The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

I had the TT350 for M43, great little unit BUT ... it p***es through batteries. Only takes 2x AA so you better bring a couple packs with you if you plan to shoot a lot with flash
 
Cagey75 said:
I had the TT350 for M43, great little unit BUT ... it p***es through batteries. Only takes 2x AA so you better bring a couple packs with you if you plan to shoot a lot with flash
Click to expand...

I thought it might at first, but my experience has been the opposite. Using eneloop pros. They last a good while if used for fill. I guess if you’re knocking them out at full power they wouldn’t last long.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I thought it might at first, but my experience has been the opposite. Using eneloop pros. They last a good while if used for fill. I guess if you’re knocking them out at full power they wouldn’t last long.
Click to expand...

I mostly used it for macro, and with a diffuser attached and very small apertures, so I would have been at higher power level. Even with a new set of Duracell batts I was lucky to get 200 shots and already long pauses between by that stage. I get a lot more with my old Yongnuo 560 - but that does take double the batteries, it is a more powerful unit though too.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I thought it might at first, but my experience has been the opposite. Using eneloop pros. They last a good while if used for fill. I guess if you’re knocking them out at full power they wouldn’t last long.
Click to expand...
I use eneloops with mines and battery life is good
 
I used to find with a camera that used rechargeable batteries fast, using a long-life rechargeable like an eneloop gave a much better battery life than either alkalines or ordinary rechargeable batteries.
 
TGphoto said:
Not sure why everyone is ignoring the 350s, great little flash and has been enough for fairly dark environments for me.
Click to expand...

If I'm honest, I got some money for Christmas and it just about covered the V1, I wanted built in battery vs AA etc, and I was seduced by the circular :p:ROFLMAO:. That plus the price importing one vs UK price.
 
I just skipped to the last bit where he says that for Sony you have to buy FF lenses. That's enough to convince me he started with a point he wanted to make and then made a vid to support that view. I have another view, he full of sh!t :D
 
I think he makes a valid point, if not rigorously tested. I have just started to share lenses between my A6000 and A7ii, and it's a head-scratcher trying to get good coverage and quality without Sony's eye-watering FF pricing.

I was a bit surprised about the performance of the FF lens on APS-C. I had always assumed that the bigger image circle means that the FF lens' image corners fall outside the APS-C sensor area and therefore the corners of the APS-C image would be less compromised.
 
goldtop said:
I think he makes a valid point, if not rigorously tested. I have just started to share lenses between my A6000 and A7ii, and it's a head-scratcher trying to get good coverage and quality without Sony's eye-watering FF pricing.

I was a bit surprised about the performance of the FF lens on APS-C. I had always assumed that the bigger image circle means that the FF lens' image corners fall outside the APS-C sensor area and therefore the corners of the APS-C image would be less compromised.
Click to expand...
Don't always believe videos like this. Some presenters are sound, but as WW said, they have an agenda, and controversy=views.

Using FF on crop can make corners better, but it depends on the lens and the camera it's designed to match. Some lenses (esp mirrorless lenses it seems) rely heavily on in-camera correction, so that will impact off-label use.
 
goldtop said:
I think he makes a valid point, if not rigorously tested. I have just started to share lenses between my A6000 and A7ii, and it's a head-scratcher trying to get good coverage and quality without Sony's eye-watering FF pricing.

I was a bit surprised about the performance of the FF lens on APS-C. I had always assumed that the bigger image circle means that the FF lens' image corners fall outside the APS-C sensor area and therefore the corners of the APS-C image would be less compromised.
Click to expand...

Another way to look at it is that with aps-c the middle area of the lens has to work harder as the picture is being magnified more, assuming you keep the final image size the same, for eg. filling the screen. It'd be no surprise if we saw a drop in perceived image quality if we took a FF picture, cropped out the middle and enlarged it and that's effectively what we do with APS-C when looking at the same image sizes.

I know Sony kit can look expensive in isolation but I do think you have to compare like for like. For example and taking the example to an extreme just for illustration, the Sony 55mm f1.8 is a very very good lens and comparing its price to some clunking Canon pile of poop of a 30 year old design costing £80 isn't really fair. I don't really follow all this but it does stick in my mind that one or two more recent Sony APS-C lenses were criticised here for pricing despite being of comparable price to the competition. Sony being cheaper than the competition sometimes doesn't even make them immune from criticism but maybe this is a part of the whole they should stick to making £80 DVD players line of thinking.

Maybe he has a point but I think there are other alternative lens options that could redress things a bit.
 
Last edited:
He is simply putting a system with a similar focal length on an APSC sensor from each manufacturer with lenses currently in production.
 
Raymond Lin said:
He is simply putting a system with a similar focal length on an APSC sensor from each manufacturer with lenses currently in production.
Click to expand...
Then why not use the APS-C 50mm f1.8? Did he have to have the FF 55mm f1.8?

