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

pmac said:
A7v not a7rv. The a7v is 30fps
Click to expand...
Ahh, google lied to me, it said it was only 10fps but after just going on the Sony site I see that it's 10fps Mechanical and 30fps electronic (y) Yeah 1s shooting is not ideal, although I'm not sure if I've ever continuously shot for much longer than this. Adding pre-capture does alter things, although if I was shooting anything that requires pre-capture I'm guessing I'd be using the mechanical shutter to avoid rolling shutter.
 
nandbytes said:
I'd prefer the R5ii myself but A7RVI does have other benefits. Likely better EVF, matched dual cards, fully articulated screen, better battery life, dynamic range.

Also now it has illuminated buttons :ROFLMAO:
I have shot plenty in the dark, and i mostly shoot with muscle memory. Never had an issue but apparently there are people who need this
Click to expand...

Finally!
With Sony cameras getting bigger all round they are waking up to the features and ergonomics that do make a difference
 
snerkler said:
I was initially impressed by the 100-400mm f4.5 but then I got to thinking, is it really worth double the price and 500g for 2/3 of a stop over the old GM? I'm sure it'll be slightly sharper and faster AF in the lab but I've never found the original GM lacking in either of these areas. The internal zoom is nice, but then the whole thing is much larger. I think I'd rather have the 300mm f2.8 and use TC's.

View attachment 482178
Click to expand...
2/3rd stop definitely makes a difference and especially in the UK.
It's difference between shooting at under 1/1000s or over 1/1000s

Plus the point is it'll be much sharper with TCs

He's done a comparison against 200-600mm, even with TC it's sharper
View: https://youtu.be/93Cof3kVhTA?si=K2L7q5T7pgp5hxfr


300mm f2.8 can't go to 800mm with 2x, plus it costs 50% more and it's not a zoom.
i also don't see it as a replacement for the original 100-400mm. It's more a good upgrade for people shooting with 200-600mm or 400-800mm, it'll be mostly sharper and lighter by a fair margin.

Horses for courses and all that
 
Last edited:
An objective review.

My Sony 100-400 F4.5 Real World Review!

WHEW! I just finished my review of the new Sony 100-400 F/4.5 - and honestly, this lens turned out to be a lot more interesting than I expected. :) On paper, it doesn’t really dominate the other options in Sony’s lineup, but after spending time shooting with it in the field, there were a few...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
nandbytes said:
I'd prefer the R5ii myself but A7RVI does have other benefits. Likely better EVF, matched dual cards, fully articulated screen, better battery life, dynamic range.

Also now it has illuminated buttons :ROFLMAO:
I have shot plenty in the dark, and i mostly shoot with muscle memory. Never had an issue but apparently there are people who need this
Click to expand...
These are very marginal differences, and illuminated buttons are mainly for new users. Its a tough one when staying on canon practically means pretty much no new lenses ever

Now a7riv should be getting into sub 1k range! Should be ok for tripod stills although i have concerns about sensor cleanliness on these
 
nandbytes said:
2/3rd stop definitely makes a difference and especially in the UK.
It's difference between shooting at under 1/1000s or over 1/1000s

Plus the point is it'll be much sharper with TCs

He's done a comparison against 200-600mm, even with TC it's sharper
View: https://youtu.be/93Cof3kVhTA?si=K2L7q5T7pgp5hxfr


300mm f2.8 can't go to 800mm with 2x, plus it costs 50% more and it's not a zoom.
i also don't see it as a replacement for the original 100-400mm. It's more a good upgrade for people shooting with 200-600mm or 400-800mm, it'll be mostly sharper and lighter by a fair margin.

Horses for courses and all that
Click to expand...
This is a whole new category lens, not like for like update. It looks like it is a winner, and wallet is happy because i have zero need for anything like this
 
As we've been on holiday I missed the new announcements. I can's see myself even paying £3k or £4k for a camera but you never know. It does seem an awful lot to me though but for those who want one... Good luck and I wish you well and mucho enjoyment :D

As I mostly use the 40mm f2.5 now the reduced shutter speed of my relatively cheap a7cII hasn't been a problem plus I leave it on electronic unless making a conscious decision to use the mechanical shutter but I do with there was an auto option, my Panasonic cameras have had mechanical, electronic and auto for a long long time. I can see myself ever needed an R cameras as 33mp seems to be enough for me but I don't take pictures of birds/wildlife and don't need to crop.

