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

Well after much debate about moving to a compact I've now decided to stick with the A7 III and now looking at a 16-35 f/2/8 GM and later down the line if I feel a need for portrait then explore a 50/85.

I pretty much shoot landscapes/architecture and street photography so think the 16-35mm will be sufficient enough unless anyone has any other suggestions?

On a sidenote, anyone know any repair shops in UK that I can get to replace my LCD screen for me? I've got a red line on the LCD screen and have a replacement LCD but would rather leave it to a professional although it looks easy enough to swap out.
 
El1te said:
Well after much debate about moving to a compact I've now decided to stick with the A7 III and now looking at a 16-35 f/2/8 GM and later down the line if I feel a need for portrait then explore a 50/85.

I pretty much shoot landscapes/architecture and street photography so think the 16-35mm will be sufficient enough unless anyone has any other suggestions?

On a sidenote, anyone know any repair shops in UK that I can get to replace my LCD screen for me? I've got a red line on the LCD screen and have a replacement LCD but would rather leave it to a professional although it looks easy enough to swap out.
Click to expand...

The 16-35 is a very good lens and although you think of that as a landscape lens, one of my most used is a 24-105 (or 24-70).

If I'm doing a mountain hike then these days I quite often take a Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6.
 
El1te said:
Well after much debate about moving to a compact I've now decided to stick with the A7 III and now looking at a 16-35 f/2/8 GM and later down the line if I feel a need for portrait then explore a 50/85.

I pretty much shoot landscapes/architecture and street photography so think the 16-35mm will be sufficient enough unless anyone has any other suggestions?

On a sidenote, anyone know any repair shops in UK that I can get to replace my LCD screen for me? I've got a red line on the LCD screen and have a replacement LCD but would rather leave it to a professional although it looks easy enough to swap out.
Click to expand...
16-35mm is my go to landscape lens too, although I do sometimes take out the 24-70mm f4. If you're concerned about bulk and weight as you've mentioned then have you considered the 16-35mm PZ as it's much smaller and lighter than the GM, alternatively there's the 20-70mm f4 that'll give you a great range and is still smaller and lighter than teh 16-35mm GM?
 
snerkler said:
16-35mm is my go to landscape lens too, although I do sometimes take out the 24-70mm f4. If you're concerned about bulk and weight as you've mentioned then have you considered the 16-35mm PZ as it's much smaller and lighter than the GM, alternatively there's the 20-70mm f4 that'll give you a great range and is still smaller and lighter than teh 16-35mm GM?
Click to expand...

Thank you for those other lens recommendations, I just had a look at the 16-35mm PZ but I'm able to get the GM for only £100 extra so seems like a no brainer to go for the GM here I think?

I think the weight of the lens is something I am just going to have to accept here but the 20-70 f4 has tempted me now too lol.

First world problems eh.
 
Last edited:
El1te said:
Thank you for those other lens recommendations, I just had a look at the 16-35mm PZ but I'm able to get the GM for only £100 extra so seemed like a no brainer to go for the GM here I think?

I think the weight of the lens is something I am just going to have to accept here but the 20-70 f4 has tempted me now too lol.

First world problems eh.
Click to expand...
Going through the same internal debate :)

If we only look at the price, then f/2.8 GM does seem a lot more attractive than the f/4 PZ one. If we take into consideration their respective weights as as snerkler stated above though, the choice becomes less obvious. The GM one is almost twice as heavy at 680g as the PZ one which weights 353g.

For landscape photography, more often than not, f/4 aperture should be good enough but I like the flexibility of having a bigger aperture for versatility as well.

The 16-35mm GM mark II is rumoured to be coming out in March/April according to the Sony Alpha Rumor website which may have a knock-on effects on the mark I price if you're not too much in a rush
 
El1te said:
Thank you for those other lens recommendations, I just had a look at the 16-35mm PZ but I'm able to get the GM for only £100 extra so seems like a no brainer to go for the GM here I think?

I think the weight of the lens is something I am just going to have to accept here but the 20-70 f4 has tempted me now too lol.

First world problems eh.
Click to expand...

I think 16-35GM is a due an upgrade, so it might drop in value further down the line.
16-35PZ is still new hence the higher price in general.

El1te said:
On a sidenote, anyone know any repair shops in UK that I can get to replace my LCD screen for me? I've got a red line on the LCD screen and have a replacement LCD but would rather leave it to a professional although it looks easy enough to swap out.
Click to expand...

you can try fixation or contact Sony directly.
 
El1te said:
Thank you for those other lens recommendations, I just had a look at the 16-35mm PZ but I'm able to get the GM for only £100 extra so seems like a no brainer to go for the GM here I think?

