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

F/1.4 said:
First shoot done and dusted with the A7III

The 55mm was flawless and camera never skipped a beat. Didn't like the peak design strap I was using though [emoji848]
Click to expand...

What sort of shoot did you do pal.. I couldnt do a shoot with a prime that me thou
 
rookies said:
What sort of shoot did you do pal.. I couldnt do a shoot with a prime that me thou
Click to expand...
I used a 16-35, 28mm f2 and 55mm 1.8. Had an 85mm and 70-200 but they weren't used

It was a 60th wedding anniversary. Pretty big event with alot of people. I found it extremely weird using the LCD screen just. Never used the eyepiece monitor once either.

The peak design slide lite kept getting in the road and tbh I didn't like it at all.
 
jonneymendoza said:
How many of you actually shoot action in low light?
Click to expand...

I do. Do you have any experience of comparison with 1DXM2 for that? I’d posted the question a while ago, now lost in the hundreds of posts this thread gets :)
 
rookies said:
What the 24-70 f4 Zeiss like
Click to expand...
Tried it this morning at the airport, doesn’t feel particularly well built imo, certainly doesn’t feel as solid as the Olly 12-40mm which is similarly priced.
 
Tom Green said:
Suppose the Olly is MFT though so price wise you should be getting a much better quality lens for the same price as an FF
Click to expand...
Yep there’s that, but then the Olly is f2.8 vs f4 so that offsets it a bit. Either way, the 24-70mm f4 didn’t feel like an £850 lens tbh.
 
snerkler said:
Yep there’s that, but then the Olly is f2.8 vs f4 so that offsets it a bit. Either way, the 24-70mm f4 didn’t feel like an £850 lens tbh.
Click to expand...
But not completely. F2.8 on m43 is still one stop slower than f4 on FF.

But that 12-40mm is a terrific lens.

Though I am surprised to hear you feel it's not well built, that's certainly not one of its common complaints...
 
Last edited:
With the proviso that the 24-105mm is currently vapourware. I don't believe anyone's had stock since the initial batch sold out in December.
 
dcash29 said:
I'd look at the recent 24-105 as the IQ is reported to be a lot better. The 24-70's IQ is rated lower than the 28-70 kit on one site.
Click to expand...

I’d agree that the FE 24-105mm f4 has great IQ and it some area’s beats the FE 24-70mm f4, so would also pick the FE 24-105 f4 if you need the greater focal range, however is costs more.

The FE 28-70mm kit lens is no way better than the FE 24-70mm f4 lens, so I would pick the FE 24-70mm f4 over the kit lens, but only as a second hand buy at £450-500.

So my advice, pickup a second hand FE 24-70mm f4 as a second hand buy, but if you need the length get the FE 24-105mm f4

:)
 
nandbytes said:
But not completely. F2.8 on m43 is still one stop slower than f4 on FF.

But that 12-40mm is a terrific lens.

Though I am surprised to hear you feel it's not well built, that's certainly not one of its common complaints...
Click to expand...
No it’s actually one stop faster, f2.8 is f2,8 regardless of format. DOF on the other hand is a different matter ;)

I didn’t say it’s not well built, just doesn’t feel a circa £900 lens. Unusual for Sony to overprice though (A7iii excluded) ;)
 
[QUOTE="snerkler, post: 8117177, member: 66993"I didn’t say it’s not well built, just doesn’t feel a circa £900 lens. Unusual for Sony to overprice though (A7iii excluded) ;)[/QUOTE] I have to agree, IQ good but not £900 good.
Second buy at £450-500 is better.
 
snerkler said:
No it’s actually one stop faster, f2.8 is f2,8 regardless of format. DOF on the other hand is a different matter ;)

I didn’t say it’s not well built, just doesn’t feel a circa £900 lens. Unusual for Sony to overprice though (A7iii excluded) ;)
Click to expand...

FF sensor gathers 4x more light than a m43 sensor. So m43 is still under by 1 stop disadvantage i.e. it'll still gather one stop less light.
This basically reflected in FF having about 2 stops more ISO advantage over m43. m43 makes up for one stop from a f2.8 but still down a stop :)
 
Last edited:
I see that the next page will be page 666 :eek:

Maybe we'll get some devilish pictures...

PS.
Snowing here but no opportunity for photography :(
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
FF sensor gathers 4x more light than a m43 sensor. So m43 is still under by 1 stop disadvantage i.e. it'll still gather one stop less light.
This basically reflected in FF having about 2 stops more ISO advantage over m43. m43 makes up for one stop from a f2.8 but still down stop :)
Click to expand...
This view has never made much sense to me.

