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

ancient_mariner said:
You could run an A7III alongside, so you have the 'pretty' camera and the tool for when you need to do more serious stuff. Seems an odd direction to go other than 'play' value.
Click to expand...
The X100VI is a serious tool, if you take the time to learn how to use it and exploit its many strengths.
 
And unrelated to the picture I've just posted above.

I've just put this lens up for sale in the "other" section as it doesn't see a lot of use and I have my eye on something else.
 
imattersuk said:
The X100VI is a serious tool, if you take the time to learn how to use it and exploit its many strengths.
Click to expand...
I guess this depends on what you shoot and what you define as a serious tool. What surprises me is how bad the AF is by modern day standards, I certainly don't think it would be the best choice to use as a wedding camera or anything where there's a lot of action. It's great for what it is, but I'm not sure it could be used in demanding situations (y)

Having just acquired the RX1R II it's made me realise just how spoilt we are with modern day AF, but to be fair with the X100VI being a new camera I did expect it to be right up there.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upy14_lnmM
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I guess this depends on what you shoot and what you define as a serious tool. What surprises me is how bad the AF is by modern day standards, I certainly don't think it would be the best choice to use as a wedding camera or anything where there's a lot of action. It's great for what it is, but I'm not sure it could be used in demanding situations (y)

Having just acquired the RX1R II it's made me realise just how spoilt we are with modern day AF, but to be fair with the X100VI being a new camera I did expect it to be right up there.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upy14_lnmM
Click to expand...

Again, not intentionally disagreeing :) ...... but there are people out there using these for weddings and professional work. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't myself though for a wedding.
 
LeeRatters said:
Again, not intentionally disagreeing :) ...... but there are people out there using these for weddings and professional work. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't myself though for a wedding.
Click to expand...
Yeah I can imagine there are, and I’m sure they get very good results, however as per my previous post it’s not the best option ;) :p

Also, with it being a 35mm f2.8 lens equivalent in terms of DOF I guess it doesn’t matter if AF isn’t perfect as you have a large DOF to work with (y)

Despite all this, and my newly acquired camera part of me still fancies an X100 :headbang: :LOL:
 
There's nothing wrong with a fixed lens at all, unless you need a different focal length, at which point it becomes a problem. I usually use my 50 f1.2, but would not want to only have that available.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Fixed lens? A tool with very clear limitations.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, you can use the digital zoom or crop in post effectively as the sensor is stella (at last). I recently shot a gig and watched some other photographers just banging out boring shots, head down to waist kind of stuff. I got everything from the whole width of the stage to close ups. TBH I was surprised, much better results than I expected. Then you can also add a TCL with no loss of quality, improves the bokeh a tad too. I would say you could easily crop 70% so do the maths, what's that in FF ? A range from 50 to at least 100. Can also add a WCL for wide stuff.

I heard the same argument when I had the Q3 and I shot everything from wide landscape to cars on track with it.
 
snerkler said:
I guess this depends on what you shoot and what you define as a serious tool. What surprises me is how bad the AF is by modern day standards, I certainly don't think it would be the best choice to use as a wedding camera or anything where there's a lot of action. It's great for what it is, but I'm not sure it could be used in demanding situations (y)

Having just acquired the RX1R II it's made me realise just how spoilt we are with modern day AF, but to be fair with the X100VI being a new camera I did expect it to be right up there.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upy14_lnmM
Click to expand...
I just shot an entire wedding with it, zero issues, stop listening to muppets on YouTube lol

The AF is not "bad" but it's not up to Sony / Nikon level for tracking but you don't "need" that kind of AF unless shooting fast action. It's the kind of experience that teaches people a lot as you stop relying on super clinical AF. Really depends on your use case, it's certainly liberating especially on a trip.
 
Last edited:
@snerkler

BTW i'm not in the habit of defending a camera just because I own it, as you know i've had tons of different gear i'm just pointing out that a lot of the "issues" are misconceptions.

Limited ?

Take a look at a few shots taken recently, the first 6 are X100VI

www.flickr.com

Artisan Imagery

Explore Artisan Imagery’s 62 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Last edited:
imattersuk said:
Incorrect, you can use the digital zoom or crop in post effectively as the sensor is stella (at last). I recently shot a gig and watched some other photographers just banging out boring shots, head down to waist kind of stuff. I got everything from the whole width of the stage to close ups. TBH I was surprised, much better results than I expected. Then you can also add a TCL with no loss of quality, improves the bokeh a tad too. I would say you could easily crop 70% so do the maths, what's that in FF ? A range from 50 to at least 100. Can also add a WCL for wide stuff.

