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

Last edited:
robj20 said:
In stock at a few places now. My finger is above the buy button, but I just got an unexpected 4k TV in the sales so not the best time.
But it's £599, so a good price I'd say. Maybe after Christmas.

MPB offering £425 for my Sony 20mm F1.8.
Click to expand...
robj20 said:
In stock at a few places now. My finger is above the buy button, but I just got an unexpected 4k TV in the sales so not the best time.
But it's £599, so a good price I'd say. Maybe after Christmas.

MPB offering £425 for my Sony 20mm F1.8.
Click to expand...
I've only used my 20mm a couple of times but one of my dreams is to go on a cruise to se the northern lights so I'll be keeping it and hoping, but I do need to use it a bit more.

If/when you get one it'll be interesting to read your views and see pictures as reviews seem to be saying optically it's a bit of an average lens.
 
woof woof said:
I've only used my 20mm a couple of times but one of my dreams is to go on a cruise to se the northern lights so I'll be keeping it and hoping, but I do need to use it a bit more.

If/when you get one it'll be interesting to read your views and see pictures as reviews seem to be saying optically it's a bit of an average lens.
Click to expand...
Thats fine by me.
Its fast, it's fairly cheap, it's compact, so something has to give.
 
robj20 said:
Thats fine by me.
Its fast, it's fairly cheap, it's compact, so something has to give.
Click to expand...

I expect it to be fine and even good in my eyes... after all I think the old Sony 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 is a good lens.

I don't know if I'll get the 20-40mm f2.8 though as I do prefer primes.
 
GAS is a dangerous thing, I've been eyeing up the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II and it's not even a focal length I use very much. Add to that I've just swapped the 24-105mm for the 24-70mm f4 to save weight. I need help :LOL:
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
GAS is a dangerous thing, I've been eyeing up the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II and it's not even a focal length I use very much. Add to that I've just swapped the 24-105mm for the 24-70mm f4 to save weight. I need help :LOL:
Click to expand...

After loving my used Evoque I've been on the LR site specing my own new one. I must not :D
 
woof woof said:
After loving my used Evoque I've been on the LR site specing my own new one. I must not :D
Click to expand...
My wife's been very happy with her Evoque, even considering the lousy JLR reliability :LOL:

I'm on the Land Rover site every day looking for a car but everything I want is just out of my reach at the moment and I'm trying to be patient. I'm not desperate to swap, it's just that my work situation changed earlier in the year and and I'm now doing very little mileage, short hops is not good for a diesel engine so I'm looking for petrol. I'm not convinced by electric yet.
 
I haven't had mine long but so far it hasn't let me down. I do go to the shops in it but once the shopping is done I go for a drive so mine hasn't really done many short hops. I noticed that in the new ones they have a gear stick rather than the Dr Who style thing rising from the console. That seems to be the only thing I've noticed.

I'm very worried about electric and more worried the more I read. I just can't see it as a sustainable or even moral way forward with current tech after seeing the vids and reading about lithium lakes and cobalt mines.

Oh, my Evoque rated my driving style as 98% based on the last three journeys :D
 
woof woof said:
I haven't had mine long but so far it hasn't let me down. I do go to the shops in it but once the shopping is done I go for a drive so mine hasn't really done many short hops. I noticed that in the new ones they have a gear stick rather than the Dr Who style thing rising from the console. That seems to be the only thing I've noticed.

I'm very worried about electric and more worried the more I read. I just can't see it as a sustainable or even moral way forward with current tech after seeing the vids and reading about lithium lakes and cobalt mines.

Oh, my Evoque rated my driving style as 98% based on the last three journeys :D
Click to expand...

Last time I drove the Escort it rated my driving style 99% :p :ROFLMAO:
 
Having auto lights and wipers and eco data and all the bells and whistles is sort of new as I've mostly had basic two seat soft tops but I did have some bells and whistles with the Jag S and Merc SLK.
 
woof woof said:
I haven't had mine long but so far it hasn't let me down. I do go to the shops in it but once the shopping is done I go for a drive so mine hasn't really done many short hops. I noticed that in the new ones they have a gear stick rather than the Dr Who style thing rising from the console. That seems to be the only thing I've noticed.

