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

You hit the head on the nail. Sony managed to make the worst of both worlds in one package. The sculpting of the back is ridiculous and the height is a huge [well tiny] problem. They could only make it worse by adding sharp edges.
While Sony e-mount bodies may not be winning any ergonomics of the year awards, it still isn't bad.
The rangefinder design of the even smaller bodies is pretty popular too.
They are perfectly usable IMO of course.
Tbh there aren't many cameras out there I couldn't get used to.

I think marketing language aside you simply can't polish you know what. It may be good enough... maybe for a good while at least. It will creak in hand, vibrate on tripod more (R6 surely does that a lot), age quicker and eventually something will break.
This engineering plastic just gave me a massive headache with vax portable vacuum. Sure I could try to buy a replacement part, but a that's just poor. So I am basically gluing it all up with super glue + NaHCO3 + coal. I see this in older laptops too.. It just doesn't stand the test of time past the initial honeymoon period. Bare minimum it scratches easily, attracts bacteria in the crevasses [so no plastic tupperware allowed near me!!!!] and of course it pollutes the environment. Eventually most of it will end up in the sea unless something changes in the big way.
Erm... Vacuum cleaners and cameras are different I think :thinking:

Engineering grade aluminium is hardly noticeably heavier than plastic, of which you may simply need a much more. https://www.metals4u.co.uk/blog/a-guide-to-aluminium-grades-and-their-uses
For the prices they should really give us type 7000.
Premium laptops typically use one of the grades and I haven't heard anyone complain they would prefer plastic. quite the opposite.

But that is not all. titanium is premium, super strong and very lightweight. I have titanium watch and that is super light. I love it. Iphones now come with titanium shell and bezel.
Supposedly the new iPhone 15 with titanium is supposedly the most fragile of the iPhones.

I think that is great. Probably the only good thing about them actually. So yes, you can have lightweight and metal as proved in the aeronautics industry. Planes are not plastic.

So why the hell can't camera manufacturers give us alu 7000 let alone titanium in at least the super premium £4-6k cameras like R5, Z8 and A7R series instead of cheap polluting plastic more suited for entry level offerings. At the same time I am sick of that rubber handgrip when they could easily give us premium leather. That is really p***-taking. They want max profit today and min durability. They don't want anything to last past 2-3 year term. And that is super sick.
Because they want to maximize profits I guess?

I do agree on the pollution part of using plastics.

If camera manufacturers can provide a lightweight metal shell I'd be ok with that. But at the same time I don't think metal is the only way to achieve good durability.
Unless I'm mistaken I think the premium Sony bodies A7r, A1, A9 and even A7c have magnesium alloy body. I was looking at A7CR recently and they claim to have a mag alloy body.
 
Erm... Vacuum cleaners and cameras are different I think :thinking:
The plastic in both will be about the same. Hence it can become very relevant.

Supposedly the new iPhone 15 with titanium is supposedly the most fragile of the iPhones.
Not surprised. But nothing to do with titanium use. They rather need to increase it to cover the whole back and all sides. Fragility is good thing for apple. It shouldn't be but it is. Users should have long moved to chinese android handsets in protest.

Because they want to maximize profits I guess?
They do for sure. Adding premium metal shell may only cost them £10-30 more per body tops but they even want that now.

If camera manufacturers can provide a lightweight metal shell I'd be ok with that. But at the same time I don't think metal is the only way to achieve good durability.
Add longevity and environmental credentials to that list. It can be done and is done today if you don't get obsessed about 10g less at any cost.
magnesium alloy body
is this Aluminum alloy type 6000 in marketing speak? I suspect it may be. And then is is it only the main subframe or the whole body? We seem to be moving towards the former in many examples like Z8 or the Canons. I don't know the full details about the Sony.
 
But that is not all. titanium is premium, super strong and very lightweight. I have titanium watch and that is super light. I love it. Iphones now come with titanium shell and bezel. I think that is great. Probably the only good thing about them actually. So yes, you can have lightweight and metal as proved in the aeronautics industry. Planes are not plastic.
Modern planes are making increasing use of plastics and moving away from metals which they've been doing for some time:


The drive to increase fuel efficiency and improve the aerodynamic performance of new aircraft is leading designers to move away from using aluminium in airframes.
Instead today's latest planes like Boeing's 787 Dreamliner and Airbus's A350 rely on lightweight carbon fibre composites - woven mats of carbon which are embedded in plastic.

