6 stop push: 5DsR vs A7R vs A7RII

[jrista]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

There are also hotshoe adapters that bring in compatibility with Canon/Nikon hotshoe devices. They won't give you full in-camera TTL control over flash, but it will adapt flash as well as other hotshoe devices compatible with those brands (and in some cases, other brands as well).

The "system" argument is breaking down, which is exactly why the Sony Alpha line is so compelling. You DO NOT have to make a system choice anymore.

 

[scyrene]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

There are also hotshoe adapters that bring in compatibility with Canon/Nikon hotshoe devices. They won't give you full in-camera TTL control over flash, but it will adapt flash as well as other hotshoe devices compatible with those brands (and in some cases, other brands as well).

The "system" argument is breaking down, which is exactly why the Sony Alpha line is so compelling. You DO NOT have to make a system choice anymore.

I think things are improving, but you're being a bit more lenient on one situation than the other. On the one hand, a few aspects of image quality - shadow raising/dynamic range etc - are said to be crucial, while others - AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame - are not. I don't doubt that Sony body + adaptor + Canon lens is a more usable setup than it was, but it's not perfect yet - I'm reminded of Roger Cicala's take on adaptors http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters (even though it's from 2013 I doubt it's no longer valid).

The system argument is less strong than before, but to suggest it's no longer valid is a bit strong.

Not to mention Sony hasn't yet provided a larger body - as I've said elsewhere, I handhold with a supertelephoto lens and can't see the A7 for factor working for this.

 

[jrista]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

There are also hotshoe adapters that bring in compatibility with Canon/Nikon hotshoe devices. They won't give you full in-camera TTL control over flash, but it will adapt flash as well as other hotshoe devices compatible with those brands (and in some cases, other brands as well).

The "system" argument is breaking down, which is exactly why the Sony Alpha line is so compelling. You DO NOT have to make a system choice anymore.

I think things are improving, but you're being a bit more lenient on one situation than the other. On the one hand, a few aspects of image quality - shadow raising/dynamic range etc - are said to be crucial, while others - AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame - are not. I don't doubt that Sony body + adaptor + Canon lens is a more usable setup than it was, but it's not perfect yet - I'm reminded of Roger Cicala's take on adaptors http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters (even though it's from 2013 I doubt it's no longer valid).

The system argument is less strong than before, but to suggest it's no longer valid is a bit strong.

Not to mention Sony hasn't yet provided a larger body - as I've said elsewhere, I handhold with a supertelephoto lens and can't see the A7 for factor working for this.

The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument...in the case of the A7r II. It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.

Lenses are the primary thing keeping most photographers in their chosen system. There are flash and other devices, sure. Most of my non-lens devices that I have for my Canon kit can be easily replaced...if they need to be. For example, I have some intervolometers that I simply wouldn't need to replace since that's build in with the Sony cameras. The single largest basis of value that I have in my Canon system is the lenses, by a long shot. For some people who shoot portraiture and the like, flash might be a big second, and if it is, I can see a big reason for sticking with the brand (i.e. E-TTL).

Regardless of that, however, most people's investment is in lenses. Lenses are the things that stick around when we switch in-brand bodies even.

So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better. Focus accuracy, well that is as much the user understanding how to use the AF system as it is the AF system itself (and that is true for using Canon lenses on Canon bodies even...my 600mm f/4 lens on a Canon body is designed to focus inward before it focuses outward...before I knew that, I missed a lot of BIF shots because the darn lens would focus the wrong way when the bird was dead center in the lens, just OOF. I had to pre-focus the lens out towards infinity with my thumb before autofocusing, and I was nailing BIF on a regular basis.)

Is the A7r II perfect? Hell no. Will the A7r III be perfect? Hell no. But my 5D III is far from perfect as well. The point is simply that I can use the A7r II for what I need it for...mostly manually focused with a few AF landscapes, macros, flora and other nature stuff, with all of my existing lenses...no brainer. For the other kind of photography I like, still life scenes of classic old equipment and such at low ISO, where I do use AF, the A7r II will perform better with my existing equipment than the A7r (which, while it could AF, did so poorly enough that I ended up resorting to manual focus for all of it.)

 

[3kramd5]

With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses.

