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

woof woof said:
II did say that the Fuji's will probably be faster, I accept that but better image quality? If you believe that good for you :D

Why you then go on and say I'm obsessed I just don't know as if I am or not has nothing to do with file quality. Small man syndrome there maybe :D

But no, I'm not obsessed, it's not an obsession. I just prefer the handling of non fly by wire lenses with end stops and markings. The character these lenses give is another plus as I like it and I like trying to achieve an old photo look sometimes and also there's the fact that they're cheap making it a cheap hobby for me. I'm not going to count my manual lenses this minute but even though I could afford the same number of modern lenses I'm not going to buy them but I do have the bare minimum I need, the excellent 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 for when I want modern quality :D
Click to expand...

Actually I pondered over the word obsession as the description, I first put "criteria" or "special needs" but obsession seems best fit. Just go back to your posts, you only post about manual focus lenses, your voigtlander, I mean your own post here referred to using adaptor for old glass….the proof is in the pudding really. From where i am standing, it looks like an obsession. It's not a negative, don't take it that way, but it is a niche. Perhaps "love" would be a better word but at the time obsession came to mind.

Also, from what you have posted, and don't take it negatively, the files you posted, the colours from the A7 are frankly unacceptable to me, in my opinion, I would not deliver those to my clients.

So yes, old Sony cameras would not get a recommendation.
 
Last edited:
Swiss Toni said:
Put your money where your mouth is fanboi and post some examples then.
Click to expand...
Toni, you are persistently one of the biggest twits not only in this thread but on this entire site. That's an achievement. Well done :D

For the pretence of politeness in the face of your repeated inane and more seriously unfunny twittery I'll say if owning the different makes of kit I've owned over the years makes me a Sony fan boy it's only in the mind of a deluded serial twit like you.

Have I wasted enough time on you yet? Yup.

I think I've said enough times that I couldn't give a flying who makes the kit and maybe I shouldn't say it again :D
 
We decided to visit the Stratford River Festival this weekend and I decided to limit myself to just 1 lens. After spending a few days with it, I’m slowly starting to appreciate the 55mm f1.8, Coupled with the silent shutter its great for in crowds

Untitled by Chris Heathcote, on Flickr

Untitled by Chris Heathcote, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Actually I pondered over the word obsession as the description, I first put "criteria" or "special needs" but obsession seems best fit. Just go back to your posts, you only post about manual focus lenses, your voigtlander, I mean your own post here referred to using adaptor for old glass….the proof is in the pudding really. From where i am standing, it looks like an obsession. It's not a negative, don't take it that way, but it is a niche.

Also, from what you have posted, and don't take it negatively, the files you posted, the colours from the A7 are frankly unacceptable to me, in my opinion, I would not deliver those to my clients.

So yes, old Sony cameras would not get a recommendation.
Click to expand...

No Ray, obsession just isn't the best fit but if you want to persist with it I think it says more about you and your need to have a bit of a dig. Fair enough, this is the internet, fill your boots.

And for politeness. Yes I post mostly old lens pictures for a few reasons. I post the odd picture that I think is pretty but most of my posts here are gear related as this is a gear thread so when I buy an old lens I post pictures taken with it, probably more than once as the weather and light is sometimes poor so I'll post on bad days, probably the first time I go out with the lens and I can't wait to use it and probably later on good. Just in case anyone is interested :D and I think that some here have actually been tempted towards legacy lenses. Also I think it makes a bit of a difference in what is often a thread tilted very heavily towards expensive modern AF lenses, lenses which are not just expensive in a relative to other makes sense but are also towards the expensive side of the Sony range.

