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

woof woof said:
Thanks you two.

Yup, I'll view it as an experience and holiday and any lights will be a bonus. Mrs WW is non committal at the moment as the only cold she's known has been whilst in the UK and she doesn't really like it so although she might say Yes to a trip up North she might say it grudgingly and be a pain (lovely but a pain) when there. The coldest I've been in was Kazakhstan and that was no problem for me but Mrs WW... I don't know.
Click to expand...

unfortunately Nortern light season runs when its cold.
the main Aurora season end late March and starts late September. You could pick these ends for a slightly warmer time.
The aurora excursions do run to early-mid April and starts as early as late August of beginning of September in some places.
But I would avoid these as day light hours are still longer than night time hours, so you get less time aurora hunting while its still possible to see them during this time.

We visited Iceland in May-June last year. We saw the midnight sun. That was pretty cool too but it was still cold. So there is really no getting away from the cold.
We invested in some very nice set jackets (set up down around £300 between the pair of us) - https://haukland.de/en-eu/collections/all
Missus' sister lives in EU so it was easy for us to source it and its very warm and functional. They running offers again, worth the money.

you can watch a mini-review from Chris in this video as part of his OM shooting:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU-yTnBdrUs&t=10s
 
nandbytes said:
unfortunately Nortern light season runs when its cold...
Click to expand...

She's distracted by the cruise and trip to Thailand now so I'll talk to her about a trip to Norway when we're back from Thailand. I want to be sure she really understands that it'll be colder then the UK while we are not in a nice warm cabin. It's something I've always wanted to do but the thought that it might not nbe much to look at by eye and might be down to luck puts me off a bit.
 
It stopped raining and the sun came out so we walked to the shops but first she couldn't wait to open a prezzie. I'd taped it up thoroughly before finishing off with gift wrap paper, just to annoy her.

1-DSC01441.jpg

I thought I'd try one of gthose 2.32:1 crops. Just for fun.

1-DSC01449.jpg

Meh :D

Both A7cII and 40mm f2.5.
 
Last edited:
Tamron coming out with 35-100mm f2.8

Full leaked image of the new Tamron 35-100mm f/2.8 FE lens | sonyalpharumors

This is the first leaked image of the new Tamron 35-100mm F/2.8 Di III VXD lens. The E-mount version is 119.2 mm long and weighs 565 g. Price is around $900 and shipment start late March. - via Howtofly
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Could be a nice pair to with 16-35mm f2.8 i guess compared to the usual 24-70mm f2.8
 
nandbytes said:
Are you going to the north to the arctic regions?
It is pretty expensive and something we've always dreamed of doing ourselves. Hopefully once kids are out the house, though that's like 20 years away :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Well we're not going now because of the expense. We both have big birthdays next year so were wanting to do something special, number one is a Safari but that's twice as expensive as we were expecting, likewise the Norwegian Fjords are twice as much as I was expecting. We can't afford to do both so we're trying to find a safari within budget.
Ideally we wanted to do some of the more Southern FJords which are the most scenic, and some (especially Geirangerfjord) the stereotypical viking type fjords, and then go up north for the Nothern Lights. However, initially we couldn't find a cruise that went up to the arctic circle and did the picturesque Fjords as the ones that go up North just go on the coast of Norway. Of course, you can then take excursions into the scenic Fjords as @Mr Perceptive says. So, unless we wanted to do excursions it was either picturesque fjords or arctic circle.

However, after days of searching I found one cruise that did the more southern fjords (including Geirangerfjord) and went up to the arctic circle BUT it's silly money and only runs in the summer, which is obviously pointless if you want to see the northern lights.

We will revisit looking at doing the Fjords some other time, and we might do 2 separate trips, one for the southern fjords and one for the northern lights. Hurtigruten have some cruises that have a northern lights promise that if you don't see the northern lights on the cruise you get another cruise free. There are some disclaimers though so how good the promise is I don't know.

