FF Mirrorless Needed in 2018 -- A7-III changed the segment !

[bhf3737]

The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass and they would all focus better

I wouldn’t count on that, unless the V is substantially better than my IV, or unless the a7iii is substantially better than my a7Riii.

In some cases the canon lenses AF well adapted. In other cases they don’t AF at all. It very much depends on the lens, and on the conditions.
...

The ability to adapt lenses and counting it as an advantage of the Sony system has been over exaggerated by bloggers and internet dwellers. Actually the ability to adapt third party lenses using third party products is an indication of poor design of product and services, on Sony's behalf, rather than an advantage.
One of the pillars of the SOLID (i.e. de facto standard of good design of product and services) is Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP). In simple terms, when going for a walk with your dog, you should lead the dog not let the dog lead you. As for Sony, they have let the downstream businesses, like Metabones, take the lead in adapting lenses and Metabones' success/failure translates to success/failure of Sony's goods and services! This is extremely poor strategy and in long term, it will hurt Sony. Perhaps their board will start singing "Who let the dog out ..."!!
Based on evidences of product development strategy (e.g. weather sealing, reliability, etc.) and service development strategy (e.g. lens adaption and after-services via third party, etc.), I don't think that at the moment big players of the photography business are willing to bet on the Sony's products and services. Enthusiasts and those with extreme GAS may show different behavior, though.

 

[Talys]

The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass and they would all focus better

I wouldn’t count on that, unless the V is substantially better than my IV, or unless the a7iii is substantially better than my a7Riii.

In some cases the canon lenses AF well adapted. In other cases they don’t AF at all. It very much depends on the lens, and on the conditions.
...

The ability to adapt lenses and counting it as an advantage of the Sony system has been over exaggerated by bloggers and internet dwellers. Actually the ability to adapt third party lenses using third party products is an indication of poor design of product and services, on Sony's behalf, rather than an advantage.
One of the pillars of the SOLID (i.e. de facto standard of good design of product and services) is Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP). In simple terms, when going for a walk with your dog, you should lead the dog not let the dog lead you. As for Sony, they have let the downstream businesses, like Metabones, take the lead in adapting lenses and Metabones' success/failure translates to success/failure of Sony's goods and services! This is extremely poor strategy and in long term, it will hurt Sony. Perhaps their board will start singing "Who let the dog out ..."!!
Based on evidences of product development strategy (e.g. weather sealing, reliability, etc.) and service development strategy (e.g. lens adaption and after-services via third party, etc.), I don't think that at the moment big players of the photography business are willing to bet on the Sony's products and services. Enthusiasts and those with extreme GAS may show different behavior, though.

Anyone who claims that adapted lenses "sing" or "focus better" or, really, anything other than "autofocus like a pile of dog manure" just watches too many youtubes and has never actually tried to use an adapted canon lens on a Sony body.

I mean, if you don't need autofocus at all, like macro or a landscape, it's great. Yes, Canon makes good lenses, and when you bring light to the sensor, Sony does a good job of recording that light, real stunner there. But if you need reliable autofocus -- like a corporate head shot, portraiture, animal shots, or, God forbid, anything with action -- get ready to embarraass yourself mightily.

 

[AlanF]

As a 30 year Canon EOS "fan boy", member of CPS, advocate for full frame -- The other guys have given us one helluva challenge: The A7-III (due April 10th)

Priced like a 6D-II, performs better than anything Canon sells (well, I've never shot 1Dx), they finally have me tempted.

CPS loaned me a M5 which I found very lacking compared to the user interface and performance of EOS.

We are behind in sensors (My Leica Q out resolves my 6D), woefully behind in autofocus of action, and our feature set is below others price-for-price.

The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass and they would all focus better.

I never thought that I would think seriously about leaving...

This nonsense is being systematically dismantled, so let's add the ridiculous comment about the Leica Q. Its 24 Mpx sensor has similar if not worse DR overall than that of the 6DII, worse than the 50 Mpx 5DSR and far worse than that of the 30 Mpx 5DIV http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm. As for its resolution, that is restricted to its fixed 28mm lens, and it is streets behind that of the 5DSR with a good lens. As for AF, for action and flying birds there are only two real players, Canon and Nikon, with the A9 on the sidelines. Talys has found how the A7RIII with the FE 100-400mm is woefully inadequate for birds in flight.