There's no denying you take nice pictures and I can see how you wouldn't want ones like mine to go to a client but we're in different areas. Some of the good stuff here (on the site) means nothing to me, the endless parade of shallow DoF, birds in flight, modern street photography, aviation, model shots... I can appreciate them but I'm not really interested. All I want to do is take pictures of people and places I love and interesting stuff I see and the A7 is the best fit for that and also for the character and old look stuff. You don't like the less neutral look but when used with a more neutral lens and processed sympathetically for a modern look I don't think there's a lot wrong with the colours. There doesn't seem to be a lot wrong with the Voigtlander 35mm pictures I posted recently, they were taken at an aperture which gives a more modern look and they were processed for an uncoloured look and they look fine to me :D and one look in any of the Fuji threads will give you more weird colours than I'd produce in a lifetime. You don't get it. OK, but come on.... Fuji better than a Sony A7? :D
 
Last edited:
Nice bit of blur on the blade. Did you go for that or was it an accident? :D
 
woof woof said:
No Ray, obsession just isn't the best fit but if you want to persist with it I think it says more about you and your need to have a bit of a dig. Fair enough, this is the internet, fill your boots.

And for politeness. Yes I post mostly old lens pictures for a few reasons. I post the odd picture that I think is pretty but most of my posts here are gear related as this is a gear thread so when I buy an old lens I post pictures taken with it, probably more than once as the weather and light is sometimes poor so I'll post on bad days, probably the first time I go out with the lens and I can't wait to use it and probably later on good. Just in case anyone is interested :D and I think that some here have actually been tempted towards legacy lenses. Also I think it makes a bit of a difference in what is often a thread tilted very heavily towards expensive modern AF lenses, lenses which are not just expensive in a relative to other makes sense but are also towards the expensive side of the Sony range.

There's no denying you take nice pictures and I can see how you wouldn't want ones like mine to go to a client but we're in different areas. Some of the good stuff here (on the site) means nothing to me, the endless parade of shallow DoF, birds in flight, modern street photography, aviation, model shots... I can appreciate them but I'm not really interested. All I want to do is take pictures of people and places I love and interesting stuff I see and the A7 is the best fit for that and also for the character and old look stuff. You don't like the less neutral look but when used with a more neutral lens and processed sympathetically for a modern look I don't think there's a lot wrong with the colours. There doesn't seem to be a lot wrong with the Voigtlander 35mm pictures I posted recently, they were taken at an aperture which gives a more modern look and they were processed for an uncoloured look and they look fine to me :D and one look in any of the Fuji threads will give you more weird colours than I'd produce in a lifetime. You don't get it. OK, but come on.... Fuji better than a Sony A7? :D
Click to expand...

A wall of text, don’t get upset about what I said because it’s just an opinion and yes, I’d take a X-T2 over a A72.

I’d take a A73 over a X-H1 however.

I never said “better”, you did, I only say what I choose. Only fan boys goes on about “better” really, please don't act like one. You take the tool you like for the job, period.

And why are you so offended about the word obsessed? I think you are, you don't have to accept it but that's my opinion. You can call me obsessed about bokeh, call me obsessed about Taylor Swift, call me obsessed about photography, I am not offended. Not sure why you are being obsessed about manual lenses.
 
Last edited:
@wibbly

I had the A72 for just over a fortnight with the 50mm FE ...(we didn’t gel) can’t stop myself thinking I should’ve bought the A73..with the 55mm 1.8
 
trevorbray said:
@wibbly

I had the A72 for just over a fortnight with the 50mm FE ...(we didn’t gel) can’t stop myself thinking I should’ve bought the A73..with the 55mm 1.8
Click to expand...
A72 should have never existed IMO. It's a rubbish upgrade over original A7 unless someone really really cares about IBIS for whatever reason.
A7iii or even the A7RII are proper updates where you'll notice useful difference in both AF and IQ.
 
trevorbray said:
@wibbly

I had the A72 for just over a fortnight with the 50mm FE ...(we didn’t gel) can’t stop myself thinking I should’ve bought the A73..with the 55mm 1.8
Click to expand...

nandbytes said:
A72 should have never existed IMO. It's a rubbish upgrade over original A7 unless someone really really cares about IBIS for whatever reason.
A7iii or even the A7RII are proper updates where you'll notice useful difference in both AF and IQ.
Click to expand...

