>>2706199>Good electronics cost money, there is no getting around that.This is wrong Anon, you've made plenty mistakes, and made it clear you have absolutely no clue about PDAF adapting from EF to E-mount.
Metabones, the 400 dollar ones was actually inferior since the beginning, it had a nasty bug where it wold go from F8 -> F1,4 -> F7,1 every time you ordered it to go from F8 to F7,1. This would cause annoying bright flashes.
Whereas the 70 dollar Commlite adapter was fine by default, because it directly copied from LAEA3. The cheaper electronics won.
Also, electronics is cheap as fuck in general. The only time you were right about it being expensive was maybe in 1980's.
>AF, is going to suffer.In terms of AF, only the PDAF really matters. And there, it's only a microscopic amount of primes that don't work, and then it's largely a zoom lens issue.
All the Sigma primes work perfectly fine for example. That's all that matters to me for example.
>a professional that needs all the features you listed would be better offSomeone who wants the A7Rii sensor with the Sigma 35mm F1.4 has no choice but to use adapter. No other combination of lenses and bodies can give as good result of this.
>This is the reason NASA continues to use the Nikon systemYou're still clinging onto your reliability nonsense when you've been blown out of the water again and again
>>2705406?
As another Anon said, it's a logistics and sourcing issue, nothing else.
>Nikon lenses but they make a solid choice for cinematic useExcept no one in the business actually use Nikon for filming, Nikon is too "professional" lower themselves to the filming niche if you would believe the fanboys.
Broadcasters use Canon, Hollywood use Sony and other more expensive stuff. And your advice spending 5 minutes to open up the lens and declicking the aperture ring sounded like a nonsense, I'd rather pay some money so I wouldn't have to do that. And so would many others.