 

[Isaacheus]

The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass and they would all focus better

I wouldn’t count on that, unless the V is substantially better than my IV, or unless the a7iii is substantially better than my a7Riii.

In some cases the canon lenses AF well adapted. In other cases they don’t AF at all. It very much depends on the lens, and on the conditions.
...

The ability to adapt lenses and counting it as an advantage of the Sony system has been over exaggerated by bloggers and internet dwellers. Actually the ability to adapt third party lenses using third party products is an indication of poor design of product and services, on Sony's behalf, rather than an advantage.
One of the pillars of the SOLID (i.e. de facto standard of good design of product and services) is Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP). In simple terms, when going for a walk with your dog, you should lead the dog not let the dog lead you. As for Sony, they have let the downstream businesses, like Metabones, take the lead in adapting lenses and Metabones' success/failure translates to success/failure of Sony's goods and services! This is extremely poor strategy and in long term, it will hurt Sony. Perhaps their board will start singing "Who let the dog out ..."!!
Based on evidences of product development strategy (e.g. weather sealing, reliability, etc.) and service development strategy (e.g. lens adaption and after-services via third party, etc.), I don't think that at the moment big players of the photography business are willing to bet on the Sony's products and services. Enthusiasts and those with extreme GAS may show different behavior, though.

Anyone who claims that adapted lenses "sing" or "focus better" or, really, anything other than "autofocus like a pile of dog manure" just watches too many youtubes and has never actually tried to use an adapted canon lens on a Sony body.

I mean, if you don't need autofocus at all, like macro or a landscape, it's great. Yes, Canon makes good lenses, and when you bring light to the sensor, Sony does a good job of recording that light, real stunner there. But if you need reliable autofocus -- like a corporate head shot, portraiture, animal shots, or, God forbid, anything with action -- get ready to embarraass yourself mightily.

I think that sounds a bit harsh really - I'm not sure I'd put adapted glass up against something like the 5dmk4, as I haven't used one, but I'd rate the mc-11 and 70-200 f4 above the original 6d for tracking, and for many uses, similar to the 5dmk3. I haven't done a huge amount of birds in flight overall, but I've been happy with the adapted lenses so far here.

There are obvious advantages for using canon bodies with canon lenses, but personally I've been happier overall with the af from the sony, than with my old 6d, using the same lens.

 

[AlanF]

A 70-200mm f/4 on a 6D is an unusual, to say the least, benchmark for comparing BIF proficiency.

 

[Talys]

I think that sounds a bit harsh really - I'm not sure I'd put adapted glass up against something like the 5dmk4, as I haven't used one, but I'd rate the mc-11 and 70-200 f4 above the original 6d for tracking, and for many uses, similar to the 5dmk3. I haven't done a huge amount of birds in flight overall, but I've been happy with the adapted lenses so far here.

There are obvious advantages for using canon bodies with canon lenses, but personally I've been happier overall with the af from the sony, than with my old 6d, using the same lens.

It's not harsh at all.

Take a look at the photo below. It's of some kitchen cabinets using available filtered light at 1/60 f/2.8 using a 100L adapted on a Sigma MC11. I happen to have it mounted because I'm testing macro with it.

The 100L autofocuses the scene above on the Sony A7R3 just fine in landscape mode, although in continuous AF mode with the camera on a tripod, IS off and using a remote shutter, it will continuously microhunt (click-click-click-click click-click).

But rotate the camera to portrait mode and it won't focus. Ever! Point it at the kitchen hood to the left or the refrigerator, and it will focus fine. AF mode = Center.

Now, I don't have a kitchen cabinet fetish. It's just that often enough, ANY of the adapted lenses that I've tried -- nearly a dozen, I think -- just don't work reliably. It's ok for very occasional use or where it doesn't matter if you can't autofocus, but it's unusable if getting the shot is important. If you owned a native lens that behaved like an adapted Canon, you would take it back and say it's defective.