@woof woof I took this near me in 2024, the difference between what I could see with the naked eye and what the camera saw was night and day different. It's something to do with the human eye using rod cells rather than cone cells in low light, and rod cells don't detect colour. I do know some people have seen some that look vivid with the naked eye, however I would guess (although don't know) that some people will be more 'succeptible' to them than others :thinking:


A7R01482-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
@woof woof I took this near me in 2024, the difference between what I could see with the naked eye and what the camera saw was night and day different. It's something to do with the human eye using rod cells rather than cone cells in low light, and rod cells don't detect colour. I do know some people have seen some that look vivid with the naked eye, however I would guess (although don't know) that some people will be more 'succeptible' to them than others :thinking:
Click to expand...

This is what worries me. I don't know if a Norwegian cruise appeals to me all that much without the lights and I don't think I'm really interested making an image which is pretty far removed from the scene I see by eye. I know it's not certain that the lights will be visible, it's just chance I suppose. I'll have a think.
 
snerkler said:
Well we're not going now because of the expense. We both have big birthdays next year so were wanting to do something special, number one is a Safari but that's twice as expensive as we were expecting, likewise the Norwegian Fjords are twice as much as I was expecting. We can't afford to do both so we're trying to find a safari within budget.
Ideally we wanted to do some of the more Southern FJords which are the most scenic, and some (especially Geirangerfjord) the stereotypical viking type fjords, and then go up north for the Nothern Lights. However, initially we couldn't find a cruise that went up to the arctic circle and did the picturesque Fjords as the ones that go up North just go on the coast of Norway. Of course, you can then take excursions into the scenic Fjords as @Mr Perceptive says. So, unless we wanted to do excursions it was either picturesque fjords or arctic circle.

However, after days of searching I found one cruise that did the more southern fjords (including Geirangerfjord) and went up to the arctic circle BUT it's silly money and only runs in the summer, which is obviously pointless if you want to see the northern lights.

We will revisit looking at doing the Fjords some other time, and we might do 2 separate trips, one for the southern fjords and one for the northern lights. Hurtigruten have some cruises that have a northern lights promise that if you don't see the northern lights on the cruise you get another cruise free. There are some disclaimers though so how good the promise is I don't know.

@woof woof I took this near me in 2024, the difference between what I could see with the naked eye and what the camera saw was night and day different. It's something to do with the human eye using rod cells rather than cone cells in low light, and rod cells don't detect colour. I do know some people have seen some that look vivid with the naked eye, however I would guess (although don't know) that some people will be more 'succeptible' to them than others :thinking:


A7R01482-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Well northern lights is one half of the story the other part is the midnight sun which you can only see in June and around arctic region.

Both require clear skies though
Midnight sunset from Iceland last year :D

55078656803_9efd1e20d3_b.jpg


55078456806_e95b3ec8a4_b.jpg
 
woof woof said:
This is what worries me. I don't know if a Norwegian cruise appeals to me all that much without the lights and I don't think I'm really interested making an image which is pretty far removed from the scene I see by eye. I know it's not certain that the lights will be visible, it's just chance I suppose. I'll have a think.
Click to expand...

A lot of photography is capturing things you can't see by eye - macros, long lenses, planets, stars and list goes on.
Even sunstar in my photo above isn't viable to eyes, just an artefact of optical design in conjunction with aperture.

at infinity eyes focal length is 17-20mm and at closer focus 40-50mm.
All other focal lengths aren't things your eyes can see, and definitely not the f1.2 bokeh of your Voigtlander lens;)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Well northern lights is one half of the story the other part is the midnight sun which you can only see in June and around arctic region.

Both require clear skies though
Midnight sunset from Iceland last year :D

55078656803_9efd1e20d3_b.jpg


55078456806_e95b3ec8a4_b.jpg
Click to expand...
Spectacular (y)
 
nandbytes said:
A lot of photography is capturing things you can't see by eye - macros, long lenses, planets, stars and list goes on.
Even sunstar in my photo above isn't viable to eyes, just an artefact of optical design in conjunction with aperture.

at infinity eyes focal length is 17-20mm and at closer focus 40-50mm.
All other focal lengths aren't things your eyes can see, and definitely not the f1.2 bokeh of your Voigtlander lens;)
Click to expand...

