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

footman said:
Did you consider the Batis?
Click to expand...

Nope, at the time I had the choice between both but have IBIS and love the function button on the FE, samples show very little difference so I saved a few quid.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Probably not as slow as the GM.
Click to expand...
I don't find the GM too bad, but I have only compared it to the Batis 85mm f1.8
Its definitely quicker with the firmware upgrade and the Sony A9.
 
Last edited:
Could someone post an above shot like that with the Sigma 35mm f1.4?
 
F/1.4 said:
View attachment 127530 Both lenses razor sharp ! The 85 is an absolute beast, could imagine it not being the easiest lens to lug about all day

Sharpness and autofocus accuracy is insane. This is how these lenses are meant to perform. No tuning needed
Click to expand...

Yeah, thank F Sigma seems to have done a better job than Samyang and Tamron (he crosses fingers).
 
Still disappointing that they're DSLR lenses and not blank sheet designed for FE though, IMO, if in doing so they could make some of these lenses a little more compact.
 
The taper design is actually very clever on the Arts, even though it looks a little odd, allows larger fingers to wrap the grip without being pinched by the lens, practical.
 
twist said:
Its not been released yet mate. Ask Jonney to take one with the MC11, its the same size.
Click to expand...
ah, right. Thanks for the link.

It just struck me that the money I spend on some MF lenses would buy an Art but the bulk of these lenses does put me off.

I hovered over spending a little over £900 yesterday and today but have held off for now.
 
woof woof said:
ah, right. Thanks for the link.

It just struck me that the money I spend on some MF lenses would buy an Art but the bulk of these lenses does put me off.

I hovered over spending a little over £900 yesterday and today but have held off for now.
Click to expand...

Check out this image, the 35 is about 1cm shorter than the 50, so look at the 50 above and take a bit off to give you a good idea. I think if theres only one VERY good 35mm AF lens you should own its the ART.

Sigma-Art-Lens-Family.jpg
 
nandbytes said:
no I am talking about the tamron 28-75mm.
I am not sure why Jonney felt the need to bring sigma ART lenses in to it!!
Click to expand...
You didn't catch the joke! I was praising how this thread is more clued up and more up date then everyone else.

We was one of the first grab hold of many camera and lenses!

Trying to praise this thread man
 
The 50Art is actually more than reasonable. The 85 is pretty hefty ! A brick of a lens. Dwarfs my 85 1.2
 
Raymond Lin said:
It’s better than the 85L 1.2 but not 35L mk2 or CZ 50/1.4 level of CA control.

Although not really that fair because they are 3x the cost.
Click to expand...

Ive also turned off the LR profile and those aren't 85mm lenses, AFAIK Canons 85mm suck for CA big time, Nikons also bad.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Does it focus as good as the A9?
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation but in most cases the Sony A7 III AF is good enough especially given its price point. However I wouldn’t call it a baby A9 which some articles dubbed it.
The Sony A9 is noticeably more responsive but then it should be given its intended market and price point.

I contemplated getting a second A7 III and ditching the A9 but I’ve held onto it for now.
Silent shooting with zero black is amazing and It’s nice to have but for most people it won’t be worth the cost difference over the A7 III.
Luckily I can afford to keep the A9 but realistically if you don’t shoot hardcore sports / events the Sony A7 III is the wiser choice.

I know this is probably a cop off but they are both great bodies for different reasons.

:D
 
Riz_Guru said:
Depends on the situation but in most cases the Sony A7 III AF is good enough especially given its price point. However I wouldn’t call it a baby A9 which some articles dubbed it.
The Sony A9 is noticeably more responsive but then it should be given its intended market and price point.

I contemplated getting a second A7 III and ditching the A9 but I’ve held onto it for now.
Silent shooting with zero black is amazing and It’s nice to have but for most people it won’t be worth the cost difference over the A7 III.
Luckily I can afford to keep the A9 but realistically if you don’t shoot hardcore sports / events the Sony A7 III is the wiser choice.