I heard the same argument when I had the Q3 and I shot everything from wide landscape to cars on track with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming my comments.
 
It makes me laugh nowadays when people disparage a camera's AF speed or accuracy.

I used to shoot motorsports in the 90's with a Canon T90 and FD manual focus lenses.

I used to be able to "snap focus" when needed.

Can't do it now with this fly by wire stuff.

We really are truly spoilt.
 
imattersuk said:
I just shot an entire wedding with it, zero issues, stop listening to muppets on YouTube lol

The AF is not "bad" but it's not up to Sony / Nikon level for tracking but you don't "need" that kind of AF unless shooting fast action. It's the kind of experience that teaches people a lot as you stop relying on super clinical AF. Really depends on your use case, it's certainly liberating especially on a trip.
Click to expand...

imattersuk said:
@snerkler

BTW i'm not in the habit of defending a camera just because I own it, as you know i've had tons of different gear i'm just pointing out that a lot of the "issues" are misconceptions.

Limited ?

Take a look at a few shots taken recently, the first 6 are X100VI

www.flickr.com

Artisan Imagery

Explore Artisan Imagery’s 62 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m not sure we’re on the same page here, but I don’t think anyone is disputing the X100VI is capable of great shots and you can use it for different uses, however the point is (Or at least the point I’ve been making) it’s not the best option a lot of the time.

At the end of the day an iPhone is capable of shooting weddings, motorsports, concerts, and some people do so with excellent results but is it the best tool for the job? (And before I get flamed I’m not suggesting the iPhone is on par with the X100 ;))

I got some nice photos of Betty out on our recent dog walk with the RX1R which has sub par AF, but it’s not the best camera for the job and if I was to go out specifically to shoot a dog I wouldn’t use it, especially if it was paid work.

Similarly I’m off to Silverstone on Friday, I could take me RX1R and get some shots with it but it’s a far cry from what I’d be able to achieve with my A1 and 70-200mm and 100-400mm :)

My point is that I don’t believe there’s any misconceptions from my end, I know what the X100VI is capable of and what its limitations are. I don’t want my posts to come off a X100 bashing as that is far from my intention, I genuinely think it’s a superb camera and I do think at some point I will end up owning one (y)

And yes for the record the Q3 and RX1R series also have similar limitations ;)
 
GreenNinja67 said:
It makes me laugh nowadays when people disparage a camera's AF speed or accuracy.

I used to shoot motorsports in the 90's with a Canon T90 and FD manual focus lenses.

I used to be able to "snap focus" when needed.

Can't do it now with this fly by wire stuff.

We really are truly spoilt.
Click to expand...
Lol, we are indeed. I do think it has to be taken into context though, just because we can do something with a tool doesn’t mean it’s the best or right tool for the job. I could still go out and shoot with my Film OM1 camera and get perfectly good shots, but I wouldn’t be able to get the shots that modern day equipment allows me to, and certainly not with the same ease or consistency (y)
 
snerkler said:
Yeah I’m not sure we’re on the same page here, but I don’t think anyone is disputing the X100VI is capable of great shots and you can use it for different uses, however the point is (Or at least the point I’ve been making) it’s not the best option a lot of the time.

At the end of the day an iPhone is capable of shooting weddings, motorsports, concerts, and some people do so with excellent results but is it the best tool for the job? (And before I get flamed I’m not suggesting the iPhone is on par with the X100 ;))

I got some nice photos of Betty out on our recent dog walk with the RX1R which has sub par AF, but it’s not the best camera for the job and if I was to go out specifically to shoot a dog I wouldn’t use it, especially if it was paid work.

Similarly I’m off to Silverstone on Friday, I could take me RX1R and get some shots with it but it’s a far cry from what I’d be able to achieve with my A1 and 70-200mm and 100-400mm :)

My point is that I don’t believe there’s any misconceptions from my end, I know what the X100VI is capable of and what its limitations are. I don’t want my posts to come off a X100 bashing as that is far from my intention, I genuinely think it’s a superb camera and I do think at some point I will end up owning one (y)

And yes for the record the Q3 and RX1R series also have similar limitations ;)
Click to expand...
It's not you bashing Toby I get that.....my comments are really aimed at the YouTube morons that just make ridiculous claims for clicks.
 
imattersuk said:
It's not you bashing Toby I get that.....my comments are really aimed at the YouTube morons that just make ridiculous claims for clicks.
Click to expand...
Ahh I see, sorry for the misunderstanding (y)

It's not just youtube, everything seems to be click bait these days, whether it's news, football reports etc etc :rolleyes: I've got to the point that I barely listen to them anymore, I just skip to the bit I want to see, make up my own mind on it and the close it back down again. That being said, I did watch a review on the X100VI from Jared and he actually gave a very good well rounded review (IMO), and it did very nearly make me pull the pin on buying one.

