The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

[snerkler]

Seems so, poor form on Sony's part, not impressed.

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’d love them to explain why, and then maybe I’ll understand but I think we’re more likely to see pigs fly.

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).
Note that some Sony lenses also have fps limits.

I think he meant Canon’s long standing cripple hammer, not necessarily just third party lenses

 

[the_accidental]

I’d love them to explain why, and then maybe I’ll understand but I think we’re more likely to see pigs fly.

I think it's easy to ascribe malice etc, but I suspect it's just that the AF is a hardware + software system, and they don't want to validate and debug the high performance edge cases with 3rd party lenses. There's probably enough wiggle room at lower FPS to make and set a spec and have manufacturers adhere to it, but the high performance modes might need more in depth debugging/collaboration.

 

[snerkler]

I think it's easy to ascribe malice etc, but I suspect it's just that the AF is a hardware + software system, and they don't want to validate and debug the high performance edge cases with 3rd party lenses. There's probably enough wiggle room at lower FPS to make and set a spec and have manufacturers adhere to it, but the high performance modes might need more in depth debugging/collaboration.

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

 

[JohnMcL7]

I think it's easy to ascribe malice etc, but I suspect it's just that the AF is a hardware + software system, and they don't want to validate and debug the high performance edge cases with 3rd party lenses. There's probably enough wiggle room at lower FPS to make and set a spec and have manufacturers adhere to it, but the high performance modes might need more in depth debugging/collaboration.

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.

It's not something there seems to be a lot of demand for either which would justify the work from Sony, I see it briefly mentioned from time to time but there's certainly not regular posts from people complaining they can't use the TC with their third party lenses.

 

[Faldrax]

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

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.
As I have said before, my suspicion is that it is a combination of technical and financial reasons.
With Sigma having a number of lenses now able to shoot at 120 fps in AF-S, it's clear that this is a restriction enforced by the camera, so needs Sony to 'authorise' a given lens to operate at the high fps.
I would imagine this involves a lot of testing, which I'd assume Sony would charge a 3rd party for - perhaps the cost is simply regarded as too high for the majority of lenses (particularly if there's a "per sale" element to), or Sony simply don't have the people available to do the testing (IE They are busy designing/ testing new Sony lenses).

 

[Mr Perceptive]

In general Sony have the most 'open' mirrorless system

In Full Frame, yes, if you include APSC then Fuji have the least restrictions

 

[nandbytes]

Sony or any manufacturers don't guarantees or support on any 3rd party lenses/accessories and/or their optimal performance. So i don't buy the excuses around "Sony don't want to test with TCs or 120fps on non-Sony lenses". It's down to the 3rd parties to make it work even for 1fps or 15fps or a million fps, it always has been. Same applies for TCs.

To some extent I'd understand if Sony limited used of 3rd party lens on Sony TCs but they don't allow 3rd party to make their own TCs either. Sigma have TCs on l-mount but not E-mount and I remember sigma commenting that they didn't have necessarily agreement to provide TCs on e-mount.

All in all i think Sony are being d**ks.
This is the kind of b******t that made me sell the A1. If I could I'd move off Sony if possible but other brands don't provide what I need :-/

 

[snerkler]

Sony or any manufacturers don't guarantees or support on any 3rd party lenses/accessories and/or their optimal performance. So i don't buy the excuses around "Sony don't want to test with TCs or 120fps on non-Sony lenses". It's down to the 3rd parties to make it work even for 1fps or 15fps or a million fps, it always has been. Same applies for TCs.

To some extent I'd understand if Sony limited used of 3rd party lens on Sony TCs but they don't allow 3rd party to make their own TCs either. Sigma have TCs on l-mount but not E-mount and I remember sigma commenting that they didn't have necessarily agreement to provide TCs on e-mount.

All in all i think Sony are being d**ks.
This is the kind of b******t that made me sell the A1. If I could I'd move off Sony if possible but other brands don't provide what I need :-/

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.

I get it’s not the same for everyone but the benefits of the Sony system far far outweigh ‘choices’ around third party glass. For what I want and the lenses I use Sony is still the best system for me, by some margin.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

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

 

[nandbytes]

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

the RX10 looks sharper to me (by a fair bit IMO). then again other things like distance from the subject, quality of light etc do matter too.
so without knowing the "full story" couldn't conclude if one setup is sharper than the other.

the lens in RX10iv is reviewed to be amazingly sharp so wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed resolving more details despite the lower res sensor but I would expect the results to be close(r)
if Sony made RX10v with stacked sensor and new AF from alpha bodies, I'd buy it in a heart beat!