As I'm here... Mrs WW ascending steps somewhere in Corsica.

DSC02193.jpg

We saw a huge memorial to Napoleon. Funny how the French are proud of their dictator and their bid for world domination.
 
Last edited:
Peter123 said:
An objective review.

My Sony 100-400 F4.5 Real World Review!

WHEW! I just finished my review of the new Sony 100-400 F/4.5 - and honestly, this lens turned out to be a lot more interesting than I expected. :) On paper, it doesn’t really dominate the other options in Sony’s lineup, but after spending time shooting with it in the field, there were a few...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
Click to expand...
Surprising that he says 200-600 is sharper than 100-400mm with TC while Dustin A says the exact opposite

Dustin spends lot more time showing the comparisons across the frame, so I'm inclined to believe him....
 
woof woof said:
. I can's see myself even paying £3k or £4k for a camera but you never know
Click to expand...
I used to think that but I paid that for my A1, and if I had the money I'd definitely buy a Leica M11 which is even crazier money :runaway:
 
snerkler said:
I used to think that but I paid that for my A1, and if I had the money I'd definitely buy a Leica M11 which is even crazier money :runaway:
Click to expand...
Even if i had the money not sure I'd buy one tbh
Just doesn't feel great to use in hand, don't get the hype. May be one needs to spend another 2 grand on accessories to make it nice to hold, who knows, may be i have got it all wrong :ROFLMAO:
 
nandbytes said:
Even if i had the money not sure I'd buy one tbh
Just doesn't feel great to use in hand, don't get the hype. May be one needs to spend another 2 grand on accessories to make it nice to hold, who knows, may be i have got it all wrong :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
It's obviously a very personal thing, but I very much like the rendering of the Leica M lenses (not so much SL lenses), and I like the fully manual aspect using oldschool focussing aids rather than peaking and zoom. It's more the engagement of taking the photo, however it wouldn't be for all scenarios obviously. I'd not want to use manual focus for wildlife and motorsport.

It's all just a pipedream though, and it's one of several reasons I've been dabbling with film SLR's again.
 
snerkler said:
I used to think that but I paid that for my A1, and if I had the money I'd definitely buy a Leica M11 which is even crazier money :runaway:
Click to expand...

I suppose if prices keep going up I'll have no choice but at the moment even 33mp is too much and if there is a new cheap option in the future when my current cameras have died that'll be what I go for.

For now cars and cruises are what'll get my money, and I'll be assembling a couple more watches too.
 
snerkler said:
It's obviously a very personal thing, but I very much like the rendering of the Leica M lenses (not so much SL lenses), and I like the fully manual aspect using oldschool focussing aids rather than peaking and zoom. It's more the engagement of taking the photo, however it wouldn't be for all scenarios obviously. I'd not want to use manual focus for wildlife and motorsport.

It's all just a pipedream though, and it's one of several reasons I've been dabbling with film SLR's again.
Click to expand...

I bought the QL17 as a tester into using a rangefinder patch :ROFLMAO:

My Yashica FX3 uses split prizm or whatever it's called.
 
LeeRatters said:
I bought the QL17 as a tester into using a rangefinder patch :ROFLMAO:

My Yashica FX3 uses split prizm or whatever it's called.
Click to expand...
I was contemplating medium format, probably a Yashica but my god have those things gone up in price recently :eek:

Edit: it’s rolleiflex I’m thinking of not yashica that’re crazy prices now.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I was contemplating medium format, probably a Yashica but my god have those things gone up in price recently :eek:

Edit: it’s rolleiflex I’m thinking of not yashica that’re crazy prices now.
Click to expand...

I have a Yashica Mat 124g for medium format. You aren't shooting anything quickly with it :ROFLMAO: but it is so nice to shoot with.

