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

LongLensPhotography said:
Looks like a spherical model was used here. Why you would choose that model is well and truly beyond me. Rectilinear perhaps... Anything incamera as usual is most suspect and should not be used except as a last resort.
Spherical as the name suggest is good for 360. A full 360 at that.
Click to expand...
LR only gives the option of spherical, cylindrical and perspective. Spherical and cylindrical look pretty similar and 9/10 perspective doesn't work :rolleyes:
 
snerkler said:
LR only gives the option of spherical, cylindrical and perspective. Spherical and cylindrical look pretty similar and 9/10 perspective doesn't work :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Perspective is quite good but for it to work (nicely) you'll need shoot on a tripod and a rail or even a shift lens.

As the name suggests that mode tries to correct for perspective distortion which can be quite a lot with a UWA lens. So by the time it's corrected your shots it can't quite find a good alignment for panorama.

Also helps to shoot perfectly level if you are wanting to use perspective merge.
 
Last edited:
Is the old 70-200 F4 still decent? I have sold my 70-200 2.8 as just need something smaller and lighter and rarely used it at 2.8 anyway.

On a budget so the F4 falls in to price range, but so does an import 70-180 Tamron G2.

Any other light zoom option to consider over those?
 
nandbytes said:
Perspective is quite good but for it to work (nicely) you'll need shoot on a tripod and a rail or even a shift lens.

As the name suggests that mode tries to correct for perspective distortion which can be quite a lot with a UWA lens. So by the time it's corrected your shots it can't quite find a good alignment for panorama.

Also helps to shoot perfectly level if you are wanting to use perspective merge.
Click to expand...
Tried perspective in PS, doesn’t work as I’ve not shot it properly :headbang:
 
JJ! said:
Is the old 70-200 F4 still decent?
Click to expand...
Was it ever decent :p (not IMO anyway)
JJ! said:
I have sold my 70-200 2.8 as just need something smaller and lighter and rarely used it at 2.8 anyway.

On a budget so the F4 falls in to price range, but so does an import 70-180 Tamron G2.

Any other light zoom option to consider over those?
Click to expand...
I'd suggest the tamron 70-180mm instead. you will still retain more resolution if you crop to 200mm with it than shooting at 200mm with the original 70-200 f4.

That's pretty much it for light options. there is also the Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 which at the long end is about as sharp as the original 70-200mm f4.
The with 28-200mm you get f4 till 80mm and f4.5 till 110mm.
 
JJ! said:
Is the old 70-200 F4 still decent? I have sold my 70-200 2.8 as just need something smaller and lighter and rarely used it at 2.8 anyway.

On a budget so the F4 falls in to price range, but so does an import 70-180 Tamron G2.

Any other light zoom option to consider over those?
Click to expand...
The GMII, significanlty lighter than the GM, lightening fast AF and great IQ.
 
WoW.

WOW! Voigtlander just announced the new 50mm f/1.0 Full Frame E-mount lens! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

I wonder if htis is the one which was announced in Nikon mount? If it is it got very good reviews so hopefully this will be a very nice lens.

Shame I've just bought the old 50mm f1.2.

Something we knew already...

petapixel.com

Sony: E-mount Can Take f/0.63 Lenses

At its a6400 announcement event back in January, Sony also gathered press together for a presentation in which it aimed to debunk some of the things being
petapixel.com petapixel.com

I remember the naysayers insisting Sony couldn't take f1.2 lenses and at the time owning two which worked fine with no significant vignetting. Hopefully the die hard fan boys have dropped all this nonsense in more recent times.
 
Last edited:
JJ! said:
Is the old 70-200 F4 still decent? I have sold my 70-200 2.8 as just need something smaller and lighter and rarely used it at 2.8 anyway.

On a budget so the F4 falls in to price range, but so does an import 70-180 Tamron G2.

Any other light zoom option to consider over those?
Click to expand...

I went for the Tamron 70-180mm quite a while ago now. For me, I'd rather lose 20mm and gain f/2.8
 
woof woof said:
WoW.

WOW! Voigtlander just announced the new 50mm f/1.0 Full Frame E-mount lens! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

I wonder if htis is the one which was announced in Nikon mount? If it is it got very good reviews so hopefully this will be a very nice lens.

Shame I've just bought the old 50mm f1.2.

