Been with Canon for 12 years - wait or jump ship?

[Isaacheus]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Have you tried the mc-11? I've got the 16-35mm f4 on that, it's not super in low light but if you can give it some contrast, it seems to be decent overall. Having said that, I wouldn't rate a cameras af purely on how it can handle adapted lenses, that seems a bit unfair as a whole.

I do tend to use a tripod and manual focusing for landscape in low light myself, as I've never found any cameras (6d, 5dmk3 etc) to be fantastic focusing in low light shadows

 

[jrvvn]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Have you tried the mc-11? I've got the 16-35mm f4 on that, it's not super in low light but if you can give it some contrast, it seems to be decent overall. Having said that, I wouldn't rate a cameras af purely on how it can handle adapted lenses, that seems a bit unfair as a whole.

I do tend to use a tripod and manual focusing for landscape in low light myself, as I've never found any cameras (6d, 5dmk3 etc) to be fantastic focusing in low light shadows

No no, it has nothing to do with A7R III nor with Canon 16-35. Simply the combination does not work with Metabones V.
The simple fact with my Canon 35mm F2 it worked so well I was expecting more from Canon 16-35 (since this last is my main lens).
I sold my 6D for A7R III, you have to admit, even though 6D has old technology the middle focusing point is amazing in low light (almost dark/no light), fast and accurate.

Kind disappointed with my investment. That's it.
I never expected to be mega fast as with native lenses but I did expect to focus. The currect situation is ...my Canon 16-35 cannot even focus

Not tried with MC-11 but I heard somewhere that Eye Focus does not work with it. True/False ?

By the way, I wrote to Metabones about this matter, hope they can reply me soon.

 

[tron]

In the meantime my 16-35 lenses (4 IS and 2.8 III) work fine with my 5D4

 

[ecqns]

By the way, I wrote to Metabones about this matter, hope they can reply me soon.

That's odd - I've not heard of a Canon/Sonya7r2 or 3/Metabones issue like that. I shoot mostly manual focus lenses but the 2 AF ones I use, the 40mm and the Sigma 100-400 focus really fast and accurate. I was impressed by the new a7r3 AF, and I thought the a7r2 was fast coming from the original. I would send the Metabones in to get checked out.

 

[eoren1]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Found the same with the 35/2 IS and really happy as I love that lens

17-40/4 hunted a bit at 17mm on static objects - got the Sony 16-35/4

24-105 was okay but had significantly more vignetting and is my most used lens so got the Sony equivalent

100/2 was okay but Sony's 85/1.8 was far better

70-200/4 IS couldn't track my kids with movement so got the Sony 100-400 (had been interested in switching the to Canon 100-400 before switching)

 

[jrvvn]

In the meantime my 16-35 lenses (4 IS and 2.8 III) work fine with my 5D4

ahaha well done ;D

anyway.... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

 

[jrvvn]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Found the same with the 35/2 IS and really happy as I love that lens

17-40/4 hunted a bit at 17mm on static objects - got the Sony 16-35/4

24-105 was okay but had significantly more vignetting and is my most used lens so got the Sony equivalent

100/2 was okay but Sony's 85/1.8 was far better

70-200/4 IS couldn't track my kids with movement so got the Sony 100-400 (had been interested in switching the to Canon 100-400 before switching)

You are my man of this forum since I have all the gear you have. I think you can feel my pain

Spent 4000€ for bad focusing ... I'm crying :'(

 

[privatebydesign]

But you do have nearly a stop more dynamic range....

 

[ahsanford]

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Which is kind of why you vacation in another country before you choose to live there.

Rent before you buy/convert. This is 100% avoidable with a simple rental.

- A

 

[ecqns]

Spent 4000€ for bad focusing ... I'm crying :'(

Send the Metabones back or return and try a different one. People on these forums report getting bad lenses all the time, needing to find a "good" copy - an adapter is no different. You might also need to figure out the AF settings a bit better, not sure how you have set it up. You aren't trying to use Eye AF are you? I think that's only for Sony lenses.

