Anyone use the MC-11? I have a theory...

M. Gilden said:
Meanwhile, I'm curious how well the MC-11 works on cameras that have PDAF points but don't support the third party AF thing directly. In other words, does it work as well on the A6000 as it does on the A6300? It seems that people were cautiously impressed with it on the A6000, saying it was definitely faster than using a metabones or commlite. Eric, what's your take on that?
Click to expand...

I'm curious ideally what is it you want to achieve?

PDAF usually isn't very good for moving images by the nature of how it works. Also a lot of lenses use stepper motors that are quite jerky, because they need to hit a focus mark really quickly and that's all.

As a test you for use the PDAF in the LA adaptor with a suitable SSM lens (as opposed to the very old screw driven a mount lenses). So for example take the sony za24-70, which is a lovely lens. The SSM is fast but tracking in movie mode produces awful results, not smooth at all really.

For a one shot focus then it can be ideal, then manually track afterwards.

Contrast Detect on the other hand *ought* to do a better job because by the nature of how it works - it is monitoring movement, before and after and once a lock is achieved then it can interpolate and attempt to understand the motion and track accordingly.

The C300 MkII has some nice autofocus features though, it that a combination PDAF?

I'm going to sound horribly old school but you can't beat old manual lenses. yet. :)

cheers
Paul
 
I have some experience with the MC-11 and Signa and Canon glass. As well as the Metabones regular plus ultra. So on the a7r2 and a6300 for video AF in was contrast detect only with lenses like the Sigma 18-35 and 50 1.4 art. For stills it performed just about as fast as the Metabones. Risha, a moderator on dpreview, posted a video on YouTube about how it would use fast PDAF in video mode with Canon EF mount Sigma lenses. However, if you watch the video he's only using the Back button AF, just like for stills. HE HAD NEVER hit RECORD!! Once you do, it uses the very slow CDAF auto focusing. I even bought the dock to upgrade the lens firmware hoping that would change. Nope.
Final nail was I could not shoot in burst mode with Canon lenses (even new ones). First shot was fine; 2nd locked up the camera. I returned it.
 
Sparky, Aren't the commlite/clones/etc far cheaper and also capable of that with the new PDAF-supported cameras? I don't blame you for returning it, it sounds awful.

As an aside, just for kicks I've used the LA-EA4 adapter to AF in video mode, even though I was stuck at f/3.5. And while I agree that nothing is as pleasing to look at as a good manual focus pull, it was pretty useful for event/dance/steadicam work, so I wouldn't totally dismiss the value of PDAF during video. Not sure if any PDAF-enabled E-mount cameras would offer this with other forms of adapted lenses at all, or if that's perhaps a firmware thing. But I'd still be interested even if just for stills while maintaining a manual focus gear for video.

But to answer paulcurtis' question, my goal is to have lenses I could use for photography AF *AND* manual focus video.
The dilemma, just to recap, is FE lenses with focus by wire are lousy for MF video, but great for AF (both in video and stills). The mechanical gear PDAF lenses are great for MF, but won't AF worth beans on traditional E-mount bodies. On certain new bodies, we have third-party-support for PDAF which can adequately drive Canon lenses, but I'm coming from an A7S since video is my first and foremost concern.
So, first people like me were waiting for new FE lenses, like the G-master, to have manual focus gears. Cover our bases, they know we want it. But that didn't happen. Then we got excited about the MC-11 because perhaps it had some "secret sauce" to make the Canon-geared lens go native while still offering mechanical focus. But that didn't pan out either, it seems. The conclusion I'm drawing is that this simply isn't going to be possible, because ultimately the problem lies in CDAF system's inability to operate efficiently with DSLR mechanical gears.

I think I'm just rambling at this point. But hopefully some of that made sense. At the end of the day, it sounds like I should either hope for an A7Siii to have PDAF points, or pick up an A7Rii or A7ii for stills and keep the S as strictly a video device.
 
M. Gilden said:
Sparky, Aren't the commlite/clones/etc far cheaper and also capable of that with the new PDAF-supported cameras? I don't blame you for returning it, it sounds awful.

As an aside, just for kicks I've used the LA-EA4 adapter to AF in video mode, even though I was stuck at f/3.5. And while I agree that nothing is as pleasing to look at as a good manual focus pull, it was pretty useful for event/dance/steadicam work, so I wouldn't totally dismiss the value of PDAF during video. Not sure if any PDAF-enabled E-mount cameras would offer this with other forms of adapted lenses at all, or if that's perhaps a firmware thing. But I'd still be interested even if just for stills while maintaining a manual focus gear for video.

But to answer paulcurtis' question, my goal is to have lenses I could use for photography AF *AND* manual focus video.
The dilemma, just to recap, is FE lenses with focus by wire are lousy for MF video, but great for AF (both in video and stills). The mechanical gear PDAF lenses are great for MF, but won't AF worth beans on traditional E-mount bodies. On certain new bodies, we have third-party-support for PDAF which can adequately drive Canon lenses, but I'm coming from an A7S since video is my first and foremost concern.
So, first people like me were waiting for new FE lenses, like the G-master, to have manual focus gears. Cover our bases, they know we want it. But that didn't happen. Then we got excited about the MC-11 because perhaps it had some "secret sauce" to make the Canon-geared lens go native while still offering mechanical focus. But that didn't pan out either, it seems. The conclusion I'm drawing is that this simply isn't going to be possible, because ultimately the problem lies in CDAF system's inability to operate efficiently with DSLR mechanical gears.

