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

[robj20]

The rumor site reports that the A7c evf is fixed and not a pop up. YaY!...

RUMOR correction: Seems like the Sony A7c EVF is fixed and not pop-up. Price is 2.100 Euro! - sonyalpharumors

It looks like there was a misunderstanding with a source. He said the A7c has no popup Flash but instead a popup EVF. The corrected himself. Yes there is no pop-up Flash but the EVF is fixed! And one more new info: The exact price of the body is 2.100 Euro! Updated Sony A7c specs:…

www.sonyalpharumors.com

No built in flash though so that limits social snapshot use.

I think it is a PITA that for some uses another camera with flash is needed just for that reason. This is one area in which my MFT cameras are still useful as they have a built in and tiltable flash.

PS.
And I do hope this has front and back dials near the top of the camera like an A7 for aperture and shutter control or even just one that's clickable between the two / exposure compensation. That would be an improvement over the A6xxx design, IMO.

I'm going to be keeping my eyes on this camera.
I've wanted to upgrade my A7R to the A7iii, but the size is such an issue for me. If I can have that in a body the same or smaller/lighter than the A7R it will be perfect.

 

[antc]

I have the Sony 85mm f1.8. It's relatively small and light, it focuses relatively quickly and it's sharp from wide open. The only downsides I can see are that it isn't f1.4 there's some ca in some situations and the bokeh can with some subjects be a little cats eye and rough.

Maybe you could take a look at the Sony 35mm f1.8? I have one and I feel pretty much the same as I do about the 85mm except for the cats eye effect which the 35 doesn't really do. It is worth noting that it focuses quite close too and that can come in handy.

Yeah this was my thinking, just that it isnt 1.4 and the bokeh maybe not as smooth, but aside from that probably smaller, lighter and perhaps a touch cheaper maybe. This is proving to be a touch decision weather to go for the 1,8s or the 1.4s.

Thanks for pointing out about the 35 and close focusing though, I was not aware of that.

 

[antc]

The R3 don't have the same AF as the A73, it has less points and less coverage. It's technically inferior. It's still good but it's not as good.

As for the holy zoom trinity, I have a Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 24-70/2.8 and Sony 70-200/2,8. Just because when I bought each of them, they were what was out at the time. It's all much of muchness but the Tamron generally speaking is the cheapest. The Sony isn't necessarily the best in everything but I bought the Sony before the Tamron was released. I thought the Sigma 24-70 is very bit as good as the GM for like 40% less. I got the Tamron over the others incl the 12-24 because i wanted to use filters.

Hi Raymond,

Thanks for the reply. Makes a lot of sense, you bought what you felt was the best at the time and each manufacturer didn't necessarily have their full set out at the point you were buying. Sony GM lenses I think for me at present are a little too expensive unless they are miles better than a Sigma/Tamron equivalent lens.

Its interesting to hear you say its "much of a muchness", that sounds very positive in what whichever way I may end up going, they will all be very good. I was struggling to tell the differences after watching many reviews between the Sigma 24-70 and the Tamron version, they both seem to get excellent write ups. I have noted the Sigma 12-24 doesnt have a front filter thread, so, like you, I think I will go for the Tamron 17-28 as I use filters for landscapes.

You along with others in the thread have a lot of experience with the Sony bodies and lenses, I'd be interested to hear what you would buy now, given the options that are available?

 

[snerkler]

(Sharper on Flickr)

Harley Davidson Road King by TDG-77, on Flickr

 

[trevorbray]

(Sharper on Flickr)

Harley Davidson Road King by TDG-77, on Flickr

Nice bit of POP to this. Sweet bike..

 

[Stephen L]

Probably a silly question to ask, but has anyone gone from Nikon Z6/7 to Sony A6xxx? I really love my Z6 and lenses, but since my (successful) cancer treatment I find I have reduced stamina and strength. I bought an A6000 and a couple of lenses, and to my surprise I am able to get comparatively decent results from this light outfit. So much so that I am vaguely considering selling the Nikon stuff and going for an A6500 (I would find the IBIS useful even though 2 of my 3 Sony-fit lenses have ISS). Sensible thoughts please. I never shoot video and people, and rarely anything which moves faster than a glacier.

