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

Like I've been saying for what seems like... forever... Sony are aiming to be at the higher end of the market. Whether they achieve this or not build or image quality wise is another matter... but at the moment they're pricing what they see as quality products towards the top of the market and whilst they continue to sell all they make they'll probably continue to which is sad for buyers who want DSLR prices but at least this isn't Leica kit.
 
woof woof said:
Like I've been saying for what seems like... forever... Sony are aiming to be at the higher end of the market. Whether they achieve this or not build or image quality wise is another matter... but at the moment they're pricing what they see as quality products towards the top of the market and whilst they continue to sell all they make they'll probably continue to which is sad for buyers who want DSLR prices but at least this isn't Leica kit.
Click to expand...

I know it's be done on here before. But - I just think 3k is taking it too far. 70-200 2.8 must be one of the biggest sellers for both Nikon and canon. It's not a cheap lens but it's not an elite unaffordable one either. Surely at 3k Sony can't think that this will fly off the shelves and land in the kit bag of every a7x owner? This price will alienate the majority of a7x owners and possibly make them look elsewhere.

It would be interesting to know who from this thread intends to buy one.
 
addicknchips said:
I know it's be done on here before. But - I just think 3k is taking it too far. 70-200 2.8 must be one of the biggest sellers for both Nikon and canon. It's not a cheap lens but it's not an elite unaffordable one either. Surely at 3k Sony can't think that this will fly off the shelves and land in the kit bag of every a7x owner? This price will alienate the majority of a7x owners and possibly make them look elsewhere.

It would be interesting to know who from this thread intends to buy one.
Click to expand...

It'll come as no surprise to you that I have no plans to buy one.
 
addicknchips said:
I know it's be done on here before. But - I just think 3k is taking it too far. 70-200 2.8 must be one of the biggest sellers for both Nikon and canon. It's not a cheap lens but it's not an elite unaffordable one either. Surely at 3k Sony can't think that this will fly off the shelves and land in the kit bag of every a7x owner? This price will alienate the majority of a7x owners and possibly make them look elsewhere.

It would be interesting to know who from this thread intends to buy one.
Click to expand...
Not me.
 
twist said:
I knew I'd be out when Sony started the massive price increases with the a7rii.
Click to expand...

But that camera is reasonably priced for what it is.

I think one problem is that Sony have the market to themselves, pretty much, as if you want a ff csc with AF your choices are... Sony or Leica and in that company Sony are the budget choice. Actually I think that the A7 series bodies are well priced including tha A7rII and the problem is with the lenses but this is like saying there's a problem with Lexus because you can get a Toyota for a fraction of the price. Yes, you can and the cheaper option may be the better product but what you're paying for with the more upmarket product is the supposed better quality, real or not.

If FF isn't a requirement you can go Fuji, Sony, Panasonic or Olympus (have I missed anyone) but none are FF and all have their little or larger issues.

Of course there's also the DSLR option but that way come more issues such as falling Nikon quality and worries if they'll stay in business and Canon's creeping averageness.

Anyway, when I fancied a f2.8 zoom I went for a Panasonic G7 and 12-35mm and IMO the results are very good at a fraction of the cost and at a fraction of the bulk of the Sony.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
But that camera is reasonably priced for what it is.

I think one problem is that Sony have the market to themselves, pretty much, as if you want a ff csc with AF your choices are... Sony or Leica and in that company Sony are the budget choice. Actually I think that the A7 series bodies are well priced including tha A7rII and the problem is with the lenses but this is like saying there's a problem with Lexus because you can get a Toyota for a fraction of the price. Yes, you can and the cheaper option may be the better product but what you're paying for with the more upmarket product is the supposed better quality, real or not.

If FF isn't a requirement you can go Fuji, Sony, Panasonic or Olympus (have I missed anyone) but none are FF and all have their little or larger issues.

Of course there's also the DSLR option but that way come more issues such as falling Nikon quality and worries if they'll stay in business and Canon's creeping averageness.

