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

[snerkler]

Mirrorless camera shouldn't back focus as they don't work like SLR's and instead take their focus directly off the image sensor. What focus mode where you using?

Any cameras that use PDAF can front/back focus regardless of whether the AF points are on the sensor or not, it’s because PDAF uses calculations to work out where focus should be.

Now there is a lot of thought that mirrorless combine PDAF with CDAF to improve accuracy which seems logical, but I have asked manufacturers specifically about this and to say they are coy about it is an understatement.

I’m not sure CDAF will be fast enough when burst shooting, especially at 20fps+ so it could just be that PDAF is better these days, whatever it may s mirrorless does seem much more accurate. That said it’s not infallible, and I’ve still had many back focussed shots with dogs running towards the camera.

Shots like Dibbly’s robin above shouldn’t be missing focus though, but without being able to try it with their gear myself it’s difficult to ascertain why it’s missing.

@dibbly dobbler does your camera have bird eye recognition or just bird recognition? Also did you have it set to real time tracking or just AF-C? Lastly were you using wide AF, centre AF, single point AF etc?

 

[nandbytes]

Any cameras that use PDAF can front/back focus regardless of whether the AF points are on the sensor or not, it’s because PDAF uses calculations to work out where focus should be.

Now there is a lot of thought that mirrorless combine PDAF with CDAF to improve accuracy which seems logical, but I have asked manufacturers specifically about this and to say they are coy about it is an understatement.

I’m not sure CDAF will be fast enough when burst shooting, especially at 20fps+ so it could just be that PDAF is better these days, whatever it may s mirrorless does seem much more accurate. That said it’s not infallible, and I’ve still had many back focussed shots with dogs running towards the camera.

Shots like Dibbly’s robin above shouldn’t be missing focus though, but without being able to try it with their gear myself it’s difficult to ascertain why it’s missing.

@dibbly dobbler does your camera have bird eye recognition or just bird recognition? Also did you have it set to real time tracking or just AF-C? Lastly were you using wide AF, centre AF, single point AF etc?

AF-C is PDAF only. AF-S uses PDAF for quickly finding the subject and then CDAF at the end to lock on.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Any cameras that use PDAF can front/back focus regardless of whether the AF points are on the sensor or not, it’s because PDAF uses calculations to work out where focus should be.

Now there is a lot of thought that mirrorless combine PDAF with CDAF to improve accuracy which seems logical, but I have asked manufacturers specifically about this and to say they are coy about it is an understatement.

I’m not sure CDAF will be fast enough when burst shooting, especially at 20fps+ so it could just be that PDAF is better these days, whatever it may s mirrorless does seem much more accurate. That said it’s not infallible, and I’ve still had many back focussed shots with dogs running towards the camera.

Shots like Dibbly’s robin above shouldn’t be missing focus though, but without being able to try it with their gear myself it’s difficult to ascertain why it’s missing.

@dibbly dobbler does your camera have bird eye recognition or just bird recognition? Also did you have it set to real time tracking or just AF-C? Lastly were you using wide AF, centre AF, single point AF etc?

Thanks Toby

It's set for bird recognition with 'recognition part' set to eye/head/body - which I presume is a priority order? In any event the green square appeared over the bird's eye for the above shot which I assumed meant good to go

I had AF-C with 'Expand Spot' (I think - I have fiddled around with it since) rather than 'Tracking:Expand Spot'

Not sure about real time tracking sorry...

 

[snerkler]

Thanks Toby

It's set for bird recognition with 'recognition part' set to eye/head/body - which I presume is a priority order? In any event the green square appeared over the bird's eye for the above shot which I assumed meant good to go

I had AF-C with 'Expand Spot' (I think - I have fiddled around with it since) rather than 'Tracking:Expand Spot'

Not sure about real time tracking sorry...

Yeah if it’s on the eye that’s where you’d expect focus to be. I can’t clearly see your image properly on my phone to check the focus.

I believe real time tracking is just Sony’s way of making it sound fancier than it is, it’s just tracking. I think they adopted the name when they brought out tracking AF that didn’t require a custom button to use it, but others may be able to say for sure.

Have you noticed the missed focus with other lenses?

