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

nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...

My FE 70-200 f2.8 GM has the rubber gasket around the mount.
I believe all GM lenses are weather sealed being their Pro lineup :)
 
twist said:
Id welcome it, for starters it would be different optically and have a weather seal and less variation.
Click to expand...

But what were they thinking when they sat down to plan the roadmap? Surely GM’s were in their thoughts, so why have a 24 & 85 but Zeiss 35 & 50? Makes no sense to me, what’s the Zeiss label really mean when you’ve got that designation on a 1.8 55 too? It’s all over the place.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...
From photos I’ve seen there looks like there is a rubber seal on the seal mount. Sony’s diagram of weather sealed point seems to say there is one.

All Photos-1413 by -Rob - Nikon-

I will be interested how you get on with the 100-400. It’s a lens I’m thinking of getting in the future for wildlife if I need a longer lens. I thought I would start off with the 70-200 f4 because it has the f4 aperture at 200m. I gather the 100-400 is f4.5 at 100mm then f5.6 at 200mm, 300mm and 400mm.
 
nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...

With regards to the 100-400, I have just looked on mine and it definitely has a rubber seal on the mount
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
I will be interested how you get on with the 100-400. It’s a lens I’m thinking of getting in the future for wildlife if I need a longer lens. I thought I would start off with the 70-200 f4 because it has the f4 aperture at 200m. I gather the 100-400 is f4.5 at 100mm then f5.6 at 200mm, 300mm and 400mm.
Click to expand...

I had the 70-200 f4 a while back and had the 70-200GM just recently. Both great lenses but found 200mm short for wildlife which was my main use case too. Also I am thinking of eventually getting the 1.4x TC to use with the 100-400. On A7RIII with the cropping ability, that's a fairly good amount of reach overall.
 
nandbytes said:
I had the 70-200 f4 a while back and had the 70-200GM just recently. Both great lenses but found 200mm short for wildlife which was my main use case too. Also I am thinking of eventually getting the 1.4x TC to use with the 100-400. On A7RIII with the cropping ability, that's a fairly good amount of reach overall.
Click to expand...
The 70-200 is quite short for wildlife but potentially still possible depending on location/subject. I can see me getting a 100-400 in the future because 200mm maybe a little limiting.

For the last few years I’ve been using a Nikon 200-400 f4 and 70-200 f4. I’ve checked my focal length use in LR. Whilst quite a bit has been in the 300-400mm range but I still used the 200mm range quite a bit. I’ve found quite a few of my favourite images in the last few years have been 200mm or below. I’m planning to try just the 70-200 f4 for wildlife and see how I get on. Hopefully the A7R3 will give a little extra cropping. The 100-400 does look a nice lens and fairly light too (I’m already talking myself into it but need to shift the Nikon gear first). One of my biggest issues in the last few years has been weight. Carrying about 7-8kg of lens/camera/tripod doesnt make wildlife photography as much fun. I’m hoping the move to Sony means less weight to carry especially if in the future it could mean a 100-400 plus A7R3 will be circa 2kg and light enough to hand hold without a tripod. That’s hopefully a 5-6kg saving covering the same range for one stop less aperture.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Likewise its an amazing lens.I originally bought it for wildlife, but quickly found that it is also just as good at landscape. I always have it my bag, just in case the opportunity arises.

Whipsnade,20180113 -12133.jpg

Untitled

Click to expand...
After buying the 70-200 f4 I’ve started to wonder if I should have got the 100-400 instead and used it for both wildlife and landscapes. For landscapes the only downside seems it weights 1.5kg compared to 1kg for the 70/200 f4.
 
rob-nikon said:
The 70-200 is quite short for wildlife but potentially still possible depending on location/subject. I can see me getting a 100-400 in the future because 200mm maybe a little limiting.

