Alex

Ed. You are correct. The one I have is the previous version of it. As far as I understand the adapter has the same functionality. The version V versus the IV are 1) the new one has a light to indicate which mode is being used 2) it has a weather seal and I believe there might be a third one that I cannot remember what it is. Aside from those it doesn’t work any better nor the is any improvements as to how the lens and camera interact with one another.

Just a quick follow up on the whole metabones mark IV and Canon ef-s 10-22mm deal. The Canon ef-s 10-22 and the metabones mark IV do work well together with the Sony A6500 without any modifications to the lens. I have tried the metabones IV adapter in green mode and advance mode. The advance mode offers just about most focusing options the camera has to offer but interestingly it focus hunt to no avail and at the end it stop trying without locking onto anything at all (useless). On green mode, one can only choose single focus or continuous and it works great, it's fast and no hesitation. I found that to be true with all the lenses I've tried.

Just as an fyi. I have compared the metabones mark IV against the Sigma MC-11 I already have and without making much of scientific job I could not feel any difference in terms of focusing speed or different available options unlocked on the camera. The feel of the actual converter is good on both, the sigma MC-11 being smoother. The lenses mounts like butter on the sigma MC-11 and on the metabones mark IV it's a bit more of a rougher fit when turning the lens in place (not a big deal) now, the connection from the adapter to the actual camera body itself it is a complete different story, the Sigma MC-11 is super smooth, were the Metabones mark IV it's a lot tighter than I like. When I first aligned the adaptor into the camera body and try to turn it in place it was so tight I thought something wasn't right, a firm grip it's required to lock it in place and remove it as well. I was kind of surprised how tight it is, not that one has to fight it and once you know how it is you just deal with it, but quite a contrast compared to the Sigma MC-11.

In any case, I am content with the metabones adapter since the $147 that I paid on e-bay for it kept me from having to buy a new lens and although the Canon ef-s 10-22mm for today standards is not top notch it is still a capable lens for what I need.

Thanks to all for your earlier responses.

Colin.You are on the right path but not quite correct. I own a canon 7D Mark II AND A 5D Mark III (full frame and crop) and I can use all the lenses I mentioned above on either body quite alright with the exception of the canon Ef-s 10-22 on the full frame, since the mount it a bit longer (it protrudes further) thus rendering the lens unusable on the full frame canon camera and although the 10-22 is the only Ef-s lens I own it think they all have the same physical limitations (unless of course one modifies the lens by chopping that protrusion off)

The sigma mc11 does come with the sigma or canon ef mount, but it will not accept an Ef-s without modification. The metabones for canon to Sony will physically accept both ef and ef-s lenses due to the larger internal diameter compared to that of the sigma mc11. Now whether or not the electronics are compatible with all lenses, that is a different story. Some lenses might fit but not operate as expected or at all I would think.

I just got a metabones mark IV on eBay and it should be with me this coming Friday. I’ll see then if my canon Ef-s 10-22 lens works with the metabones mark IV adapter or plan B is to find a zoom in that range that works.

I’ll report once I get it.

Thank you all for your kind replies. So far o believe I will try buying a used metabones mark IV. Seems like for around $200 they can be found and that it’s likely to adapt to some wide zooms. When I get it I’ll report my findings.

So far the sigma mc11 seems decent with the ef 100mm f2.8 macro mark1,

ef 85 f1.8,

ef 50 f1.4,

ef 24/70 f2.8L mark I,

ef 70-200 f2.8 is markI

Since I’m not yet familiar with the camera I’m not 100% sure what feature might not be operating but for the quick test I did they all seem to focus well.

The Ef-s mount is physically impossible to fit on the sigma mc11 unless the lens is modified. Meta bones will accept ef-s

Colin and Joe, thank you for taking the time to reply. I went to the site you referenced and seems quite resourceful but it seem to mainly deal with Sony lenses. I just can’t seem to find what alternatives are out there for a while zoom that will not set me back $800.

I’d love to use my Efs 10-22 mm since I already have it. I wonder if there is an adapter that would Take the efs mount of that lens and allow me to use it on the A6500 maintaining autofocus and other functions.

After close to 30 yrs of shooting exclusively with Canon I cheated and added a Sony A6500 to my bag.

I purchased the camera with a Sigma Mc11 adapter ( don’t have a cable for it, I can’t update the software and I can’t seem to find what cable I need for it) and the camera came with the Sony 18-105mm f4.

I own a Canon Ef-s10-22 for my crop sensor but It doesn’t fit the Sony and i truly like that focal range. Short of buying the Sony 10-18mm for $850 what other zoom alternatives are out there with auto focus within that focal range that cost less than that?

One last thing. Can you anyone recommend A small capable flash to mount on the hot shoe as bounce/fill flash? My 580’s exII speedlites are only functional on manual mode and are kind of too big anyway.

