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

manualfocus-g said:
Spot on I reckon (other than wide SLR lenses don't smear. The a7/a7r are both difficult to use with manual lenses, and as a camera in general it feels unrefined, The EVF is useless in bright light and zooming in on shots to check focus feels ridiculous to me. It's probably great with native lenses though :)
Click to expand...

Are we using the same camera? :D

Manual lenses are a joy to use with the A7, you have three options...

-focus with the whole view... and remember that this is your only option with an OVF but with an EVF you can also...

-focus with blinkies, which I find quite accurate...

-focus with the magnified view which is called up with a single button push. Push it again and you get even more magnification. Try that with an OVF DSLR :D

There is just no doubt in my mind that manual focusing with any CSC is much easier than with any optical system. It simply must be as anything you can focus on by eye through an OVF you can focus on much more accurately with the use of the magnified view. There's just no contest if you're looking for accurate manual focus. The bigger the image the easier it is to choose the point of focus, simples.

I rarely have problems in bright light. The only issues could be if the sun is shining into the EVF and if it is the answer is to shade it, or if pointing directly into the sun and overloading the EVF dynamic range. I've tried that and found that I could focus accurately and obviously there'd be a problem using an OVF in this situation too :D This shot for example, straight into the sun, so much so that it was very difficult to even look in that direction....



If anyone thinks they can focus more accurately with an OVF I'd gladly challenge them to a shoot out :D It simply can not be possible to focus more accurately by eye through an OVF than you can with a magnified digital view :D As I said, you can choose your point of focus along the length of an eye lash and that would simply be impossible without a magnified view.
 
Last edited:
An example from my humble G1, 25mm, f2.

Whole image...


100% crop...


Focusing that accurately manually through a non magnified OVF would have been simply impossible and would if nailed have been pure luck but with a magnified view it was a simple task and achieved with one shot.

If you have the time I'd say that with a magnified view you can get accuracy that you simply couldn't get with AF because the AF would focus on something but maybe not what you wanted it to. When taking this shot I could literally pick the eye lash :D
 
Last edited:
Shooting in magnified view is not a solution for me except for static objects, but still doesn't make for a satisfying user experience. The point I'm making is that I can shoot my ff DSLR in any lighting conditions without needing peaking or magnified view, so why should I compromise? The a7 struggles in bright light, making it impossible to accurately gauge focus. But with AF lenses these issues aren't as problematic, obviously.
 
I still don't fully understand your comments as I don't struggle in bright light and find that I can see and achieve manual focus accuracy with my A7 or G1 that is simply impossible with an unmagnified OVF system.

But I accept that the A7 obviously isn't for you but for me CSC's are a revelation.

Years ago I shot MF and yes, the shots looked good but my prints were small and these days I can print to A3 at home and view at whatever x100 magnification I want on screen and there just no doubt that modern CSC's simply kick ass for manual focus accuracy. They simply must do as anything that can be seen to focus on through an OVF can be seen and magnified through a CSC EVF and that equals more accuracy :D
 
manualfocus-g said:
Sorry Alan, but peddling the same photo over and over again doesn't change my view. I have been shooting people with sharp eyes at f/1.4 using my DSLR for years without the need for magnification (and I am very fussy - I have pixel peeping issues lol).
Click to expand...

Oh dear... I detect a tone due to a lost argument :D

Pick a number, 100, 200? and I'll post them if I have permission to do so otherwise I'll post non people flowers and test shots to prove the point.

Think what you want but the fact is that you simply can not focus as accurately at f1.4 through your OVF as you can with a magnified view and if you think you can there's something wrong somewhere.
 
i think it can depend on the lens + focusing screen. but issues in bright light is from the stock eyecup not really being up to the job, you do need a larger one that blocks out alot of light which is much more of a challenge if you wear glasses.
 
Yup. Or move your head a fraction and the issue is solved.
 
woof woof said:
Oh dear... I detect a tone due to a lost argument :D

Pick a number, 100, 200? and I'll post them if I have permission to do so otherwise I'll post non people flowers and test shots to prove the point.