 

[the_accidental]

RX10 looks like it’s had a lot of sharpening applied to me…. I prefer the 6700 shot,

 

[snerkler]

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.

 

[nandbytes]

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.

I get it’s not the same for everyone but the benefits of the Sony system far far outweigh ‘choices’ around third party glass. For what I want and the lenses I use Sony is still the best system for me, by some margin.

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.

 

[JohnMcL7]

No-one here is suggesting Sony should keep the TCs disabled and I'm certainly not seeing anyone praising them for it either but at the same time, no-one here has any influence on what Sony do so what we believe Sony should do is totally irrelevant. If there was high demand for Sony to change their TC implementation I could see them removing the block but I doubt there is, across various Sony forums and similar I follow I see this issue getting briefly mentioned from time to time and that's it.

I still don't believe Sony are being deliberately malicious on this one particular point and taking the opposite approach to the rest of their stance with the mount, I think it's more likely they do have a reason but again doesn't matter if they do or they don't because the TCs will remain blocked from third party lenses.

 

[jonneymendoza]

OK I'm a early adopter as some people are aware of. I started roughly at the same time as woof and got an a7s.

I then later on grabbed the first gm lenses and then after the first proper tele lens in the 100 to 400 and now I also have a 400 f2.8

At the time of grabbing those two lenses there was no third party alternative so for me this issue of the tc (which I have) doesn't bother me as I use Sony lenses for most of my kit.

I do have sigma art 35 and a couple of batis lenses.

The 25mn batis is my favourite lens out of the lot BTW.

The colours straight out of the lens is very unique and hard to describe

 

[snerkler]

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.

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 deal

 

[jonneymendoza]

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 deal

Same

 

[dibbly dobbler]

the RX10 looks sharper to me (by a fair bit IMO). then again other things like distance from the subject, quality of light etc do matter too.
so without knowing the "full story" couldn't conclude if one setup is sharper than the other.

the lens in RX10iv is reviewed to be amazingly sharp so wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed resolving more details despite the lower res sensor but I would expect the results to be close(r)
if Sony made RX10v with stacked sensor and new AF from alpha bodies, I'd buy it in a heart beat!

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.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

RX10 looks like it’s had a lot of sharpening applied to me…. I prefer the 6700 shot,

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.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

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.

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.

 

[nandbytes]

No-one here is suggesting Sony should keep the TCs disabled and I'm certainly not seeing anyone praising them for it either but at the same time, no-one here has any influence on what Sony do so what we believe Sony should do is totally irrelevant. If there was high demand for Sony to change their TC implementation I could see them removing the block but I doubt there is, across various Sony forums and similar I follow I see this issue getting briefly mentioned from time to time and that's it.

I still don't believe Sony are being deliberately malicious on this one particular point and taking the opposite approach to the rest of their stance with the mount, I think it's more likely they do have a reason but again doesn't matter if they do or they don't because the TCs will remain blocked from third party lenses.

I have done my bit to complain and I hope others do too. Plus people meet Sony reps in all sorts of places and events. I am hoping they raise it there too.
Individually no one has much influence as you said.

Its certainly deliberate, but "malicious" isn't necessarily the word I'd use. As proven by the previously posted video as long as a Sony body isn't involved, a sigma lens seems to "just work" with sony TC. Yes there are issues like no reporting of f-stop etc but the point is Sony have made an effort to block it.

I don't know how much demand there is or there is not, I have seen enough people complain about it to believe its not a niche. It does affect people who mostly use tele lenses which is not everyone.

I use Sony lenses for most of my kit.

I will happily use a sony lens when they make something like the 500mm f5.6 even if i'll have to pay twice the amount for it.
Something like 600mm f4 GM costs more than all my current and previous cars put together, but i can at least dream of owning a sigma 300-600mm f4 one day.

 

[f/1.2]

Getting annoyed because a bit of camera equipment doesn’t work with full functionality with equipment made by another manufacturer is a bit silly in my own opinion.

If you don’t like it sell up and buy something else. I would love to have a set of Turini wheels from the Megan’s RS trophy on my focus but they don’t fit. Won’t be throwing a tantrum online or hassling Ford about it though.

