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

ancient_mariner said:
Kind of funny - thinking about a used A7rIII as a high-res upgrade right now. ;)

0ut of interest, those who've had the A7rIII - does it do eye-AF and is focussing better or worse that the A7III?
Click to expand...
Eye AF yes and it’s pretty good, far better camera than the A7 III. I miss mine, buy that bargain in the classifieds before I do as a back up, still think it’s the best sensor Sony make, performance vs used price is fantastic.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Kind of funny - thinking about a used A7rIII as a high-res upgrade right now. ;)

0ut of interest, those who've had the A7rIII - does it do eye-AF and is focussing better or worse that the A7III?
Click to expand...

about the same as A7III but the PDAF points covers around 70% of the frame where as with A7III you almost the entire frame up to the edges
 
snerkler said:
It’s £1300 cheaper than a Z9 and £2500 cheaper than an A1, I wouldn’t call that close (it’s not a fair comparison to compare grey).
Click to expand...

Unless grey market has it at £3k or less it is an absolutely fair comparison. £3k would still be nearly £1k more more than grey IVa. That's HUUUUGGGE! If I spend £4k, and I get part-crippled video, worst fps stills in class, worst ergonomics in class that's just a rubbish deal and it makes better sense to spend just 20% more and get the best. I hope the market teaches Sony that lesson.

snerkler said:
As for resolving power of lenses, I found most lenses I had/have showed more detail with my A7RIV than my A9II so you can argue the extra resolution helps, where the cut off is I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I find that only select primes like 50mm or 85mm at optimum apertures resolve the full frame of 50MP 5ds. It shouldn't be much different for any other system. It doesn't look great when expensive lenses resolve 2/3 pin sharp and then it melts into Vaseline smear.
snerkler said:
it’s also good for cropping.
Click to expand...
if you are into exotic super teles then perhaps. Under 200mm having to crop significantly is pretty much a failure of sorts. Well not really, but you should have zoomed in or chosen a longer prime.

snerkler said:
The ergonomics on the latest Sonys are just fine.
Click to expand...
No. Just no. Even with a grip no.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I hope the market teaches Sony that lesson.
Click to expand...
funnily enough I was hoping market teaches canikon that lesson for making big huge unnecessarily bloated bodies like Z9 and R3.
Though I am not please the A7RV is 723g. but at least I don't feel like it is heavier unnecessarily.

LongLensPhotography said:
I find that only select primes like 50mm or 85mm at optimum apertures resolve the full frame of 50MP 5ds. It shouldn't be much different for any other system. It doesn't look great when expensive lenses resolve 2/3 pin sharp and then it melts into Vaseline smear.
Click to expand...
The sony lenses are of newer design and perform better than older DSLR lenses you might have used on 5DS.
nothing melts in vaseline smear, you are just exaggerating.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
1.Unless grey market has it at £3k or less it is an absolutely fair comparison. £3k would still be nearly £1k more more than grey IVa. That's HUUUUGGGE! If I spend £4k, and I get part-crippled video, worst fps stills in class, worst ergonomics in class that's just a rubbish deal and it makes better sense to spend just 20% more and get the best. I hope the market teaches Sony that lesson.


2.I find that only select primes like 50mm or 85mm at optimum apertures resolve the full frame of 50MP 5ds. It shouldn't be much different for any other system. It doesn't look great when expensive lenses resolve 2/3 pin sharp and then it melts into Vaseline smear.

3.if you are into exotic super teles then perhaps. Under 200mm having to crop significantly is pretty much a failure of sorts. Well not really, but you should have zoomed in or chosen a longer prime.


4.No. Just no. Even with a grip no.
Click to expand...
1. It's a fair comparison if making a purchase and happy to buy grey, it's not a fair comparison when judging market prices, you can't judge one market against another for obvious reasons. Wait a few months and the A7RV will be available grey at a cheaper price and then maybe compare the grey market against each other. As for worst in its class I don't know what you're comparing it to.

2. Melts into Vaseline :ROFLMAO:

3. It's not unusual to crop, especially for wildlife, even 600mm doesn't get you that close at times.

4. Yes it's subjective, but most have been more than happy with gen 3 onwards, I myself have been happy with gen 4 onwards.

I get you don't like Sony, or the new A7RV and that's fine you're entitled not to and nobody is forcing you to buy them.
 