Now, I did notice that you said it was better at tracking birds in flight with adapted lenses. This is not true, because the A7R3 is cannot track birds with adapted lenses. As in, that autofocus mode is greyed out. For manually tracking the bird (following its flight path and using center or spot AF), which works better anyhow, the autofocus on a T2i is better, never mind a 6D1 or 5D3. The only thing the A7R3 can track with adapted lenses (as in have autofocus follow the subject as it moves) is a human's eye, by holding down a button programmed to eye AF. This actually works remarkably well.

Don't believe me? Open up this photo of 6 people on your adapted lens A7R3:

https://www.timeinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PEOPLE_HTS300_credit.jpg

Set it to Wide, and turn on face priority, and you'll notice there's never a green box around a person/face. But hit Eye AF, and it will identify the closest eye, and move side to side with your finger on the Eye AF button, and the green box will follow the eye. But there is no such equivalent feature for anything else, like birds.

Birds in flight with adapted lenses is a cruel joke. I don't know how you can say that an adapted 70-200/4 works, as the only available AF modes are Wide, Center, and Spot, none of them have subject tracking, and all of them adjust autofocus in continuous mode slower than the camera's FPS by a long shot.

I'm also not exactly sure how the AF works on adapted lenses. It is some type of PDAF, and there *IS* AFMA (strange, right?), but only on adapted Sony lenses. Since the autofocus is mostly poo anyway, it hasn't mattered enough to me to pixel peep to that degree.

Forget about a bird -- just have a friend or a dog run at you and fire off at 8 or 10 FPS. Half those shots or more will be OOF.

The situations where I have found that adapted lenses work quite well are wide angle lenses, like a 16-35 where the subject is in the distance (near the lens' infinity), like landscapes, and situations where I'm going to manual focus anyhow.

 

[Isaacheus]

I think that sounds a bit harsh really - I'm not sure I'd put adapted glass up against something like the 5dmk4, as I haven't used one, but I'd rate the mc-11 and 70-200 f4 above the original 6d for tracking, and for many uses, similar to the 5dmk3. I haven't done a huge amount of birds in flight overall, but I've been happy with the adapted lenses so far here.

There are obvious advantages for using canon bodies with canon lenses, but personally I've been happier overall with the af from the sony, than with my old 6d, using the same lens.

It's not harsh at all.

Take a look at the photo below. It's of some kitchen cabinets using available filtered light at 1/60 f/2.8 using a 100L adapted on a Sigma MC11. I happen to have it mounted because I'm testing macro with it.

The 100L autofocuses the scene above on the Sony A7R3 just fine in landscape mode, although in continuous AF mode with the camera on a tripod, IS off and using a remote shutter, it will continuously microhunt (click-click-click-click click-click).

But rotate the camera to portrait mode and it won't focus. Ever! Point it at the kitchen hood to the left or the refrigerator, and it will focus fine. AF mode = Center.

Now, I don't have a kitchen cabinet fetish. It's just that often enough, ANY of the adapted lenses that I've tried -- nearly a dozen, I think -- just don't work reliably. It's ok for very occasional use or where it doesn't matter if you can't autofocus, but it's unusable if getting the shot is important. If you owned a native lens that behaved like an adapted Canon, you would take it back and say it's defective.

Now, I did notice that you said it was better at tracking birds in flight with adapted lenses. This is not true, because the A7R3 is cannot track birds with adapted lenses. As in, that autofocus mode is greyed out. For manually tracking the bird (following its flight path and using center or spot AF), which works better anyhow, the autofocus on a T2i is better, never mind a 6D1 or 5D3. The only thing the A7R3 can track with adapted lenses (as in have autofocus follow the subject as it moves) is a human's eye, by holding down a button programmed to eye AF. This actually works remarkably well.

Don't believe me? Open up this photo of 6 people on your adapted lens A7R3:

https://www.timeinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PEOPLE_HTS300_credit.jpg

Set it to Wide, and turn on face priority, and you'll notice there's never a green box around a person/face. But hit Eye AF, and it will identify the closest eye, and move side to side with your finger on the Eye AF button, and the green box will follow the eye. But there is no such equivalent feature for anything else, like birds.