There are cheaper options, lesser known brands, but a lot have shutter speed limitations for example and stuff like that. I knew that would get to me so stuck out for a 124g.
 
Thinking of getting a 35mm for my A7R V . Buying grey can get the newish Sigma 1.4 Art 2 or the Sony 1.4 GM for virtually the same price, I don't do video. Reviews seem to favour the Sigma, anyone used both/thoughts
 
nog said:
Thinking of getting a 35mm for my A7R V . Buying grey can get the newish Sigma 1.4 Art 2 or the Sony 1.4 GM for virtually the same price, I don't do video. Reviews seem to favour the Sigma, anyone used both/thoughts
Click to expand...
I really like the GM, the rendering is great imo. I sometimes find Sigma lenses a little too clinical but then other times they render really well. I've no experience with the Sigma 35mm.
 
nog said:
Thinking of getting a 35mm for my A7R V . Buying grey can get the newish Sigma 1.4 Art 2 or the Sony 1.4 GM for virtually the same price, I don't do video. Reviews seem to favour the Sigma, anyone used both/thoughts
Click to expand...

used to have the 35GM, had it since release for 5 years, replaced it with sigma 35mm f1.2ii (so not quite the same as f1.4ii version)
based on reviews I'd personally go with sigma even though 35GM is terrific lens, the sigma does overcome some of its minor limitations like focus breathing. after all its 5-6 years newer, just shows how good Sony has been all this time!

the main reason to go with Sony would be to get more than 15fps on newer bodies. Like you I shoot wit A7RV, and even if one day i upgrade to something with 30fps, this is not a kind of lens I'll need more than 15fps with anyway.
 
Last edited:
No interest in the A7RVI for me. The sensor is way too slow. Some good new features though and I hope that the AF can be brought over to the other top end Sony Bodies. I can see me buying the 100-400 F4.5 though. I have the old one and the 200-600 and I have used them both about once in the last few years. They are too slow for me and the 200-600 is not a nice lens to handhold. 100-400 is trombone style and I dislike that in lenses.
I'd far rather they had copied Nikon and Canon and brought a modern 200-400 F4 with TC to the market. Even a TC in this lens would make it much more useful. Make it a bit lighter than those lenses and then it would make an awesome daytime sports lens. I shoot quite a bit of Golf and the 100-400 range is great for most shots. No need for very wide apertures as you can usually get an angle with teh subject a long way from a background. I doubt the client would be that bothered anyways. It will make a great lens for that
 
nandbytes said:
used to have the 35GM, had it since release for 5 years, replaced it with sigma 35mm f1.2ii (so not quite the same as f1.4ii version)
based on reviews I'd personally go with sigma even though 35GM is terrific lens, the sigma does overcome some of its minor limitations like focus breathing. after all its 5-6 years newer, just shows how good Sony has been all this time!

the main reason to go with Sony would be to get more than 15fps on newer bodies. Like you I shoot wit A7RV, and even if one day i upgrade to something with 30fps, this is not a kind of lens I'll need more than 15fps with anyway.
Click to expand...
I’ve just watched a few videos on the Sigma f1.4 II and it definitely appears sharper than the GM, but I don’t find the rendering as nice, although granted it was only just a small sample size. The f1.2 ii does look very nice, but it’s a similar weight to the 50mm f1.2 GM and I definitely prefer the handling of the 35mm GM over that.
 
snerkler said:
I’ve just watched a few videos on the Sigma f1.4 II and it definitely appears sharper than the GM, but I don’t find the rendering as nice, although granted it was only just a small sample size. The f1.2 ii does look very nice, but it’s a similar weight to the 50mm f1.2 GM and I definitely prefer the handling of the 35mm GM over that.
Click to expand...

yeah i feel overall its wee bit better but i wouldn't swap from 35GM if you already have one.
the 1.2ii version is same size and weight of 50GM. While I certainly prefer 35GM size and handling, i only have 5 lenses now - 20-200mm, 16G, 35/1.2ii, 85/1.4 and 500/5.6.
I don't always carry the 500mm unless i am intending to do wildlife or sports, so i am mostly just carrying 4 lenses. So i don't mind the extra bulk.

