js426 wrote:
How about battery life with metabones IV and Canon lens like 24-70 II ? Any feedback ? Thanks
Well it sucks down the battery so carry a few. I am fine with that unless it gets to something like 50 shots. I will test it more today with a fresh battery. A bigger capacity battery would have been smart on Sony's side of things, much smarter. but the batteries are inexpensive and smallish.
Perfectly stated 'Canon lenses will never AF perfectly well on an adapted Sony body. Usually adapted lenses are MF only.
IMO, what is happening is actually a little miracle with some Canon lenses in AF mode. For, example I just tested it with my 70-200 f/4L IS and was impressed. AF was fast in good light and OK in low light. I consider this a bonus.
Some lenses will do better than others but if your perception was to get the A7RII and autofocus with all your Canon lenses for critical work, you will be very disappointed.'
I would also suggest a third category in the ongoing list of compatible lenses- Lenses that Focus Well with Assist.
I've determined now after two days of using the 300mm 2.8 IS II and the 400 DOii that when moving across a distance the lens must be pre-focused manually; that there is a depth zone where these two lenses will move from one focus point to another with great speed, but if a target of opportunity arises 10, 15 or 20 feet away from where you were hitting focus you will need to assist.
technic wrote:
I guess I will upgrade to a Nikon D750 with a few lenses then, it is a cheaper and more sensible solution (they have every lens I need, less risk of unexpected issues later on).
Slightly OT, and not meant as a knock on the A7RII. I would **love** an A7RII, but money.
I just bought a Nikon D750. I am not a landscape photographer, I am almost at the opposite end of the spectrum. I do mostly events in lower light, plus wildlife, and a few portraits. I am completely happy with 24 MP full frame or APS-C. I rely heavily on the 24-70, 70-200 2.8 zooms and fast accurate auto focus. I have been shooting Nikon, Canon, and Sony side-by-side for 6 or 7 years.
The A6000 almost does what I need for events, but the A7II auto focus was not up to what I needed. I would have loved an A7RII to use my Canon glass, but I just couldn't justify the $3,200. The A7s is still too expensive and too much of a niche camera for my general use.
I just bought a Nikon D750 and am pretty happy with it! They are running about $1,600
used. You can also get the kit with 24-120 4.0 for about $2,250 from Canada. If you value the 24-120 at $650, the D750 runs about $1,600 new. You can also buy new grey market for as low as $1,400, with no Nikon USA support. The 24-120 is $550 for grey market.
There are a few disappointments compared to my Canon 7DII, especially the smaller auto focus point spread, and the louder shutter noise for events. (Quiet mode is too slow and doesn't help much. The D810 has a quieter shutter.)
I also bought the Excellent+ Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II and 70-200 4.0 VR. (I need the 2.8 for events. The 4.0 is much lighter for casual use.) Plus the 24-120 4.0 VR for an "all purpose" lens. (I already had a D5300 with Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS (fantastic lens for $325), 35 1.8G, 50 1.8G, and Sigma 50 1.4 for portraits.) The Nikon 24-70 2.8 is not as good as the Canon, but a new model with VR has been announced. I wish there was a Nikon 24-70 4.0 VR to go with the 70-200 4.0 VR.
I was a bit worried that I was making a mistake moving to Nikon if the Canon glass performed like it was on a 5DIII. I was going to keep my Canon glass just in case Sony released an A7000 or A73 with fast autofocus.
Anyway, just my thoughts. Good luck to all!
Michael
GMPhotography wrote:
Sorry have to disagree. I said this 20 times and it still does not compute. Let me ask a question. Who does Canon , Nikon build for. There own glass. Why in the world would you think Sony is building a camera for Canon glass, Leica glass and Nikon glass. They build Sony lenses they want you to buy them and they are putting every effort into giving you a full set of AF options for THERE lenses. They happened to build a body with a AF system with 3rd party adapters that they can get Canon, Leica and Nikon uses to market to for them to switch. That's a side benefit to there marketing. They have no desire to support any of these 3rd party lenses directly. What they can do is help the 3rd party adapters to make them more functional. It's up to Metabones to do that not Sony. This is all about getting a bonus package scenerio. You get some extra perks, why in the world do you thing as a Canon user and your lenses are not functional because of adapters that won't work, you blame Sony for it.
Seriously forget yourself here think about this as a industry and no one builds functionality for a competitive brand. i honestly can't understand folks logic here. This is a business with restrictions and limitations. Sony is after market share let's be very clear about that. If they can steal Canon users it's huge for them.but it's up to you do your homework on what works and what does not but your really waiting on the 3Rd party adapters notSony for the support. No one looks at them and they are the key to adapting your glass not Sony not Canon.