For the last few years I’ve been using a Nikon 200-400 f4 and 70-200 f4. I’ve checked my focal length use in LR. Whilst quite a bit has been in the 300-400mm range but I still used the 200mm range quite a bit. I’ve found quite a few of my favourite images in the last few years have been 200mm or below. I’m planning to try just the 70-200 f4 for wildlife and see how I get on. Hopefully the A7R3 will give a little extra cropping. The 100-400 does look a nice lens and fairly light too (I’m already talking myself into it but need to shift the Nikon gear first). One of my biggest issues in the last few years has been weight. Carrying about 7-8kg of lens/camera/tripod doesnt make wildlife photography as much fun. I’m hoping the move to Sony means less weight to carry especially if in the future it could mean a 100-400 plus A7R3 will be circa 2kg and light enough to hand hold without a tripod. That’s hopefully a 5-6kg saving covering the same range for one stop less aperture.
Click to expand...
Weight is definitly a consideration for me.
I was actually hoping the AF on Nikon Z7 would be on level with Sony so I could adapt the 300mm f4 PF lens for weight saving. But they are so behind in this area. I can't even get decent FPS with Z7 and buffer is worst. I am not really keen on Sony and would much prefer something like the Nikon combo in future.

I prefer the 70-200 over 100-400 for landscapes. Because I really like the 70mm end. The sony a-mount 70-400mm is one of my all time favourite lenses. It was brilliant for both landscapes and wildlife. Rather disappointed they didn't do the same for e-mount. The 70-400G2 is hands down the best overall telezoom IMO. Too bad its on a dying mount. :(
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Had the A7III for two days now, and it's amazing!

I can't believe just how much faster/smoother the AF is over the A99.
Loving the 85/1.8, probably my new favourite lens, and the 50/1.4 ZA works perfectly on the adapter

Can't decide if I'm annoyed at myself for waiting this long to go mirrorless or glad I waited for the "III"

Having to stop myself from buying lenses just for the sake of it now, as I want any excuse to play around with it :)
 
woof woof said:
Loving the positivity there Matt :D
Click to expand...

Haha, other than the fact that my GAS still casts a sideward glance at the 7RIII, it's the perfect camera for me

If the rain ever stops (at 6 days and counting here) I'll be able to get out and really try it out!
 
rob-nikon said:
After buying the 70-200 f4 I’ve started to wonder if I should have got the 100-400 instead and used it for both wildlife and landscapes. For landscapes the only downside seems it weights 1.5kg compared to 1kg for the 70/200 f4.
Click to expand...

TBH I don’t really find the weight an issue. But then after using a Sigma 120-300 Sport anything is lightweight
 
mjScall said:
Had the A7III for two days now, and it's amazing!

I can't believe just how much faster/smoother the AF is over the A99.
Loving the 85/1.8, probably my new favourite lens, and the 50/1.4 ZA works perfectly on the adapter

Can't decide if I'm annoyed at myself for waiting this long to go mirrorless or glad I waited for the "III"

Having to stop myself from buying lenses just for the sake of it now, as I want any excuse to play around with it :)
Click to expand...

Hehe a happy user [emoji106]

Did you get a screen protector and if so which one?
 
ShrubMonkey said:
Hehe a happy user [emoji106]

Did you get a screen protector and if so which one?
Click to expand...

Not yet, it's on my list of things to get though. My RX1R suffered from the weird separation of the built in protection layer (looks like an oil slick across the screen) so will hopefully prevent that!
 
mjScall said:
Not yet, it's on my list of things to get though. My RX1R suffered from the weird separation of the built in protection layer (looks like an oil slick across the screen) so will hopefully prevent that!
Click to expand...

Yes I think that kind of delamination is common on Sony. Back in the the day it happened to my RX100 mk1
 
mjScall said:
Had the A7III for two days now, and it's amazing!

I can't believe just how much faster/smoother the AF is over the A99.
Loving the 85/1.8, probably my new favourite lens, and the 50/1.4 ZA works perfectly on the adapter

Can't decide if I'm annoyed at myself for waiting this long to go mirrorless or glad I waited for the "III"

Having to stop myself from buying lenses just for the sake of it now, as I want any excuse to play around with it :)
Click to expand...

The AF on A99 was rather outdated even on the day it came out.

The e-mount 50mm zeiss is also better :D
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
TBH I don’t really find the weight an issue. But then after using a Sigma 120-300 Sport anything is lightweight
Click to expand...
I’m kind off the same. For wildlife I’ve been carting around a 3.4kg zoom lens for the last few years, and until this year a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 for landscapes so Sony f4 and f5.6 lens weights aren’t that bad. The f4 versions are much better for landscapes especially when walking up and down fellsides in the lakes. I find you just don’t need f2.8 for landscapes although some will say there is better sharpness with the f2.8s. I have to say there is a bit of a myth that mirrorless saves lots of weight. When you compare like for like dslr and mirrorless lenses it doesn’t save that much. A full frame lens is going to be limited by the physics of a full frame lens whether it’s on mirrorless or DSLR.

