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

trevorbray said:
It’s been clipped (haircut)
Click to expand...

Poor thing, reminded me of.... does it make them faster?

index-35.jpg
 
Anybody else see this?
https://www.sonyrumors.co/new-rumored-specs-of-sony-a7000/

I think this could complete my line-up if it is true. I currently have the A7rii which I love, my only criticism is the af tracking for wildlife and sometimes its nice to have the extra reach. I recently tried the crop mode and whilst it is great, if I then need to crop further I am losing a lot of pixels. A 32mp APSC with A9 AF and zero blackout would be great for wildlife and sports. I had thought of adding the 1.4x to add to the 100-400 when needed, but the loss of 1 stop puts me off.

Again the APSC with 32mp along with the 100-400 could prove to be a great set-up, leaving the A7 for landscapes, family etc

EDIT: Since discovered that those specs were fake, but hey it would be nice ;)
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
Anybody else see this?
https://www.sonyrumors.co/new-rumored-specs-of-sony-a7000/

I think this could complete my line-up if it is true. I currently have the A7rii which I love, my only criticism is the af tracking for wildlife and sometimes its nice to have the extra reach. I recently tried the crop mode and whilst it is great, if I then need to crop further I am losing a lot of pixels. A 32mp APSC with A9 AF and zero blackout would be great for wildlife and sports. I had thought of adding the 1.4x to add to the 100-400 when needed, but the loss of 1 stop puts me off.

Again the APSC with 32mp along with the 100-400 could prove to be a great set-up, leaving the A7 for landscapes, family etc
Click to expand...
But I just read in another thread that your "GAS had subsided!" :eek: ;) :LOL:
 
redhed17 said:
But I just read in another thread that your "GAS had subsided!" :eek: ;) :LOL:
Click to expand...

It has, I also said that I too like shiny new things ;)

Joking aside, my original plan when I switched from Canon was to have the Sony for general use, landscape etc and a Canon 7D2 for wildlife and motorsport. However I fell in love with the Sony the only downside to the Sony is the reach (not as bad due to the high MP and ability to crop heavily) and the af tracking.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Anybody else see this?
https://www.sonyrumors.co/new-rumored-specs-of-sony-a7000/

I think this could complete my line-up if it is true. I currently have the A7rii which I love, my only criticism is the af tracking for wildlife and sometimes its nice to have the extra reach. I recently tried the crop mode and whilst it is great, if I then need to crop further I am losing a lot of pixels. A 32mp APSC with A9 AF and zero blackout would be great for wildlife and sports. I had thought of adding the 1.4x to add to the 100-400 when needed, but the loss of 1 stop puts me off.

Again the APSC with 32mp along with the 100-400 could prove to be a great set-up, leaving the A7 for landscapes, family etc

EDIT: Since discovered that those specs were fake, but hey it would be nice ;)
Click to expand...
Don't let the extra stop put you off, I got the 1.4x as soon as I could after getting the 100-400 and it hasn't come off. The sensor is excellent in coping with the higher ISO required.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
It has, I also said that I too like shiny new things ;)

Joking aside, my original plan when I switched from Canon was to have the Sony for general use, landscape etc and a Canon 7D2 for wildlife and motorsport. However I fell in love with the Sony the only downside to the Sony is the reach (not as bad due to the high MP and ability to crop heavily) and the af tracking.
Click to expand...
Have you thought about the A7R3? So far I’ve found the AF to be quite good on it (I’ve been photographing fishing otters and not found it lacking yet). I gather there were some good improvements over the previous model.


footman said:
Don't let the extra stop put you off, I got the 1.4x as soon as I could after getting the 100-400 and it hasn't come off. The sensor is excellent in coping with the higher ISO required.
Click to expand...
I would be intrigued to try the 100-400 with 1.4 TC myself (still looking at potential places to buy). With a 1.4TC I could see it being potentially limiting for me being f8. Previously I used to used the f4-f5.6 range quite a bit on a 200-400 to get reasonable shutter speeds so f8 could be a struggle.

I know we say the sensors have pretty good high ISO ability but I’ve yet to really try that out in really poor light. In good light I’ve never been too worried to really bump up ISO wheni want to get a very high shutter speed (1/2000 or 1/4000) but the same ISO in really low light when you are wide open and struggling for a reasonable shutter speed (1/100 or 1/200) ISO performance can potentially be quite different.



