>>4444220
>>4444230
>ONLY applies to wide angles with an entrance pupil that is not a certain distance away from the sensor
Yes, and that makes Sony less than ideal for adapting lenses. The issue is evident with fast 50mm lenses down. The same goes for (just a hair better, but still shit) Canon RF and Sigma/Panasonic.
The issue is not nearly as pronounced on Nikon Z or Leica SL and is mostly nonexistent on digital M. I'm sure we agree.
>Because it has NOTHING to do with the mount. Electronic contacts do not interfere with the bayonet or optical path.
Why did Cosina need to cut out a part of the mount on the CV55/1.2?
You can very clearly see that the contacts occupy the same plane as the rear element. They create a bottleneck. This means the rear element can hardly be any larger in the presence of electronic contacts.
What you're saying about Nikon's lack of capabilities may be perfectly fine and I have never claimed otherwise. It is only compounded by the fact that the dimensions of their mount were more difficult to design for in the digital era. If this were NOT true, Canon would have never abandoned FD themselves.
I am still completely perplexed about your obsession with dying on this hill. Nothing I am saying is controversial.