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

Ashburner said:
I would honestly keep the Sony just for the 55mm. The lens really is that good.
It was the first lens I bought for my A7II. If your in the Sony system you need this lens.

The biggest annoyance for me is the 55mm is so good and given the price of the Sony glass I can’t justify a 24-70 knowing I have a 28mm and a 55mm and I’d never swap out these two lenses for a 24-70, too expensive to have both! So Sony kind of makes you choose primes or zooms route.
Click to expand...

I have just sold my 24-70mm on this forum as although I found it to be a super sharp lens, it is a big lump :) I use the 35mm F2.8 and the F55mm F1.8. Both are superb lenses and compliment the AR72 very well. Mind you having decided to go down the route of using primes I have just ordered the 24 - 105mm G lens.... I couldn't resist :)
 
Ok, so seriously considering a move from a D750 to Sony. What’s the general consensus over the A7riii and A9? Most of my photography is family shots, not critical to nail focus every time but kids are fast moving. Is the AF on the A7Rii a hugh backwards step to the D750?

Shoot mostly with the 35mm art on the D750, what’s the best 35 on Sony?
 
AndrewSt said:
Ok, so seriously considering a move from a D750 to Sony. What’s the general consensus over the A7riii and A9? Most of my photography is family shots, not critical to nail focus every time but kids are fast moving. Is the AF on the A7Rii a hugh backwards step to the D750?

Shoot mostly with the 35mm art on the D750, what’s the best 35 on Sony?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure if anybody has compared the new Sony A7R III Auto-focus system against DSLR’s like the D750 etc.
Surely the A7R III can’t be bad as it seems to have coined “camera of the year” in a number of places.
However the Sony A9 is more than capable in terms of Auto-focus etc.
If you don’t need the high resolution files and can afford the difference between it and the A9, I’d have the A9, but then I am biased lol :D

The best 35mm is probably the Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4, it’s a big heavy beast though. :)
 
Last edited:
I only have the original A7 but, in daylight at least, I don’t have any issues with the AF keeping up with our kids or dog. When the light gets lower it does struggle though. Having used a friends’ A7Rii with 55/1.8 I don’t think there would be many issues in low light with the AF shooting family shots.

Whilst the A7 AF isn’t as good as a DSLR (except maybe the A9), it doesn’t sound like you’re shooting F1 races at night so I’m sure an A7Rii would be fine, which means the A7riii will be more than adequate. Not sure anyone really needs to have an A9 to shoot family pictures :0)
 
AndrewSt said:
Ok, so seriously considering a move from a D750 to Sony. What’s the general consensus over the A7riii and A9? Most of my photography is family shots, not critical to nail focus every time but kids are fast moving. Is the AF on the A7Rii a hugh backwards step to the D750?

Shoot mostly with the 35mm art on the D750, what’s the best 35 on Sony?
Click to expand...

I went from D750 to A7rii back to D750. While the A7rii is a great camera the af is a step backwards if you use continuous AF a lot. You'll also be going from about £1300 worth of gear (on a good day) to spending around £2800 for the move (based on grey price). Something to think about.
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
I’m not sure if anybody has compared the new Sony A7R III Auto-focus system against DSLR’s like the D750 etc.
Surely the A7R III can’t be bad as it seems to have coined “camera of the year” in a number of places.
However the Sony A9 is more than capable in terms of Auto-focus etc.
If you don’t need the high resolution files and can afford the difference between it and the A9, I’d have the A9, but then I am biased lol :D

The best 35mm is probably the Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4, it’s a big heavy beast though. :)
Click to expand...
The A9 beats my 5d4 and the a7r3 matches the 5d4 in af terms
 
stevelmx5 said:
I only have the original A7 but, in daylight at least, I don’t have any issues with the AF keeping up with our kids or dog. When the light gets lower it does struggle though. Having used a friends’ A7Rii with 55/1.8 I don’t think there would be many issues in low light with the AF shooting family shots.

Whilst the A7 AF isn’t as good as a DSLR (except maybe the A9), it doesn’t sound like you’re shooting F1 races at night so I’m sure an A7Rii would be fine, which means the A7riii will be more than adequate. Not sure anyone really needs to have an A9 to shoot family pictures :0)
Click to expand...
I shot f1 race at night on the a7r3 and it was brilliant
 
stevelmx5 said:
I was just suggesting that using a camera to take snaps of the family isn’t exactly demanding on any camera system but cheers for the clarification [emoji6]
Click to expand...

Isnt it? Perhaps if the family stays still or you shoot stopped down on a sunny day. TBH kids are one of the most difficult subjects to photograph.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Isnt it? Perhaps if the family stays still or you shoot stopped down on a sunny day. TBH kids are one of the most difficult subjects to photograph.
Click to expand...

I agree, I struggled on some occasions shooting my 2 year old with the Fuji XT-2 system.
I firmly believe technique is equally as important though and in the right hands you could shoot faster paced situations with older A7 bodies.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I agree, I struggled on some occasions shooting my 2 year old with the Fuji XT-2 system.
I firmly believe technique is equally as important though and in the right hands you could shoot faster paced situations with older A7 bodies.
Click to expand...

Equally important as how fast a camera can focus? How are you going to do that? The camera will be able to focus or it wont, you arent going to magically improve its specification.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Also the Sony GM zoom’s are pretty sharp for most uses :D
Click to expand...

I'm finding the new 24-70GM I've received to be as sharp as some of the primes I've been using! Woo!

jonneymendoza said:
BTW my new years resolution is never to buy a new lens or camera unless something I already own breaks and can't be repaired etc.

Let's see how it goes!
Click to expand...