Birds in flight with adapted lenses is a cruel joke. I don't know how you can say that an adapted 70-200/4 works, as the only available AF modes are Wide, Center, and Spot, none of them have subject tracking, and all of them adjust autofocus in continuous mode slower than the camera's FPS by a long shot.

I'm also not exactly sure how the AF works on adapted lenses. It is some type of PDAF, and there *IS* AFMA (strange, right?), but only on adapted Sony lenses. Since the autofocus is mostly poo anyway, it hasn't mattered enough to me to pixel peep to that degree.

Forget about a bird -- just have a friend or a dog run at you and fire off at 8 or 10 FPS. Half those shots or more will be OOF.

The situations where I have found that adapted lenses work quite well are wide angle lenses, like a 16-35 where the subject is in the distance (near the lens' infinity), like landscapes, and situations where I'm going to manual focus anyhow.

Haven't tried the camera in portrait orientation, so can't say anything about that, although that seems really strange - any idea why that might occur?

For tracking, it seems to work fine for me in the low fps setting at least (haven't tried mid) , so yes, the fps is far lower, but it seems to track fairly well there, better hit rate than I tend to get on the 6d so far. I usually just have it set to wide and it'll track the bird across the frame after initial lock. Not sure if that's how your supposed to do it, but it's worked so far.

On the other hand, I would not be recommending using adapted lenses in a professional setting, I'm not convinced that it'd cover all the necessary situations that well; the 40mm stm hunts in low light without enough contrast for example.

But my only point was that the af doesn't seem to be entirely useless overall, at least in the use I'd had do far. I'd still use Canon bodies with Canon lenses for a paid shoot

 

[AlanF]

It's not harsh at all.

Thanks for all that testing, which is very time consuming, Phil - you have demolished a set of myths. It will save a lot of time for a lot of us and stop us from making mistakes.

 

[Talys]

It's not harsh at all.

Thanks for all that testing, which is very time consuming, Phil - you have demolished a set of myths. It will save a lot of time for a lot of us and stop us from making mistakes.

Thanks, and it's been my pleasure. I've always been curious myself and I'm glad to share the results.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with someone today wanting to buy a Sony mirrorless to complement their Canon system; just do it with a proper set of expectations, and a good understanding of some of the weaknesses and limitations.

Haven't tried the camera in portrait orientation, so can't say anything about that, although that seems really strange - any idea why that might occur?

For tracking, it seems to work fine for me in the low fps setting at least (haven't tried mid) , so yes, the fps is far lower, but it seems to track fairly well there, better hit rate than I tend to get on the 6d so far. I usually just have it set to wide and it'll track the bird across the frame after initial lock. Not sure if that's how your supposed to do it, but it's worked so far.

On the other hand, I would not be recommending using adapted lenses in a professional setting, I'm not convinced that it'd cover all the necessary situations that well; the 40mm stm hunts in low light without enough contrast for example.

But my only point was that the af doesn't seem to be entirely useless overall, at least in the use I'd had do far. I'd still use Canon bodies with Canon lenses for a paid shoot

Oh, I'm with you -- the AF isn't entirely useless at all; I'd go so far to say that it's quite good for an adapted lens. It's a really cool novelty, but a terrible professional tool.

On re-reading what I posted, I was slightly inaccurate. Face tracking worked on many of my adapted lenses (so you can set it to wide, and it will pick up and follow a human face if it's not moving very fast), and Eye AF works quite well as long as you're holding the button. But subject tracking on anything else (like a bird, or a car) doesn't work at all, because those autofocus modes are disabled.

Of all the adapted lenses that I tried, my favorite, I think, was 24-70/4 IS in autofocus single mode. It behaves basically the way it should, and works most of the time; once in a while, it will still hunt back and forth on what should be something really easy to autofocus on, though. And I mean, what it boils down to is that it's just not worth the aggravation, if you really like Sony. Just sell your Canon L glass and buy Sony if that's the route you want to go; having a bag of Canon lenses and a couple of Sony bodies is not a winning combination.

 

[Isaacheus]

It's not harsh at all.

Thanks for all that testing, which is very time consuming, Phil - you have demolished a set of myths. It will save a lot of time for a lot of us and stop us from making mistakes.

