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

f/2.8 said:
Nah A9 all day long. A7RIV sucks for weddings.
Click to expand...

The intention is for spares and I can use it for landscapes, in an emergency the R4 is hardly a pin hole camera. Sucks is such a strong term, I’d rather use the R4 than say a Canon 10D.
 
twist said:
no, you are failing to admit the same thing can happen to an a9. Shutter can’t jam, yes it can.
Click to expand...

it can of course, never said it can't.
but if someone is using it mostly in SS then chances are less.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The intention is for spares and I can use it for landscapes, in an emergency the R4 is hardly a pin hole camera. Sucks is such a strong term, I’d rather use the R4 than say a Canon 10D.
Click to expand...

I think I would rather use the 10D.

It’s a great camera though just not for weddings.
 
twist said:
Did you like the a6400 mate? Looking at replacing an aging a5100 for mostly video, seems to tick the boxes, proper 4K, video eye af etc. Thanks
Click to expand...

Yep I really liked it the real time a.f is very good but I didn’t really use it for video. I think @F/1.4 said he had got one to use as a B camera though

I only got rid as I knew I would be getting a couple of other cameras and I have finished my trips away for a few months.

Might get another one once I have next years trips sorted.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
I think I would rather use the 10D.

It’s a great camera though just not for weddings.
Click to expand...

you are a strange man picking the 10D for weddings. Besides, I’m not buying it for weddings, I’m buying it for landscapes and in a pinch I can use it for weddings.

there’s a difference, I mean I could even get the A6400 and use that purely as spares FOR weddings but I won’t use it for anything else. That would be more logical business wise instead putting a £2500 camera as spares. Or another A73.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice on manuals lenses for A7 ii (above), chaps.

I'd already earmarked the Minolta 1.7/55mm as a get-me-started prime. Just trying to understand the fungus issues that are mentioned (seller honesty) on a lot of old lenses, but not on others ( = no fungus, or no honesty?!). Should I care, or not? Some thinking to do on that, for sure.

I'll re-read your suggestions and make up a shortlist of old manual lenses. Thanks to woof et al.

Will probably buy a modern AF lens, too, a general-purpose zoom.
 
Raymond Lin said:
you are a strange man picking the 10D for weddings. Besides, I’m not buying it for weddings, I’m buying it for landscapes and in a pinch I can use it for weddings.

there’s a difference, I mean I could even get the A6400 and use that purely as spares FOR weddings but I won’t use it for anything else. That would be more logical business wise instead putting a £2500 camera as spares. Or another A73.
Click to expand...

A6400, A7r4 is overkill for just about everything.
 
goldtop said:
Thanks for the advice on manuals lenses for A7 ii (above), chaps.

I'd already earmarked the Minolta 1.7/55mm as a get-me-started prime. Just trying to understand the fungus issues that are mentioned (seller honesty) on a lot of old lenses, but not on others ( = no fungus, or no honesty?!). Should I care, or not? Some thinking to do on that, for sure.

I'll re-read your suggestions and make up a shortlist of old manual lenses. Thanks to woof et al.

Will probably buy a modern AF lens, too, a general-purpose zoom.
Click to expand...

fungus normally affects the selling price. I would normally prefer to buy lenses without it if possible.
 
nandbytes said:
fungus normally affects the selling price. I would normally prefer to buy lenses without it if possible.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's me wondering whether you can trust a seller to be honest (or perhaps even to spot fungus - I certainly don't et know what I'd be looking for). I'll do a bit of searching here tomorrow.

Meanwhile... decision made, A7 ii now ordered: £470 with warranty. Adapter and (supposedly fungus-free) Minolta 1.7/55mm at £51 also ordered.

(I decided on the ii over the original A7, because the IBIS will be useful if/when I do venture out with the camera. I'd rather make that decision now instead of maybe regretting it and then trying to sell an A7 in a few months' time.)
 
goldtop said:
Thanks for the advice on manuals lenses for A7 ii (above), chaps.

I'd already earmarked the Minolta 1.7/55mm as a get-me-started prime. Just trying to understand the fungus issues that are mentioned (seller honesty) on a lot of old lenses, but not on others ( = no fungus, or no honesty?!). Should I care, or not? Some thinking to do on that, for sure.

I'll re-read your suggestions and make up a shortlist of old manual lenses. Thanks to woof et al.

Will probably buy a modern AF lens, too, a general-purpose zoom.
Click to expand...

