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

Messages
644
Edit My Images
No
Here's a question for you all,

I shoot mostly Wildlife and own a Sony a7Riii (42mp) and Sony a7Riv (61mp) - Im thinking of selling or P-ex the a7Riii and buying a different body

my question is buy anther a7Riv or maybe an a9 - thoughts on which is a better body, for Wildlife images please fellow Sony shooters :)

Thanks in advance

Les :)
Sure someone else will be along shortly, but a1 > a9II > a9 best for wildlife in that order (my understanding). Due to tracking and FPS. All have lower MP than a7R IV though obviously.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
12,327
Edit My Images
Yes
Here's a question for you all,

I shoot mostly Wildlife and own a Sony a7Riii (42mp) and Sony a7Riv (61mp) - Im thinking of selling or P-ex the a7Riii and buying a different body

my question is buy anther a7Riv or maybe an a9 - thoughts on which is a better body, for Wildlife images please fellow Sony shooters :)

Thanks in advance

Les :)
I'd go with A9.

I went with A7C since I personally wanted a small light second travel/hiking body.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
12,327
Edit My Images
Yes
a9 = 24mp I was concerned it would not cut the mustard should I need to crop a distant animal or bird image

Les
TBH with you if you can afford the A7RIV (£3.2K) + A9 (£3K) i.e. £6.2K you can probably afford an A1 (£6.5K).
I'd go with A1 instead of A7RIV+a9 because you get the best of both worlds and arguably the best wildlife and "do-it-all" camera currently in production.
 
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
TBH with you if you can afford the A7RIV (£3.2K) + A9 (£3K) i.e. £6.2K you can probably afford an A1 (£6.5K).
I'd go with A1 instead of A7RIV+a9 because you get the best of both worlds and arguably the best wildlife and "do-it-all" camera currently in production.
Not sure that makes sense, much handier to have 2 bodies with 2 lenses attached than 1 body and have to change lenses.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
12,327
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure that makes sense, much handier to have 2 bodies with 2 lenses attached than 1 body and have to change lenses.
he likely using one lens (200-600mm or 100-400mm) most of the time for wildlife. his lens changes are rather minimal.
He does shoot portraits, macros, landscapes etc but all those give him plenty time to change lenses without issues.

he isn't shooting weddings ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
he likely using one lens (200-600mm or 100-400mm) most of the time for wildlife. his lens changes rather minimal.
He does shoot portraits, macros, landscapes etc but all those give him plenty time change lenses without issues.

he isn't shooting weddings ;)
Very few wildlife photographers use just one lens, be surprised if he isn't changing lenses regularly at the moment.
 
Messages
4,943
Edit My Images
No
Very few wildlife photographers use just one lens, be surprised if he isn't changing lenses regularly at the moment.
Most wildlife shooters carry a large lens and maybe a macro but that's about it .... too much weight otherwise, especially if walking is involved.

Infact if the large lens is something like the Canon or Sony 100-400mm (which to be fair are normally a bit short for wildlife) then you don't even need the macro
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
12,327
Edit My Images
Yes
Les can speak for himself.

But generally speaking A1 maximises both the potential of having your subject in focus and give plenty room to crop if needed. Neither A9 or A7RIV does that for wildlife. I personally rather maximise on that benefit for wildlife and get really good shots with the single lens I have on the body than worry about potential lens changes.

Most wildlife shooters carry a large lens and maybe a macro but that's about it .... too much weight otherwise.

Infact if the large lens is something like the Canon or Sony 100-400mm (which to be fair are normally a bit short for wildlife) then you don't even need the macro
:plus1:
 
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
Most wildlife shooters carry a large lens and maybe a macro but that's about it .... too much weight otherwise, especially if walking is involved.

Infact if the large lens is something like the Canon or Sony 100-400mm (which to be fair are normally a bit short for wildlife) then you don't even need the macro
My wife’s cousin is a professional wildlife photographer he carries a 600mm prime, a 200-600, 70-200 and a macro lens and 3 bodies wherever he goes. Might be different fior amateurs I guess.
 
Messages
4,539
Name
Laurence
Edit My Images
No
I initially had the A7RIII and used it with my 100-400 at first and then with a 200-600. It was an excellent camera, good IQ and very "croppable" but it failed for me in 2 areas. Using it for birds or insects in flight was a chore with a much lower keeper rate than I liked. I also found the initial focus acquisition less then optimal especially in wooded or heavy foliage areas.
Moving to the A9 was night and day in those areas, keeper rate zoomed upwards and frustration levels dropped! The A9 obviously lacks some of the refinements of the A7RIII but as a dedicated wildlife body I'm very pleased I made the change. Never had the A7RIV.
 