The titanium iPhone is just for show as it's only fractionally lighter but weaker than previous models.

There's a huge variety of different plastics out there which unfortunately has meant people have developed this snobbery towards it based on cheap plastics they've seen. Carbon fibre is a plastic and some of the polycarbonate plastics feel good in the hand and hold up to day to day use better than similar metals. I certainly wouldn't want camera manufacturers taking the iPhone approach and pretending they're adding premium materials when it's nothing more than marketing whereas I expect cameras to be functional devices, not fashion items.
 
Modern planes are making increasing use of plastics and moving away from metals which they've been doing for some time:
composite materials, graphene, carbon fibre... all that yes. They are not doing away completely with aluminum and other light metals completely. But they are also taking out polycarbonate / laminate windows in favour of camera-display systems and so on.

Carbon fibre >> polycarbonates for the bigger part, but each have its own weakness. My DJI RS2 has a fair chunk of carbon fibre in the structural arms. that seems to be fine, until maybe it gets a knock, but in this case the weight saving is actually quite substantial. I don't recall a single camera that uses carbon fibre, graphene or any of these high tech composites. Mostly polycarbonate unless I missed anything significant.

Polycarbonate is an interesting topic that could span thousands of pages... It is not immune from degradation over time, and temperature or UV light certainly play a thing here. For every 10C increase the reaction rate doubles and vice versa. That is how the universe runs. So with cameras running hot it may be more relevant that it appears at first. That's just one of many studies, of no particular significance but it shows that polycarbonate is more temporary than anything metal, or more advanced composites for that matter. https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Polycarbonate_Properties_Under_Thermal_Aging

I haven't looked into the detail of iphones. If they used titanium for decorative only reasons then absolutely all shame be on them. Like most / all phones it is probably best in a deep silicone case.
If used well titanium has excellent strength and weight balance, while remaining mostly chemically inert making it ideal for even human joint replacements. That is no small feat
Of course it has a bit of a price tag too but in high end cameras that should be relatively easy to absorb. We had even seen cosmetic gold-plating before so why not.


PS. We sometimes get to see an odd older device or two made of polyvinylchloride or PVC. Apple used it a lot, and so did others. They are all yellow now, sticky, and over the lifetime have released quite a lot of toxic VOCs but that is not the end, far from it. Todays plastics are at least not halogenated, well until you need to get fire retardants in. They are brominated and very toxic to everything.

Disposal and recycling of these things is a particular headache. In the best case you can just burn them in one of the council facilities, that are poorly run. In the worst case you can't and / or they go for the swim in the sea.
 
Last edited:
Has someone posted this already? If not. Here...


Looks expensive... I can't see myself ever wanting one of these. If it was a manual focus 28, 35 or 50mm f1.x then maybe :D
It will be interesting to see what Nikon do. I suspect Sony will be alone in teh 300mm F2.8 prime for mirrorless arena. A lens that makes very little sense given how good they can make 100-300mm F2.8s now. I'm really hoping the A9 iii is coming and will be the perfect blend of resolution AF and at last a unibody but I'm not sure it will ever be released. An A1 ii makes far more sense I think
 
is this Aluminum alloy type 6000 in marketing speak? I suspect it may be. And then is is it only the main subframe or the whole body? We seem to be moving towards the former in many examples like Z8 or the Canons. I don't know the full details about the Sony.

These are what the Sony website says about A7RV and A7CR, make of it what you will

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 21.46.58.png

Screenshot 2023-11-01 at 21.46.17.png
 
Only 3 grand :D

Given the size I wonder if tamron/samyang 35-150mm is a better range. Plus you get one stop more light at wide end.
It's very expensive, I must admit I don't get this lens at all yet Canon rumors suggests Canon folk have been screaming out for this les for years :thinking:
 
It's very expensive, I must admit I don't get this lens at all yet Canon rumors suggests Canon folk have been screaming out for this les for years :thinking:
They are a strange bunch of people mind..... ;)
I think its mostly Americans (and LLP maybe :LOL:) asking of biggest fastest sharpest lenses possible

basically the same kind of thinking that gets you a V12 lawnmower than can go faster than my car
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Xe5ldu2jB2E

a bit of joking aside I think it can be a pretty useful lens for professionals who shoot in events, weddings etc and don't mind the weight or money.
its just not my thing or a lens for majority of hobbyists I think
 
Last edited:
Hard core macro...