I think I'm just rambling at this point. But hopefully some of that made sense. At the end of the day, it sounds like I should either hope for an A7Siii to have PDAF points, or pick up an A7Rii or A7ii for stills and keep the S as strictly a video device.
Click to expand...

One problem as i see with PDAF is that even if you can handle the jerky motion, it's very easy for the AF points to slip and lock focus very very fast elsewhere. Whereas CDAF is smoother and less harsh with slower more natural movements in video. So tracking people, if the CDAF slips it will catch before anything too major refocuses. But if a PDAF misses then you're looking at your background not the foreground. Of course your experiences could be different but when looking at the LA adapters and messing around, that was my conclusion.

When you say mechanical gear PDAF what do you mean, what kind of examples do you have? I assume you mean some of the older canon lenses. So they have hard stops as well as AF, do the sigmas do that as well? Do the sigmas have hard stops (it's been years since i sold all my canon stuff so i can't quite remember what the focus is like on them)

IMHO, The Sony ZA zooms are not too bad for manual focus, they have soft spots at the end of the range and a reasonable throw. But for any 'normal' focus pulling or wireless/follow focus none of the electronic lenses can be used due to lack of hard stops. I'm not aware of a lens that is mechanical, smooth and quiet AF. All these AF lenses appear to be focus by wire. Maybe there are some lenses from the early days of AF, like the screw driven A mount/minolta lenses but i'm not aware of any modern lenses like this.

If you like focusing off a barrel i don't think you're ever going to get a more natural feel than a manual lens.

If the work you do is AF based, then i guess you'll have to keep experimenting until you find something that works. The G Master lenses are focus by wire like all the others. I'm not aware of any modern lenses coupling AF motors to a physical mechanical drive because i believe the motors would need to be more powerful then they use these days. The motors in the canons are quite course as i mentioned, not ideal for smooth moves. They're also noisy.

To be honest i would guess you'll never see a mechanical lens coupled with a motor for video based AF because it would be too heavy for a motor to drive smoothly and quietly. I think you choose one way or another.

cheers
Paul
 
- You can have PDAF and slow focus changes, it's just a matter of how you program the focus shift (and whether the motor is capable of that slow motion).
- Focus-by-wire doesn't need to be bad. It may not be as good as what you get in a manual lens, but it can be as good as with Canon L lenses (i.e. with a linear response -to make it predictable- but without hard stops). I've read that several FE lenses, including the GM zooms, are good enough for manual focus (of course, "good enough" is subjective).
 
I find myself reviving this topic around my office, as someone wants to invest in a Sigma 35mm Art for photos as well as video.

My first reaction is to get the A-mount version and use it on the LA-EA4. But I'm wondering how bad the MC-11 paired with it on the A7S actually would be. I'm guessing since it emulates native controls it is going to be at least slightly faster than the Metabones/Commlite/etc on this camera which is emulating the LA-EA3 (already being treated like an adapter).

Does anyone out there have an MC-11 and can share their experiences on shooting stills with it? For video use, I'd like this better than the bulky LA-EA4 with the translucent mirror I think.
 
I'd like to see a good side by side comparison of say an a6300 with the MC-11 and Sigma Lenses and the a6300 with native Sony lenses. I've seen a few tests and the adapter seems pretty good but I'm not sure how well it is compared to E-Mount lenses.

My dilemma is I'm looking to get an a6300 and I'd like to use it with my Canon 24-70 2.8L. I know none of the adapters will have good AF with that lens but at least with the Sigma adapter I can use the Canon for Manual focus and then later get an 18-35 for AF and gimbal work.
 
Angry Leprechaun said:
I'd like to see a good side by side comparison of say an a6300 with the MC-11 and Sigma Lenses and the a6300 with native Sony lenses. I've seen a few tests and the adapter seems pretty good but I'm not sure how well it is compared to E-Mount lenses.

My dilemma is I'm looking to get an a6300 and I'd like to use it with my Canon 24-70 2.8L. I know none of the adapters will have good AF with that lens but at least with the Sigma adapter I can use the Canon for Manual focus and then later get an 18-35 for AF and gimbal work.
Click to expand...

Well if all you want is manual focus, there are much cheaper adapters than both of those, like the commlite and viltrox. I don't recall hearing about the 24-70 specifically being problematic, but maybe I missed that one. The A6300 can drive focus more-or-less as well as the A7Rii, so the adapted lenses that now work surprisingly well there should also work on the 6300. I know some lenses like a specific 85mm are still quite problematic, but the Tamron 28-70 I was looking into as a cheap AF walkaround was said to work. I'm surprised if Canon's zoom were less compatible, but my experience and contribution to this topic revolve around contrast-only cameras.
 
We were talking about AF...

but I could add weight too as a plus...

the rest is personal of course.

MF sucks big time...I'm not using Sony now so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top