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

[woof woof]

I know you keep saying the size appeals to you, and I think it appeals to most, however do you think just because something is smaller or should cost more?

Not necessarily but there's no exact competition so the price is hard to judge and then there's the question of should a niche product appealing to a smaller audience and selling in smaller numbers cost more or less? Again it's hard to judge.

RX1rIII = £4,200.
A7crII at £2,650 + 35mm f1.8 at £550 = £3,200. That's cheaper but it's a bigger and heavier combination.
So is it worth an extra £1k for a smaller lighter camera with a different and more compact lens?

I have no money worries so it possibly is to me but at the moment I can't get past the lack of a tilting screen and the annoying shutter speed issue. Plus another issue is the file sizes. If it didn't have these issues I might have already ordered one as ever since my Canon DSLR days I've thought that digital cameras and lenses are too big and too heavy and too attention grabbing.

I've tried the X100s/f and they had good points but on the whole they annoyed me and as with MFT the IQ, DR and depth control are not the same as FF.

 

[LeeRatters]

Not necessarily but there's no exact competition so the price is hard to judge and then there's the question of should a niche product appealing to a smaller audience and selling in smaller numbers cost more or less? Again it's hard to judge.

RX1rIII = £4,200.
A7crII at £2,650 + 35mm f1.8 at £550 = £3,200. That's cheaper but it's a bigger and heavier combination.
So is it worth an extra £1k for a smaller lighter camera with a different and more compact lens?

I have no money worries so it possibly is to me but at the moment I can't get past the lack of a tilting screen and the annoying shutter speed issue. Plus another issue is the file sizes. If it didn't have these issues I might have already ordered one as ever since my Canon DSLR days I've thought that digital cameras and lenses are too big and too heavy and too attention grabbing.

I've tried the X100s/f and they had good points but on the whole they annoyed me and as with MFT the IQ, DR and depth control are not the same as FF.

RX1riii at £4200 & 489 grams.....? I'd rather spend less on a used Leica Q2 at 718 grams

And I'd also rather have an A7Cii & 40G new from Panamoz for £2000 at 687 grams

1181 grams for the A7Riii & 35GM - plus my L Bracket.

 

[snerkler]

Not necessarily but there's no exact competition so the price is hard to judge and then there's the question of should a niche product appealing to a smaller audience and selling in smaller numbers cost more or less? Again it's hard to judge.

RX1rIII = £4,200.
A7crII at £2,650 + 35mm f1.8 at £550 = £3,200. That's cheaper but it's a bigger and heavier combination.
So is it worth an extra £1k for a smaller lighter camera with a different and more compact lens?

I have no money worries so it possibly is to me but at the moment I can't get past the lack of a tilting screen and the annoying shutter speed issue. Plus another issue is the file sizes. If it didn't have these issues I might have already ordered one as ever since my Canon DSLR days I've thought that digital cameras and lenses are too big and too heavy and too attention grabbing.

I've tried the X100s/f and they had good points but on the whole they annoyed me and as with MFT the IQ, DR and depth control are not the same as FF.

You obviously think/feel differently to me which is obviously absolutely fine. However, I won’t buy something that I don’t feel is worth it even if I have the money

 

[Tavitonian]

I'm nervous about posting a snap here with all this £4000 camera talk, but here goes anyway. This is Siward's Cross on Dartmoor a couple of days ago with the Nex 6 and Takumar 20mm.

Siward's Cross (AKA Nun's Cross) by David Holland, on Flickr

 

[mstphoto]

I'm nervous about posting a snap here with all this £4000 camera talk, but here goes anyway. This is Siward's Cross on Dartmoor a couple of days ago with the Nex 6 and Takumar 20mm.

Siward's Cross (AKA Nun's Cross) by David Holland, on Flickr

Nicely composed but I'd be tempted to add a bit more contrast

 

[the_accidental]

I'm nervous about posting a snap here with all this £4000 camera talk, but here goes anyway

I’ll join in the B&W with one from my super light, compact pocket 35mm(ish) Sony from a walk about London the other week:


Somewhat (16x) less expensive than a RX1RIII and it’s even got a flippy screen ;-)



Resize for upload mashed the crispness of the morning sun somewhat, was striking contrast in person hence the B&W.

 

[LeeRatters]

I'm nervous about posting a snap here with all this £4000 camera talk, but here goes anyway. This is Siward's Cross on Dartmoor a couple of days ago with the Nex 6 and Takumar 20mm.