 

[snerkler]

A6700 + 70-350mm - all set up for a good shot, f6.3, 1/500, iso1600, camera braced against a tree, eye af engaged with green square in place, all good... but it's not sharp on the bird's head at all (not an isolated example either - got a whole load like this). Some of the further away feathers are sharp though so I suspect a back focus issue, any thoughts please?


70-350 back focussing ? by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Just another thought Mike, are you sure it’s not movement that’s causing the lack of sharpness? It’s only at 1/500 which is not fast enough to freeze the head movement of small birds like this. Don’t get me wrong, some will be sharp if you’re ‘lucky’ but it’s not guaranteed.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Yeah if it’s on the eye that’s where you’d expect focus to be. I can’t clearly see your image properly on my phone to check the focus.

I believe real time tracking is just Sony’s way of making it sound fancier than it is, it’s just tracking. I think they adopted the name when they brought out tracking AF that didn’t require a custom button to use it, but others may be able to say for sure.

Have you noticed the missed focus with other lenses?

Thanks again - it's weird as I have had sharp shots with this combination before but it has definitely come off the rails the last twice I went out with it and I'm not sure what has changed

My only other lens at the moment is the 10-20 f4 pz and I haven't had a chance to do much with it yet...

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Just another thought Mike, are you sure it’s not movement that’s causing the lack of sharpness? It’s only at 1/500 which is not fast enough to freeze the head movement of small birds like this. Don’t get me wrong, some will be sharp if you’re ‘lucky’ but it’s not guaranteed.

I agree that 1/500 is sub-optimal but I was a bit alarmed at how much iso was being added to maintain 1/1000 at f6.3 so I thought I'd try 1/500 - maybe a mistake but I've had loads of sharp shots at 1/500 with the RX10iv. I'll have a play around tomorrow and try a few different things - thanks again!

 

[nandbytes]

A6700 + 70-350mm - all set up for a good shot, f6.3, 1/500, iso1600, camera braced against a tree, eye af engaged with green square in place, all good... but it's not sharp on the bird's head at all (not an isolated example either - got a whole load like this). Some of the further away feathers are sharp though so I suspect a back focus issue, any thoughts please?


70-350 back focussing ? by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Finally got a chance to look on my computer. The issue might also be due the angle you are photographing from which seems to be from bottom up.

no system is perfect and each will have their issues at times and you can also have a bad day or two with the equipment.

I would initially suggest doing a controlled test in your back garden for example to make sure there isn't any focusing issues from the equipment.
once you have ruled that out the rest is just trying out in the field....

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Finally got a chance to look on my computer. The issue might also be due the angle you are photographing from which seems to be from bottom up.

no system is perfect and each will have their issues at times and you can also have a bad day or two with the equipment.

I would initially suggest doing a controlled test in your back garden for example to make sure there isn't any focusing issues from the equipment.
once you have ruled that out the rest is just trying out in the field....

Thanks - it might be that I guess, I took some shots of a cat which were level so I'll have a look and see if they are sharp... I have had sharp shots with this camera and lens before though, I just can't figure out what has changed

Going to try a few G&Ts and see if that helps. Cheers

 

[woof woof]

Any cameras that use PDAF can front/back focus regardless of whether the AF points are on the sensor or not, it’s because PDAF uses calculations to work out where focus should be.

Now there is a lot of thought that mirrorless combine PDAF with CDAF to improve accuracy which seems logical, but I have asked manufacturers specifically about this and to say they are coy about it is an understatement.

You may well be right but that does contradict how I thought it worked but it could be just how you've worded it (in digital I suppose it's all calculations but without the possible added alignment issues SLR's/DSLR's have with their separate sensor) but no matter how it works no system is going to be 100% regardless of everything that contributes to things going wrong. I think conditions including contrast and light and the angle of the subject and I suppose maybe the lens/body combination too could reduce the hit rate before we get into movement. For eg I suppose everyone gets even a slightly oof picture at least once in a blue moon even with what we'd think shouldn't be challenging subjects and conditions.

