Most lens adapters like the MC-11 and Metabones have no optics in them, just electronics, so NO you dont need to micro adjust the focus using these open lens adapters. Only the lens adapters that use a mirror like from A-Mount to E-Mount need any microadjusting. So that means the new Canon and Nikon lens adapters will adapt their older lenses on their new mirrorless cameras WITHOUT any need for focus micro adjusting. And Sony E-Mount cameras will NOT need any micro focus adjusting with both native E-Mount and any MC-11, Metabones and like adapted lenses. Hope you understand this now. Cheers

OK. I've never seen the manual for the a7-III
but I am not limited to the "-II". I also use the
a6000 and more specifically the a6500, which
has the same combined PD+CD AF system that
is in the a7-III [while the a6000 and a7-II use
only CD AF]. So altho I'm extrapolating, it's not
as if my experience is from only one model. All
my Sonys are alike in terms of when AF micro
adjust is enabled or not, and the a6500 is truly
the smaller sensor version of the a7-III.

If I'm at all mistaken concerning the a7-III user
manual, it could be that the a7-III manual fails
to clearly explain the things I explained in the
previous post. IOW, perhaps when I suggested
reading it more carefully, there wouldn't be any
benefit in doing so, if the manual itself is faulty
in terms of its clarity.

But, OTOH, you've indicated that you read only
the short version of the manual ... soooo ? ? ?

------------------------------------------------

FYI, when reading about LAEA-X adapters and
AF: Don't let there be any confusion about the
LAEA-1 and -3. Those two do NOT involve SLR
-type AF. They do NOT have a shaft drive for
old-style Maxxum-Konica-Sony AF lenses, nor
do they have the SLT reflex mirror. The -1 and
-3 will AF only with the later lens designs that
have in-lens AF motors [NOT shaft driven]. So
there's no reason to enable micro adjustment
for use with the LAEA-1 or -3.

I actually USE these adapters. I have four of
them, two each type :-)

BTW ... sheer speculation ... if YOUR a7-III
does NOT grey out the AF micro adjust menu
option when using the default lens type [E or
FE type], that is most likely a firmware error
that will go away with an update !


`

There is an entirely different misunderstanding, or perhaps
just a knowledge gap, per the OP. Focus errors from phase
detection AF are only secondarily related to assembly of the
precision parts. PD focus is, by its nature, only approximate
even if the devices involved were built 100% "to blueprint".

Even if, by sheer luck, a lens and a body happen to get built
at 100% accuracy, and even if you put the two together, it is
the nature of optical images, and of phase detection AF, that
some micro adjustment may be necessary.

The micro adjust is a phase detection adjustment, and not an
adjustment for an error in flange depth tolerance. So a single
micro adjustment cannot compensate for all lenses, cuz you
are not compensating for the body, but for the lenses as well.
FWIW the body is likely to be waaaaay closer to perfect build
than most lenses.

If you don't understand phase detection, I can't fix it in this
post. But each lens's unique curvature of field will "fool" the
PD AF. SLR AF has only PD sensors.

Live view cameras ... and live view mode on SLRs ... use CD
[contrast detection] AF which is slower, but cannot be fooled.
Late model live view systems have both PD and CD systems.
The PD is virtually instantaneous, but is error-prone. So, as
soon as PD is "satisfied", CD "leaps in" to perfect the focus.

The closest I will come to explaining the inner life of PD and
CD AF systems is to say that PD is like an optical rangefinder
operating at nearly pixel level, while CD is like direct optical
focusing via a ground glass panel, like a view camera. If you
have at least a crude grasp of that analogy then you can see
why PD is faster, while CD is slower but more accurate !

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Some lenses have discernible backlash within their focusing
mechanism. This can cause error with either AF system, but
is still likely to be partially compensated by CD AF.adjustment


`

From an actual user, who has actually performed
AF micro adjustment on a7-XX series cameras:

Search the manual even further and you will find
that menu options may be "greyed out" whenever
they do not apply to the total outfit in use [body,
lens, flash, adapters, etc].

