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

[snerkler]

A7v 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 electronic Yeah 1s shooting is not ideal, although I'm not sure if I've ever continuously shot for much longer than this. Adding pre-capture does alter things, although if I was shooting anything that requires pre-capture I'm guessing I'd be using the mechanical shutter to avoid rolling shutter.

 

[addicknchips]

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

Finally!
With Sony cameras getting bigger all round they are waking up to the features and ergonomics that do make a difference

 

[nandbytes]

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

2/3rd 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

 

[Peter123]

An 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

 

[LongLensPhotography]

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

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 ever

Now a7riv should be getting into sub 1k range! Should be ok for tripod stills although i have concerns about sensor cleanliness on these

 

[LongLensPhotography]

2/3rd 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

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 this

 

[woof woof]

As we've been on holiday I missed the new announcements. I can's see myself even paying £3k or £4k for a camera but you never know. It does seem an awful lot to me though but for those who want one... Good luck and I wish you well and mucho enjoyment

As I mostly use the 40mm f2.5 now the reduced shutter speed of my relatively cheap a7cII hasn't been a problem plus I leave it on electronic unless making a conscious decision to use the mechanical shutter but I do with there was an auto option, my Panasonic cameras have had mechanical, electronic and auto for a long long time. I can see myself ever needed an R cameras as 33mp seems to be enough for me but I don't take pictures of birds/wildlife and don't need to crop.

As I'm here... Mrs WW ascending steps somewhere in Corsica.



We saw a huge memorial to Napoleon. Funny how the French are proud of their dictator and their bid for world domination.

 

[Kieran_89]

Be interested to see how the 100-400 performs against the Nikon Z 400 4.5, both at 400mm.

 

[nandbytes]

An 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

Surprising that he says 200-600 is sharper than 100-400mm with TC while Dustin A says the exact opposite

Dustin spends lot more time showing the comparisons across the frame, so I'm inclined to believe him....

 

[Barrysprout]

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

 

[snerkler]

. I can's see myself even paying £3k or £4k for a camera but you never know

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

 

[Barrysprout]

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

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.

 

[nandbytes]

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

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

 

[nandbytes]

Off-brand topic, people here are discussing compacts recently, the new Panasonic L10 missed my attention

Used to have the lx100 and lx100ii.
Don't feel like paying £1.3k for it but these days compacts are all the hype...

https://m.dpreview.com/news/8679910436/panasonic-lumix-dc-l10-four-thirds-enthusiast-compact

 

[snerkler]

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

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.

 

[woof woof]

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

I suppose if prices keep going up I'll have no choice but at the moment even 33mp is too much and if there is a new cheap option in the future when my current cameras have died that'll be what I go for.

For now cars and cruises are what'll get my money, and I'll be assembling a couple more watches too.

 

[LeeRatters]

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 bought the QL17 as a tester into using a rangefinder patch

My Yashica FX3 uses split prizm or whatever it's called.

 

[snerkler]

I 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.

 

[LeeRatters]

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 have a Yashica Mat 124g for medium format. You aren't shooting anything quickly with it but it is so nice to shoot with.

There are cheaper options, lesser known brands, but a lot have shutter speed limitations for example and stuff like that. I knew that would get to me so stuck out for a 124g.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I only upgraded by 124G as I was offered a Rolleiflex at a not to missed price, the Rolleiflex lens is lovely and it’s a nice thing to shoot with.

 

[nog]

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

 

[snerkler]

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

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.

 

[nandbytes]

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

used to have the 35GM, had it since release for 5 years, replaced it with sigma 35mm f1.2ii (so not quite the same as f1.4ii version)
based on reviews I'd personally go with sigma even though 35GM is terrific lens, the sigma does overcome some of its minor limitations like focus breathing. after all its 5-6 years newer, just shows how good Sony has been all this time!

the main reason to go with Sony would be to get more than 15fps on newer bodies. Like you I shoot wit A7RV, and even if one day i upgrade to something with 30fps, this is not a kind of lens I'll need more than 15fps with anyway.

 

[wookie6262]

No interest in the A7RVI for me. The sensor is way too slow. Some good new features though and I hope that the AF can be brought over to the other top end Sony Bodies. I can see me buying the 100-400 F4.5 though. I have the old one and the 200-600 and I have used them both about once in the last few years. They are too slow for me and the 200-600 is not a nice lens to handhold. 100-400 is trombone style and I dislike that in lenses.
I'd far rather they had copied Nikon and Canon and brought a modern 200-400 F4 with TC to the market. Even a TC in this lens would make it much more useful. Make it a bit lighter than those lenses and then it would make an awesome daytime sports lens. I shoot quite a bit of Golf and the 100-400 range is great for most shots. No need for very wide apertures as you can usually get an angle with teh subject a long way from a background. I doubt the client would be that bothered anyways. It will make a great lens for that

 

[snerkler]

used to have the 35GM, had it since release for 5 years, replaced it with sigma 35mm f1.2ii (so not quite the same as f1.4ii version)
based on reviews I'd personally go with sigma even though 35GM is terrific lens, the sigma does overcome some of its minor limitations like focus breathing. after all its 5-6 years newer, just shows how good Sony has been all this time!

the main reason to go with Sony would be to get more than 15fps on newer bodies. Like you I shoot wit A7RV, and even if one day i upgrade to something with 30fps, this is not a kind of lens I'll need more than 15fps with anyway.

I’ve just watched a few videos on the Sigma f1.4 II and it definitely appears sharper than the GM, but I don’t find the rendering as nice, although granted it was only just a small sample size. The f1.2 ii does look very nice, but it’s a similar weight to the 50mm f1.2 GM and I definitely prefer the handling of the 35mm GM over that.

 

[nandbytes]

I’ve just watched a few videos on the Sigma f1.4 II and it definitely appears sharper than the GM, but I don’t find the rendering as nice, although granted it was only just a small sample size. The f1.2 ii does look very nice, but it’s a similar weight to the 50mm f1.2 GM and I definitely prefer the handling of the 35mm GM over that.

yeah i feel overall its wee bit better but i wouldn't swap from 35GM if you already have one.
the 1.2ii version is same size and weight of 50GM. While I certainly prefer 35GM size and handling, i only have 5 lenses now - 20-200mm, 16G, 35/1.2ii, 85/1.4 and 500/5.6.
I don't always carry the 500mm unless i am intending to do wildlife or sports, so i am mostly just carrying 4 lenses. So i don't mind the extra bulk.

looking forward to sigma 85mm f1.2 next....