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

think you see a big jump in quality, if you dont need sports performance then a a7x would be/should be good for you
 
C.J said:
Until tonight, I was set on moving from my 5 year old Canon 500D to a 6D. I already have a couple of Sigma lenses (a 50mm 1.4), so taking them with me.

By chance I stumbled across a photo on Flickr using an A7ii, and I got lost in reviews/comparisons.

Has anyone moved from a similar camera to an A7/A7ii? Or even from a 5/6D?
Click to expand...

I was using a 40D and about to buy a 6D when the A7 caught my eye. First thing you notice is all the toys that help you in camera, peaking that sort of thing. Then the high dynamic range made my Canon look pathetic, the way you can bring back shadows and highlights is fantastic. Canon really are lagging beind the others when it comes to sensors.
 
pingu666 said:
well there was Leica, which are fairly heavy but with light lenses
Click to expand...

No AF though and you're looking at a little oblong in the VF and just waiting for alignment issues to occur. Well, I was anyway. I've done my time with RF's and I'm not going back. I can see the attraction but I always suspect that a part of it is the badge. Sold mine when MFT came along.
 
ohms12 said:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/07/...sions-hands-on-with-the-surprising-4k-camera/

One thing though, for those thinking of using the A7rII for video - "A small bad news: Autofocus with adapter EOS lenses does not work as well in video as it does in stills mode. The only way to get the PDAF working continuously in video is to use Sony’s own E-mount lenses. It doens’t work with A-mount or Canon EF lenses."
Click to expand...

Wonder if it will AF as quickly as the A5100/6000 in video (native), if it does that would be very good, only thing missing is a good touch screen, why does Sony not put these in the higher end APSC/FE stuff, its brilliant on the A5100!

Most pros using Canon lenses for video will use MF anyway.
 
Hi,

New(ish) owner of A7II here - amazing thread! Long-standing GAS victim - but I think I'm going to stick with this one...

I'm interested in the Mitakon 50mm/0.95 and I've seen several very positive posts here about it. (I've also played with a rich person's Leica Noctilux... GAS well and truly ignited!)

Can anyone recommend a UK supplier? I know there isn't an official UK importer - has anyone bought the 'Dark Knight' from one of the various ebay sellers? Or anywhere else?

Has anyone experienced problems that might normally be covered by a guaranteed (again, I believe there isn't one)? Any copy variation (or doesn't that matter?)?

Any advice gratefully received!

Thanks,

Nick
 
Disillusioned said:
Hi,

New(ish) owner of A7II here - amazing thread! Long-standing GAS victim - but I think I'm going to stick with this one...

I'm interested in the Mitakon 50mm/0.95 and I've seen several very positive posts here about it. (I've also played with a rich person's Leica Noctilux... GAS well and truly ignited!)

Can anyone recommend a UK supplier? I know there isn't an official UK importer - has anyone bought the 'Dark Knight' from one of the various ebay sellers? Or anywhere else?

Has anyone experienced problems that might normally be covered by a guaranteed (again, I believe there isn't one)? Any copy variation (or doesn't that matter?)?

Any advice gratefully received!

Thanks,

Nick
Click to expand...

UK digital used to be the UK stockist. Otherwise theres a seller on Ebay that imports them.

No real copy variation, its a MF lens and they are well put together, the first batches screws werent tightened using loctite so there was a chance the lens could come apart over time, I believe they remedied it.

Its a nice lens but very front heavy on the little A7 and quite difficult to focus as peaking doesnt work nearly accurately enough at f0.95. Hardly anything lights up, so its magnify.
 
twist said:
Its a nice lens but very front heavy on the little A7 and quite difficult to focus as peaking doesnt work nearly accurately enough at f0.95. Hardly anything lights up, so its magnify.
Click to expand...
Haven't tried that lens but I'd have thought that having hardly anything twinkle was an advantage. With my f1.2 I find that I can focus quite accurately wide open but at smaller apertures like f8 everthing twinkles and critical focus is next to impossible.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Haven't tried that lens but I'd have thought that having hardly anything twinkle was an advantage. With my f1.2 I find that I can focus quite accurately wide open but at smaller apertures like f8 everthing twinkles and critical ficus is next to impossible.
Click to expand...

No mate, like nothing twinkles, must be the lack of contrast and dof. At f0.95 on ff at closer distance esp mfd it's REALLY hard to focus and I can focus an f1.4/8 lens on a dslr vf without aids pretty easily.
 
