Yeah, if you like the ergonomics of a bricklooks like to use my sigma 500mm f5.6 i am better off buying Z8 than A1
Sony have removed the restriction for the A9iii and a bunch of Sigma lenses.Yeah, if you like the ergonomics of a brick
In all seriousness it does make the restrictions Sony put on third party lenses all the more baffling, clearly just a limitation enforced by the firmware rather than a physical limitation.
That's only in AF-S AFAIK, not AF-C
Seems so, poor form on Sony's part, not impressed.
Not quite - Canon's cripple hammer is to only allow a hand full of 3rd Party lenses - there are fewer Sigma Lenses on EF Mount (and all are APS-C) than there are Sigma lenses that can shoot 120 fps (AF-S/Manual).
I can’t fathom it, those that want the third party glass are unlikely to want or afford the equivalent Sony glass regardless of the restrictions so it’s not as though Sony are going to get a huge amount of extra sales by implementing the restriction on third party lenses. In fact I think they’re more likely to lose more sales through people opting to migrate to Canikon instead.
I think he meant Canon’s long standing cripple hammer, not necessarily just third party lenses
I would have agreed with you until the video showing the Sigma using Sony TC on Nikon. Now of course it could just be that one Sigma lens that works and I’d like to see them try other Sigmas to see if they get the extra fps. If not it does suggest at least some hardware issue, but if they also work with extra fps it would show deliberate software crippling from Sony in which case it would be nice of them to say why. There could be a valid reason, but by staying quiet it opens up all kinds of speculation and criticism
That's pretty much my thinking. Sony's general approach has been quite open to third party lenses so I don't think they'd be deliberately restrictive of this one element but it is a lot more straightforward for them not to have to bother testing with TC and not allow it to work to prevent anyone raising support issues with the combination. I don't think the fact it works with a Nikon body disproves that possible approach either, just because it can work doesn't mean it will definitely work in all circumstances.
In general Sony have the most 'open' mirrorless system - the 15fps restriction is only really affecting a small proportion of Sony users, as the majority (in terms of units sold) of bodies cannot shoot at 15fps anyway.I would have agreed with you until the video showing the Sigma using Sony TC on Nikon. Now of course it could just be that one Sigma lens that works and I’d like to see them try other Sigmas to see if they get the extra fps. If not it does suggest at least some hardware issue, but if they also work with extra fps it would show deliberate software crippling from Sony in which case it would be nice of them to say why. There could be a valid reason, but by staying quiet it opens up all kinds of speculation and criticism
It’s not something that bothers me, I’m just perplexed and like to understand why
Whilst baffling it doesn’t upset me, I’ve never bought into a system to rely on third party glass. Sure if there’s something that fits the bill and works then it’s an added bonus to me. 15fps is also more than ample imo, and often what I shoot at despite being able to shoot at 30fps. I’m also finding I use my TC less since having high res bodies as I can just crop to get the reach.
Thoughts welcome on the below - both shot at max aperture, 1/500, low iso so broadly comparable (ok not exactly scientific but near enough for me).
They both look miles sharper on Flickr so please click through if interested
RX10 v A6700+70-350 comparison by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Very difficult to pass a definitive judgement on these as there’s so many different variables at play here, and of course it doesn’t help that I’m still viewing on my phone. What I will say though is the RX10 is demonstrating an ‘issue’ that I have with smaller sensors in that the image looks very flat and two dimensional compared to the A6700 shot.Thoughts welcome on the below - both shot at max aperture, 1/500, low iso so broadly comparable (ok not exactly scientific but near enough for me).
They both look miles sharper on Flickr so please click through if interested
RX10 v A6700+70-350 comparison by Mike Smith, on Flickr
As customers you can either sing praises about the amazing "open mount", "benefits" etc or you can call out companies on their BS and push them to improve.
).
I don’t think anyone is praising them for implementing limitations and I think most people would prefer them to lift them if they can, however I personally don’t see it as a big dealAs customers you can either sing praises about the amazing "open mount", "benefits" etc or you can call out companies on their BS and push them to improve.
I pick the latter approach.
Sometime i feel like people don't want improvements and advancements!
Sony is not perfect and no system is perfect (unless of course Sony starts paying me and give me free gear to review
And when you smell BS its best to call them out on that than sing praises. Its proven beyond any doubt to me now that TCs on 3rd party lenses and more than 15fps is possible. So when there is no technical limitation, imposing it artificially is just not good form. I cannot understand why anyone wouldn't want such features unlocked, even if you don't use certain features, any advancements helps everyone overall.