 

[G.K.Jnr.]

Nice bit of POP to this. Sweet bike..

That's a very nice shot Toby, of a very nice motor cycle, well composed and a good mono presentation.

George.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Just seen the Sony 85mm f1.8 on Amazon for £485.

Seems a good UK price.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

(Sharper on Flickr)

Harley Davidson Road King by TDG-77, on Flickr

nice!
How did it get there?
You don't actually ride yours do you?

 

[woof woof]

Probably a silly question to ask, but has anyone gone from Nikon Z6/7 to Sony A6xxx? I really love my Z6 and lenses, but since my (successful) cancer treatment I find I have reduced stamina and strength. I bought an A6000 and a couple of lenses, and to my surprise I am able to get comparatively decent results from this light outfit. So much so that I am vaguely considering selling the Nikon stuff and going for an A6500 (I would find the IBIS useful even though 2 of my 3 Sony-fit lenses have ISS). Sensible thoughts please. I never shoot video and people, and rarely anything which moves faster than a glacier.

Why don't you wait a few weeks and see what the A7c and its kit lens are like?

Depending on what focal lengths you want and what's available if the A7c looks even half way acceptable then you could maybe have FF quality in an A6xxx sized package.

PS.
Or even use it in APS-C mode with your existing A6xxx lenses.

 

[woof woof]

I'm going to be keeping my eyes on this camera.
I've wanted to upgrade my A7R to the A7iii, but the size is such an issue for me. If I can have that in a body the same or smaller/lighter than the A7R it will be perfect.

It could be worth a look.

 

[snerkler]

Nice bit of POP to this. Sweet bike..

Thanks. It was my first attempt at Brenizer but I discovered that doing the Brenizer with the A7R IV isn’t a good idea as photoshop can’t handle blending many photos with that resolution. This is about 6 photos stitched.

That's a very nice shot Toby, of a very nice motor cycle, well composed and a good mono presentation.

George.

Thanks George.

nice!
How did it get there?
You don't actually ride yours do you?

I get out on it when I can

 

[Raymond Lin]

Hi Raymond,

Thanks for the reply. Makes a lot of sense, you bought what you felt was the best at the time and each manufacturer didn't necessarily have their full set out at the point you were buying. Sony GM lenses I think for me at present are a little too expensive unless they are miles better than a Sigma/Tamron equivalent lens.

Its interesting to hear you say its "much of a muchness", that sounds very positive in what whichever way I may end up going, they will all be very good. I was struggling to tell the differences after watching many reviews between the Sigma 24-70 and the Tamron version, they both seem to get excellent write ups. I have noted the Sigma 12-24 doesnt have a front filter thread, so, like you, I think I will go for the Tamron 17-28 as I use filters for landscapes.

You along with others in the thread have a lot of experience with the Sony bodies and lenses, I'd be interested to hear what you would buy now, given the options that are available?

What to buy depends on your budget, needs, features and even brand snobbiness.

For the Wide Angle Zoom - The money no an issue is the Sony 12-24 but you go to sacrifise the filter use. If you use filters then you are looking at other lenses, Same with the Sigma version really. So this choice is made for you, unless you go F/4 lenses but then it's not so holy, in the holy trinity.

For the 24-70, Tamron is 28-75/2.8, so it's not as wide, if you don't mind that, and want to save a few hundred then get it, if you are willing to spend the bit more, I think the Sigma 24-70/2.8 justifies its price over the Tamron, it is larger. The Sony is an old lens, old design, and it's not even as sharp as the Canon EF 24-70/2.8 mk2. I would avoid the Sony 24-70 GM.

The 70-200 range, same as before really, I got the Sony used so I didn't pay full price, I am not going to sell it up and get the Tamron, it would end up costing me money. The question between these 2 are simply on features on the lens. Do you want the focus distance buttons and do you want that 20mm in the end (it's not as big difference in reality). The size too is bigger, do you mind that? The key thing here I think is the weight, and the buttons on the side more than the 20mm in the end, and the price too. Those are the 3 things to consider because IQ wise, both are excellent.

 

[snerkler]

Has there been a release date announced yet for the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN?

 

[twist]

Has there been a release date announced yet for the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN?

Buying now?

