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

Mr Perceptive said:
Thanks, I'm not intending to go too far from Sheringham, I drive enough for work!!! And I'm definitely not a twitcher :ROFLMAO: Not been to that area for a long time, we used to camp near Wells-next-the Sea when I was still in shorts :D about 55 years ago!!!!
Click to expand...
Sheringham Park it is then :p
 
I think I might be joining you Sony users in a few months time :)

Shortlisted two cameras in the range: a7 IV & a7CR.
There's not too much in it price wise.
Lenses? Not sure about, but I definitely want something similar to my old Nikon D5300 kit, namely a zoom with a reach of about 300. Maybe drop the wide angle, never used mine much, opt for a prime instead - that'll be a first for me.

Any suggestions? I think my main use will be architecture & sports, looking forward to filming in 4k too, for stuff my GoPro & Pocket 3 can't reach.
 
Bletch said:
I think I might be joining you Sony users in a few months time :)

Shortlisted two cameras in the range: a7 IV & a7CR.
There's not too much in it price wise.
Lenses? Not sure about, but I definitely want something similar to my old Nikon D5300 kit, namely a zoom with a reach of about 300. Maybe drop the wide angle, never used mine much, opt for a prime instead - that'll be a first for me.

Any suggestions? I think my main use will be architecture & sports, looking forward to filming in 4k too, for stuff my GoPro & Pocket 3 can't reach.
Click to expand...
When you say zoom that will reach 300mm do you mean an all in one such as a 28-300mm, or more like a 70-300mm? Do you realise the Sony you’re looking at are full frame but your Nikon is crop, this means 300mm on your Nikon will be 450mm on the Sony?

You say you want to drop wide angle but this is exactly what I’d suggest for architecture, something like a 16-35mm on full frame would be ideal imo. If your budget can stretch then the 16-35mm GM II would be my choice.
 
I think a 70-300mm will probably have to do, I really don't want to be lugging around anything bigger and yeah, I'll not dismiss the wide angle one just yet :)
 
Bletch said:
I think a 70-300mm will probably have to do, I really don't want to be lugging around anything bigger and yeah, I'll not dismiss the wide angle one just yet :)
Click to expand...
I'd probably go with the Tamron 70-300mm, much lighter and cheaper with comparable IQ.
 
@Mr Perceptive I've just posted the photos on Flickr from Sheringham Park, photos are nowt special but the park is lovely park to walk around with a few different marked routes, some in the woods one a combo of woods and open spaces.


A1_04622-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
If you want something really chilled then I can highly recommend one of the Luxury Lakeside Caravans (circled below) at Pinewoods Wells-next-the-sea. That's where we are right now, second time we've been and we love it. Really chilled, great sitting on the veranda watching the swans and geese swimming about. It's also perfect for dogs as there's a huge dog friendy beach a few hundred yards away which links up wiht Holkham Beach and beyond, and a really nice wood to walk though.

You've then got places like Sandringham and Sheringham Park within 30 mins or so drive.

The lifeboat sounds great, something special to see that.


pinewoods-drone-1 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Each to their own but that's my idea of Hell :ROFLMAO:
Far too busy!!
This is more my style - nice and quiet, looking out of the van watching the Dolphins jumping and beautiful sunsets
Sheer Bliss:cool:
Incidentally, that's our orange van parked up at Cullen on the Moray coast.

Cullen Motorhome Stopover by Mike Stephen, on Flickr

Cullen Bay Dolphins by Mike Stephen, on Flickr

Cullen Sunset by Mike Stephen, on Flickr
 
mstphoto said:
The above post is rather "Tongue-In-Cheek"
Hope you all enjoy your break wherever you may roam ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah no worries. Whilst there's a lot of vans it's really quiet, very peaceful and lovely watching the wildlife. That being said the location you posted looks a different level, and to see dolphins is a real treat. I'd need a large static there though, I don't really fit in motorhomes :lol:
 
snerkler said:
Yeah no worries. Whilst there's a lot of vans it's really quiet, very peaceful and lovely watching the wildlife. That being said the location you posted looks a different level, and to see dolphins is a real treat. I'd need a large static there though, I don't really fit in motorhomes :LOL:
Click to expand...
There are statics just behind where I took the shot from.
They must get amazing views over the bay from there (y)
 
nandbytes said:
Pretty good sharpness across the range at all apertures.
Low contrast in the middle at 24mm f2.8.
Click to expand...
Thanks (y) It's caught my attention this lens, but I do think 16-35mm is a more usable focal length for me :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
Thanks (y) It's caught my attention this lens, but I do think 16-35mm is a more usable focal length for me :thinking:
Click to expand...
I think 16-35mm is generally more useful too.
But you are after a zoom for astro/low light and particularly enjoy having that bit of extra UWA then it seems like an excellent lens.
 
I've tried 12-24 as a walkabout lens - it's just not long enough.

BTW what is it these days that we don't get the last 2mm width?
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've tried 12-24 as a walkabout lens - it's just not long enough.

BTW what is it these days that we don't get the last 2mm width?
Click to expand...
I guess it's just makes the lens bigger and probably won't allow for front filters.

One of the biggest benefits of the new Sammy at this point is that it can take regular filters unlike other equivalent options. That's a massive win for anyone uses these lenses for landscapes and doesn't want to massive filter setups (like me)
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've tried 12-24 as a walkabout lens - it's just not long enough.