I’ve read some pretty good reviews on the A7ii. Interested in reasons behind why it’s not a good option.
 
wibbly said:
I’ve read some pretty good reviews on the A7ii. Interested in reasons behind why it’s not a good option.
Click to expand...
AF isn't much better than A7 and IQ is also same because it's exactly the same sensor.
The only useful thing it adds is the IBIS which IMO isn't that big a deal. Most zoom lenses have OS anyway and if you are shooting fast primes you'll seldom need IBIS (the canon and Nikon shooters manage somehow without IBIS ;) ). It's a nice to have but not a deal maker or breaker.
If sony sold a smaller version of A7III, A7RII or A7RIII without IBIS I'd buy it in a heartbeat for the weight savings.
All in all a useless update IMO.
 
Last edited:
wibbly said:
I’ve read some pretty good reviews on the A7ii. Interested in reasons behind why it’s not a good option.
Click to expand...

Dave. Image quality is good but nowadays I’m more of a jpeg shooter. I found the colours out of camera a bit disappointing. I bought it because I wanted a lightweight full frame set up.
I hear that the A73 has better colours. Although I’ve not done any meaningful research on jpeg from it.
I figured that with the new Samyang 24mm, the Samyang 35mm 2.8 and the Sony 55mm it’ll make a lightweight setup.
 
nandbytes said:
AF isn't much better than A7 and IQ is also same because it's exactly the same sensor.
The only useful thing it adds is the IBIS which IMO isn't that big a deal. Most zoom lenses have OS anyway and if you are shooting fast primes you'll seldom need IBIS (the canon and Nikon shooters manage somehow without IBIS ;) ). It's a nice to have but not a deal maker or breaker.
If sony sold a smaller version of A7III, A7RII or A7RIII without IBIS I'd buy it in a heartbeat for the weight savings.
All in all a useless update IMO.
Click to expand...

IBIS would be useful for a shaky old fart like me - any help nowadays is a help. ;-)

trevorbray said:
Dave. Image quality is good but nowadays I’m more of a jpeg shooter. I found the colours out of camera a bit disappointing. I bought it because I wanted a lightweight full frame set up.
I hear that the A73 has better colours. Although I’ve not done any meaningful research on jpeg from it.
I figured that with the new Samyang 24mm, the Samyang 35mm 2.8 and the Sony 55mm it’ll make a lightweight setup.
Click to expand...

Thanks Trevor, for sure the A73 looks a great option, I rarely shoot JPG so the RAW files are of more interest.

For the price I may look at picking an A72 up with a 50mm and see how it looks. Keep saving for an A73 in the meantime!
 
Raymond Lin said:
Actually I had the half leather grip on so it might be at 1.4kg but certainly would’ve helped for Center of gravity.
Click to expand...

Raymond, just read this (catching up after being away for a few days), and then saw the images you posted of the grip later on the page - I notice that the grip moves the tripod socket back (away from the lens). I suspect the chance in COG from the mass of the case would actually be offset by the case mount moving you back and down from the COG, so you might actually be better off not using the case with the gimbal.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You could get the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 but the 1.4 primes are on the larger side !

4jm3xHH.jpg
Click to expand...

Raymond Ive no idea how you shoot weddings on 3 systems. Madness. Your editing process must be almost impossible to match colours ?
 
F/1.4 said:
Raymond Ive no idea how you shoot weddings on 3 systems. Madness. Your editing process must be almost impossible to match colours ?
Click to expand...
@Raymond Lin Sell the lot and stick with Sony, buy all the good glass and a extra body :D Save the remaining cash for a Holiday or something.
 
F/1.4 said:
Raymond Ive no idea how you shoot weddings on 3 systems. Madness. Your editing process must be almost impossible to match colours ?
Click to expand...

Actually no, I don’t use the Fuji for weddings, well, only did it once last year as a 3rd body on a tripod. But generally have been just Canon 100%, only the last wedding have been a mix of Sony and Canon.

I am planning to get another A7 so I can do dual Sony bodies, but can’t left go of the Canon for the off camera flash stuff just yet.