Anyway, when I fancied a f2.8 zoom I went for a Panasonic G7 and 12-35mm and IMO the results are very good at a fraction of the cost and at a fraction of the bulk of the Sony.
Click to expand...

Yup, that is the problem, but Sony's other a7 cameras are reasonably priced even vs DSLRs the a7rii is ridiculously expensive IMO.

Yes, supposed better quality, I read that Sony want to push prices up and have longer release dates to try make the cameras more valuable and build a better user base.... Hmmmm, interesting concept when trying to win market share. Out price the competition you're trying to take users from.

Nikon's not going anywhere they are selling way more cameras than anyone except canon. Sony hasn't proven themselves as a long term investment, look at A mount, its a joke. Let's hope for better things.

Smaller sensors can have some significant advantages.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I dont think it is, I still think it'll be 2250-2500.
Click to expand...

That's what I think it will be. And it will sell well at that price point I think (nearer the lower price).

Most Sony FE lenses cost more than the Canikon equivalent, but usually no more extra than the cost of a Metabones adapter. I'm sure this is a coincidence ;)

As someone who is extremely happy with the A7ii, and someone who doesn't buy every lens available, I'm happy to pay a little extra to get the native glass. I have no need for f2.8 glass anyway, but if I was shooting weddings etc using the Sony, I wouldn't pay an extra £1500 on top of the Canon IS ii. I mean, how often do people complain about that lens?

My point is, very few would pay such a daft amount. This is Jessops click bait IMO.
 
twist said:
Yup, that is the problem, but Sony's other a7 cameras are reasonably priced even vs DSLRs the a7rii is ridiculously expensive IMO.

Yes, supposed better quality, I read that Sony want to push prices up and have longer release dates to try make the cameras more valuable and build a better user base.... Hmmmm, interesting concept when trying to win market share. Out price the competition you're trying to take users from.

Nikon's not going anywhere they are selling way more cameras than anyone except canon. Sony hasn't proven themselves as a long term investment, look at A mount, its a joke. Let's hope for better things.

Smaller sensors can have some significant advantages.
Click to expand...
Nikon are in the do do but what this means for their future I don't know.

Why do you think the A7rII is ridiculously expensive?

AFAIK there are only two cameras with more res, they're both more expensive, neither are backlit, they don't have IBIS and the image quality isn't as good... so some say. Maybe there's a Nikon with the same res (I don't know) but if there is it wont have IBIS or be backlit, is it? and it'll be a DSLR not a CSC.
 
I was happy with the price I paid for the a7rii. £2k grey a couple of months after release. It ticks most of the boxes for me. Apart from the horrible shutter noise and that it doesn't look like a Fuji. :)
 
woof woof said:
Nikon are in the do do but what this means for their future I don't know.

Why do you think the A7rII is ridiculously expensive?

AFAIK there are only two cameras with more res, they're both more expensive, neither are backlit, they don't have IBIS and the image quality isn't as good... so some say. Maybe there's a Nikon with the same res (I don't know) but if there is it wont have IBIS or be backlit, is it? and it'll be a DSLR not a CSC.
Click to expand...

Sony could and would drop their userbase, they have proven that once already. How long has Nikon been around and kept the same mount.

They don't have to be backlit, that hasn't really proven much tbh as its really only noticeable with much smaller sensors and larger sensors at isos nobody use. Ibis? Canikon have stabilised lenses, which is better. They are DSLRs but they are the direct competition, have better AF, are faster, bigger buffer, better battery life, have a much bigger support network, better build and weather sealing, have many more lenses accessories and 3rd party support. As a system they are well catered for. The difference between 36 and 42mp is miniscule.... Finally they are cheaper unless you missed that price comparison for a fairly standard setup.

I know youre happy with the a7 because it works for you and a lot of others would be but its hard to ignore the pros and cons at the price point. If Sony was really trying to do some damage they'd lower their prices. Tbh it doesn't matter, we've done this chat before. I love mirrorless but I know the pros and cons of all the systems I've used, I'm confident they will replace DSLRs one day though.
 
