sup /p/.I am looking for a full-frame digital platform for adapted glass. But before you start shilling for Sony, let me note a few important catches.>My EF glass: 24-105/4L, Voigtlander 40/2, Sigma 50/1.4 A, Sigma 70/2.8 A Macro>My F glass: 35/1.4 Ai-S, 85/2 Ai-S, Voigtlander 58/1.4, and looking to add a 28mm prime here>I use the macro with my 5DmkIV (current workhorse) to digitize the film I shoot with the F glass>I am satisfied with these lenses and feel no particular need to upgrade or sell them right now, but would likely look into some native mirrorless offerings in the future depending on the platform I chooseThe current top pick seems to be a Canon R6mkII (or mkIII, I can wait). This is because EF glass is reputed to work extremely well with the OEM adapter. 2/3 of my F lenses don't have electrical contacts anyway so I wouldn't urgently need Canon to open their mount to guys like Fringer to make electronic F to RF adapters. Additionally, any of the above lenses will resolve just fine at 24MP. Finally the Voigtlander 40/2 adapted to the R6mkII makes for a very compact setup despite the tube (the stack should be a little under 2 inches long). The downside on the Canon is that nobody makes lenses for full-frame RF besides Voigtlander.The other competing options appear to be the Nikon Zf and Sony A7iv.The Nikon sounds like it has the best manual focusing experience (but as long as the R6mkII has focus peaking, punch-in zoom via function button, and automatic exposure with manual aperture lenses, then that's good enough for me), and has the benefit of both EF and F adapters having electronic options on the market (Fringer, FTZ). On the other hand it has lower battery life than both the Canon and the Sony (this is important).The Sony undeniably has an excellent selection of new lenses from manufacturers the world over. But at the moment I am more concerned with getting the most out of what I already own.Thoughts bros?
>>4391904Nikon Z is the best mount for adapting glass without a doubt.
>>4391907Then why can't Nikon Z support autofocus for F mount screw drive lenses while Sony can?
>>4391908I forbade it, cause then I wouldn't be able to buy cheap screw AF glass for my blob.
>>4391904I was about to direct you here >>4391933 before I realised there wasn't one so there it is and you're welcome.
>>4391904So what is your actual reason for not wanting the Sony? It has the best battery life, which you said is important. It has the highest resolution EVF which is good for manual focusing and just nice in general. It has a significantly higher resolution, good for digitising film and even if you're not going to be printing large being able to crop more is very useful. It can AF with your EF lenses along with many others you may end up getting (Nikon F, Minolta/Sony A, Pentax K) as well as having a much greater selection of native lenses (you could probably replace most of the stuff you have with native ones if you could be bothered with that). And finally Sonys are very customisable, people like to shit on the menus but if you actually own one and use it for a few weeks and set it up how you want then you'll very rarely be going into the main menu.
>>4391939>So what is your actual reason for not wanting the Sony?Canon leads because I'm already in the system (spare batteries, app, flashes, accustomed to the ergonomics and menus, and so forth), so Sony would be a complete shift + I'd have to sell all that stuff (same goes for Nikon).>It has the best battery life, which you said is important.Battery life is the same as the R6mkII.>highest resolution EVF Actually the lowest among the choices in OP, just by a tiny amount.>significantly higher resolution, good for digitising filmRegarding digitization, my current workhorse is more than enough (30.1MP) for 135 film and the Sony (33MP) is only a mild upgrade. Sure it's better for 120 but if I was going to be upgrading for that reason alone I'd want >36MP to get more out of those negatives.
>>4392049>Canon leads because I'm already in the system (spare batteries, app, flashes, accustomed to the ergonomics and menus, and so forth), so Sony would be a complete shift + I'd have to sell all that stuff (same goes for Nikon).Not really what I asked. You came across as dismissive of Sony despite it being the best choice among those cameras. The only good thing you had to say was that they have a decent lens selection. It's no worse than the Nikon for manual focusing and also has EF and F mount adapters, while having better ergonomics and battery life.>Battery life is the same as the R6mkII.>Actually the lowest among the choices in OP, just by a tiny amount.>Regarding digitization, my current workhorse is more than enough (30.1MP) for 135 film and the Sony (33MP) is only a mild upgrade.My mistake, I misread it as the A7r IV. Still, a decent amount more than 24mp.