 

[Stephen L]

Why don't you wait a few weeks and see what the A7c and its kit lens are like?

Depending on what focal lengths you want and what's available if the A7c looks even half way acceptable then you could maybe have FF quality in an A6xxx sized package.

PS.
Or even use it in APS-C mode with your existing A6xxx lenses.

Good point but the price may well be prohibitive, compared with, say, a used A6500. And, despite being blown away with the iq of the Z6, I wonder if people (me) have been brainwashed by the improvement of FF over APSC in the real world. Or is a lot of it peer pressure? I know noise at high ISO/low light is improved, but I’ve been guilty of buying above my requirements.

 

[trevorbray]

Good point but the price may well be prohibitive, compared with, say, a used A6500. And, despite being blown away with the iq of the Z6, I wonder if people (me) have been brainwashed by the improvement of FF over APSC in the real world. Or is a lot of it peer pressure? I know noise at high ISO/low light is improved, but I’ve been guilty of buying above my requirements.

Well, I’m certainly guilty of buying over my requirements. However, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s not all about the final result for me. It’s important yes. But I’ve only myself to answer to, I like good gear.

 

[snerkler]

Buying now?

I really fancy it but I'd like to see prices come down so the sooner it's launched the sooner the price will drop (Yes I know it'll be a while )

 

[snerkler]

Good point but the price may well be prohibitive, compared with, say, a used A6500. And, despite being blown away with the iq of the Z6, I wonder if people (me) have been brainwashed by the improvement of FF over APSC in the real world. Or is a lot of it peer pressure? I know noise at high ISO/low light is improved, but I’ve been guilty of buying above my requirements.

I've said it numerous times, it's hard to differentiate m4/3 from FF a lot of the time let alone APS-C vs FF. For me the reason you choose FF is if you're averse to a bit of noise, or you like shallow DOF. If you're shooting with large DOF the noise advantage of the larger format can be diminished as you can shoot using a faster aperture with the smaller formats whilst still maintaining the same DOF.

Oh, there's the DR advantages too, although this will depend on cameras, Sony and Nikon APS-C can have better DR than some FF cameras.

 

[woof woof]

Thanks. It was my first attempt at Brenizer but I discovered that doing the Brenizer with the A7R IV isn’t a good idea as photoshop can’t handle blending many photos with that resolution. This is about 6 photos stitched.
Thanks George.


I get out on it when I can

What I usually do is down size each picture before asking CS5 to do the work. Maybe you want a massive end product but if you don't want a picture the size of the side of a house maybe down sizing the frames could be something to think about.

 

[woof woof]

Good point but the price may well be prohibitive, compared with, say, a used A6500. And, despite being blown away with the iq of the Z6, I wonder if people (me) have been brainwashed by the improvement of FF over APSC in the real world. Or is a lot of it peer pressure? I know noise at high ISO/low light is improved, but I’ve been guilty of buying above my requirements.

I take a lot of pictures on our walk to the shops along a narrow path flanked by trees and bushes on each side and sometimes with the sun if not in the frame then making its presence felt and that makes for areas in shadow and areas in strong light. This can be problematic and I do notice a very real difference between my MFT cameras and my A7. APS-C may well be better than MFT but every decimal point of DR FF offeres could matter. In more forgiving and even lighting I'm sure you're right and APS-C and even MFT or 1" could well be more than adequate.

Anyway, an A7c is just something to think about but I doubt there'll be many used ones for sale at good prices for a while so an A6xxx may be a good option.

 

[f/2.8]

Thanks. It was my first attempt at Brenizer but I discovered that doing the Brenizer with the A7R IV isn’t a good idea as photoshop can’t handle blending many photos with that resolution. This is about 6 photos stitched.

Do you have a really low spec p.c or an iMac ?

I have a fairly decent p.c I use for post and when I had my A7RIV I shot several Brenizer style images using 50-60 images with no issues in post at all.

 

[woof woof]

Well, I’m certainly guilty of buying over my requirements. However, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s not all about the final result for me. It’s important yes. But I’ve only myself to answer to, I like good gear.

One reason for me staying with my FF A7 is that I like using manual lenses and them giving their original FF FoV.