Siward's Cross (AKA Nun's Cross) by David Holland, on Flickr

That's a pretty nice photo for a £5374 set up

 

[Tavitonian]

Nicely composed but I'd be tempted to add a bit more contrast

Thanks. In the past I've tended to do my digital B&W with CCD cameras that naturally give more film-like contrast, and I admit that I'm still struggling to get the hang of CMOS sensor B&W. That's a helpful tip that it looks a bit too low contrast.

 

[Tavitonian]

That's a pretty nice photo for a £5374 set up

Thanks.

 

[snerkler]

Thanks. In the past I've tended to do my digital B&W with CCD cameras that naturally give more film-like contrast, and I admit that I'm still struggling to get the hang of CMOS sensor B&W. That's a helpful tip that it looks a bit too low contrast.

Tbh I thought it was intentional, it looks more film like and I like it (I’m only looking on the phone though).

 

[snerkler]

That's a pretty nice photo for a £5374 set up

Am I missing a joke or something here?

 

[Gold]

I'm nervous about posting a snap here with all this £4000 camera talk, but here goes anyway. This is Siward's Cross on Dartmoor a couple of days ago with the Nex 6 and Takumar 20mm.

Siward's Cross (AKA Nun's Cross) by David Holland, on Flickr

Actually taking and posting photos, what is this? I like the low contrast look here, a nice change from so many digital b&w photos.

 

[Tavitonian]

Tbh I thought it was intentional, it looks more film like and I like it (I’m only looking on the phone though).

Actually taking and posting photos, what is this? I like the low contrast look here, a nice change from so many digital b&w photos.

Thanks both. I'm in one of those phases at the moment where I know I'm aiming for a different look to my snaps than I've been in the habit of for the past few years, but I'm still not working with 100% idea of what I actually want. So the sort of feedback that you folk have given here is really genuinely helpful.

 

[snerkler]

Thanks both. I'm in one of those phases at the moment where I know I'm aiming for a different look to my snaps than I've been in the habit of for the past few years, but I'm still not working with 100% idea of what I actually want. So the sort of feedback that you folk have given here is really genuinely helpful.

I've been working on my editing for 10 years and I'm still not happy with it

 

[woof woof]

RX1riii at £4200 & 489 grams.....? I'd rather spend less on a used Leica Q2 at 718 grams

And I'd also rather have an A7Cii & 40G new from Panamoz for £2000 at 687 grams

1181 grams for the A7Riii & 35GM - plus my L Bracket.

The Leica is more expensive new but the killer for me is the size which makes me wonder why I'd choose one over my A7 kit plus the 28mm is apparently 26mm which makes it a touch wide and the other option of 43mm is getting a touch tight and even more expensive if 43mm is what it really is. Why would I choose one over my A7III and 40mm? Even at f2.5 I know I wouldn't. I'm not really looking at used prices as yes you can buy a used Q2 but once you start looking at used the world and an RX1II is your oyster.

I seem to be in a minority of maybe one but each to their own. The RX1 does make sense to me because it's a small FF camera with a small 35mm f2 and you just can't get that anywhere else.

Mrs WW would be ok with me getting one, as soon as I mentioned it she interrupted with "Get one" but I know that the lack of a tilting screen and the shutter speed issues would annoy me so I'm pretty sure I wont get one. Pretty sure

You obviously think/feel differently to me which is obviously absolutely fine. However, I won’t buy something that I don’t feel is worth it even if I have the money

Yup. I'm deffo my own man with my own views and happy to be and although I hate to make the point again I will do one last time...

The RX1 at the moment is in a class of its own so the price is hard to judge and we are left comparing it to things which aren't quite the same thing namely Leica's which are bigger, different focal lengths and more expensive again or the A7cII range which is cheaper but bigger and you can't buy a compact AF 35mm f2 to fit and after those options we're looking at APS-C or used MFT which can't match the IQ or dof options.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

The Leica is more expensive new but the killer for me is the size which makes me wonder why I'd choose one over my A7 kit plus the 28mm is apparently 26mm which makes it a touch wide and the other option of 43mm is getting a touch tight and even more expensive if 43mm is what it really is. Why would I choose one over my A7III and 40mm? Even at f2.5 I know I wouldn't. I'm not really looking at used prices as yes you can buy a used Q2 but once you start looking at used the world and an RX1II is your oyster.

The Q3 28 is slightly wider than 28mm, but I understand that was to allow the software correction to fully resolve a 28mm image

The Q3 43 apperas to be 43mm, this lens is simply superb, its easily the 'best' lens I've every used, super sharp (even wide open), and the out of focus fall-off is very nice.

Buts its all horse for courses, every one of us is different, have different requirements and different goals. And I agree with you about the RX1 and its compactness/lightweight.

