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

snerkler said:
Nice (y)

Bit too steep for me that one, will be intesting to see what it's like with the 2x TC though as you say, a 1700g 600mm f5.6 sounds great. I'm sure I read something a while back about new Sony TC's but not heard anything since, it owuld be nice if we could finally get a 2x TC that's useable.
Click to expand...
Well it's no more expensive than your A1 for example.
It's not cheap but with some discounts and such I think it's possible to get one in the realms of affordability (for me).

The lens looks super sharp which is why I am hoping it'll hold up even with the current 2x TC. Only time will tell.
My alternative was buying Nikon Z8 + 400mm f4.5. the lens is lighter but the body is heavier.
A1 can be had for £500-ish more than Z8 at the moment (the difference might be larger later on) so it's not as massive a difference as release prices.

I was expecting £10k-ish 2-2.5kg behemoth of a lens. So in comparison I'm pretty pleased with what was released. It's certainly been enough to make me hold the trigger on Nikon.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Well it's no more expensive than your A1 for example.
It's not cheap but with some discounts and such I think it's possible to get one in the realms of affordability (for me).

The lens looks super sharp which is why I am hoping it'll hold up even with the current 2x TC. Only time will tell.
My alternative was buying Nikon Z8 + 400mm f4.5. the lens is lighter but the body is heavier.
A1 can be had for £500-ish more than Z8 at the moment (the difference might be larger later on) so it's not as massive a difference as release prices.

I was expecting £10k-ish 2-2.5kg behemoth of a lens. So in comparison I'm pretty pleased with what was released. It's certainly been enough to make me hold the trigger on Nikon.
Click to expand...
It’s about what I expected when you compare it to the 400mm f2.8.

I paid a lot less than that for my A1, but that was a present as well. The most I’ve spent on a lens is £2500 which was/is extreme for me, £6k on a lens is definitely out of my realms of possibility. I bet it’ll be might impressive though.
 
snerkler said:
It’s about what I expected when you compare it to the 400mm f2.8.

I paid a lot less than that for my A1, but that was a present as well. The most I’ve spent on a lens is £2500 which was/is extreme for me, £6k on a lens is definitely out of my realms of possibility. I bet it’ll be might impressive though.
Click to expand...
You got me thinking what's the most I have spent on a lens.... I think it's £1750.

£6k is definitely out my price range. I have been saving my pennies for a long time. my budget is £4k for a Tele/wildlife lens (assuming I can get at least £1k for my 200-600mm)
But I could probably stretch that a wee bit further but not as far as £5.8k. I'm sure it'll come down in price plus there'll be cashbacks etc.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
You got me thinking what's the most I have spent on a lens.... I think it's £1750.

£6k is definitely out my price range. I have been saving my pennies for a long time. my budget is £4k for a Tele/wildlife lens (assuming I can get at least £1k for my 200-600mm)
But I could probably stretch that a wee bit further but not as far as £5.8k. I'm sure it'll come down in price plus there'll be cashbacks etc.
Click to expand...
I think I am personally drawing a line for most things under £1000, be it used or new. I am obviously not in the market of super teles; pretty much no need for one. You would have to up the budget for one.

An interesting observation that the nikon 600mm f/6.3 is just a smidgen cheaper than this 300mm f/2.8. The big question is how would 300 +2x TC hold up against the Nikon, and of course you have a pretty fancy 300mm, and 420mm with 1.4x so potentially could be a much better option for many buyers or perhaps it just shows the Nikon is ludicrously overpriced and nothing else
 
nandbytes said:
You got me thinking what's the most I have spent on a lens.... I think it's £1750.

£6k is definitely out my price range. I have been saving my pennies for a long time. my budget is £4k for a Tele/wildlife lens (assuming I can get at least £1k for my 200-600mm)
But I could probably stretch that a wee bit further but not as far as £5.8k. I'm sure it'll come down in price plus there'll be cashbacks etc.
Click to expand...
Obviously it’ll be cheaper grey but I know you don’t like to buy grey. They’ll probably offer something like £300 cashback at some point but I can’t see it being close to £5k UK for a long time even with CB :(

I think used could be an option but I wouldn’t have thought it would be a lens where you get a lot of used ones come up.
 
snerkler said:
I think used could be an option but I wouldn’t have thought it would be a lens where you get a lot of used ones come up.
Click to expand...
Maybe in 2034... or asset liquidation fire sale
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I think I am personally drawing a line for most things under £1000, be it used or new. I am obviously not in the market of super teles; pretty much no need for one. You would have to up the budget for one.