 

[Stephen L]

One reason for me staying with my FF A7 is that I like using manual lenses and them giving their original FF FoV.

I have/am experimenting with manual lenses on my A6000. I expected poor results due to the smaller viewfinder, but in actuality I find it a pleasant experience. Obviously the fov conversion ratio is a downside.

 

[imattersuk]

Well i've managed to finally get on the right track with my gear and luckily managed to do a bit of trading so haven't lost any cash.

New set up;

A7iii
24-105 f4 G
135 f1.8 GM

Gone are the 55 Zeiss and 85 Batis, returned the 70-200 f4

Ordering the Tamron 17-28 (new) soon and on the lookout for a used Sigma 35 f1.2 Art

Considering the A7RIV also as a possible upgrade, had to discover for myself that the negative stories about the Sony menu are nonsense, taken me all of 15 minutes to get the buttons programmed and customise things, once set up it's very easy to use.

No idea why I thought the 70-200 was a good idea, boredom probably !!!

 

[snerkler]

What I usually do is down size each picture before asking CS5 to do the work. Maybe you want a massive end product but if you don't want a picture the size of the side of a house maybe down sizing the frames could be something to think about.

That’s what I’m going to do next time, I’ll probably shoot with medium or small size in camera.

Do you have a really low spec p.c or an iMac ?

I have a fairly decent p.c I use for post and when I had my A7RIV I shot several Brenizer style images using 50-60 images with no issues in post at all.

Should be reasonable, MBP with i7 processor (2.9ghz from memory), 16gb RAM, decent GPU and SSD.

Maybe it’s because I tried sending the raw files from LR rather than opening directly in PS. I assume you were using raw?

TBH I’ve often wondered if there’s something that I’ve done in the ‘setup’ somewhere as I’ve found for quite some time that LR isn’t as fast as I’d like/think it should be. I thought when I upgraded to this MBP it would improve things but it didn’t. It can be fast for a while then it slows and I get the spinning wheel a lot. Sometimes if I just flick through 4-5 images it can do it, and that’s using any files even m4/3.

I might try creating a brand new LR catalogue again, but this time not having it syncing in Dropbox.

 

[snerkler]

Well i've managed to finally get on the right track with my gear and luckily managed to do a bit of trading so haven't lost any cash.

New set up;

A7iii
24-105 f4 G
135 f1.8 GM

Gone are the 55 Zeiss and 85 Batis, returned the 70-200 f4

Ordering the Tamron 17-28 (new) soon and on the lookout for a used Sigma 35 f1.2 Art

Considering the A7RIV also as a possible upgrade, had to discover for myself that the negative stories about the Sony menu are nonsense, taken me all of 15 minutes to get the buttons programmed and customise things, once set up it's very easy to use.

No idea why I thought the 70-200 was a good idea, boredom probably !!!

What didn’t you like about the 70-200mm?

 

[woof woof]

I have/am experimenting with manual lenses on my A6000. I expected poor results due to the smaller viewfinder, but in actuality I find it a pleasant experience. Obviously the fov conversion ratio is a downside.

Downsides for APS-C and old film era primes being that if you want a 50mm FoV you need a 35mm lens which will probably be more expensive and if you want a 35mm FoV or wider you'll be looking for ever more rare and expensive lenses with every mm of extra width you want. But on the positive side a 50mm will give you 75mm FoV on APS-C whereas getting that sort of length on FF could cost more.

 

[woof woof]

That’s what I’m going to do next time, I’ll probably shoot with medium or small size in camera.

I just shoot raw and usually downsize the JPEGs to 2k.

Actually the last stitch I did was only about 8 pictures so I didn't bother downsizing the pictures and instead downsized the end result.

 

[imattersuk]

What didn’t you like about the 70-200mm?

I just didn't need it, I can get close enough with the 135 for my needs.

 

[woof woof]

Considering the A7RIV also as a possible upgrade, had to discover for myself that the negative stories about the Sony menu are nonsense, taken me all of 15 minutes to get the buttons programmed and customise things, once set up it's very easy to use.

Yup.

Personally I feel the same about the Sony colours criticism and tests by the usual internet commentators have tended to show that most people like Sony colours unless they know what they're looking at are Sony colours

 

[imattersuk]

Yup.

