Jump to content

Recommended Posts

STM lenses, even on a Canon body, will not focus 

when the camera is "on, but idle" ... IOW when the

meter has timed out, etc. You hafta tap the shutter 

button to restore power to the STM. STM lenses 

have "focus by wire" ... they need power. So you 

can spin the focus ring from now til doomsday on 

you dumb adapter with no result. 

  

PS  

  

If and when you do get a smart adapter, you can 

expect partial operation of your Canon lenses and 

glitches in the functions that do happen to operate. 

  

Your dumb adapter cost pocket change. Consider 

yourself forewarned before buying a smart adapter. 

IOW listen to Jaf. Don't listen to TP this time only

Another EF 50 really will focus on a dumb adapter,

but you will have no control over the aperture :-(   

   

The only lenses you can use on a dumb adapter 

are completely manual lenses such as the Mitakon 

lenses with mechanical focus and manual aperture 

operation via rings on the lens. Such lenses come 

in severl mounts including Canon EF, but if you're 

already using an FD adapter with FD lenses, your 

dumb adapter for Canon EF lenses is redundant

to your FD adapter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

This time or anytime.

 

In any case it's totally pointless to buy an A6000 to use with cheapo adapted gear. The only selling point is the Sony hybrid autofocus. Without it, the A6000 has absolute no advantage over any other camera.

 

The Sony 50/1.8 is really good and it uses hybrid af. It probably costs as much as a Canon 50/1.8 and cheapo adapter, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adapters are very useful to many users, but they 

are definitely NOT for the faint of heart or feeble  

of skills. Successful happy adapter users do not  

tend to ask questions cuz they don't need to. So,  

IOW, the answer to nearly every question asked 

about adapters is basically "NO".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

There are too many people feeding the myth that adapted lenses are fine. There are a lot of compromises and incompatibilities.

 

Anyone Who buys a Sony camera should factor in the cost of native lenses. Otherwise the camera is crippled.

 

The A6000 has bad controls and features for adapted use. The sensor isn't great either, with clear banding from the on-sensor focusing.

 

Many people make good use of adapted lenses because they understand the parameters. If you don't or won't, It's a waste of time and money.

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

    • Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • 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.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...