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

Yay the 200-600 arrived today, quicker than expected but perfect timing for my trip next week.

The bag that it comes with is pretty much useless but it's a lot of lens for the money so can't moan at that.

200600.jpg
 
Jase said:
Yay the 200-600 arrived today, quicker than expected but perfect timing for my trip next week.

The bag that it comes with is pretty much useless but it's a lot of lens for the money so can't moan at that.

200600.jpg
Click to expand...
Indeed I never bothered with the bag. I need to buy something else for this, not sure what though.
 
Guys,
I currently use a panasonic G80 and a lumix 100-400mm lens.
I shoot mainly wildlife followed by landscapes, and some portraits of grandkids now and again.
Would an A7iii be a massive improvement in image quality and low light stuff?
I tend to crop heavily with the wildlife shots.
I know my 100-400 gives an equivalent fov of 800mm.
If I used a 200-600mm lens I know it's not getting as close, but with the bigger sensor would the image give better quality when cropped?
Would a used A9 be a better buy?
Don't have the money just now, but looking ahead :)
 
nandbytes said:
Indeed I never bothered with the bag. I need to buy something else for this, not sure what though.
Click to expand...

If you find something decent let me know, it fits in my backpack no problem but for storage/transport I want something other than the bag it comes with.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Guys,
I currently use a panasonic G80 and a lumix 100-400mm lens.
I shoot mainly wildlife followed by landscapes, and some portraits of grandkids now and again.
Would an A7iii be a massive improvement in image quality and low light stuff?
I tend to crop heavily with the wildlife shots.
I know my 100-400 gives an equivalent fov of 800mm.
If I used a 200-600mm lens I know it's not getting as close, but with the bigger sensor would the image give better quality when cropped?
Would a used A9 be a better buy?
Don't have the money just now, but looking ahead :)
Click to expand...

To get the same FoV as 100-400 on m43 you need to use basically use a FF camera in crop mode i.e. 1.5x crop. This will result in 10mp image with a 24mp FF sensor.
The question at this point is down to the optics. If 100-400mm and 200-600mm are roughly of similar quality then you will have more details in the m43 image. But the FF image will be cleaner i.e. have less noise (equivalent to an APS-C sensor)

But you crop 1.5x from a 42mp image you end up with 18mp which will give you simar level of details as m43 if not more with cleaner results.

Horses for courses really. In UK weather with many overcast skies I prefer FF over m43.
 
treeman said:
Continuing in my quest on deciding to change to Sony or not, I've just read about Real time AF for animals in the latest Firmware release.

Does it really work?
Click to expand...

Not really in my A7RIII. Works for slow paced shooting. Not sure if it's any better in the new generation bodies and A9.
Regardless real-time AF seems to be as good as it gets for any kind of AF from any system at this point.
I imagine animal eyeAF like human eyeAF with have a few iterations to work as well.
 
nandbytes said:
Samyang 18mm f2.8 seems rather good for the size and price going by review below...
Click to expand...

That's tempting, I'll have to have a look at it when I get time.

I do really miss the Sigma 20mm f1.8 I had for Canon DSLR's and these days although I have a couple of film era primes they're weaker towards the corners and they're mf. I was reading up on Voigtlander 21mm f1.4...

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review_voigtlander_21mm_f14_e/

Here v the Loxia f2.8...

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1603441/0

This looks lovely but it's mf and expensive.

PS.
I thought I'd buy the Samyang but it's not available yet, expected October.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
That's tempting, I'll have to have a look at it when I get time.

I do really miss the Sigma 20mm f1.8 I had for Canon DSLR's and these days although I have a couple of film era primes they're weaker towards the corners and they're mf. I was reading up on Voigtlander 21mm f1.4...

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review_voigtlander_21mm_f14_e/

Here v the Loxia f2.8...

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1603441/0

This looks lovely but it's mf and expensive.

PS.
I thought I'd buy the Samyang but it's not available yet, expected October.
Click to expand...

e-infin had stock of the Samsung 18mm last week think they are sold out now though.
 
treeman said:
Continuing in my quest on deciding to change to Sony or not, I've just read about Real time AF for animals in the latest Firmware release.

Does it really work?
Click to expand...

I tried it on a horse, it's 50/50, it struggled a lot when the horse is like black beauty (que camera being racist :p). I personally would just leave it at expanded spot AF.
 
f/2.8 said:
e-infin had stock of the Samsung 18mm last week think they are sold out now though.
Click to expand...

Yes, out of stock.

I've just been looking at pictures taken with my 17 and 19mm film era lenses. They're ok as whole pictures viewed normally but look closely and the corners aren't up to modern standards and actually the centre isn't either TBH. At the price the Samyang looks like a good deal and it's af. I'll have a think... Also looking at the 21mm Voigtlander f3.5 but that's manual again which is I suppose fine for slower shooting and it's not as if I haven't got a manual lens or 30 laid about the place and they're certainly nicer for zone and hyperfocal use but given the choice af would be nice to have for speed of shooting and continued use if the eye sight starts to go.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
To get the same FoV as 100-400 on m43 you need to use basically use a FF camera in crop mode i.e. 1.5x crop. This will result in 10mp image with a 24mp FF sensor.
The question at this point is down to the optics. If 100-400mm and 200-600mm are roughly of similar quality then you will have more details in the m43 image. But the FF image will be cleaner i.e. have less noise (equivalent to an APS-C sensor)

But you crop 1.5x from a 42mp image you end up with 18mp which will give you simar level of details as m43 if not more with cleaner results.