But talk about redundancy eh? Lol
 
Faldrax said:
Raymond, just read this (catching up after being away for a few days), and then saw the images you posted of the grip later on the page - I notice that the grip moves the tripod socket back (away from the lens). I suspect the chance in COG from the mass of the case would actually be offset by the case mount moving you back and down from the COG, so you might actually be better off not using the case with the gimbal.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Well, I’ll remember that when I get the next gimbal! I returned that one. I’ll invest in a new laptop or lens with the money instead I think.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I already have the Canon 135/2.0. That would be too close to the 135/1.8 lol

I rarely shoots that focal length so might as well have something a little different.
Click to expand...

Id definitely be interested to see the results !
 
F/1.4 said:
Id definitely be interested to see the results !
Click to expand...

I won’t deny it may turn out to be a door stop, as I rarely use the 100L or 135L for portraits, I much prefer 9/10 times with the 85mm but I love new gear, especially one with this aperture, wanted one ever since I saw a mock up back in March.
 
woof woof said:
No Ray, obsession just isn't the best fit but if you want to persist with it I think it says more about you and your need to have a bit of a dig. Fair enough, this is the internet, fill your boots.

And for politeness. Yes I post mostly old lens pictures for a few reasons. I post the odd picture that I think is pretty but most of my posts here are gear related as this is a gear thread so when I buy an old lens I post pictures taken with it, probably more than once as the weather and light is sometimes poor so I'll post on bad days, probably the first time I go out with the lens and I can't wait to use it and probably later on good. Just in case anyone is interested :D and I think that some here have actually been tempted towards legacy lenses. Also I think it makes a bit of a difference in what is often a thread tilted very heavily towards expensive modern AF lenses, lenses which are not just expensive in a relative to other makes sense but are also towards the expensive side of the Sony range.

There's no denying you take nice pictures and I can see how you wouldn't want ones like mine to go to a client but we're in different areas. Some of the good stuff here (on the site) means nothing to me, the endless parade of shallow DoF, birds in flight, modern street photography, aviation, model shots... I can appreciate them but I'm not really interested. All I want to do is take pictures of people and places I love and interesting stuff I see and the A7 is the best fit for that and also for the character and old look stuff. You don't like the less neutral look but when used with a more neutral lens and processed sympathetically for a modern look I don't think there's a lot wrong with the colours. There doesn't seem to be a lot wrong with the Voigtlander 35mm pictures I posted recently, they were taken at an aperture which gives a more modern look and they were processed for an uncoloured look and they look fine to me :D and one look in any of the Fuji threads will give you more weird colours than I'd produce in a lifetime. You don't get it. OK, but come on.... Fuji better than a Sony A7? :D
Click to expand...

Lol
 
Has one used the sigma 150-600c on the Sony A7iii, would be interested to hear how you are finding it for af etc, particularly for wild life etc.

Thanks
 
Quality
woof woof said:
No Ray, obsession just isn't the best fit but if you want to persist with it I think it says more about you and your need to have a bit of a dig. Fair enough, this is the internet, fill your boots.

And for politeness. Yes I post mostly old lens pictures for a few reasons. I post the odd picture that I think is pretty but most of my posts here are gear related as this is a gear thread so when I buy an old lens I post pictures taken with it, probably more than once as the weather and light is sometimes poor so I'll post on bad days, probably the first time I go out with the lens and I can't wait to use it and probably later on good. Just in case anyone is interested :D and I think that some here have actually been tempted towards legacy lenses. Also I think it makes a bit of a difference in what is often a thread tilted very heavily towards expensive modern AF lenses, lenses which are not just expensive in a relative to other makes sense but are also towards the expensive side of the Sony range.

There's no denying you take nice pictures and I can see how you wouldn't want ones like mine to go to a client but we're in different areas. Some of the good stuff here (on the site) means nothing to me, the endless parade of shallow DoF, birds in flight, modern street photography, aviation, model shots... I can appreciate them but I'm not really interested. All I want to do is take pictures of people and places I love and interesting stuff I see and the A7 is the best fit for that and also for the character and old look stuff. You don't like the less neutral look but when used with a more neutral lens and processed sympathetically for a modern look I don't think there's a lot wrong with the colours. There doesn't seem to be a lot wrong with the Voigtlander 35mm pictures I posted recently, they were taken at an aperture which gives a more modern look and they were processed for an uncoloured look and they look fine to me :D and one look in any of the Fuji threads will give you more weird colours than I'd produce in a lifetime. You don't get it. OK, but come on.... Fuji better than a Sony A7? :D
Click to expand...
 
any good 3rd party NP-FZ100 batteries available or should I just buy a genuine sony one?
 