An interesting observation that the nikon 600mm f/6.3 is just a smidgen cheaper than this 300mm f/2.8. The big question is how would 300 +2x TC hold up against the Nikon, and of course you have a pretty fancy 300mm, and 420mm with 1.4x so potentially could be a much better option for many buyers or perhaps it just shows the Nikon is ludicrously overpriced and nothing else
Click to expand...
I think most lenses are ludicrously overpriced these days. I wince at what I paid for the 70-200mm GM II, and even though I got an exceptional deal in the 50mm f1.2 I still wince at that as well :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
I think most lenses are ludicrously overpriced these days. I wince at what I paid for the 70-200mm GM II, and even though I got an exceptional deal in the 50mm f1.2 I still wince at that as well :oops: :$
Click to expand...
There is a reason why I am buying select Sigma ART and an odd Tamron glass
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I think I am personally drawing a line for most things under £1000, be it used or new. I am obviously not in the market of super teles; pretty much no need for one. You would have to up the budget for one.

An interesting observation that the nikon 600mm f/6.3 is just a smidgen cheaper than this 300mm f/2.8. The big question is how would 300 +2x TC hold up against the Nikon, and of course you have a pretty fancy 300mm, and 420mm with 1.4x so potentially could be a much better option for many buyers or perhaps it just shows the Nikon is ludicrously overpriced and nothing else
Click to expand...
Yep that's indeed the question and also how it holds up against Z400/4.5 (+1.4x).
The Z400/4.5 can be had for £2.5-ish. so it's a lot cheaper than other options.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Why can't they do affordable 300/4 or 400/5.6 any more? I am keeping my 400mm for a long time to come it seems
Click to expand...
Is there any need for a 400mm f5.6 when the 100-400mm is f5.6?
 
snerkler said:
Obviously it’ll be cheaper grey but I know you don’t like to buy grey. They’ll probably offer something like £300 cashback at some point but I can’t see it being close to £5k UK for a long time even with CB :(

I think used could be an option but I wouldn’t have thought it would be a lens where you get a lot of used ones come up.
Click to expand...
Not sure if such a lens will be available to buy grey anyway.

Probably won't be easy to find used either as you say.

LCE do 10% discounts is some events, add a nice managers discount and some cashback I think it's possible to get it around £5k. That's still £1K above my budget. But I'm not going worry about that 1k till I can work out how it compares against Nikon's teleprimes
 
nandbytes said:
Yep that's indeed the question and also how it holds up against Z400/4.5 (+1.4x).
The Z400/4.5 can be had for £2.5-ish. so it's a lot cheaper than other options.
Click to expand...
Yes. I thought it was OK value, and 800mm didn't seen as crazy but has gone up a lot since. The 600mm is just way above the median line. This is just general curiosity for me, I have no need for anything over 4-500mm and even this for only a very very occasional use. In real life more like up to 135mm.
 
snerkler said:
Is there any need for a 400mm f5.6 when the 100-400mm is f5.6?
Click to expand...
cost. And prime would still be sharper, particularly with Tc.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Yes. I thought it was OK value, and 800mm didn't seen as crazy but has gone up a lot since. The 600mm is just way above the median line. This is just general curiosity for me, I have no need for anything over 4-500mm and even this for only a very very occasional use. In real life more like up to 135mm.
Click to expand...
My longest prime is 85mm and it's also my most used.
I like to carry zooms up to 300mm for travel and landscapes. Well I have recently switched to 70-200mm f4 + 1.4x.

I'd love to have a bunch of Tele lenses but I can only carry one and I only have budget for one nice one. There is really no point buying two mediocre zooms for example. So I'm still contemplating "THE" wildlife lens is for me.

