Guessing you've got plantar fasciitis then? Latest research suggests no direct relationship between heel spurs and plantar fasciitis, have you been given exercises?
I always used to x-ray the other foot and often found a large but completely asymptomatic "spur". There is a poor correlation between bony outgrowth and the symptoms associated with plantar fasciitis.
It would be interesting to see if they offer you surgery in the light of the current situation but there are other treatments that are less invasive that can be of benefit.
Dr didn't give any option but chopping it off. I know it won't be quick but assuming I'm still here after this emergency I might go private to get it done quicker as although this isn't exactly life threatening it is rather painful and has limited my activity. I wondered about the other foot but no symptoms there to date.
I would always try/recommend conservative care before opting for surgery.
Agreed, very strongly
Of course you should...
It's no coincidence, I was a podiatrist /podiatric surgeon.In the context, your name is amusing.
)
On the plus side it could get you out of going to war (should we have one) like Orange Donald.
Although I doubt you paid for the diagnosis like Donald's daddy. 
A lot of non urgent procedures getting pushed back atm understanerbly. Doesn't ,eam people suffer any less.
I've mentioned it on here already but I think that the Canon system will become very impressive and we'll see a lot of Sony users swap/swap back. My issue with the Canon system is that none of the native lenses barring the 70-200mm f2.8 interest me, and one of the reasons I swapped to Sony was that I preferred using native. The rumoured R5 and R6 sound interesting though, and I think in a couple of years Canon might have more lenses that appeal to me. I'm very happy with the A7RIV though so have no desire to swap.
As above, I prefer using native lenses. The AF-S lenses worked great on my Z7 but the whole thing just felt a bit clumsy somehow.
As I said, the Nikon adapter worked just fine, just not a fan of using adapters
As I said, the Nikon adapter worked just fine, just not a fan of using adapters
Just had a look, does look a much better adapter in terms of size/bulk
not true. EF-R adapter is just a hollow tube. The nikon one like sony LA-EA3 has a thing at the bottom that can't be removed (LA-EA1 the tripod foot can be removed). Makes storing it with it on the lens harder. can't just pretend its part of the lens.Just had a look, does look a much better adapter in terms of size/bulk
in case I want to use native lens. The only EF lenses I am interested in are telephotos. For others I'd probably buy stuff similar to what I have on e-mount i.e. a 24-105mm, 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.2. I wouldn't buy more than couple EF lenses and adapters (the basic one) is cheap enough to buy two of.
Not sure why you wrote this, I was agreeing with you that the Canon adapter looks better.
Finally got around to 'skimming' this video, didn't listen to much, just skipped to the examples. At 70mm f2.8 in the centre the GM looked noticeably sharper than the other two to me, not sure why he didn't see the same. At 200mm the Tamron looked at gnats sharper than the GM, with the f4 being worst. The Tamron looked better at the edges throughout when wide open. The GM appeared to have better colour in the videos, and had better contrast especially in backlit scenarios. I didn't listen to the conclusion, not sure if he said the same but as he didn't see any centre difference at 70mm I'm not sure I'd take note anyway
Haha, I know that feeling well
I'm waiting for the A9-II to drop to £2k, might have saved for it by then to accompany my R4, that's if I can get back to work before the business goes under