I think the weight of the lens is something I am just going to have to accept here but the 20-70 f4 has tempted me now too lol.

First world problems eh.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you’re seeing the GM is only £100 more, are you comparing new with used? I’ve seen several reviews stating the PZ is as sharp if not sharper than the GM but I’ve not used either so can’t comment myself. Of course if you want to do Astro then the f2.8 would be better.

The 16-35mm GM II has been rumoured for some time but I expected it to be announced at CP+ so god knows when it’ll be released.
 
lekhangaroo said:
Going through the same internal debate :)

If we only look at the price, then f/2.8 GM does seem a lot more attractive than the f/4 PZ one. If we take into consideration their respective weights as as snerkler stated above though, the choice becomes less obvious. The GM one is almost twice as heavy at 680g as the PZ one which weights 353g.

For landscape photography, more often than not, f/4 aperture should be good enough but I like the flexibility of having a bigger aperture for versatility as well.

The 16-35mm GM mark II is rumoured to be coming out in March/April according to the Sony Alpha Rumor website which may have a knock-on effects on the mark I price if you're not too much in a rush
Click to expand...
for me the main reason to buy 16-35GM would be for the f2.8 aperture to shoot in low light and astro photography.
Personally I have decided to use fast primes for this purpose and use slower zooms for other uses since they are smaller and cheaper (generally speaking).
 
nandbytes said:
for me the main reason to buy 16-35GM would be for the f2.8 aperture to shoot in low light and astro photography.
Personally I have decided to use fast primes for this purpose and use slower zooms for other uses since they are smaller and cheaper (generally speaking).
Click to expand...
Yes I'm tempted to switch it around as well and maybe take the 20mm f/1.8 combined with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
 
lekhangaroo said:
Yes I'm tempted to switch it around as well and maybe take the 20mm f/1.8 combined with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Click to expand...
in the past I have had 20G + 28-200mm combination. Worked pretty well.
Now I am thinking 14GM+20-70mm combination. but I already have 14GM, 24GM and 35GM anyway.

Fast primes allow more light and they are lighter, so I can easily use them on a light weight astrotracker which is nice too.
 
snerkler said:
I’m not sure where you’re seeing the GM is only £100 more, are you comparing new with used? I’ve seen several reviews stating the PZ is as sharp if not sharper than the GM but I’ve not used either so can’t comment myself. Of course if you want to do Astro then the f2.8 would be better.

The 16-35mm GM II has been rumoured for some time but I expected it to be announced at CP+ so god knows when it’ll be released.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly new here so not sure if I'm allowed to name the websites? I was comparing new on one website with the price on Sony website.

Not too interested with Astro and if the PZ is as sharp as the GM then the weight difference probably will help quite a bit.
 
El1te said:
I'm fairly new here so not sure if I'm allowed to name the websites? I was comparing new on one website with the price on Sony website.

Not too interested with Astro and if the PZ is as sharp as the GM then the weight difference probably will help quite a bit.
Click to expand...
No issue naming sites (y) Sony’s own site is always more expensive and usually lists the RRP.

This site is good to show the cheapest new UK price of camera equipment

Camera Price Buster - Compare UK Stock Prices

Compare genuine UK stock prices for Camera Equipment. New & Used prices.
www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

Also, the PZ can be had for under £1k if you’re happy to buy grey.
 
It might also be worth looking at used gear on mpb, lce, ebay etc. if you don't mind buying non new equipment. That's where I'm planning on buying for most of my future new gear.
 
Last edited:
lekhangaroo said:
It might also be worth looking at used gear on mpb, lce, ebay etc. if you don't mind buying non new equipment. That's how I'm planning on buying for most of my future new gear.
Click to expand...

I suggest using this website (set up by a forum member!)

www.usedlens.co.uk

Using the filter option you can remove eBay leaving you with just about all the UK retailers with second user gear.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I suggest using this website (set up by a forum member!)

www.usedlens.co.uk

Using the filter option you can remove eBay leaving you with just about all the UK retailers with second user gear.
Click to expand...
Yep that’s my go to, good old Daniel San (y)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
No issue naming sites (y) Sony’s own site is always more expensive and usually lists the RRP.

This site is good to show the cheapest new UK price of camera equipment

Camera Price Buster - Compare UK Stock Prices

Compare genuine UK stock prices for Camera Equipment. New & Used prices.
www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

Also, the PZ can be had for under £1k if you’re happy to buy grey.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, the prices I saw were on E-infinity but looking there now the PZ is a few hundred cheaper still than the GM.
 
NewBeetle said:
Everyone meet Ruby, my friends new rescue pup from Romania. (Possibly Pomeranian x Chihuahua)

DSC02003-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

ruby1 by A Andrades, on Flickr

DSC01934-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

and my girl Madge enjoying a game of chase with her this morning.

