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

nandbytes said:
because not everyone wants a body size of e-m1? :p

tbh I quite like the size and feel of A6XXX bodies. It'd be perfect for me if they added a fore-finger dial to that body.
Click to expand...
It was a joke ;) That being said I do find the EM1 brilliant ergonomically and I doubt you'd be able to make a FF mirrorless with any smaller form factor.
 
redhed17 said:
I wouldn't bet too much on Canon and Nikon getting the ergonomics right looking at the mirrorless cameras they have had out so far. I know the Nikon cameras were quite small, and so limited in ergonomic options, but the Canon M series did not arrive looking that well designed imho, being just a rectangular box, a la Sony, but it has evolved. I think their system is limited by not having an EVF so far.

Ergonomics are a personal thing, and has been mentioned before, important for some, not for others. Some are willing to put up with poor ergonomics if they feel the the whole product has the features they want. Like I said, it's a personal thing.
Click to expand...

Consumer level cameras and pro level full frame cameras are different. I think most would argue in favour of full frame canikon having better ergonomics than an a7.
 
addicknchips said:
Consumer level cameras and pro level full frame cameras are different. I think most would argue in favour of full frame canikon having better ergonomics than an a7.
Click to expand...
You would hope so, but then if they go for a different design of body from the DSLR / SLT design as Sony did with their Alpha mirrorless cameras then they could end up anything. :confused: The Canon M series started off as a box but then is starting to get the larger grip of the DSLR design. I'm not sure either Canon or Nikon will have designs that may look too much like their DSLRs, though smaller and lighter, even though that style has evolved to be comfortable for most users, and the button placement and size and quality of component has stabilised too. Mirrorless does give the option do something though, it is just whether you get the different design 'right' for most people. :)

Some Canon users will buy whatever Canon or Nikon bring out if/when the decide to go seriously into the mirrorless arena just because it is by their chosen manufacturer. ;) Ergonomics! Who cares. :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
It was a joke ;) That being said I do find the EM1 brilliant ergonomically and I doubt you'd be able to make a FF mirrorless with any smaller form factor.
Click to expand...
E-M1 is indeed very good. The original A7 was smaller I believe.

Sony A7 was really a perfect size. They have made it bulky and heavy now :(
 
My A7 and 35mm f2.8 fits in the same small bag my Panny GX7 and 17mm f1.8 fit in but sadly my A7 and Voigtlander don't. I wouldn't mind an A7II or III as even with the small increase in size as long as it's fitted with a small prime it'll still fit in a small bag.
 
nandbytes said:
E-M1 is indeed very good. The original A7 was smaller I believe.

Sony A7 was really a perfect size. They have made it bulky and heavy now :(
Click to expand...

You can still buy the Sony A7 so the option is there for ones who prefer the smallest FF mirrorless ILC body.
To be fair the difference between the A7 and A7II variants is understandable given the added IBIS, better grip etc.
The Sony A9 is even bigger than the A7II bodies but for me it’s made the ergonomics better. :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
You can still buy the Sony A7 so the option is there for ones who prefer the smallest FF mirrorless ILC body.
Click to expand...

I don't like to accuse any one of being a fanboi, but are you serious!?
Those bodies use old sensors with first-gen AF. I use A7RII. How in the world is A7 or A7R equivalent A7RII in terms of IQ, AF or capabilities.
I would like the A7RII capabilities in that sized body, I don't want to buy previous generation bodies!!