I'm going to try and avoid buying much of anything this year, save for playing with some cheapo legacy glass and maybe swapping my 21 Loxia for the 16-35... I've taken up Golf over the winter so I suspect some of my cash will go there this year instead!

As an aside, has anyone used a Canon Selphy printer?
 
twist said:
Isnt it? Perhaps if the family stays still or you shoot stopped down on a sunny day. TBH kids are one of the most difficult subjects to photograph.
Click to expand...

I shoot the majority of my portraits on medium format film so any AF is a step up ;0)

I’ve got more than enough shots of my kids running around using all of my kit (Nex5, A6000, A7). As I said, in good light, any camera can deliver family snaps but in lower light the original A7 I use does struggle.

A7 with FE 50/1.8

IMG_1514833260.036553.jpg

IMG_1514833281.452657.jpg

IMG_1514833306.169254.jpg

A6000 SEL501.8

IMG_1514833338.484442.jpg

Nex5 with manual focus Jupiter 9 80/2.0

IMG_1514833417.127566.jpg

My point is that you don’t need to spend £4K to shoot family snaps.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Equally important as how fast a camera can focus? How are you going to do that? The camera will be able to focus or it wont, you arent going to magically improve its specification.
Click to expand...

Agreed but there are other variables at play including available light that determines how fast it can focus and how accurate the focus is.
In good light the Sony A7 bodies are great at focusing accurately on slow/static subjects however if you try to focus track in less light it becomes a different matter, here is when technique can help overcome some of the poor tracking abilities. For example a A7 shooting fast moving planes at a air show etc.
 
Last edited:
It’s the focus tracking that is important. C AF on the D750 is really good, it does seem to depend on the lens as well but the sigma 35 is fairly acctate once it was calibrated. Sure an A7/A9 is overkill for almost anything really, as is a D750. Looking at something the reduces the size and weight but keep the IQ. Didn’t get on with an xt1 or an x100f, just didn’t like the files.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I'm finding the new 24-70GM I've received to be as sharp as some of the primes I've been using! Woo!



I'm going to try and avoid buying much of anything this year, save for playing with some cheapo legacy glass and maybe swapping my 21 Loxia for the 16-35... I've taken up Golf over the winter so I suspect some of my cash will go there this year instead!

As an aside, has anyone used a Canon Selphy printer?
Click to expand...

It’s great isn’t it, zoom lenses to give us near prime like levels sharpness.

Yes I have a Canon Selphy, it’s ok for the money :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
Agreed but there are other variables at play including available light that determines how fast it can focus and how accurate the focus is.
In good light the Sony A7 bodies are great at focusing accurately on slow/static subjects however if you try to focus track in less light it becomes a different matter, here is when technique can help overcome some of the poor tracking abilities. For example a A7 shooting fast moving planes at a air show etc.
Click to expand...

The variables which I mentioned in my post.
 
AndrewSt said:
It’s the focus tracking that is important. C AF on the D750 is really good, it does seem to depend on the lens as well but the sigma 35 is fairly acctate once it was calibrated. Sure an A7/A9 is overkill for almost anything really, as is a D750. Looking at something the reduces the size and weight but keep the IQ. Didn’t get on with an xt1 or an x100f, just didn’t like the files.
Click to expand...

The a9 weighs 150g less than a d750, the lenses are FF so will be just as big and as heavy as other ff manufacturers lenses.... actually the zeiss 35 is bigger as a setup than the d750 and ART.
 
Last edited:
AndrewSt said:
It’s the focus tracking that is important. C AF on the D750 is really good, it does seem to depend on the lens as well but the sigma 35 is fairly acctate once it was calibrated. Sure an A7/A9 is overkill for almost anything really, as is a D750. Looking at something the reduces the size and weight but keep the IQ. Didn’t get on with an xt1 or an x100f, just didn’t like the files.
Click to expand...

By the time you mount an equivalent 35/1.4 you're not going to save a huge amount of weight over the D750 and CAF may still be better on the DSLR.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#724.615,567.698,ha,t

However, if you mount smaller lenses to the A7 you will definitely save size/weight.

The sensor output from the A7 is excellent so I would definitely agree that for landscapes they're a great choice.
 
Last edited:
Going to the Goodwood Festival of Speed this year. Have never been before and was thinking of taking my a9 with either a 70-200 or a 100-400 but not both to keep the weight down (I is old and a bit disabled) so any advice on which would be best would be appreciated. For close up candid shots I will use my Leica q, if I can prise it out of the wife's hands. This is going to cost as we are having to travel down from North East Scotland, so I really want to get it right. Any thoughts?
 
Brom said:
Going to the Goodwood Festival of Speed this year. Have never been before and was thinking of taking my a9 with either a 70-200 or a 100-400 but not both to keep the weight down (I is old and a bit disabled) so any advice on which would be best would be appreciated. For close up candid shots I will use my Leica q, if I can prise it out of the wife's hands. This is going to cost as we are having to travel down from North East Scotland, so I really want to get it right. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Unless you have (and need f2.8) I would take the 100-400. I was looking to get the 70-200 f4 when I sold my Canon 70-200 f4 LIS, but in the end decided that with having the 100-400 GM it wouldn't get much use as raising the ISO by 1 stop is hardly the end of the world with Sony sensors
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Unless you have (and need f2.8) I would take the 100-400. I was looking to get the 70-200 f4 when I sold my Canon 70-200 f4 LIS, but in the end decided that with having the 100-400 GM it wouldn't get much use as raising the ISO by 1 stop is hardly the end of the world with Sony sensors
Click to expand...
I think you're right, that probably is the way to go. I already have a 24-70 f/2.8 so could probably partex the 70-200 f/4 for the 100-400mm, a 30mm gap isn't the end of the world and would keep the lens count down. Thanks for that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top