shadow9d9 wrote:
Not really. Sony has an ecosystem of third party lenses that completely embarrasses Nikon, at reasonable prices and a massive focal length range. The lenses matter more than the camera since you buy much more of them. And of course, sony has many cameras, at many prices, and so many options that their used prices are extremely cheap.
You DO realize that every one of those lenses works on Nikon, right? If you did, maybe you'd stop repeating this stupid line in every thread you can.
RoamingScott wrote:
You DO realize that every one of those lenses works on Nikon, right? If you did, maybe you'd stop repeating this stupid line in every thread you can.
Just to qualify, there are some E mount lenses (mostly UW or WA) that don't seem to perform as well on Z mount cameras, compared to E mount. Most likely due to differences in cover glass thickness and/or possibly flange tolerances in adapters.
I realize that's a edge case, but sometimes glossing over edge cases sets traps for people, whether it was intentional or not.
(Regretting my post already, expecting the worst).
tsdevine wrote:
Just to qualify, there are some E mount lenses (mostly UW or WA) that don't seem to perform as well on Z mount cameras, compared to E mount. Most likely due to differences in cover glass thickness and/or possibly flange tolerances in adapters.
I realize that's a edge case, but sometimes glossing over edge cases sets traps for people, whether it was intentional or not.
(Regretting my post already, expecting the worst).
What's not an edge case are the number of people who refuse to use any adapted lens on any system.
tsdevine wrote:
Just to qualify, there are some E mount lenses (mostly UW or WA) that don't seem to perform as well on Z mount cameras, compared to E mount. Most likely due to differences in cover glass thickness and/or possibly flange tolerances in adapters.
I realize that's a edge case, but sometimes glossing over edge cases sets traps for people, whether it was intentional or not.
(Regretting my post already, expecting the worst).
Good point to bring up that adapting is not quite 100%.
The Megadap ETZ21 Pro+ seems to have pretty much fixed the wide angle lens issue though. With the older model, I had issues with my Voigtlander 21mm f1.4 not being sharp in the corners at infinity. With the Pro+ I have no issues. With the older model, I also learned, thanks to a poster here, that a layer of clear tape placed on the adapter lens mount side shims the lens enough to make it almost perfect.
There may be some wide angle lenses that still have some issues due to sensor thickness issues, but I don't know of any offhand. I have even had good luck adapting my Sigma 14mm f1.4 with the Megadap ETZ21 Pro+.
The biggest issue left with adapting is that automatic correction profiles don't work, which might be an issue for JPEG and video shooters with some lenses. AF still takes a bit of a hit too, but unless you're talking extreme action, it's really not noticeable.
DWOfPaul wrote:
AF still takes a bit of a hit too, but unless you're talking extreme action, it's really not noticeable.
Agreed, Megadap is a fantastic product, probably the only AF adapter that I can recommend. Interestingly, I did not notice any AF disadvantages while using it. On the Z8, when photographing running kids, I had more in-focus shots with the adapted 35mm f/1.4 GM than with the native 35mm f/1.8 S, which was immediately sold.
While they're very useful when you can't buy into the native system, they're still riddled with AF tracking inconsistencies, hunting, and IQ issues, as you mentioned. An adapter might work well with one specific lens but not with another, even in a similar focal range.
Useful in a pinch, but not a real replacement for using native lenses on native bodies.
Don't take my word for it, just go on YouTube. You'll find people far more knowledgeable than me, like Mark, explaining the downsides.
There's also the issue of Nikon not having access to Sony's global shutter or the higher dynamic range of the A7R VI sensor, along with the lower resolution, and so on. For some people, those compromises may not matter, but when you add the limitations of adapters, the whole is less than the subtraction of its parts.
I have no clue what’s going to happen with Tamron (and no stake, as I don’t own Sony and my RF mount can’t take Tamron FF lenses), but in general Japanese companies constantly buy and sell tech and components to each other. Sony uses Nikon tech while Nikon buys Sony sensors.
freaklikeme wrote:
What's not an edge case are the number of people who refuse to use any adapted lens on any system.
Well, that's definitely not me. I have adapted Canon EF, Pentax K, Mamiya 645...probably have forgotten one, to Fuji G. And for Sony I've adapted Canon EF, Pentax K, Leica R, Olympus, Nikon, Contax, Minolta...again probably forgetting some.)
Not saying people shouldn't adapt. Just to know any pitfalls and maybe some of those pitfalls have been resolved.
Tamron made all Batis lenses and they make that of for another brands. It makes sense Sony wants to buy the company. This way they can make sure they have one of the best manufacturers of the industry for making their next gear
tsdevine wrote:
Well, that's definitely not me. I have adapted Canon EF, Pentax K, Mamiya 645...probably have forgotten one, to Fuji G. And for Sony I've adapted Canon EF, Pentax K, Leica R, Olympus, Nikon, Contax, Minolta...again probably forgetting some.)
Not saying people shouldn't adapt. Just to know any pitfalls and maybe some of those pitfalls have been resolved.