Thanks for any info and pointers. I’m quite lost with this new toy.

<p>Thank you all for your feedback. Here it is what helped me resolve this problem. <br /> This is a link to Adobe Lightroom forum<br /> https://forums.adobe.com/message/8395448#8395448<br /> and here it is a screenshot that shows how you like the images on the files to be sorted.</p>

 

<p>I recently noticed that when I import images to Lightroom CC some images are not in the order it took them. I have been doing dome action shots with a 7D MrkII. Since this camera can take lots of frames per second it seems like lightroom has no regards as to which order the images that were taken within that second and they get mixed up. The images seem in general to follow the time line. For normal every day shooting I would not even notice it. The issue seems to be when many pictures are marked withinthe same time and seconds. <br>

Could it be that I had changed some sort of setting by mistake? <br>

If anyone can help me with this I will certainly appreciate it. It is quite annoying to see the sequence out of sequence.<br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>Thanks Ruben. I think the problem comes when importing to lightroom CC. I put the card back in the camera and the images are in the correct order, (good thing).<br>

When importing the images to Lightroom CC, on the File renaming column (on the right) I checked the rename file box. Then on the drop down option template, I choose custom name sequence, the next drop down option called custom text is left blank,and then on extensions, selected leave as-is.<br>

I wanted Lightroom to name the images from 1 to whatever is the last image number is.<br>

Now I need to figure if that is the problem or the fact that this camera shoots so fast that images taken within the same second are just mixed in when importing.<br>

Thanks for any input.</p>

<p>I recently replaced my 7D with a 7D MrkII. First time I tried shutting at 10FPS on actual moving subjects was at my daughters softball game. When I downloaded the images to Lightroom and started going through them I noticed some of the swings and sequences did not seem in the correct order. Often enough one or two images on a sequence seem swapped. <br>

Today I went to a go cart event and again noticed the same thing. The images on a sequence seem mixed. I can see the image of a cart going forward then the cart on the following image is further back and then it continues with the sequence.<br>

I can't think of why this is.<br>

Any ideas?<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>my bad. I did put com.adobe.lightroom5.plist but I am running LR4 and adobe photoshop CC.<br>

I haven't much time to play with it and this weekend will be busy at work to do anything with it. I should have some sort of a bug with either photoshop or LR. I the meanwhile I guess i'm aware of it and how to work around it. <br>

I do like to eventually correct the issue and become more comfortable working with different color spaces, soft proofing and converting to different profiles for print work.</p>

 

<p>well here is my progress report. <br>

Just to make sure I was starting with a clean sleeve I deleted the file once again (I said the file because this time I only could find the com.adobe.Lightroom5.plist and not the other one) perhaps because was a new library or just because. In any case I got rid of the document and started LR4 it then prompted me to import photos, "I opened the catalog I wanted" went to LR preferences and changed the settings on the external editors and also changed Bridge to pro photo. Closed LR4 and reopened, right click on an image, open in "and choose Apple's preview as you suggested " and it did open in the Apple preview. So far so good. Now, control E or right click and edit in Photoshop cc will continue open the file as Adobe RGB 1998, and when I go to Bridge and select sRGB it will then work. <br>

This leads me to believe that at this point it is Bridge the one directing the orchestra and for that reason for now I let Bridge set at sRGB until I figure what it the deal with LR4, or upgrade to LR5 or just adopt this as part of the work flow.<br>

BTW Happy 4th of July. I hope you had a great day.</p>

<p>Well I finally found it. I deleted the two folders and when I open LR4 it prompted me to click on import. Which I did, I selected my folder with the 2013 pictures and now it's importing thousands of images.<br>

Am I creating a new catalog? I think I am.<br>

These are the 2 folders (i moved them into my desk top) see image at the bottom.<br>

Are these the ones you suggested?<br>

Now when I open LR4 I have the new catalog call Lightroom 4 Lightroom.lrcat with all the images of 2013 and when I click control E to send the image to photoshop cc it opens it with the Adobe Bridge options.<br>

After that I went to file/open catalog and loaded a catalog I had saved when I migrated all the files from my Dell to this new iMac, and same thing happened.<br>

I guess I run out of ideas but I gained some new knowledge about catalogs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Problem solved.<br>

Eric. I didn't think of Bridge. When I opened an image it did show Above RGB 1998 and it opened in Photoshop as such. Then I changed the color space to open in photoshop as sRGB, opened a file from Bridge and then it opened as sRGB on photoshop. After that I open Lightroom and send a picture to Photoshop and yes... it did opened the file as sRGB which was the Bridge setting. Thanks Eric</p>

