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

nandbytes said:

Big news: Sony A7rVI is a Sony A1II killer with 67MP fully stacked sensor and 5000 Euro/Dollars! | sonyalpharumors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq4eruHwFno May 13 BIG BANG! First of all, I am now 100% certain that the Sony A7rVI and the 100–400mm f/4.5 GM lens will be announced on May 13 at 3 PM London time. I will be live blogging here and on my YouTube channel (subscribe), and I kindly invite you to...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Not sure what the catch is here....
It does more than A1ii for less money...
Click to expand...
I’ll wait and see what the readout speeds etc are but that does sound as though the lines will be very blurred. That’s quite a bump in price over the V though IIRC.
 
snerkler said:
I’ll wait and see what the readout speeds etc are but that does sound as though the lines will be very blurred. That’s quite a bump in price over the V though IIRC.
Click to expand...
Not sure I trust these leaks to be honest.
If it’s true it’s a big step from Sony and may mean a big reshuffle with line ups.

Again If all these specs released so far are true maybe the only way to cripple it would be regardless of having a stacked sensor is to limit fps to say 10/15 and have a very small buffer.
Using the faster readout to improve electronic shooting, better rolling shutter and banding. Thus not stepping on the a1 series.
 
pmac said:
Not sure I trust these leaks to be honest.
If it’s true it’s a big step from Sony and may mean a big reshuffle with line ups.

Again If all these specs released so far are true maybe the only way to cripple it would be regardless of having a stacked sensor is to limit fps to say 10/15 and have a very small buffer.
Using the faster readout to improve electronic shooting, better rolling shutter and banding. Thus not stepping on the a1 series.
Click to expand...

I'm still suspecting it to be a partially stacked sensor like A7v with the bump in dynamic range at base ISO with the "dual gain magic"
 
nandbytes said:

Big news: Sony A7rVI is a Sony A1II killer with 67MP fully stacked sensor and 5000 Euro/Dollars! | sonyalpharumors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq4eruHwFno May 13 BIG BANG! First of all, I am now 100% certain that the Sony A7rVI and the 100–400mm f/4.5 GM lens will be announced on May 13 at 3 PM London time. I will be live blogging here and on my YouTube channel (subscribe), and I kindly invite you to...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Not sure what the catch is here....
It does more than A1ii for less money...
Click to expand...
Readout speed is supposed to much slower than the A1 which would be odd if its fully stacked. Something is wrong with the rumours around this, either they have got the readout speed wrong or its only partially stacked.

My money is on it being partially stacked as this would kill the A1 line.
 
We had a walk up Roseberry Topping and the peak opposite.

A7cII and 40mm.

A rest and a snack and drink.

DSC02004.jpg

It was blowing a gale on top.

DSC02043.jpg

You have to have a picture with the marker thingy on top.

DSC02064.jpg

Panoramas.

Mrs WW in the distance heading towards Roseberry Topping.

1-Untitled_Panorama-2.jpg

Another...

1-Untitled_Panorama-5-2.jpg
 
nandbytes said:
I'm still suspecting it to be a partially stacked sensor like A7v with the bump in dynamic range at base ISO with the "dual gain magic"
Click to expand...

f/1.2 said:
Readout speed is supposed to much slower than the A1 which would be odd if its fully stacked. Something is wrong with the rumours around this, either they have got the readout speed wrong or its only partially stacked.

My money is on it being partially stacked as this would kill the A1 line.
Click to expand...
Partially stacked seems more likely. £5k would be a lot of money for a partially stacked sensor though. Well it’s a lot of money full stop.

I don’t understand how Sony get away with charging what they do when you consider the price of cameras such as the R5 Mark II and Z8.
 
snerkler said:
Partially stacked seems more likely. £5k would be a lot of money for a partially stacked sensor though. Well it’s a lot of money full stop.

I don’t understand how Sony get away with charging what they do when you consider the price of cameras such as the R5 Mark II and Z8.
Click to expand...