I'm very worried about electric and more worried the more I read. I just can't see it as a sustainable or even moral way forward with current tech after seeing the vids and reading about lithium lakes and cobalt mines.

Oh, my Evoque rated my driving style as 98% based on the last three journeys :D
Click to expand...
Electricity's not properly sustainable yet, and I can't see a time anywhere soon when it will be. Synthetic fuel looks a good option, if they can get the costs down. Apparently it's carbon neutral plus there's no need to spend billions changing the infrastructure as it can use traditional petrol stations etc, and as a result there's no carbon footprint building a new infrastructure. Then there's less risk of blackouts too. Seems a no brainer to me but I don't think governments will want to backtrack on the electric drive.

I don't know enough about hydrogen cars.
 
snerkler said:
Electricity's not properly sustainable yet, and I can't see a time anywhere soon when it will be. Synthetic fuel looks a good option, if they can get the costs down. Apparently it's carbon neutral plus there's no need to spend billions changing the infrastructure as it can use traditional petrol stations etc, and as a result there's no carbon footprint building a new infrastructure. Then there's less risk of blackouts too. Seems a no brainer to me but I don't think governments will want to backtrack on the electric drive.

I don't know enough about hydrogen cars.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the decision has been made and the decision is that electric is the future. Genius, incompetence, short sightedness or malevolence, only time will tell.
 
snerkler said:
GAS is a dangerous thing, I've been eyeing up the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II and it's not even a focal length I use very much. Add to that I've just swapped the 24-105mm for the 24-70mm f4 to save weight. I need help :LOL:
Click to expand...

I've used my Sigma 24-70/2.8 once...and that was because it was the only lens i had when i went to Korea. It has been in my case since.

24-70 has been the 2nd least used lens, the top being 70-200 GM.

They are beaten by the 105/1.4 and the 45/TSE!

When put it like that, it puts any GAS to getting the mk2 of the GM for these right down.
 
woof woof said:
Unfortunately the decision has been made and the decision is that electric is the future. Genius, incompetence, short sightedness or malevolence, only time will tell.
Click to expand...
Electric vehicles are good news for large urban areas, as they greatly reduce the pollution from vehicles from those areas, where otherwise pollution builds up and has significant health impacts on the high density of people who live there.
You do, of course, still have environmental damage and pollution from manufacture and power generation (some of which also apply to ICE vehicles) - but there are options to reduce / minimise this, that don't apply to the direct emissions from an ICE exhaust.
 
Faldrax said:
Electric vehicles are good news for large urban areas, as they greatly reduce the pollution from vehicles from those areas, where otherwise pollution builds up and has significant health impacts on the high density of people who live there.
You do, of course, still have environmental damage and pollution from manufacture and power generation (some of which also apply to ICE vehicles) - but there are options to reduce / minimise this, that don't apply to the direct emissions from an ICE exhaust.
Click to expand...

If we view the planet as a whole the reduction in emissions in a city may be vastly outweighed by the environmental destruction and pollution and health impacts caused in other parts of the world.

At least with combustion engine tech we can produce just about everything in the UK or other 1st world nations and with higher standards for environmental issues, worker conditions and the impact on the wider population. Looking at vids on line electric tech seems to have arguably torn up any even lip service to environmental or health and safety guidelines. But, uncomfortable questions about what this is causing in other parts of the world seem to be ignored.

Of course, I could be wrong :D
 
woof woof said:
If we view the planet as a whole the reduction in emissions in a city may be vastly outweighed by the environmental destruction and pollution and health impacts caused in other parts of the world.