I don't see why anyone would buy an A7 series camera as plenty of random blokes (er, like on that linked blog) reliably inform us thst there are no lenses.
 
woof woof said:
I don't see why anyone would buy an A7 series camera as plenty of random blokes (er, like on that linked blog) reliably inform us thst there are no lenses.
Click to expand...

In comparison to more established systems they don't have many lenses, hopefully the next big 6 will be just what Sony needs. They're definitely getting it right on the camera side but they usually do.
 
twist said:
UK digital used to be the UK stockist. Otherwise theres a seller on Ebay that imports them.

No real copy variation, its a MF lens and they are well put together, the first batches screws werent tightened using loctite so there was a chance the lens could come apart over time, I believe they remedied it.

Its a nice lens but very front heavy on the little A7 and quite difficult to focus as peaking doesnt work nearly accurately enough at f0.95. Hardly anything lights up, so its magnify.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much indeed, just the info I was looking for! I always use magnify, as me peepers aren't what they used to be (little tykes - don't remember giving them permission to skive off!?)...

All the best,

Nick
 
Disillusioned said:
Thanks very much indeed, just the info I was looking for! I always use magnify, as me peepers aren't what they used to be (little tykes - don't remember giving them permission to skive off!?)...

All the best,

Nick
Click to expand...

No problem, if youre going to be taking photos of anything moving Id suggest avoiding this lens if you want to shoot wide open, for posed portraits though its very good.
 
woof woof said:
With such a fast shutter speed the light can't have been all that low and I'd be disappointed with a noisy ISO 6400 file shot in reasonable light as even my lowly G1 produces pretty good ISO 3200 files in reasonable light and I'd expect just about any modern camera to do better at 6400, in reasonable light.

Maybe it's best to ignore this file and wait for more examples to download and process with known quantity software?
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on what you consider as reasonable. Without any processing pretty much everything bar the A7S is looks poor even at 1200.
 
Loving my A7R that I got from a forum member. Have the Sony 16-35 and 24-70 - though this lens is almost redundant and I may move it on as I am finding cropping the 35mm end of the 16-35 gives me more than enough resolution for my needs.
While 98% of my images are within the scope of the 16-35 there is the occasional time I need a bit more range, 100mm or more, and so am looking for a lens. The Sony 70-200 looks great but is way overkill for me and given its rare usage seems a bit of an extravagance. So was wondering if anyone here has experience of the newish 24-240? Read numerous reviews and it seems to reviewed as adequate but with compromise for the money and range, that would probably be ok for my usage but actual experience from forum members is invaluable. Was also wondering about alternatives. So if you have experience and recommendations would love to hear them. Oh, did try going through this thread to see what I could find on this subject but the thread is now huge and its size defeated me :)
Many thanks,
Creo
 
Creo said:
Loving my A7R that I got from a forum member. Have the Sony 16-35 and 24-70 - though this lens is almost redundant and I may move it on as I am finding cropping the 35mm end of the 16-35 gives me more than enough resolution for my needs.
While 98% of my images are within the scope of the 16-35 there is the occasional time I need a bit more range, 100mm or more, and so am looking for a lens. The Sony 70-200 looks great but is way overkill for me and given its rare usage seems a bit of an extravagance. So was wondering if anyone here has experience of the newish 24-240? Read numerous reviews and it seems to reviewed as adequate but with compromise for the money and range, that would probably be ok for my usage but actual experience from forum members is invaluable. Was also wondering about alternatives. So if you have experience and recommendations would love to hear them. Oh, did try going through this thread to see what I could find on this subject but the thread is now huge and its size defeated me :)
Many thanks,
Creo
Click to expand...
Hi are these the f4 versions of the 16-35mm and 24-70mm lens please i ask as i am still looking at the A7 as a possible next camera and lens options seem a bit overlap in the 2 you mention and i did think maybe at the 35mm end getting close for a snap shot portrait may crop in well

If it is the f4 it will have the OS on it, do you find it has many stops of stabilisation would you guess how many it has please

Final thought as the A7r is contrast focus do you find thats good as i am spoilt on phase detection.

Thanks

Allan
 
c-m said:
I suppose that depends on what you consider as reasonable. Without any processing pretty much everything bar the A7S is looks poor even at 1200.
Click to expand...
I think you have very high standards or maybe mine are pretty low but I find that even my old tech Panasonic G1 produces useable files at 1200 and my GX7 and A7 produce ussable files at 25,600. By useable I mean that after only very basic non expert processing they're good enough for whole image on screen viewing and for prints, the only question is how big a print.