Some wont mention it. Some won't know it's there. Always buy (on eBay) from a description that says "great optics, no signs of fungus, minimal dust.....etc"
 
goldtop said:
Thanks. It's me wondering whether you can trust a seller to be honest (or perhaps even to spot fungus - I certainly don't et know what I'd be looking for). I'll do a bit of searching here tomorrow.

Meanwhile... decision made, A7 ii now ordered: £470 with warranty. Adapter and (supposedly fungus-free) Minolta 1.7/55mm at £51 also ordered.

(I decided on the ii over the original A7, because the IBIS will be useful if/when I do venture out with the camera. I'd rather make that decision now instead of maybe regretting it and then trying to sell an A7 in a few months' time.)
Click to expand...

If you are buying on eBay you can always return it if it doesn't match the description.
As mentioned above some people won't know it's there and some won't mention it. But I find most folks are honest despite some bad press sellers on eBay get.

(Funnily enough I think it's easier to sell the original A7 than A7ii if you are thinking about resale consequences.)
 
f/2.8 said:
Yep I really liked it the real time a.f is very good but I didn’t really use it for video. I think @F/1.4 said he had got one to use as a B camera though

I only got rid as I knew I would be getting a couple of other cameras and I have finished my trips away for a few months.

Might get another one once I have next years trips sorted.
Click to expand...

Used it as a static safety wide angle for video and the video quality was s***e, wife hated it too. So sold it lol
 
F/1.4 said:
Used it as a static safety wide angle for video and the video quality was s***e, wife hated it too. So sold it lol
Click to expand...

Video quality, I find it very hard to believe its 's***e'. I used an A6300 as a second cam for video and the quality was decent. Slotted footage right alongside A73 footage and you wouldn't tell.
 
f/2.8 said:
I think you should always have a spare as we always shoot with 2 each the other camera isn’t a spare really. That’s why we now have 6 bodies between the 2 of us.
Click to expand...
Wow, you need a serious amount of kit these days don’t you :eek:
 
TGphoto said:
Video quality, I find it very hard to believe its 's***e'. I used an A6300 as a second cam for video and the quality was decent. Slotted footage right alongside A73 footage and you wouldn't tell.
Click to expand...

Nonsense mate. The 1080p quality is absolute garbage. Plenty of other videographers I know agree. Footage is soft as mush and nowhere near the quality of the 7III
 
F/1.4 said:
Nonsense mate. The 1080p quality is absolute garbage. Plenty of other videographers I know agree. Footage is soft as mush and nowhere near the quality of the 7III
Click to expand...

Quote from Dpreview's review for a6300:
"The fact that the footage is oversampled from a 6K region to output 4K video means the video is staggeringly detailed and low in noise, even at high ISOs."

I also find it hard to believe what you say tbh.
I think the issue is behind the camera ;)
 
nandbytes said:
Quote from Dpreview's review for a6300:
"The fact that the footage is oversampled from a 6K region to output 4K video means the video is staggeringly detailed and low in noise, even at high ISOs."

I also find it hard to believe what you say tbh.
I think the issue is behind the camera ;)
Click to expand...

Can you not f*****g read lol. I said 1080p you moron
 
nandbytes said:
No need for such personal attacks and abuse.
Click to expand...

Ach, grow a set lol. I clearly wrote 1080p. I'm as well versed with video as I am with stills so I know exactly what I'm doing. I also had the exact same feedback from other shooters at the top of their game that the 1080p from it was pants
 
Raymond Lin said:
The price of the Sigma 35/1.2 on Panamoz is tempting.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The sigma lens gets good reviews, and the price is 250 cheaper than any other. I only have two a/f lenses, the 25 batis & 90macro so this would definitely complement them both for focal length and speed. The loxia 35 I have is a fine and portable lens, but generally accepted as best stopped down to 5.6.
Very tempting to get this beast
 
or the 40mm f1.4 (which is 970 and even more of a beast). Hmmm
 
snerkler said:
Wow, you need a serious amount of kit these days don’t you :eek:
Click to expand...

To be fair it's not a must have. but I don't think a back up body is a back up body if you are using 2 bodies all the time and one of them is your "back up".

If the worst happened you could get by with one body and just swap lenses out as needed or use a zoom but that would mean having to change the way I work on the day, which I would prefer not to do.

I am totally anal over stuff like that though and it probably wouldn't make sense for others.

Usually one of us uses a 35/85 while the other uses a 24/55

We have 2 x 35's and 85's, just in case although the f/1.8 versions also double up for personal use, while we only use the f/1.4's for work.

