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

Sony might be releasing a new FE body next month :D Sony A9? Mmmm or maybe the Sony A7III?
I suspect the FE 16-35mm f2.8 G Master will be announced too.
 

"As it’s not a G Master lens the Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 may seem something of a ‘second fiddle’ to the Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF GM OSS announced at the same time, but at a round a third of the cost it’s likely to be a more common purchase."

It does make me laugh how Sony seem to have been able to carve out a segment of photographers that are willing to accept a £600 lens as the 'budget' option. I shot Canon originally before moving to Sony and a lot of my wedding work was shot with the Canon 85mm 1.8 which is below £300 new. I realise that the standard justification of Canon having been around longer means the development costs are well accounted for etc, along with Sony employing unicorn tears in their manufacturing process but twice the price, really?

Realistically, Sony played a good game by building up a market of eager buyers and releasing 3 models of bodies over 2 geenrations (so far) and a host of both ridiculously priced primes that all cover the same range or a mixed bag of zooms. By building up the demand for more affordable primes, they've made a £600 lens look like a complete bargain against the £1500 equivalent G Master when it's a relatively bread and butter focal length/aperture.

If I had an A7 body I'd be interested in an 85mm for portraits/events but at that price it must be hard to justify for hobby photographers?
 
Sony might be releasing a new FE body next month :D Sony A9? Mmmm or maybe the Sony A7III?
I suspect the FE 16-35mm f2.8 G Master will be announced too.

Have no interest in the lens but the a7iii will be interesting as it should indicate how the a7s3 and a7r3 will look.
 
It does make me laugh how Sony seem to have been able to carve out a segment of photographers that are willing to accept a £600 lens as the 'budget' option. I shot Canon originally before moving to Sony and a lot of my wedding work was shot with the Canon 85mm 1.8 which is below £300 new. I realise that the standard justification of Canon having been around longer means the development costs are well accounted for etc, along with Sony employing unicorn tears in their manufacturing process but twice the price, really?

...If I had an A7 body I'd be interested in an 85mm for portraits/events but at that price it must be hard to justify for hobby photographers?

That Canon lens is an 85mm f1.8 but it was never considered as anything other than a budget option was it? When I had Canon dslr's I didn't even consider that lens and went for the Sigma f1.4. Lets at least wait and see some more reviews before we write the Sony off as overpriced.
 
Last edited:
The A9 has been talked about for sooooo long I wonder what the problem in bringing it to market is. Maybe there's no problem but just no competition? Maybe now we have the two new medium format offerings from Hassy and Fuji and rumours of a an upcoming ff Canon mirrorless Sony will finally release the A9.

Time will tell.
 
"As it’s not a G Master lens the Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 may seem something of a ‘second fiddle’ to the Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF GM OSS announced at the same time, but at a round a third of the cost it’s likely to be a more common purchase."

It does make me laugh how Sony seem to have been able to carve out a segment of photographers that are willing to accept a £600 lens as the 'budget' option. I shot Canon originally before moving to Sony and a lot of my wedding work was shot with the Canon 85mm 1.8 which is below £300 new. I realise that the standard justification of Canon having been around longer means the development costs are well accounted for etc, along with Sony employing unicorn tears in their manufacturing process but twice the price, really?

Realistically, Sony played a good game by building up a market of eager buyers and releasing 3 models of bodies over 2 geenrations (so far) and a host of both ridiculously priced primes that all cover the same range or a mixed bag of zooms. By building up the demand for more affordable primes, they've made a £600 lens look like a complete bargain against the £1500 equivalent G Master when it's a relatively bread and butter focal length/aperture.

If I had an A7 body I'd be interested in an 85mm for portraits/events but at that price it must be hard to justify for hobby photographers?
Well many people who jump on ff have serious money anyway
 
That Canon lens is an 85mm f1.8 but it was never considered as anything other than a budget option was it? When I had Canon dslr's I didn't even consider that lens and went for the Sigma f1.4. Lets at least wait and see some more reviews before we write the Sony off as overpriced.