It seems to be IBIS that seems to add the bulk and honestly I don't care for it enough to put up with the bulk. I moved from A99 which had IBIS to A7 precisely because I couldn't care less for IBIS. Then they put it back and make the bodies as bulky as a-mounts (nearly).
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
My A7 and 35mm f2.8 fits in the same small bag my Panny GX7 and 17mm f1.8 fit in but sadly my A7 and Voigtlander don't. I wouldn't mind an A7II or III as even with the small increase in size as long as it's fitted with a small prime it'll still fit in a small bag.
Click to expand...
You could try and get a slightly bigger bag! ;) :rolleyes:
 
I’m walking around Florida at the moment with my A7/prime attached to my belt with a Capture Clip and a small shoulder bag (National Geographic small) with one other lens and 2 spare batteries. I’ve got the FE50/1.8, OM Zuiko 24/2.8 and OM Zuiko 35/2.8 shift. I only bring one of the Zuiko’s with me according to the day. I’ve also got an Olympus 35RC 35mm film camera in the front pocket so I can shoot a roll of Cinestill 800T at night. The A7/prime is a very small FF package which is delivering excellent results even inside some of the darkest rides. I’m seeing some people walking round with gripped 5D’s 24-105 and a flashgun attached and they frankly look ridiculous with their families. As a camera to shoot holiday pictures and ‘proper’ landscapes at the same time, it’s hard to beat.

As for being ‘relatively’ expensive, there’s no relative, they are expensive. I paid £200 for a shop returned nifty 50 which doesn’t focus any faster than the £80 Canon nifty although it is slightly quieter. Results are probably similar but the Canon is smaller so all in all, the Sony isn’t cheap. A lot of Sony users will be more interested in ‘bread and butter’ lenses rather than GM’s so if they can get the basic lens prices lower it will make a massive difference to people like me who would see a £600 premium as more than just a ‘little’.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I don't like to accuse any one of being a fanboi, but are you serious!?
Those bodies use old sensors with first-gen AF. I use A7RII. How in the world is A7 or A7R equivalent A7RII in terms of IQ, AF or capabilities.
I would like the A7RII capabilities in that sized body, I don't want to buy previous generation bodies!!

It seems to be IBIS that seems to add the bulk and honestly I don't care for it enough to put up with the bulk. I moved from A99 which had IBIS to A7 precisely because I couldn't care less for IBIS. Then they put it back and make the bodies as bulky as a-mounts (nearly).
Click to expand...

Yup, totally serious..... you have various choices in A7 bodies with different levels of spec. You can’t always have your cake and eat it, newer bodies have the better AF spec etc.
Nothing wrong with being a fanboi, however I’ve owned the Fuji system recently and Nikon’s in the past :)
 
nandbytes said:
I don't like to accuse any one of being a fanboi, but are you serious!?
Those bodies use old sensors with first-gen AF. I use A7RII. How in the world is A7 or A7R equivalent A7RII in terms of IQ, AF or capabilities.
I would like the A7RII capabilities in that sized body, I don't want to buy previous generation bodies!!

It seems to be IBIS that seems to add the bulk and honestly I don't care for it enough to put up with the bulk. I moved from A99 which had IBIS to A7 precisely because I couldn't care less for IBIS. Then they put it back and make the bodies as bulky as a-mounts (nearly).
Click to expand...

Many things have been said in this thread, but no-one can ever say the A7rii or A7ii are anywhere near the size of A Mount
 
nandbytes said:
I don't like to accuse any one of being a fanboi, but are you serious!?
Those bodies use old sensors with first-gen AF. I use A7RII. How in the world is A7 or A7R equivalent A7RII in terms of IQ, AF or capabilities.
I would like the A7RII capabilities in that sized body, I don't want to buy previous generation bodies!!

It seems to be IBIS that seems to add the bulk and honestly I don't care for it enough to put up with the bulk. I moved from A99 which had IBIS to A7 precisely because I couldn't care less for IBIS. Then they put it back and make the bodies as bulky as a-mounts (nearly).
Click to expand...

Having used my friends’ A7ii I’d agree with the AF comment but as far as I know the sensor output is similar if not the same. Have you ever compared the two yourself?
 
stevelmx5 said:
Having used my friends’ A7ii I’d agree with the AF comment but as far as I know the sensor output is similar if not the same. Have you ever compared the two yourself?
Click to expand...