Now my bitch is more about reporting what works and what does not some did a good job but a lot ignored telling us any of the pitfalls at the moment with support. To me that's wrong and as a reviewer and tester myself it pisses me off because it makes us look bad.
That's my opinion. It's tiring to keep hearing Sony get beat up here when Im having a blast with the native glass, it's amazing my options. You want at least most of those options look at the adapters getting updates. That's the only way your going to get functionality. Not everything will work either these AF motors need to be the newest tech to do it in the first place. I can't use my Minolta 200 screw drive the way I can use my Batis 85. That's just a age thing...Show more →
Not sure if your post was meant as a reaction to mine, but to be sure: I quite honestly don't care about Sony as a company and I'm not looking at this as any specific industry goal by Sony. I purely look at this as a potential buyer of this camera.
From the get-go, I've been skeptical about any claims, by Sony or others, that this would be a great way to use Canon lenses. What's disappointing to me is that apparently the AF with native Sony lenses isn't up to the standard of the mirrorless competition either and that does bother me, since this is one expensive camera.
The way I look at it, as a consumer, is that 42mp is nice, but not necessary. I don't need 4K at all at this point. IBIS is a nice addition. The camera is better than the A7R, but it apparently still isn't a camera that isn't going to frustrate me with its lack of true speed in day-to-day shooting situations. If that's true, it's just not worth the price for me and I'll wait for the next version.
I really don't understand people accepting compromises in their assessment of this camera. How can we even talk about Rebel-like speeds as being acceptable if you forked over more than $3,000?
If Sony, or any other camera company, wants me to fork over that much money, they better deliver something that's the whole package.
As I said before, I've a rental scheduled - for ten days - so I'm going to try it and if I'm happy with its performance with native lenses, I might buy it. If I'm not, I'll probably stick with the A7R for a while longer. If it does well with Canon lenses, I'd consider it a bonus, but quite honestly, I never believed the claims about the Canon lenses were anywhere close to what some people wanted to believe.
Hopefull, for what can be, Sony will put out a firmware update to help things along. I know they have a horrible reputation when it comes to FW but they need to step up to the plate or it is showing disrespect to customers.
jamato8 wrote:
Hopefull, for what can be, Sony will put out a firmware update to help things along. I know they have a horrible reputation when it comes to FW but they need to step up to the plate or it is showing disrespect to customers.
I'm sorry, but I cannot remember any example of Sony being guided by something like respect for its customers. It's the most consumer-electronics-oriented company in this marketplace, meaning high product turnover and lack of long-term concern over anything other than its own profits, which is why we never know if it's a safe bet to invest in any new Sony line.
johnvanr wrote:
Not sure if your post was meant as a reaction to mine, but to be sure: I quite honestly don't care about Sony as a company and I'm not looking at this as any specific industry goal by Sony. I purely look at this as a potential buyer of this camera.
From the get-go, I've been skeptical about any claims, by Sony or others, that this would be a great way to use Canon lenses. What's disappointing to me is that apparently the AF with native Sony lenses isn't up to the standard of the mirrorless competition either and that does bother me, since this is one expensive camera.
The way I look at it, as a consumer, is that 42mp is nice, but not necessary. I don't need 4K at all at this point. IBIS is a nice addition. The camera is better than the A7R, but it apparently still isn't a camera that isn't going to frustrate me with its lack of true speed in day-to-day shooting situations. If that's true, it's just not worth the price for me and I'll wait for the next version.
I really don't understand people accepting compromises in their assessment of this camera. How can we even talk about Rebel-like speeds as being acceptable if you forked over more than $3,000?
If Sony, or any other camera company, wants me to fork over that much money, they better deliver something that's the whole package.
As I said before, I've a rental scheduled - for ten days - so I'm going to try it and if I'm happy with its performance with native lenses, I might buy it. If I'm not, I'll probably stick with the A7R for a while longer. If it does well with Canon lenses, I'd consider it a bonus, but quite honestly, I never believed the claims about the Canon lenses were anywhere close to what some people wanted to believe. ...Show more →
Every has different needs and some of your priorities of lightening fast AF is not a priority for others. So far the AF of the A7R2 with lenses like the Canon 24-70 or 70-200...prime event lenses, seems pretty good...good enough for me to rent the body and try out for myself. I shoot a lot of manual focus lenses and I must say the DSLR cameras are a big compromise shooting manual focus. Everyone has differing needs. The weight of the A7R with a Zuiko 24mm is ultralight...great for street shooting.
