Until tonight, I was set on moving from my 5 year old Canon 500D to a 6D. I already have a couple of Sigma lenses (a 50mm 1.4), so taking them with me.
By chance I stumbled across a photo on Flickr using an A7ii, and I got lost in reviews/comparisons.
Has anyone moved from a similar camera to an A7/A7ii? Or even from a 5/6D?
been looking on flickr iso 6400
test iso 3200 by Joop Andel, on Flickr
could anyone share a link for iso 6400 or 12800 shots please
cheers
Exacxly!Until the A7 series there wasn't a SLR replacement as DSLR's are big fat blimps
Many thanks never knew about that site
Many thanks never knew about that site
Allan
well there was Leica, which are fairly heavy but with light lenses
http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/07/...sions-hands-on-with-the-surprising-4k-camera/
One thing though, for those thinking of using the A7rII for video - "A small bad news: Autofocus with adapter EOS lenses does not work as well in video as it does in stills mode. The only way to get the PDAF working continuously in video is to use Sony’s own E-mount lenses. It doens’t work with A-mount or Canon EF lenses."
Hi,
New(ish) owner of A7II here - amazing thread! Long-standing GAS victim - but I think I'm going to stick with this one...
I'm interested in the Mitakon 50mm/0.95 and I've seen several very positive posts here about it. (I've also played with a rich person's Leica Noctilux... GAS well and truly ignited!)
Can anyone recommend a UK supplier? I know there isn't an official UK importer - has anyone bought the 'Dark Knight' from one of the various ebay sellers? Or anywhere else?
Has anyone experienced problems that might normally be covered by a guaranteed (again, I believe there isn't one)? Any copy variation (or doesn't that matter?)?
Any advice gratefully received!
Thanks,
Nick
Haven't tried that lens but I'd have thought that having hardly anything twinkle was an advantage. With my f1.2 I find that I can focus quite accurately wide open but at smaller apertures like f8 everthing twinkles and critical focus is next to impossible.Its a nice lens but very front heavy on the little A7 and quite difficult to focus as peaking doesnt work nearly accurately enough at f0.95. Hardly anything lights up, so its magnify.
Haven't tried that lens but I'd have thought that having hardly anything twinkle was an advantage. With my f1.2 I find that I can focus quite accurately wide open but at smaller apertures like f8 everthing twinkles and critical ficus is next to impossible.
Ah well, maybe it's just a step too far.
A bloke here states his reasons for liking Sony more than the Canon 50mp whatsitcalled...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/reigning-übercamera.html
I don't see why anyone would buy an A7 series camera as plenty of random blokes (er, like on that linked blog) reliably inform us thst there are no lenses.
UK digital used to be the UK stockist. Otherwise theres a seller on Ebay that imports them.
No real copy variation, its a MF lens and they are well put together, the first batches screws werent tightened using loctite so there was a chance the lens could come apart over time, I believe they remedied it.
Its a nice lens but very front heavy on the little A7 and quite difficult to focus as peaking doesnt work nearly accurately enough at f0.95. Hardly anything lights up, so its magnify.
Thanks very much indeed, just the info I was looking for! I always use magnify, as me peepers aren't what they used to be (little tykes - don't remember giving them permission to skive off!?)...
All the best,
Nick
With such a fast shutter speed the light can't have been all that low and I'd be disappointed with a noisy ISO 6400 file shot in reasonable light as even my lowly G1 produces pretty good ISO 3200 files in reasonable light and I'd expect just about any modern camera to do better at 6400, in reasonable light.
Maybe it's best to ignore this file and wait for more examples to download and process with known quantity software?
Hi are these the f4 versions of the 16-35mm and 24-70mm lens please i ask as i am still looking at the A7 as a possible next camera and lens options seem a bit overlap in the 2 you mention and i did think maybe at the 35mm end getting close for a snap shot portrait may crop in wellLoving my A7R that I got from a forum member. Have the Sony 16-35 and 24-70 - though this lens is almost redundant and I may move it on as I am finding cropping the 35mm end of the 16-35 gives me more than enough resolution for my needs.
While 98% of my images are within the scope of the 16-35 there is the occasional time I need a bit more range, 100mm or more, and so am looking for a lens. The Sony 70-200 looks great but is way overkill for me and given its rare usage seems a bit of an extravagance. So was wondering if anyone here has experience of the newish 24-240? Read numerous reviews and it seems to reviewed as adequate but with compromise for the money and range, that would probably be ok for my usage but actual experience from forum members is invaluable. Was also wondering about alternatives. So if you have experience and recommendations would love to hear them. Oh, did try going through this thread to see what I could find on this subject but the thread is now huge and its size defeated me
Many thanks,
Creo
I think you have very high standards or maybe mine are pretty low but I find that even my old tech Panasonic G1 produces useable files at 1200 and my GX7 and A7 produce ussable files at 25,600. By useable I mean that after only very basic non expert processing they're good enough for whole image on screen viewing and for prints, the only question is how big a print.I suppose that depends on what you consider as reasonable. Without any processing pretty much everything bar the A7S is looks poor even at 1200.