 
Only 3 grand :D

Given the size I wonder if tamron/samyang 35-150mm is a better range. Plus you get one stop more light at wide end.
Only £3.5k in rip off UK. That completely rules it out for me and I am sure majority of other individual photographers. Maybe good for big studios, agencies, rental houses and the most expensive weeding photographers.

The second question is: is it sharp. Apparently nothing extraordinary. See mtf for example here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-105mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens.aspx
In the corners it has absolutely nothing over the 24-70mm lens, the one that doesn't excite me at all. So another portrait mega zoom basically. 28-70mm looks a lot sharper on paper and ironically cheaper, but personally not enough. So yes comparisons with just about affordable tamron mega zoom will be interesting.

Third question is video. It will barely go on the biggest gimbals like DJI rs2 or rs3 pro. Lenses like this tend to move and wiggle and will need to be seriously strapped. So technically doable but presumably you will want this on the big rigs or tripods which brings us round to the initial point.
 
What is your opinion on upgrading my sharp A7m3, for improved focus tracking?
I'm not sure I follow? Upgrading to what, and what makes a "sharp" camera?
 
That's the question, what would be the upgrade? 'Sharp' as in some cameras produce a crap blurry image.

I was going suggest the Lego camera but I guess that's not an option anymore

What kind of photography are you into?
 
That's the question, what would be the upgrade? 'Sharp' as in some cameras produce a crap blurry image.
If we’re talking proper cameras then they have no influence on pictures being blurry, that’s down to the lens and/or the user.

In terms of an upgrade there’s the A7IV, A7RV, A9II, A1, all depends on budget and requirements?
 
I'm afraid you are incorrect. There are many camera bodies that have issues that affect the quality and after previous comparisons I only know it to well. Im aware of the newer models but it's what would be a worthy upgrade, based on use rather than reviews or manufacturers bluff.
Well I must not be understanding what you’re meaning then as any modern camera from m4/3 to full frame and bigger is capable of producing stunning images, and unless there’s a fault have no influence on blur.

The next bit no-one can answer as what is a “worthy upgrade” is purely down to the individual. If you know about the newer models then I assume you know what they offer over the A7III and only you can decide whether this is a worthy upgrade for you.

We can tell you that the A7IV has better AF, and the A7RV has better AF and higher res but that’s not tellling you any different to a spec sheet or YouTube review.
 
One thing that would make camera like A7x unsharp is partially borken IBIS unit. There is an article on lensrentals about that. Basically that translates into a camera that has been kicked down the road or equivalent. The other possibility is dodgy or inadequate lens. These are in great supply. And final and pretty common one - user error.
 
'Sharp' means rather than a poorly built unit. I'd probably consider the R models or A1
Well you’re really confusing me now ;)

For me the A1 and A7RV would be a significant upgrade over the A7III both in terms of AF and resolution. I would personally choose the A1 over the A7RV because of the better tracking and speed of acquisition of AF, better frame rate, blackout free shooting, ability to use the electronic shutter for 99.9% of your shooting, and the extra drive and focus mode dials on top of the camera.

The A7RV has a newer AF algorithm meaning you can choose more subjects but I personally wouldn’t choose this over speed of acquisition and tracking ability. YMMV.
 
That's the question, what would be the upgrade? 'Sharp' as in some cameras produce a crap blurry image.

Which cameras are those that aren't sharp? Unless there is a fault, pretty much every modern camera is capable of producing "sharp" images, even when used with cheap ass lenses.

In terms of a.f improvement over the A7III. The A9, A9II, A7IV, A7RIV, A7V and A1 all have real time tracking which is an improvement but it isn't a night and day difference to be honest. A lot of the newer bodies have more advanced subject selection but I never use that anyway.

A9III is expected to be announced this month and will likely have further incremental a.f improvements. Might be wise to hold off to see what it will offer.
 
Last edited:
I haven't owned a "not sharp" camera since my Kodak Autograph!

Even my Canon 30D was considered sharp enough for most people, at 8mp. These days if people take blur photos is either because they don't know what they are doing, or the camera or lens is broken.

If you say "the camera didn't track the subject properly", then that's you don't know what you are doing, using the wrong settings, anything will be sharp when shot in fast enough shutter speed with enough light, you just got to know what you are doing.
 
