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

I can't say I've had any major dust issues on my A7 bodies.
Always use a dust blower if I spot anything on the sensor.
 
I've changed lenses in gales when I could hardly stand up :D I may be reckless and lucky but dust bunnies don't seem to be a major issue.

Anyway. Just for fun the 50mm f1.8, 55mm f1.8 and 50mm f2.8 macro...



I'm a bit tempted by this lens as I think it'd make a good lens for me when I'm out walking as often I see a nice leaf/flower or something and can't resist snapping and my 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 don't really focus close enough whereas this macro would.

The recessed front and the way it extends reminds me of my Canon 50mm f2.5 which wasn't a true macro but was a nice lens. The Canon was slow to focus and I wonder if the Sony is the same. I managed to Google my way to a focus test on youtube but it was pretty useless as the points of focus weren't far enough apart, I'd really like to a test going from near to far and back. I suppose reviews will come out pretty soon.

Anyone else tempted?
 
woof woof said:
I've changed lenses in gales when I could hardly stand up :D I may be reckless and lucky but dust bunnies don't seem to be a major issue.

Anyway. Just for fun the 50mm f1.8, 55mm f1.8 and 50mm f2.8 macro...



I'm a bit tempted by this lens as I think it'd make a good lens for me when I'm out walking as often I see a nice leaf/flower or something and can't resist snapping and my 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 don't really focus close enough whereas this macro would.

The recessed front and the way it extends reminds me of my Canon 50mm f2.5 which wasn't a true macro but was a nice lens. The Canon was slow to focus and I wonder if the Sony is the same. I managed to Google my way to a focus test on youtube but it was pretty useless as the points of focus weren't far enough apart, I'd really like to a test going from near to far and back. I suppose reviews will come out pretty soon.

Anyone else tempted?
Click to expand...

No, personally would go for the 55 Zeiss. And then get a sigma macro in canon mount via adapter.

I get that the 50 macro will be a multi tasked though.
 
Not one to get my hopes up too high :D .. what could Sony potentially bring out if its not going to be the Sony A9.....

Sony A5300
Sony A7000
Sony A7III

However I do suspect we'll see the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM before the year is out.
 
I've never really been too bothered about AF speed for a macro lens as it doesn't really help when you're shooting really close up but I get that it would be more important if you're using it as a portrait lens too. Maybe you'd be better expecting it to be slow to AF like a lot of macro lenses and if it's faster it's a bonus!

@Rizvan - I'm not sure even Sony would bring out an A7000 so soon after the A6300 so my money is on an A5300 seeing as DigitalRev recently marked the 5100 as discontinued. Not really sure what an A7iii would bring when the 'killer' features are being rumoured for the fabled A9?
 
stevelmx5 said:
I've never really been too bothered about AF speed for a macro lens as it doesn't really help when you're shooting really close up but I get that it would be more important if you're using it as a portrait lens too. Maybe you'd be better expecting it to be slow to AF like a lot of macro lenses and if it's faster it's a bonus!

@Rizvan - I'm not sure even Sony would bring out an A7000 so soon after the A6300 so my money is on an A5300 seeing as DigitalRev recently marked the 5100 as discontinued. Not really sure what an A7iii would bring when the 'killer' features are being rumoured for the fabled A9?
Click to expand...
Yes I think you might be right, as much as I want the Sony A9 to arrive it could well be the A5300 based on it being marked as discontinued. But Sony has also publically said they are going for the mid-high end photography market so the A5300 model could have been discontinued permanently.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Why can't they implement a auto cover of the mirror whenever you dismount the lens?
Click to expand...
I think there was a Sigma DSLR that had a piece of glass in front of the sensor the theory being that it was so far from the sensor that any bunnies on it wouldn't register in pictures. I thought that was quite a good idea.

Have to say that I haven't had too many issues with mirrorless cameras. What I normally do is loosen the end cap of the lens I'm going to fit, turn away from any wind and rain, point the camera down, remove the lens and place it in my bag, pick up the new lens, flick the end cap off and fit the lens. I can't remember a single time bunnies have shown up in my mirrorless camera pictures.
 
Last edited:
Rubiks said:
Well I never knew you could do that. :)
Click to expand...