Hi are these the f4 versions of the 16-35mm and 24-70mm lens please i ask as i am still looking at the A7 as a possible next camera and lens options seem a bit overlap in the 2 you mention and i did think maybe at the 35mm end getting close for a snap shot portrait may crop in well
If it is the f4 it will have the OS on it, do you find it has many stops of stabilisation would you guess how many it has please
Final thought as the A7r is contrast focus do you find thats good as i am spoilt on phase detection.
Thanks
Allan
The a7r2 will be good very fast moving subjects with native lenses I reckon so worth waiting for that.Yes, the Sony F4 versions. I only have limited time with it so far, so not sure I am qualified to answer your queries, but as you asked I'll give an opinion for whatever its worth.
I do landscape, pretty the only thing I do, and so wide angle is my usual choice. The overlap between the 16-35 and 24-70 is less of an issue with the A7R due to the large number of pixels, whereas with say a 16mp camera you would be left with quite a small final version. So with the A7R its (for me) a viable option to crop the 35mm to give a 50, 60 or even 70mm. However, thats because its something I dont use much, if you take a lot images in that 35-70 range then it would probably be best to have a lens whose focal length is within that actual range.
I dont use the OSS much as mostly I use a tripod with the OSS switched off, so have no idea.
Again, for my focusing its fine, however I think while it may be usable for moving subjects it may well be a bit of a pain if its something you use it for a lot. To me, the A7R is more for someone who photographs static scenes, and while it may do the job for moving subjects I suspect an A7 would be a better choice.
There are a gadzillion reviews and opinions on the net about the A7X cameras. Each person has their own experiences and opinion. Mine is for landscape the A7R is superb, but for action or general photography the A7m especially the A7 Mk2 is the better choice.
Creo
Hi thank you for the info good help i have decided to go for the A7 mike and the sony sel1635Z just placed an order so looks as i am going the A7 group. I never fancied the A7r Mkii for me its a lot of cash and for my iMac a lot of pixelsYes, the Sony F4 versions. I only have limited time with it so far, so not sure I am qualified to answer your queries, but as you asked I'll give an opinion for whatever its worth.
I do landscape, pretty the only thing I do, and so wide angle is my usual choice. The overlap between the 16-35 and 24-70 is less of an issue with the A7R due to the large number of pixels, whereas with say a 16mp camera you would be left with quite a small final version. So with the A7R its (for me) a viable option to crop the 35mm to give a 50, 60 or even 70mm. However, thats because its something I dont use much, if you take a lot images in that 35-70 range then it would probably be best to have a lens whose focal length is within that actual range.
I dont use the OSS much as mostly I use a tripod with the OSS switched off, so have no idea.
Again, for my focusing its fine, however I think while it may be usable for moving subjects it may well be a bit of a pain if its something you use it for a lot. To me, the A7R is more for someone who photographs static scenes, and while it may do the job for moving subjects I suspect an A7 would be a better choice.
There are a gadzillion reviews and opinions on the net about the A7X cameras. Each person has their own experiences and opinion. Mine is for landscape the A7R is superb, but for action or general photography the A7m especially the A7 Mk2 is the better choice.
Creo
I think you have very high standards or maybe mine are pretty low but I find that even my old tech Panasonic G1 produces useable files at 1200 and my GX7 and A7 produce ussable files at 25,600. By useable I mean that after only very basic non expert processing they're good enough for whole image on screen viewing and for prints, the only question is how big a print.
I don't print much these days and maybe only do one print a week and maybe my friends and family have even lower standards than me but no one, not once has ever looked at one of my pictures and said "That's too noisy. You shouldn't have bothered.'
Going back in time to when almost the only pictures I took were ISO 1600 35mm shots at gigs with a Nikon and a basic f3.5-5.6 lens no one ever complained, far from it, but I suppose the saving grace then was the relatively small size of standard prints. These days any of my cameras just blows the results I got in those days away at much higher ISO's and in much larger images. My GX7 even possibly rivals the Canon 5D I had not so long ago.
Maybe. For me even at 800iso I can easily see noise in 1:1 images on screen.
Now with PP and scaling down to 1280 then I can get decent images at over 6k.
Did I mention I hate noise
Sometimes. Especially when cropping. I don't print I've got enough bits of paper lying around as it is. I don't like clutter.
I'd love an A7S as I shoot a lot in low light.
Gents - sorry for the newbie question but is there a guide somewhere that compares the various Sony A7xx models? I am considering a move from Canon and don't know much about the Sony range!
Thanks in advance for any replies
Maybe. For me even at 800iso I can easily see noise in 1:1 images on screen.
Now with PP and scaling down to 1280 then I can get decent images at over 6k.
Did I mention I hate noise
Thanks very much for the reply - I will do some Googling nowa7s low light monster, 12mp
a7 24mp middle of the road average
a7ii 24mp, adds 5axis ibis
a7r 36mp, think d800
a7rii 42mp canon nightmare with ibis and 4k
a77ii/a99 are a mount, there good to but sony pushes them with all the effort or a 90 year old mouse
Thanks very much for the reply - I will do some Googling nowa7s low light monster, 12mp
a7 24mp middle of the road average
a7ii 24mp, adds 5axis ibis
a7r 36mp, think d800
a7rii 42mp canon nightmare with ibis and 4k
a77ii/a99 are a mount, there good to but sony pushes them with all the effort or a 90 year old mouse