Tamron 17-50 f4 just ordered, hopefully it will be here tomorrow
Will be interested to hear your thoughts. What wide angle do you have currently to compare it to?
 
So to help us understand, by 'sharp' you mean that the camera is well constructed and reliable?
he said in his response before this one that "There are many camera bodies that have issues that affect the quality and after previous comparisons I only know it to well"

My initial thinking was that he was referring to shutter shock issue which can cause blurry images. But he's asking for a body with better AF than A7III. Hence I asked what he shoots, because at high shutter speeds if he is shooting action, shutter shock is never an issue anyway.
Besides Sony bodies after A7R don't have this issue anyway..... so I am not sure what he is referring to either.

Surely that's would mean a modern phone with a IP 68 rating....?
or a OM1
but he's asked not to comment if you can't give sensible answers :D
 
I'm sure that we are all aware that camera units can differ on image quality or have to be returned to the manufacturer to resolved. If not then I'm one of the few who have been privy to this when comparing with friends.
Nope, only a defective camera will make images look blurry such as misaligned sensor or shutter shock. The only other thing will be the lens or user error.

In terms of image quality from cameras you can have different sensor sizes and difference resolutions but none of this will make an image blurry. Obviously teeny tiny sensors seen in phones and consumer cameras will not have as good image quality but if comparing full frame cameras, or APS-C etc they'll have have great IQ and won't be blurry other than for the reasons above.
 
I'm sure that we are all aware that camera units can differ on image quality or have to be returned to the manufacturer to resolved. If not then I'm one of the few who have been privy to this when comparing with friends.

TBH I've owned entry level and enthusiast cameras from Sony, Nikon and Olympus, and apart from the Olympus with specific lenses (shutter shock, known issue) they all take inherently sharp photos with sharp lenses. I'd be quite surprised if it were a regular occurrence for mirrorless camera bodies to be faulty and cause blurring. Lenses and DSLRs much more so.
 
A few pics from Hawkeye Falconry Centre, more on Flickr

1.

A1_00991-Edit-Edit-www.tdg.com 3000px-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

2.

A1_00951-Edit-Edit-www.tdg.com 3000px-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

3.

A1_01573-Enhanced-NR-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

4.

A1_04185-Enhanced-NR-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

5.

A1_04356-Enhanced-NR-Edit-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

6.

A1_04678-Enhanced-NR-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

7.

A1_04849-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

8.

A1_05251-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Some really lovely shots you have come back with, I'd be super happy with them (y)
 
Well then you’ve been very unlucky as it’s very rare.
Or the camera has been kicked down the road. Probably that to be honest
 
So if we say this possibly adds value for video shooters, which I would still contest, however, for a hands-on stills users this must be a very negative thing:
  • increased expense
  • potentially compromised durability and a point of expensive failure
  • delay, lack of precision and tactile feedback
  • draw on camera battery
I view it same as auto tailgate in modern cars. Super annoying and unnecessary. When I am forced into one of these things I will research on day 1 how to disable and go back to the proverbial stone age where I can close it in a fraction of a second instead of 10s.

Also if zoom lens is truly video centric it should also have zero focus breathing and be parfocal.


Sigma may have peaked with their 135mm, 105mm and 40mm DG designs.

It will be mostly on a case by case basis. For anything wider than 28mm I suspect the contemporary DN f/2 primes may be a lot sharper, at least going off TDP. I like f/1.4 glass but sharper f/2 at f/2 and onwards definitely wins it for me. You will be happy with their size too. They are one of the primary reason why I'm looking at E mount

In my case I view 35mm f/1.2 as pretty unique offering, which I may really want at some point. My Tamron is also excellent, but "only" f/1.4 :LOL:

In case of 50 and 85mm DN vs DG this really needs to be looked at really deeply, and also whether it is a waste of time upgrading in light of f/1.2 optics from either of the big three.

In case of zooms I can really see there being a massive headroom for improvement going from DSLR to newest mirrorless designs.


You hit the head on the nail. Sony managed to make the worst of both worlds in one package. The sculpting of the back is ridiculous and the height is a huge [well tiny] problem. They could only make it worse by adding sharp edges.

Having said that, purely on tripod it may be good enough compromise for the wholly inadequate AF (for 50MP sensor), screen and DR of 5Ds, with the added benefit of no AA, extra 10MP and that high res composite mode. It is a compromise, an extension, maybe temporary one, and as such I don't plan to be irrevocably locked into the system.