Messages
1,966
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
a9 = 24mp I was concerned it would not cut the mustard should I need to crop a distant animal or bird image

I had the a9mkII super fast and great AF but 24 mp it is one of the best but the a1 really is the top wild life camera imho faster better AF and the 50 mps for extra cropping if needed .

Rob.
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
5,172
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I am gonna stick you on ignore this isn’t the first time you had a pop at me and you never post anything I am interested in anyway.
Don't worry, I'm NOT going to stick you on ignore as you often share interesting and useful nuggets of information.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
27,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I’ve just popped it on the body. Dwarfed the 35GM
Not sure I’ll get chance to use it until Sunday.
I keep looking at the 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2 but size of them does worry me as I have a thing about bulky gear, some may see an A7 + 50mm f1.2 as quite compact really and that may well be the case but even an A7 and 20mm f1.8 is getting to the limit of what I'm comfortable with.

I would like better lenses than the 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8's but at the mo the bulk of the better lenses is stopping me.

I'll still be very interested to read your thoughts and look at your pictures :D
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
27,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
IMHO ignoring people should be a last resort as no one, not even me, talks total crap all the time. Plus it makes following the conversation a bit of a problem.

Maybe best to just bypass a post or two or just step away from the keyboard without posting rather than start ignoring. All in my HO.
 
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I keep looking at the 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2 but size of them does worry me as I have a thing about bulky gear, some may see an A7 + 50mm f1.2 as quite compact really and that may well be the case but even an A7 and 20mm f1.8 is getting to the limit of what I'm comfortable with.

I would like better lenses than the 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8's but at the mo the bulk of the better lenses is stopping me.

I'll still be very interested to read your thoughts and look at your pictures :D
The 35 GM is pretty dinky when compared to the other 35 f/1.4’s but yeah a fair bit bigger than the f/1.8.

The 50GM is massive but it was always going to be. Based on the photos you post here the lenses you have are more than adequate.

Even though we have the 35GM we have kept the 35 f/1.8 as it’s handy for things like engagement sessions and when we need to travel. We will likely keep the 55 for the same reasons.
 
Messages
1,966
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I keep looking at the 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2 but size of them does worry me as I have a thing about bulky gear, some may see an A7 + 50mm f1.2 as quite compact really and that may well be the case but even an A7 and 20mm f1.8 is getting to the limit of what I'm comfortable with.

I would like better lenses than the 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8's but at the mo the bulk of the better lenses is stopping me.

I'll still be very interested to read your thoughts and look at your pictures :D
I'm quite happy with the fe 24 /105 i don't need fast lenses in this range it might not be as sharp as primes but plenty sharp enough and saves changing a lens every 5 minutes i did fancy the 50 f1.2 but would rather have the fe 135 but i ruled that out too as my 70 /200 does the job, again a nice range in the garden for family days rather than be stuck with 1 focal length .

for me connivance of the zooms win here -just my thoughts :)
Rob.
 
Messages
8,722
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
The Sony 50/1.2 (778g) is about the same size as the Zeiss 1.4 isn't it? Which is about the same size as the old Sigma EF mount 1.4 which i think is taller but narrower than the Canon 50/1.2. And all of them lighter than the Canon EF 1.0 (1018g)?
 
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
IMHO ignoring people should be a last resort as no one, not even me, talks total crap all the time. Plus it makes following the conversation a bit of a problem.

Maybe best to just bypass a post or two or just step away from the keyboard without posting rather than start ignoring. All in my HO.
There is a culture in this thread of some people purposely going out of their way to stir it up. I have a fair idea of why.

In some cases this has been a joint effort with a few. Another user told me some time ago that some people on here went as far as collaborating via the messaging system to share ways of winding certain people up with a view to pushing them into a reaction which results in them being removed from the forum. It’s all rather sad and pathetic.

Who can be bothered with that, one click on ignore and it’s not a problem any more.
 
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
The Sony 50/1.2 (778g) is about the same size as the Zeiss 1.4 isn't it? Which is about the same size as the old Sigma EF mount 1.4 which i think is taller but narrower than the Canon 50/1.2. And all of them lighter than the Canon EF 1.0 (1018g)?
Not sure you could use that size comparison thing. Sounds about right to me.
 
Messages
8,722
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
I never had a problem even with the Canon 84/1.2, which has the same dimension of the 50/1.0 and 1.2. The problem with that lens isn't the weight so much as it's too short, it's too short to hold normally and you need that hood for the extension for a good grip.
 
