Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi folks,

 

I just published a review of the Novoflex Canon FD to E-mount adapter. 

I was always curious if the more expensive adapters were worth their price.

So if you have asked yourself the same question check it out to read my answer: Novoflex Adapter Review

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Phillip

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Very good review containing very useful and helpful insights on the differences compared to the cheap ones. I really consider it now, because the FD lenses are among the better ones and it would be nice to use a well made adapter to suit them.

 

Tapatalked with a BlackBerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 Put my new Metabones E to M on my new a7R a couple of days ago and banged off some shots with my Lieca Elmar 135 4, just for fun. I knew that with my Fuji X-E1 and it's Metabones X to M adapter that my Elmar was just past the infinity stop, I assumed it would be the same with the new Metabones adapter, and it was, pretty well exactly.

 

 Impressive, as I realized later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip,

 

Thanks for your insight on Novoflex adapters.  I ordered a Novoflex adapter for a Nikon ZF.2 to Sony E mount.  I'm renting a Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 for my Sony a7R.

 

I used a Metabones IV adapter for a Canon EF to Sony E mount .  With this combination I did not get any aperture data and I was unable to adjust my aperture.  I was forced to shot a Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 stopped down to f16.  I understood that the Metabones IV would transmit aperture data and allow adjustment of the aperture with a camera dial.  Am I incorrect?

 

One footnote.  I rented the Metabones IV adapter.  The rental company's shipping documents specified that I was sent a Metabones IV.  But after I was unable to read aperture data or change the aperture, I compared my rented adapter to the images on Metabones' web site.  I concluded that the rental company shipped a Metabones III rather than a Metabones IV.

 

Given the problems that I had using a Canon EF mount on my  Sony a7R, I'm looking at the Nikon F mount offered by Zeiss for the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4.  The Nikon offering from Zeiss has an aperture ring on the lens.  I understand that my aperture reading will not show up in my EVF or as EXIF data, but at least I will be able to adjust the aperture.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Robert Crawford

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I use the Novoflex Adapter MD-NEX to mount Minolta SR-mount lenses on the A7.

 

I agree - it is a simple piece of solid workmanship, infinity being pecisely infinity with all lenses that I use.

 

But it is great only as long as you do not want to attach a tripod directly to the lens, which is definitely recommended for the heavier lenses on the A7.

 

The tripod-mount-accessory that Novoflex sells is expensive, complicated to mount (you have to remove the adapter from the camera, attach the fitting without fixing it, attach the adapter to the camera again, adjust the mount, fix it .....). And once it is mounted, it is totally in the way because you can´t grap the camera properly an longer.

 

It would be much easier to have something more practical like e.g. provided Metabones and others.

 

So if your if applications include heavier lenses without an own tripod mount on tripod, I would not recommend the Novoflex adapter.

 

Having APS-C and planning to use Minolta wide angle lenses, I would consider a ´speedbooster´-adapter, otherwise you can´t really take advantage of those lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Wonderful article. I appreciate the attention to details, including the portion about the reflectiveness of the inner barrel.

 

I was considering between the Novoflex and the Ciecio7 Canon FD to Sony NEX adapter. Both have no moving parts. Went with the Novoflex in the end.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...