All this is why I often use MF as if time allows you should get a pretty much 100% hit rate, movement allowing. No good for birds though

 

[jonneymendoza]

@woof woof what camera and lens do you use nowadays

 

[snerkler]

You may well be right but that does contradict how I thought it worked but it could be just how you've worded it (in digital I suppose it's all calculations but without the possible added alignment issues SLR's/DSLR's have with their separate sensor) but no matter how it works no system is going to be 100% regardless of everything that contributes to things going wrong. I think conditions including contrast and light and the angle of the subject and I suppose maybe the lens/body combination too could reduce the hit rate before we get into movement. For eg I suppose everyone gets even a slightly oof picture at least once in a blue moon even with what we'd think shouldn't be challenging subjects and conditions.

All this is why I often use MF as if time allows you should get a pretty much 100% hit rate, movement allowing. No good for birds though

Yeah PDAF is one area for error, off sensor AF module is another and I guess having the two combined could potentially lead to a greater error.

I had issues with one of my D750’s and I discovered that if the module wasn’t perfectly aligned one side of the frame would require +ve micro adjustment and the other side -ve micro adjustment, and obviously you can’t have both.

Also with zoom lenses it could front focus at one particular focal length and back focus at another. IIRC you could set the micro adjustment for the wide end and tele end separately but not in between, unless you had a sigma with the dock.

Why you don’t have to go to these lengths with mirrorless I don’t know, it could well just be the on sensor PDAF, or it could be better software or both

 

[the black fox]

Thanks - it might be that I guess, I took some shots of a cat which were level so I'll have a look and see if they are sharp... I have had sharp shots with this camera and lens before though, I just can't figure out what has changed

Going to try a few G&Ts and see if that helps. Cheers

Any camera regardless of make or model will be out a bit if there’s another object within its plane of focus Mike .. in the robins case I suspect the twig to the right of the bird . the best way to actually see this unfortunately on a Olympus body with manual focussing and focus area lit up by focus peaking . ,you might get same effect in m.f on a Sony but don’t know … you assume your focussing on your subject but in reality your focussing on everything with a limited depth of field. I.e if your depth of field is around 3 inches and there’s other items within that area the same distance from the focal plane they are all going to be sharp the ones nearer the front edge of the 3 inches will be the sharpest ..
Imagine your focus point as a straight line across the frame rather than a small circle ,as smart as we think our cameras are there not we just have to believe what we are told by the makers .

 

[the_accidental]

Have you checked the point of focus is where you thought it was? It’s in the metadata and you can make the camera show it, or you can plot it in light room with a plugin (or just look at the X,Y in the exif and check yourself)

I forget the name of the setting to show it in playback but it’s handy, I found I “missed” focus a few times but it was actually just the tracking not quite landing where I expected.

 

[snerkler]

Any camera regardless of make or model will be out a bit if there’s another object within its plane of focus Mike .. in the robins case I suspect the twig to the right of the bird . the best way to actually see this unfortunately on a Olympus body with manual focussing and focus area lit up by focus peaking . ,you might get same effect in m.f on a Sony but don’t know … you assume your focussing on your subject but in reality your focussing on everything with a limited depth of field. I.e if your depth of field is around 3 inches and there’s other items within that area the same distance from the focal plane they are all going to be sharp the ones nearer the front edge of the 3 inches will be the sharpest ..
Imagine your focus point as a straight line across the frame rather than a small circle ,as smart as we think our cameras are there not we just have to believe what we are told by the makers .

I understand what you’re saying but the focus should be where the AF point is regardless of what else is around. So yes there will be a plane of focus but if the AF point is on the eye the eye should be in focus.

 

[snerkler]

Have you checked the point of focus is where you thought it was? It’s in the metadata and you can make the camera show it, or you can plot it in light room with a plugin (or just look at the X,Y in the exif and check yourself)

I forget the name of the setting to show it in playback but it’s handy, I found I “missed” focus a few times but it was actually just the tracking not quite landing where I expected.

It’s in the playback menu, “focus frame display”

 

[jonneymendoza]

@snerkler I have decided not to bother fixing the wireless connection on my A1 as it costs too much and not worth it for a feature that I don't use.

A shame as if I had checked it last year I could have gotten it fixed for free via Panamoz 3 year warranty.