That was my point. The Canon lens is an excellent full frame performer but is half the price of Sony's supposed 'budget' offering. I've also used the Sigma 85/1.4 and it's an excellent lens but again, my point was a direct comparison to the Sony.

Well many people who jump on ff have serious money anyway

Obviously, reading this thread shows that. It's still a bit unrealistic to call a £600 lens 'budget'. I agree that to some, spending £600 on a hobby lens doesn't seem particularly outlandish, but it just makes me laugh when it's described as if it's a bargain basement lens.
 
Well many people who jump on ff have serious money anyway

I wish, but it works the other way for me, I has a A6000 purely for using old manual lenses, was impressed with that so bought an A7r2, again for manual glass, for me, the A7r2 has made photography fun again, I now spend my money on 2nd hand old glass from ebay and Im loving it.
I managed to get a 12 month interest free deal for the A7r2 or I would never have been able to afford it.
 
That was my point. The Canon lens is an excellent full frame performer but is half the price of Sony's supposed 'budget' offering. I've also used the Sigma 85/1.4 and it's an excellent lens but again, my point was a direct comparison to the Sony.

I don't remember reading anywhere that the new Sony 85mm is bargain basement.

On the quality of the Canon 85mm f1.8 I beg to differ. The Canon 85mm f1.8 IMO isn't an excellent lens, not in comparison to the alternatives. Granted I never owned one but I did give it a good hard look and I bought the much better, IMO and that of many reviews I read, Sigma.

I really don't want to get into the cost debates that have cropped up IMO too often in this thread. If anyone wants a budget option Canon are there and there are some cheap lens options but they're arguably not as good as the Sony offerings and if we accept that all that's left is arguing over how much more the better Sony should cost.

Anyway, the Sony 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 I have are IMO excellent and the 55mm in particular is nowhere near matched by anything Canon have. If the new 85mm comes anywhere near the quality of the Sony primes I have I'll see it as a good job done and at a price that whilst not being bargain basement in Canon terms at least doesn't make me think it's vastly overpriced.

YMMV.
 
The point of my post is that the Sony 85mm 1.8 isn't "bargain basement" in actual price but is being billed as a 'budget' offering due to it being a third of the price of the G Master;

upload_2017-2-17_12-34-43.png


As you never actually tried the Canon 85mm it's hard to write it off but my point still stands. I'm not trying to rub anyone up the wrong the way or get them on the defensive, merely pointing out that £600 is a lot to spend on a lens that's described by the majority of the reviewers as "Sony's budget offering".

Also, if the 50mm 1.8 FE has a similar build quality and construction to the new 85mm 1.8 FE, why is it nearly a third of the price if it's not simply because the 85mm is seen as a more niche offering at the moment because of Sony's love for 50mm lenses? Just posing the question.
 
well its definitely a budget option when compared to the gm and batis. but i certainly appreciate that £500-£600 is still a lot of money.

i have no doubt it'll perform better than the canon 1.8 though, as having owned that briefly was was of the worst lens in terms of the CA rendering.
i thought this new 85 has a few more bells and whistles to it over the 50mm - like focus hold button and a more advanced focus system. i guess the proof will be in the pudding and there will soon be plenty of reviews and examples flooding youboob.
 
As you never actually tried the Canon 85mm it's hard to write it off but my point still stands. I'm not trying to rub anyone up the wrong the way or get them on the defensive, merely pointing out that £600 is a lot to spend on a lens that's described by the majority of the reviewers as "Sony's budget offering".

Also, if the 50mm 1.8 FE has a similar build quality and construction to the new 85mm 1.8 FE, why is it nearly a third of the price if it's not simply because the 85mm is seen as a more niche offering at the moment because of Sony's love for 50mm lenses? Just posing the question.

Even in the bygone days when I was using Canon I could read the reviews and download samples so I wasn't exactly writing it off unfairly.