I’ve started to query the whole ‘not got enough focal length for wildlife’ thought over the past few years. I know there are times when I think a subject would potentially be too far away but I try to pick and choose subjects concentrating on ones that are within my ‘range’. I think think that once you get that little extra you will always want a little more. I’ve seen some fantastic images that are taken with shorter focal lengths that make you think you don’t always need a really long lens. I guess it’s the same thought that landscape photographs should be wide or ultra wide, a telephoto lens can be fantastic for landscapes and are often overlooked.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
Have you thought about the A7R3? So far I’ve found the AF to be quite good on it (I’ve been photographing fishing otters and not found it lacking yet). I gather there were some good improvements over the previous model.
Click to expand...

I have contemplated it and very almost did it, however although there are some significant gains and yes the AF would suffice, I would still be lacking the additional reach and pixel density of the APS-c. Therefore an crop version of the A9 would be awesome
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
The UK countryside never fails to amaze me, how much beauty there is on our doorstep. Anyway decided to take a family trip to the Peak District, I really do enjoy the 16-35mm f4

Dovedale by Chris Heathcote, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Peak District is not actually a place to door step away for us in london. It's actually quicker and sometimes cheaper to go to say marseille and trek over there!

Great image though
 
jonneymendoza said:
Peak District is not actually a place to door step away for us in london. It's actually quicker and sometimes cheaper to go to say marseille and trek over there!

Great image though
Click to expand...

I was going to say you are crazy but I have travelled to Italy and back for £42 while the trains to get anywhere in this country is silly expensive.
 
nandbytes said:
I was going to say you are crazy but I have travelled to Italy and back for £42 while the trains to get anywhere in this country is silly expensive.
Click to expand...
Yup exactly.

I went mersielle last year for 80 quid return?

Stayed at a massive airbnb apartment with friends paying no more than 20 quid each a night and the mountain range there is spectacular with better weather.

The government need to get there s*** together and make railway prices half of what it is
 
nandbytes said:
I was going to say you are crazy but I have travelled to Italy and back for £42 while the trains to get anywhere in this country is silly expensive.
Click to expand...
Done similar, flew to Amsterdam for £55 return and it was great, that was a few years ago now though.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yup exactly.

I went mersielle last year for 80 quid return?

Stayed at a massive airbnb apartment with friends paying no more than 20 quid each a night and the mountain range there is spectacular with better weather.

The government need to get there s*** together and make railway prices half of what it is
Click to expand...

It's not just the cost it's the time spent travelling.

Manchester to home takes about three hours, you can be where in the world in that time. Coming back to the UK the final train journey is a killer.
 
woof woof said:
It's not just the cost it's the time spent travelling.

Manchester to home takes about three hours, you can be where in the world in that time. Coming back to the UK the final train journey is a killer.
Click to expand...
Yea that also. It took me 8h to get to lake district from london a few years ago
 
jonneymendoza said:
Peak District is not actually a place to door step away for us in london. It's actually quicker and sometimes cheaper to go to say marseille and trek over there!

Great image though
Click to expand...
Maybe not the Peak District, but I’m sure there are plenty of opportunities near where you live :)

However you do have a point about public transport in this country, maybe if it was moe reasonable and reliable, we may be tempted to use it more
 
jonneymendoza said:
Crazy innit
Click to expand...

I did Bristol and back in a day twice by car. Obviously not twice in the same day :D Just proves that you can cover hundreds of miles in the UK in a reasonable time but doing it in good time by rail would mean such a vast injection of money that it's just not going to happen any time soon. Not without saddling future generations with even more crippling debt that we're already doing now.

Anyway. Photography is off the menu for me at the mo as I've been ill and have no free time anyway :(
 