<p>Andrew. Two things for you.<br>

1) I could be being over run by technology or this new Macworld did not sink on my head yet but I have no clue where my user "library delete" resides on my Mac or what it is. Then the </p>

 

 

<p>com.adobe.Lightroom5.plist<br />com.adobe.Lightroom5.LSSharedFileList.plist<br>

Got me totally of guard. I'd love to understand where in my hard drive that is and how to get there.<br>

2) I was quite impress by your video and I like to give one more try to the larger color spaces. If you don't mind I like to walk you through what I thought I was supposed to do and my failed result.<br>

I got the costco profiles from dry creek and installed them on cs4 at the time. I migrated a raw file into cs4 as (either profoto rgb or Adove RGB) I can't recall which one, made whatever corrections I thought necessary and when I was happy with it I went to edit, an I try both, convert to profile and assign profile (you can go over the differences if you don't mind) and made the conversion to the costco profile on the drop down menu. When I did that the blacks with details turn into a muddy thing and everything shifted pretty bad (primarily dark colors and shadow areas) and the prints look like that as well. Then I also tried different rendering intents but they did not look any better. <br>

I could try to recreate and show you what I mean. <br>

Now, you may be able to share what needs to be done so if I send a file to adorama pix or costco or I print it at home (epson all in one 830) I can get a better looking print than the smaller sRGB file would give me.<br>

Oh, las thing. when one applies an output profile to the picture. Lets say I work the image in profoto color space, then, I assign or convert it to whatever output profile, the last step is to save the file. At that point would you normally save it as a jpeg? What settings would you save it as?<br>

Thanks for you patience and sharing info.<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex </p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p>Now what I like to do is what Andrew recommended, and that is delete the preferences folder. I went to lightroom, preferences and under the presets tab click on show lightroom presets folder and got this...<br>

Now, can someone tell me which one is the folder that I need to delete? there are about 19 folders there. <br>

Thanks again<br>

Alex</p>

<p>Here is the image open in photoshop cc. I went to edit/convert to profile and this is the color space I see for that image.</p>

<p>Well, once again thank you guys. <br>

Tudor, Andrew and Eric.<br>

This is the screen shot of what I get when I right click on top of the image. (I click the very top one) Edit in Adobe Photoshop CC and the image will open there as Adobe RGB 1998.<br>

If I open the image via, command E, it also opens the file in photoshop as Adobe RGB 1998.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Great video. That was my understanding about the color spaces and perhaps the reason as to why I was working on sRGB. I doubt that costco is capable of reproducing a profoto file. By the time they shave all the colors that can't be reproduced on their printers I think I'll have a pretty bad rendition of my picture.<br>

I feel Iwould have to get something like the color Munky to profile their machine. In the other hand I should spend more time on this subject to feel more comfortable working on these color spaces.<br>

85% of my images end up display online and not so many on paper, and 99% of the times I don't print images at home. <br>

My question to you would be. When you work on Adobe RGB or profoto. Do you do it on 8 or 16 bit? and then when you are done editing. Do you convert to a specific output profile? Lets say you will show an image online, do you convert to sRGB and for print you convert to a specific printer profile that you created?<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex</p>

<p>I will try that tomorrow and see if that makes a difference. I hope it does. <br>

I guess my primary reason to work on sRGB it's because what I have done for so many years. I am always willing to learn new ideas. I know Adobe RGB it's a larger color space than sRGB, and profoto even larger than the previous 2.<br>

On my experience, (most likely due to user error) when I edit in the larger color spaces either 8 or 1 6 bit, aside from working with huge files, when I'm done with the editing and save a copy for print (which I normally take to costco) I seem to have a significant color shift as well as very moody and poor blacks; a great amount of data gets clipped out of the original file to fit the new jpeg format, despite playing with the rendering intent and other variables.<br>

I would not mind if you like to share your thoughts about your choice of color space.<br>

ERIC: If you sent me a response via e-mail, I have no clue where it went since I have not receive any notification of photo.net e-Mails. In any case, If you did send me one I appreciate your time to respond, wether or not it would have help I value your time. But, since I have not seen your E-Mail I hope you understand my comment to you. Therefore, accept my apologies.<br>

Regards<br>

Alex</p>

<p>Great idea Andrew and again thanks for your time helping me with this.<br>

Unfortunately that did not do it either. <br>

Here is a new screen shot of the new preferences.<br>

Eric... How do you figure your first or second comment can benefit me or anyone else reading this post? Why even spend time writing this kind of things with no value at all?</p>

 

<p>Here </p>

<div></div>

<p>I didn't know about that one. Unfortunately I don't think that is it.<br>

Here is the color setting screen shot.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Andrew. <br>

Yes I ment PSD. I normally used to right click on the image and press edit image in photoshop cs and that would open the image as an sRGB but for some reason that is not happening under this new set up.</p>