Didn't realise how long I've had this camera

 

[woof woof]

@woof woof what camera and lens do you use nowadays

My A7 died so I bought an A7III. I thought about the IV but the tilt screen of the III swayed it. I then decided to try and fix the A7 and managed to bring it back to life so I have two Sonys now. I've taken them both out quite a few times with the Sony 24mm f2.8 G on the A7 and 40mm f2.5 on the A7III. I think the 24 and 40mm make a nice combination. The 40mm is just about constantly on the A7III but I very what's on the A7 more the most used being that 24mm f2.5, Sony 35mm f1.8, TTArtisan 50mm f2 and currently Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 but also use the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2. I seem to have moved away from film era lenses. I sold quite a few and I'm thinking about selling most of what's left. I really do like the Sony 40mm f2.5 G but I'd like it even more if it was 35mm. I've also used the Sony 35mm f1.8 more recently than at any time since I bought it.

How about you? You still taking lovely pictures of lovely ladies?

 

[snerkler]

@snerkler I have decided not to bother fixing the wireless connection on my A1 as it costs too much and not worth it for a feature that I don't use.

A shame as if I had checked it last year I could have gotten it fixed for free via Panamoz 3 year warranty.

Didn't realise how long I've had this camera

I only use WiFi for FTP transfer for sending real time shots during footy but I’m thinking of stopping that as I’m not really enjoying it.

It is a shame/annoying that you didn’t notice prior to the warranty running out, or that Sony won’t fix it as a good will gesture due to it being a common issue.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Any camera regardless of make or model will be out a bit if there’s another object within its plane of focus Mike .. in the robins case I suspect the twig to the right of the bird . the best way to actually see this unfortunately on a Olympus body with manual focussing and focus area lit up by focus peaking . ,you might get same effect in m.f on a Sony but don’t know … you assume your focussing on your subject but in reality your focussing on everything with a limited depth of field. I.e if your depth of field is around 3 inches and there’s other items within that area the same distance from the focal plane they are all going to be sharp the ones nearer the front edge of the 3 inches will be the sharpest ..
Imagine your focus point as a straight line across the frame rather than a small circle ,as smart as we think our cameras are there not we just have to believe what we are told by the makers .

Thanks for the comments Jeff - the little green square is showing as the point of focus, it's actually slightly behind the eye and due to the angle I was shooting at (and the relatively short distance) I think the front of the bird is outwith the focal plane. Hope that makes sense!

 

[dibbly dobbler]

It’s in the playback menu, “focus frame display”

That's very useful! I have turned it on now, thanks. As I was trying to explain to Jeff the little green dot is slightly behind the eye and I suspect this (and the angle I was shooting at) has resulted in the front of the bird being outwith the focal plane.

I did a bit of googling last night and I believe 'animal/bird' works better than 'bird' as the recognition target so I have that turned on now. Have also fiddled with a few other settings (eg focus area to wide). Took a bunch of shots earlier and I think they are looking better, will have a proper look when time allows!

Thanks again to all who have helped!

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Have you checked the point of focus is where you thought it was? It’s in the metadata and you can make the camera show it, or you can plot it in light room with a plugin (or just look at the X,Y in the exif and check yourself)

I forget the name of the setting to show it in playback but it’s handy, I found I “missed” focus a few times but it was actually just the tracking not quite landing where I expected.

That's really useful thanks!

 

[jimmyjamjojo]

I gather a lot of you guys moved from Fuji to Sony, and some vice-versa - I'm after opinions and advice.

I've got GAS, and I've got it bad. I currently shoot on a Fuji XT3. I have all the lenses I want - A normal zoom, a tele zoom, an ultrawide prime, and a crazy fast normal prime. I shoot all sorts, but not really anything taxing like sports or wildlife. My lenses are all used regularly, with the exception of the ultrawide. A quick look at the first 20 or so images will give you an idea of the variety - https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmoulton/

I'm feeling the call of more resolution and IBIS seen on the modern generation of cameras. My initial thought was the XT5. It's the easiest and most obvious upgrade path.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut I've been shooting for nearly 20 years, and am yet to even hold a full frame camera. I'm very seriously considering the A7Riii, along with a standard zoom, tele zoom, and a fast 35mm or 40mm.