Horses for courses really. In UK weather with many overcast skies I prefer FF over m43.
Click to expand...
If I used a ff but not in crop mode and cropped in post processing would the quality be better?
 
woof woof said:
Yes, out of stock.

I've just been looking at pictures taken with my 17 and 19mm film era lenses. They're ok as whole pictures viewed normally but look closely and the corners aren't up to modern standards and actually the centre isn't either TBH. At the price the Samyang looks like a good deal and it's af. I'll have a think... Also looking at the 21mm Voigtlander f3.5 but that's manual again which is I suppose fine for slower shooting and it's not as if I haven't got a manual lens or 30 laid about the place and they're certainly nicer for zone and hyperfocal use but given the choice af would be nice to have for speed of shooting and continued use if the eye sight starts to go.
Click to expand...

The CV21 3.5E is lovely :) Sharp, great to use, fits in your pocket and weighs next to nothing!
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
If I used a ff but not in crop mode and cropped in post processing would the quality be better?
Click to expand...
Nope pretty much exactly the same in terms of the output. The only real difference is crop mode will result in smaller files hence memory efficient.
But I wish Sony would introduce some real benefits to crop mode such as less rolling shutter or higher FPS.
 
LeeRatters said:
The CV21 3.5E is lovely :) Sharp, great to use, fits in your pocket and weighs next to nothing!
Click to expand...

Yup but these days I'm much more likely to be just taking a camera with me and grabbing pictures rather than going out for a 50/50 photography/walk so af is getting more attractive.
 
I think it's pretty decent.
A better comparison would be if you posted the same shot with your ART 35/1.4 shot @f1.8
 
That looks what I'd pretty much expect from a 35mm f1.8, meaning I think it's par for the course and ok and would probably be bettered by a lens with a longer focal length. I certainly don't think it's an awful example of a 35mm f1.8.

I'll post some examples of the Sony 35mm f1.8 against my other 35's when I get time but no time today, maybe Thursday.

PS.
I had to wet clean my A7's sensor the other day as I had one spot showing up in the sky on some but not all f8 shots when viewing at 100%. I can't remember when I last did a wet clean but it was certainly quite a while ago and that's despite changing lenses all over the place.
 
jonneymendoza said:
celiaShootPt3-97.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

untitled-712.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

@woof woof @nandbytes @twist @Raymond Lin @f/2.8

Any good below ie the bokah? its the 35mm f1.8

untitled-189.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr
Click to expand...

The bokeh quality isn’t really the issue, it’s fine not great but it’s okay.

The issue I have with it is ugly out of focus areas, maybe ugly is a bad word to describe it maybe busy o.o.f areas would explain it better.

As I have said before though it’s still a good lens and I will still use it, just not for weddings as I prefer the Siggy.

It is a bit of a pity as in an ideal word I would have probably like to use the Sony due to the lighter weight but everything is a compromise.

Hopefully at some point Sony will give us a 35GM at a similar size and as good as the 24GM.
 
f/2.8 said:
A9 isn’t as good in low light though as only has 25 contrast detect points.
Click to expand...

That was on the old firmware version, the newer version increased the contrast detect focus points to match the Sony A7 III.
A9 is the current king [emoji4]
 
Last edited:
NewBeetle said:
Is it noticeably worse at grabbing focus in low light?
Click to expand...

I wasn’t any worse than the A7 III for me, I think the new firmware helped. One of the reasons I got rid of the A7 III and kept the A9 :)
If you want the best possible all round mirrorless body and have the funds, the A9 is a good choice.
 
The best way to tell if it's crap or par for the subject distance and background is to take the exact same shot from the exact same point in the exact same lighting with different lenses set to various apertures from wide open to the point it makes no difference. Anything else is just guesswork and smoke, IMO.

I'll do this when I get the time but all I have is the Sony f1.8 and f2.8, Voigtlander f1.4, Rokkor f1.8 and f2.8, Zuiko f2.8, FD f2.8 and Nikon pre ai f2.8. I'll give them all a go and see what the bokeh is like from f1.8-f4 but what would really be interesting would be to see the Sony f1.8 v Sony/Sigma/other modern f1.4 lenses at f1.8-4.
 
Last edited:
treeman said:
Continuing in my quest on deciding to change to Sony or not, I've just read about Real time AF for animals in the latest Firmware release.

Does it really work?
Click to expand...
I’ve been impressed so far. It works better than I thought it but as you would think as an initial introduction there is room for improvement in the future. It’s pretty much only for static subjects that are quite large in frame. Don’t expect it to track the eye of a bird in flight!

So far I’ve tried it with Red Squirrels which worked quite well for side on portraits but once they moved off or turned their head it could lose the eye. I’ve recently been photographing deer and I’ve noticed a few times animal eye AF has activated. Granted it’s not been that often but it was nice to see it did work. In a few weeks I’m going to try animal eye AF for some remote Red Squirrel photography. At the moment I manually focus on a spot and try to trigger the shutter when I think the animal is in the plane of focus. This technique is definitely more miss than hit. If animal eye AF can recognise the eye and focus on it that would be amazing. Coupled with the completely silent shutter mode it could be a huge advantage for remote wise angle wildlife photography. Talking about the silent shutter that’s impressive and stops scaring wildlife off, but I’ve noticed whilst photographing deer recently that the deer’s ears are pointing in all kinds of directions! Without the shutter noise they aren’t both pointing forward that often. Its great knowing I’m not affecting the deers behaviour as much as I was but photography wise it’s a little harder!

I’ve wrote a short section on animal eye AF and a short video showing it in action for my website blog. It can be seen in the link below:

https://spark.adobe.com/page/8pcX3HXdMVid6/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top