There is still a z 800mm in sales not sure if it sold. I just don't have the funds for the asking price, I wish it was closer to £4k than £5k :(
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Obviously it’ll be cheaper grey but I know you don’t like to buy grey. They’ll probably offer something like £300 cashback at some point but I can’t see it being close to £5k UK for a long time even with CB :(

I think used could be an option but I wouldn’t have thought it would be a lens where you get a lot of used ones come up.
Click to expand...
I think you will be right. The big whites stay at the same price for years unless a new model is on the way. Look at the 400 and 600
 
wookie6262 said:
Dynamic range isn't a huge issue with sport imo and I thought they said it had teh same noise and DR in the launch. It will likely have less DR as the iso base is 250 but I usually shoot above that anyway
Click to expand...

I messaged the local Sony rep and he said he had been inundated with people asking the same thing. They won’t tell him to be able to answer the question.

That is very concerning
 
f/2.8 said:
I messaged the local Sony rep and he said he had been inundated with people asking the same thing. They won’t tell him to be able to answer the question.

That is very concerning
Click to expand...
I can't find the part in the video but the wording, taken from another forum, was "Sony says doesn't compromise on ISO performance or dynamic range." I took that to mean the same as teh A9ii so plenty as far as I am concerned. Pre-orders can be cancelled so there is plenty time to change minds.
 
wookie6262 said:
I can't find the part in the video but the wording, taken from another forum, was "Sony says doesn't compromise on ISO performance or dynamic range." I took that to mean the same as teh A9ii so plenty as far as I am concerned. Pre-orders can be cancelled so there is plenty time to change minds.
Click to expand...
I watched part of a video of a B&H Livestream with a couple of people from Sony - one was a Sony Ambassador / sports photographer, the other was either another Sony Ambassador or may have worked for Sony, I'm not sure.
One of the things they mentioned several times was that the A9iii was "Global Shutter without compromise" - the way they were talking about it things like ISO and Dynamic range may not be improved over the A9ii, but if they should be as good for practical purposes.
 
wookie6262 said:
I can't find the part in the video but the wording, taken from another forum, was "Sony says doesn't compromise on ISO performance or dynamic range." I took that to mean the same as teh A9ii so plenty as far as I am concerned. Pre-orders can be cancelled so there is plenty time to change minds.
Click to expand...
Given it's base ISO is 250 and there is no dual gain my guesstimate is the dynamic range is on level on an APS-C sensor which isn't bad tbh. It's just one stop less.
Given the target market and audience I don't think anyone will notice or care.

Faldrax said:
I watched part of a video of a B&H Livestream with a couple of people from Sony - one was a Sony Ambassador / sports photographer, the other was either another Sony Ambassador or may have worked for Sony, I'm not sure.
One of the things they mentioned several times was that the A9iii was "Global Shutter without compromise" - the way they were talking about it things like ISO and Dynamic range may not be improved over the A9ii, but if they should be as good for practical purposes.
Click to expand...

I think it'll basically have the same DR as A9ii at equal ISOs. So you lose the dynamic range at ISO 100 on A9II which will be higher.
Just my guess.
 
Last edited:
I've got a thread on talk equipment posts but I'll just add it here as it's specific to Sony
Planning on buying 1st camera for son and q fancy a Sony mirror less.
For approx £500 budget I've found the following options(all used but vgc)
Sony a6000 with Sony e 18-135 oss £528
Sony a6100 with 16-50 kit lens £573
Sony a6400 with 16-50 kit lens £508

What combo would you all choose, better lens or better camera?
Thanks in advance
 
Soggy1975 said:
I've got a thread on talk equipment posts but I'll just add it here as it's specific to Sony
Planning on buying 1st camera for son and q fancy a Sony mirror less.
For approx £500 budget I've found the following options(all used but vgc)
Sony a6000 with Sony e 18-135 oss £528
Sony a6100 with 16-50 kit lens £573
Sony a6400 with 16-50 kit lens £508

What combo would you all choose, better lens or better camera?
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

Firstly why is A6100 kit more than a A6400 kit? A6400 is a higher end model in comparison to A6100, so you should be able to get A6100 cheaper.

Normally I'd suggest better lens over body but A6100/6400 really offers a lot more capability in terms of AF over the A6000.
And for someone getting into photography I think they'll appreciate the simplicity of using realtime tracking that "just works".
So in this case I'd suggest A6100 or A6400 but as I said above A6100 should be cheaper than A6400.
 
