<sulk> looks like they took a different route to the one I expected<sulk>We've got the Red Arrows going over our house in a few minutes (allegedly) and I'm not mounting the beast on a tripod for that.
I want that.
Sounds promising, I could sell my GM and get this and put some money in the bankFocus tracking with continuous AF looked really promising on the dogs. He estimates 85-90% as reliable/fast as the GM.
Some of the non GM lenses have excellent AF from my experienceI'm on the fence with my D750 and changing to an A7 III, can anyone tell me if the regular lenses are good enough for the excellent focus system, or do you need master lenses?
Great images, really like the Panda and the last oneSome from yesterday taken at the re-opening of my local Safari Zoo
1
DSC09097 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
2
DSC08997-2 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
3
DSC08882 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
4
DSC08672 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
5
DSC08668 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
6
DSC08521 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
7
DSC08476 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
8
DSC08533 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
I'm on the fence with my D750 and changing to an A7 III, can anyone tell me if the regular lenses are good enough for the excellent focus system, or do you need master lenses?
I quite like the idea too. If the 24-105 wasn't SO useful I'd consider flogging it in order to grab that lens.
Focussing is good on almost all lenses inc. 3rd party ones. The worst offenders are Sony 50mm f1.8 and earlier samyang AF lenses (later ones are a lot better but still not up to par with sony, tamron, sigma).
It’s the perfect partner for the 24-105
Things have come a fair way since A6000 days. What lenses were you using? Some 3rd party ones at the time were slow and didn't support the full AF system properly.Thanks, I often thought my A6000 focusing was slow because of the lenses I was using.
Things have come a fair way since A6000 days. What lenses were you using? Some 3rd party ones at the time were slow and didn't support the full AF system properly.
The Sony 50mm 1.8mm lol
Also a Sigma 30mm 1.4
The FE50/1.8 isn't the best for AF but the APS-C version and also the sigma 30mm f1.4 are supposed to be decent for AF.
Yes, the 50 f/1.8 OSS is a great little lens, never had any issues with the AF speed of it n my A6000.
A6000 wasn't as good as D750 and A7III isn't much better than D750 tbh. The area where it pulls ahead is for shooting people with eyeAF but otherwise for things like wildlife, sports etc D750 is just as competitive. A7III also has full frame AF points coverage with higher fps which works in it's favour.It couldn't keep up with even moderately fast subjects, not sure if lens or A6000. D750 blows it away, but from what I've seen the A7 III will nuke the D750.
The 50 OSS and the SEL50 f1.8 are different lenses, with the SEL50 having barely functional AF.
A6000 wasn't as good as D750 and A7III isn't much better than D750 tbh. The area where it pulls ahead is for shooting people with eyeAF but otherwise for things like wildlife, sports etc D750 is just as competitive. A7III also has full frame AF points coverage with higher fps which works in it's favour.
The A7III isn’t that much smaller tbh, the D750 is pretty small for a FF DSLR.It's the eye AF and smaller size which is drawing me. The D750 AF is fantastic, but I'm finding myself weighing up whether or not to bring the camera, rather than just grabbing it no questions.
A7III isn't much better than D750 tbh. The area where it pulls ahead is for shooting people with eyeAF but otherwise for things like wildlife, sports etc D750 is just as competitive.
The A7III isn’t that much smaller tbh, the D750 is pretty small for a FF DSLR.
Would have to disagree with that. 1/4000 max shutter speed can be limiting on the D750, there is the advantage of the evf vs the ovf as well. Add that to the issue with lenses needed to be tuned for maximum performance, the small spread of a.f points on the D750 not being anywhere near as good plus low light performance on the A7III is much better.
Throw in eye a.f as well and they aren’t close.
There are quite a few differences between the two, A7III is a much better camera for pretty much everything.
Low light is definitely better than D750. In fact it still might be the best one of the lot (or possibly D780).Some good points there to consider thanks. I'm surprised at the low light point as I was looking at a comparison review the other day (astronomy type one) and the D750 seemed slightly better than the Sony, and they both blew the Canon to pieces lol
Low light is definitely better than D750. In fact it still might be the best one of the lot (or possibly D780).
I only use my A6000 for MF macro, when I've tried to use it with AF on my otherwise brilliant Sony 90mm macro lens it's very slow. Although I fondly imagine that I'd use the A6000 as a compact walk around when I eventually get to "walk around" again I somehow doubt it, I suspect that my A9 will be pressed into action.Thanks, I often thought my A6000 focusing was slow because of the lenses I was using.
Very true, but there's small Nikon lenses too. My point was though that the difference between the D750 and Sony mirrorless isn't as big as people often imagine. As you say though it depends on the lenses. Being as you mentioned the 24-105mm, here's the A7III with 24-105mm vs the D750 with 24-120mm f4A lot depends on the lens fitted. The A7III with 24-105 is bulkier and heavier than a D610/D750 with 28-105, however with something like the Sammy 35 f2.8 it's quite a bit smaller & lighter than the Nikon equivalent.
Some good points there to consider thanks. I'm surprised at the low light point as I was looking at a comparison review the other day (astronomy type one) and the D750 seemed slightly better than the Sony, and they both blew the Canon to pieces lol
Are you talking in terms of AF or noise? In terms of noise the A7 III looks better to my eyes hereLet me try and find the article, I might have read it wrong (or looked at the pictures wrong lol)
The 50 OSS and the SEL50 f1.8 are different lenses, with the SEL50 having barely functional AF.
The FE50/1.8 isn't the best for AF but the APS-C version and also the sigma 30mm f1.4 are supposed to be decent for AF.
The A7III isn’t that much smaller tbh, the D750 is pretty small for a FF DSLR.
Very true, but there's small Nikon lenses too. My point was though that the difference between the D750 and Sony mirrorless isn't as big as people often imagine. As you say though it depends on the lenses. Being as you mentioned the 24-105mm, here's the A7III with 24-105mm vs the D750 with 24-120mm f4
Screenshot 2020-06-19 at 07.53.24 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Are you talking in terms of AF or noise? In terms of noise the A7 III looks better to my eyes here
Screenshot 2020-06-19 at 07.55.45 by TDG-77, on Flickr
And DXO scores would seem to confirm this
Screenshot 2020-06-19 at 07.56.16 by TDG-77, on Flickr
£949 here without cash back24-105 £941 with £100 cashback
https://www.jessops.com/p/sony/fe-24-105mm-f4-g-oss-lens-134213
£899, that's pretty good for FE mount!
PLUS £140 if you want the tripod mount.
apparently its the same tripod foot as on sigma 105mm f1.4.
But it still a fair bit cheaper than the GM equivalent.
I wonder if it will work with Sony TCs because they haven't released any for e-mount.
£949 here without cash back
https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-sony-24-105mm-f4-fe-g-oss-lens-e-mount-.htm
although I can’t believe that is UK stock (although it says it is) and went to LCE. My 24-105 has just been delivered (not even opened it yet!) for £925 WITH cash back.
The jessops one is £841 with cash back.
That's l-mount only isn't it?theres a 1.4 and 2 available for pre order