I've used it some but my level of demand on the quality of my images is not as precise as yours and my subject matter tends to be larger with less chance of suffering most kinds of distortion some people complain about. I generally only use it when, if I didn't, I would have no shot at all. I will settle for compromised quality for an extraordinary chance rather than miss the chance altogether so from that perspective, I find that it's at least as good as using a TC when I have used it. I'm out of pocket right now and can't provide any current examples or I would. I would be interested in your results. If you try it.

I'm curious to know if you've used Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) and what your assessment of it is in a pinch? I'd expect you would be averse to shooting .jpg, but in a pinch with the camera setup optimized for SOOC with .jpg in lieu of using a TC? Care to share your experience with that idea?

I would not interrupt my post processing life to go digging through the software world because there really is no perfect, easy, comprehensive substitute for Adobe - there are realistic alternative compromises, but... You're going to waste a lot of time weeding through everything that's out there and likely have to wind up using two or three different packages to get where you are now.

I know other adequate payment alternatives have been mentioned but one I haven't seen specifically mentioned is to get a prepaid card and fund it monthly with just enough to make recurring payment obligations like to Adobe. That will keep you on top of your agreed to obligations and allow you to avoid the possibility for theft.

Shucks ma'am, that was yesterday and I'm a guy. You don't really expect me to remember that do you? I think I may have been thinking something along the lines of, "I'm here every day - why didn't I take those pictures," or "where else are ya gonna go to get 12 pictures like that for a calendar in one place," not that I want to make a calendar. Then I recalled that I have a couple of boxes full of shots of those places downstairs.

The mind is strange. After 42 years here I drive right by those places looking for something interesting to shoot like a bighorn sheep or a moose and I don't even see them anymore. It takes someone like you to come here with a fresh load of "awe" to reintroduce me to them and refresh my old brain about why I came here in the first place. I think those are mostly the reasons why "duh" popped into my head. Thanks for reminding me.

Uh, excuse me - I forgot to tell you what a magnificent job you did on all those shots.

Duh!

Excellent! If only you shot in Raw, think how much better it would be.

This doesn't answer your core question but is related - early on with a Sony crop sensor camera you can kill a battery just trying to find something in the menu without firing a single shot. One thing to avoid is having to go into the menu to change settings when out shooting. There are times when a single battery is not sufficient like when shooting long time lapse or video and changing batteries will interrupt your ongoing process. The full frame models with the bigger battery do much better but still aren't great. That is why I went to the trouble of posting my last thread about substitute batteries at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-703134-1.html

This doesn't answer your core question but is related - early on with a Sony crop sensor camera you can kill a battery just trying to find something in the menu without firing a single shot. The full frame models with the bigger battery do much better but still aren't great. That is why I went to the trouble of posting my last thread at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-703134-1.html

Not exactly a "roadside" attraction but out of Laramie to the southwest just beyond the town of Centennial you will find The Snowy Range, a national Scenic Byway, 21 miles of nature beauty that is a microcosm of the Rockies, old growth forest, moose, elk, you name it, lakes, fishing, etc., as well as campgrounds. A beautiful place to drive through or spend a couple of weeks if the snow hasn't begun to accumulate already. "They" can tell you in Laramie.

The 135 f2 is used more than any of the other older adapted lens I have. I bought it at a pawn shop about 25 years ago. It had been in a car wreck and ended up coated with mud and I got it, a 50 f1.4, and a Manfroto tripod plus some residual mud, all from that wreck, for $15. Without a doubt the best camera related purchase I've ever made. I left the pawn shop feeling a little guilty. Fortunately, all the mud was on the surface so I lucked out. I'd use it more but chasing critters like elk and moose I'm a little more comfortable with a little more lens between us.

At my advanced age, whether or not my memory is working right or not seems to be variable but something I seem to recall about using handheld meters from the instruction manual of both my Minolta and Luna Pro meters, both of which have a 1 degree spot meter attachment for an alternative to incidence and reflective readings, is that if you want an incidence reading you aimed the dome toward the source of light (at the camera) and for a reflected reading you take the dome off and aim at the subject. I can lay my hands on my manuals fairly easily if needed and will humbly bow if mistaken. I mostly quit using my handheld meters after extensive comparison of reflective metering from my camera and reflective metering from my handheld, noting that there wasn't often an appreciable difference but I have several older cameras that do not have a meter in them as well as some with selenium cell meters that have quit working. I found that "Sunny 16" works a lot better with print film that has up 4 to 5 degrees of exposure latitude but not so well with slide film or digital where a reading needs to be more precise due to a lack of wiggle room.

Thank you for expounding on this subject. The mc-11, I have heard, works better with some lens than others and the same with different bodies. I find that I see improvement with each later body model I've used it on. The a6000 is ok in good light with the three lens I used most often with it, the a6500 better, and the a7riii even better still.

As for the use of EF-s lens, I modified both the 10-18 and 18-135 with EF butt plates from ebay and both mount and are functional, quick to focus, on the a7riii full frame. The 10-18 doesn't vignette at 12mm or above. The 18-135 does vignette all the way but I can crop out the vignette from the 42 megapixel images and still have a nice image. Of course, both EF-s lens now mount with the mc-11 on the a6500 with no problem. Thanks again for your your time.

Yes, I am aware. I have several such adapters mounted on FL, FD & Nikon lenses I use most often, yet relatively infrequently, like the FL55 f1.2, FD135 f2 & Micro Nikkor 55 f3.5, and others, all lens I have retained from prior use over the years, the seldom use of which the expense for AF versions can't be justified in my mind given all the circumstances I personally bring to the table, i.e., physical abilities, skills or lack thereof.

The thread you referenced is, as usual, excellent, both the birds and the narrative.

You're right, it's my problem.