p.10 #1 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
I know how it works. Read his tests and article first. Your reply have nothing to do with it.
You are doubling the number of lens-mount interfaces when using the adapter. And then there will be more small misalignments in the camera-lens mount, when having two. Roger have done testing on it and show all that on his website. This is his real World results
"In the examples above, though, center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it’s only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image.
Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera"
And his testing is when adapting a larger format lens to a smaller format camera. If adapting a FF lens to a FF camera, the results will get worse.
p.10 #2 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
A well design & made converter won't have the issue that Roger described. Do you think Sony was not aware of this when they build A-to-E mount converter?
p.10 #3 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Like I've said before, the things mentioned in Roger's article are pretty much irrelevant in actual shooting. The amount of 'give' or misalignment between a regular lens mount and a lens, already far exceeds any additional misalignment that would be added by the use of an adapter.
In any case, teleconverters already do this (in addition to putting more optics in the way), and those using technical cameras deal with this with every single lens they use.
Additionally, if you're a landscape photographer (where the edges of the photo actually matter), you tend to shoot stopped down enough that any misfocus due to lens/mount alignment is unnoticeable anyway, even at the highest resolutions.
p.10 #4 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
mttran wrote:
A well design & made converter won't have the issue that Roger described. Do you think Sony was not aware of this when they build A-to-E mount converter?
His tests where only made with the best and most expensive adapters. So you are saying that Roger don't have a clue about this stuff?
p.10 #5 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
His tests where only made with the best and most expensive adapters. So you are saying that Roger don't have a clue about this stuff?
Please, re-read what I said...comment like this is not friendly at all
p.10 #6 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
It will also be very interesting to see how these FF bodies work with adapters. If you have been reading Roger Cicalas blog and "There Is No Free Lunch, Episode : Lens Adapters"
He say adapters work much better when adapting a larger format lens to a smaller format camera (full-frame lens to Micro 4/3 or APS-C camera). And even then he say There is no free lunch. Here it will be FF adapting to FF. So it will be worse results.
+1
I hope it works better than it does with adapters and RF lenses. FM member Ron Scheffler did test all these lenses with adapters. And most of those have terrible smearing.
Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f5.6 Aspherical (LTM version which is identical to the current M mount version)
Voigtlander Super Wide-Heliar 15mm f4.5 Aspherical M
Leica Summilux-M 21mm f1.4 ASPH.
Zeiss Biogon T* 21mm f2.8 ZM
Leica Super-Elmar-M 21mm f3.4 ASPH.
Leica Summicron-M 28mm f2 ASPH.
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 Aspherical VM II
Canon 35mm f2.0 LTM
Zeiss C Biogon T* 35mm f2.8 ZM
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f2.8 (newly announced with the a7/a7R)
Voigtlander Nokton classic 40mm f1.4
Leica Summilux-M 50mm f1.4 ASPH.
Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM (a lens from the late 50s-early 60s)
Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 Aspherical LTM (optically identical to the current M mount model, though apparently there may be some coating differences)
Zeiss C Sonnar T* 50mm f1.5 ZM
Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f2 ZM
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm f1.8 (newly announced with the a7/a7R)
Sony 28-70mm f3.5–5.6 OSS (newly announced with the a7/a7R)
Leica Summarit-M 90mm f2.5
p.10 #9 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
He say it matters in actual shooting. And i do thrust his opinion a lot more than yours
That's fine. I did not mean to crush your beliefs or anything. I'm just trying to prevent the spread of missinformation.
Keep believing, and stay the heck away from adapters and teleconverters. They will kill your photos! After all, Roger said so.
p.10 #11 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Erik_J wrote:
+1
I hope it works better than it does with adapters and RF lenses. FM member Ron Scheffler did test all these lenses with adapters. And most of those have terrible smearing.
Voigtlander Ultra Wide-Heliar 12mm f5.6 Aspherical (LTM version which is identical to the current M mount version)
Voigtlander Super Wide-Heliar 15mm f4.5 Aspherical M
Leica Summilux-M 21mm f1.4 ASPH.
Zeiss Biogon T* 21mm f2.8 ZM
Leica Super-Elmar-M 21mm f3.4 ASPH.
Leica Summicron-M 28mm f2 ASPH.