Thanks, and it's been my pleasure. I've always been curious myself and I'm glad to share the results.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with someone today wanting to buy a Sony mirrorless to complement their Canon system; just do it with a proper set of expectations, and a good understanding of some of the weaknesses and limitations.

Haven't tried the camera in portrait orientation, so can't say anything about that, although that seems really strange - any idea why that might occur?

For tracking, it seems to work fine for me in the low fps setting at least (haven't tried mid) , so yes, the fps is far lower, but it seems to track fairly well there, better hit rate than I tend to get on the 6d so far. I usually just have it set to wide and it'll track the bird across the frame after initial lock. Not sure if that's how your supposed to do it, but it's worked so far.

On the other hand, I would not be recommending using adapted lenses in a professional setting, I'm not convinced that it'd cover all the necessary situations that well; the 40mm stm hunts in low light without enough contrast for example.

But my only point was that the af doesn't seem to be entirely useless overall, at least in the use I'd had do far. I'd still use Canon bodies with Canon lenses for a paid shoot

Oh, I'm with you -- the AF isn't entirely useless at all; I'd go so far to say that it's quite good for an adapted lens. It's a really cool novelty, but a terrible professional tool.

On re-reading what I posted, I was slightly inaccurate. Face tracking worked on many of my adapted lenses (so you can set it to wide, and it will pick up and follow a human face if it's not moving very fast), and Eye AF works quite well as long as you're holding the button. But subject tracking on anything else (like a bird, or a car) doesn't work at all, because those autofocus modes are disabled.

Of all the adapted lenses that I tried, my favorite, I think, was 24-70/4 IS in autofocus single mode. It behaves basically the way it should, and works most of the time; once in a while, it will still hunt back and forth on what should be something really easy to autofocus on, though. And I mean, what it boils down to is that it's just not worth the aggravation, if you really like Sony. Just sell your Canon L glass and buy Sony if that's the route you want to go; having a bag of Canon lenses and a couple of Sony bodies is not a winning combination.

I think I get you now - I'll have to go back and check what af modes I had set then, I may have just been getting lucky with it hitting the subject I wanted at the time? I know it definitely doesn't track at all on adapted Canon lenses at the higher fps.

And I fully agree, get the native lenses if you need it to work each and every time, it's good for a lot, but there are compromises too. I'm happy all in all as it means I get to use both bodies without doubling up on a number of lenses, and with what I do, I don't really fret if I miss on occasion - at a wedding or the like is completely different

For those wanting video focus on adapted lenses, I haven't found any canons that work at all

 

[bwud]

Haven't tried the camera in portrait orientation, so can't say anything about that, although that seems really strange - any idea why that might occur?

I expect a more accurate statement isn’t that it won’t focus, it’s that the PDAF system won’t find anything in that scene because all the sensors are horizontal lines. The CDAF system would work fine.

 

[AvTvM]

I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago.

I'm pretty sure, 5 years ago all Canon was thinking of was "how can we keep the lid on mirrorless and keep selling many more generations of marginally iterated "NEW" mirrorslappers to our dumbass users ... "

Had they really thought seriously about mirrorless FF system, they would have made the EF-M mount a few millimeters bigger in its 2 crucial dimensions: throat width and flange focal distance. And would now be able to move without any issues nicely and smoothly to EF-M and EF-X lenses, sharing the same mount in exactly the same way EF-S and EF did in the mirorrslapping past.

 

[AlanF]

I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago.

I'm pretty sure, 5 years ago all Canon was thinking of was "how can we keep the lid on mirrorless and keep selling many more generations of marginally iterated "NEW" mirrorslappers to our dumbass users ... "

Had they really thought seriously about mirrorless FF system, they would have made the EF-M mount a few millimeters bigger in its 2 crucial dimensions: throat width and flange focal distance. And would now be able to move without any issues nicely and smoothly to EF-M and EF-X lenses, sharing the same mount in exactly the same way EF-S and EF did in the mirorrslapping past.

Have you applied for a job with the Canon future design team? I am sure they could find a suitable opening for you.

 

[AvTvM]

I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago.