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I never had a problem even with the Canon 84/1.2, which has the same dimension of the 50/1.0 and 1.2. The problem with that lens isn't the weight so much as it's too short, it's too short to hold normally and you need that hood for the extension for a good grip.
I think hand holding the 50GM wont have the same problem.
15629D73-FB2D-4F5F-B3D7-263BF2CCE9B7.jpeg 3ED24811-3B12-42F1-9C7F-C9FE936A88AA.jpeg E53759AD-CF53-47B8-BFA1-B3BFC2E10A2F.jpeg
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
27,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
The 35 GM is pretty dinky when compared to the other 35 f/1.4’s but yeah a fair bit bigger than the f/1.8.

The 50GM is massive but it was always going to be. Based on the photos you post here the lenses you have are more than adequate.

Even though we have the 35GM we have kept the 35 f/1.8 as it’s handy for things like engagement sessions and when we need to travel. We will likely keep the 55 for the same reasons.
Being honest they're probably more than adequate for the vast majority of people reading these posts including those who do this for a living. Only a tiny minority will really honestly truly need better. But that's not the whole point is it? Many people reading these posts including those who do this for a living will look closer and nit pick and obsess more than necessary and with the Sony 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8's there are things to nit pick. Maybe amateurs do this (nit pick) more than people who do this for a living? The "issues" with these f1.8 lenses are known and have been talked about long and often so there's no need for me to list them here, enough to say that I see the issues and I'd like better lenses. Not because anyone I show my pictures gives a flying as they usually can't see what I'm complaining about and if they do see it it usually isn't significant to them as they're normal people.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
27,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I'm quite happy with the fe 24 /105 i don't need fast lenses in this range it might not be as sharp as primes but plenty sharp enough and saves changing a lens every 5 minutes i did fancy the 50 f1.2 but would rather have the fe 135 but i ruled that out too as my 70 /200 does the job, again a nice range in the garden for family days rather than be stuck with 1 focal length .

for me connivance of the zooms win here -just my thoughts :)
Rob.
I suppose I'm lucky in that 85mm is mostly already getting a bit long for me and although there are exceptions like the 50mm f1.2 shorter lenses may be cheaper and more compact than the longer lenses.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
27,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
There is a culture in this thread of some people purposely going out of their way to stir it up. I have a fair idea of why.

In some cases this has been a joint effort with a few. Another user told me some time ago that some people on here went as far as collaborating via the messaging system to share ways of winding certain people up with a view to pushing them into a reaction which results in them being removed from the forum. It’s all rather sad and pathetic.

Who can be bothered with that, one click on ignore and it’s not a problem any more.
I'm sure you know you get this everywhere in life and it's present on the net but in some instances hopefully the benefits outweigh the negatives and in the instances when there are no clear benefits maybe it's wise to take a more consolatory tone and view rather than pour flames on, perpetuate or create an issue where there's maybe is no need for one. Even if it takes a bit of effort, better to make a friend than take the easy way out. IMO. And that's my last word on this. You're all adults.
 
Messages
5,136
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
Being honest they're probably more than adequate for the vast majority of people reading these posts including those who do this for a living. Only a tiny minority will really honestly truly need better. But that's not the whole point is it? Many people reading these posts including those who do this for a living will look closer and nit pick and obsess more than necessary and with the Sony 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8's there are things to nit pick. Maybe amateurs do this (nit pick) more than people who do this for a living? The "issues" with these f1.8 lenses are known and have been talked about long and often so there's no need for me to list them here, enough to say that I see the issues and I'd like better lenses. Not because anyone I show my pictures gives a flying as they usually can't see what I'm complaining about and if they do see it it usually isn't significant to them as they're normal people.
Yeah I agree.

I don’t know if amateurs obsess more than pro’s in my experience pro’s are as bad for this if not worse. Well that is the case with a lot of wedding photographers anyway.

There is always the thing of when there’s an upgrade option lusting after it. It’s the same with anything really. Just as an example a good while back on here I mentioned that I went to look at some camera equipment and came home with a car. It was an old Audi TT. That wee car needed a bit of work and it helped fill in my spare time over the lockdowns but as soon as it was sorted I was lusting after the next model up a 3.2 V6. I only had my car completely sorted for a couple of weeks and my Mum mentioned how much she liked it. I went straight out and found a 3.2 and gave the other one to my Mum. I have had the. V6 for a couple of weeks and it didn’t need as much work as the other one just a couple of little things to make it perfect. Problem is my brother lent me his R8 for a couple of days and I have now started looking for one of them. My missus is gonna do her nut.:banghead:
 
Last edited:
OP
woof woof
Messages
27,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I'm just a bit worried that I seem to have finished buying film era lenses and might move on to AF ones. Buying old lenses is/was a cheap hobby, AF ones, not so much :D

I've been through cars and have mostly finished but I might by a LR type 4x4 as that's one thing I've never had.
 
Top