they're interested in click-farming.
-
Hi,
My guess is that if you pay 3000+ $US for a 42 MP camera you want to have good resolution across the image. I would also guess that if you are paying 1000+ $US for a lens you want in sharp into the corners.
This is not entirely academical, BTW, anything shot at infinity is flat as infinity has a single plane of focus. In my photography I often have tree tops in the corner of my images and I don't want to have them fuzzy.
The adapter Ken Rockwell may be skew and he compares with Leica wide angles which is a different discussion. But, Tony Northup has also found a similar issue. Question is, what is the cause of it. The adapter can cause skewness. An other possible cause may be image stabiliser group being in the wrong position. A third possible cause is that differences in cover glass thickness may cause astigmatism.
The adapter itself is optically inert, it is just a tube. So the only problems it can cause is bad alignment and the effect of that is just aperture dependent and does not vary with focal length.
For me, one of the attractions of the 16-35/4 that it is said to work well with my HCam Master TS, thus offering T&S capability from 16-35 mm. I am very much interested in using tilts. I have also seen that my Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 is not good enough for my needs, so next time I go on an expensive trip I want a better lens.
The way to find out is to buy that lens and try, so I have just placed an order on it.
Best regards
Erik
People who show us close crops of the corners from pictures that were focused in the center are doing us no service at all.
Ken Rockwell's pictures show us that EITHER the adapter is soft at the edges OR that it's making the field less flat, OR some combination of the two. If you don't take pictures of test charts pasted to walls, it's simply not an interesting test at all. I can't blame him, because this is what everyone does, because they're not actually interested in giving away, or discovering, information, they're interested in click-farming.
-
But the point is that there's a difference between sharp in the corners and not flat field and most of these amateur "testers" don't get it right. Most people don't care about field flatness except in the abstract.
-
what prevents Nikon from simply buying Samsung APS-C sensors w/o spending money on everything else though ? can you imagine Samsung refusing to sell sensors alone to Nikon w/o unloading what Nikon does not need ?
Nothing.
No.
But if the rumour is true, it will be much more than that. Nikon will be using Samsung NX as a platform/basis for their "professional mirrorless" system. Let's wait and see..
-
This is only valid for as long as Canon and Nikon make lenses with their current back flange design.
As soon as they switch to mirrorless and switch to making new lenses for that mirrorless system (with a short back flange distance that doesn't allow for an adapter to be present), lens mount adapters to go from Canon/Nikon to mirrorless are dead.
-
This is only valid for as long as Canon and Nikon make lenses with their current back flange design.
As soon as they switch to mirrorless and switch to making new lenses for that mirrorless system (with a short back flange distance that doesn't allow for an adapter to be present), lens mount adapters to go from Canon/Nikon to mirrorless are dead.
That assumes Canon and Nikon stop making DSLR' s entirely. Could happen but it not a certainty and if it does happen it won't be within the lifespan of the current Sony cameras under discussion.
-
It's worked for me.
I bought an A7R II primarily as an available light camera (replacing a Canon whose shutter I've almost burned out).
I got the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 lens with it, and a Metabones adaptor.
That allowed me to try shooting with all the Canon lenses I've collected over the years, and compare and constrast with the native Sony experience.
As a result I've now bought the Sony FE 28mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/4 and will probably complete my core lens lineup with a 35 and the 85 mm Batis shortly.
I still have Canon or Canon mount lenses for more exotic uses (eg the Samyang 14 mm which is surprisingly good for astro photography). I'll still be using them for years to come. But there's also no denying how good the shooting experience and the image quality is from those native FE lenses on the A7R II.
So Sony's cunning strategy has clearly worked as I've already spend £4500 UK on their kit this year, intend to spend another couple of thousand, and am finding the Sony is rapidly even becoming my camera of choice for studio shoots where previously I've always used my Hasselblad.
Obviously other people's use cases will differ- I shoot either professional models or landscapes and clearly the Sony is great for this. If I were an action photographer I wouldn't be so quick to move away from Canon, and there's no denying that the ergonomics on the Sony really need a complete rethink.
But there's just no denying the image quality that's coming out of this little box and its funky new design lenses.
Cheers, Hywel
-
[quote author=dreed link=topic=106167.msg873423#msg873423 date=1449138178
As soon as they switch to mirrorless and switch to making new lenses for that mirrorless system (with a short back flange distance that doesn't allow for an adapter to be present), lens mount adapters to go from Canon/Nikon to mirrorless are dead.
[/quote]
It might be a lingering death. There will be plenty of old Canon and Nikon lenses around which people will want to use on their Sony cameras - and maybe at a good price, if CaNikon users decide to switch to the new tech.
-
Hi,
Canon and Nikon may use "intellectual property" stuff against adapter makers, would it serve their interests…
I don't think Canon and Nikon would make any move that alienates their huge consumer base. They can of course of course introduce mirrorless. Actually, both have, but without much success.
At the moment, neither Tamron nor Sigma is really making lenses for the Sony A-series. Zeiss does.
I guess that Canon looses rather to Sony than to Nikon, BTW. Both Nikon and Sony has a lead in sensor technology.
The two areas where Canon used to be behind were resolution and DR. The resolution problem has been solved with 5Ds/5DsR.
Canon has sold lenses worth 3000$ to me the last 6 months. That is 3000$ more Canon gear than in the preceding 64 years and 7 months. I don't think they are complaining…
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
Oh sure, it won't happen "soon" (as in the next year or two), but do Canon and Nikon want to become nothing more than competitors with Sigma & Tamron in the business of selling lenses to Sony, etc?