 

[eoren1]

You are my man of this forum since I have all the gear you have. I think you can feel my pain

Spent 4000€ for bad focusing ... I'm crying :'(

The way I think about adapters is as a bridge to the Sony system. It's great that they let you 'try out' the Sony body and figure out if the ergonomics and other add-on features are a good fit but, at the end of the day, native lenses are a far better option. The Metabones is supposed to enable Eye AF with the newest firmware but it's still not nearly as fast as the native lens.

I just sold all of my Canon gear so I can give you some math (in dollars) that may help (or not):

Bought Canon gear for $7,000 mostly in 2009 and 2012. Sold for $2875 (not including the 35/2). Since I sell prints, I run my photography as an LLC and took the depreciation of gear as 30% off my taxes so net cost to me of owning Canon gear for 6-8 years was about $2k. I made far more on prints during that time.

I purchased the Sony gear for $9,000. Minus depreciation it comes to $5,800. My earnings from photography easily offset this. I anticipate owning the gear for at least as long as the Canon and expect sales to continue at same rate so I should be able to appreciate a nice profit again.

If photography is purely a hobby and you do not sell prints, then you have to decide whether the cost of gear is a worthwhile expense. From the perspective of a father, I've already gotten more 'keepers' of my son playing basketball than I had with the Canon so that has been worth it.

Even more, the change in gear and choice of slightly different focal lengths has given me a nice creative boost.

Hope that helps...

 

[COBRASoft]

Haven't read everything...

I also have a 5dIII but with a twist. The AA filter is removed from the sensor resulting in much sharper images. This combined with excellent glass from Canon and the IQ is superb. It's like I have a new camera.

 

[privatebydesign]

You are my man of this forum since I have all the gear you have. I think you can feel my pain

Spent 4000€ for bad focusing ... I'm crying :'(

The way I think about adapters is as a bridge to the Sony system. It's great that they let you 'try out' the Sony body and figure out if the ergonomics and other add-on features are a good fit but, at the end of the day, native lenses are a far better option. The Metabones is supposed to enable Eye AF with the newest firmware but it's still not nearly as fast as the native lens.

I just sold all of my Canon gear so I can give you some math (in dollars) that may help (or not):

Bought Canon gear for $7,000 mostly in 2009 and 2012. Sold for $2875 (not including the 35/2). Since I sell prints, I run my photography as an LLC and took the depreciation of gear as 30% off my taxes so net cost to me of owning Canon gear for 6-8 years was about $2k. I made far more on prints during that time.

I purchased the Sony gear for $9,000. Minus depreciation it comes to $5,800. My earnings from photography easily offset this. I anticipate owning the gear for at least as long as the Canon and expect sales to continue at same rate so I should be able to appreciate a nice profit again.

If photography is purely a hobby and you do not sell prints, then you have to decide whether the cost of gear is a worthwhile expense. From the perspective of a father, I've already gotten more 'keepers' of my son playing basketball than I had with the Canon so that has been worth it.

Even more, the change in gear and choice of slightly different focal lengths has given me a nice creative boost.

Hope that helps...

You need a better accountant! That aside the business use aspect is irrelevant in a direct cost to swap comparison.

If you bought a Canon 24-70 f2.8 for $1,250 in 2004 and could get $700 for it now (my situation), and a Sony 24-70 f2.8 costs $2,198 now then the cost to swap is $2,198 - $800, or $1,398 plus the difference in body values.

 

[jrvvn]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Found the same with the 35/2 IS and really happy as I love that lens

17-40/4 hunted a bit at 17mm on static objects - got the Sony 16-35/4

24-105 was okay but had significantly more vignetting and is my most used lens so got the Sony equivalent

100/2 was okay but Sony's 85/1.8 was far better

70-200/4 IS couldn't track my kids with movement so got the Sony 100-400 (had been interested in switching the to Canon 100-400 before switching)

I've tested again the lenses.