Yes MFT has a smaller sensor and you use shorter focal length lenses with smaller apertures and MFT 25/1.8 = 13.8mm whilst FF 50/1.8=27.7mm but there's a but...

The exposure is the same in 1/sec, DoF is a matter of opinion and shallow DoF may not be what we want and the noise penalty may be insignificant and in the final picture that people will actually look at a lot of the time the chances are that no one will be able to reliably and consistently pick MFT pictures out of a pile of MFT and FF pictures.

After spending a lot of time and money comparing MFT, APS-C and FF I'm pretty convinced that if you apply the crop factor and shoot MFT at f4 and APS-C at f5.6 when you'd be shooting FF at f8 etc there's little in it. The main thing IMO being that the FF picture will probably be sharper when pixel peeping which will probably be mostly down to having been magnified less.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
This view has never made much sense to me.

Yes MFT has a smaller sensor and you use shorter focal length lenses with smaller apertures and MFT 25/1.8 = 13.8mm whilst FF 50/1.8=27.7mm but there's a but...
Click to expand...

huh?

woof woof said:
The exposure is the same in 1/sec, DoF is a matter of opinion and shallow DoF may not be what we want and the noise penalty may be insignificant and in the final picture that people will actually look at a lot of the time the chances are that no one will be able to reliably and consistently pick MFT pictures out of a pile of MFT and FF pictures.

After spending a lot of time and money comparing MFT, APS-C and FF I'm pretty convinced that if you apply the crop factor and shoot MFT at f4 and APS-C at f5.6 when you'd be shooting FF at f8 etc there's little in it. The main thing IMO being that the FF picture will probably be sharper when pixel peeping which will probably be mostly down to having been magnified less.
Click to expand...

I am not taking about DoF at all. Yes shooting MFT at f4 can be equivalent shooting FF at f8.
In the example above E-M1+12-40/2.8 and A7+24-70mm/4. If you shoot both wide open, FF still have one stop advantage in terms of light. Just as you said shooting MFT @ f/2.8 is like shooting FF @f/5.6
What I said exactly matches you thinking...

Of course in bright day light you don't really care much for that extra spot but if you are having shoot at higher ISO or low light A7+24-70mm would do better
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
only in depth of field, not light gathering.

MFT 2.8 is like FF 2.8 - only you get more DOF with MFT, which for e.g. can be handy for landscapes when you don't want to use a tripod.
Click to expand...

But how can that be when a FF lenses has a larger front lens element, thus can physically capture more light? :s
 
dancook said:
only in depth of field, not light gathering.

MFT 2.8 is like FF 2.8 - only you get more DOF with MFT, which for e.g. can be handy for landscapes when you don't want to use a tripod.
Click to expand...

The FF sensor has 4 times surface area than MFT. So it gathers 4 times more light and hence also 2 stop better ISO performance in general.

Even for landscape this is the reason FF better since you can get better or at least equal amount of dynamic range at higher ISO (if you want to shoot handheld) from the larger sensor.

You are mistaking exposure calculation vs. amount of light gathered.

IMO the main benefit of smaller format is to to reduced size because of smaller bodies+lens and also cheaper gear. But if you are going to end up with huge expensive bodies and huge expensive lenses one might as well buy FF (unfortunately Sony is the only one making FF mirrorless :( ).

dancook said:
FF lenses have a bigger sensor to fill with said light, they disperse it wider on the sensor end
Click to expand...

the dispersion or the density of light falling on sensor is about the same tbh for respective format lenses.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
huh?



I am not taking about DoF at all. Yes shooting MFT at f4 can be equivalent shooting FF at f8.
In the example above E-M1+12-40/2.8 and A7+24-70mm/4. If you shoot both wide open, FF still have one stop advantage in terms of light. Just as you said shooting MFT @ f/2.8 is like shooting FF @f/5.6
What I said exactly matches you thinking...

Of course in bright day light you don't really care much for that extra spot but if you are having shoot at higher ISO or low light A7+24-70mm would do better
Click to expand...

I just think that the view often expressed on forums that FF captures x times the light and has x stops more advantage has always seemed at odds with what ordinary non pixel peeping obsessives see when they look at pictures and needs qualifying and explaining.
 
A ps to that.

When looking at FF v MFT or APS-C you have to remember that with the smaller formats you're likely to be using a wider lens...

FF = 50mm f1.8 = aperture of 50/1.8= 27.7mm.
MFT = 25mm 1.8 = aperture of 25/1.8= 13.8.

Theory is nice but take a FF and MFT out and shoot them side by side applying the crop factor (shoot FF at f8, MFT at f4) and few people will be able to tell the difference.

I spent a lot of time and money on this comparing FF, APS-C and MFT and concluded that I'd mostly wasted my time :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top