05-22-2017, 10:53 AM
Again, I could start to defend my positions, but actually there's nothing to defend. If one does not have the insight to see the mechanical tolerance problems of a just mounted, but never adjusted converter, adapter, distance ring - fine. At the same time I say, only few lenses are sensitive to tolerances coming from the adapters - and all of them, be it Nikon or others, WILL have tolerances.
These few lenses are wide angles with larger apertures than f/2.8. There are not many of these around. But with them, tilting has the same effect like decentering in one direction only. Two parts of the picture are blurred which would otherwise be theoretically sharp (normal lens flaws adding to that problem). One can ask "oh yes, maybe, but then when are you doing reproductions of flat things with wide open aperture?" Adapter or not, a part of the picture will still be as sharp as the lens delivers. Here the discussion becomes academic = meaningless for practical use.
You two, BC as you, dave, underestimate very much the impact of higher resolving sensors which show these flaws just a bit better. And if you add (what you don't because I don't think anyone of you has) fast wide-angles the problems to AF these glass.
Academic again, because one who needs fast glass for desperate light situations will usually not put a HR sensor behind it. And I can't say, it's speeding things up to have only CDAF in such light situations
The handling problem remains, though. Not only change lenses but sometimes also genuine lenses with adapted. Two more planes have to be perfectly parallel, two more sets of electrical contacts need to work all time flawless, to just not add more problems. However, it's said the Sigma Adapter on Sony adapts certain Sigma lenses very well.
I said, I "could start to defend positions" - to be honest, I will make my position about an eventually upcoming Nikon mirrorless system camera for larger sensors (than they already did with their now discontinued "1" series) after it happens. They first have to solve the same problems like all other ML manufacturers had and come up with a better system. I think Canon can do better here than Nikon.
The 1 was everything in terms of light and small size. I just wonder why those of us claiming a mirrorless system has to be small and light, were not running for that system, Studor13 being an exception but he never insisted on these features. "yes, but the sensor was too small!" - alright, go bigger with the sensor, but stop implying the lenses have to remain small - just look over at Sony's bricks.
I think, Nikon made their biggest mistake with the 1 system not to offer more tryout-events. Most of us remained sceptical as the sizes are small, the prices not necessarily.
These few lenses are wide angles with larger apertures than f/2.8. There are not many of these around. But with them, tilting has the same effect like decentering in one direction only. Two parts of the picture are blurred which would otherwise be theoretically sharp (normal lens flaws adding to that problem). One can ask "oh yes, maybe, but then when are you doing reproductions of flat things with wide open aperture?" Adapter or not, a part of the picture will still be as sharp as the lens delivers. Here the discussion becomes academic = meaningless for practical use.
You two, BC as you, dave, underestimate very much the impact of higher resolving sensors which show these flaws just a bit better. And if you add (what you don't because I don't think anyone of you has) fast wide-angles the problems to AF these glass.
Academic again, because one who needs fast glass for desperate light situations will usually not put a HR sensor behind it. And I can't say, it's speeding things up to have only CDAF in such light situations
The handling problem remains, though. Not only change lenses but sometimes also genuine lenses with adapted. Two more planes have to be perfectly parallel, two more sets of electrical contacts need to work all time flawless, to just not add more problems. However, it's said the Sigma Adapter on Sony adapts certain Sigma lenses very well.
I said, I "could start to defend positions" - to be honest, I will make my position about an eventually upcoming Nikon mirrorless system camera for larger sensors (than they already did with their now discontinued "1" series) after it happens. They first have to solve the same problems like all other ML manufacturers had and come up with a better system. I think Canon can do better here than Nikon.
The 1 was everything in terms of light and small size. I just wonder why those of us claiming a mirrorless system has to be small and light, were not running for that system, Studor13 being an exception but he never insisted on these features. "yes, but the sensor was too small!" - alright, go bigger with the sensor, but stop implying the lenses have to remain small - just look over at Sony's bricks.
I think, Nikon made their biggest mistake with the 1 system not to offer more tryout-events. Most of us remained sceptical as the sizes are small, the prices not necessarily.