Not so far in my experience, at least not the way I shoot.

It handles new lenses well (16-35f/4L, for example) if you let it choose what to focus on.

If you choose an af "point" (flexible spot), it handles new lenses decently when that spot is near center. Towards the edges it hunts, even in easy situations. And sometimes it gets confused and starts hunting even in the center in easy situations, and I have to switch modes off flexible spot and come back. Then it works.

Old lenses? No go.

It's looking more and more like a native lens or manual focus platform to me.

 

[scyrene]

The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument...in the case of the A7r II. It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.

Lenses are the primary thing keeping most photographers in their chosen system. There are flash and other devices, sure. Most of my non-lens devices that I have for my Canon kit can be easily replaced...if they need to be. For example, I have some intervolometers that I simply wouldn't need to replace since that's build in with the Sony cameras. The single largest basis of value that I have in my Canon system is the lenses, by a long shot. For some people who shoot portraiture and the like, flash might be a big second, and if it is, I can see a big reason for sticking with the brand (i.e. E-TTL).

Regardless of that, however, most people's investment is in lenses. Lenses are the things that stick around when we switch in-brand bodies even.

So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better. Focus accuracy, well that is as much the user understanding how to use the AF system as it is the AF system itself (and that is true for using Canon lenses on Canon bodies even...my 600mm f/4 lens on a Canon body is designed to focus inward before it focuses outward...before I knew that, I missed a lot of BIF shots because the darn lens would focus the wrong way when the bird was dead center in the lens, just OOF. I had to pre-focus the lens out towards infinity with my thumb before autofocusing, and I was nailing BIF on a regular basis.)

Is the A7r II perfect? Hell no. Will the A7r III be perfect? Hell no. But my 5D III is far from perfect as well. The point is simply that I can use the A7r II for what I need it for...mostly manually focused with a few AF landscapes, macros, flora and other nature stuff, with all of my existing lenses...no brainer. For the other kind of photography I like, still life scenes of classic old equipment and such at low ISO, where I do use AF, the A7r II will perform better with my existing equipment than the A7r (which, while it could AF, did so poorly enough that I ended up resorting to manual focus for all of it.)

I think the reports re. AF are intriguing, but it seems an even less empirically-tested area in camera reviews than sensor performance.

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors. They have glass, right? They'll likely (on average) introduce some aberrations - just as Canon's own extenders do. And on focus speed - it's a minor point maybe, but I thought one of the arguments for 1-series cameras was their more powerful battery made AF faster. The tiny batteries in most mirrorless cameras are surely inferior, even to non 1-series DSLRs?

I've no doubt you personally know exactly what you're doing in choosing a body. But the overall narrative that started this thread was a very specific case (6 stop pushes and using them to trash one camera versus another). That, I think, misleads those who don't spend as much time deciding on cameras based on such careful examination of their specs and how they relate to the work one wants to do with them.

 

[tpatana]

I dont understand why people resist the benefits of having the option of raising blacks without creating too much noise. The only explanation I can come up with is that Canon sensors don't do this best and this is a Canon forum.

I'm certainly in favor of anything that provides more options. But, I can't recall ever having to lift shadows 6 stops in any of my keeper shots over the past 5 years.

Well, don't get stuck on the past. Good example on how people always don't think what something means, years-years ago there was cell phone seminar where the participants were given task to come up with ideas, and then they voted which ideas were best. They said that the ideas don't need to be even remotely possible, just something that they would love to have on a cell phone.

Some reason wireless charging was voted higher than cell phone which doesn't need to be charged ever.

Same for photos, assuming no drawbacks, of course it's better to be able to push/pull more stops, even if you 99.999% of the time don't need it.

Thinking that task above, I'd like a camera with ISO100 50-stop DR.

Week ago I was actually shooting at this place which had huge doors/windows. The day was very bright, and insides were poorly lit. I didn't want to use flash, so exposuring inside properly blew out the outsides. With 6+ stop push/pull camera, I could have exposured in the halfway, and then lift the shadows on post.

I'm still staying with my Canons, but having more features, even when you don't usually need them, can be helpful.

 

[3kramd5]

The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument...in the case of the A7r II. It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.