Diamonddec said:
Snap from tonight...

Sony A73 with Samyang 14mm f2.8 (manual)...

Power by CFC Photo, on Flickr​
Click to expand...
Part of my liking of your shots is your local weather. l'm rather fond of cloud forms, and their colours.

Generally speaking, we have to remember that it's all subjective art form, and one persons award-winning pile of bricks to another person may be just ... a pile of bricks, however perfectly sharp their edges, however colourfully mottled, however beautifully composed is that pile.
 
RPhotos said:
Has one used the sigma 150-600c on the Sony A7iii, would be interested to hear how you are finding it for af etc, particularly for wild life etc.

Thanks
Click to expand...
If it’s any help to you I used it on an A7Riii. Up to 400mm AF was reasonable, probably 10 out of 20 frames in focus. From 400-600 it was dire, only about 4 in 20 frames in focus. Used the mc-11 which I returned to Jessops.
 
CharleyBird said:
Part of my liking of your shots is your local weather. l'm rather fond of cloud forms, and their colours.

Generally speaking, we have to remember that it's all subjective art form, and one persons award-winning pile of bricks to another person may be just ... a pile of bricks, however perfectly sharp their edges, however colourfully mottled, however beautifully composed is that pile.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I live in the shadow of the Sperrin Mountains here in Northern Ireland, so we get plenty of cloud formations (and rain). We are rationed on decent sunsets though, so have to make the most of them when they happen. It often happens that a thick bank of cloud comes up over the mountain in the last hour before sunset and ruins the show. Oh well...
 
woof woof said:
No Ray, obsession just isn't the best fit but if you want to persist with it I think it says more about you and your need to have a bit of a dig. Fair enough, this is the internet, fill your boots.

And for politeness. Yes I post mostly old lens pictures for a few reasons. I post the odd picture that I think is pretty but most of my posts here are gear related as this is a gear thread so when I buy an old lens I post pictures taken with it, probably more than once as the weather and light is sometimes poor so I'll post on bad days, probably the first time I go out with the lens and I can't wait to use it and probably later on good. Just in case anyone is interested :D and I think that some here have actually been tempted towards legacy lenses. Also I think it makes a bit of a difference in what is often a thread tilted very heavily towards expensive modern AF lenses, lenses which are not just expensive in a relative to other makes sense but are also towards the expensive side of the Sony range.

There's no denying you take nice pictures and I can see how you wouldn't want ones like mine to go to a client but we're in different areas. Some of the good stuff here (on the site) means nothing to me, the endless parade of shallow DoF, birds in flight, modern street photography, aviation, model shots... I can appreciate them but I'm not really interested. All I want to do is take pictures of people and places I love and interesting stuff I see and the A7 is the best fit for that and also for the character and old look stuff. You don't like the less neutral look but when used with a more neutral lens and processed sympathetically for a modern look I don't think there's a lot wrong with the colours. There doesn't seem to be a lot wrong with the Voigtlander 35mm pictures I posted recently, they were taken at an aperture which gives a more modern look and they were processed for an uncoloured look and they look fine to me :D and one look in any of the Fuji threads will give you more weird colours than I'd produce in a lifetime. You don't get it. OK, but come on.... Fuji better than a Sony A7? :D
Click to expand...

I think you need to head down to the optician sharpish.
 
RPhotos said:
Has one used the sigma 150-600c on the Sony A7iii, would be interested to hear how you are finding it for af etc, particularly for wild life etc.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Hi I tried this combination on an A7RII and it was virtually unusable so I sold it, however I have recently purchased a A7III and I to am curious to know if it is any better so I am in the process of purchasing another one used this time
having heard so many conflicting stories I decided it was the only way to find out the truth of the matter, I should be able to let you know how I get on in a week or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top