I suppose and I have taken some long exposure sea shots lately but the thought of not seeing the lights by eye but seeing them in the photo just doesn't appeal to me much. As you point out there'll be more to the trip than just the lights but just recently I have been going off the idea I've had for years of going on a cruise to see the lights because as I've read and watched recently they're not always there when you are and sometimes they're really not visible by eye. I'll have a think about it over the coming year and talk to Mrs when we get this years holidays and Christmas over with.

Just on eyes. Yes we have a wide FoV but much of it is pretty lacking in detail and is really just for detecting movement with only the central bit being sharp. A bit like some film era lenses.
 
woof woof said:
I suppose and I have taken some long exposure sea shots lately but the thought of not seeing the lights by eye but seeing them in the photo just doesn't appeal to me much. As you point out there'll be more to the trip than just the lights but just recently I have been going off the idea I've had for years of going on a cruise to see the lights because as I've read and watched recently they're not always there when you are and sometimes they're really not visible by eye. I'll have a think about it over the coming year and talk to Mrs when we get this years holidays and Christmas over with.

Just on eyes. Yes we have a wide FoV but much of it is pretty lacking in detail and is really just for detecting movement with only the central bit being sharp. A bit like some film era lenses.
Click to expand...

Normally speaking when you can't see by the eye the photos don't come out great either and when you can see something by eye photos are much better.

And in the cases where you haven't seen much by eyes a lot of the local aurora hunters will give you a second night at a discounted price to try again with them.

You can basically assume your eyes is about one level behind what your camera can capture.

It's a bit like sex, what you may have seen online isn't realistic but doesn't mean you should avoid it all together, it's still great :ROFLMAO:
 
nandbytes said:
Normally speaking when you can't see by the eye the photos don't come out great either and when you can see something by eye photos are much better.

And in the cases where you haven't seen much by eyes a lot of the local aurora hunters will give you a second night at a discounted price to try again with them.

You can basically assume your eyes is about one level behind what your camera can capture.

It's a bit like sex, what you may have seen online isn't realistic but doesn't mean you should avoid it all together, it's still great :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

It might be just the mood I'm in, I'm maybe just disappointed by some of the stuff I've read and watched recently about the lights when you're there not looking like the vivid end result. I have a year to think about it.
 
woof woof said:
It might be just the mood I'm in, I'm maybe just disappointed by some of the stuff I've read and watched recently about the lights when you're there not looking like the vivid end result. I have a year to think about it.
Click to expand...
It's still magical, and I would have thought those in the arctic and darker skies would be more vivid than I saw. You just have to accept they're not as vivid as what you see on photos (y)
 
I've bought something :D It arrived yesterday :D There was no note through the door though and they just left the parcel in a plant pot round the back, luckily Mrs WW spotted it when she went out to put something in the bin.

Hopefully I'll get to use it soon :D but we're back to normal with the poor weather and light now after a few hours of sunshine yesterday.
 
Last edited:
A new AF 50mm f1.2.

phillipreeve.net

Review: Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit - phillipreeve.net

The Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit is an interesting first entry by a new lens manufacturer from China, is it too ambitious or actually a viable
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

"I saved the most important aspect for last: I think this lens creates great bokeh with smoother transitions and backgrounds than the Sony FE 50mm 1.2 GM (and probably also the Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN Art I still have to review)."
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
A new AF 50mm f1.2.

phillipreeve.net

Review: Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit - phillipreeve.net

The Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit is an interesting first entry by a new lens manufacturer from China, is it too ambitious or actually a viable
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

"I saved the most important aspect for last: I think this lens creates great bokeh with smoother transitions and backgrounds than the Sony FE 50mm 1.2 GM (and probably also the Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN Art I still have to review)."
Click to expand...
Looks a very nice lens, if you don't need the best AF.
 
woof woof said:
A new AF 50mm f1.2.

phillipreeve.net

Review: Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit - phillipreeve.net

The Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit is an interesting first entry by a new lens manufacturer from China, is it too ambitious or actually a viable
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

"I saved the most important aspect for last: I think this lens creates great bokeh with smoother transitions and backgrounds than the Sony FE 50mm 1.2 GM (and probably also the Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN Art I still have to review)."
Click to expand...