Last edited:
addicknchips said:
I was happy with the price I paid for the a7rii. £2k grey a couple of months after release. It ticks most of the boxes for me. Apart from the horrible shutter noise and that it doesn't look like a Fuji. :)
Click to expand...

What you mean doesn't look like a Fuji lol you mean ugly lol
 
twist said:
Sony could and would drop their userbase, they have proven that once already. How long has Nikon been around and kept the same mount.

They don't have to be backlit, that hasn't really proven much tbh as its really only noticeable with much smaller sensors and larger sensors at isos nobody use. Ibis? Canikon have stabilised lenses, which is better. They are DSLRs but they are the direct competition, have better AF, are faster, bigger buffer, better battery life, have a much bigger support network, better build and weather sealing, have many more lenses accessories and 3rd party support. As a system they are well catered for. The difference between 36 and 42mp is miniscule.... Finally they are cheaper unless you missed that price comparison for a fairly standard setup.

I know youre happy with the a7 because it works for you and a lot of others would be but its hard to ignore the pros and cons at the price point. If Sony was really trying to do some damage they'd lower their prices. Tbh it doesn't matter, we've done this chat before. I love mirrorless but I know the pros and cons of all the systems I've used, I'm confident they will replace DSLRs one day though.
Click to expand...

I don't fully get your argument but I do sort of get your general drift but part of the problem is you aren't being specific enough or we're doing apples and oranges.

Yes, 36 and 42 = miniscule until you have to make the things and squeeze the right IQ out of it and then it's not so miniscule. It's like saying that the difference between a 3m59 sec mile and a 3m50sec mile is miniscule. From your armchair, maybe, but just remind me how much the other greater than 36mp sensor cameras cost?

Ditto your comments on focus and IS. I don't believe that any DSLR can match the focus accuracy and consistance of any of my csc's for the shooting I do but for people who need speed or ultimate tracking a few missed shots here and there and the odd week or two trying to MA lenses is a non issue... and show me a DSLR which will give every lens IS please :D

It's about choice.

Ref dropping users. Remind me how well Nikon are supporting their csc users and tell me how much effort they've put in to building a quality aps-c lens line up. And of course Canon has never dropped a mount :D
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Nope still looking at option. Why pal so you now saying it ugly lol you still liking your xt1?
Click to expand...

I love the X-t1. Lots about it appeals to me and I might even buy another lens to see how it performs. Some things I don't like about it also. I won't go into it all here as this is a Sony thread.

I love the images from the Sony sensor and the Zeiss 55 is probably the best lens I've ever used.
Love the ibis- especially paired with oss.
I love that I have Zeiss glass with af and excellent eye af.

I don't like look of the camera. I dislike the sound of the shutter. It sounds like a toy. I don't like the lack of firmware updates.
 
woof woof said:
I don't fully get your argument but I do sort of get your general drift but part of the problem is you aren't being specific enough or we're doing apples and oranges.

Yes, 36 and 42 = miniscule until you have to make the things and squeeze the right IQ out of it and then it's not so miniscule. It's like saying that the difference between a 3m59 sec mile and a 3m50sec mile is miniscule. From your armchair, maybe, but just remind me how much the other greater than 36mp sensor cameras cost?

Ditto your comments on focus and IS. I don't believe that any DSLR can match the focus accuracy and consistance of any of my csc's for the shooting I do but for people who need speed or ultimate tracking a few missed shots here and there and the odd week or two trying to MA lenses is a none issue... and show me a DSLR which will give every lens IS please :D

It's about choice.

Ref dropping users. Remind me how well Nikon are supporting their csc users and tell me how much effort they've put in to building a quality aps-c lens line up. And of course Canon has never dropped a mount :D
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you that in a sequence of x amount of shots at caf in x amount of time my hit rate on a moving subject would be way higher with a DSLR than CSC. So my accuracy overall is better. If I were taking my time shooting static subjects in good light then the csc is better. Different scenarios. It takes 5 mins to MA a lens.