looking forward to sigma 85mm f1.2 next....
 
nandbytes said:
yeah i feel overall its wee bit better but i wouldn't swap from 35GM if you already have one.
the 1.2ii version is same size and weight of 50GM. While I certainly prefer 35GM size and handling, i only have 5 lenses now - 20-200mm, 16G, 35/1.2ii, 85/1.4 and 500/5.6.
I don't always carry the 500mm unless i am intending to do wildlife or sports, so i am mostly just carrying 4 lenses. So i don't mind the extra bulk.

looking forward to sigma 85mm f1.2 next....
Click to expand...
Had a look at a few reviews tonight and the sigma comes out just in front I think. Thought about the 1.2 but, for me, the extra weight is not worth the possible benefit.

Do you have the Sigma 85 1.4?
I have the Sony 135 which is great and I love the pics from it but it is quite hard to use and a bit of a lump :)
 
nog said:
Had a look at a few reviews tonight and the sigma comes out just in front I think. Thought about the 1.2 but, for me, the extra weight is not worth the possible benefit.

Do you have the Sigma 85 1.4?
I have the Sony 135 which is great and I love the pics from it but it is quite hard to use and a bit of a lump :)
Click to expand...
I had the sigma 85mm f1.4 but swapped for samyang 85mm f1.4ii
Sigma is a better lens in all ways but it got left at home many times, mostly because for whatever reason the hood is really wide compared to other 85mm lenses. Just didn't fit nicely in the bag.
But now that I'm down to carrying 4 lenses most of the time I've considered going back to sigma but since they've announced that f1.2 version, I'm just waiting for that

I just crop from the 85mm if I want 135mm equivalent or close to it
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
nandbytes said:
yeah i feel overall its wee bit better but i wouldn't swap from 35GM if you already have one.
the 1.2ii version is same size and weight of 50GM. While I certainly prefer 35GM size and handling, i only have 5 lenses now - 20-200mm, 16G, 35/1.2ii, 85/1.4 and 500/5.6.
I don't always carry the 500mm unless i am intending to do wildlife or sports, so i am mostly just carrying 4 lenses. So i don't mind the extra bulk.

looking forward to sigma 85mm f1.2 next....
Click to expand...
Crikey, I only tend to take one lens at a time :oops: :$
nog said:
Had a look at a few reviews tonight and the sigma comes out just in front I think. Thought about the 1.2 but, for me, the extra weight is not worth the possible benefit.

Do you have the Sigma 85 1.4?
I have the Sony 135 which is great and I love the pics from it but it is quite hard to use and a bit of a lump :)
Click to expand...
Depends what you call better, reviews rarely talk about character and rendering. Most modern lenses are more than sharp enough in all honesty, in fact I’m tending to decrease sharpening so they’re less clinical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
nog said:
Thinking of getting a 35mm for my A7R V . Buying grey can get the newish Sigma 1.4 Art 2 or the Sony 1.4 GM for virtually the same price, I don't do video. Reviews seem to favour the Sigma, anyone used both/thoughts
Click to expand...

The Sigma has much nicer colours S.O.O.C than the G.M. The Sigma is supposed to be a bit sharper but you are probably splitting hairs.

I have the G.M but I will replace it at some point although it's not really a priority as the 28-70 f/2 has basically replaced it for me for now.

I will probably go with the Sigma 35 f/1.2 DG DNII.
 
snerkler said:
Crikey, I only tend to take one lens at a time :oops: :$
Click to expand...
What's the point of owning so many lenses if you don't have it with you when you need it :D
One of the reasons for me cutting down on lenses. Now I only have ones I carry and use.

snerkler said:
Depends what you call better, reviews rarely talk about character and rendering. Most modern lenses are more than sharp enough in all honesty, in fact I’m tending to decrease sharpening so they’re less clinical.
Click to expand...