Something we knew already...

petapixel.com

Sony: E-mount Can Take f/0.63 Lenses

At its a6400 announcement event back in January, Sony also gathered press together for a presentation in which it aimed to debunk some of the things being
petapixel.com petapixel.com

I remember the naysayers insisting Sony couldn't take f1.2 lenses and at the time owning two which worked fine with no significant vignetting. Hopefully the die hard fan boys have dropped all this nonsense in more recent times.
Click to expand...
I don’t personally get extreme wide aperture MF lenses, must be a PITA to nail focus wide open :eek:
 
snerkler said:
I don’t personally get extreme wide aperture MF lenses, must be a PITA to nail focus wide open :eek:
Click to expand...

Not really.

Some might get good enough results for whole pictures anyway and maybe even some close viewing with peaking and I do think that peaking works better at wide apertures than smaller ones as less of the frame will be peaking but if you want to pixel peep the magnified view is IMO the way to go. I think MF + the magnified view is arguably the most accurate way to focus but the key is that you have to have the time to call up the magnified view and MF.

With MF you can pick the exact point of focus whereas AF may be much faster but might not focus on the exact point you'd want it to.
 
woof woof said:
Not really.

Some might get good enough results for whole pictures anyway and maybe even some close viewing with peaking and I do think that peaking works better at wide apertures than smaller ones as less of the frame will be peaking but if you want to pixel peep the magnified view is IMO the way to go. I think MF + the magnified view is arguably the most accurate way to focus but the key is that you have to have the time to call up the magnified view and MF.

With MF you can pick the exact point of focus whereas AF may be much faster but might not focus on the exact point you'd want it to.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends what you’re using them for, but normally I want fast focus (y)
 
snerkler said:
I guess it depends what you’re using them for, but normally I want fast focus (y)
Click to expand...

The vast majority of my pictures are scenic or of Mrs WW or someone else posing. I do like MF because the lenses are nice and tactile and lovely things to use but the drawback is the time it takes to take a picture when deliberately focusing on something but of course MF lenses can be used quickly if you go zone or hyperfocal.
 
woof woof said:
Perspective distortion is the point. That's why you'd take these pictures with that framing with a wide angle lens.
Click to expand...
I'd have to really dislike my customer to use something like that on them. And yeah, I tried 14mm on animals too and didn't really enjoy the results. Even at 24mm you can still get nasty perspectives, you just don't use these on people, period
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I'd have to really dislike my customer to use something like that on them. And yeah, I tried 14mm on animals too and didn't really enjoy the results. Even at 24mm you can still get nasty perspectives, you just don't use these on people, period
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit boring.

Used correctly wide lenses can produce awesome results for portraits.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I'd have to really dislike my customer to use something like that on them. And yeah, I tried 14mm on animals too and didn't really enjoy the results. Even at 24mm you can still get nasty perspectives, you just don't use these on people, period
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.

Taking pictures like this is a deliberate choice and decision and if this is what you want to achieve this is the sort of lens you'd use. It's obviously not your choice but you must at least conceive that someone else might make different choices to you.

Oh hang on... Who am I replying to again?

:ROFLMAO:
 
f/2.8 said:
Sounds a bit boring.

Used correctly wide lenses can produce awesome results for portraits.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Years ago a 12-24mm was my most used lens but not for the type of shots we're discussing here. Years ago I saw a piece on line by a guy who used a wide lens for people shots and the results were nothing short of stunning. More recently Manny Ortis did a vid in which he used a wide too. Anyone who can't see the potential here despite their own preferences really is missing the point others may see.
 
What's this? Steff Huff doing camera reviews again? I often liked his camera and lens reviews.

Nikon Zf Camera Review. The (almost) Perfect Camera. |

The Nikon Zf is the latest vintage inspired camera from Nikon. This is the Z version of the old Df and works like an old Nikon film camera. My full review
www.stevehuffphoto.com www.stevehuffphoto.com

I'm too invested in Sony lenses to bother swapping systems but a Sony version of this would be on my list of things to look at when my A7 retires.
 
woof woof said:
What's this? Steff Huff doing camera reviews again? I often liked his camera and lens reviews.