I'm pretty sure, 5 years ago all Canon was thinking of was "how can we keep the lid on mirrorless and keep selling many more generations of marginally iterated "NEW" mirrorslappers to our dumbass users ... "

Had they really thought seriously about mirrorless FF system, they would have made the EF-M mount a few millimeters bigger in its 2 crucial dimensions: throat width and flange focal distance. And would now be able to move without any issues nicely and smoothly to EF-M and EF-X lenses, sharing the same mount in exactly the same way EF-S and EF did in the mirorrslapping past.

Have you applied for a job with the Canon future design team? I am sure they could find a suitable opening for you.

thanks for your kind assessment ;D ... but no ... think I have more influence on things as customer ... especially as a refusing-to-buy-inadequate-cr*p customer

 

[neuroanatomist]

but no ... think I have more influence on things as customer ... especially as a refusing-to-buy-inadequate-cr*p customer

I agree. You have at least fifty times more influence that way...maybe even five-hundred times more influence!

Just keep in mind that anything times zero still equals zero.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago.

I'm pretty sure, 5 years ago all Canon was thinking of was "how can we keep the lid on mirrorless and keep selling many more generations of marginally iterated "NEW" mirrorslappers to our dumbass users ... "

Had they really thought seriously about mirrorless FF system, they would have made the EF-M mount a few millimeters bigger in its 2 crucial dimensions: throat width and flange focal distance. And would now be able to move without any issues nicely and smoothly to EF-M and EF-X lenses, sharing the same mount in exactly the same way EF-S and EF did in the mirorrslapping past.

Have you applied for a job with the Canon future design team? I am sure they could find a suitable opening for you.

Actually I thought AVTVM was already Canon's head of marketing and he is certainly very good at his job. Every time he makes an inaccurate or derogatory remark about a Canon product I go out and buy it.

 

[AvTvM]

Actually I thought AVTVM was already Canon's head of marketing and he is certainly very good at his job. Every time he makes an inaccurate or derogatory remark about a Canon product I go out and buy it.

AHA! ... now where's my commission, stupid Canon? ;D

 

[Hflm]

The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass and they would all focus better

I wouldn’t count on that, unless the V is substantially better than my IV, or unless the a7iii is substantially better than my a7Riii.

In some cases the canon lenses AF well adapted. In other cases they don’t AF at all. It very much depends on the lens, and on the conditions.
...

The ability to adapt lenses and counting it as an advantage of the Sony system has been over exaggerated by bloggers and internet dwellers. Actually the ability to adapt third party lenses using third party products is an indication of poor design of product and services, on Sony's behalf, rather than an advantage.
One of the pillars of the SOLID (i.e. de facto standard of good design of product and services) is Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP). In simple terms, when going for a walk with your dog, you should lead the dog not let the dog lead you. As for Sony, they have let the downstream businesses, like Metabones, take the lead in adapting lenses and Metabones' success/failure translates to success/failure of Sony's goods and services! This is extremely poor strategy and in long term, it will hurt Sony. Perhaps their board will start singing "Who let the dog out ..."!!
Based on evidences of product development strategy (e.g. weather sealing, reliability, etc.) and service development strategy (e.g. lens adaption and after-services via third party, etc.), I don't think that at the moment big players of the photography business are willing to bet on the Sony's products and services. Enthusiasts and those with extreme GAS may show different behavior, though.

Anyone who claims that adapted lenses "sing" or "focus better" or, really, anything other than "autofocus like a pile of dog manure" just watches too many youtubes and has never actually tried to use an adapted canon lens on a Sony body.

I mean, if you don't need autofocus at all, like macro or a landscape, it's great. Yes, Canon makes good lenses, and when you bring light to the sensor, Sony does a good job of recording that light, real stunner there. But if you need reliable autofocus -- like a corporate head shot, portraiture, animal shots, or, God forbid, anything with action -- get ready to embarraass yourself mightily.