Personally I feel the same about the Sony colours criticism and tests by the usual internet commentators have tended to show that most people like Sony colours unless they know what they're looking at are Sony colours

Well the results i'm getting from the RAW's are great, I do miss the Fuji film sims. Used to love processing my Fuji RAW's in C1 and playing with the sims to get the look I wanted.

ON1 is pretty good and I also have Nik so anything is possible I guess.

 

[woof woof]

I use Nik sometimes but lately I've found that I can often get similar results in CS5 which is nice because Nik is sloooooow on my pc.

 

[snerkler]

I just shoot raw and usually downsize the JPEGs to 2k.

Actually the last stitch I did was only about 8 pictures so I didn't bother downsizing the pictures and instead downsized the end result.

So you normally process the raws, export as jpeg and then import the jpegs into ps?

Yup.

Personally I feel the same about the Sony colours criticism and tests by the usual internet commentators have tended to show that most people like Sony colours unless they know what they're looking at are Sony colours

TBH of all the cameras I’ve had Sony raws have given me the biggest headache getting the colours how I want them.

 

[twist]

So you normally process the raws, export as jpeg and then import the jpegs into ps?

TBH of all the cameras I’ve had Sony raws have given me the biggest headache getting the colours how I want them.

You should try the mk1 and 2, the rii upwards were a huge improvement.

 

[woof woof]

So you normally process the raws, export as jpeg and then import the jpegs into ps?

TBH of all the cameras I’ve had Sony raws have given me the biggest headache getting the colours how I want them.

I use CS5 but yes, I just batch process the raws, save as JPEG's and then down size the JPEG's. I like to look at each frame just in case there's any litter, a bug in the air, birds that end up looking like dust bunnies in the picture and any stuff like that that needs cloning out.

Taking smaller pictures would be quicker but as I like to look at each frame maybe not so much for me and of course I like to keep all the frames and if you've taken smaller pictures they're smaller not just in the stitch but for all time.

 

[snerkler]

I use CS5 but yes, I just batch process the raws, save as JPEG's and then down size the JPEG's. I like to look at each frame just in case there's any litter, a bug in the air, birds that end up looking like dust bunnies in the picture and any stuff like that that needs cloning out.

Taking smaller pictures would be quicker but as I like to look at each frame maybe not so much for me and of course I like to keep all the frames and if you've taken smaller pictures they're smaller not just in the stitch but for all time.

Medium files are still around 26mp I believe.

 

[woof woof]

Should be worth a try then.

Another thing I thought of reading your posts above. When my pc's fan needs cleaning the pc runs slower. You may not have a fan full of fluff but if it's running slow it may be worth a look.

 

[snerkler]

Should be worth a try then.

Another thing I thought of reading your posts above. When my pc's fan needs cleaning the pc runs slower. You may not have a fan full of fluff but if it's running slow it may be worth a look.

MBP’s always run hot but it can slow even when the fans aren’t going particularly fast.

 

[f/2.8]

That’s what I’m going to do next time, I’ll probably shoot with medium or small size in camera.

Should be reasonable, MBP with i7 processor (2.9ghz from memory), 16gb RAM, decent GPU and SSD.

Maybe it’s because I tried sending the raw files from LR rather than opening directly in PS. I assume you were using raw?

TBH I’ve often wondered if there’s something that I’ve done in the ‘setup’ somewhere as I’ve found for quite some time that LR isn’t as fast as I’d like/think it should be. I thought when I upgraded to this MBP it would improve things but it didn’t. It can be fast for a while then it slows and I get the spinning wheel a lot. Sometimes if I just flick through 4-5 images it can do it, and that’s using any files even m4/3.

I might try creating a brand new LR catalogue again, but this time not having it syncing in Dropbox.

Yeah macs suck.

Yes I always build Brenizers from full size raws.

The main thing with Lightroom / photoshop for good performance is having a good sized fast scratch disk. Not sure if you can set up an external drive as a scratch disk pretty sure you can’t, making mobile devices useless for any intensive post work really.

I have a 1tb ssd that is only used as a scratch disk. You don’t need to use photoshop for building Brenizer style images you can also just merge them as a pano direct from Lightroom.