The A7II is pretty much the same as A7 but with addition of IBIS. AF is slightly better but not much.

I use A7RII which is a noticeable in both AF and IQ.

I currently own A7 and A7RII. Though I am selling my A7 now (its in classifieds)
 
The a7 is great for small primes.
Once the larger lenses were introduced, so was a need for a bigger grip. In my humble opinion of course.
 
Nothing wrong with A7, the A7RII is just better :D

So it'd nice to get a new A7 with A7RII or better sensor.

Also large lenses are perfectly fine on A7 IMO. I was originally solely using my a-mount lenses on A7 with EA4. Large ones too like 16-35mm/2.8 and 70-400G.
 
Last edited:
My Olympus OM 35mm shift lens' party trick in action: 2 shot pano with the lens shifted rightward between frames...


London Blackfriars by Rob Telford, on Flickr

...taken from inside a train with the lens jammed hard up against the window to avoid reflections inside the carriage

I've even been experimenting a little with using the 35 shift for landscape (which is not my usual photographic fare)


Leith Hill by Rob Telford, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Ok, more thoughts on the A7R3, the dual card slots.

Great, its finally here, but why is it one USH-1 and the other USH-2?

I gave Canon a lot of flak for this when the 5D4 came out and Sony is not immune to the same criticism. The tech is there, why bottleneck yourself with a slower card slot? The entire reason for most professional having 2 card slots of redundancy meaning writing both cards at the same time and having putting 2 card slots in, having 1 slower, 1 faster would means the fastest you can write to is the slowest one so WHAT IS THE POINT?

It's already £3200, charge me another £50 and put in 2 USH-2 slots.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Ok, more thoughts on the A7R3, the dual card slots.

Great, its finally here, but why is it one USH-1 and the other USH-2?

I gave Canon a lot of flak for this when the 5D4 came out and Sony is not immune to the same criticism. The tech is there, why bottleneck yourself with a slower card slot? The entire reason for most professional having 2 card slots of redundancy meaning writing both cards at the same time and having putting 2 card slots in, having 1 slower, 1 faster would means the fastest you can write to is the slowest one so WHAT IS THE POINT?

It's already £3200, charge me another £50 and put in 2 USH-2 slots.
Click to expand...

Maybe it can't process the files that fast so the card readers not the bottleneck.
 
I promised a quick update on new RX10 IV yesterday, but I had to get out and back by 9am, weather was miserable, so tried again today.

Still pretty grey this morning - best I managed was ISO640 even at f4, I think - and nothing drastically exciting going on, but:

DSC00189_edited-1 by Jon Chalk, on Flickr

DSC00213_edited-1 by Jon Chalk, on Flickr

DSC00174_edited-1 by Jon Chalk, on Flickr

DSC00144_edited-1 by Jon Chalk, on Flickr

Can't wait for some properly bright weather to try again.

Some different ones in the Bridge camera thread : https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...asonic-fz1000-etc.624521/page-19#post-7989654
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am just being fair, I recall people really having a go at Canon about this, including me, so the same criticism is also legit here.
Click to expand...

Sure, but this camera has a hell of a lot more going on in terms of processing in comparison and the files are huuuuuge (+50%). Not an excuse but I guess it's a compromise.
 
twist said:
Sure, but this camera has a hell of a lot more going on in terms of processing in comparison and the files are huuuuuge (+50%). Not an excuse but I guess it's a compromise.
Click to expand...

Excuses, the point is still valid because the fact is one card slot is slower so the entire point of having one faster one slower, for professional which is the entire point of 2 card slot makes the whole exercise redundant. They have a couple of years to make it possible, but not done it.

If one were the criticise Canon for the same fault, one has to criticise Sony for doing the same.
 