Lenses are the primary thing keeping most photographers in their chosen system. There are flash and other devices, sure. Most of my non-lens devices that I have for my Canon kit can be easily replaced...if they need to be. For example, I have some intervolometers that I simply wouldn't need to replace since that's build in with the Sony cameras. The single largest basis of value that I have in my Canon system is the lenses, by a long shot. For some people who shoot portraiture and the like, flash might be a big second, and if it is, I can see a big reason for sticking with the brand (i.e. E-TTL).

Regardless of that, however, most people's investment is in lenses. Lenses are the things that stick around when we switch in-brand bodies even.

So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better. Focus accuracy, well that is as much the user understanding how to use the AF system as it is the AF system itself (and that is true for using Canon lenses on Canon bodies even...my 600mm f/4 lens on a Canon body is designed to focus inward before it focuses outward...before I knew that, I missed a lot of BIF shots because the darn lens would focus the wrong way when the bird was dead center in the lens, just OOF. I had to pre-focus the lens out towards infinity with my thumb before autofocusing, and I was nailing BIF on a regular basis.)

Is the A7r II perfect? Hell no. Will the A7r III be perfect? Hell no. But my 5D III is far from perfect as well. The point is simply that I can use the A7r II for what I need it for...mostly manually focused with a few AF landscapes, macros, flora and other nature stuff, with all of my existing lenses...no brainer. For the other kind of photography I like, still life scenes of classic old equipment and such at low ISO, where I do use AF, the A7r II will perform better with my existing equipment than the A7r (which, while it could AF, did so poorly enough that I ended up resorting to manual focus for all of it.)

I think the reports re. AF are intriguing, but it seems an even less empirically-tested area in camera reviews than sensor performance.

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right? They'll likely (on average) introduce some aberrations - just as Canon's own extenders do. And on focus speed - it's a minor point maybe, but I thought one of the arguments for 1-series cameras was their more powerful battery made AF faster. The tiny batteries in most mirrorless cameras are surely inferior, even to non 1-series DSLRs?

I've no doubt you personally know exactly what you're doing in choosing a body. But the overall narrative that started this thread was a very specific case (6 stop pushes and using them to trash one camera versus another). That, I think, misleads those who don't spend as much time deciding on cameras based on such careful examination of their specs and how they relate to the work one wants to do with them.

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

 

[privatebydesign]

The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument...in the case of the A7r II. It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.

Lenses are the primary thing keeping most photographers in their chosen system. There are flash and other devices, sure. Most of my non-lens devices that I have for my Canon kit can be easily replaced...if they need to be. For example, I have some intervolometers that I simply wouldn't need to replace since that's build in with the Sony cameras. The single largest basis of value that I have in my Canon system is the lenses, by a long shot. For some people who shoot portraiture and the like, flash might be a big second, and if it is, I can see a big reason for sticking with the brand (i.e. E-TTL).

Regardless of that, however, most people's investment is in lenses. Lenses are the things that stick around when we switch in-brand bodies even.

So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better. Focus accuracy, well that is as much the user understanding how to use the AF system as it is the AF system itself (and that is true for using Canon lenses on Canon bodies even...my 600mm f/4 lens on a Canon body is designed to focus inward before it focuses outward...before I knew that, I missed a lot of BIF shots because the darn lens would focus the wrong way when the bird was dead center in the lens, just OOF. I had to pre-focus the lens out towards infinity with my thumb before autofocusing, and I was nailing BIF on a regular basis.)

Is the A7r II perfect? Hell no. Will the A7r III be perfect? Hell no. But my 5D III is far from perfect as well. The point is simply that I can use the A7r II for what I need it for...mostly manually focused with a few AF landscapes, macros, flora and other nature stuff, with all of my existing lenses...no brainer. For the other kind of photography I like, still life scenes of classic old equipment and such at low ISO, where I do use AF, the A7r II will perform better with my existing equipment than the A7r (which, while it could AF, did so poorly enough that I ended up resorting to manual focus for all of it.)

I think the reports re. AF are intriguing, but it seems an even less empirically-tested area in camera reviews than sensor performance.

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right? They'll likely (on average) introduce some aberrations - just as Canon's own extenders do. And on focus speed - it's a minor point maybe, but I thought one of the arguments for 1-series cameras was their more powerful battery made AF faster. The tiny batteries in most mirrorless cameras are surely inferior, even to non 1-series DSLRs?