 

[the_accidental]

Individually no one has much influence as you said.

Well, not strictly true. There are features in current Sony cameras because I asked Sony for them when in a previous job. We were a significant commercial customer for them though. I can’t talk about the details, nothing too exciting for anyone here though. If there’s commercial benefit Sony will change things though.

As someone that’s made and shipped camera systems (industrial, not consumer) I can understand the effort in ensuring camera/lens compatibility and the hardware/software interplay involved - and it is both. Especially when you have ibis, lens correction and AF systems. I can imagine Sony simply don’t see the return to justify the investment, every decision to work on one feature is a decision against something else.

Interchangeable lens consumer cameras are a tiny, shrinking market anyway, I would be surprised if the margins on extra sales from wider TC support or 3rd party high fps support even paid for a week of an engineer’s time:

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

All this talk about Sony TC had me confused for a while - I couldn't work out why you were discussing a piece of equipment used on the Apollo Missions...

Sony TC-50 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[nandbytes]

Well, not strictly true. There are features in current Sony cameras because I asked Sony for them when in a previous job. We were a significant commercial customer for them though. I can’t talk about the details, nothing too exciting for anyone here though. If there’s commercial benefit Sony will change things though.

As someone that’s made and shipped camera systems (industrial, not consumer) I can understand the effort in ensuring camera/lens compatibility and the hardware/software interplay involved - and it is both. Especially when you have ibis, lens correction and AF systems. I can imagine Sony simply don’t see the return to justify the investment, every decision to work on one feature is a decision against something else.

Interchangeable lens consumer cameras are a tiny, shrinking market anyway, I would be surprised if the margins on extra sales from wider TC support or 3rd party high fps support even paid for a week of an engineer’s time:

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

 

[snerkler]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[snerkler]

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

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.

I know they’ve always said they’re not accountable for whether third party lenses work or not, but as they’ve opened up the mount this time I think they’d come under a lot more fire if they didn’t work.

 

[Faldrax]

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.

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).

We don't know what's going on 'behind the scenes' in terms of licensing, etc.

Personally, I'd like there to be choice on TC's, and even though it doesn't affect me with my A7iv, the 15 fps limit removed - but I don't want that to be at the expense of something else.

It's similar in some respects to the calls for firmware updates to older models to port new features - in that case my experience as an embedded software engineer tells me that in some cases it simply won't be possible (due to limitations on specific hardware use in the implementation), in other cases it might be possible, but processing power or memory constraints mean that adding some new feature would mean some other feature woudl need to be removed, and finally even if porting a new feature back to an old model were fully possible, it would take the relevant software engineers and testers time to do so - time they would otherwise be spending on new features and cameras.

Yes, we should be telling Sony we want higher fps from 3rd party lenses, and a wider range of lenses which can use TC's (which might mean allowing 3rd party manufacturers to develop specific TC's for their lenses), but the call should be for them to explain WHY we can't have these things, rather than simply shouting at them.

 

[nandbytes]

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).

We don't know what's going on 'behind the scenes' in terms of licensing, etc.

Personally, I'd like there to be choice on TC's, and even though it doesn't affect me with my A7iv, the 15 fps limit removed - but I don't want that to be at the expense of something else.

It's similar in some respects to the calls for firmware updates to older models to port new features - in that case my experience as an embedded software engineer tells me that in some cases it simply won't be possible (due to limitations on specific hardware use in the implementation), in other cases it might be possible, but processing power or memory constraints mean that adding some new feature would mean some other feature woudl need to be removed, and finally even if porting a new feature back to an old model were fully possible, it would take the relevant software engineers and testers time to do so - time they would otherwise be spending on new features and cameras.

Yes, we should be telling Sony we want higher fps from 3rd party lenses, and a wider range of lenses which can use TC's (which might mean allowing 3rd party manufacturers to develop specific TC's for their lenses), but the call should be for them to explain WHY we can't have these things, rather than simply shouting at them.

The 15fps limit bothers me less than the TC issue. But I'd be happy to see the 15fps limit removed too (as I said any advancement i good for everyone even though it doesn't impact me much)

When I contacted the sony rep I didn't shout at him, I'd like to think my email was constructive and definitely not in the same tone as I'd write my messages here.

I also used to be an embedded software engineer last decade, i understand the restrictions from hardware perspective. though in this case I am not asking them to update the firmware per say. There almost definitely seems to be a hard stop and I was never sure if it was the TC or body that imposed it.