I know this is probably a cop off but they are both great bodies for different reasons.

:D
Click to expand...

Dude I don't think the A9 is noticably more responsive. I genuinely couldn't spot the difference. Maybe tracking is a tad better but I never had an issue with either.

The A9 is really just for people that need extreme speed or a better silent mode !
 
F/1.4 said:
Dude I don't think the A9 is noticably more responsive. I genuinely couldn't spot the difference. Maybe tracking is a tad better but I never had an issue with either.

The A9 is really just for people that need extreme speed or a better silent mode !
Click to expand...

Perhaps but I notice the responsiveness even when taking photos of my little ones running about in the garden.

Watch this video from 6 mins onwards for A7 III vs A9 AF-C to see what I’m talking about.

View: https://youtu.be/jBD4U7LoRhU


I’m not knocking the Sony A7 III but the A9 is quicker at AF both in practice and on paper. Your right in that if you need the speed and silent black out free shooting there isn’t much else on the market that compares to the A9’s feature set.

Both great offerings from Sony.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Depends on the situation but in most cases the Sony A7 III AF is good enough especially given its price point. However I wouldn’t call it a baby A9 which some articles dubbed it.
The Sony A9 is noticeably more responsive but then it should be given its intended market and price point.

I contemplated getting a second A7 III and ditching the A9 but I’ve held onto it for now.
Silent shooting with zero black is amazing and It’s nice to have but for most people it won’t be worth the cost difference over the A7 III.
Luckily I can afford to keep the A9 but realistically if you don’t shoot hardcore sports / events the Sony A7 III is the wiser choice.

I know this is probably a cop off but they are both great bodies for different reasons.

:D
Click to expand...

Zero blackout is just amazing and the single reason I've just gone for a second hand A9 over a new A7III, to me it's more than worth the £500 or so extra.

I'm less impressed with the handling, fingers are squeezed between grip and lens, and no room at all for little finger!
 
Riz_Guru said:
Perhaps but I notice the responsiveness even when taking photos of my little ones running about in the garden.

Watch this video from 6 mins onwards for A7 III vs A9 AF-C to see what I’m talking about.

View: https://youtu.be/jBD4U7LoRhU


I’m not knocking the Sony A7 III but the A9 is quicker at AF both in practice and on paper. Your right in that if you need the speed and silent black out free shooting there isn’t much else on the market that compares to the A9’s feature set.

Both great offerings from Sony.
Click to expand...

TBH, when they switch to lock on wide theres no difference. Just the way the camera handles the box thing, which I know is different between both cameras because its been discussed elsewhere.
 
jj_glos said:
Zero blackout is just amazing and the single reason I've just gone for a second hand A9 over a new A7III, to me it's more than worth the £500 or so extra.

I'm less impressed with the handling, fingers are squeezed between grip and lens, and no room at all for little finger!
Click to expand...

You picked up an A9 for £2400, thats a good deal.
 
Nearly, if not all reviews of the A7 III confirm that the Sony A7 III’s AF system is not as quick as the A9’s.
That’s my view also but I think the A7 III is great value for money vs rivals.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Nearly, if not all reviews of the A7 III confirm that the A7 III AF system is not as quick as the A9.
That’s my view also but I also think the A7 III is great value for money vs rivals.
Click to expand...

Save the money and get a £2000 lens, use the £500 left over for a few days in Italy for some photos.

That's what I'd do.

(you don't don't need that last 5%)
 
twist said:
You picked up an A9 for £2400, thats a good deal.
Click to expand...

It was more than that, £2,580. I was going off the £1,999 A7III price, the gap is even bigger if I'd looked at buying the A7III from a grey retailer, but that messes up my warm feeling of paying 'a bit' extra for the A9 :D Although now I've used the A9 I'm more than happy that I paid the extra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top