I've no doubt you personally know exactly what you're doing in choosing a body. But the overall narrative that started this thread was a very specific case (6 stop pushes and using them to trash one camera versus another). That, I think, misleads those who don't spend as much time deciding on cameras based on such careful examination of their specs and how they relate to the work one wants to do with them.

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

There might not be any glass in some adapters but there is often a perceivable loss in IQ even when there is no glass, particularly for high MP stills images off center. Indeed Roger at Lens Rentals confirmed that in some situations glassless adapters were not usable as the falloff off center was too high. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

 

[scyrene]

The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument...in the case of the A7r II. It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.

Lenses are the primary thing keeping most photographers in their chosen system. There are flash and other devices, sure. Most of my non-lens devices that I have for my Canon kit can be easily replaced...if they need to be. For example, I have some intervolometers that I simply wouldn't need to replace since that's build in with the Sony cameras. The single largest basis of value that I have in my Canon system is the lenses, by a long shot. For some people who shoot portraiture and the like, flash might be a big second, and if it is, I can see a big reason for sticking with the brand (i.e. E-TTL).

Regardless of that, however, most people's investment is in lenses. Lenses are the things that stick around when we switch in-brand bodies even.

So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better. Focus accuracy, well that is as much the user understanding how to use the AF system as it is the AF system itself (and that is true for using Canon lenses on Canon bodies even...my 600mm f/4 lens on a Canon body is designed to focus inward before it focuses outward...before I knew that, I missed a lot of BIF shots because the darn lens would focus the wrong way when the bird was dead center in the lens, just OOF. I had to pre-focus the lens out towards infinity with my thumb before autofocusing, and I was nailing BIF on a regular basis.)

Is the A7r II perfect? Hell no. Will the A7r III be perfect? Hell no. But my 5D III is far from perfect as well. The point is simply that I can use the A7r II for what I need it for...mostly manually focused with a few AF landscapes, macros, flora and other nature stuff, with all of my existing lenses...no brainer. For the other kind of photography I like, still life scenes of classic old equipment and such at low ISO, where I do use AF, the A7r II will perform better with my existing equipment than the A7r (which, while it could AF, did so poorly enough that I ended up resorting to manual focus for all of it.)

I think the reports re. AF are intriguing, but it seems an even less empirically-tested area in camera reviews than sensor performance.

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right? They'll likely (on average) introduce some aberrations - just as Canon's own extenders do. And on focus speed - it's a minor point maybe, but I thought one of the arguments for 1-series cameras was their more powerful battery made AF faster. The tiny batteries in most mirrorless cameras are surely inferior, even to non 1-series DSLRs?

I've no doubt you personally know exactly what you're doing in choosing a body. But the overall narrative that started this thread was a very specific case (6 stop pushes and using them to trash one camera versus another). That, I think, misleads those who don't spend as much time deciding on cameras based on such careful examination of their specs and how they relate to the work one wants to do with them.

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

Really? I had no idea! (Obviously)

 

[kaihp]

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right?

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

There might not be any glass in some adapters but there is often a perceivable loss in IQ even when there is no glass, particularly for high MP stills images off center. Indeed Roger at Lens Rentals confirmed that in some situations glassless adapters were not usable as the falloff off center was too high. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

The Metabones SpeedBooster does have glass in it, so 3kramd5's statement was a bit too bold.

 

[3kramd5]

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right?

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

There might not be any glass in some adapters but there is often a perceivable loss in IQ even when there is no glass, particularly for high MP stills images off center. Indeed Roger at Lens Rentals confirmed that in some situations glassless adapters were not usable as the falloff off center was too high. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

The Metabones SpeedBooster does have glass in it, so 3kramd5's statement was a bit too bold.

That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about using full frame SLR lenses on a full frame mirrorless camera. The speedboosters, which are like the inverse of teleconverters indeed use optics. Pure adapters are essentially extension tubes.

 

[privatebydesign]

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right?