The biggie for me seems to be the lack of a Sony APS-C f2.8 zoom. That's a hole in the system for some people but the bigger issues for me are the lack of a nice compact APS-C 24mm f1.8 and the Sony A6xxx control dials.
 
woof woof said:
Then why not use the APS-C 50mm f1.8? Did he have to have the FF 55mm f1.8?

The biggie for me seems to be the lack of a Sony APS-C f2.8 zoom. That's a hole in the system for some people but the bigger issues for me are the lack of a nice compact APS-C 24mm f1.8 and the Sony A6xxx control dials.
Click to expand...

Because he also tried to match the price too and the 55 is closest to the Fuji 56/1.2.

This test isn't exact match for match, you know that. If he used the 50/1.8 then someone will say that is the cheapest one, why not use something better like the 55 as that is sharper blah blah blah.

This is the internet, someone will find an angle, always.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Because he also tried to match the price too and the 55 is closest to the Fuji 56/1.2.

This test isn't exact match for match, you know that. If he used the 50/1.8 then someone will say that is the cheapest one, why not use something better like the 55 as that is sharper blah blah blah.

This is the internet, someone will find an angle, always.
Click to expand...

I think the short version is "I'm going to pick and choose to make the point I want to make." Fair enough.
 
woof woof said:
Another way to look at it is that with aps-c the middle area of the lens has to work harder as the picture is being magnified more, assuming you keep the final image size the same, for eg. filling the screen. It'd be no surprise if we saw a drop in perceived image quality if we took a FF picture, cropped out the middle and enlarged it and that's effectively what we do with APS-C when looking at the same image sizes.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but we're not considering the quality of the FF image on an FF body here. The comparison is fitting an FF lens to an APS-C camera versus an APS-C lens on that same camera. So I'd expect the APS-C lens to have the usual corner issues and these will be within the corners of the APS-C sensor. Whereas the image circle from the FF lens in that camera should mean that its corners fall outside the sensor.

For the APS-C range, for example, the best zoom seems to be the 18-135mm = not cheap but not fast.

I've got an LA-EA4 which allows me to add A-mount lenses (including the 'DT' type, I think - haven't tried), but the extra bulk works against the A6000 compactness.
 
On another line... I haven't had time for hobbies in the last few weeks and maybe as a part of that I've been thinking about the gear I have or want. I've been reading about the Voigtlander 50mm f2 which is arguably one of the best 50mm lenses ever made and I've soooo nearly ordered one but do I/we need all this excellentness when few people really need the last few pixels in the corner to be sharp at fx when pixel peeping at 100%+

I've never really gone for the very latest and the technically very best but even more than ever I'm thinking that 90% of this is GAS.

:D
 
woof woof said:
Then why not use the APS-C 50mm f1.8? Did he have to have the FF 55mm f1.8?

The biggie for me seems to be the lack of a Sony APS-C f2.8 zoom. That's a hole in the system for some people but the bigger issues for me are the lack of a nice compact APS-C 24mm f1.8 and the Sony A6xxx control dials.
Click to expand...

Raymond Lin said:
Because he also tried to match the price too and the 55 is closest to the Fuji 56/1.2.

This test isn't exact match for match, you know that. If he used the 50/1.8 then someone will say that is the cheapest one, why not use something better like the 55 as that is sharper blah blah blah.

This is the internet, someone will find an angle, always.
Click to expand...

The closest would have actually been the sigma 56mm f1.4. Not the Sony 50-ish versions.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Sigma...not Sony.
Click to expand...

so what as long as it works as a native lens
If I was buying sony APS-C which is what he said the interntion of the video was i.e. to give buying suggestion I'd be looking at the sigma 56mm f1.4 and not the other two as the alternative to fuji 56mm f1.2
 
Last edited:
goldtop said:
I understand that, but we're not considering the quality of the FF image on an FF body here. The comparison is fitting an FF lens to an APS-C camera versus an APS-C lens on that same camera. So I'd expect the APS-C lens to have the usual corner issues and these will be within the corners of the APS-C sensor. Whereas the image circle from the FF lens in that camera should mean that its corners fall outside the sensor.

For the APS-C range, for example, the best zoom seems to be the 18-135mm = not cheap but not fast.

I've got an LA-EA4 which allows me to add A-mount lenses (including the 'DT' type, I think - haven't tried), but the extra bulk works against the A6000 compactness.
Click to expand...

Weaker FF corners should fall outside of the APS-C image, don't they? The catch is that the area you see is magnified more so at the extreme I suppose that weak corners are replaced with a weak midframe.

Ideally smaller sensor system lenses should be designed to be very good so that the pictures stand up to the additional magnification. I don't have the very best MFT lenses but I've read that the best of them would be amongst the best lenses available if they could be scaled up to FF and keep their performance. That's one way to keep the image quality up with smaller systems, start with very good small sensor system lenses.
 
nandbytes said:
so what as long as it works as a native lens
If I was buying sony APS-C which is what he said the interntion of the video was i.e. to give buying suggestion I'd be looking at the sigma 56mm f1.4 and not the other two as the alternative to fuji 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...