The 5ds is a hundred quid more but it offers a better package.... Work out package costs, its an interchangeable after all.

There are very few people that will need that fraction larger image. If they did they'd just buy the 50mp camera and go to that next step.

IS with every lens is decent but its not a dealbreaker IMO, perhaps because we shoot very differently. For video though its awesome.

Nikon apsc users can use all the DX and all the fx lenses because they share the same mount, then there's the large 3rd party support, they are well covered. Let's not look at Sony's hopeless apsc lineup.

Nikon 1 is a joke lol.
 
Last edited:
addicknchips said:
I love the X-t1. Lots about it appeals to me and I might even buy another lens to see how it performs. Some things I don't like about it also. I won't go into it all here as this is a Sony thread.

I love the images from the Sony sensor and the Zeiss 55 is probably the best lens I've ever used.
Love the ibis- especially paired with oss.
I love that I have Zeiss glass with af and excellent eye af.

I don't like look of the camera. I dislike the sound of the shutter. It sounds like a toy. I don't like the lack of firmware updates.
Click to expand...

Yup, problems with all cameras, we need to find which has the least problems for us as an individual.
 
Anyone here with the 24-240 lens
 
How many megapixels? How good does the glass have to be? How many is enough?


It seems lenses are more important to me than the camera body. I'd be happy with a used body, though I did splash out on a new A7mk2 to start even though I thought it too expensive. I'd want a second body and am... waiting. Do I want more than 24mb? I'm not a pro.

Do I want a 70-200 f2.8? Sounds nice, and lenses are where I get really bad GAS, but having used various zooms over the last 3 decades and never enjoyed them as much as primes, I'll pass. They are usually too heavy, and usually of lesser quality.
Just paid the balance for a Trioplan 100mm, so that'll be six (not including my Swarovski drawscope which converts to an 800mm).
Shoot me now.
 
twist said:
I can guarantee you that in a sequence of x amount of shots at caf in x amount of time my hit rate on a moving subject would be way higher with a DSLR than CSC. So my accuracy overall is better. If I were taking my time shooting static subjects in good light then the csc is better. Different scenarios. It takes 5 mins to MA a lens.

The 5ds is a hundred quid more but it offers a better package.... Work out package costs, its an interchangeable after all.

There are very few people that will need that fraction larger image. If they did they'd just buy the 50mp camera and go to that next step.

IS with every lens is decent but its not a dealbreaker IMO, perhaps because we shoot very differently. For video though its awesome.

Nikon apsc users can use all the DX and all the fx lenses because they share the same mount, then there's the large 3rd party support, they are well covered. Let's not look at Sony's hopeless apsc lineup.

Nikon 1 is a joke lol.
Click to expand...

You know Twist, there are times when you're a glass half full kind of guy and others when you're a glass half empty guy. You're like a kid in a sweet shop excitedly shouting about how lovely Midget Gems are and how anyone buying those overpriced Chocolate Limes is barmy.

For a more balanced assessment of where Nikon are and their lack of development of their APS-C line up (a line they once said was their main direction) head on over to Thom Hogan's site as it's easy to find and it's an easy read. Not that I want to criticise Nikon too much as I'll always have a soft spot for them as I shot Nikon for something like 15 years, my point is simply that no manufacturer is perfect and none have unwavering support for every product line. Any one of them will drop or let your system wither and die if they see a better way for them.

I just don't agree with your criticism of the pricing of the A7rII. Yes, it's at the expensive end of the market it's in but looking at the feature set and options it offers it's reasonably priced and further it should be relatively easy to understand the reasoning why it's priced as it is. It simply is not ridiculously expensive if viewed objectively.