The Sony has the better AF, better battery life, better range of lenses, and while the resolution is similar the Sony will be cleaner due to sensor size. The main cons being price, and finding equivalent lenses to my current gear.

The Fuji has a familiar menu and ergonomic layout, and film simulations - which while I don't really use SOOC jpgs, I do enjoy the simulations as a base to edit from, and it's nice to get a feel for how the images will look while shooting. The main cons being Fuji's are just a bit "mushy" in the fine details, and I'd still be left with the "what if" of full frame.

Size and weight-wise, I don't think there will be too much in it - For example my fast prime is the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 and it is an absolute weapon. I could get a similar look from a 40mm f2 on the Sony and it would actually be smaller and lighter!

Ultimately I need to get to a store and get one in my hands, but figured I'd ask in here for real-world experiences and opinions...

 

[the_accidental]

I’ve not used an XT3, but I replaced an X100 with an A7Cii. The Riii won’t have the same AF as my (newer) Cii, but for me, the new AF and IBIS feels like witchcraft in comparison. One of my main subjects is my young son, so often he or I are moving and the AF and IBIS can help a lot respectively.

I love the look of your photos from your Flickr - I think the IBIS would help that style, allow slower shutters in low light without a tripod (unless you use one?). The AF less so.

The Sonys can be small (my Cii with Samyang 35/2.8 is compact) but they can also be large (when I put the 35-150 2.8 on!). So a question might be can you resist making a Sony large?

 

[jimmyjamjojo]

I love the look of your photos from your Flickr - I think the IBIS would help that style, allow slower shutters in low light without a tripod (unless you use one?). The AF less so.

That's true. I rarely take a tripod out with me, very few of my shots are planned. I just take the camera with me everywhere. I know it doesn't help with movement in a scene, but tbh I prefer to show motion in that way anyway. Good point about the AF too - I'm less concerned with the speed difference, but I imagine the Sony is far more accurate.

The Sonys can be small (my Cii with Samyang 35/2.8 is compact) but they can also be large (when I put the 35-150 2.8 on!). So a question might be can you resist making a Sony large?

That's also a valid concern. My Viltrox being exhibit A - it's large, and heavy (by APSC standards), yet I still dragged it around Japan for 3 weeks, cursing it every day, even though I also had the zooms with me.

I'd probably mirror the way I shoot now - Keep the zooms light and portable, and let the prime be bigger since it's usually gonna be a single lens setup.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Gold]

I gather a lot of you guys moved from Fuji to Sony, and some vice-versa - I'm after opinions and advice.

I've got GAS, and I've got it bad. I currently shoot on a Fuji XT3. I have all the lenses I want - A normal zoom, a tele zoom, an ultrawide prime, and a crazy fast normal prime. I shoot all sorts, but not really anything taxing like sports or wildlife. My lenses are all used regularly, with the exception of the ultrawide. A quick look at the first 20 or so images will give you an idea of the variety - https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmoulton/

I'm feeling the call of more resolution and IBIS seen on the modern generation of cameras. My initial thought was the XT5. It's the easiest and most obvious upgrade path.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut I've been shooting for nearly 20 years, and am yet to even hold a full frame camera. I'm very seriously considering the A7Riii, along with a standard zoom, tele zoom, and a fast 35mm or 40mm.

The Sony has the better AF, better battery life, better range of lenses, and while the resolution is similar the Sony will be cleaner due to sensor size. The main cons being price, and finding equivalent lenses to my current gear.

The Fuji has a familiar menu and ergonomic layout, and film simulations - which while I don't really use SOOC jpgs, I do enjoy the simulations as a base to edit from, and it's nice to get a feel for how the images will look while shooting. The main cons being Fuji's are just a bit "mushy" in the fine details, and I'd still be left with the "what if" of full frame.

Size and weight-wise, I don't think there will be too much in it - For example my fast prime is the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 and it is an absolute weapon. I could get a similar look from a 40mm f2 on the Sony and it would actually be smaller and lighter!

Ultimately I need to get to a store and get one in my hands, but figured I'd ask in here for real-world experiences and opinions...