Check for a crop mode in the menu. I think there is the option for a7r.
There is on the a7rii which knocks it down to 18mp but is a pretty useful feature for adding more reach.
 
addicknchips said:
Ok so you can put it in crop mode and the 50mm turns into a decent portrait lens at 83mm (at the cost of some resolution)
Click to expand...

I always crop in post. Why limit yourself to a tighter frame of view in camera? Doing so in post gives you two useable shots, or maybe an alternate to what you've got in camera. Other than the visual guideline, I see no need to use the crop function, tbh.
 
ohms12 said:
I always crop in post. Why limit yourself to a tighter frame of view in camera? Doing so in post gives you two useable shots, or maybe an alternate to what you've got in camera. Other than the visual guideline, I see no need to use the crop function, tbh.
Click to expand...

I found on the 70-200 it's a good way of addding some reach. It's far from unheard of for people to prefer to use a full frame lens on a crop body to gain extra reach. That extra reach can be the difference between focusing on the point you want and missing it. No amount of cropping will help you if have focused on the wrong spot. So in that respect it is quite the opposite to limiting yourself with a tighter frame of view.
 
I always assumed using crop mode on a FF body effectively uses less area on the sensor as it uses only a APS-C size portion of it?
If that's the case then your not really adding any real reach, a 70-200mm lens is still 200mm at the long end but because your using it in APS-C mode, it zooms into the central portion of the lens.
So you could just shoot in FF mode and crop in post to a APS-C size photo which retaining the same IQ with the same results?
Or have I got it wrong? :)
 
Rizvan said:
I always assumed using crop mode on a FF body effectively uses less area on the sensor as it uses only a APS-C size portion of it?
If that's the case then your not really adding any real reach, a 70-200mm lens is still 200mm at the long end but because your using it in APS-C mode, it zooms into the central portion of the lens.
So you could just shoot in FF mode and crop in post to a APS-C size photo which retaining the same IQ with the same results?
Or have I got it wrong? :)
Click to expand...

Take the same lens and put it on a full frame body and then a crop sensor body - a6000 for example. Which one gives the more reach? The a6000.
If you are shooting anything at distance surely this is an advantage?
 
addicknchips said:
Take the same lens and put it on a full frame body and then a crop sensor body - a6000 for example. Which one gives the more rach? The a6000.
If you are shooting anything at distance surely this is an advantage?
Click to expand...
Sure is but if you have a FF body, why not just shoot FF and crop to whatever size (zoom range) you want? Surely that advantaged of it being a FF would mean even a copped image will have better IQ than a APS-C equivalent?

I wonder which will look better if all things were equal using a 70-200mm lens mounted on the following:-

A7RII @ 200mm then crop in post by 1.5x to give you a 300mm equiv image.
A6300 @ 200mm (300mm APS-C) - straight image out of the camera

:D
 
As above, aps-c mode is just a crop from the middle of the sensor so the perceived focal length is increased. By shooting in FF mode and cropping later you're still giving yourself the opportunity to use the full image afterwards. Crop mode is essentially the same as 'Digital Zoom' on any other camera, just starting with a larger image first.
 
stevelmx5 said:
As above, aps-c mode is just a crop from the middle of the sensor so the perceived focal length is increased. By shooting in FF mode and cropping later you're still giving yourself the opportunity to use the full image afterwards. Crop mode is essentially the same as 'Digital Zoom' on any other camera, just starting with a larger image first.
Click to expand...

Just helps you frame better for cropped field of view I guess.
 
Rizvan said:
Suppose but with the crazy mammoth amount of megapixels the A7RII outputs who cares about framing these days! lol :D
Click to expand...
Rizvan said:
Sure is but if you have a FF body, why not just shoot FF and crop to whatever size (zoom range) you want? Surely that advantaged of it being a FF would mean even a copped image will have better IQ than a APS-C equivalent?

I wonder which will look better if all things were equal using a 70-200mm lens mounted on the following:-

A7RII @ 200mm then crop in post by 1.5x to give you a 300mm equiv image.
A6300 @ 200mm (300mm APS-C) - straight image out of the camera

:D
Click to expand...