You can even stack sony TCs and even use sony TCs with sony lenses that don't support a TC normally. You just need to buy an extension tube to covers the length of the protruding element in the TC.
So I have tried this with Sony lenses like 35GM and they just behave the same way as 3rd party lenses in that camera won't AF or do anything. But if you stack TCs with a lens like 70-200mm that does support TC it still continues to work despite not report f-stop correctly and of course you lose infinity focus due to the extension tube.
With that video now, its pretty clear that the camera somehow knows which lenses it should allow TCs to operate and where it should just not operate at all.

Just asking sony remove such a look up or flag or whatever which should be possible even with existing hardware and definitely so with newer hardware i.e. cameras.

But I do believe there are some licensing restrictions, I remember sigma's CEO commenting briefly on it.... I'll see if i can find it.

 

[nandbytes]

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.

I know they’ve always said they’re not accountable for whether third party lenses work or not, but as they’ve opened up the mount this time I think they’d come under a lot more fire if they didn’t work.

Somehow people seem to forget not long ago 3rd parties made lenses for DSLRs. They worked with all sort of TC combination.
perhaps there weren't officially "open" but for all intents and purposes they operated like an open system.
And in that time there were also plenty of issues but that never stopped people buying canon or nikon or even Sony DSLRs. I remember when Sony in-body drive motor ripped some sigma lenses AF motors and the only option was to choose a lower drive speed in the body. Sony didn't care and didn't stop sigma from making lenses or doing AF-C etc.

I am just not bought into this line of reasoning.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I have done my bit to complain and I hope others do too. Plus people meet Sony reps in all sorts of places and events. I am hoping they raise it there too.
Individually no one has much influence as you said.

Its certainly deliberate, but "malicious" isn't necessarily the word I'd use. As proven by the previously posted video as long as a Sony body isn't involved, a sigma lens seems to "just work" with sony TC. Yes there are issues like no reporting of f-stop etc but the point is Sony have made an effort to block it.

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.

 

[Faldrax]

Somehow people seem to forget not long ago 3rd parties made lenses for DSLRs. They worked with all sort of TC combination.
perhaps there weren't officially "open" but for all intents and purposes they operated like an open system.
And in that time there were also plenty of issues but that never stopped people buying canon or nikon or even Sony DSLRs. I remember when Sony in-body drive motor ripped some sigma lenses AF motors and the only option was to choose a lower drive speed in the body. Sony didn't care and didn't stop sigma from making lenses or doing AF-C etc.

I am just not bought into this line of reasoning.

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.

Perhaps the 'ideal' option would be for Sony to add (yet another) menu item - 'Enable FPS Limit for non-certified lenses' - so you could chose to use any lens at higher FPS, but if the lens couldn't cope that was your problem, not Sony's (If Sony didn't have a limit, and a bunch of 3rd party lenses wouldn't work at high FPS, you can be sure there would be a bunch of online videos crying about how Sony's claimed FPS was fake).

 

[nandbytes]

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

Perhaps the 'ideal' option would be for Sony to add (yet another) menu item - 'Enable FPS Limit for non-certified lenses' - so you could chose to use any lens at higher FPS, but if the lens couldn't cope that was your problem, not Sony's (If Sony didn't have a limit, and a bunch of 3rd party lenses wouldn't work at high FPS, you can be sure there would be a bunch of online videos crying about how Sony's claimed FPS was fake).

I don't think it will be such a big issue if 3rd party lenses work less optimally. I think most people understand 3rd party lenses are not guaranteed to perform optimally.

If it's not malicious then what is it?

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.
I can't think for a word for prioritising profits over customer satisfaction or doing the "right thing"....
I dont know.... I don't feel its malicious.

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.

As said above not long ago 3rd parties made lenses for DSLRs. They worked with all sort of TC combination.
perhaps they weren't officially "open" but for all intents and purposes they operated like an open system.
so saying now they are regressing because its officially "open" seems a bit backwards to me or one step forwards and two steps back.

 

[JohnMcL7]

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.
I can't think for a word for prioritising profits over customer satisfaction or doing the "right thing"....
I dont know.... I don't feel its malicious.

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.

 

[JohnMcL7]

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).

We don't know what's going on 'behind the scenes' in terms of licensing, etc.

That's exactly it and I've no idea why some people seem to be looking for this deep nefarious reason for the issue. It's not an unusual problem and one I've seen plenty of places elsewhere.