Any texture without some contrast (homogeneous texture) it will not focus for both lenses: 35mm F2 and 16-35 F4

e.g. table, car's door, fridge's door

I can guarantee my old 6D could focus on all the simple tests I did.


What's your experience with native Sony body + Sony lenses compared to Canon body + Canon lenses ?

I'm thinking in switching back to Canon...

 

[tron]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Found the same with the 35/2 IS and really happy as I love that lens

17-40/4 hunted a bit at 17mm on static objects - got the Sony 16-35/4

24-105 was okay but had significantly more vignetting and is my most used lens so got the Sony equivalent

100/2 was okay but Sony's 85/1.8 was far better

70-200/4 IS couldn't track my kids with movement so got the Sony 100-400 (had been interested in switching the to Canon 100-400 before switching)

I've tested again the lenses.

Any texture without some contrast (homogeneous texture) it will not focus for both lenses: 35mm F2 and 16-35 F4

e.g. table, car's door, fridge's door

I can guarantee my old 6D could focus on all the simple tests I did.


What's your experience with native Sony body + Sony lenses compared to Canon body + Canon lenses ?

I'm thinking in switching back to Canon...

Now I do not want to sound like a fan boy and it's actually not my business but if I was in that king of a situation I would try to exchange the Sony body with a Canon 5D4. But of course I believe that Sony will AF just fine with Sony lenses.

 

[Talys]

@jrvvn - the Sony champion at the A7RIII event I went to suggested the Sigma over the Metabones adapter. You might want to see if that is any improvement. However, in my opinion, when I gave it a whirl, it was just clunky and far inferior to Canon on Canon or Sony on Sony.

The cost of Sony lenses is way, way more than the cost of Canon lenses, especially for f/2.8's, which is something to consider. The camera store guy heavily promoted the Sony + Canon as a way to mitigate this (even to people present who did not own Canon lenses), and maybe it's a good way to get someone with a bag of Canon lenses to get jump into Sony. But personally, I don't think many people who just blew US$3,000 or whatever on a body will be happy with that.

It also looks and feels awkward. I would recommend that if you love the Sony enough, go buy Sony lenses. Otherwise, just sell the Sony and get a 5D4. It's not like you won't get near-retail for a A7R3, since it's still highly constrained, or alternatively, lenses like the 16-35/4 can sell for close to boxing day/MAP sale prices.

 

[ecqns]

@jrvvn - the Sony champion at the A7RIII event I went to suggested the Sigma over the Metabones adapter. You might want to see if that is any improvement.

Lensrentals.com and others do not recommend using the Sigma adapter with Canon lenses. As I said 2 other times - I'd recommend exchanging the Metabones adpaters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the issue. I have 2 - one older, one newer and mine are fine but I've heard about early models not being that reliable, so getting it checked out or exchanged might be worthwhile.

 

[Isaacheus]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Have you tried the mc-11? I've got the 16-35mm f4 on that, it's not super in low light but if you can give it some contrast, it seems to be decent overall. Having said that, I wouldn't rate a cameras af purely on how it can handle adapted lenses, that seems a bit unfair as a whole.

I do tend to use a tripod and manual focusing for landscape in low light myself, as I've never found any cameras (6d, 5dmk3 etc) to be fantastic focusing in low light shadows

No no, it has nothing to do with A7R III nor with Canon 16-35. Simply the combination does not work with Metabones V.
The simple fact with my Canon 35mm F2 it worked so well I was expecting more from Canon 16-35 (since this last is my main lens).
I sold my 6D for A7R III, you have to admit, even though 6D has old technology the middle focusing point is amazing in low light (almost dark/no light), fast and accurate.