The point is that he wasn't trying to get the system, he was doing it for a manufacturer. That was the "limit" to the exercise.

Once you start putting other manufacturer on it then you open an entirely different door, on the Fuji then why not put an adaptor and put a Canon lens on it? And then the same lens on the Sony...

It just goes on and on.

blah.
 
nandbytes said:
so what as long as it works as a native lens
If I was buying sony APS-C which is what he said the interntion of the video was i.e. to give buying suggestion I'd be looking at the sigma 56mm f1.4 and not the other two as the alternative to fuji 56mm f1.2
Click to expand...

Yup. Anyone buying into a system and sticking only to camera brand products might be missing out.
 
woof woof said:
Weaker FF corners should fall outside of the APS-C image, don't they? The catch is that the area you see is magnified more so at the extreme I suppose that weak corners are replaced with a weak midframe.

Ideally smaller sensor system lenses should be designed to be very good so that the pictures stand up to the additional magnification. I don't have the very best MFT lenses but I've read that the best of them would be amongst the best lenses available if they could be scaled up to FF and keep their performance. That's one way to keep the image quality up with smaller systems, start with very good small sensor system lenses.
Click to expand...

an analogy I have heard (not mine) is that lenses can be seen as magnifying glasses. They basically concentrate light on to a small area. APS-C lenses or m43 lenses with smaller circle are designed to concentrate the light on to a smaller area hence better suited for higher density than FF lenses with larger circles and hence less concentration.

A bit like when we were children trying to burn paper and ants using magnifying glass. you had to concentrate the light on to a very small area to make it ignite.
 
woof woof said:
In this my angle is fairness. That's it. I couldn't give a f*** about fanboyism, talking up or knocking any particular brand.
Click to expand...

It's YouTube, it's the internet, what did you expect?

You care enough to get upset about it to swear.

He really got to you didn't he?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
The point is that he wasn't trying to get the system, he was doing it for a manufacturer. That was the "limit" to the exercise.

Once you start putting other manufacturer on it then you open an entirely different door, on the Fuji then why not put an adaptor and put a Canon lens on it? And then the same lens on the Sony...

It just goes on and on.

blah.
Click to expand...
adapters can be used on both systems and are on equal footing. Also they are equally crap i.e. not as good as native solutions.

sigma on the other hand is a native solution. The purpose of the video was (his claims not mine) for him to make a "broader recommendation for people looking for their first mirrorless camera". For that purpose sigma 56mm is the most suited of the lot because not only is it a lot cheaper making it great for first time buyers its also very sharp and works just as well as any other native lens.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
adapters can be used on both systems and are on equal footing. Also they are equally crap i.e. not as good as native solutions.

sigma on the other hand is a native solution. The purpose of the video was for him to make a "broader recommendation for people looking for their first mirrorless camera". For that purpose sigma 56mm is the most suited of the lot because not only is it a lot cheaper making it great for first time buyers its also very sharp.
Click to expand...

And it also the wrong name on the label, he set out to make a Sony v Fuji video, not pick and mix, perhaps he will do one where he will pick and mix but for a 1 brand vs the other, this is what it is.
 
Raymond Lin said:
And it also the wrong name on the label, he set out to make a Sony v Fuji video, not pick and mix, perhaps he will do one where he will pick and mix but for a 1 brand vs the other, this is what it is.
Click to expand...
he said (not me) he was looking at a system as whole and as I already mentioned (his claims not mine) for him to make a "broader recommendation for people looking for their first mirrorless camera". So sigma is very much part of the system. One of the reason Sony mirrorless didn't have the same traction as DSLRs for first time buyers is because of the lack of 3rd party support who provide cheaper sharp glass.
As per his own claims sigma should not be overlooked for the intensions or principles of the video that he himself outlined.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
he said (not me) he was looking at a system as whole and as I already mentioned (his claims not mine) for him to make a "broader recommendation for people looking for their first mirrorless camera". So sigma is very much part of the system. One of the reason Sony mirrorless didn't have the same traction as DSLRs for first time buyers is because of the lack of 3rd party support who provide cheaper sharp glass.
As per his own claims sigma should not be overlooked for the intensions or principles of the video that he himself outlined.
Click to expand...

It feels like i am going round in circles.
 
Raymond Lin said:
And it also the wrong name on the label, he set out to make a Sony v Fuji video, not pick and mix, perhaps he will do one where he will pick and mix but for a 1 brand vs the other, this is what it is.
Click to expand...

I agree. In the first half of the video, the Sony solution was significantly ahead on IQ.

On the MFT lens point: the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro is the sort of thing I'd love to find on the E-mount... Maybe the new Sony 16-55 will do that and by the time it comes on to the used market, I'll be able to afford it.
 
Hey Guys, Question.

Funds can’t stretch to the a7r3 at the moment. Is the a7r2 still good enough to pair along side my a73?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top