(11-14-2022, 03:38 PM)Rover Wrote: (11-14-2022, 02:58 PM)toni-a Wrote: My worry is that you are exploiting only a tiny bit of Z9 potential with lenses used through adapter, you will see yourself moving to native mount soon
Why is that? The AF is very fast and seemingly precise. Of course the proof will be in the action, but hopefully I'll have the opportunity for testing soon.
And no, I don't intend to switch all my lenses to the native mount - I intend to keep the 1D as well. Besides, it would take another huge investment of money I simply don't have now, and hardly will in the next couple of years. Some of my Canon gear is unsellable anyway because it's so worn and old (at least three of the lenses, anyway - the 14, the 70-200, the 100-400).
My experience adapting Canon lenses to Sony wasn't encouraging, every lens behaved differently :
10-18 no functionning at all, 17-55 focus errors, 50f1.4 focus hunting, 85f1.8 good but slow, 28f2.8 good but still slow, that's why I dropped the idea completely. OTOH Canon EF lenses adapted to EOS RP work perfectly, well just like they used to do on EF Canon SLRs
When you get a beast like Z9 with world class autofocus abilities you won't be exploiting the camera full potential when it comes to autofocus speed with adapted lenses, unless the adapter is really really good or adapter/camera body firmware allow them to work together in a very good way.
Uh, that's why I read a lot of materials and chose (apparently) the best available adapter. The 9 lenses that I've tested so far all work, only the 14mm had issues (resolved by updating the firmware in the adapter), and the Tamron 70-300 either has defective IS or just doesn't like to be put on a camera with IBIS unless the in-lens stabilization is turned off. All focus quickly and with good accuracy, in line with what I've had on Canon (I only tested them inside in questionable light BTW, except the 16-35 which showed itself well outside).
11-22-2022, 05:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-22-2022, 05:38 PM by Rover.)
The Z9 handled the first "serious" shoot today. It went well though unfamiliar controls are still a bane, and it's awkward to change lenses a little, what with having to turn the camera off and on before swapping them (otherwise the adapter remains reporting the aperture of f/1 that doesn't change unless you, you guessed it, turn the camera off and on again). An ergonomic issue of note is the tiny "OK" button that is very hard to push while wearing thick gloves, and I had to wear these because I felt stupidly cold after waiting for 2 hours before the event had started in earnest. (it was just -6 but after 2 hours it was no consolation).
Two more lenses tested to work with the Z9 / Fringer adapter without issue, the Canon 24-70/4 L IS and the Tamron 100-400/4.5-6.3 VC. At this point I'm not expecting any hiccups unless I try something truly exotic, like an electronic MF / USM lens from the dawn of the Canon system (like the 50/1.0 or 200/1.8), or really a very old Sigma lens known for causing errors on more modern bodies. Even the Sigma 14/2.8 has been reined in.
03-03-2023, 02:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2023, 03:00 PM by Rover.)
Today I got the first native lens - the 16-50. It's cheap (just $120 ... or thereabouts, not really following the exchange rates) and very compact. With it the Z9 fits in a small bag. I thought of it today and turns out it's the first Nikon lens I've ever owned, and the first collapsible lens I've ever used, to boot. 
Of course I have the 24-85 but it's far from compact with the adapter. Besides, if the adapter should break (God forbid!), I'd be left with no way to shoot anything with the Z9 at all. Now, that danger is averted.
For me at least, I consider collapsible lenses consumable parts, just like batteries, they have a lifespan after which you change them....I bought Sony 16-50 three times.....adapters are usually sturdy solid, collapsible lenses are not....
03-04-2023, 07:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2023, 07:34 AM by Rover.)
It's not like I'll be using the 16-50 daily - for the actual work, I'll be carrying the real gear set into action, and when I'm marooned at the office, there's no need to shoot. But it'll be handy for carrying "just in case" as none of the Canon mount lenses I have is nearly as compact.
The 24 MP I'm getting is perfectly adequate, and maybe even overkill - yesterday I was editing an ages old (okay, 2004 vintage) 2 MP picture for (online) publication, cropped it some, and even then I still got the desired result. Of course, for print it would have been a different story.
BTW I stumbled upon another review site doing evaluations of mostly Nikon gear, photographylife.com. what piqued my interest was that they're using the same Imatest methods as OL does. I'm a sucker for scientific looking charts and whatnot, they somehow make the results more believable for me. The 16-50 got decent scores there.
(03-04-2023, 07:31 AM)Rover Wrote: It's not like I'll be using the 16-50 daily - for the actual work, I'll be carrying the real gear set into action, and when I'm marooned at the office, there's no need to shoot. But it'll be handy for carrying "just in case" as none of the Canon mount lenses I have is nearly as compact.
The 24 MP I'm getting is perfectly adequate, and maybe even overkill - yesterday I was editing an ages old (okay, 2004 vintage) 2 MP picture for (online) publication, cropped it some, and even then I still got the desired result. Of course, for print it would have been a different story.
BTW I stumbled upon another review site doing evaluations of mostly Nikon gear, photographylife.com. what piqued my interest was that they're using the same Imatest methods as OL does. I'm a sucker for scientific looking charts and whatnot, they somehow make the results more believable for me. The 16-50 got decent scores there.
Sorry but my experience with collapsible lenses was horrible, it is excellent and very sharp new, however with the collapsible mechanism and elements moving , depending how harsh you treat it of course it won't be long before it starts losing quality.
Again sorry for being rather pessimistic.
For me I am okay with that, pay a cheap price for a tiny collapsible lens, using for some period, replace when needed.
This lens looks sturdy enough when collapsed (for an all-plastic construction, anyway) because the extending duo-cam part is fitting flush with the front surface, so there's no chance of it getting caught in anything and being forced out of alignment.
We'll see how it fares...
(03-05-2023, 09:19 AM)Rover Wrote: This lens looks sturdy enough when collapsed (for an all-plastic construction, anyway) because the extending duo-cam part is fitting flush with the front surface, so there's no chance of it getting caught in anything and being forced out of alignment.
We'll see how it fares...
My 5 year old daughter dropped sony 16-50 while extended.... it was a maybe 40-50cm fall, and that was it, just be careful.
I learnt not to really care and enjoy using my gear, when it breaks it breaks, nothing lasts forever...
Well, dropping gear is not a good thing whatever it is (cue the lamentations for the Canon 100-400 I've smashed up just over a month ago, and it's gone into servicing...)
|