I don't print much these days and maybe only do one print a week and maybe my friends and family have even lower standards than me but no one, not once has ever looked at one of my pictures and said "That's too noisy. You shouldn't have bothered.'

Going back in time to when almost the only pictures I took were ISO 1600 35mm shots at gigs with a Nikon and a basic f3.5-5.6 lens no one ever complained, far from it, but I suppose the saving grace then was the relatively small size of standard prints. These days any of my cameras just blows the results I got in those days away at much higher ISO's and in much larger images. My GX7 even possibly rivals the Canon 5D I had not so long ago.
 
border_all said:
Hi are these the f4 versions of the 16-35mm and 24-70mm lens please i ask as i am still looking at the A7 as a possible next camera and lens options seem a bit overlap in the 2 you mention and i did think maybe at the 35mm end getting close for a snap shot portrait may crop in well

If it is the f4 it will have the OS on it, do you find it has many stops of stabilisation would you guess how many it has please

Final thought as the A7r is contrast focus do you find thats good as i am spoilt on phase detection.

Thanks

Allan
Click to expand...

Yes, the Sony F4 versions. I only have limited time with it so far, so not sure I am qualified to answer your queries, but as you asked I'll give an opinion for whatever its worth.
I do landscape, pretty the only thing I do, and so wide angle is my usual choice. The overlap between the 16-35 and 24-70 is less of an issue with the A7R due to the large number of pixels, whereas with say a 16mp camera you would be left with quite a small final version. So with the A7R its (for me) a viable option to crop the 35mm to give a 50, 60 or even 70mm. However, thats because its something I dont use much, if you take a lot images in that 35-70 range then it would probably be best to have a lens whose focal length is within that actual range.

I dont use the OSS much as mostly I use a tripod with the OSS switched off, so have no idea.

Again, for my focusing its fine, however I think while it may be usable for moving subjects it may well be a bit of a pain if its something you use it for a lot. To me, the A7R is more for someone who photographs static scenes, and while it may do the job for moving subjects I suspect an A7 would be a better choice.

There are a gadzillion reviews and opinions on the net about the A7X cameras. Each person has their own experiences and opinion. Mine is for landscape the A7R is superb, but for action or general photography the A7m especially the A7 Mk2 is the better choice.

Creo
 
Creo said:
Yes, the Sony F4 versions. I only have limited time with it so far, so not sure I am qualified to answer your queries, but as you asked I'll give an opinion for whatever its worth.
I do landscape, pretty the only thing I do, and so wide angle is my usual choice. The overlap between the 16-35 and 24-70 is less of an issue with the A7R due to the large number of pixels, whereas with say a 16mp camera you would be left with quite a small final version. So with the A7R its (for me) a viable option to crop the 35mm to give a 50, 60 or even 70mm. However, thats because its something I dont use much, if you take a lot images in that 35-70 range then it would probably be best to have a lens whose focal length is within that actual range.

I dont use the OSS much as mostly I use a tripod with the OSS switched off, so have no idea.

Again, for my focusing its fine, however I think while it may be usable for moving subjects it may well be a bit of a pain if its something you use it for a lot. To me, the A7R is more for someone who photographs static scenes, and while it may do the job for moving subjects I suspect an A7 would be a better choice.

There are a gadzillion reviews and opinions on the net about the A7X cameras. Each person has their own experiences and opinion. Mine is for landscape the A7R is superb, but for action or general photography the A7m especially the A7 Mk2 is the better choice.

Creo
Click to expand...
The a7r2 will be good very fast moving subjects with native lenses I reckon so worth waiting for that.
 
Any suggestions re a 135mm portrait lens for my A7R? I prefer MF and won't go for something like the Canon 135mm f2 with an adapter. At the mo a Leica Elmar f4 at about £250 is the front runner. The Samyang 135mm f2 looks huge. Many thanks... Paul
 
Creo said:
Yes, the Sony F4 versions. I only have limited time with it so far, so not sure I am qualified to answer your queries, but as you asked I'll give an opinion for whatever its worth.
I do landscape, pretty the only thing I do, and so wide angle is my usual choice. The overlap between the 16-35 and 24-70 is less of an issue with the A7R due to the large number of pixels, whereas with say a 16mp camera you would be left with quite a small final version. So with the A7R its (for me) a viable option to crop the 35mm to give a 50, 60 or even 70mm. However, thats because its something I dont use much, if you take a lot images in that 35-70 range then it would probably be best to have a lens whose focal length is within that actual range.

I dont use the OSS much as mostly I use a tripod with the OSS switched off, so have no idea.