DSC01998-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

DSC01993-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

One of Madge posing

DSC01919-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Lovely photos !

ancient_mariner said:
Indeed, and if you use it, be sure to 'buy him a coffee'.
Click to expand...
Will do and thank you @dancook !
 
El1te said:
Thanks for the link, the prices I saw were on E-infinity but looking there now the PZ is a few hundred cheaper still than the GM.
Click to expand...
E-infinity are grey importers so will be cheaper than uk. On there the Pz is £909 and the GM £1179 so £270 difference. Not that much between them (y)
 
Last edited:
NewBeetle said:
Everyone meet Ruby, my friends new rescue pup from Romania. (Possibly Pomeranian x Chihuahua)

DSC02003-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

ruby1 by A Andrades, on Flickr

DSC01934-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

and my girl Madge enjoying a game of chase with her this morning.

DSC01998-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

DSC01993-Edit-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr

One of Madge posing

DSC01919-Edit by A Andrades, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Are all of the shot with the Tammy 28-75mm as the EXIF’s only showing in a couple?
 
nog said:
Anyone thinking of getting a Tammy 28-75 :)
Click to expand...
Had the G2 new version a few months, can't fault it, just a lovely lens all round and the one piece of gear that's kept me with Sony to be honest as i've been contemplating a change of direction recently, still am but every time I use the G2 it reminds me how good it is.
 
Did anyone capture the Northern Lights last night? We didn't get them in our area, too much cloud cover even if we did. Same story predicted tonight with cloud cover unfortunately.
 
snerkler said:
Did anyone capture the Northern Lights last night? We didn't get them in our area, too much cloud cover even if we did. Same story predicted tonight with cloud cover unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see them but they were't visible here.

A while back I remember seeing a blogger who went out to photograph them and got nothing and he was then surprised at the pictures other people had got, he said it was down to heavy processing, Remembering that makes me suspicious of the pictures I see on the TV and blogs now. Are they real or are they the result of heavy processing making a picture from something that couldn't be seen or was hardly seen by eye?
 
woof woof said:
I'd love to see them but they were't visible here.

A while back I remember seeing a blogger who went out to photograph them and got nothing and he was then surprised at the pictures other people had got, he said it was down to heavy processing, Remembering that makes me suspicious of the pictures I see on the TV and blogs now. Are they real or are they the result of heavy processing making a picture from something that couldn't be seen or was hardly seen by eye?
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen it but from what I can gather it’s not as vivid with the naked eye (some times are better than others) and definitely shows better in the camera. I think some people then do accentuate it in post similar to the milky way shots.
 
snerkler said:
Did anyone capture the Northern Lights last night? We didn't get them in our area, too much cloud cover even if we did. Same story predicted tonight with cloud cover unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Maybe.... A little bit ;)

woof woof said:
I'd love to see them but they were't visible here.

A while back I remember seeing a blogger who went out to photograph them and got nothing and he was then surprised at the pictures other people had got, he said it was down to heavy processing, Remembering that makes me suspicious of the pictures I see on the TV and blogs now. Are they real or are they the result of heavy processing making a picture from something that couldn't be seen or was hardly seen by eye?
Click to expand...

It's not just in the processing. The camera's just pick up a lot more than the eye can see. Obviously, editing does pull more detail out though.
 
LeeRatters said:
Maybe.... A little bit ;)



It's not just in the processing. The camera's just pick up a lot more than the eye can see. Obviously, editing does pull more detail out though.
Click to expand...

The bloggers point, and I can't remember who it was, was that in that instance and in his opinion the result was mainly achieved through processing beyond what he'd been willing to do.

I suppose we all have to make our own minds up and straying more into creating an image rather than capturing or enhancing one isn't a mortal sin but it is something that makes me a little wary of pictures of the lights seen on the news and taken in places they're not normally seen.
 
Just sold my recently bought 50mm f1.1. It is IMO a good lens but something else has caught my eye so I'll be placing an order :D
 
woof woof said:
The bloggers point, and I can't remember who it was, was that in that instance and in his opinion the result was mainly achieved through processing beyond what he'd been willing to do.

I suppose we all have to make our own minds up and straying more into creating an image rather than capturing or enhancing one isn't a mortal sin but it is something that makes me a little wary of pictures of the lights seen on the news and taken in places they're not normally seen.
Click to expand...
Or maybe they didn't know how to capture it properly ;) The camera alone picks up more than the eye can see, in part due to the way our eyes work with light at night as I understand. But like a lot of photos, to get those so called magazine worthy shots some embellishment is needed in PP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top