As the subject of the R3 has been brought up. What is the autofocus like in the real world when capturing for example aircraft at an airshow ? I find my R2 is pretty pants with a sigma 100-400 dg dn at anything moving fast I contemplated getting the R4 but don’t need 61 megapixels or the large files size but it has much better AF
 
sjh2008 said:
As the subject of the R3 has been brought up. What is the autofocus like in the real world when capturing for example aircraft at an airshow ? I find my R2 is pretty pants with a sigma 100-400 dg dn at anything moving fast I contemplated getting the R4 but don’t need 61 megapixels or the large files size but it has much better AF
Click to expand...
R3 is better than R2 but I feel you might be better served with the A7IV if your budget stretches that far.
3rd party glass, especially the sigma 100-400mm is also a weak link when it comes to tracking fast moving objects. so for example upgrading to Sony 100-400mm would also probably give you better results.
Though I can't imagine tracking aircrafts being as challenging as say birds since they are more predictable.
 
snerkler said:
1. It's a fair comparison if making a purchase and happy to buy grey, it's not a fair comparison when judging market prices, you can't judge one market against another for obvious reasons. Wait a few months and the A7RV will be available grey at a cheaper price and then maybe compare the grey market against each other. As for worst in its class I don't know what you're comparing it to.
Click to expand...
It is a fair comparison. I don't routinely charge over £1000 per session so body price at this point is very important; and after spending so much I don't want any obvious drawbacks requiring me to keep all of the old gear or get additional gear to fill the gaps.
You will find that price differential of A7IV and R6 is minor, and sometimes can be even weighted towards UK retailers with right offers. Trade show price for A7IV was 1950, which is better than grey and I would have got that if I wasn't distracted by R6 which is completely not a right camera for me as well. The differential between pricier cameras is insane so far. Now we don't know how RV will pan out here. But I don't see HK retailers offering at RIV price or near it. And that is really the bottom line.
The competition if you must ask is obviously R5 (c). That's 2+ year old camera with obvious drawbacks, but offers better video spec outright, and 20fps in e-shutter mode while keeping most of the relevant resolution.
Then we have S1R which is a cut price option. It is lacking in AF department so there is that. Next we have Sony A7RIV. Same 60MP sensor. Same body. Somewhat better EVF. Better AF if you really need it over the older one. Video spec still lacking. Is it worth 2x price increase?!??! Not to me, no.
And finally there is Fuji 100S. At similar price you could have the medium format body. As a high res, high quality offering this should be all you need to know to buy that instead.
Now why Sony with terrible ergonomics? 60mp sensor while it was at a right price point is tempting and I am keener on open lens mount spec where I can get the best Sigma ART zooms and new primes available to me. Canon denies me that option. Spending 2x-4x for every single lens in full plastic is not an option at all. There is L-mount too but they seriously need to fix the AF while keeping S1 style body.
snerkler said:
3. It's not unusual to crop, especially for wildlife, even 600mm doesn't get you that close at times.
Click to expand...
As I said exotic teles. Most of us don't go near wildlife photography and have no intention of doing so. And if you did you should appreciate a full size body.

snerkler said:
4. Yes it's subjective, but most have been more than happy with gen 3 onwards, I myself have been happy with gen 4 onwards.
Click to expand...
Again, why pay 2x-4x more for a minor upgrade?

snerkler said:
I get you don't like Sony, or the new A7RV and that's fine you're entitled not to and nobody is forcing you to buy them.
Click to expand...
As above how do I get my Sigma DN art 14-24 and 24-70mm lenses and clean 50MP sensor combination? I am rather fed up with all EF zooms under 70mm
 
nandbytes said:
If you like the Z9 so much you can adapt all e-mount lenses to Z mount.
Click to expand...
And what exact loses of functionality would that entail? You don't just buy Z9 to permanently stick it on tripod. 5ds is perfectly OK for that with right primes.
You can adapt EF lenses to Z but you lose almost all AF capabilities. That's a no go scenario. EF to E was sort of more workable option at least to give it a try. I even got the bloody adapter ready and waiting in the drawer
 
LongLensPhotography said:
1.As I said exotic teles. Most of us don't go near wildlife photography and have no intention of doing so. And if you did you should appreciate a full size body.