Disagree. I have a Metabones V, too. Works very stable (and is better than the MC-11 unless for video AF), gives me tracking at 10fps with the A9 and 3fps with the A7riii and A7iii. Provides eye AF + other native modes and AFC works really well. _No_ AFMA is needed, so you won't get back-/front focus issues. Is the the 35/1.4 focussing more fluently than the Canon 35/1.4ii? A bit, but not so different than you make it. I own and tested The Sigma 24, 50, 85, 135 (ony tested it, decided for the Batis) Art lenses (all work fine), Canon 100L, 70-200/2.8ii, 35/1.4ii, 24-70/2.8ii, TS24ii and TS45 (no AF but both stabilised and with focus peaking or in VF magnification). All work excellently and you won't have problems doing a corporate head shot at all.
The adaption is not perfect for sports, although it works great with the A9 if 10fps is sufficient for you.

 

[KirkD]

Canon reminds me of Blackberry. They once dominated the world market. As a result, they got complacent and looked at new technology (like Apple's iPhone) with disdain. Apple developed with a fevered vengeance and within two years, Blackberry lost such a huge market share that they never recovered. I see exactly the same thing happening here with Canon. They really need to wake up, smell the coffee, and pour massive cash into R&D in an effort to catch up and pass Sony. All of my personal acquaintances who use Canon are seriously thinking of switching to Sony or are in the process of doing it after the announcement of the Sony A7III. If Canon does not do something awesome within the next 6-8 months or so, I predict a massive drop in market share by Q2 2019.

 

[Hflm]

gals, I’m not talking about the A7III. I’m talking about the fact that when I walk around NYC these days or go to an event like last year’s Tribeca Film Festival, I see more people walking around with Sony FF MILCs than anything else. Now, I’m sure Sony is dwarfed at sporting events by Canon and Nikon, but there is a buzz surrounding Sony FF MILC that is undeniable. And it was happening before the A7III. Now, it may be that Sony are currently the only game in town and when Canon / Nikon come out with their FF MILC, Sony will lose any market share they have. But to suggest that Sony has not paved the way for the FF MILC market is the only really ludicrous thought here.

The problem is, you're lumping full frame mirrorless buyers all together.

As I've said many times, the A7 is a great available-light tourist and travel camera, particularly if you pair cheap kit (light) lenses with a disproportionately priced body. In this case, it gives you the very best photos you can get out of crappy lenses, so you'll have the some of the highest dynamic range and highest resolution photos that nobody who isn't family cares about on flickr.

These combinations are geared towards people who don't care about distortion or corner sharpness, and are just happy that the subject in the middle is less grainy with less light. They like that they don't have to flip up a camera flash and blow out all the detail. For example, when they take a portrait, they could care less about basics, like choosing perspective, crop that enhances the photo, placement of fingers, lean, direction of light versus pose, or taking out harsh shadows under the chin. They are not interested in thinking before taking a photograph. They just want to press the shutter, and have the camera do its magic.

That's fine. They still buy cameras, so gear should be marketed towards that segment.

It's just not my market segment -- I'm a hobbyist who sees amazing photography online and in magazines, and aspires to gain experience and learn techniques that allow me to take photographs that are memorable and that amaze.

In this pursuit, it is a hindrance to have a camera that isn't ergonomically built for lenses that I'd typically choose to mount -- even in portraiture focal lengths, they're not small lenses, and just don't fit something like an A7 body very well. I expect that there are many professionals who use their cameras as tools day in and out who would feel the same way about ergonomics.

Disagree again, as do many other I know.
My wife and I use pro dslrs and Sonys at weddings for a few years now and Sony gives you the possibility to change the ergonomics drastically. The argument that you don't get the right ergonomics is subjective and often moot, as you don't need to use it without extensions. If we add e.g. the battery grip the camera feels perfect balanced and we have no problems for 12h weddings at all. All the f1.4 lenses or f2.8 zooms can be handled without issues. Usually people that complain never used and tried that for longer stretches of time. If it is still not to your personal preference, fine, but don't generalise as if the ergonomics is a hindrance in general.
For other sessions I add the RRS base plate which I find a perfect fit or the extra grip extension.

Meanwhile, DXO's measurements are up for the A7iii
Best low light score. Compared to our 5div it has a better S/N ratio over all isos, a stop more DR at base iso and 2/3 of a stop at higher isos. Quite an achievement.
https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7-iii-low-light-performer/