As far as dishing out $3200 for a camera with rebel like AF...don't forget one of the best selling DSLR's was the 5d2 which had mediocre AF...yet was used for all sorts of photography.
johnvanr wrote:
I'm sorry, but I cannot remember any example of Sony being guided by something like respect for its customers. It's the most consumer-electronics-oriented company in this marketplace, meaning high product turnover and lack of long-term concern over anything other than its own profits, which is why we never know if it's a safe bet to invest in any new Sony line.
Yes, it is more of wishful thinking since even in the days of betamax and SACD's they have often started something only to loose interest and move on. Leaving customers thinking they were going to have actual support for their investments into product.
johnvanr wrote:
Not sure if your post was meant as a reaction to mine, but to be sure: I quite honestly don't care about Sony as a company and I'm not looking at this as any specific industry goal by Sony. I purely look at this as a potential buyer of this camera.
From the get-go, I've been skeptical about any claims, by Sony or others, that this would be a great way to use Canon lenses. What's disappointing to me is that apparently the AF with native Sony lenses isn't up to the standard of the mirrorless competition either and that does bother me, since this is one expensive camera.
The way I look at it, as a consumer, is that 42mp is nice, but not necessary. I don't need 4K at all at this point. IBIS is a nice addition. The camera is better than the A7R, but it apparently still isn't a camera that isn't going to frustrate me with its lack of true speed in day-to-day shooting situations. If that's true, it's just not worth the price for me and I'll wait for the next version.
I really don't understand people accepting compromises in their assessment of this camera. How can we even talk about Rebel-like speeds as being acceptable if you forked over more than $3,000?
If Sony, or any other camera company, wants me to fork over that much money, they better deliver something that's the whole package.
As I said before, I've a rental scheduled - for ten days - so I'm going to try it and if I'm happy with its performance with native lenses, I might buy it. If I'm not, I'll probably stick with the A7R for a while longer. If it does well with Canon lenses, I'd consider it a bonus, but quite honestly, I never believed the claims about the Canon lenses were anywhere close to what some people wanted to believe. ...Show more →
Just tried my year or so old Commlite EF-NEX adapter + just rec'd A7R2 with the following lenses/results. Used AF-S center point medium.
1) 500 f/4 IS MK I - Inconsistent focusing. Works slowly with very high contrast subjects and not at all with other subjects. Electronic controls work. Did try AF-C on this lens. No go - doesn't work at all.
2) 300 f/4 IS (ancient version) - Doesn't AF at all. Forgot to check aperture control, etc.
3) 100-400 MK I (ancient version) - Doesn't AF at all. Didn't bother checking aperture control.
4) 70-400 f/4 IS - Interesting results. Very fast AF at longest focal length, slow, sort of stepped contrast detect AF at shortest focal length with AF speed improving as focal length increases.
5) 24-105 f/4 IS - Same results as 70-200 f/4 IS.
6) 17 TSE - Electronic controls work.
7) 24 TSE MK II - Electronic controls work.
8) 12-24 Sigma MK II - Seems to work OK. AF not lightening fast but pretty quick and seemingly accurate. AF speed not focal length dependent as on Canons above. Full electronic control.
mttran wrote:
Tip for quick one shot AF locked in the dark:
Just for reference, he's not shooting in a particularly dark environment. Based on his stills settings later on in the video the light levels are something like +4 or +5EV.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Was just told that the Canon EF 85 1.8 hunts to find focus and when it finds, it's inaccurate. Similar to 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8L II. Someone please confirm this.
I'm curious about the 35mm f/2 IS: How's AF speed/accuracy? Turn off IS? Turn off IBIS? Turn off both?
I'm also surprised by the 35L (which I own) being on the list of good performers. I wonder if it matters if you have one built before/after the shadow-updates (buttons, etc).
Steve Spencer wrote:
To me that wouldn't make sense. Instead they should put those resources into making more native glass. One huge problem with Sony themselves making a Canon adapter is that Canon's AF system isn't open. They would have to pay a competitor (Canon) for every adapter they sold. Second, from a marketing standpoint it looks awful. They would be in effect endorsing a competitor for the lenses they are building. I just don't see how it makes sense.
I agree.
Sony should allow smaller, after-market suppliers to exist and thrive.
It is available in A-mount, too.