- Messages
- 26,261
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Ahh, google lied to me, it said it was only 10fps but after just going on the Sony site I see that it's 10fps Mechanical and 30fps electronicA7v not a7rv. The a7v is 30fps
Ahh, google lied to me, it said it was only 10fps but after just going on the Sony site I see that it's 10fps Mechanical and 30fps electronicA7v not a7rv. The a7v is 30fps
I'd prefer the R5ii myself but A7RVI does have other benefits. Likely better EVF, matched dual cards, fully articulated screen, better battery life, dynamic range.
Also now it has illuminated buttons
I have shot plenty in the dark, and i mostly shoot with muscle memory. Never had an issue but apparently there are people who need this
2/3rd stop definitely makes a difference and especially in the UK.I was initially impressed by the 100-400mm f4.5 but then I got to thinking, is it really worth double the price and 500g for 2/3 of a stop over the old GM? I'm sure it'll be slightly sharper and faster AF in the lab but I've never found the original GM lacking in either of these areas. The internal zoom is nice, but then the whole thing is much larger. I think I'd rather have the 300mm f2.8 and use TC's.
View attachment 482178
These are very marginal differences, and illuminated buttons are mainly for new users. Its a tough one when staying on canon practically means pretty much no new lenses everI'd prefer the R5ii myself but A7RVI does have other benefits. Likely better EVF, matched dual cards, fully articulated screen, better battery life, dynamic range.
Also now it has illuminated buttons
I have shot plenty in the dark, and i mostly shoot with muscle memory. Never had an issue but apparently there are people who need this
This is a whole new category lens, not like for like update. It looks like it is a winner, and wallet is happy because i have zero need for anything like this2/3rd stop definitely makes a difference and especially in the UK.
It's difference between shooting at under 1/1000s or over 1/1000s
Plus the point is it'll be much sharper with TCs
He's done a comparison against 200-600mm, even with TC it's sharper
View: https://youtu.be/93Cof3kVhTA?si=K2L7q5T7pgp5hxfr
300mm f2.8 can't go to 800mm with 2x, plus it costs 50% more and it's not a zoom.
i also don't see it as a replacement for the original 100-400mm. It's more a good upgrade for people shooting with 200-600mm or 400-800mm, it'll be mostly sharper and lighter by a fair margin.
Horses for courses and all that

Surprising that he says 200-600 is sharper than 100-400mm with TC while Dustin A says the exact oppositeAn objective review.
My Sony 100-400 F4.5 Real World Review!
WHEW! I just finished my review of the new Sony 100-400 F/4.5 - and honestly, this lens turned out to be a lot more interesting than I expected. :) On paper, it doesn’t really dominate the other options in Sony’s lineup, but after spending time shooting with it in the field, there were a few...bcgforums.com
Cheap hood for a cheap lens by barrysprout, on FlickrI used to think that but I paid that for my A1, and if I had the money I'd definitely buy a Leica M11 which is even crazier money. I can's see myself even paying £3k or £4k for a camera but you never know

If anyone else uses the 28mm Viltrox chip lens I’ve got another of these hoods going spare. I can post it in freebies if someone wants it.All this talk of expensive cameras and lenses has given me a gas attack!
Checked the bank account and I’ve settled for a 10p hood for my £60 lens
Cheap hood for a cheap lens by barrysprout, on Flickr
Even if i had the money not sure I'd buy one tbhI used to think that but I paid that for my A1, and if I had the money I'd definitely buy a Leica M11 which is even crazier money![]()
It's obviously a very personal thing, but I very much like the rendering of the Leica M lenses (not so much SL lenses), and I like the fully manual aspect using oldschool focussing aids rather than peaking and zoom. It's more the engagement of taking the photo, however it wouldn't be for all scenarios obviously. I'd not want to use manual focus for wildlife and motorsport.Even if i had the money not sure I'd buy one tbh
Just doesn't feel great to use in hand, don't get the hype. May be one needs to spend another 2 grand on accessories to make it nice to hold, who knows, may be i have got it all wrong![]()
I used to think that but I paid that for my A1, and if I had the money I'd definitely buy a Leica M11 which is even crazier money![]()
It's obviously a very personal thing, but I very much like the rendering of the Leica M lenses (not so much SL lenses), and I like the fully manual aspect using oldschool focussing aids rather than peaking and zoom. It's more the engagement of taking the photo, however it wouldn't be for all scenarios obviously. I'd not want to use manual focus for wildlife and motorsport.
It's all just a pipedream though, and it's one of several reasons I've been dabbling with film SLR's again.
I was contemplating medium format, probably a Yashica but my god have those things gone up in price recentlyI bought the QL17 as a tester into using a rangefinder patch
My Yashica FX3 uses split prizm or whatever it's called.
I was contemplating medium format, probably a Yashica but my god have those things gone up in price recently
Edit: it’s rolleiflex I’m thinking of not yashica that’re crazy prices now.
I really like the GM, the rendering is great imo. I sometimes find Sigma lenses a little too clinical but then other times they render really well. I've no experience with the Sigma 35mm.Thinking of getting a 35mm for my A7R V . Buying grey can get the newish Sigma 1.4 Art 2 or the Sony 1.4 GM for virtually the same price, I don't do video. Reviews seem to favour the Sigma, anyone used both/thoughts
Thinking of getting a 35mm for my A7R V . Buying grey can get the newish Sigma 1.4 Art 2 or the Sony 1.4 GM for virtually the same price, I don't do video. Reviews seem to favour the Sigma, anyone used both/thoughts