Think what you want but the fact is that you simply can not focus as accurately at f1.4 through your OVF as you can with a magnified view and if you think you can there's something wrong somewhere.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Your "facts" are based on your eyesight and your own experience of whatever subjects it is you are shooting. I have an EG-S precision matte screen in my 6D which allows me to focus easily at wide apertures. Magnified view is an answer to match the better view of an OVF, but as I've told you several times, I don't like shooting like that...it's unnatural.

I shot a gig recently with the a7 and it was a really frustrating experience. Even with magnified view it was difficult to nail focus with my 85/1.4, as unlike flowers, people move around a bit which buggers up framing. No such issues with my DSLR, although I appreciate that the smaller size of the a7 is a genuine advantage. I tried shooting for three months almost exclusively with the a7, but ultimately it's too flawed for my liking. Mix the EVF in with the 1/60th second problem, awkward button positioning and poor high ISO capability and I eventually gave up. For me, the tech is not there yet, but I appreciate that others are getting on better with their Sonys.
 
its probably that screen that helps quite abit, and shooting moving things with magnified view is probably odd. you might enjoy leica style focusing manualfocus-g :)
 
For me the Sony A7(R) just ticks the most boxes that I can think of in a camera. The image quality aligned with the size is spot on. More inbuilt tech features than a geek could wish for. Good, solid feel to it. I am still amazed when I pixel peep into a picture ans spot something in perfect detail that I could never see with the naked eye at the time. The practical effect of this is clear and vibrant full size prints. The size will make it ideal for popping in a rucksack on my soon to be planned highland jaunt.

Picture below was one I took a few weeks ago and could do quite a sever pp crop on it with still lots of detail.

 
Last edited:
pingu666 said:
its probably that screen that helps quite abit, and shooting moving things with magnified view is probably odd. you might enjoy leica style focusing manualfocus-g :)
Click to expand...

I think you may well be right, I'd love a rangefinder :) My wallet disagrees though :D

Anyway I'm off my hobby horse today, clearly Alan and I prefer to shoot in different ways and we use what's best for our own circumstances.
 
twist said:
Couple, average build quality, average/slow AF in low light, few/expensive lenses. I use primes so zooms are of no interest, the current zooms are slow and the roadmap shows no signs of improvement. The 35 is very good but its F2.8 and costs as much as a Sigma 35mm 1.4. I went back to Fuji as I saw negligible difference at ISO 3200/6400 and Fuji has nicer primes and the colour/skintones out of camera are better IMO.

Id say the only benefit if you downsize is literally that, size.
Click to expand...

I also was very close to buying an A7 but like you, concluded the same. I also went down the Fuji route (X-T1) both the camera and Fuji optics are superb. That said, I have just ordered a Carl Zeiss 50mm f2.8 macro (1:1)
 
chrism_scotland said:
Has anyone who has bought either the A7/A7r come from a full frame DSLR? I've been tempted to downsize from a D800 particularly considering that I mostly use 35mm all the time.
Click to expand...

Me, a Canon 5D MkIII. I bought the A7R with the 50mm 1.8 as a carry around because it looked better than the X-Pro1 that I was using. I liked it so much I'm selling my Canon gear and replacing it with a second body and a couple more lenses.

Likes: small, light, quick to work with, excellent in low light - I'm doing a lot in dark pubs and clubs at the moment, it's killer. That manual focus auto zoom in the viewfinder thing it has going on is pretty nifty. The extra two bits of dynamic range over the 5D is revealing some very nice extra shadow detail.

Dislikes: Jeez, the noise of that shutter. It's scaring birds from the trees, waking babies up. Interestingly I haven't had much of an issue with the blur that people have been talking about, which surprised me because you can feel it clunk.

I've worked with SLRs since the 70s and DSLRs since the 1DS, I didn't think I'd ever get to like an EVF but I'm finding it surprisingly amenable.

Overall, I'm liking it.
 
maybe get the a7 for the second body, the shutter is much better, has a nice silky sound to it (or the one i tried briefly had) :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Not at all. Your "facts" are based on your eyesight and your own experience
Click to expand...

Simple fact = Whatever you can see to focus on you can focus on more accurately if it's 10 times the size plus of course if the subject is 10 times the size you can accurately focus on something that simply isn't visible on your matte screen because it's too small.

Other than that you just keep coming up with something new, 1/60 problem? What problem? Set your shutter speed to something else. Jeez.