To "un-grey" the AF micro adjustment option, just
attach an LAEA-2 or -4, which use SLR-type AF to
AF A-Mount [Maxxum, SLT, etc] lenses. Mounting
either of these adapters will automatically disable
the sensor-based AF of the camera body.



`

No truly mirrorless camera that's using AF sensors embedded in the image sensor itself needs AF fine tuning. Think about it... Since the AF sensors and the imaging sensors are in exactly the same plane, actually are both part of the same surface, there's no way that they can be out of phase with each other. As a result, now AF fine tuning will ever be needed and the mirrorless design automatically compensates for variation in the lens or it's mounting. (Note: Lens or camera mount may need calibration to ensure they are perfectly parallel, so that the entire image area is focusing equally, but if needed that's usually accomplished during manufacture by shimming the bayonet mounts themselves.)

The Sony A7III has an AF fine tuning feature that's only necessary when using the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4 adapter, which introduces a translucent mirror to the light path (much like a DSLR) to redirect part of the image for focusing purposes, in order to allow DSLR A-mount lenses to be used on the mirrorless E-mount cameras. Ability to fine tune focus with that adapter is necessary to correct for minute variations in the adapter itself.

This is our young male Smooth Fox Terrier, Axel (sometimes I call him Axe-hole when he misbehaves). I shot this with him setting on the grooming table with my Nikon D810 on a tripod with an 85mm f1.4 lens. The white behind him is our white vertical blinds and the brownish color is the wall. I had the grooming table setting about 2-ft. from the window for I wanted to get some soft natural light coming in through the blinds that were drawn.

I used a strobe with an umbrella which you can see from the white dot in his eye. He showed last weekend at Amana, IA where he finished his Championship. He's a tad over a year old now.

Thanks for asking me for a post of my dog for they are a dear part of our family and also bed-hogs.

I agree with you and perhaps I wasn't clear in the comparison of my three different focal length macro lenses. I believe that the depth of field is dependent upon the three factors which are aperture value (f-stop), focal length (the mm of the lens) and distance to the subject from the camera's sensor (which in my case is the centerline of the camera body).

When comparing my three macro lenses, two variables must be fixed. If I set a larger F-stop number (closing the aperture) will result in a larger DOF. Using a longer focal length will result in a smaller depth of field and shooting at a closer subject to sensor distance also results in a smaller depth of field.

Like you, I love my 105mm and it is capable of shooting to infinity. If I take a picture of my dog sitting on the table using a tripod, the distance and the lens length are set. Increasing or decreasing the aperture f-stop increases or decreases the depth of field. At 105mm set at f-2.8 I can get his eye tack sharp and the background slightly past him is a soft blur. Without moving my dog or my camera, if I set the aperture to f-16 or more the background also is tack sharp.

In closing, what I meant to say was I can get the same result of depth of field with any of my three lenses by changing any two factors and to me, distance is the most important when photographing wasps and hornets as I most often do.

Good question. I shoot macro photography out in the fields everyday that weather permits. I have a 60mm, 105mm and a 200mm macro lenses for my Nikon D810. The depth of field is exactly the same on all three lenses when I shoot them at the same f-stop. What does make a difference is that each of the macro lenses have a different minimum focus distance. So with that said, depth of field is directly related to the f-stop aperture setting.

The 60mm is great for studio work, flowers, and subjects that you can get very close to safely. The 105mm is a good sweet-spot length for most applications and it is a favorite length of many macro photographers. The 200mm is my favorite choice for skittish insects and those that potentially may sting or bite if I get my face too close.

I found that the best f-stop for me to be between f-11 and f-16. At less than f-11 the depth of field is so shallow that only a small area of the subject is in sharp focus. Less than f-11 may be great for flat surface subjects like stamps and coins but not for 3D subjects like a live insect (unless you can do focus stacking).

If I go over f-16 lighting the subject becomes critical and even more so with a 200mm macro lens (good practice for hand-held shooting is to double the focal length as the shutter speed) for I shoot at 1/360th sec.

When I have the available light and the power of the flash, if I shoot over f-22 and up to f-32 I start to get diffraction which is inherent in a narrow aperture which causes the sharp edges of the subject to appear softened so it is counter productive to the goal of highly detailed macro photography.