Right there with you, but it wasn't always the case. Last century and the early part of this one, I picked a camera based on the OEM lenses available and only shot them. I'm not sure where I picked up that logic, but I didn't question it for years. It wasn't until I started checking out the fun the Alt Forum posters and posters on sites like MFLenses were having that I picked up my first alt lens (Summicron-R 90 adapted to Canon) and curiosity became obsession. Mirrorless has fueled that obsession nicely, and I think that probably is true for a small contingent of individuals like us, but those numbers are dwindling along with much of the photography market.
freaklikeme wrote:
Right there with you, but it wasn't always the case. Last century and the early part of this one, I picked a camera based on the OEM lenses available and only shot them. I'm not sure where I picked up that logic, but I didn't question it for years. It wasn't until I started checking out the fun the Alt Forum posters and posters on sites like MFLenses were having that I picked up my first alt lens (Summicron-R 90 adapted to Canon) and curiosity became obsession. Mirrorless has fueled that obsession nicely, and I think that probably is true for a small contingent of individuals like us, but those numbers are dwindling along with much of the photography market. ...Show more →
I was very much the same way. Starting peeking around in the Alt forum when I was shooting Canon.....added some Zeiss ZEs to my kit, then the Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar. Jumped to a Sony a7R and starting adapted my EF mount lenses..then other "legacy" film lenses, etc.
I adapt much less these days, but I have a healthy mixture of 1st and 3rd party lenses, and then some that are just different mounts that I adapt. But I definitely do that less now.
I can't imagine the mindset required to believe that the maker of your chosen cameras would also just happen to be the manufacturer of the exact style of lenses you want to use, down to the lens speed, size, weight, rendering, release schedule.
Our lenses are the critical element in the pathway to our precious images. I use the word 'mindset' because 'reasoning' is obviously not in play here.
The cine world practices Ecosystem Neutrality - universal mounts like the PL Mount allow filmmakers to put any brand of glass on any brand of camera.
Cine camera manufacturers deliberately keep their systems open so cinematographers can pair their preferred output with whatever vintage or modern aesthetic they desire. The decision is theirs and theirs alone, it's not for RED or Sony or ARRI to decide.
It's Kafkaesque that one would willingly conform to the whims of multinational commercial giants like Sony, Canon and Nikon to control the optical prison exercise yard - as though silicon, algorithm and fabrication expertise equated effortlessly into the exceptional aesthetic touch that is essential to developing the best photographic lenses. Excellence is not their goal, market supremacy is what they pursue.
Photography giants like Canon sell millions of consumer and prosumer camera bodies, creating a huge mass-market that justifies highly automated lens factories turning out widget optical products by the tens of millions.
What should be a precious and highly personal artistic decision, they have commodified. And they have convinced their flock it should be this way, like some tawdry televangelist preying on the credulity of those who have fallen under their self-serving spells.
Alternatively, to each their own. If one wants to buy a lens with guaranteed compatibility, they're under a spell?
Said by someone with Sigma, Voigt, Laowa and Samyang lenses who does not feel the need to insult those who make different decisions.
philip_pj wrote:
I can't imagine the mindset required to believe that the maker of your chosen cameras would also just happen to be the manufacturer of the exact style of lenses you want to use, down to the lens speed, size, weight, rendering, release schedule.
Our lenses are the critical element in the pathway to our precious images. I use the word 'mindset' because 'reasoning' is obviously not in play here.
The cine world practices Ecosystem Neutrality - universal mounts like the PL Mount allow filmmakers to put any brand of glass on any brand of camera.
Cine camera manufacturers deliberately keep their systems open so cinematographers can pair their preferred output with whatever vintage or modern aesthetic they desire. The decision is theirs and theirs alone, it's not for RED or Sony or ARRI to decide.
It's Kafkaesque that one would willingly conform to the whims of multinational commercial giants like Sony, Canon and Nikon to control the optical prison exercise yard - as though silicon, algorithm and fabrication expertise equated effortlessly into the exceptional aesthetic touch that is essential to developing the best photographic lenses. Excellence is not their goal, market supremacy is what they pursue.
Photography giants like Canon sell millions of consumer and prosumer camera bodies, creating a huge mass-market that justifies highly automated lens factories turning out widget optical products by the tens of millions.
What should be a precious and highly personal artistic decision, they have commodified. And they have convinced their flock it should be this way, like some tawdry televangelist preying on the credulity of those who have fallen under their self-serving spells. ...Show more →
It would be great if Canon, Nikon, Sony and others would allow freely open use of their camera mounts to everyone, but they don't. Basic compatibility, autofocus, image stabilization, frames per seconds, etc. are of poor performance or critically limited. Some of us need to capture the shot under difficult field conditions and the Sony, Canon and Nikkor lenses on their systems deliver the goods day in and day out. If your subjects are relatively stationary then consider yourself lucky as you have many choices including the archaic borkahs and 3D look so fashionable lately. It's not a better choice, just a different one.