The A7 isn't for you so move it on and move on dude :D Conversation over :D
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
I think you may well be right, I'd love a rangefinder :) My wallet disagrees though :D

Anyway I'm off my hobby horse today, clearly Alan and I prefer to shoot in different ways and we use what's best for our own circumstances.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that we shoot in different ways... it's that I have no idea how you can focus more accurately at f1.4 with a DSLR no matter what it's fitted with than you can with a magnified EVF :D

I've used RF's and SLR's fitted with pretty much anything that can be fitted including manual focus aid screens and I still find focusing at f1.4, no scrap that... f0.95 :D sooooo much easier and so much more accurate with a CSC.

If we ever meet I'll challenge you to an accuracy shootout... my 20/20 vision and magnified EVF against your OVF and any screen you want to fit.
 
kimaldis said:
Dislikes: Jeez, the noise of that shutter. It's scaring birds from the trees, waking babies up. Interestingly I haven't had much of an issue with the blur that people have been talking about, which surprised me because you can feel it clunk.

I've worked with SLRs since the 70s and DSLRs since the 1DS, I didn't think I'd ever get to like an EVF but I'm finding it surprisingly amenable.

Overall, I'm liking it.
Click to expand...

I don't find the shutter noise all that bad. My 20D sounded like an anvil being thrown into a tin bath but I lived with it for 7 years. The 5D was better but even so I prefer the A7 and when out and about I've never found it an issue. I have the first curtain thingy set though.
 
I quiet like the sound of the A7R shutter, nice and mechanical.
I also find it incredibly easy to MF using these cameras, i could never manage decent results with my DSLR.
 
So while I'm here ... I had in my head that I'd be picking up an f4 24-70mm for this camera. F4 always bothered me and I've just read a couple of reviews of the lens which aren't great, particularly sharpness and edge fall-off, so I'm starting to look at the A-Mount 24-70 f2.8, which is a far better lens and an adapter but I'm wondering what kind of disadvantages I might meet with this combination. I know I'll lose 1/3 of a stop and obviously there's a bulk and weight issue but is anyone using a combination like this and what are people's thoughts?
 
Why would you loose 1/3rd of a stop, i didnt think the Sony adapters lost anything.
Size, weight, lack of OSS, and price are the downsides.
 
I picked up an FE 24-70 f4 a few weeks ago and I had already heard that it would not be the equal of the primes. Quelle surprise? However, in general usage i think it is a great, versatile lens that is more than sharp enough for any real world viewing. Of course if I zoom in 100% and squint at it for long enough I am stirred to anger.....:)
 
Same i like mine, does just what you want a jack of all trades lens to do.
 
I think Kimaldis means the 1/3 stop from using The LAE4 adapter which gives autofocus. (Whilst LAE3 will give autofocus with that lens, the af is not worth having!)

FWIW the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss isn't all that either. Its worse optically than the Tamron 28-75, (check Kurt Mungers comparison page).
 
I just binned a 24-70 Zeiss back to the shop. Mega distortion. The kit lens was better. Hard to believe.
 
The review I was referring to was at slrgear.com and it was scathing but checking out comparisons at dxomark there's not a lot to choose between the two and both perform better there than the Canon 24-70 2.8 1. That's a win for me coming from Canon. I'd have liked to have seen it on dpreview as well but they haven't got there yet but in general I prefer to look at the numbers. Subjective reviews tend to be all over the place.
 
Brazo said:
I think Kimaldis means the 1/3 stop from using The LAE4 adapter which gives autofocus. (Whilst LAE3 will give autofocus with that lens, the af is not worth having!)

FWIW the 24-70 2.8 Zeiss isn't all that either. Its worse optically than the Tamron 28-75, (check Kurt Mungers comparison page).
Click to expand...

That rather goes against most reviews I'v seen where the 24-70mm 2.8 would have a significant edge over the Tamron 28-75mm at the boarders at both the wide and the long end. Another alternative might be the newer Tamron 24-70mm 2.8, performance wise that seems very similar to the 2.8 Zeiss lens and its both cheaper(about the same price at the FE mount 24-70mm) and lighter than the Zeiss.
 