 

[snerkler]

The RX1 at the moment is in a class of its own so the price is hard to judge and we are left comparing it to things which aren't quite the same thing namely Leica's which are bigger, different focal lengths and more expensive again or the A7cII range which is cheaper but bigger and you can't buy a compact AF 35mm f2 to fit and after those options we're looking at APS-C or used MFT which can't match the IQ or dof options.

I know it's in a class of it's own but I don't think it's hard to judge the price when you simply consider the sum of the components. I don't think a premium should be charged just because there's nothing else in the class, although of course I know that's not how the world works

 

[snerkler]

The Q3 28 is slightly wider than 28mm, but I understand that was to allow the software correction to fully resolve a 28mm image

The Q3 43 apperas to be 43mm, this lens is simply superb, its easily the 'best' lens I've every used, super sharp (even wide open), and the out of focus fall-off is very nice.

Buts its all horse for courses, every one of us is different, have different requirements and different goals. And I agree with you about the RX1 and its compactness/lightweight.

Do you know the reason Leica chose 43mm, it seems a very odd focal length to me?

 

[woof woof]

The Q3 28 is slightly wider than 28mm, but I understand that was to allow the software correction to fully resolve a 28mm image

The Q3 43 apperas to be 43mm, this lens is simply superb, its easily the 'best' lens I've every used, super sharp (even wide open), and the out of focus fall-off is very nice.

Buts its all horse for courses, every one of us is different, have different requirements and different goals. And I agree with you about the RX1 and its compactness/lightweight.

The Leica Q's are lovely things but I don't think I'd buy one because they're small because to me they aren't and I don't know if that's the main reason for buyers, it just wouldn't be mine and then there's the price. I do like both 28 and 40-ish mm focal lengths but I'd choose 35mm over them both if I could. The Sony 40mm f2.5 has been on my A7III since I got it because it's a good lens and it's small and IMO significantly better than the old 35mm f2.8 so it's a trade off for me but given the choice I'd rather have a really good compact 35mm but there isn't one.

 

[woof woof]

Do you know the reason Leica chose 43mm, it seems a very odd focal length to me?

This makes me think about my first camera, a Kodak Instamatic 36 which also had a 43mm lens, fixed focus f11.

 

[snerkler]

I had emails yesterday about the Fuji XE5 release yesterday and the bundle with the 23mm f2.8mm pancake and it got me wondering why Fuji don't offer a 23mm f2 pancake similar to the X100 series as it would make a great alternative. I can only assume it's because they don't want to canibalise the X100 sales?

 

[Tavitonian]

Do you know the reason Leica chose 43mm, it seems a very odd focal length to me?

43mm is the diagonal of a 24mmx36mm "full frame" sensor, which makes a 43mm lens the true normal for that format. It will capture the scene with the closest perspective possible to what the human eye sees. A 28mm lens does the same job on APS-C.

 

[woof woof]

I had emails yesterday about the Fuji XE5 release yesterday and the bundle with the 23mm f2.8mm pancake and it got me wondering why Fuji don't offer a 23mm f2 pancake similar to the X100 series as it would make a great alternative. I can only assume it's because they don't want to canibalise the X100 sales?

Maybe it'd be similar to the RX1 issues? Maybe doing a removeable 23mm f2 would impact quality or size or price or all of these?

I do like small RF style cameras so I've sort of looked at this camera but decided against going for one as it's back to APS-C and I already have two RF style MFT cameras and a set of lenses. For anyone who doesn't have something similar I think it might be worth a look but for Sony A7x users maybe an A6xxx would be a better bet to share lenses.

 

[LeeRatters]

The Leica is more expensive new but the killer for me is the size which makes me wonder why I'd choose one over my A7 kit plus the 28mm is apparently 26mm which makes it a touch wide and the other option of 43mm is getting a touch tight and even more expensive if 43mm is what it really is. Why would I choose one over my A7III and 40mm? Even at f2.5 I know I wouldn't. I'm not really looking at used prices as yes you can buy a used Q2 but once you start looking at used the world and an RX1II is your oyster.

I seem to be in a minority of maybe one but each to their own. The RX1 does make sense to me because it's a small FF camera with a small 35mm f2 and you just can't get that anywhere else.

Mrs WW would be ok with me getting one, as soon as I mentioned it she interrupted with "Get one" but I know that the lack of a tilting screen and the shutter speed issues would annoy me so I'm pretty sure I wont get one. Pretty sure

Really? Doesn't that have the pop up EVF? I wouldn't have one if it was free

Desire = Q2 > A7Cii > RX1riii
Financial = A7Cii > Q2 > RX1riii

 

[mikeyb]

Worst thread in Forum history.