At least with combustion engine tech we can produce just about everything in the UK or other 1st world nations and with higher standards for environmental issues, worker conditions and the impact on the wider population. Looking at vids on line electric tech seems to have arguably torn up any even lip service to environmental or health and safety guidelines. But, uncomfortable questions about what this is causing in other parts of the world seem to be ignored.

Of course, I could be wrong :D
Click to expand...
There is no reason why high standards cannot be applied worldwide - and as for production in the UK, for the small proportion of cars 'produced' in the UK, we are primarily just an assembly plant - the actual manufacturing from raw materials is done elsewhere, and of course we don't mine the ore for aluminium, iron, etc in the UK.

Rather than saying that part of the process for electric is bad, so don't use it, we should be looking at how we can change that part of the process so that it is less polluting, how workers conditions can be improved, etc.
 
Faldrax said:
There is no reason why high standards cannot be applied worldwide - and as for production in the UK, for the small proportion of cars 'produced' in the UK, we are primarily just an assembly plant - the actual manufacturing from raw materials is done elsewhere, and of course we don't mine the ore for aluminium, iron, etc in the UK.

Rather than saying that part of the process for electric is bad, so don't use it, we should be looking at how we can change that part of the process so that it is less polluting, how workers conditions can be improved, etc.
Click to expand...

There's no reason that high standards can't be followed in South America or Africa other than money and firms seemingly being allowed to operate in ways in other parts of the world which would not be allowed in the UK or Europe.

The UK does produce cars as do other 1st world countries and also we can produce the fuel or at least receive the raw product and refine it under much more stringent rules than seem to apply in African cobalt mines and South American lithium lakes.

I suspect that electric in its current form could well be an environmental and health disaster, not in the UK of course but in areas where conditions are not so tightly controlled. I personally wouldn't ignore these issues and if we can't make electric cars without the locals being exploited and harmed and their environment ruined then maybe we shouldn't make them until the tech has improved or the cost adjusted so that it can be done environmentally and with the wellbeing of the local workers and wider population protected.

It's not just cars of course. Shut down a relatively clean steelworks / factory in the UK and we can all feel good about the reduction in emissions and we just wont talk about the fact that we now buy the product in from China or India where it's possibly produced with much greater environmental and human impact.
 
Anyway. Photography.

Since stumping up for PS2022 I've been going through old pictures and today I reprocessed this and it is much better than I originally managed with CS5, but maybe I didn't try hard enough.

A7 and 35mm f2.8.

DOhlqV6.jpg
 
woof woof said:
Anyway. Photography.

Since stumping up for PS2022 I've been going through old pictures and today I reprocessed this and it is much better than I originally managed with CS5, but maybe I didn't try hard enough.

A7 and 35mm f2.8.

DOhlqV6.jpg
Click to expand...

Fairly sure I was there in 2007, but can't remember the name of the place - not very far outside Bangkok?

Nice memories of a good holiday.
 
Morning all.

I’m after some advice please. I’m currently looking hard at buying into the Sony system, with a maximum of £3k to spend to get myself a body and one maybe two lenses. Happy to go new or most likely used.

Priority is photography, and I’d go as far to say that I have zero interest in video features. I’m very much an enthusiast and a generalist with what I photograph but am looking at prioritising image quality and AF performance. It is very rare I’d shoot in low light without using a tripod.

I’ve been looking at A7IIIs, A7RIIIs, A7IV and even an A9. Lenses I’m much less knowledgeable about, but I guess the Sony 24-105mm f4 is a contender.

So, I’d be grateful for any advice, comments, experience and feedback that people can give.

Thanks in advance.

Simon.

PS - apologies if this is going over old ground again.
 
srhmoto said:
Morning all.

I’m after some advice please. I’m currently looking hard at buying into the Sony system, with a maximum of £3k to spend to get myself a body and one maybe two lenses. Happy to go new or most likely used.

Priority is photography, and I’d go as far to say that I have zero interest in video features. I’m very much an enthusiast and a generalist with what I photograph but am looking at prioritising image quality and AF performance. It is very rare I’d shoot in low light without using a tripod.