BTW what is it these days that we don't get the last 2mm width?
Click to expand...
Do you mean compared to Canon? Canon 14-35mm is f4, but they do a 15-35mm f2.8 and it's on offer on Amazon at the mo for £1699 rather than £2399 :eek:.
Nikon opted for a 14-30mm f4. Not sure why Sony 'only' do 16-35mm and not 15-35mm like Canon.
 
Last edited:
For a while my Sigma 12-24mm was glued to my Canon DSLR. After that it was my Sigma 50mm f1.4.
 
snerkler said:
Do you mean compared to Canon? Canon 14-35mm is f4, but they do a 15-35mm f2.8 and it's on offer on Amazon at the mo for £1699 rather than £2399 :eek:.
Nikon opted for a 14-30mm f4. Not sure why Sony 'only' do 16-35mm and not 15-35mm like Canon.
Click to expand...

Compared the 12-24 that used to be the standard for this range. 14-24 seems like being badly short-changed & you might as well compromise again and get the 16-35 which isn't enormously wide but IS much more practical. It just seems really lame.
 
snerkler said:
Do you mean compared to Canon? Canon 14-35mm is f4, but they do a 15-35mm f2.8 and it's on offer on Amazon at the mo for £1699 rather than £2399 :eek:.
Nikon opted for a 14-30mm f4. Not sure why Sony 'only' do 16-35mm and not 15-35mm like Canon.
Click to expand...
Probably the size.
The vignetting on those canon lenses are especially bad and they are still pretty big when compared to latest version of Sony 16-35mm
 
I decided to give my old 28-70mm kit lens a go. The first thing I did after mounting it on my A7 was do a sensor contamination test. I'd forgotten this lens went to f36 at 70mm and I was happy to see a spotless result :D
 
Kieran_89 said:
Very nice. :)

Can you break down how you achieved this please?
Click to expand...

Thank you :)

Ummmmmm.... It's just a panorama. People seem to question or be apprehensive of shots like this but if you can take a daytime panorama, the same rules and techniques apply, but I do recommend slightly more overlap [esp in the sky] mainly to loose the extreme corners at the big apertures. For me, I also like to get the foreground & sky exposures the same, or at least very close too. Quite a few people don't do that & you get an obvious join in the [horizon/low sky] blend where the sky was shot at 30 seconds & the ground at 120 seconds for example. I think I shot this one at the same ISO for everything but 60 seconds/f2 for the ground & 30 seconds/f1.4 for the sky - 60 seconds skies were giving me some camera shake due to the wind.
 
LeeRatters said:
I hope the second thing you done was to gaffer tape it at 35mm Alan? ;) :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I've been meaning to use it and we have a trip planned to a place I've never been to before and I was thinking of taking my A7III with 40mm and my A7 probably with 24mm or maybe 20mm and then I thought why not take the 28-70mm for the width and length? I do prefer primes though.

Another reason to use it is that I've been thinking of slimming down my MFT kit and one thing I could sell is my Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. The crop factor makes the FF camera and kit lens a competitor and the FF lens is only fractionally bigger. The MFT lens does focus closer though but I can live without that.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Compared the 12-24 that used to be the standard for this range. 14-24 seems like being badly short-changed & you might as well compromise again and get the 16-35 which isn't enormously wide but IS much more practical. It just seems really lame.
Click to expand...
12-24 has never been standard, it is very much a specialist lens.

Even before mirrorless only Sigma from memory offered a 12-24mm. Nikon had the 14-24 and Canon had the 16-35.

I might swop out my Sony 12-24 GM for the Samyang purely because it so much smaller and 14mm is plenty wide.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
12-24 has never been standard, it is very much a specialist lens.

Even before mirrorless only Sigma from memory offered a 12-24mm. Nikon had the 14-24 and Canon had the 16-35.

I might swop out my Sony 12-24 GM for the Samyang purely because it so much smaller and 14mm is plenty wide.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a specialist lens, but Nikon, Pentax and Sony as well as sigma have made them, so it seems a standard format to me.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Yes, it's a specialist lens, but Nikon, Pentax and Sony as well as sigma have made them, so it seems a standard format to me.
Click to expand...

Nikon was an APSC lens
Pentax was an APSC lens
Sony didn't make one until mirrorless and even then its still only a few years
Sigma was the only DSLR full frame lens so very much a specialist lens

Doesn't seem standard at all to me.
 
Anyway,

I remember my Sigma 12-24mm was very well corrected. In tests it had a wavy distortion which I never saw in reality. Another I had was the Canon 20-35mm USM which I remember as being feather light, cheap (I bought it used) and fast to focus and quiet too. I used it on my film and digital Canons. I remember the distortion at the edges of the frame being epic but this wasn't obvious in many pictures.

Happy days.
 
woof woof said:
Anyway,

I remember my Sigma 12-24mm was very well corrected. In tests it had a wavy distortion which I never saw in reality. Another I had was the Canon 20-35mm USM which I remember as being feather light, cheap (I bought it used) and fast to focus and quiet too. I used it on my film and digital Canons. I remember the distortion at the edges of the frame being epic but this wasn't obvious in many pictures.

Happy days.
Click to expand...
I was still using an F-mount 12-24mm up until recently although trying a smaller Z-mount 14-30mm instead to save a bit of bulk.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I was still using an F-mount 12-24mm up until recently although trying a smaller Z-mount 14-30mm instead to save a bit of bulk.
Click to expand...

I think the extra 6mm at the longer end would suit me better these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top