I'm also a bit skeptical on how much these youtubers are 'influenced' on their reviews and thoughts, another reason I take them with a pinch of salt ;)
 
GreenNinja67 said:
It makes me laugh nowadays when people disparage a camera's AF speed or accuracy.

I used to shoot motorsports in the 90's with a Canon T90 and FD manual focus lenses.

I used to be able to "snap focus" when needed.

Can't do it now with this fly by wire stuff.

We really are truly spoilt.
Click to expand...

The thing with AF is people believe it and modern cameras may not give you any clue that the shot is out of focus indeed just the opposite as you get every indication that it is in focus and then you find out it isn't.

I've taken an awful lot of mf pictures and I think mf is the most accurate way to focus if you have the time and of course if a shot is out of focus it's my fault but that's not the case with AF. I find iffy AF very annoying because I've trusted it and it's let me down and when a camera or lens can not focus reliably I feel I have the right to be annoyed and get rid of it.
 
I like having one focal length. You get familiar with it, you know the fov and you know where to stand to get the framing and perspective. Despite the limitations I think there are positives and things to enjoy.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The thing with AF is people believe it and modern cameras may not give you any clue that the shot is out of focus indeed just the opposite as you get every indication that it is in focus and then you find out it isn't.

I've taken an awful lot of mf pictures and I think mf is the most accurate way to focus if you have the time and of course if a shot is out of focus it's my fault but that's not the case with AF. I find iffy AF very annoying because I've trusted it and it's let me down and when a camera or lens can not focus reliably I feel I have the right to be annoyed and get rid of it.
Click to expand...
I think it's extremely rare these days that a camera hasn't focussed when it says it has, in fact I don't think that's ever happened to me with any of my Sony cameras. I've had the odd backfocus shot when Betty has been running towards the camera but that's it. I can't honestly remember the last time I got a 'false focus' with any camera. That being said I only use AF-C as I know AF-S wasn't as reliable with Sony cameras in the past, whether that's changed or not I don't know.
woof woof said:
I like having one focal length. You get familiar with it, you know the fov and you know where to stand to get the framing and perspective. Despite the limitations I think there are positives and things to enjoy.
Click to expand...
I've been enjoying just using one focal length of late, even before the latest purchase.
 
woof woof said:
I like having one focal length. You get familiar with it, you know the fov and you know where to stand to get the framing and perspective. Despite the limitations I think there are positives and things to enjoy.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. A single focal length with a great lens can work really well, one just needs to recognise the limitations and either work with them or use a different tool if that can't work.
 
£3k for the Sigma 200mm f2, anyone interested?
 
OK, here's a question for all you Sony tech nerds out there. When recording video sound on either my A6700 or my A7RV with my Sony ECM-M1 Digital mic (using the MI interface hotshoe), I've noticed under Shooting>Audio Recording>Mi Shoe Audio set, I have the following choices:

48khz/24 bit 4Ch
48khz/24 bit 2 Ch
48khz/16 bit 2 Ch

Whilst I understand that recording in 48khz 24bit will give superior audio with slightly more headroom for adjustment in post over the 16 bit mode (albeit with slightly bigger file sizes), I'm not sure as the benefit or even what does the 4 Channel mode (the top) one give you over the standard 2 Channel mode.

Anyone know please ?
 
It may relate to whether your mic has directionality - can it record effectively for a quad speaker system to provide sounds for behind as well as in front of the camera? If that's a feature you'll use then you need 4 channel recording.
 
Just in case anyone could be interested I've listed most of my Olympus Zuiko lenses in the "Other" section.

I'm just not using them these days and if they don't sell on here they'll be off to a dealer. I'm keeping the 50mm f1.8 though as I just can't part with it yet.
 
IF this is true I hope it sets a precedent, a Sony 35-50mm f1.4 GM would be epic,…. assuming it wasn’t huge and heavy.