This is the one thing mentioned that is of interest too me on the A7R6.


  • Other rumored features: support for importing custom stylized looks from the Creators’ App.
 
f/1.2 said:
This is the one thing mentioned that is of interest too me on the A7R6.


  • Other rumored features: support for importing custom stylized looks from the Creators’ App.
Click to expand...
Great that they’re adding this feature, shame there’s no desktop version of the app though as creating ‘a look’ on the phone isn’t great, especially as they’re not colour calibrated.
 
snerkler said:
Great that they’re adding this feature, shame there’s no desktop version of the app though as creating ‘a look’ on the phone isn’t great, especially as they’re not colour calibrated.
Click to expand...
Depends how they implement it in an ideal world there should be a way to upload an existing preset.
 
snerkler said:
Partially stacked seems more likely. £5k would be a lot of money for a partially stacked sensor though. Well it’s a lot of money full stop.

I don’t understand how Sony get away with charging what they do when you consider the price of cameras such as the R5 Mark II and Z8.
Click to expand...
R5ii is like £4.2k is not much cheaper.
Don't remember price of Z8 at release.

But Sony just don't have an equivalent for these bodies yet, the closest is A1 series.

Having said that Z8 has too many compromises, R5ii is more attractive.
 
nandbytes said:
R5ii is like £4.2k is not much cheaper.
Don't remember price of Z8 at release.

But Sony just don't have an equivalent for these bodies yet, the closest is A1 series.

Having said that Z8 has too many compromises, R5ii is more attractive.
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought the R5II was more £3.5k for some reason :thinking:
 
I considered the move when I bought my a7v as the body seemed to offer the best all round for the price, it was only about 400 more than the a7v grey.

The issue is lenses and price.. good way to rope you into a system by being competitive with body prices.
 
pmac said:
I considered the move when I bought my a7v as the body seemed to offer the best all round for the price, it was only about 400 more than the a7v grey.

The issue is lenses and price.. good way to rope you into a system by being competitive with body prices.
Click to expand...
This is what stopped me from exploring Canon.
 
pmac said:
I considered the move when I bought my a7v as the body seemed to offer the best all round for the price, it was only about 400 more than the a7v grey.

The issue is lenses and price.. good way to rope you into a system by being competitive with body prices.
Click to expand...
I’ve now got all three, Canon R5ii, Nikon Z8 and Sony A7RV.

Going to test the R5ii this weekend with some wildlife and landscape stuff, will see which one I prefer and sell the other systems.

Mental I know. :p
 
Kieran_89 said:
I’ve now got all three, Canon R5ii, Nikon Z8 and Sony A7RV.

Going to test the R5ii this weekend with some wildlife and landscape stuff, will see which one I prefer and sell the other systems.

Mental I know. :p
Click to expand...

Not really. If you're enjoying yourself and can afford it then why not?

I have to admit that although I suffer a bit from gas I do think I have too much stuff and I'm thinking of (trying) selling some. I think I'd still like to have two cameras as it's so nice to be able to go out with for eg a 24 or 28mm and a 35/40 or 50mm without changing lenses. Bigger and heavier load though.
 
Last edited:
Kieran_89 said:
I’ve now got all three, Canon R5ii, Nikon Z8 and Sony A7RV.

Going to test the R5ii this weekend with some wildlife and landscape stuff, will see which one I prefer and sell the other systems.

Mental I know. :p
Click to expand...

You just need to add a L-mount body now to complete the collection
 
More A7cII and 40mm pictures.

Captain Cook's monument in the distance.

1-DSC01928.jpg

Newton moor flyover.

1-DSC02067-1.jpg

The crisp muncher.

DSC02044.jpg

I did not like standing close to the edge to take this but a teenager came along and astounded us both.
 
Last edited:
nog said:
Captain Cook's monument a bit closer, we were there last week :)
Click to expand...

Very nice. I've only been once in my life, last year.