Again, for my focusing its fine, however I think while it may be usable for moving subjects it may well be a bit of a pain if its something you use it for a lot. To me, the A7R is more for someone who photographs static scenes, and while it may do the job for moving subjects I suspect an A7 would be a better choice.

There are a gadzillion reviews and opinions on the net about the A7X cameras. Each person has their own experiences and opinion. Mine is for landscape the A7R is superb, but for action or general photography the A7m especially the A7 Mk2 is the better choice.

Creo
Click to expand...
Hi thank you for the info good help i have decided to go for the A7 mike and the sony sel1635Z just placed an order so looks as i am going the A7 group. I never fancied the A7r Mkii for me its a lot of cash and for my iMac a lot of pixels

Thanks Again

Allan
 
woof woof said:
I think you have very high standards or maybe mine are pretty low but I find that even my old tech Panasonic G1 produces useable files at 1200 and my GX7 and A7 produce ussable files at 25,600. By useable I mean that after only very basic non expert processing they're good enough for whole image on screen viewing and for prints, the only question is how big a print.

I don't print much these days and maybe only do one print a week and maybe my friends and family have even lower standards than me but no one, not once has ever looked at one of my pictures and said "That's too noisy. You shouldn't have bothered.'

Going back in time to when almost the only pictures I took were ISO 1600 35mm shots at gigs with a Nikon and a basic f3.5-5.6 lens no one ever complained, far from it, but I suppose the saving grace then was the relatively small size of standard prints. These days any of my cameras just blows the results I got in those days away at much higher ISO's and in much larger images. My GX7 even possibly rivals the Canon 5D I had not so long ago.
Click to expand...

Maybe. For me even at 800iso I can easily see noise in 1:1 images on screen.

Now with PP and scaling down to 1280 then I can get decent images at over 6k.

Did I mention I hate noise ;)
 
c-m said:
Maybe. For me even at 800iso I can easily see noise in 1:1 images on screen.

Now with PP and scaling down to 1280 then I can get decent images at over 6k.

Did I mention I hate noise ;)
Click to expand...

Do you just view images at 1:1 :D never actual screen/print size.
 
Sometimes. Especially when cropping. I don't print I've got enough bits of paper lying around as it is. I don't like clutter.

I'd love an A7S as I shoot a lot in low light.
 
c-m said:
Sometimes. Especially when cropping. I don't print I've got enough bits of paper lying around as it is. I don't like clutter.

I'd love an A7S as I shoot a lot in low light.
Click to expand...

This may surprise you but the a7S isn't as good you think at high ISO compared to the competition. Not until youd really start getting noise with any camera...

Change to low light bulb, ISO 3200 raw, click comp. Look at the d750 file. I've owned both BTW and its not till you hit around 20k that you notice a difference.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...t=1&x=0.6852840945522877&y=0.5188354750342214
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Gents - sorry for the newbie question but is there a guide somewhere that compares the various Sony A7xx models? I am considering a move from Canon and don't know much about the Sony range!

Thanks in advance for any replies :)
Click to expand...

a7s low light monster, 12mp
a7 24mp middle of the road average
a7ii 24mp, adds 5axis ibis
a7r 36mp, think d800
a7rii 42mp canon nightmare with ibis and 4k

a77ii/a99 are a mount, there good to but sony pushes them with all the effort or a 90 year old mouse
 
c-m said:
Maybe. For me even at 800iso I can easily see noise in 1:1 images on screen.

Now with PP and scaling down to 1280 then I can get decent images at over 6k.

Did I mention I hate noise ;)
Click to expand...

Well yes you probably can see noise at ISO 800 at 1:1 on screen but what about in the final image? If you look at every pixel you'll see all sorts of objectionable things and that's all fine and dandy but I'd imagine that for most of your images 1:1 viewing is... what? Something that no one other than you and us other geeks will do?

Not to imply anything about you personally but generally I don't think that people think enough about the final image. What I mean by that is that we should choose our gear and settings to get the result we want at the final image size and considering also how the image will be viewed. If you want exhibition quality prints 6ft wide at ISO 800 than maybe an A7 series isn't the best tool but if it isn't I'm not too sure what can do better, probably nothing I'd want to pay for and carry about. If however all you want is something that's capable of producing images to be viewed normally by ordinary non geek people on screen or in prints up to and including A3 then maybe an A7 will do the job and the images may even stand up to close scrutiny from geeks like us if we consider that doing significantly better might not be easy.
 
only the 50mp mf sensor by sony would have a chance to be significantly better at that , maybe rii but as theres no reviews...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top