Made me buy an A6700, Sigma 18-50 and a Sony 70-350

(Former Canon user 30D, 40D, 50D, 1D MkII, 7D Mk1, 5Dmk3, 70D)

 

[snerkler]

Really? Doesn't that have the pop up EVF? I wouldn't have one if it was free

Desire = Q2 > A7Cii > RX1riii
Financial = A7Cii > Q2 > RX1riii

The pop up EVF on the RX100 VII isn't too bad so if the RX1 version is similar it would be quite useful. I'd rather have this than the one on the new one that sticks out and adds bulk, I'd imagine with a camera like this most of your shooting is going to be done using the LCD screen so the EVF is just there for occasional use in which case the pop up would suffice. YMMV

 

[LeeRatters]

The pop up EVF on the RX100 VII isn't too bad so if the RX1 version is similar it would be quite useful. I'd rather have this than the one on the new one that sticks out and adds bulk, I'd imagine with a camera like this most of your shooting is going to be done using the LCD screen so the EVF is just there for occasional use in which case the pop up would suffice. YMMV

YMMV indeed I don't enjoy using the LCD much tbh so having to constantly pop the EVF up and down or constantly leave it popped up would probably get on my nerves. I would imagine it is pretty strong and secure though, well I would hope so anyway.

 

[Faldrax]

Worst thread in Forum history.

Made me buy an A6700, Sigma 18-50 and a Sony 70-350

(Former Canon user 30D, 40D, 50D, 1D MkII, 7D Mk1, 5Dmk3, 70D)

Spending other peoples money is a speciality of this thread

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I had emails yesterday about the Fuji XE5 release yesterday and the bundle with the 23mm f2.8mm pancake and it got me wondering why Fuji don't offer a 23mm f2 pancake similar to the X100 series as it would make a great alternative. I can only assume it's because they don't want to canibalise the X100 sales?

It would be hard to make a 23mm F2 pancake, and keep the same size, the X100 has the advantage that the ILC flange distance doesn’t have to be maintained so the design has the freedom to position the sensor further back and effectively recess the lens into the body - same with RX1 and Q families

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Large format Sony???

 

[woof woof]

Really? Doesn't that have the pop up EVF? I wouldn't have one if it was free

Desire = Q2 > A7Cii > RX1riii
Financial = A7Cii > Q2 > RX1riii

Well. Once you start moving the goal posts anything is I suppose on the list.

 

[woof woof]

Worst thread in Forum history.

Made me buy an A6700, Sigma 18-50 and a Sony 70-350

(Former Canon user 30D, 40D, 50D, 1D MkII, 7D Mk1, 5Dmk3, 70D)

It's for your own good

If you didn't spend your hard earned on camera gear you might waste it on booze, drugs and wild women. Oh, hang on, that doesn't sound like waste...

 

[LeeRatters]

Well. Once you start moving the goal posts anything is I suppose on the list.

There's goal posts to move.

Out of those 3 cameras, right now that's the order I would look at them in And that's not including an X100vi which is probably the most "pocketable" out of all of them if size is important. And is also cheaper than all of those option, by quite a bit

 

[woof woof]

There's goal posts to move.

Out of those 3 cameras, right now that's the order I would look at them in And that's not including an X100vi which is probably the most "pocketable" out of all of them if size is important. And is also cheaper than all of those option, by quite a bit

As I've now posted many times. The RX1 is for me a one trick pony. For me it's a small FF camera with a small 35mm f2 lens. That's it. I don't see any other point. Some could value the leaf shutter or some other feature but I don't care about the rest. All I care about is the small FF + small fast 35mm. That's all that interests me. Remove the small form factor or the FF format or the fast lens and I'm not interested because if you remove those I have other options.

I'm not interested in a Q because IMO they're not small enough and I'm not interested in APS-C because it's not FF. I have middling sized FF covered by my Sony A7 kit and I have small covered by my MFT kit. What I don't have is FF quality with a fast lens in a small body and at the mo and IMO there's only one thing that covers small and fast FF, the RX1. Even the A7cII doesn't compete for me as there's no small fast AF lens. But that's just my own assessment.

If other people want to see a Q or a X100 as a viable alternative to the RX1 then fill your boots. I'm happy for you

 

[snerkler]

As I've now posted many times. The RX1 is for me a one trick pony. For me it's a small FF camera with a small 35mm f2 lens. That's it. I don't see any other point. Some could value the leaf shutter or some other feature but I don't care about the rest. All I care about is the small FF + small fast 35mm. That's all that interests me. Remove the small form factor or the FF format or the fast lens and I'm not interested because if you remove those I have other options.