I wanted more separation for Roseberry Topping here but there were people around the monument and this was the only composition I could do to hide them.

DSC00215.JPG

DSC00217.JPG

On that day we walked from the cafe where the train is to Roseberry Topping then went on to Captain Cook's and back again but this time Mrs didn't want to walk that far so we parked in that car park between the two and just went to Roseberry Topping.

Mrs complained that there's nowhere to sit. There's just the one bench in that picture I posted yesterday and it's usually occupied. We were lucky on the way there and unlucky on the way back.

One last panorama, taken yesterday. It's just visible to the right of centre.

Roseberry Topping 30-4-2026-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
pmac said:
I considered the move when I bought my a7v as the body seemed to offer the best all round for the price, it was only about 400 more than the a7v grey.

The issue is lenses and price.. good way to rope you into a system by being competitive with body prices.
Click to expand...
Canon and Nikon are clearly taking less margin on bodies, recouping it on lenses - hence the restrictions on 3rd party lenses.
 
Faldrax said:
Canon and Nikon are clearly taking less margin on bodies, recouping it on lenses - hence the restrictions on 3rd party lenses.
Click to expand...

I read/heard somewhere that most people with changeable lens cameras only have one lens. I don't know if that's true but if so the markup on a body and just one lens could I suppose be enough justification but they must be frightening at least a percentage of people away with the a restricted choice of lenses and higher prices.
 
woof woof said:
I read/heard somewhere that most people with changeable lens cameras only have one lens. I don't know if that's true but if so the markup on a body and just one lens could I suppose be enough justification but they must be frightening at least a percentage of people away with the a restricted choice of lenses and higher prices.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be surprised if. So many just buy a bottom of the range dslr or mirrorless and that’s their kit.

We bought my daughter a d3300 many years ago and it’s hardly been used. Just the kit lens.

My wife also bought a n5x when they first came out and it’s only ever had the kit lens apart from when I’ve mucked about with an adapter or my Sony lens
 
Last edited:
Kieran_89 said:
I have thought about it, potentially looking to try the HasselBlad X2Dii maybe :oops: :$
Click to expand...
The Blad looks a fantastic bit of kit. Personally I'd love a Leica M but that system is waaaaaaaayyyy out of my budget :lol: I'm really getting into analog at the moment but the price of film is crazy these days, and then there's the processing costs. You're looking at around £25-30 all in for a 36 exposure :eek: If you want some of the better film that's £30 just for the one roll :eek::eek::eek:
 
snerkler said:
The Blad looks a fantastic bit of kit. Personally I'd love a Leica M but that system is waaaaaaaayyyy out of my budget :lol: I'm really getting into analog at the moment but the price of film is crazy these days, and then there's the processing costs. You're looking at around £25-30 all in for a 36 exposure :eek: If you want some of the better film that's £30 just for the one roll :eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Around £1 a shot for me on 35mm. Around £3 per shot on 120 :)
 
I think I only ever used one type of film when using SLR's and RF's and it was a Kodak ISO 1,600. In those days the film was very often "free" but of course you paid for developing. I suppose the last film shots I took were with my Bessa and 35mm f2.5 color skopar. I sometimes think of buying another but I never do and probably never will. It'd be nice to shoot with my Kodak Instamatic again though, that was my first camera, but I don't think you can get the film any more.
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
Around £1 a shot for me on 35mm. Around £3 per shot on 120 :)
Click to expand...

Using something like Gold200 (which in 120 is surprising close to Portra 400 in colours) at typically £9 a roll then development at £5-6, means that MF can be down to just over a £1 a shot if you scan yourself (the economies of a £300 scanner become apparent and it soon pays for itself, I shot 32 rolls of 120 last year, and it averaged out colour+B/W at about £1.20 a shot)

I’ve given up with 35mm film as IMO I need expensive film stock and expensive glass to get the results that I need and a s/h M6 plus 35mm Summicron at £4-5K just isn’t going to happen!!!!
 
nandbytes said:
I personally don't understand why people still bother with film even if it was free.
Have shot plenty of film back when it was the only option and I'm glad we have digital now.
Click to expand...