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 Aspherical VM II
Canon 35mm f2.0 LTM
Zeiss C Biogon T* 35mm f2.8 ZM
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f2.8 (newly announced with the a7/a7R)
Voigtlander Nokton classic 40mm f1.4
Leica Summilux-M 50mm f1.4 ASPH.
Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM (a lens from the late 50s-early 60s)
Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 Aspherical LTM (optically identical to the current M mount model, though apparently there may be some coating differences)
Zeiss C Sonnar T* 50mm f1.5 ZM
Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f2 ZM
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm f1.8 (newly announced with the a7/a7R)
Sony 28-70mm f3.5–5.6 OSS (newly announced with the a7/a7R)
Leica Summarit-M 90mm f2.5
p.10 #12 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
He say it matters in actual shooting. And i do thrust his opinion a lot more than yours
Personally, I'll purchase the camera and adapter and do my own testing with the type of photography I do. I trust my own opinion a lot more than anyone else's.
p.10 #15 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
He say it matters in actual shooting. And i do thrust his opinion a lot more than yours
No, he did not say that, he did said it mattered in laboratory testing. Real world shooting was not evaluated. Roger is a pretty smart guy, and I will remind you he added the following wise statement to his article:
"What Does It Mean in the Real World?
Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn’t all stink or people wouldn’t use them. Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn’t make much difference at all in the real world."
Is there an impact from using adapters? Yes. Is that impact enough to make a difference in the real world? Unknown. But I have a suspicion we'll start to get more real world reports on adapter use and comparisons between the A7r and other FF cameras soon....
p.10 #16 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Assuming that the (spacing) adapter is properly aligned and the image is not occluded, it should not affect IQ. If the sensor is not designed for the registration distance of the Canon or other lenses, that is the real problem.
p.10 #17 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
artd wrote:
No, he did not say that, he did said it mattered in laboratory testing. Real world shooting was not evaluated. Roger is a pretty smart guy, and I will remind you he added the following wise statement to his article:
"What Does It Mean in the Real World?
Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn’t all stink or people wouldn’t use them. Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn’t make much difference at all in the real world."
Is there an impact from using adapters? Yes. Is that impact enough to make a difference in the real world? Unknown. But I have a suspicion we'll start to get more real world reports on adapter use and comparisons between the A7r and other FF cameras soon.......Show more →
You forgot this from his "Real World Shooting"
A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image.Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera"
Oct 20, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.10 #18 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
EB-1 wrote:
Assuming that the (spacing) adapter is properly aligned and the image is not occluded, it should not affect IQ. If the sensor is not designed for the registration distance of the Canon or other lenses, that is the real problem.
EBH
This is why Roger C and many others worry a bit over the adapters. There is often some very small misalignments in the camera-lens mount. And even very small misalignments can somtetimes cause blur on one the sides of the image. When using two lens-mount interfaces instead of one, the risk will of course be a lot higher for blur.
p.10 #19 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
You forgot this from his "Real World Shooting"
A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image.Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera"
And you forgot that I said: "Is there an impact from using adapters? Yes." And neither I nor you nor Roger nor anyone else has yet demonstrated what the actual level of impact will be on a Sony 7r.
The real significance of Roger's testing is that it demonstrates that because lenses always perform better on their native mounts, you can't directly compare one lens to another on the same camera and say with certainty that one lens is better, because the adapter always introduces a variable that can't be accounted for. In the end, what matters is the camera-lens system. And in this specific context, the question is: Will a Sony 7r with its new 36mp sensor plus adapted Canon lenses perform better than those lenses mounted on any of Canon's own cameras and sensors.
The simple answer is we don't know.
But, as of right now, there is no evidence to assume the impact of adapters will be so severe so as to discourage people from using the A7r as a viable option for mounting Canon lenses.
p.10 #20 · Sony A7 and A7r Full Frame with Canon Lenses
Rickuz wrote:
Additionally, if you're a landscape photographer (where the edges of the photo actually matter), you tend to shoot stopped down enough that any misfocus due to lens/mount alignment is unnoticeable anyway, even at the highest resolutions.
+1, most of us don't shoot bridge wall all day long. In real life, elements in a scene might not be all in the same in one focal plane that parallel to the sensor focal plane anyway so their different in sharpness hardly be noticed by any means...So, why worry too much about it. Just stopping down....DOF will save us the day in any days for sure.