If you're looking for small the A7Cii would also be my choice. Vs the A7rIII you get much better menus and autofocus.

For lenses I would consider something like the Sigma 28-70, vs the Tamron 17-70 it's actually slightly lighter (470g vs 525g) although zoom range isn't as strong.

 

[snerkler]

That's very useful! I have turned it on now, thanks. As I was trying to explain to Jeff the little green dot is slightly behind the eye and I suspect this (and the angle I was shooting at) has resulted in the front of the bird being outwith the focal plane.

I did a bit of googling last night and I believe 'animal/bird' works better than 'bird' as the recognition target so I have that turned on now. Have also fiddled with a few other settings (eg focus area to wide). Took a bunch of shots earlier and I think they are looking better, will have a proper look when time allows!

Thanks again to all who have helped!

Ahh I see what your issue is now, it’s not that the eyes weren’t sharp but that the front of the body wasn’t? (I haven’t got access to a computer on Friday so am still unable to see exactly what the issue is)

Then yes this could well be plane of focus and more shallow depth of field. I’d imagine you’re used to a deeper depth of field which can be more ‘forgiving’ with things like this.

I gather a lot of you guys moved from Fuji to Sony, and some vice-versa - I'm after opinions and advice.

I've got GAS, and I've got it bad. I currently shoot on a Fuji XT3. I have all the lenses I want - A normal zoom, a tele zoom, an ultrawide prime, and a crazy fast normal prime. I shoot all sorts, but not really anything taxing like sports or wildlife. My lenses are all used regularly, with the exception of the ultrawide. A quick look at the first 20 or so images will give you an idea of the variety - https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmoulton/

I'm feeling the call of more resolution and IBIS seen on the modern generation of cameras. My initial thought was the XT5. It's the easiest and most obvious upgrade path.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut I've been shooting for nearly 20 years, and am yet to even hold a full frame camera. I'm very seriously considering the A7Riii, along with a standard zoom, tele zoom, and a fast 35mm or 40mm.

The Sony has the better AF, better battery life, better range of lenses, and while the resolution is similar the Sony will be cleaner due to sensor size. The main cons being price, and finding equivalent lenses to my current gear.

The Fuji has a familiar menu and ergonomic layout, and film simulations - which while I don't really use SOOC jpgs, I do enjoy the simulations as a base to edit from, and it's nice to get a feel for how the images will look while shooting. The main cons being Fuji's are just a bit "mushy" in the fine details, and I'd still be left with the "what if" of full frame.

Size and weight-wise, I don't think there will be too much in it - For example my fast prime is the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 and it is an absolute weapon. I could get a similar look from a 40mm f2 on the Sony and it would actually be smaller and lighter!

Ultimately I need to get to a store and get one in my hands, but figured I'd ask in here for real-world experiences and opinions...

I’ve flirted with Fuji several times, and still like the idea of shooting Fuji, however as much as I like the camera styling and colour output they’re just not for me. The X-T series doesn’t have a decent grip and if you use their X-H series you lose their cool styling, which is most of the reason I like them (although the OM3 has now taken the lead as the prettiest digital camera imo )

The main reason I’ve never gone all in with Fuji is the lack of fine detail. I keep looking at the raws and JPEGs of every x model that they launch but it’s something that still plagues them, regardless of software or raw/jpeg.

Sony ticks all the boxes for me, except having nice styled bodies. Colours and skin tones are much much better than they used to be, to the point I think I prefer them to Canon and Nikon, that’s using color fidelity profiles on the Sony though. You can also get some Fuji recipes for Sony raw which are pretty darn close imo.

The AF on the A7RIII isn’t the greatest but if you’re not using it on demanding subjects it’ll be just fine. The A7Riv is a better camera if you can stretch to that?

With regards to “crazy fast” primes you could save money and weight due to the equivalent factor, for example if you use a 23mm f1.4 prime on Fuji you could use a 35mm f2 on Full Frame and get a nearly identical depth of field.

 

[snerkler]

If you're looking for small the A7Cii would also be my choice. Vs the A7rIII you get much better menus and autofocus.