Soggy1975 said:
I've got a thread on talk equipment posts but I'll just add it here as it's specific to Sony
Planning on buying 1st camera for son and q fancy a Sony mirror less.
For approx £500 budget I've found the following options(all used but vgc)
Sony a6000 with Sony e 18-135 oss £528
Sony a6100 with 16-50 kit lens £573
Sony a6400 with 16-50 kit lens £508

What combo would you all choose, better lens or better camera?
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
On the other post the last option was the A6300 + 16-50 - if it's the A6400, then as @nandbytes said, I'd be wondering why it's the cheapest option, as camera wise it woudl be the pick of the 3 for me (basically the A6100 replaced the A6000, and the A6400 replaced the A6300)
 
Soggy1975 said:
I've got a thread on talk equipment posts but I'll just add it here as it's specific to Sony
Planning on buying 1st camera for son and q fancy a Sony mirror less.
For approx £500 budget I've found the following options(all used but vgc)
Sony a6000 with Sony e 18-135 oss £528
Sony a6100 with 16-50 kit lens £573
Sony a6400 with 16-50 kit lens £508

What combo would you all choose, better lens or better camera?
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
I’d probably suggest the A6400 for a few reasons that are of no use to the likes of myself but your son will probably like such as touchscreen, selfie/vlogger LCD screen, and weather sealing. It also has a much better AF system than the others.
 
Has anyone seen a full list of the upcoming A1 update, all I've seen is the bit on the Sony Event on youtube that basically said breathing compensation, workflow enhancemnt, C2PA, and more....?
 
T_J_G said:
www.eoshd.com

Sony a9 III high ISO RAW test - A noisier 6K sensor than predecessor - EOSHD.com - Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews

I have put some of the high ISO RAW samples from the Sony a9 III under the pixel peeping microscope. The results do show there is a trade off for having a global shutter. 24 megapixel, or 6K in movie terms has been something of a sweet spot for balancing resolution and high ISO performance.
www.eoshd.com www.eoshd.com
Click to expand...
to be honest both sample are pretty shocking in their own ways. It is ISO ridiculous aimed at black wall. Expect mess if you do that. You would think decent ISO1600-3200 would be plenty good on either and that is the bottom line.
 
nandbytes said:
Given it's base ISO is 250 and there is no dual gain my guesstimate is the dynamic range is on level on an APS-C sensor which isn't bad tbh. It's just one stop less.
Given the target market and audience I don't think anyone will notice or care.



I think it'll basically have the same DR as A9ii at equal ISOs. So you lose the dynamic range at ISO 100 on A9II which will be higher.
Just my guess.
Click to expand...
That was my take and there won't be any sports photographers too concerned about DR at iso100 as long as they have good performance at high iso. I'd hope the DR is the same as the A9ii from iso250 up which is better than cropped cameras at those iso levels

The comparison posted from @T_J_G doesn't help me much. Different lighting conditions, no overview of both full files and I would rather a comparison at the same iso. The top image maybe should read A9iii too so I'll discount that until we see a better test
 
Faldrax said:
I watched part of a video of a B&H Livestream with a couple of people from Sony - one was a Sony Ambassador / sports photographer, the other was either another Sony Ambassador or may have worked for Sony, I'm not sure.
One of the things they mentioned several times was that the A9iii was "Global Shutter without compromise" - the way they were talking about it things like ISO and Dynamic range may not be improved over the A9ii, but if they should be as good for practical purposes.
Click to expand...
One the one hand she knows way better than me about cameras as she is simply a fantastic photographer and storyteller. On the other hand she is paid by Sony. I hope she is correct and that is certainly the impression given at the launch
 
LongLensPhotography said:
to be honest both sample are pretty shocking in their own ways. It is ISO ridiculous aimed at black wall. Expect mess if you do that. You would think decent ISO1600-3200 would be plenty good on either and that is the bottom line.
Click to expand...
I think most Sports photographers shoot fairly often at iso12800 at this time of year in smaller venues. The range they tested was fine but the methodology wasn't great and another part of the story is how well the files display as in camera jpegs as that is the most common output. I suspect in camera processing may be slightly better than A9ii days
 
wookie6262 said:
I think most Sports photographers shoot fairly often at iso12800 at this time of year in smaller venues.
Click to expand...
sure, but hopefully you would expose your subject fairly decently particularly if shooting jpeg, and these things will end up in print in quite small sizes so that hides a lot of the grit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top