Nikon Zf Camera Review. The (almost) Perfect Camera. |

The Nikon Zf is the latest vintage inspired camera from Nikon. This is the Z version of the old Df and works like an old Nikon film camera. My full review
www.stevehuffphoto.com www.stevehuffphoto.com

I'm too invested in Sony lenses to bother swapping systems but a Sony version of this would be on my list of things to look at when my A7 retires.
Click to expand...

I liked the ZF as well, debated buying one but lens choice is pish poor.
 
woof woof said:
What's this? Steff Huff doing camera reviews again? I often liked his camera and lens reviews.

Nikon Zf Camera Review. The (almost) Perfect Camera. |

The Nikon Zf is the latest vintage inspired camera from Nikon. This is the Z version of the old Df and works like an old Nikon film camera. My full review
www.stevehuffphoto.com www.stevehuffphoto.com

I'm too invested in Sony lenses to bother swapping systems but a Sony version of this would be on my list of things to look at when my A7 retires.
Click to expand...
It is very pretty like the ZFc (if you don’t go for one of the horrible coloured ones) but ergonomically they’re not great for me. Would be OK with a small prime though.
 
f/2.8 said:
I liked the ZF as well, debated buying one but lens choice is pish poor.
Click to expand...
I’ve tried one, probably the most uncomfortable camera in history unless you add a grip, then it doesn’t look retro anymore. Also the only retro looking lens is the 40mm f2, the other Z lenses don’t match. Shame because spec wise it’s a beast for the price and build quality makes the A7C range look like a toy from the centre isle at Lidl.
 
Ads for the Leica M-11p keep coming up on my feeds, it looks one very pretty camera and today I decided to click on their store. I know Leica are a premium brand with great build quality but can someone explain why it’s £8k for the body only? Spec wise it looks pretty average on paper, except the internal storage, and even if you double the cost compared to a comparable camera to account for build quality you’re still ‘only’ at around £4k :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
Ads for the Leica M-11p keep coming up on my feeds, it looks one very pretty camera and today I decided to click on their store. I know Leica are a premium brand with great build quality but can someone explain why it’s £8k for the body only? Spec wise it looks pretty average on paper, except the internal storage, and even if you double the cost compared to a comparable camera to account for build quality you’re still ‘only’ at around £4k :thinking:
Click to expand...

For the exact same reason that an Audi built in the same factory using the exact same drive train and engine along with 85%of the parts being the same is much more expensive that the same spec Skoda.
 
snerkler said:
Ads for the Leica M-11p keep coming up on my feeds, it looks one very pretty camera and today I decided to click on their store. I know Leica are a premium brand with great build quality but can someone explain why it’s £8k for the body only? Spec wise it looks pretty average on paper, except the internal storage, and even if you double the cost compared to a comparable camera to account for build quality you’re still ‘only’ at around £4k :thinking:
Click to expand...
Because some people will pay that money. No other reason. They get away with selling far fewer items and still making same profit.

Why do people buy Apple products, Swiss watches, certain shoes and handbags? Is it because they are better or is it because the people in question want to be seen using a certain brand that is perceived as premium, or is it because in general the society is full of vanity?

If you have to ask the last question in your post then probably it is not for you.

Likewise I looked at the rumored specs of the SL-3 and like there is no way I would pay £8k for that thing; the current A1 and Z8 walk all over that spec sheet. The current SL2 still retails at £5920 at WEX and is frankly a digital dinosaur yet some people still buy that.
 
f/2.8 said:
For the exact same reason that an Audi built in the same factory using the exact same drive train and engine along with 85%of the parts being the same is much more expensive that the same spec Skoda.
Click to expand...

LongLensPhotography said:
Because some people will pay that money. No other reason. They get away with selling far fewer items and still making same profit.

Why do people buy Apple products, Swiss watches, certain shoes and handbags? Is it because they are better or is it because the people in question want to be seen using a certain brand that is perceived as premium, or is it because in general the society is full of vanity?

If you have to ask the last question in your post then probably it is not for you.

Likewise I looked at the rumored specs of the SL-3 and like there is no way I would pay £8k for that thing; the current A1 and Z8 walk all over that spec sheet. The current SL2 still retails at £5920 at WEX and is frankly a digital dinosaur yet some people still buy that.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, good points. I guess it’s the way I see a camera vs say a car or watch. A camera is a tool to me, and whilst it would be an added bonus if it looked nice as well it’s definitely a case of function over form.