I suspect if the demand was there Sony would consider adding such an option but it seems unlikely it is.

 

[nandbytes]

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.

I don't think their intension is to annoy or harm their users. That wouldn't be a good way of doing business.
I think their intension is maximise their profits (which is not wrong either).
Just saying while trying to do that they are annoying certain users (apparently only me on this forum )

The intension to stop 3rd party lenses working with TC is deliberate in that they have made an effort to make sure TC only works with certain lenses. Plus 3rd parties don't seem to want to produce their own TCs either which might be a licensing issue. All in all Sony seem to have deliberately limited use of TCs with certain select few lenses.
if you want to call that malicious that's up to you, I don't consider it as such. Unethical perhaps.

 

[Faldrax]

...
As said above not long ago 3rd parties made lenses for DSLRs. They worked with all sort of TC combination.
perhaps they weren't officially "open" but for all intents and purposes they operated like an open system.
so saying now they are regressing because its officially "open" seems a bit backwards to me or one step forwards and two steps back.

Sigma used to reverse engineer the mount protocols, rather than licence them - which is why when new cameras came out some Sigma lenses would fail to work with them,and required updating (while Sony and Minolta lenses had no such problems).
And if someone had said you'd be limited to max 15 fps in the days of DSLR no one would have had the slightest problem with it.
Note that Sony A-Mount TC's were also limited in lens compatibility (the 1.4x was compatible with just the 500f/4, 300f/2.8, 70-400G, 70-200f/2.8 & 135 f/2.8), but I don't know what happened if you tried an 'incompatible' setup (other than AF failing if the TC pushed the aperture outside the range it could function in).

 

[snerkler]

Somehow people seem to forget not long ago 3rd parties made lenses for DSLRs. They worked with all sort of TC combination.
perhaps there weren't officially "open" but for all intents and purposes they operated like an open system.
And in that time there were also plenty of issues but that never stopped people buying canon or nikon or even Sony DSLRs. I remember when Sony in-body drive motor ripped some sigma lenses AF motors and the only option was to choose a lower drive speed in the body. Sony didn't care and didn't stop sigma from making lenses or doing AF-C etc.

I am just not bought into this line of reasoning.

I don’t think anyone is forgetting it but everyone knew it was reverse engineered and so might not be 100% compatible. Now the mount is open people will expect it to work. I’m not saying this is the reason, just that it could be

 

[the_accidental]

Does anyone know how the electrical interface works for an e-mount? How does the body know what corrections to apply to undistort the jpeg or calibrate AF etc?

If it’s the lens providing calibration info etc that makes sense, new lenses would be able to work on existing bodies/firmwares.

But in that case how would a TC work? Either the body needs to know about all TC/lens combos or the TC needs to know about all lenses it works with to then communicate with the body.

Those wanting TCs to work with all lenses, how would you propose elements in the camera that need to know parameters of the optical system (lens + TC) work?

It’s not just focal length BTW, there are many other lens parameters.

 

[nandbytes]

Sigma used to reverse engineer the mount protocols, rather than licence them - which is why when new cameras came out some Sigma lenses would fail to work with them,and required updating (while Sony and Minolta lenses had no such problems).
And if someone had said you'd be limited to max 15 fps in the days of DSLR no one would have had the slightest problem with it.
Note that Sony A-Mount TC's were also limited in lens compatibility (the 1.4x was compatible with just the 500f/4, 300f/2.8, 70-400G, 70-200f/2.8 & 135 f/2.8), but I don't know what happened if you tried an 'incompatible' setup (other than AF failing if the TC pushed the aperture outside the range it could function in).

Not sure what happened. I only had minolta TCs and minolta lenses that worked with TCs. But I think minolta was also "3rd party" as far as lens and TC combinations was concerned.

if Sony limits their TCs to only be used with 1st party lenses i can get on board with that too as long as they allow sigma to make their own TCs for e-mount. But looks like they won't allow the latter option too.

Tbh I'm not fully sure why Sony has issues with TC in general. Even a-mount Sony TCs can't be used with Sony a-mount lenses via. the LA-EA adapters. But if get one of those chipped LA-EA4 adapters you can actually use TCs. So once again they are limiting it while technically it's possible to support it.

Canon EF and Nikon F TCs works fine when adapted to RF or Z mount respectively. So I think Sony has some kind of a TC phobia