Kind disappointed with my investment. That's it.
I never expected to be mega fast as with native lenses but I did expect to focus. The currect situation is ...my Canon 16-35 cannot even focus

Not tried with MC-11 but I heard somewhere that Eye Focus does not work with it. True/False ?

By the way, I wrote to Metabones about this matter, hope they can reply me soon.

Ah I get you now, and yeah, I've heard it's quite variable depending on what lens is being used unfortunately. It also seems that it depends on the adapter being used, where lens A works well with the metabones but not as well as the mc-11 and vice versa. I wonder if this is one of those situations

The mc-11 has eye af on all the lenses I've tried so far, no issues there.

Keen to hear what metabones say.
The 6d center point is great yes, I still have my 6d that I use together with the sony.

I have had a few days with the sony 28-70 and the af was far better in low light with this than any of the adapted lenses. I'll be getting either the 24-105 or the 24-70 sony for this range for the af at some point.

 

[jrvvn]

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

Canon 35 F2 - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

Canon 16-35 F4 - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...

Have you tried the mc-11? I've got the 16-35mm f4 on that, it's not super in low light but if you can give it some contrast, it seems to be decent overall. Having said that, I wouldn't rate a cameras af purely on how it can handle adapted lenses, that seems a bit unfair as a whole.

I do tend to use a tripod and manual focusing for landscape in low light myself, as I've never found any cameras (6d, 5dmk3 etc) to be fantastic focusing in low light shadows

No no, it has nothing to do with A7R III nor with Canon 16-35. Simply the combination does not work with Metabones V.
The simple fact with my Canon 35mm F2 it worked so well I was expecting more from Canon 16-35 (since this last is my main lens).
I sold my 6D for A7R III, you have to admit, even though 6D has old technology the middle focusing point is amazing in low light (almost dark/no light), fast and accurate.

Kind disappointed with my investment. That's it.
I never expected to be mega fast as with native lenses but I did expect to focus. The currect situation is ...my Canon 16-35 cannot even focus

Not tried with MC-11 but I heard somewhere that Eye Focus does not work with it. True/False ?

By the way, I wrote to Metabones about this matter, hope they can reply me soon.

Ah I get you now, and yeah, I've heard it's quite variable depending on what lens is being used unfortunately. It also seems that it depends on the adapter being used, where lens A works well with the metabones but not as well as the mc-11 and vice versa. I wonder if this is one of those situations

The mc-11 has eye af on all the lenses I've tried so far, no issues there.

Keen to hear what metabones say.
The 6d center point is great yes, I still have my 6d that I use together with the sony.

I have had a few days with the sony 28-70 and the af was far better in low light with this than any of the adapted lenses. I'll be getting either the 24-105 or the 24-70 sony for this range for the af at some point.

Yesterday I've tested again and found out:

Under day light or low light situation, wherever the surface is smooth/surface with poor texture/low contrast, both lenses cannot focus. Canon 35 F2 can focus sometimes, but the fail rate can reach 50%. With Canon 16-35 F4 100% fail.
The surfaces I'm talking about are:
table, car's door, fridge, wall with shades (created by artificial light), cellphone, etc..
everything that looks smooth and no texture, it won't focus.

When there's contrast/patterns are notably different then both lenses have no issues in focusing.

It really pisses me off since the tests I did are not extreme, which means anybody can face these situations in a daily bases.

Metabones replied me this morning with some sort of stupid feedback: "have you tried Green-mode ?"
In Green-mode is even worse. Even with Canon 35 F2, the AF is so so so slow and the fail rate increases by 35-50%.

For me Focus scenarios coverage > focus speed. I don't mind in exchanging coverage for speed. (of course, not super slow). I'm happy and unsatisfied at same time.

Putting AF issue aside, the images taken are simly great. I visualize my images in 5k monitor and the image quality is simply astonish. For this reason I don't want to give up Sony A7R III.

I'm now researching more about MC-11, maybe can solve my problem.

Thank you for all your replies guys. Thumbs up