Idk, I can definitely tell the difference in sharpness between sigma and samyang 85mm 1.4 lenses
More apparent when I use it in crop mode.
Samyang is not a bad lens but certainly visible to me without needing to pixel peep at 100%
 
f/1.2 said:
The Sigma has much nicer colours S.O.O.C than the G.M.
Click to expand...
That's just preference (y)
nandbytes said:
What's the point of owning so many lenses if you don't have it with you when you need it :D
One of the reasons for me cutting down on lenses. Now I only have ones I carry and use.



Idk, I can definitely tell the difference in sharpness between sigma and samyang 85mm 1.4 lenses
More apparent when I use it in crop mode.
Samyang is not a bad lens but certainly visible to me without needing to pixel peep at 100%
Click to expand...
If I'm going to shoot motorsports I will take more lenses, usually the 100-400mm, 70-200mm and a prime for the paddock, but the rest of the time I just go out with one, and more recently it's been the RX1R II and now X100VI, the A1's not had much use recently.
 
nandbytes said:
I had the sigma 85mm f1.4 but swapped for samyang 85mm f1.4ii
Sigma is a better lens in all ways but it got left at home many times, mostly because for whatever reason the hood is really wide compared to other 85mm lenses. Just didn't fit nicely in the bag.
But now that I'm down to carrying 4 lenses most of the time I've considered going back to sigma but since they've announced that f1.2 version, I'm just waiting for that

I just crop from the 85mm if I want 135mm equivalent or close to it
Click to expand...

:oops: :$ :oops: :$

4 is still too many for me. Especially if I have something film with me too.

I might take 4 away on holiday or something, but not carry them all around. 35GM and 70-180mm is usually enough for me.
 
LeeRatters said:
:oops: :$ :oops: :$

4 is still too many for me. Especially if I have something film with me too.

I might take 4 away on holiday or something, but not carry them all around. 35GM and 70-180mm is usually enough for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah I take a few on holiday but only take one out at a time too (y)
 
I tend to just carry two at a time, but have cut my lens down to just 3 at the moment(was 4)
Generally my 20 and either 50 or 28-75.
Sold my 85 as I never really like the Sony 1.8, but need to get something longer ,torn between another 85/135 or the 70-180.

I do love the 50 1.2, but the weight and size is substantial, if I went for another 35 I definitely would go for a 1.4 or maybe even a 1.8. I’m tempted to try the new Viltrox evo.
I wouldn’t want to carry two 1.2 lens all day that’s for sure
 
Ideally I'd carry two bodies and 4 lenses :ROFLMAO:
I'm wondering if there'll be an A7ciii and A7crii with new sensors. The shutter scanning speed of 20ms is plenty enough for most of my non-action shooting which these days covers like 90%
And then i can upgrade to A1ii for action and the rest.
Also this way may be I can keep my FZ batteries too :ROFLMAO:

Recently I have bought a drone for my next trip, no new camera bodies for a while for me :(
 
pmac said:
I tend to just carry two at a time, but have cut my lens down to just 3 at the moment(was 4)
Generally my 20 and either 50 or 28-75.
Sold my 85 as I never really like the Sony 1.8, but need to get something longer ,torn between another 85/135 or the 70-180.

I do love the 50 1.2, but the weight and size is substantial, if I went for another 35 I definitely would go for a 1.4 or maybe even a 1.8. I’m tempted to try the new Viltrox evo.
I wouldn’t want to carry two 1.2 lens all day that’s for sure
Click to expand...
The f/1.2 lenses aren’t that heavy.

Plenty of Sony wedding photographers carrying the 28-70 f/2 and the 50-150 f/2 and two bodies around all day for 14 hours or so at a time.
 
f/1.2 said:
The f/1.2 lenses aren’t that heavy.

Plenty of Sony wedding photographers carrying the 28-70 f/2 and the 50-150 f/2 and two bodies around all day for 14 hours or so at a time.
Click to expand...
To be fair they're not as heavy as Canon, and especially Nikon f1.2's but they're not light either. If you're doing a job then yeah you'll lug them about, but if you're just going for a day out you don't really want to be lugging all that weight around, at least I don't (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top