I'm sure that for many people one camera or system can be all they'll ever need but for many of us obsessive geeks here it's more likely that we'll see a need for two or more cameras or systems. Lets just pick and choose what's best for each of us and there really is no need, most of the time, to go to extremes or for repeated criticism and hyperbole as just like with other things like cars, hifi or specialist hammers there are few if any truly bad ones but there are bad choices.
 
woof woof said:
You know Twist, there are times when you're a glass half full kind of guy and others when you're a glass half empty guy. You're like a kid in a sweet shop excitedly shouting about how lovely Midget Gems are and how anyone buying those overpriced Chocolate Limes is barmy.

For a more balanced assessment of where Nikon are and their lack of development of their APS-C line up (a line they once said was their main direction) head on over to Thom Hogan's site as it's easy to find and it's an easy read. Not that I want to criticise Nikon too much as I'll always have a soft spot for them as I shot Nikon for something like 15 years, my point is simply that no manufacturer is perfect and none have unwavering support for every product line. Any one of them will drop or let your system wither and die if they see a better way for them.

I just don't agree with your criticism of the pricing of the A7rII. Yes, it's at the expensive end of the market it's in but looking at the feature set and options it offers it's reasonably priced and further it should be relatively easy to understand the reasoning why it's priced as it is. It simply is not ridiculously expensive if viewed objectively.

I'm sure that for many people one camera or system can be all they'll ever need but for many of us obsessive geeks here it's more likely that we'll see a need for two or more cameras or systems. Lets just pick and choose what's best for each of us and there really is no need, most of the time, to go to extremes or for repeated criticism and hyperbole as just like with other things like cars, hifi or specialist hammers there are few if any truly bad ones but there are bad choices.
Click to expand...

Not really, I have my opinions on how I think Sony could improve a very good system and increase sales and youre on the defensive about how everything they do is the best chocolate in the shop and youre often apologetic on their behalf. Ive said no manufacturer or system is perfect so really you are echoing what Ive already said. Yes, any of them can drop a mount but what I said is what history has proven so far. Read the news, Sonys posting some huge losses, so its not only Nikon.

Youve given your argument for why you think its reasonably priced and Ive given you many more reasons why it looks expensive in comparison to other options, thats my opinion I dont care how people interpret the comparisons, they buy what they buy. You dont have to agree and can say I criticise but the facts are plain to see and if you are entitled to your opinion surely I am entitled to mine and you shouldnt have an issue with that.

You often say its the same old discussions, but its discussing new options or rumours. This started with the 70-200 and 24-70 and most here agreed the price is a little silly. Then when you work out that other basic system options are thousands of pounds cheaper and are equal or better in areas the prices could look evan sillier. Everyone is entitled to their choice and opinion and if you dont like whats being discussed then dont bother replying and when the replies come back dont resort to telling people they are criticising and glass half empty etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Wissel said:
What do you know, the 70-200 f2.8 advert on Jessops for £3k has disappeared. What a surprise :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Mmmmm still, even if it's at £2299-2499 that's some price tag.
Hopefully we should get solid UK RRP pricing soon including the TC's.
 
As we know the Sony have IBIS and there some lens is OS built in lens does this make it much better or does one of them get disabled?
 
rookies said:
As we know the Sony have IBIS and there some lens is OS built in lens does this make it much better or does one of them get disabled?
Click to expand...

May be someone with more tests done could answer to your questions.
My observations so far are that if the lens is native SONY - no problem at all to have OSS in the lens on and IBIS in the body on.

With not native lens...sometimes works, sometimes if I turn of the IS on the lens - it turns off the IBIS in the camera as well, which is strange, but...

And to continue the topic and tests with Sigma MC-11:
Tested Sony A7RII + Sigma MC-11 + Canon EF 16-35 F4 L IS a few days in the city.
Some mixed feelings... the focus on the Canon 6D was faster, more consistent and better.
The quality of the Sony A7RII is better, much better.
And for some reason the IS is not working in auto mode, when I set up the IBIS manually for the correct focal lenth it works much better (or just work).
Don't get me wrong - this combo deliver a lot and I am happy - especially for still or not fast moving subjects.

Some examples:

Ace Cafe London by kalpachev1, on Flickr


Ace cafe London May 2016 by kalpachev1, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top