For lenses I would consider something like the Sigma 28-70, vs the Tamron 17-70 it's actually slightly lighter (470g vs 525g) although zoom range isn't as strong.

Would you not suggest the A7cR as that’s the high resolution option, similar to the A7R series? I personally struggled with the viewfinder on the A7c series, and side by side couldn’t really tell a difference in weight from the A7RV, YMMV

 

[ancient_mariner]

That's also a valid concern. My Viltrox being exhibit A - it's large, and heavy (by APSC standards), yet I still dragged it around Japan for 3 weeks, cursing it every day, even though I also had the zooms with me.

To me, the biggest difference will be seen if you use a big fast prime Sony 50 f1.2 and similar. Small zooms, you can probably use M43 and hardly noticed a difference. If small size and weight is important then there's nothing here for you. OTOH my favourite lens is probably the sigma 35 f1.2 despite it weighing almost 1.1kg, for the 3D appearance it gives an image and incredible cropability it brings even wide open. I do have the 24-105 f4 G which is still a big lens, but it doesn't bring a special full frame look to an image.

Either go all in or don't waste your money.

 

[snerkler]

To me, the biggest difference will be seen if you use a big fast prime Sony 50 f1.2 and similar. Small zooms, you can probably use M43 and hardly noticed a difference. If small size and weight is important then there's nothing here for you. OTOH my favourite lens is probably the sigma 35 f1.2 despite it weighing almost 1.1kg, for the 3D appearance it gives an image and incredible cropability it brings even wide open. I do have the 24-105 f4 G which is still a big lens, but it doesn't bring a special full frame look to an image.

Either go all in or don't waste your money.

The 50mm f1.2 GM is probably my best lens, renders so beautifully. I do prefer using the 35mm f1.4 GM though, it’s just a nicer size and weight.

I’ve never really taken any notice of the Sigma 35mm f1.2 due to the weight, but I’m going to have a look at some images now

 

[LeeRatters]

I gather a lot of you guys moved from Fuji to Sony, and some vice-versa - I'm after opinions and advice.

I've got GAS, and I've got it bad. I currently shoot on a Fuji XT3. I have all the lenses I want - A normal zoom, a tele zoom, an ultrawide prime, and a crazy fast normal prime. I shoot all sorts, but not really anything taxing like sports or wildlife. My lenses are all used regularly, with the exception of the ultrawide. A quick look at the first 20 or so images will give you an idea of the variety - https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmoulton/

I'm feeling the call of more resolution and IBIS seen on the modern generation of cameras. My initial thought was the XT5. It's the easiest and most obvious upgrade path.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut I've been shooting for nearly 20 years, and am yet to even hold a full frame camera. I'm very seriously considering the A7Riii, along with a standard zoom, tele zoom, and a fast 35mm or 40mm.

The Sony has the better AF, better battery life, better range of lenses, and while the resolution is similar the Sony will be cleaner due to sensor size. The main cons being price, and finding equivalent lenses to my current gear.

The Fuji has a familiar menu and ergonomic layout, and film simulations - which while I don't really use SOOC jpgs, I do enjoy the simulations as a base to edit from, and it's nice to get a feel for how the images will look while shooting. The main cons being Fuji's are just a bit "mushy" in the fine details, and I'd still be left with the "what if" of full frame.

Size and weight-wise, I don't think there will be too much in it - For example my fast prime is the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 and it is an absolute weapon. I could get a similar look from a 40mm f2 on the Sony and it would actually be smaller and lighter!

Ultimately I need to get to a store and get one in my hands, but figured I'd ask in here for real-world experiences and opinions...

There is certainly a difference in IQ between the two. Obviously. I started with the A7 about 10 years ago with manual lenses for the first few years. I had a try of an XE2 & 23/1.4 & 56/1.2 [I think] but the IQ & feel of the Fuji just didn't click with me. I now have the A7 & an A7Riii - the AF/eye AF on the Riii is plenty good enough for me although, I don't have young kids & our dog is a 16 year old Jack Russell and NOT an 18 month old Springer Spaniel!! For everything I shoot, the Riii doesn't leave me wanting more - don't worry about the earlier menus either, once set up I only go into the menu for format once in a while.