I’ve been looking at A7IIIs, A7RIIIs, A7IV and even an A9. Lenses I’m much less knowledgeable about, but I guess the Sony 24-105mm f4 is a contender.

So, I’d be grateful for any advice, comments, experience and feedback that people can give.

Thanks in advance.

Simon.

PS - apologies if this is going over old ground again.
Click to expand...
A7IV is a pretty good do-it-all body. I'd take it over and 3rd gen body including A9.

You may have missed some nice offers on it recently but used ones are starting to show up so you can get them under £2K now.

Lenses wise given your budget I'd look into 3rd parties a bit more.
Consider tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 for your general lens. At 105mm the aperture drops to f4.5 so your are not losing much when compared to 24-105mm.
You can add a wide angle lens like tamron 17-28mm or may be a 20-24mm prime.

Later down the line if you decide to get a massive telephoto you can add the Sony 200-600mm to your collection.
 
nandbytes said:
A7IV is a pretty good do-it-all body. I'd take it over and 3rd gen body including A9.

You may have missed some nice offers on it recently but used ones are starting to show up so you can get them under £2K now.

Lenses wise given your budget I'd look into 3rd parties a bit more.
Consider tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 for your general lens. At 105mm the aperture drops to f4.5 so your are not losing much when compared to 24-105mm.
You can add a wide angle lens like tamron 17-28mm or may be a 20-24mm prime.

Later down the line if you decide to get a massive telephoto you can add the Sony 200-600mm to your collection.
Click to expand...
Aye, my timing isn’t great .

Very open to looking at both prime and zoom options from both native and third party manufacturers. In fact, there’s certainly an appeal from the smaller primes that Sigma and Sony have been putting out lately. I’d certainly prioritise lens quality even if that meant starting out with only one lens.

One of the big attractions of Sony just now is the huge range of lenses available for the system.

Thanks @nandbytes

Simon.
 
srhmoto said:
Morning all.

I’m after some advice please. I’m currently looking hard at buying into the Sony system, with a maximum of £3k to spend to get myself a body and one maybe two lenses. Happy to go new or most likely used.

Priority is photography, and I’d go as far to say that I have zero interest in video features. I’m very much an enthusiast and a generalist with what I photograph but am looking at prioritising image quality and AF performance. It is very rare I’d shoot in low light without using a tripod.

I’ve been looking at A7IIIs, A7RIIIs, A7IV and even an A9. Lenses I’m much less knowledgeable about, but I guess the Sony 24-105mm f4 is a contender.

So, I’d be grateful for any advice, comments, experience and feedback that people can give.

Thanks in advance.

Simon.

PS - apologies if this is going over old ground again.
Click to expand...

Huge amount of choice in terms of bodies and lenses out there now, will depend what you mainly are going to use it for.

I wouldn't be looking at an A7RIII at this point, a.f doesn't really keep up with the newer bodies.

A7IV is a good all rounder although I personally absolutely detest the flippy screen and while other rave about it's a.f performance I haven't found it to be that great tbh.

A7III is a good solid shout with a 3k budget you can pick one up used for around £1000, leaving 2k for lenses, flash, cards etc and what ever else you need.

A9 is great for anything that moves fast and is the only one of those you have mentioned that has a usable silent shutter, blackout free shooting is a gamechanger. Being an older body it doesn't have some of the bells and whistles of the A7IV, but can be bought so cheap now used are amazing value for money.

The Sony 24-105 lens is okay for a 24-105 f/4 but its a pretty boring lens.

At the cheaper end of the scale these are all decent:

Sony 35mm f/1.8
Sony 85mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Samyang 45mm f/1.8 (if you get a good copy, lots of variation with these)

The best lenses I have had for Sony are:

Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM
Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM
Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GMII

They are all crazy money though and depending on what body you buy might take you out of your 3k budget.