SameI don’t think anyone is praising them for implementing limitations and I think most people would prefer them to lift them if they can, however I personally don’t see it as a big deal
Thanks - that’s kind of what I thought. I had a short-ish session at a feeder on Monday with the A6700 and the hit rate was ok but nothing spectacular to be honest even with eye af engaged and the green square picking up the eye. I’ll keep trying but I’m not convinced it’s all it’s cracked up to be.
Thanks for the reply - I don’t believe the RX10 shot was sharpened that much in post, all I have is Topaz denoise which does mild sharpening. I’ve loads of older shots which are similar which I haven’t sharpened at all.
Thanks - yes I think I see what you about it looking flatter. I’m going to keep going with both cameras for a while before deciding what to do.
think you have missed my point.... the point is they have put the effort it is so that TCs don't work with 3rd party lenses.
That’s a shame, I’ve not used the A6700 but everything I’ve read has said it’s an exceptional camera with amazing AF, but if you’re not gelling with it it doesn’t matter how good it’s ‘supposed’ to be.
I’ve found that on smaller sensors topaz over sharpens if you add the same amount as a larger sensor. I’ve noticed this with LR too.
Maybe as others have said they don’t want to invest in it working flawlessly so rather than risking poor performance they just disable it. That would seem logical to me as I’d imagine they’d get far more criticism if third party lenses didn’t work properly.think you have missed my point.... the point is they have put the effort it is so that TCs don't work with 3rd party lenses.
if you take Sony body out of the equation there is no issue as shown in the video shared. So I am asking them stop putting in any more effort to purposely/deliberately get in the way.
Whether AF, IBIS and whatever else works appropriately with 3rd parties is hardly something they'd care about or need to care about.
Manufacturers never take responsibility for performance or issues with 3rd parties.
I remember when there was an issue with A1's IBIS on the initial lot that shipped, I was asked to send example of the issue only with 1st party lens. They didn't care if it didn't work with 3rd party lenses.
So what i am proposing should be less work for them
The problem is we are just guessing and assuming the reasons - we do have a concrete example that IN this SPECIFIC case, the Lens + TC + High FPS works - but that is not the same as saying any lens will work at hight FPS, or that any lens will work with a given TC (we do know, for example, that with other mounts there are sometimes physical restrictions on TC's due to some TC having elements forward of the mount, which impact on the lens rear element).As customers you can either sing praises about the amazing "open mount", "benefits" etc or you can call out companies on their BS and push them to improve.
I pick the latter approach.
Sometime i feel like people don't want improvements and advancements!
Sony is not perfect and no system is perfect (unless of course Sony starts paying me and give me free gear to review
And when you smell BS its best to call them out on that than sing praises. Its proven beyond any doubt to me now that TCs on 3rd party lenses and more than 15fps is possible. So when there is no technical limitation, imposing it artificially is just not good form. I cannot understand why anyone wouldn't want such features unlocked, even if you don't use certain features, any advancements helps everyone overall.
Somehow people seem to forget not long ago 3rd parties made lenses for DSLRs. They worked with all sort of TC combination.
If it's not malicious then what is it? The fact it 'just works' is meaningless and I come across this problem regularly where a solution is found to work but the company have it disabled because they don't want to do the testing and support for it. If Sony consistently had this approach of not supporting third party components and pushing their own instead then I could believe they'd done the same with the teleconverters but the fact they've been generally more open with support for third party lenses to the point they allow more competitive options to their own lenses shows that isn't the case. If you're now saying it's not malicious and it's not a technical reason then I don't know what else you think it could be.
Arguably Sony DID care about the in-body AF motor vs Sigma AF gears issue, as they included an option in their A850/A900 to specifically set the AF to a low torque mode to prevent it happening.
And was included in all bodies there after. So I guess there did care but my point was they didn't stop sigma from making lenses for Sony or stop 3rd parties from accessing AF-C or continuous drive mode etc
Malicious is if they are intending to harm me or my lenses, I don't think they are intending to harm my lenses. in fact I think they'd claim there intending to protect them.
You keep claiming Sony are doing this deliberately to hurt their users and keep ignoring complaints with no technical reason for the approach, the word for that is very much malicious. I don't think Sony are being malicious at all having seen this behaviour regularly but you're the one that keeps arguing the point Sony are just doing this because for no reason whatsoever apart from to annoy and harm their users.