Last edited:
I hope that not having the same types of memory card slots does not affect performance. I don't see the point of not having two UHS II slots though, as it may affect download speeds when the camera is connected to a computer. If a new(ish) camera does not have USB 3 connections then for transferring images at least, card speed may not be a problem. :rolleyes:
 
Raymond Lin said:
Excuses, the point is still valid because the fact is one card slot is slower so the entire point of having one faster one slower, for professional which is the entire point of 2 card slot makes the whole exercise redundant. They have a couple of years to make it possible, but not done it.

If one were the criticise Canon for the same fault, one has to criticise Sony for doing the same.
Click to expand...

Don't buy it. The Sony is processing loads more data than the canon. Canon has no excuse.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Don't buy it. The Sony is processing loads more data than the canon. Canon has no excuse.
Click to expand...

Well, I bought the Canon with the same criticism, and you can't escape the fact Sony has not implemented 2 USH-2 slots, that is a fact no matter what excuses you throw out. It could throw out 2 billion mega pixels for all I care, when you implement a feature and then go half ass about it, you get criticise. The Nikon has 2 x UHS-II slots at 45million pixels and can do 9fps. So higher pixels but just 1 shot short.

Sony has no excuses.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Well, I bought the Canon with the same criticism, and you can't escape the fact Sony has not implemented 2 USH-2 slots, that is a fact no matter what excuses you throw out. It could throw out 2 million mega pixels for all I care, when you implement a feature and then go half ass about it, you get criticise. The Nikon has 2 x UHS-II slots at 45million pixels and can do 9fps. So higher pixels but just 1 shot.

Sony has no excuses.
Click to expand...

Stop whining and don't buy it. That's the solution.
 
twist said:
Stop whining and don't buy it. That's the solution.
Click to expand...

I am not whining, I am pointing out a criticism, one that was pointed out to Canon, I included. Don't know why you are defending it, the whole point is completely valid.

It is a valid and legitimate criticism, to defend it screams of fan-boyism (hate that word but it applies). If I don't then I would be bias and a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I am not whining, I am pointing out a criticism, one that was pointed out to Canon, I included.

It is a valid and legitimate criticism, to defend it screams of fan-boyism (hate that word but it applies). If I don't then I would be bias and a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Did you whinge about that as much?
 
twist said:
Did you whinge about that as much?
Click to expand...

I made 1 comment, you came back with invalid excuses. I am just pointing out your bias.

There is no reason for Sony not putting in two UHS-II slot as demonstrated by Nikon D850. So I am not sure what your point is except moaning about me pointing out a shortfall for Sony.

Stop whining when lost the debate and accept that my point is valid, as shown by the D850.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Sure, but this camera has a hell of a lot more going on in terms of processing in comparison and the files are huuuuuge (+50%). Not an excuse but I guess it's a compromise.
Click to expand...
I guess they could have gone the same route as the Nikon D850 with the xqd and UHS-2? Would have been even better for Sony being as they're the only one making XQD cards at the mo I believe ;)

Edit: beaten to it ;)
 
Raymond Lin said:
I made 1 comment, you came back with invalid excuses. I am just pointing out your bias.

There is no reason for Sony not putting in two UHS-II slot as demonstrated by Nikon D850. So I am not sure what your point is except moaning about me pointing out a shortfall for Sony.
Click to expand...

Hardly invalid, the Sony is processing more than the Canon and the Nikon or are you forgetting the evf and smaller size (heat).

I think Alan will tell you I am hardly a Sony fanboy just buy the Nikon if you want what it has. I'm moaning about your whining lol.
 
snerkler said:
I guess they could have gone the same route as the Nikon D850 with the xqd and UHS-2? Would have been even better for Sony being as they're the only one making XQD cards at the mo I believe ;)
Click to expand...
That Sony didn't use the XQD cards in the a9 leads me to think that they will probably never use their card format in their own consumer cameras. Which is weird. :thinking: You would think that the a9 and high resolution a7's could have benefited from the speed of the XQD cards. Maybe there are space issues because the cards are slightly larger than SD cards. Only Sony will know their reasoning. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top