Personally with 3k to spend I would go with an A7III or A9, 35 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8. leaving cash left over for all the other bits and bobs you may need.

Used prices would be along this sort of range:

A7III - £900-£1000
A9 - £1200-£1400

35MM f/1.8 - £400 They often pop up on Amazon at this price new
85 f/1.8 - £350

Grey market places like Panamoz and E-infin are worth checking out as can sometimes be cheaper than used. You could prob buy an A7IV, 35 and 85 for the grey market places new for under 3k.

If you need flash Godox is the the most popular choice for Sony, personally I prefer there flashes that have a battery pack included of those the V860III is the best one, they also have a round head flash V1 and a smaller V350s model.

My use may well be very different than yours though.
 
Last edited:
srhmoto said:
Aye, my timing isn’t great .

Very open to looking at both prime and zoom options from both native and third party manufacturers. In fact, there’s certainly an appeal from the smaller primes that Sigma and Sony have been putting out lately. I’d certainly prioritise lens quality even if that meant starting out with only one lens.

One of the big attractions of Sony just now is the huge range of lenses available for the system.

Thanks @nandbytes

Simon.1
Click to expand...

The Sony 35mm f1.4 is the only lens you need and you are bound to find an excellent used one for sale on here.... :D (I'm shameless!)

But on a serious note, it is an excellent lens with fast focussing and lovely resolution that almost never came off my A9, the focal length was great for general photography. It's also a great combination on something like the A9 what with its awesome AF and eye tracking accuracy, it made using such a wide aperture and shallow depth of field a doddle.
 
srhmoto said:
Morning all.

I’m after some advice please. I’m currently looking hard at buying into the Sony system, with a maximum of £3k to spend to get myself a body and one maybe two lenses. Happy to go new or most likely used.

Priority is photography, and I’d go as far to say that I have zero interest in video features. I’m very much an enthusiast and a generalist with what I photograph but am looking at prioritising image quality and AF performance. It is very rare I’d shoot in low light without using a tripod.

I’ve been looking at A7IIIs, A7RIIIs, A7IV and even an A9. Lenses I’m much less knowledgeable about, but I guess the Sony 24-105mm f4 is a contender.

So, I’d be grateful for any advice, comments, experience and feedback that people can give.

Thanks in advance.

Simon.

PS - apologies if this is going over old ground again.
Click to expand...
I usually say go with the latest tech that you can afford as things move on so quickly, that being said it depends on what is important such as dynamic range, resolution, blackout free shooting etc. All have very good AF although the A7RIII and A7RIV aren't the best for quickly moving subjects.

In terms of lenses, again it depends on what you want to shoot. As a general all rounder there's the 24-105mm as you've pointed out, the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, and then if you want something lighter then the 24-70mm f4 which I think is better than most give it credit for.

I've actually just snatched a bargain 24-70mm f4 (after cashback) and assuming there's nothing wrong with it (shouldn't be as it's new) I'll be off loading my 24-105mm f4.
 
snerkler said:
I usually say go with the latest tech that you can afford as things move on so quickly, that being said it depends on what is important such as dynamic range, resolution, blackout free shooting etc. All have very good AF although the A7RIII and A7RIV aren't the best for quickly moving subjects.

In terms of lenses, again it depends on what you want to shoot. As a general all rounder there's the 24-105mm as you've pointed out, the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, and then if you want something lighter then the 24-70mm f4 which I think is better than most give it credit for.

I've actually just snatched a bargain 24-70mm f4 (after cashback) and assuming there's nothing wrong with it (shouldn't be as it's new) I'll be off loading my 24-105mm f4.
Click to expand...
24-70mm f4 is possibly the worst FF zoom lens on Sony. Even the new 28-60mm is fair bit sharper across the range. Only lens worst is the old 28-70mm kit lens.
The tamron 28-200mm is a lot better also.
I know I know you want the 24mm wide end :D
 
nandbytes said:
24-70mm f4 is possibly the worst FF zoom lens on Sony. Even the new 28-60mm is fair bit sharper across the range. Only lens worst is the old 28-70mm kit lens.
The tamron 28-200mm is a lot better also.
I know I know you want the 24mm wide end :D
Click to expand...