The bokeh and rendering from my Samyang lenses is nicer than the Sony f1.2, but the AF is extraordinarily good and sharpness/detail across the frame excellent.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The bokeh and rendering from my Samyang lenses is nicer than the Sony f1.2, but the AF is extraordinarily good and sharpness/detail across the frame excellent.
Click to expand...
I prefer the less cat eye edge bokeh of the Samyang 50mm FE II but I think the GM is softer and creamier, even at f1.4. I used to think the Samyang had more pop/3D but I think it's to do with the vignette, if I add a similar vignette to the GM they're very close in this regard. For the price though you can't beat the Sammy, I still sometimes wonder if the upgrade to the GM f1.2 was worth it for my uses, but I have to remind myself how reliable the AF is on the GM.
 
snerkler said:
I prefer the less cat eye edge bokeh of the Samyang 50mm FE II but I think the GM is softer and creamier, even at f1.4. I used to think the Samyang had more pop/3D but I think it's to do with the vignette, if I add a similar vignette to the GM they're very close in this regard. For the price though you can't beat the Sammy, I still sometimes wonder if the upgrade to the GM f1.2 was worth it for my uses, but I have to remind myself how reliable the AF is on the GM.
Click to expand...

I did prefer the bokeh and general rendering of the Sammy 50 f1.4, but it lacks in every other way over the GM 1.2, which in sony style, renders a little hard for me.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I did prefer the bokeh and general rendering of the Sammy 50 f1.4, but it lacks in every other way over the GM 1.2, which in sony style, renders a little hard for me.
Click to expand...
Probably not as easy to tell with the viewing sizes on here, but the GM f1.2 definitely looks to have creamier bokeh to me, definitely at f1.2 but even at f1.4 the GM OOF areas look softer.


A1_02407-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02411 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02412 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
TomB said:
So took my new (to me) A7RIII out on a whim for it's first spin after dark this evening. I'd had two glasses of wine but was itching to use it, so walked a mile or so down to some rocks overlooking Falmouth Bay. Turns out trying to learn a new camera in the pitch black while mildly sozzled isn't entirely straightforward. Plus I was getting frustrated with the light polution from Falmouth. Really red light polution... and what's that weird green cloud? Oh heck! Cue collapsing tripods, a desperate desire for a remote shutter release and some impromptu light painting. First photos for 10 years, haha!

View attachment 472894

View attachment 472895

View attachment 472896
Click to expand...
Like that a lot gives me hope for my a7v when it arrives
 
snerkler said:
Probably not as easy to tell with the viewing sizes on here, but the GM f1.2 definitely looks to have creamier bokeh to me, definitely at f1.2 but even at f1.4 the GM OOF areas look softer.


A1_02407-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02411 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02412 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

can't pick one tbh from these pictures. the differences aren't great enough for me to say I really prefer one or the other I'd be happy with either bokeh wise

snerkler said:
This is what really swayed it for me, granted this is compared to the 35mm GM but the 50mm GM is just as sharp


Screenshot 2023-06-03 at 20.26.52 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Sharpness wise no contest with the GM. The 35GM is also sharper than my siggy 35/1.2ii. they are certainly very sharp lenses.
 
ancient_mariner said:
On the phone, I do prefer the Sammy, though can't say why exactly. At f1.4 the Sony looks crisper.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What's odd is the grass looks cooler on the Sammy but the shoe warmer, particularly if you look at the white of the laces :thinking:
 
nandbytes said:
can't pick one tbh from these pictures. the differences aren't great enough for me to say I really prefer one or the other I'd be happy with either bokeh wise



Sharpness wise no contest with the GM. The 35GM is also sharper than my siggy 35/1.2ii. they are certainly very sharp lenses.
Click to expand...
I can't decide between the two in terms of rendering either, which shows just how good the Sammy is. When the Samyang nails the AF the sharpness is also comparible imo.


Screenshot 2026-02-18 at 12.41.25 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I can't decide between the two in terms of rendering either, which shows just how good the Sammy is. When the Samyang nails the AF the sharpness is also comparible imo.
Click to expand...