Last edited:
kimaldis said:
So while I'm here ... I had in my head that I'd be picking up an f4 24-70mm for this camera. F4 always bothered me and I've just read a couple of reviews of the lens which aren't great, particularly sharpness and edge fall-off, so I'm starting to look at the A-Mount 24-70 f2.8, which is a far better lens and an adapter but I'm wondering what kind of disadvantages I might meet with this combination. I know I'll lose 1/3 of a stop and obviously there's a bulk and weight issue but is anyone using a combination like this and what are people's thoughts?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in this new f4 lens myself, I bought the kit lens as I like to have one for occasional use but mostly I use primes and at the moment manual primes so the kit zoom is good enough for me especially as I intend to use it only occasionally and indeed haven't used it yet :D.... Anyway...

I find difficult to decide what to believe about the f4 lens at the moment. I've read some of the reviews and comments and there seems to be argument over how good it is. Points about sensor mp counts and arguments over centre v corner performance and claims that other lenses with less good test bench scores have been awarded higher marks etc... these things muddly the waters but a few comments made me think that this lens may well be worth a close look and those are the comments that say that it produces lovely pictures. That's what matters isn't it? :D
 
Moreorless said:
That rather goes against most reviews I'v seen where the 24-70mm 2.8 would have a significant edge over the Tamron 28-75mm at the boarders at both the wide and the long end. Another alternative might be the newer Tamron 24-70mm 2.8, performance wise that seems very similar to the 2.8 Zeiss lens and its both cheaper(about the same price at the FE mount 24-70mm) and lighter than the Zeiss.
Click to expand...

I was basing my thoughts on this comparison (about a 1/2 way down page) I'd happily view the sites you have referred to.
http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_sony_28_75mmid141.html

I understand the zeiss is great on APS-C but not so great on full frame.
 
And back to the water resistance situation. Sony say that according to their engineers the camera can withstand temperature changes where there is moisture in the air (which I've translated to condensation forming on the camera if taken from a warm environment to a cold one), but it is not a "waterproof" camera. To me, "waterproof" means you can take it under water, which obviously I wouldn't have thought was possible with the A7R. Weatherproof means the camera can withstand rain, which it obviously cant.

Now it's one thing to say it is weatherproofed or moisture resistant (which I read as being able to be out in the rain for short periods), and completely another to say it is "condensation resistant" which implies a much lower level of resistance. If it was advertised as "condensation resistant" I wouldn't have shot in the rain with it.

It looks like I need to pay up to get the camera fixed and back in my hands (I do want to use the damned thing), but next stop after that is Sony's PR department.

Don't go out in the rain with your A7/R, and if you want a weather resistant camera don't buy one in the first place!
 
Last edited:
I was holding out for the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 but given the review feedback I can't see it's worth best part of £1k and given I already have the kit lens (and it's really rather good as kit lenses go), not bothered about the build quality so much either.

But I have just ordered the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, saw that CameraWorld had it for about the same price as Panamoz so thought it rude not too (I will be in trouble) :naughty:
 
Brazo said:
I was basing my thoughts on this comparison (about a 1/2 way down page) I'd happily view the sites you have referred to.
http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_sony_28_75mmid141.html

I understand the zeiss is great on APS-C but not so great on full frame.
Click to expand...

DxO is the easiest one to get a direct comparison, both on the a900...

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...l-IF-Sony-on-Sony-Alpha-900___224_371_957_371

The Zeiss generally a little sharper in most situations, quite a lot sharper at the boarders when shooting wider open at 24/28mm and in the centre when shooting at 70/75mm.

I'v not owned either but I'v always heard just the reverse, the Tamron 28-75mm worked very well on ASPC if you want the more tele range where as the Zeiss comes into its own more on FF.

The main issue to me with the Zeiss seems to be value, £1500 new when you can get the newer Tamron 24-70mm for half that.
 
Last edited:
Anyone able to comment on the LAE4 - size, handling etc. I'm reluctant to get one but it is beginning to look like the best option.
 
Tobers said:
Weatherproof means the camera can withstand rain,
Click to expand...

One would think so. The way to approach this would be to check their documentation on the matter very carefully, exact wording including any caveats Then get yourself a subscription to Which online - around a tenner a month, something stupid like a quid for the first month - and make use of their free but excellent consumer legal advice. It's very good and it carries weight. The dig their heels in less because they care about what your problem will cost them, more because they don't want to establish an expensive precedent. These battles are worth fighting, I always believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top