At the moment, owning Canon EF lenses and various Nikon lenses no longer ties you to owning a Canon/Nikon camera.
If I were Canon or Nikon, I would consider that a major oversight.
The only way they can stop their lenses being used on mirrorless cameras is to make mirrorless cameras (plus specially adapted lenses) themselves.
-
I'm curious to see if people who moved from Canon/Nikon DSLRs to Sony mirrorless will continue to use Sony 5 years from now.
Cameras are secondary for me; the impression I get from the output image and the print is what counts and somehow Sony does not do it for me.
-
I routinely work with Sony's most expensive video cameras and am of the opinion that Sony's current generation of electronic viewfinders are some of the least reassuring and enjoyable to use.
When making still photographs I enjoy looking through the lens of a DSLR for reassurance (even when using live view to reduce camera shake during the exposure) and wonder how anyone can prefer the uncertainty that comes with relying on the EVF of a non DSLR still camera.
The specs on the new A7R II seem fantastic except for the fact that it is an optical previewless device.
We tried a A7R with an early model adapter for video and quickly sold both because focus was unreliable. We will acquire a A7R II in the next few weeks to see if using it can seem more reassuring.
I look forward to trying the A7R II out for stills. I currently enjoy using a Canon 5DS R, which I purchased in August, for stills. I am curious to learn if the shadow lifting capability of the Sony files will seem as a net benefit or if my current habit of responding to interesting light will outweigh an ability to record light that isn't.
Lens mounts have not mattered much to me for the past 30 years and I suspect they will not matter much less in the near future.
-
Ken Rockwell's pictures show us
Ken Rockwell has said, amongst other things, that a Sigma 85/1.4 needs to be opened at least a stop more to achieve similar DoF and brightness as a Nikon or Canon oem lens, contrary to any measurement you might care to make.
He is therefore either an idiot, or a completely cynical click farmer, as Andrew suggests.
Or both, of course.
-
When making still photographs I enjoy looking through the lens of a DSLR for reassurance (even when using live view to reduce camera shake during the exposure) and wonder how anyone can prefer the uncertainty that comes with relying on the EVF of a non DSLR still camera.
I don't understand this at all. With an EVF camera you're still looking through the lens…but you're doing so with an electronic rather than mirror/prism based finder.
I use rangefinder cameras a lot and have always been fine with separate non-lens-based VFs too. In some respects, like being able to see slightly outside the lens' coverage, I prefer them.
-Dave-
-
This article brought back memories of the late 1970's early 1980's ( cannot remember the date ) when I bought a Tamron zoom lens with an Adaptall mount for the Olympus OM system.
It served me extremely well over the OM10, OM40 & OM4 Ti models. :)
I suppose the mounts these days are far more technologically advanced to account for autofocus etc. ?
-
Hi,
Some handle AF, on Canon lenses. There are also adapaters for Yashica/Contax and rumors about a Nikon adapter.
Best regards
Erik
This article brought back memories of the late 1970's early 1980's ( cannot remember the date ) when I bought a Tamron zoom lens with an Adaptall mount for the Olympus OM system.
It served me extremely well over the OM10, OM40 & OM4 Ti models. :)
I suppose the mounts these days are far more technologically advanced to account for autofocus etc. ?
-
Ken Rockwell has said, amongst other things, that a Sigma 85/1.4 needs to be opened at least a stop more to achieve similar DoF and brightness as a Nikon or Canon oem lens, contrary to any measurement you might care to make.
He is therefore either an idiot, or a completely cynical click farmer, as Andrew suggests.
Or both, of course.
Or he is diplomatic in stating the Sigma has been deceptive in their specifications again. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
-
Hi,
Or his lens or camera may be setting the wrong aperture. Or...
DxO mark measure optical transmission and they have come up T=1.6 on the Sigma 85/1.4 and bot Nikon 85/1.4 lenses.
I don't think Ken Rockwell is stupid, but he is extremely noisy.
Best regards
Erik
Or he is diplomatic in stating the Sigma has been deceptive in their specifications again. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
-
Hi,
I don't think Ken Rockwell shoots test charts.
Another point is that I don't agree folks showing corner crops on images focused at center are doing us no service at all. Many of the subjects we are shooting are flat. Architecture is often flat. A landscape shot at infinity is flat.
It is quite true that many subjects are three dimensional, so it is essentially impossible to have same focus across the image.
But, field curvature is not the only problem in corners. You can have astigmatism and chromatic aberrations, too. Than of course coma can be an issue.
I guess that reference is made to this image (Sony on top and Canon at the bottom, both linked from the Ken Rockwell site).
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-10-16-a7r2-5dsr/DSC01818.JPG)
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-10-16-a7r2-5dsr/5DSR1850.JPG)
Full image:
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-10-16-a7r2-5dsr/DSC01818-1k.jpg)
I have gotten my 16-35/4 on past Friday. So long I have seen it performs decently across the field, but weather has been bad so I have just a few handheld shots outdoors.
Best regards
Erik
People who show us close crops of the corners from pictures that were focused in the center are doing us no service at all.
Ken Rockwell's pictures show us that EITHER the adapter is soft at the edges OR that it's making the field less flat, OR some combination of the two. If you don't take pictures of test charts pasted to walls, it's simply not an interesting test at all. I can't blame him, because this is what everyone does, because they're not actually interested in giving away, or discovering, information, they're interested in click-farming.