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

There might not be any glass in some adapters but there is often a perceivable loss in IQ even when there is no glass, particularly for high MP stills images off center. Indeed Roger at Lens Rentals confirmed that in some situations glassless adapters were not usable as the falloff off center was too high. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

The Metabones SpeedBooster does have glass in it, so 3kramd5's statement was a bit too bold.

That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about using full frame SLR lenses on a full frame mirrorless camera. The speedboosters, which are like the inverse of teleconverters indeed use optics. Pure adapters are essentially extension tubes.

The article I linked to was also about glassless adapters. They have an adverse impact on IQ especially off center and at high MP. So the dream of getting Canon lens resolution capacity from non Canon bodies for high quality stills images is not a clear cut case.

 

[Loswr]

So the dream of getting Canon lens resolution capacity from non Canon bodies for high quality stills images is not a clear cut case.

It's more than clear cut...haven't you heard? Using an adapted lens on a Sony body is possibly even better than native.

No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

 

[3kramd5]

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right?

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

There might not be any glass in some adapters but there is often a perceivable loss in IQ even when there is no glass, particularly for high MP stills images off center. Indeed Roger at Lens Rentals confirmed that in some situations glassless adapters were not usable as the falloff off center was too high. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

The Metabones SpeedBooster does have glass in it, so 3kramd5's statement was a bit too bold.

That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about using full frame SLR lenses on a full frame mirrorless camera. The speedboosters, which are like the inverse of teleconverters indeed use optics. Pure adapters are essentially extension tubes.

The article I linked to was also about glassless adapters. They have an adverse impact on IQ especially off center and at high MP.

Im aware of that. It's self evident that adding anything mechanical between a lens and its mount necessarily adds an additional source of alignment error, even if they hold parallelism to say .001 inches. I was just answering the original question as asked.

 

[scyrene]

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors.They have glass, right?

To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.

There might not be any glass in some adapters but there is often a perceivable loss in IQ even when there is no glass, particularly for high MP stills images off center. Indeed Roger at Lens Rentals confirmed that in some situations glassless adapters were not usable as the falloff off center was too high. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

The Metabones SpeedBooster does have glass in it, so 3kramd5's statement was a bit too bold.

That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about using full frame SLR lenses on a full frame mirrorless camera. The speedboosters, which are like the inverse of teleconverters indeed use optics. Pure adapters are essentially extension tubes.

The article I linked to was also about glassless adapters. They have an adverse impact on IQ especially off center and at high MP.

Im aware of that. It's self evident that adding anything mechanical between a lens and its mount necessarily adds an additional source of alignment error, even if they hold parallelism to say .001 inches. I was just answering the original question as asked.

I made an honest mistake, but given the article I linked to (linked again later) was (it turns out) about glassless adaptors, I guess the general point stands? Namely, that adaptors will likely degrade image quality a little, and given image quality is supposed to be the thing everyone cares about it's not fair to say using them is as good as mounting native lenses on a camera body.

 

[privatebydesign]

So the dream of getting Canon lens resolution capacity from non Canon bodies for high quality stills images is not a clear cut case.

It's more than clear cut...haven't you heard? Using an adapted lens on a Sony body is possibly even better than native.

No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

Thanks Neuro, if it hadn't been for your sharp eyes that might have slipped me by. So I am good to get the A7RII now and use my EF lenses for even better performance?

 

[captainkanji]

If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.

 

[dash2k8]

I'm late to this game. Who even pushes shadows 3 stops in real life? The only instances of pushing shadows that much is for creative exercise. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've not once had to push shadows beyond 2 stops, let alone 6 stops.

Lesson learned from this comparison: if you want to push shadows by 6 stops, get a a7rII!

 

[East Wind Photography]

I'm late to this game. Who even pushes shadows 3 stops in real life? The only instances of pushing shadows that much is for creative exercise. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've not once had to push shadows beyond 2 stops, let alone 6 stops.

Lesson learned from this comparison: if you want to push shadows by 6 stops, get a a7rII!

I agree. I spend more time pulling exposures than pushing. If you have to push your exposures all the time, you are doing it wrong. But i guess there are those that are lazy and don't want to use histograms to maximize what their cameras can deliver.

 

[Aglet]

If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.

if you're shooting Canon's DiGic 4, you have no choice. (well, not much anyway)
If you're shooting ABC, it's rarely a problem if at lower ISOs.