Yours is the MkII ian't it? IIRC a bit sharper & better focusing than the MkI.
 
I've been watching the 24-70mm GM II prices on Cotswolds and Panamoz for some time, however I've just gone onto Cotswolds and it's no longer showing, and Panamoz price have gone up £200. In fact Cotswolds no longer have any Sony lenses, just third party ones for FE. Also out of curiosity I've checked e-infinity and they don't have it listed either. Have Sony clamped down on grey market and we can no longer buy gear that way? :(

That really affects future purchases for me if that's the case :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
I've been watching the 24-70mm GM II prices on Cotswolds and Panamoz for some time, however I've just gone onto Cotswolds and it's no longer showing, and Panamoz price have gone up £200. In fact Cotswolds no longer have any Sony lenses, just third party ones for FE. Also out of curiosity I've checked e-infinity and they don't have it listed either. Have Sony clamped down on grey market and we can no longer buy gear that way? :(

That really affects future purchases for me if that's the case :oops: :$
Click to expand...
I received a Sony 70-200 MKII from Cotswold yesterday. As you say, no longer listed. Phew. :D
 
snerkler said:
I've been watching the 24-70mm GM II prices on Cotswolds and Panamoz for some time, however I've just gone onto Cotswolds and it's no longer showing, and Panamoz price have gone up £200. In fact Cotswolds no longer have any Sony lenses, just third party ones for FE. Also out of curiosity I've checked e-infinity and they don't have it listed either. Have Sony clamped down on grey market and we can no longer buy gear that way? :(

That really affects future purchases for me if that's the case :oops: :$
Click to expand...
Do you currently have a 24-70 type lens?
I’ve been considering buying the a7v with the 24-70gmii, but not sure the 800 ish it would cost me to change from the tamron 28-75 ish worth it
 
pmac said:
Do you currently have a 24-70 type lens?
I’ve been considering buying the a7v with the 24-70gmii, but not sure the 800 ish it would cost me to change from the tamron 28-75 ish worth it
Click to expand...
I have the 20-70mm but I was looking at getting the 24-70mm GM II for studio portraits rather than swapping primes all the time. I tried the 20-70mm at the last one I did but hit rate was down compared to my primes, I would hope the 24-70mm GM II would be better than the 20-70mm in this regard.
 
pmac said:
Never heard of them until now!
Decent to deal with? May be happier to Josh the extra 100 on a body and buy with panamoz
Click to expand...

Only dealt with them once but yeah no problems at all. Ordered 3 items which arrived about a week later, kept 2 and returned 1 with no fuss whatsoever.
 
Any room for a small one in the corner!

Not my original plan I had in my head, but I have ended up becoming a Sony user again. I sold off my Nikon Z8 & ZF and a load of lenses as I had an itch for a Leica Q3 and a smaller system for traveling and wildlife, which is my favourite genre of photography.

So initially I bought for travelling an Olympus OM1ii with the 12-40mm & 40-150mm f2.8 lenses along with a 1.4TC. Unfortunately the 12-40mm lens failed to AF after about 10 days and it put me off the system so I returned the Olympus gear for a refund.

I then decided on a A6700 with kit lens and added a SmallRig base plate to the camera as it felt a tad too small for my hands. I then tried the Q3 and it just didn't feel as comfortable as I remembered it, when my diabetes eye photographer who had one and let me have a play with the camera. I then picked up the A7R5 and that camera felt a lot better in my hands so I purchased one.

So I have gone to start me off.

A7R5
Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 lens
Voigtlander 28mm F2 APO lens (I had the 35mm & 50mm APO lenses on my Nikon Z system)
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 ART lens which is the lighter version 2 of the lens.

A6700
Sony 16-50mm Kit lens
Sony 70-350mm G lens
Sigma 500mm f5.6 prime lens.

With the A6700 I'm probably going to buy a wider angle lens for travelling, so any thoughts what works great with the camera from 10/11mm >18/20mm ranges from Sony, Sigma or Tamron. My initial look at reviews seems to say the Sony 10-20mm f4 G lens is very good. Any users using this lens and thoughts please?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top