Don't Nikon DSLRs generally beat Canon with their DxO sensor scores?
One of the things I love about Nikon is that the lens my dad shot with in 1993 works perfectly well on my camera from 2016. People spend a lot of money on glass (with good reason), and to have the camera manufacturer get wishy-washy on whether or not the line will be supported in the future must be concerning.
Your dad's old lens F-mount lens will work perfectly on an E-mount camera, with full AF and aperture control. So will any A-mount or EF-mount lens.
Isn't the AF is slower and less accurate with those adapters than on their native platform?
Every Metabones review I've seen had slightly slower AF. "Perfectly" still does not apply. Also, not all lenses work with Metabones, i.e., the lenses that don't work with teleconverters because their backs stick out too much.
While I appreciate the benefits you're selling, those adapters aren't perfect.
I'm a fan of Sony cameras, but I would only go so far as to say that Sony's sensors are great.
I find some of Sony's handling and physical camera design choices to be a little questionable, especially when compared to Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji.
Agree that their ergonomics and UI are pretty bad though.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-compa...
That's not good news for prestige brands that have long been "industry standard".
https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/launched-between-1987-and-201...
Well, that's possibly exaggerating the situation. The only people it truly matters to are people are specs people and pixel peepers. There may be a significant number of them, but most people will stick with the established brands, including pros. Canon and Nikon have well established support infrastructures for their working pros. Sony... not so much.
I loved the Alpha DSLR line, the mirrorless line, not so much. The cameras are technically fantastic and excel statistically, but they seemed to be designed by people who don't spend a lot of time taking photos.
That infrastructure is, to a great extent, a marketing expense. It's not very profitable to sell cameras to professionals, but you make your money back from the trickle-down to amateurs. The R&D expense of designing flagship cameras and lenses for a tiny group of professionals is amortized over a vastly greater number of amateurs. If a rift opens up between those user groups, Canon and Nikon's camera businesses are in real trouble.
So are everyone else's including Sony's.
Their biggest threat is Apple. Who needs a fast, large aperture lens when you've got Portrait mode? The dual lens on the iPhone obviates the need for many people to step up to a camera with a zoom. If Apple can find a way to fake it through low light photography with software tricks, everyone's in deep trouble.
Let's not forget that the best camera is the one you have with you, not the one with the best technology or optics.
iPhones use Sony sensors, as do the majority of high-end Android handsets. Nikon use Sony sensors across most of their camera range, as do Pentax and Fujifilm. GoPro have used Sony sensors from the outset, as do most of their competitors. Sony sensors dominate the scientific, industrial and security markets.
If you need a CMOS imaging sensor, you have two choices - Sony Exmor, or something worse.
Everyone uses Sony sensors for their still cameras to some degree, including Canon (sensors smaller than APS). If all still camera companies decline it hurts Sony big time. Sensors one of their few genuinely successful and profitable businesses that pump up their quarterly corprate numbers.
I'm pretty sure that Sony doesn't want to be left making only smartphone camera sensors in large volumes.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-...
And it is a zoom.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-cla...