We have the Tamron 17-28 & 28-75 as back up for the 24/55.

We have 4 batteries for each camera, we usually only bring 1 for each plus a spare but it means if we have another wedding the next day we are not having to go home late at night and start charging for the next day. Also we always bring along a couple of power banks just in case we want to charge up when out.

It is massive overkill but knowing we are well covered helps keep me sane and I feel justified when I hear stuff from other photographers like someone told me a while back that they where walking backwards while shooting and fell head over heels into a water fountain wrecking 2 camera's and two lenses in the process just before the ceremony. Luckily for them they where able to get in touch with another photographer that lived near by and was able to lend them enough gear to get them through the day while only missing the first part of the ceremony. While stuff like that is probably a one in 50,000 chance for the sake of the cost of a few extra bodies and lenses it's one I would rather not take. It is definitely more about keeping me sane than really needing them though.
 
f/2.8 said:
To be fair it's not a must have. but I don't think a back up body is a back up body if you are using 2 bodies all the time and one of them is your "back up".

If the worst happened you could get by with one body and just swap lenses out as needed or use a zoom but that would mean having to change the way I work on the day, which I would prefer not to do.

I am totally anal over stuff like that though and it probably wouldn't make sense for others.

Usually one of us uses a 35/85 while the other uses a 24/55

We have 2 x 35's and 85's, just in case although the f/1.8 versions also double up for personal use, while we only use the f/1.4's for work.

We have the Tamron 17-28 & 28-75 as back up for the 24/55.

We have 4 batteries for each camera, we usually only bring 1 for each plus a spare but it means if we have another wedding the next day we are not having to go home late at night and start charging for the next day. Also we always bring along a couple of power banks just in case we want to charge up when out.

It is massive overkill but knowing we are well covered helps keep me sane and I feel justified when I hear stuff from other photographers like someone told me a while back that they where walking backwards while shooting and fell head over heels into a water fountain wrecking 2 camera's and two lenses in the process just before the ceremony. Luckily for them they where able to get in touch with another photographer that lived near by and was able to lend them enough gear to get them through the day while only missing the first part of the ceremony. While stuff like that is probably a one in 50,000 chance for the sake of the cost of a few extra bodies and lenses it's one I would rather not take. It is definitely more about keeping me sane than really needing them though.
Click to expand...
I think as a pro who’s providing a service in a situation (ie a wedding) that can’t stop because the photographer can’t take photos you have it completely right (y) properly kitted out for every eventuality is a good thing and will always be appreciated by your clients. They probably won’t even notice a kit failure because you can swap out so fast.
 
TGphoto said:
Has anyone used the Sony 70-300 G lens? Thinking of replacing my Canon 70-200 with it for landscape purposes and want the extra 100mm.
Click to expand...

very very briefly in the shop. felt it was bit overpriced for what it is tbh.
you can get cheaper and as good canon 70-300L used if you are willing to adapt.

I was really hoping the new tamron 70-180mm would take TCs exactly for this purpose. Its smaller than 70-200/4 only slightly shorter reach and if it took 1.4x I can easily extend it when needed. but I don't think it will take TCs :(
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
very very briefly in the shop. felt it was bit overpriced for what it is tbh.
you can get cheaper and as good canon 70-300L used if you are willing to adapt.

I was really hoping the new tamron 70-180mm would take TCs exactly for this purpose. Its smaller than 70-200/4 only slightly shorter reach and if it took 1.4x I can easily extend it when needed. but I don't think it will take TCs :(
Click to expand...

yeah that would have been perfect. Just been finding myself wanting more than 200mm recently for landscapes so will also have a look at the canon (y)
 
TGphoto said:
yeah that would have been perfect. Just been finding myself wanting more than 200mm recently for landscapes so will also have a look at the canon (y)
Click to expand...

alternatively if you are happy with that 70-200/4 you can use 1.4x with the canon. You can use sony 1.4x if you have metabones V adapter, or canon 1.4x if you have any other adapter.
Sony 1.4x is better than the canon one IME but of course like with lot of things on sony it'll cost you.
 
nandbytes said:
alternatively if you are happy with that 70-200/4 you can use 1.4x with the canon. You can use sony 1.4x if you have metabones V adapter, or canon 1.4x if you have any other adapter.
Sony 1.4x is better than the canon one IME but of course like with lot of things on sony it'll cost you.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh that could definitely be a solution, hadn’t thought of that! Cheers :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top