2.Again, why pay 2x-4x more for a minor upgrade?
Click to expand...
1. Not necessarily, there are lenses like the 200-600mm. I appreciate you have no intention of doing wildlife, but then why focus on the A7RV? It’s clearly not for you, if you’re in the market for a new body go look at something more suitable (y)

2. This is very true, some people have to have the latest and greatest but then some are happy to wait several generations before upgrading. Most manufacturers make incremental updates and charge for it, nothing new. Since blackout free shooting and AI AF I can’t think of anything revolutionary.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
And what exact loses of functionality would that entail? You don't just buy Z9 to permanently stick it on tripod. 5ds is perfectly OK for that with right primes.
You can adapt EF lenses to Z but you lose almost all AF capabilities. That's a no go scenario. EF to E was sort of more workable option at least to give it a try. I even got the bloody adapter ready and waiting in the drawer
Click to expand...

If this guy can shoot birds with a 200-600mm adapted, I think you can shoot general purpose stuff with it easily enough with the better AF from Z9
He seems to claim ~70% hit rate which is not bad for an adapted slow tele lenses. Shorter and faster lenses will work much better I'd think.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8elKuMt3aE


and another one here
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sM3TctTJBQ
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
2. This is very true, some people have to have the latest and greatest but then some are happy to wait several generations before upgrading. Most manufacturers make incremental updates and charge for it, nothing new. Since blackout free shooting and AI AF I can’t think of anything revolutionary.
Click to expand...
I think one important thing is to be honest with yourself and think about wants and needs.
 
Another Fuji X100s update.
I've never had so many oof shots from a digital camera. I'll be kind and say it's a learning curve :D
 
woof woof said:
I think one important thing is to be honest with yourself and think about wants and needs.
Click to expand...
I’m on the fence, part of me thinks like this but then part of me thinks life’s short and if you enjoy buying new fangled things and can afford it then why not (y)
 
snerkler said:
I’m on the fence, part of me thinks like this but then part of me thinks life’s short and if you enjoy buying new fangled things and can afford it then why not (y)
Click to expand...
You might be aware that I've had some life changing events in the past 18 months or so and as a result my outlook to money has changed just about completely. I'm still a bit "careful" / tight but mostly now I think that if you want some thing and if that thing could bring you a little happiness and you can afford it then you should maybe have it.
£4,000 is a lot for a camera but as someone who's recently bought a car I don't need I see expense as being relative and I'm sure you/I have worked hard for our hard earned. So why not?
 
woof woof said:
Another Fuji X100s update.
I've never had so many oof shots from a digital camera. I'll be kind and say it's a learning curve :D
Click to expand...
Alan, I really don't understand this, even my X100 very rarely misses focus and thats a generation before - its slow to acquire focus though. The X100 series do struggle with very close (macro) focus but in normal use work just fine.

Probably best moving this discussion to the Fuji thread
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
You might be aware that I've had some life changing events in the past 18 months or so and as a result my outlook to money has changed just about completely. I'm still a bit "careful" / tight but mostly now I think that if you want some thing and if that thing could bring you a little happiness and you can afford it then you should maybe have it.
£4,000 is a lot for a camera but as someone who's recently bought a car I don't need I see expense as being relative and I'm sure you/I have worked hard for our hard earned. So why not?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly Alan, I couldn't agree with you more. After all there's no pockets in a shroud.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Alan, I really don't understand this, even my X100 very rarely misses focus and thats a generation before - its slow to acquire focus though. The X100 series do struggle with very close (macro) focus but in normal use work just fine.
Click to expand...
The issue I had was with moving people. Shots I would normally expect to be in focus were not. With static stuff only a couple missed. You're correct, in all cases it's the speed to acquire focus which is the issue. This is all in comparison to the Sony and Panasonic cameras I have which are all faster than the X100s.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Not necessarily, there are lenses like the 200-600mm. I appreciate you have no intention of doing wildlife, but then why focus on the A7RV? It’s clearly not for you, if you’re in the market for a new body go look at something more suitable (y)
Click to expand...
I have clear and obvious reasons for high mp camera as evidenced by 5ds ownership and making huge prints. Having said that I have no need for 600mm (had one, f4 version) and no need for any wildlife. I would be in fact impressed if 200-600 could actually resolve 60mp sensor . I would much prefer a slower and lighter prime like new the Nikon 800mm, but again I have no need for anything over my 400 5.6 prime which resolves 50mp beautifully
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It is a fair comparison. I don't routinely charge over £1000 per session so body price at this point is very important; and after spending so much I don't want any obvious drawbacks requiring me to keep all of the old gear or get additional gear to fill the gaps.
Click to expand...
I could make the argument if I stole an R V then that means every other camera is really rubbish because they're more expensive but anyone can see that isn't a fair comparison, the two aren't equal.