For some it is because they grew up using film and its maybe a reminder of happier times. For others they will say it is because film forces you to slow down and be more careful with everything. For other's it is the same reason some people prefer vinyl etc.

For the vast majority the recent explosion in film photography is just because it's trendy at the moment and they want to go, look at me, I am so different, when they aren't. :D Those same people will jump on the next thing when it becomes trendy. In terms of photography trends it is mid cycle at the moment as so many are doing it, will fall off over the next year or two.

Some people would give up their car for a horse and cart if they thought it was trendy.
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
Using something like Gold200 (which in 120 is surprising close to Portra 400 in colours) at typically £9 a roll then development at £5-6, means that MF can be down to just over a £1 a shot if you scan yourself (the economies of a £300 scanner become apparent and it soon pays for itself, I shot 32 rolls of 120 last year, and it averaged out colour+B/W at about £1.20 a shot)

I’ve given up with 35mm film as IMO I need expensive film stock and expensive glass to get the results that I need and a s/h M6 plus 35mm Summicron at £4-5K just isn’t going to happen!!!!
Click to expand...

I did look into a decent scanner for negatives, but I don't shoot nowhere as much 120 as you. So it would take me many years to get my cost back (then there's the converting them and software etc - I pay £23 for dev and tiff scans on 120. I think it's £22 for the same on 35mm.
 
I wouldn't like to go back to using an AF 35mm SLR again as they just too limiting for me now but using an MF RF for a day or taking some pictures with my old Kodak Instamatic again would be fun but not something I want do long term.

I've started to get into panoramas in the last couple of years and the other day when we went to Roseberry Topping I took 16 single shot pictures and over 100 to do panoramas. I think doing a film panorama is beyond me so that's another reason not to go back to film.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Using something like Gold200 (which in 120 is surprising close to Portra 400 in colours) at typically £9 a roll then development at £5-6, means that MF can be down to just over a £1 a shot if you scan yourself (the economies of a £300 scanner become apparent and it soon pays for itself, I shot 32 rolls of 120 last year, and it averaged out colour+B/W at about £1.20 a shot)

I’ve given up with 35mm film as IMO I need expensive film stock and expensive glass to get the results that I need and a s/h M6 plus 35mm Summicron at £4-5K just isn’t going to happen!!!!
Click to expand...
Cheapest I found Gold 200 was £35 for 3 rolls, which I did buy the other day. I’ve thought about buying a scanner for all of my parents (and mine) family and holiday photos as the prints are stuck in the loft doing nothing, in fact because they’re stacked on top of each other some have stuck together. It’s just the thought of it, it must be extremely tedious feeding the negatives in one by one.
nandbytes said:
I personally don't understand why people still bother with film even if it was free.
Have shot plenty of film back when it was the only option and I'm glad we have digital now.
Click to expand...
I really enjoy the manual aspect of it, manually focussing on digital cameras with peaking, zoom etc is just not the same. I even like the clunky shutter and winding the film on, it’s far more of an ‘experience’ than shooting digital.
 
snerkler said:
Cheapest I found Gold 200 was £35 for 3 rolls, which I did buy the other day. I’ve thought about buying a scanner for all of my parents (and mine) family and holiday photos as the prints are stuck in the loft doing nothing, in fact because they’re stacked on top of each other some have stuck together. It’s just the thought of it, it must be extremely tedious feeding the negatives in one by one.

I really enjoy the manual aspect of it, manually focussing on digital cameras with peaking, zoom etc is just not the same. I even like the clunky shutter and winding the film on, it’s far more of an ‘experience’ than shooting digital.
Click to expand...
Gold in 35mm is more grainy than Gold in MF (IMO) - and it’s more expensive in 35mm 36exp than a roll of 120 (but you do get more shots!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top