I think marketing language aside you simply can't polish you know what. It may be good enough... maybe for a good while at least. It will creak in hand, vibrate on tripod more (R6 surely does that a lot), age quicker and eventually something will break.
This engineering plastic just gave me a massive headache with vax portable vacuum. Sure I could try to buy a replacement part, but a that's just poor. So I am basically gluing it all up with super glue + NaHCO3 + coal. I see this in older laptops too.. It just doesn't stand the test of time past the initial honeymoon period. Bare minimum it scratches easily, attracts bacteria in the crevasses [so no plastic tupperware allowed near me!!!!] and of course it pollutes the environment. Eventually most of it will end up in the sea unless something changes in the big way.


Brass and stainless steal are pretty heavy. But I don't think we are talking about these at all, maybe except the core helicoid of a lens, etc.

Engineering grade aluminium is hardly noticeably heavier than plastic, of which you may simply need a much more. https://www.metals4u.co.uk/blog/a-guide-to-aluminium-grades-and-their-uses
For the prices they should really give us type 7000.
Premium laptops typically use one of the grades and I haven't heard anyone complain they would prefer plastic. quite the opposite.

But that is not all. titanium is premium, super strong and very lightweight. I have titanium watch and that is super light. I love it. Iphones now come with titanium shell and bezel. I think that is great. Probably the only good thing about them actually. So yes, you can have lightweight and metal as proved in the aeronautics industry. Planes are not plastic.

So why the hell can't camera manufacturers give us alu 7000 let alone titanium in at least the super premium £4-6k cameras like R5, Z8 and A7R series instead of cheap polluting plastic more suited for entry level offerings. At the same time I am sick of that rubber handgrip when they could easily give us premium leather. That is really p***-taking. They want max profit today and min durability. They don't want anything to last past 2-3 year term. And that is super sick.
Which bit of places aren't plastic. Totally depends on the plane, lots of plastic on planes and its increasing all the time.
I don't get the fascination with titanium it isn't as premium as you seem to think it is. It is however very good at very specific things.
Apple for instance got it wrong, it's not good for phones primarily because it's not a good thermal conductor, it's also extremely rigid hence the glass now breaking.
Plastics are excellent for such a wide variety of things.
 
Which bit of places aren't plastic. Totally depends on the plane, lots of plastic on planes and its increasing all the time.
I don't get the fascination with titanium it isn't as premium as you seem to think it is. It is however very good at very specific things.
Apple for instance got it wrong, it's not good for phones primarily because it's not a good thermal conductor, it's also extremely rigid hence the glass now breaking.
Plastics are excellent for such a wide variety of things.
I have never heard of or read any serious reports of a camera or lens breaking just because it was plastic or that being a problem in real would usage.

Having said that if there is metal that be just as light and just as durable then I think it could be better than producing yet more plastic which really isn't for the environment.

Having said all that it seems most Sony FF bodies are made of metal these days. It's magnesium alloy. I contacted a Sony rep and they confirm that it's mostly metal inside.
The A7IV is more plastic than metal. But I probably have preferred it to the A1/A7riv I had before it because it's lighter.
But A7cii is metal... Wonder how much lighter it'd be with plastic.
 
Last edited:
"Plastic" encompasses a wide range of materials.

Over 40 years ago when I was an industrial electrician some kit was made of plastic which was extremely tough. You could sit and hit it with a hammer all day long and you'd break before it did. I imagine even better "plastics" exist today.

When criticising plastic we have to be clear on the type and use and environment.
 
Not saying all my gear. My D500 went back to Nikon, fixed. A friend's A7m3 rubbish compared to mine hence (Sharp) and another friends A9mk1 rubbish, even after two trips back to Sony. Plus in my opinion, a lot of people are unaware they've got a crap camera.
I don't know what's going on there, it all seems very strange. There's far far less 'sample variation' with cameras than with lenses especially with mirrorless and on sensor AF systems. Sometimes DSLRs did have subtle AF module alignment issue meaning that it would focus more accurately (sharper) on some AF points than others, but again it's not common (although I had it with a D750). I've not personally heard or read about any such issues with mirrorless. I certainly wouldn't avoid buying any mirrorless camera through 'fear' of getting a bad copy.
 
Back
Top