I wonder which would look better if one is in focus and one is not? No amount of mp or cropping will help you if you missed focus to start with. The extra perceived field of view allowed on the crop sensor maybe the difference from hitting or missing the target focus point. Birds in flight perhaps?
You'll find plenty of nature togs opting for a crop sensor body. .
 
Rizvan said:
Sure is but if you have a FF body, why not just shoot FF and crop to whatever size (zoom range) you want? Surely that advantaged of it being a FF would mean even a copped image will have better IQ than a APS-C equivalent?

I wonder which will look better if all things were equal using a 70-200mm lens mounted on the following:-

A7RII @ 200mm then crop in post by 1.5x to give you a 300mm equiv image.
A6300 @ 200mm (300mm APS-C) - straight image out of the camera

:D
Click to expand...

The difference is probably minimal due to the quality of modern sensors but in theory, an APS-C sensor is designed to those dimensions/resolution with the most suitable sized pixels whereas the FF sensor is taking a crop from the centre of the larger array. While the FF crop possibly isn't 100% perfect, I'd imagine it will be pretty difficult to tell between either.
 
Last edited:
Rizvan said:
Sure is but if you have a FF body, why not just shoot FF and crop to whatever size (zoom range) you want? Surely that advantaged of it being a FF would mean even a copped image will have better IQ than a APS-C equivalent?

I wonder which will look better if all things were equal using a 70-200mm lens mounted on the following:-

A7RII @ 200mm then crop in post by 1.5x to give you a 300mm equiv image.
A6300 @ 200mm (300mm APS-C) - straight image out of the camera

:D
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it depends on what you are shooting.
If you are using a long lens to shoot birds and wildlife etc, sometimes a crop sensor camera is better as you get the extra reach.
Say you use the crop sensor A6000 or 6300 (24Mp) with the 70-300 at 300mm and the bird is just the right size in the photo without any post cropping, then you have a 24Mp photo of the bird. If you used the FF A7R2 (42Mp) in crop mode (or post cropped the image) you end up with an image just under 17Mp, using a 24Mp FF sensor (A7 or A7Mk2) the cropped image would only have a resolution of around 10-12Mp so sometimes a cropped sensor body is the better choice.
 
Last edited:
The rumor site is reporting that a new Batis may be with us shortly, perhaps a 135mm.

There's not much to read but here's the link if you want to click...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-...es-pdn-photo-plus-show-october/#disqus_thread

I have a couple of 135's, a f3.5 and a f2.8. When I had DSLR's I had a Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro which doubled as a portrait and general purpose longer lens and although I don't shoot at this sort of length much I do like having a longer lens about just in case and indeed one of my favourite shots of my GF was taken with my Minolta 135mm f2.8.

If a 135mm does come I can see it being quite a seller. Anyone interested in one?
 
woof woof said:
The rumor site is reporting that a new Batis may be with us shortly, perhaps a 135mm.

There's not much to read but here's the link if you want to click...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-...es-pdn-photo-plus-show-october/#disqus_thread

I have a couple of 135's, a f3.5 and a f2.8. When I had DSLR's I had a Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro which doubled as a portrait and general purpose longer lens and although I don't shoot at this sort of length much I do like having a longer lens about just in case and indeed one of my favourite shots of my GF was taken with my Minolta 135mm f2.8.

If a 135mm does come I can see it being quite a seller. Anyone interested in one?
Click to expand...

I'd be all over it
 
I still have my Batis 25mm f2.0 for sale..... not sure if the Batis 135mm would tempt me..... I am looking forward to more G Master lenses... :D
 
Rizvan said:
I am looking forward to more G Master lenses... :D
Click to expand...

Yup, nothing says pro like loads of lenses...

tumblr_lrf22gGRKK1qzf8ql.jpg


;0)
 
Joking aside, having GM lenses doesn't make you a pro, delivering results that your clients expect does. That might mean shooting with the kit lens to deliver head and shoulders images for a website or the highest possible resolution for a billboard.

Getting out and shooting to learn your kit and building up people skills are more important.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Joking aside, having GM lenses doesn't make you a pro, delivering results that your clients expect does. That might mean shooting with the kit lens to deliver head and shoulders images for a website or the highest possible resolution for a billboard.

Getting out and shooting to learn your kit and building up people skills are more important.
Click to expand...

Is that a euphemism for sleeping your way to the top? If so I approve :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top