Cars on the other hand are different, yes there are similarities in parts etc but an Audi drives very differently to a Skoda, and it’s a much nicer place to sit.

Also, watches for me are not just a tool they are an accessory, plus there’s no question that premium brands do use higher quality components and materials, of course there comes a cut off point where you’re no longer paying for the quality and just paying for the name/image.

I guess it’s just perspective, we all have a line where we feel things are no longer justifiable and are just taking the Michael.
 
snerkler said:
Audi drives very differently to a Skoda, and it’s a much nicer place to sit.
Click to expand...
I think you need to compare like for like models and spec, and yes they will be very similar in most aspects. A3 = Golf = Octavia. You get VRS spec, GTI or R spec, or S-line = good, you get base models and they are all nasty but they all drive exactly the same, same engines, same suspension, same shared part numbers. Totally equal underneath the shell
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I think you need to compare like for like models and spec, and yes they will be very similar in most aspects. A3 = Golf = Octavia. You get VRS spec, GTI or R spec, or S-line = good, you get base models and they are all nasty but they all drive exactly the same, same engines, same suspension, same shared part numbers. Totally equal underneath the shell
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying. I’d be surprised if they’re completely the same underneath but without researching it I can’t say they’re not. Either way I’d still choose the Audi :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
I understand what you’re saying. I’d be surprised if they’re completely the same underneath but without researching it I can’t say they’re not. Either way I’d still choose the Audi :LOL:
Click to expand...
You may prefer the interior but in this case the guts are the same. TT is pretty unique in certain ways, but still a golf underneath and A6 line mixes things up a bit more. Engine is the wrong way round and you get different suspension than Passat = Superb. Even Tuareg vs Q7 vs Cayenne share a lot of the same but there are differences and some unique engines. Personally I am far more keen to get 2.0TDI with wet DSG and not dry dsg 1.6TDI or the little VAG petrols (go Jap if you want petrol, actually) rather than Skoda vs Audi with the less reliable engine.
 
snerkler said:
I understand what you’re saying. I’d be surprised if they’re completely the same underneath but without researching it I can’t say they’re not. Either way I’d still choose the Audi :LOL:
Click to expand...

Skoda VRS, Golf G.T.I and R are all the same platform. They are basically the same car only the Golf R has a different ECU tune Stage 1 the VRS or the GTI and they are the same car.

It’s pretty much the same for all Skoda , V.W., Audi and CUPRA. They all share platforms. The only model that differs is the Audi R.S range. R.S versions still share the same platform but have bigger turbos and intercoolers etc plus stealing some of the engines from Porsche. Just one giant parts bin for the whole V.A.G group.

They all do it my focus for example is the exact same car as the 2.3l mustang even small stuff like brake pads are the same. Just a different body shape.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Skoda VRS, Golf G.T.I and R are all the same platform. They are basically the same car only the Golf R has a different ECU tune Stage 1 the VRS or the GTI and they are the same car.

It’s pretty much the same for all Skoda , V.W., Audi and CUPRA. They all share platforms. The only model that differs is the Audi R.S range. R.S versions still share the same platform but have bigger turbos and intercoolers etc plus stealing some of the engines from Porsche. Just one giant parts bin for the whole V.A.G group.

They all do it my focus for example is the exact same car as the 2.3l mustang even small stuff like brake pads are the same. Just a different body shape.
Click to expand...
A very good thing and in my view standardised parts should be a goal for most things.
 
f/2.8 said:
Skoda VRS, Golf G.T.I and R are all the same platform. They are basically the same car only the Golf R has a different ECU tune Stage 1 the VRS or the GTI and they are the same car.

It’s pretty much the same for all Skoda , V.W., Audi and CUPRA. They all share platforms. The only model that differs is the Audi R.S range. R.S versions still share the same platform but have bigger turbos and intercoolers etc plus stealing some of the engines from Porsche. Just one giant parts bin for the whole V.A.G group.

They all do it my focus for example is the exact same car as the 2.3l mustang even small stuff like brake pads are the same. Just a different body shape.
Click to expand...

wookie6262 said:
A very good thing and in my view standardised parts should be a goal for most things.
Click to expand...

I've just fitted Volvo front discs & pads on my Focus :)

In the past, I also fitted Mk3 (I think) Golf coilovers on my SEAT Toledo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top