Well I’ve finally ordered a 100-400 after looking around for the last few weeks :) Im looking forward to it being delivered as I’ve heard many good things on here, and hoping to put it through it’s paces with the otters I’ve recently been following. It has created a dilemma as I’ve currently got a 25-105 f4 and a 70-200 f4. Im thinking I may have initially made a mistake with lens selection when moving over from Nikon as I bought the equivalent lenses of this I had previously owned. In the past I’ve felt I needed a lens in the 70-200 range because of the focal length gap between a shorter lens (24-70 or 24-120) and longer wildlife telephoto lenses I used. Also due to the size/weight of the longer telephoto wildlife lens I needed something lighter in the 70-200 range for landscapes (I wasn’t ever planning on lugging the wildlife lens around!!). Now I’ve dropped the heavy telephoto in favour of a lighter long lens in the 100-400 I’m wondering if the 70-200 f4 will get as much use or if I really need it. The 24-105 and 100-400 combo would cover the whole 24-400mm range but at the expense of 1/3 (up to 168mm) to 1 stop of aperture (168mm+) and around 500-600g in weight. It will be interesting to see them side by side as there doesnt look like a major size difference on the camerasize.com https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.660,724.392,ga,t. Weight wise there probably won’t be much in the Sony setup to the previous Nikon setup I was carrying for landscapes.

Has anyone else had this dilemma? Part of my move over to Sony was to reduce the amount of kit I had so it makes sense not to keep anything if I don’t necessarily need it. I’ve been really impressed with the Sony 70-200 f4 as it seems to be a great lens. It’s pretty sharp, has fast and accurate focusing, and is pretty much silent in operation. It would be a shame to sell it but equally a shame to see it sitting in a cupboard seldom used.
 
rob-nikon said:
Well I’ve finally ordered a 100-400 after looking around for the last few weeks :) Im looking forward to it being delivered as I’ve heard many good things on here, and hoping to put it through it’s paces with the otters I’ve recently been following. It has created a dilemma as I’ve currently got a 25-105 f4 and a 70-200 f4. Im thinking I may have initially made a mistake with lens selection when moving over from Nikon as I bought the equivalent lenses of this I had previously owned. In the past I’ve felt I needed a lens in the 70-200 range because of the focal length gap between a shorter lens (24-70 or 24-120) and longer wildlife telephoto lenses I used. Also due to the size/weight of the longer telephoto wildlife lens I needed something lighter in the 70-200 range for landscapes (I wasn’t ever planning on lugging the wildlife lens around!!). Now I’ve dropped the heavy telephoto in favour of a lighter long lens in the 100-400 I’m wondering if the 70-200 f4 will get as much use or if I really need it. The 24-105 and 100-400 combo would cover the whole 24-400mm range but at the expense of 1/3 (up to 168mm) to 1 stop of aperture (168mm+) and around 500-600g in weight. It will be interesting to see them side by side as there doesnt look like a major size difference on the camerasize.com https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.660,724.392,ga,t. Weight wise there probably won’t be much in the Sony setup to the previous Nikon setup I was carrying for landscapes.

Has anyone else had this dilemma? Part of my move over to Sony was to reduce the amount of kit I had so it makes sense not to keep anything if I don’t necessarily need it. I’ve been really impressed with the Sony 70-200 f4 as it seems to be a great lens. It’s pretty sharp, has fast and accurate focusing, and is pretty much silent in operation. It would be a shame to sell it but equally a shame to see it sitting in a cupboard seldom used.
Click to expand...

Nice one, how much did you get one for in the end?
 
nandbytes said:
Nice one, how much did you get one for in the end?
Click to expand...
I managed to find a used lens on camera jungle. They currently have a 10% off offer at present so it came in at £1800. It was listed as mint with 12 month warranty so hopefully a good find. With them practically being the only lens option over for 200mm there are very few on the used market.
 
rob-nikon said:
Has anyone else had this dilemma? Part of my move over to Sony was to reduce the amount of kit I had so it makes sense not to keep anything if I don’t necessarily need it. I’ve been really impressed with the Sony 70-200 f4 as it seems to be a great lens. It’s pretty sharp, has fast and accurate focusing, and is pretty much silent in operation. It would be a shame to sell it but equally a shame to see it sitting in a cupboard seldom used.
Click to expand...

If you aren't desperate for the cash, then just sit on it for a while - not literally ;) A couple of months will give you plenty of time to see if the 100-400mm is all you need on the very long end. It certainly seems a popular & well spoken about lens. And I think I've seen the 70-200mm go for £800-900 which is a good chunk of the 100-400mm cost ;)

I've got 18 images from 2018 on my Flickr from the FE35/2.8. 7 were a day out in January. 6 were the summer holiday. The other 5 were where I took the FE35 to see how it compared to the CV40/1.4 (& it didn't!) As well as the M mount CV40/1.4 I've also got the E mount CV40/1.2 so the FE35 is going to be of no use whatsoever....... Definitely SELL time now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top