I'm not interested in a Q because IMO they're not small enough and I'm not interested in APS-C because it's not FF. I have middling sized FF covered by my Sony A7 kit and I have small covered by my MFT kit. What I don't have is FF quality with a fast lens in a small body and at the mo and IMO there's only one thing that covers small and fast FF, the RX1. Even the A7cII doesn't compete for me as there's no small fast AF lens. But that's just my own assessment.

If other people want to see a Q or a X100 as a viable alternative to the RX1 then fill your boots. I'm happy for you

I don’t mind the idea of a small ‘pocketable’ APS-C camera, however it would need to have at least an f1.4 lens to get any kind of decent shallow DOF, and even then it’s not as much as I’d like. 35mm f2 FF doesn’t give much scope for subject isolation, and whilst for many that wouldn’t be the point of a camera like this, it would be a consideration for me

I did have the Fujifilm 35mm f1.4R and subject isolation wasn't great.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Some could value the leaf shutter

The leaf shutter negates the need for IBIS in a lot of situations - I'm always surprised how slow I can go with a leaf shutter and still get a sharp image.

 

[woof woof]

I don’t mind the idea of a small ‘pocketable’ APS-C camera, however it would need to have at least an f1.4 lens to get any kind of decent shallow DOF, and even then it’s not as much as I’d like. 35mm f2 FF doesn’t give much scope for subject isolation, and whilst for many that wouldn’t be the point of a camera like this, it would be a consideration for me

I did have the Fujifilm 35mm f1.4R and subject isolation wasn't great.

I have an f1.7 lens for MFT and it does make for a small combination on my GX80 or GX9 but as I have money to waste on things that aren't women or booze I could be interested in a small FF combination for the extra IQ which IMO is noticeable over MFT or APS-C if we go looking and sadly I do go looking.

I can get close to the RX1 with an A7CII and 40mm f2.5 or 35mm f2.8 but not at f2 and AF and I can have a fast 26/28 or 45mm on an arguably much bigger Q but that's not the same as the RX1 and neither is APS-C or MFT. IMO.

A true, for me, RX1 alternative might come along in the future but I doubt it. I would be happy with a compact FF AF 35 or 40mm f1.4/1.8/2 for the A7CII but I don't think that's too likely although some Chinese company could do it. I could even think about accepting TTA 50mm f2 or Pergear 35mm f1.4 quality in a compact AF lens but I don't think any of the major manufacturers would do that because of the hit to optical quality. A Chinese company could do it if they thought they'd get enough sales but I wont hold my breath.

 

[woof woof]

The leaf shutter negates the need for IBIS in a lot of situations - I'm always surprised how slow I can go with a leaf shutter and still get a sharp image.

I appreciate that leaf shutters and IS both have their place but TBH 99% of the time I want to freeze motion so will be at freezing motion shutter speeds even with the electronic shutter.

 

[LeeRatters]

I have an f1.7 lens for MFT and it does make for a small combination on my GX80 or GX9 but as I have money to waste on things that aren't women or booze I could be interested in a small FF combination for the extra IQ which IMO is noticeable over MFT or APS-C if we go looking and sadly I do go looking.

I can get close to the RX1 with an A7CII and 40mm f2.5 or 35mm f2.8 but not at f2 and AF and I can have a fast 26/28 or 45mm on an arguably much bigger Q but that's not the same as the RX1 and neither is APS-C or MFT. IMO.

A true, for me, RX1 alternative might come along in the future but I doubt it. I would be happy with a compact FF AF 35 or 40mm f1.4/1.8/2 for the A7CII but I don't think that's too likely although some Chinese company could do it. I could even think about accepting TTA 50mm f2 or Pergear 35mm f1.4 quality in a compact AF lens but I don't think any of the major manufacturers would do that because of the hit to optical quality. A Chinese company could do it if they thought they'd get enough sales but I wont hold my breath.

FF extra IQ you say.....?

View: https://youtu.be/E8Sej2TEes4?si=bVzxl_l5YUOsFyHv

 

[woof woof]

FF extra IQ you say.....?

View: https://youtu.be/E8Sej2TEes4?si=bVzxl_l5YUOsFyHv

Yup. I think if we're talking about cameras of about the same generation then yes.

If you think smaller formats offer you better IQ then as above, fill your boots.

Unfortunately I can't stop myself from pixel peeping and having a nice file and the FF look matters to me, to me it is part of the hobby and when I look at MFT or my X100s/f files I often see files which would have looked better if I'd taken the picture with my creaking old A7. If people are happy with APS-C or MFT then all I can say is they're probably the better person. I admit to my faults. I like FF. My name is Woof Woof and for a long time now I've been taking FF. Don't be like Woof Woof.