In the same vein, comparing the best grey prices you can find on cameras which are several years old versus the full retail price with taxes of a camera which hasn't even been released yet isn't really fair. If you're interested in actually comparing it for value purposes, wait for it to pop up on the grey market then make the comparison.
 
Just out of interest I compared my A7, X100s, Panasonic G100 and GM5 all with 35mm or equiv lenses apart from the GM5 which had a 40mm equiv.
There were no real surprises except how well the old 16mp and teeny tiny GM5 pictures held up.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I have clear and obvious reasons for high mp camera as evidenced by 5ds ownership and making huge prints. Having said that I have no need for 600mm (had one, f4 version) and no need for any wildlife. I would be in fact impressed if 200-600 could actually resolve 60mp sensor . I would much prefer a slower and lighter prime like new the Nikon 800mm, but again I have no need for anything over my 400 5.6 prime which resolves 50mp beautifully
Click to expand...
depends on how huge your prints are and the viewing distance. People have been making large prints since before the days of 50mp sensors.
viewing distance and context is very important. you may want to print your A0 at 300 dpi but can any one tell the difference at normal viewing distance i.e. not looking at the very edges with a magnifying glass with their noses up to the wall.
 
nandbytes said:
R3 is better than R2 but I feel you might be better served with the A7IV if your budget stretches that far.
3rd party glass, especially the sigma 100-400mm is also a weak link when it comes to tracking fast moving objects. so for example upgrading to Sony 100-400mm would also probably give you better results.
Though I can't imagine tracking aircrafts being as challenging as say birds since they are more predictable.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info @nandbytes, i was beginning to consider the A7IV as a plan B option, with the R3 as plan A as they are now fairly cheap but then again its a 5 year old camera so old tech / AF it sounds like i should just get a A7IV as the AF will be current generation and pretty decent.
I don`t mind dropping from 42 > 33mp the only disappointment of the reviews i have seen of the IV is the low res lcd screen.
That's its only real downside to me as i shoot landscapes 90% of the time and the other 10% Airshows
 
My small lens collection.

UPVAGQj.jpg


Sony 24mm f2.8, 35mm, Voiglander 35mm f1.4, TTArtisan 50mm f2.
 
nandbytes said:
depends on how huge your prints are and the viewing distance. People have been making large prints since before the days of 50mp sensors.
viewing distance and context is very important. you may want to print your A0 at 300 dpi but can any one tell the difference at normal viewing distance i.e. not looking at the very edges with a magnifying glass with their noses up to the wall.
Click to expand...
At a1 size there is a small but visible difference at 60-100cm distance between 20-22 and 45-50 mp files. The latter are totally perfectly sharp. You can close the gap somewhat with gigapixel ai. Same will apply to smaller cropped prints
I think I would be happy with 35mp as a compromise because many lenses don't go much further than that, but 8k video future pushes that boundary to 45-50
 
ancient_mariner said:
They *look* nice in those housings, but if Samyang results are council-house then these are doss-house grade.
Click to expand...
From the write up they're not good buys as cini lenses, focus breathing and inconsistent colour rendering being amongst the issues but as a buy one for stills shooting prospect one could be a good buy at those prices.
 
woof woof said:
From the write up they're not good buys as cini lenses, focus breathing and inconsistent colour rendering being amongst the issues but as a buy one for stills shooting prospect one could be a good buy at those prices.
Click to expand...

I think if I wanted a cheap new lens then that little 50 f2 you bought recently doesn't look much worse and a lot cheaper.
 
woof woof said:
From the write up they're not good buys as cini lenses, focus breathing and inconsistent colour rendering being amongst the issues but as a buy one for stills shooting prospect one could be a good buy at those prices.
Click to expand...
Even sigma cine lenses suffer from breathing because they are none other than art primes in fancy expensive housing. Software should now deal with breathing so it's becoming a bit of a non issue
For better you are looking at Zeiss or canon going at £20k a piece and there is now less reason to need them
 
A first for me yesterday with a paid gig at top flight football in Scotland. I've done a few matches but never had a fee agreed for a top league game. This image was a red card via a VAR call and they were actually talking about the shot on the radio, BBC Sportsound, as it was on the BBC news page. Definitely a case of an image lying as it looks a terrible challenge but imo it was never a sending off
 

Attachments

  • _SA11159.jpg
    _SA11159.jpg
    161.8 KB · Views: 29
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top