And no, I'm not really on the defensive but I do get a bit hacked off by the continued and repeated pages full of cost complaints and should have bought a Fuji/Nikon/anything else posts we've seen in this thread. It is rather off putting and has driven people away. The system is what it is...
 
well its definitely a budget option when compared to the gm and batis. but i certainly appreciate that £500-£600 is still a lot of money.

i have no doubt it'll perform better than the canon 1.8 though, as having owned that briefly was was of the worst lens in terms of the CA rendering.
i thought this new 85 has a few more bells and whistles to it over the 50mm - like focus hold button and a more advanced focus system. i guess the proof will be in the pudding and there will soon be plenty of reviews and examples flooding youboob.

I have actually posted many times that modern lenses are really too good and too big and I'd welcome more compact lenses which are merely good enough... a sort of modern equivalent to my old Rokkors but with AF. But, we're not going to see that sort of lens from anyone but the no name Chinese guys.

I still can't make my mind up. I could get a 50mm macro and the 85mm and no one would complain but as I hardly have time to go out and take a worthwhile picture these days what's the point...
 
I have actually posted many times that modern lenses are really too good and too big and I'd welcome more compact lenses which are merely good enough... a sort of modern equivalent to my old Rokkors but with AF. But, we're not going to see that sort of lens from anyone but the no name Chinese guys.

I still can't make my mind up. I could get a 50mm macro and the 85mm and no one would complain but as I hardly have time to go out and take a worthwhile picture these days what's the point...

Life is short. Treat yourself for your holiday.

Yeah I'd considered m4/3 as a second system due to the dinky primes. But trying to stay with one system.
 
Last edited:
It's not a photographic holiday though. All GF's family and friends will be there and we'll be doing family and group stuff. As I've mentioned we're hopefully getting married this year, it was put back when GF had a health scare but is now thankfully back on and as GF doesn't want a ceremony back home (Thai weddings are a right faff on) this is our pre wedding tour round all the family and friends many of whom wont be able to come to the UK for our wedding. There'll be individual and group photos but no time for me to run off and enjoy photography as such.
 
And no, I'm not really on the defensive but I do get a bit hacked off by the continued and repeated pages full of cost complaints and should have bought a Fuji/Nikon/anything else posts we've seen in this thread. It is rather off putting and has driven people away. The system is what it is...

Just wanted to say that I shoot Sony in case you think I'm a Canon fanboy infiltrating the Sony thread with fake news.

Sony don't do budget :D

Didn't you sell all of your Sony kit because it was worth way more than what you got out of it and you weren't keen on carrying around £5k of kit on a strap around your neck?

I'm not saying that the Sony system isn't anything but expensive. I'm just trying to put a realistic response to the photography market as a whole where a manufacturer releases a £600 lens as their 'budget' option when a large number of people still claim that mirrorless isn't up to the demands of professional work yet (I disagree on the whole but the argument is still there).

The large majority of professional photographers will still use traditional DSLRs, suggesting that the Sony system is used primarily by hobbyists or as second cameras. As a result, spending £600 on a lens because it's the cheap option is a challenge when it's not returning on the investment.

Anyway, I'll stop questioning the realistic value of Sony kit and let the thread get back to normal.
 
Just wanted to say that I shoot Sony in case you think I'm a Canon fanboy infiltrating the Sony thread with fake news.



Didn't you sell all of your Sony kit because it was worth way more than what you got out of it and you weren't keen on carrying around £5k of kit on a strap around your neck?

Correct, it was only under pixel peeping conditions where I could tell the difference. :)
 
am I missing something here.
in MF mode on my 24-70 though i can get MF assist with the zoom function I have no focus box showing to put on my subject?

edit
ok I think I got it, i was expecting the green box but its the orange one,:)
 
Last edited:
This is mildly interesting... a comparison of A7rII and A7 prints at 24 and 36"...

http://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-a7r-ii-vs-a7-ii-print-test/

He sez...