I also have an X100f which I do use as much as the Sony kit. And yes, it is possible to get the Sony edited colours close to the Fuji - I mainly shoot Classic Chrome. I do enjoy using the X100f & I enjoy the images from it, but even though it's the same focal length, it is miles away from the A7Riii & 35GM - I know that's an obvious thing to say, but it really is.

Lenses is what you really need to look into - there's probably too much choice in a way. But there is some good performing cheaper options out there.

 

[nandbytes]

Just came across this on youtube:
Someone using the sigma 300-600mm f4 with SONY 2x TC on nikon body via. adapter with full AF-C!!
The AF works on Nikon with sony TC and 3rd party lens but won't work on Sony bodies.
This clearly proves to me Sony is artificially crippling the system



YT link for reference:

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/viLwslr4T6c?si=P6FPo8P9u8Pr6IIf

AND

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1895943/

 

[snerkler]

Just came across this on youtube:
Someone using the sigma 300-600mm f4 with SONY 2x TC on nikon body via. adapter with full AF-C!!
The AF works on Nikon with sony TC and 3rd party lens but won't work on Sony bodies.
This clearly proves to me Sony is artificially crippling the system

View attachment 448945

YT link for reference:

View: https://youtu.be/GrcdMaCqe0I?si=s-LB_PI6QKBE6jXY&t=58

Saw that a few days back

 

[nandbytes]

Saw that a few days back

looks like to use my sigma 500mm f5.6 i am better off buying Z8 than A1

 

[snerkler]

looks like to use my sigma 500mm f5.6 i am better off buying Z8 than A1

Yeah, if you like the ergonomics of a brick

In all seriousness it does make the restrictions Sony put on third party lenses all the more baffling, clearly just a limitation enforced by the firmware rather than a physical limitation.

 

[Faldrax]

Yeah, if you like the ergonomics of a brick

In all seriousness it does make the restrictions Sony put on third party lenses all the more baffling, clearly just a limitation enforced by the firmware rather than a physical limitation.

Sony have removed the restriction for the A9iii and a bunch of Sigma lenses.
My suspicion is that Sony initially had problems achieving reliability at high FPS and had to tweek lens firmware to get everything working well, and so someone decided to impose the 3rd party limit to avoid the risk of damage to Sony's reputation if High end high FPS bodies gave poor results with 3rd party lenses - and the limit is now kept in place artificially as Marketing have decided it avoids competition for high profit lens sales at the top end.
It would be interesting to know what Sigma did to get the FPS limit removed for those lenses - I assume there is some from of 'certification' procedure to prove they work well, I wonder if there is also a 'licence fee' involved?

 

[nandbytes]

Sony have removed the restriction for the A9iii and a bunch of Sigma lenses.
My suspicion is that Sony initially had problems achieving reliability at high FPS and had to tweek lens firmware to get everything working well, and so someone decided to impose the 3rd party limit to avoid the risk of damage to Sony's reputation if High end high FPS bodies gave poor results with 3rd party lenses - and the limit is now kept in place artificially as Marketing have decided it avoids competition for high profit lens sales at the top end.
It would be interesting to know what Sigma did to get the FPS limit removed for those lenses - I assume there is some from of 'certification' procedure to prove they work well, I wonder if there is also a 'licence fee' involved?

That's only in AF-S AFAIK, not AF-C
Still doesn't explain why we can't use TCs with 3rd party lenses, it clearly works as proven when adapted to Nikon bodies.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

That's only in AF-S AFAIK, not AF-C
Still doesn't explain why we can't use TCs with 3rd party lenses, it clearly works as proven when adapted to Nikon bodies.

Because Sony have used the Canon Cripple Hammer model....................

 

[nandbytes]

Because Sony have used the Canon Cripple Hammer model....................

Seems so, poor form on Sony's part, not impressed.

 

[Faldrax]

Because Sony have used the Canon Cripple Hammer model....................

Not quite - Canon's cripple hammer is to only allow a hand full of 3rd Party lenses - there are fewer Sigma Lenses on EF Mount (and all are APS-C) than there are Sigma lenses that can shoot 120 fps (AF-S/Manual).
Note that some Sony lenses also have fps limits.