All this depends on how critical you are and how close you look.

I remember the guys on Luminous Landscape producing some large prints from the 24-70mm f4 and absolutely drooling over them. The article will probably still be there if anyone goes looking.
 
srhmoto said:
Aye, my timing isn’t great .

Very open to looking at both prime and zoom options from both native and third party manufacturers. In fact, there’s certainly an appeal from the smaller primes that Sigma and Sony have been putting out lately. I’d certainly prioritise lens quality even if that meant starting out with only one lens.

One of the big attractions of Sony just now is the huge range of lenses available for the system.

Thanks @nandbytes

Simon.
Click to expand...
the tamron 28-200mm is pretty decent tbh
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgjvBQ16HE0


the lens selection is pretty much the only reason I stay on Sony now.
They are also smaller in many cases too but just as sharp if not sharper and in most cases better focussing too.
 
nandbytes said:
24-70mm f4 is possibly the worst FF zoom lens on Sony. Even the new 28-60mm is fair bit sharper across the range. Only lens worst is the old 28-70mm kit lens.
The tamron 28-200mm is a lot better also.
I know I know you want the 24mm wide end :D
Click to expand...
Id swap back to the 24-70f4 from the Tamron 28-200 in a heart beat if I could make the same choice again.
 
woof woof said:
All this depends on how critical you are and how close you look.

I remember the guys on Luminous Landscape producing some large prints from the 24-70mm f4 and absolutely drooling over them. The article will probably still be there if anyone goes looking.
Click to expand...
that just makes all the other lenses remarkably good :D
its a relative scale ;)

robj20 said:
Id swap back to the 24-70f4 from the Tamron 28-200 in a heart beat if I could make the same choice again.
Click to expand...
you can, sell the 28-200mm to me and buy the 24-70mm on offer :ROFLMAO:
 
nandbytes said:
24-70mm f4 is possibly the worst FF zoom lens on Sony. Even the new 28-60mm is fair bit sharper across the range. Only lens worst is the old 28-70mm kit lens.
The tamron 28-200mm is a lot better also.
I know I know you want the 24mm wide end :D
Click to expand...
All I can go by is the copy I had, it was only noticeably softer in the corners compared to my 24-105mm when pixel peeping and even then it wasn’t exactly night and day. For me it’s plenty good enough and better than lenses I’ve used in the past on other cameras such as the Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f4. I just hope this new one is at least as good as the old one I got rid of otherwise it’ll be going back :LOL:
 
nandbytes said:
that just makes all the other lenses remarkably good :D
its a relative scale ;)
Click to expand...

I haven't had many zooms but I do think that the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 is s good variable aperture standard range zoom for the size and price. I'm sure I remember from that time that part of the issue with the f4 was that it was good but maybe not that much better than the kit zoom to justify the extra cost.

Personally, I don't see a lot of attraction in f4 zooms if there's a f3.5-5.6 alternative as a good variable aperture lens isn't light years away from the f4 for either light gathering or DoF. But then again, the f2.8 might be too big, too heavy and too expensive.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
that just makes all the other lenses remarkably good :D
its a relative scale ;)
Click to expand...
This is very true.
I have the much maligned 16-50 kit lens on my A6000 - but in reality it's a lot better than many of the kit lenses of the past, and capable of really nice images in when used with care - it's just that all the alternatives are so good in comparison.
 
Faldrax said:
This is very true.
I have the much maligned 16-50 kit lens on my A6000 - but in reality it's a lot better than many of the kit lenses of the past, and capable of really nice images in when used with care - it's just that all the alternatives are so good in comparison.
Click to expand...
the 16-50mm is kinda decent stopped down to f8. Wide open it leaves a lot to be desired especially in the corners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top