"In both sets of prints, upon close examination, the resolution of the A7R II was clearly visible. Everything seemed a bit sharper, with simply finer detail. However, with the 24″ print samples, the prints became indistinguishable to my eye when the viewing distance extended to around 18″. That’s it. Just 18″ away, and the extra detail in the print became essentially invisible. Since a 24″ print would need you to back up further than 18″ to see the whole print, at normal viewing distances the prints are indistinguishable...

The same is true for the 36″ print samples. Both prints looked fine, but the A7R II print was just a bit sharper and more detailed when viewed close up. The difference is there, but it’s not enormous, to be honest. The distance for these to equalize was a bit further, but they became essentially indistinguishable just beyond arms length, or around 30″ away. This, again, is around the normal viewing distance for a 36″ print if you’re fairly close...

The A7R II is shaping up to be a fantastic camera, but the extra resolution may or may not be of use to you for printing, unless you print very large or really like to get up close to large prints. Where the A7R II’s extra resolution really may come in handy is when cropping. A significant crop will still yield images with greater than 24 MP, and an APS-C crop will yield 18 MP images. This means that even heavily cropped images can be printed quite large and retain a very good look to the image, where the same crop on an A7 II may limit you to, say, a 12×18″ print before the print doesn’t look quite as good. In any case, I think that most shooters, especially those who don’t print larger than around 24 inches wide, should feel good knowing that in most circumstances, the difference in final output is fairly minimal at low ISO. For high ISO, well, that will take more investigation and more time with the camera. Look forward to my full A7R II review later this month."

I've pretty much given up printing. One thing which puts me off is that my Epson R2880 seems to need at least one new ink cartridge every time I go to use it. I dread to think what an A3 print out of it costs.

Interesting
 
There we go - A lovely image Jamie
Thank You.
However living in Somerset there are so many great landscape opportunities it's as if all you do is point the camera and shoot ;-)

However I'd like to take the opportunity of asking for some help with a problem.
On the last two outings [always a dog walk so not 100% focused on what I'm doing] the AF just wouldn't focus with the Batis 85 on. I use BBF but can't see that being a reason. On both occasions I powered the camera off and back on again and all back to normal. Plenty of battery left, one was a very cold day the other reasonably mild. Thinking of rubbing the contacts on the Batis as this is the only lens that has done this.
Anyone have any ideas please?
 
I killed two birds with one stone as they say today.... :)

Took the old Escort out for the first time in two months & grabbed some photos of it at the same time :) That'll soon bore everyone :D

Old escort photo will certain not bore me! The one you uploaded a while ago taken with your 85 I think it was. It was a fantastic photo and made me take the plunge in the A7!
 
I killed two birds with one stone as they say today.... :)

Took the old Escort out for the first time in two months & grabbed some photos of it at the same time :) That'll soon bore everyone :D
Lee I just washed and polished my 64 reg Fiesta Tit X Candy Blue, but I'm damned if I'm going to photograph it let alone share them as that would be boring however if it was an old Classic that would be very different. So keep sharing images of your baby :)
 
^^^ Now that is cute!!! :)

Old escort photo will certain not bore me! The one you uploaded a while ago taken with your 85 I think it was. It was a fantastic photo and made me take the plunge in the A7!

Lee I just washed and polished my 64 reg Fiesta Tit X Candy Blue, but I'm damned if I'm going to photograph it let alone share them as that would be boring however if it was an old Classic that would be very different. So keep sharing images of your baby :)

Thanks both :) I did take some the other week of the tired old daily after a good bit of TLC!!

 
You know what this thread is missing! Lack of images taken with these cameras!

The first time I met these guys up close I quickly learned they're not cute and cuddly and fun they're bad tempered vicious little chancers or rather they were to me whilst they kept clear of the locals. I therefore assume they knew I was a soft western vegetarian animal lover so next time if one even looks sideways at me he's getting from me what the locals would give him.



"All of your base are belong to us" but not if you try anything next time I see you matey...
 
Back
Top