Surprise: New Viltrox(?) 35-50mm f/1.4 Full Frame zoom coming in 2026? | sonyalpharumors

A world's first, the 35-50mm f/1.4 FE: A new rumor circulating on Chinese social media platform Weibo hints at a groundbreaking full-frame zoom lens set to arrive in 2026: a 35–50mm f/1.4. Reportedly developed by a well-known Chinese manufacturer—possibly Viltrox—this would mark the first-ever...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

On another note Nikon appear to have come up trumps with their new 24-70mm f2.8. Only 675g and internal zoom, albeit at a cost of making it 2cm longer.
 
Last edited:
Pleased to report the B&W filter shows no signs of degrading the image (y)
 
snerkler said:
IF this is true I hope it sets a precedent, a Sony 35-50mm f1.4 GM would be epic,…. assuming it wasn’t huge and heavy.

Surprise: New Viltrox(?) 35-50mm f/1.4 Full Frame zoom coming in 2026? | sonyalpharumors

A world's first, the 35-50mm f/1.4 FE: A new rumor circulating on Chinese social media platform Weibo hints at a groundbreaking full-frame zoom lens set to arrive in 2026: a 35–50mm f/1.4. Reportedly developed by a well-known Chinese manufacturer—possibly Viltrox—this would mark the first-ever...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

On another note Nikon appear to have come up trumps with their new 24-70mm f2.8. Only 675g and internal zoom, albeit at a cost of making it 2cm longer.
Click to expand...

New zooms are pushing the envelope but we'll need to assess the bulk, weight and image quality and of course the costs too. Primes will probably still make a lot of sense even if losing out on flexibility as they could be smaller and lighter and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sony,

Please update your aging 28mm f2. Give it better image quality and up the build quality too. I'm not asking for a £1,200-£1,600 GM, just a reasonably priced 28mm f1.8 or f2 with better IQ and a better build, oh and with better focus too.

I used both my Sony 28mm f2 and an old Zuiko 28mm f2.8 today and I think that old Zuiko challenges the Sony in some areas.
 
Last edited:
As it's quiet.

Going back as far as when I had a Canon 5D so that's the last 15 years I've often used old film era lenses and even more so since going mirrorless. In the last couple of years I've used them less partly because I bought some modern Voigtlanders in Sony mount and also because I got the Sony 40mm f2.5 which I think is excellent and that lens has also helped to pushed the film era lenses out.

As I'm not really using these old lenses I sold quite a few back in June 2024 on here and to a dealer but I also kept quite a few but I still haven't been using them so I've advertised some again and apart from some others I can't bring myself to part with what doesn't sell here will go to a dealer. I was thinking of selling my modern Voigtlanders too but I got them out the other day and shot with them all and I now don't think I can sell them as they're just such lovely things and if I only use them once a year then so what? This attitude has spread to the film era lenses too and I will keep some of the more interesting ones even if they only get used once in a blue moon.

I just wondered, is anyone else trying to thin their gear out, are you stable for now or are you all looking to buy more rather than stick or sell?

Again, as it's quiet I thought I'd look for Sony mount Voigtlander pictures I remembered taking and like so here's one from each. These aren't necessarily great pictures but I remember taking each of them and I like them all.

Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 at f1.4.

1-3514-3-.jpg

Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 at f11 and 13 seconds.

1-3512-3.jpg

Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 at f1.2. I sold this lens and despite having 35 and 50mm f1.2 Voigtlanders I do wish I'd kept it :D

1-4012-1.jpg

Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 at f1.2.

1-5012-2.jpg

Voigtlander 50mm f2 at f2.

1-502-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I just wondered, is anyone else trying to thin their gear out, are you stable for now or are you all looking to buy more rather than stick or sell?
Click to expand...

I thinned out all my old kit when moving to Sony… though it’s now somewhat amassed again.

Mostly happy with what I have now, though occasionally think about swapping out some of it. E.g. my 35/2.8 Samyang for the 40mm Sony (or that new ttartisan, would love a modern AF lens with an aperture ring) but….. it’s so small and my copy is plenty sharp. Goes well on the 5100 too.
 
the_accidental said:
I thinned out all my old kit when moving to Sony… though it’s now somewhat amassed again.

Mostly happy with what I have now, though occasionally think about swapping out some of it. E.g. my 35/2.8 Samyang for the 40mm Sony (or that new ttartisan, would love a modern AF lens with an aperture ring) but….. it’s so small and my copy is plenty sharp. Goes well on the 5100 too.
Click to expand...

If I didn't have the Sony 40mm f2.5 I'd be temped by the TTa f2. The Sony will I expect be the better lens but the TTA is much cheaper and may well be good enough and it's f2 rather than f2.5 but I don't think it'll focus as close as the Sony and that is a shame if you like the odd close up picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top