I think by manufacturers specs I’ve saved something like 350g on the equivalent Sony and Nikon camera and f4 lenses set up. I think all of that has been saved on the camera. I find Manufacturers weight specs are usually a little way off too and difficult to use as a comparison. The Sony 70-200 f4 is supposed to be 840g but that probably doesn’t include lens caps, hood or tripod foot because the lot is just over 1kg on my scales.

Ive been thinking about the potential of a 24-105 and 100-400 combo. I do wonder if I would notice carrying the extra 500g. Theoretically it’s around 200g more than my previous Nikon landscape setup and 2kg less than my previous Nikon wildlife setup (and probably won’t need a tripod either so saves another 3kg).

Im off out to look for otters tomorrow morning and try out my Sony setup. It’s possible the lack of focal length may surface and I will possibly be looking for a 100-400 sooner than I think!
 
mjScall said:
Haha, other than the fact that my GAS still casts a sideward glance at the 7RIII, it's the perfect camera for me

If the rain ever stops (at 6 days and counting here) I'll be able to get out and really try it out!
Click to expand...

You don't have to wait for the rain to stop. You can't really see the rain here but it was pouring down the last time I got out. I had a small hood on the lens but I still had to keep wiping it. Everything survived :D

u5JKQgB.jpg


A7 and Voigtlaner 35mm f1.4.
 
I was just about to update the a7iii to v2 firmware and see Sony have removed it.
Any ideas what the issue is?
 
I recently noticed after the update the write speed is slower on my faster UHS-II cards but it seems to be good/same with the slower fuji UHS-II cards.

What a f*** up Sony:facepalm:
 
jonneymendoza said:
Have not noticed that
Click to expand...

Think it differs from brand to brand because they all probably have slightly different implementations.

I have emailed sony already, they said they are aware of it which is clear now from the recent update.
 
While playing with my m mount Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 I took a picture of Mrs WW, the exposure will have been influenced by light from the window so today I boosted her face +4 and added +200% brightness, zoomed 28% and cropped 1:1 and ended up with something which will make a nice picture to send to her mam and which would look nice as a print.

1-DSC02455-C1.jpg

Those boosts would have been unthinkable a few years before the A7 came out and are good enough for me today.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
Good first outing with the A7R3. AF was pretty snappy with the 70-200 f4. I had a few issues not locating buttons but I’m sure that will come in time.

Met this little fella (maybe female I just don’t know!). It’s the first wild Otter I’ve ever seen so it was an awesome morning.

View attachment 139982
Click to expand...

how did you get on with 200mm?

The buttons take a bit of time to get used to. The way I do it I start by unsetting all the custom buttons except the 2-3 I need (like focus, shutter etc). Then I slowly customise one by one depending on which functions I use most. that way I learn where things are through muscle memory rather than having to remember what function is assigned which button!
 
nandbytes said:
how did you get on with 200mm?
Click to expand...

It was good. Pretty quick to focus and seems to be sharp. The combo is a nice weight, easy to raise and track subjects.

This morning was one of those morning where I can see a 100-400 being useful for the focal length, but the extra stop of the 70-200 at f4 kept iso down to 3200 when shutter speed was low at 1/320. With a 100-400 at f5.6 that would mean either iso6400 or 1/160, neither are great for wildlife. That said this morning was one of those morning you just don’t expect to get anything great.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
It was good. Pretty quick to focus and seems to be sharp. The combo is a nice weight, easy to raise and track subjects.

This morning was one of those morning where I can see a 100-400 being useful for the focal length, but the extra stop of the 70-200 at f4 kept iso down to 3200 when shutter speed is low at 1/320. With a 100-400 at f5.6 that would mean either iso6400 or 1/160 neither great for wildlife. That said this morning was one of those morning you just don’t expect to get anything great.
Click to expand...
I regularly do plenty of wildlife at or greater than ISO 6400, I no longer regard it as a barrier.
44444730102_dcdfaf54cc_z.jpg

ISO 8000 1/500 F8 560mm

43168686722_4153cecbaf_z.jpg

ISO 6400

41668279210_fc29d1d20e_z.jpg


ISO 12800. Not exactly wildlife but she is a bloody nuisance. Our daughters dog in New York.

43836541831_6696599ee1_z.jpg

ISO 12800

44753229045_106934a647_z.jpg


ISO 10000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top