The Amazing Sony A7 / A9 / Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Council house primes is funny but a lot of cheap stuff was the state of the art in its day and not only wasn't cheap but was quite expensive when new.

One good thing about well made manual lenses is that with a bit of luck and care they'll last a lifetime. One thing that puts me off buying too many e mount lenses is that I might not be able to use them if I change systems or if systems change but my old Rokkors etc that are 30 or 40 years old will probably still be useable in another 30 or 40 years maybe only needing a clean and lubrication. My favorites of the old lenses for build quality are the earlier Rokkors and the pre ai Nikons.



I think these modern e mount Voigtlanders are if anything even better made.
Completely agree, I love using old MF lenses, and not just because they're cheap they are a pleasure to use and remind you of what photography is really about IMO. They can be very good quality both in terms of build quality and optics. A lot of research hunting is needed to get the best bang for your pound though, but the chase can be frustratingly fun :) it is one of the reasons FF ML appeals to me. Much as I like adapting to m43 where you are using the best portion of these lenses, they are designed for 35mm sensors in most cases and I'd like to try some out how they are meant to look.

On the Samyang 85, it better be very good and priced right because the 85 1.8 Sony is one of few native for the mount that interests me, it looks a beauty. A good enough lens alone can sway me as I only ever keep 1-2 native for any format at any one time. I certainly wouldn't be switching to chase after the G master behemoths
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Messages
4,232
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
2,359
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
have panomoz prices gone up? been looking at the prices if I make the switch and the 55&85 1.8 can both be had cheaper from amazon:oops: :$
the tamron 28-75 is also cheaper in the uk
They have always been pricey for Sony fit lenses sometimes they will price match efinity, they tend to be the cheapest.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,130
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Awesome! Excited to get out and use this lens.

Lee I had a look at your flickr/insta. Brilliant shots mate. I had actually seen some of those in the flickr group for the lens but didnt know you were from here!
Thank you :) I've shot with the Voigtlander 40/1.4 Classic M mount for several years (I do still have it at the moment) so I've been used to the 40mm focal length for quite a while. I seem to get on pretty well with it. Hope you do too.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
19,996
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I wonder if I'm right or if I'm missing something...

I've just read a comment on another site and two comments here to the effect that high res cameras require better technique and I just don't get it.

My thinking is that the high res kit will simply capture and show focus issues and subject or camera movement and any lens issues (smearing etc...) that lower res kit can't. So if I'm right if we take two pictures, one high res and one low, we'll see more issues in the high res one but if we downsize the high res picture it will then match the low res picture.

Yes, if you intend to pixel peep a high res picture you'll have to have used kit, settings and technique that are up to it. I can see that :D but in my own mind hand held shooting with high res kit doesn't take any special technique over low res kit if you intend to print/view at the same size.

I remember the same arguments against the Canon 50D when that came out.

Anyone with high res kit care to agree or disagree?
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
I wonder if I'm right or if I'm missing something...

I've just read a comment on another site and two comments here to the effect that high res cameras require better technique and I just don't get it.

My thinking is that the high res kit will simply capture and show focus issues and subject or camera movement and any lens issues (smearing etc...) that lower res kit can't. So if I'm right if we take two pictures, one high res and one low, we'll see more issues in the high res one but if we downsize the high res picture it will then match the low res picture.

Yes, if you intend to pixel peep a high res picture you'll have to have used kit, settings and technique that are up to it. I can see that :D but in my own mind hand held shooting with high res kit doesn't take any special technique over low res kit if you intend to print/view at the same size.

I remember the same arguments against the Canon 50D when that came out.

Anyone with high res kit care to agree or disagree?
Completely agree.
Currently the downside of shooting high res is the slowness it introduces. While A7RIII can still shoot 10FPS, it's buffer runs out quicker, takes longer to write to card, takes longer to process especially in instances where your are dealing with multiple images (panorama, HDR, focus stacking etc).
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
19,996
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I don't want to come across as stating the bleedin obvious or of teaching people to suck eggs but the high res needs better technique and I therefore prefer low res argument seems a bit simplistic to me :D

I know there's the temptation to pixel peep any picture at 100% but I think we need to at least try and keep in mind the final use the picture will be put to.

If we want an A2/3 picture we'll be able to take a magnifying glass to, fine, we'll need appropriate kit, settings and techniques but you won't need all that for a whole picture screen image viewed normally and for the latter you'll probably get away with 2mp poor kit, inappropriate settings and sloppy technique :D
 
Messages
11,577
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
It's always sensible to pixel-peep to confirm sharpness regardless of res. But no, high Res won't require different technique, but it will make poor technique and lenses more obvious at 1:1.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
19,996
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
There's nothing wrong with pixel peeping per se but looking at a 12, 24mp and 42mp pictures at 100% may not be all that good a way of comparing them. I think it's worth thinking about what you'll see and why and I think it's also worth thinking what relevance this all has to the final image and how it'll be viewed.
 
Messages
6,346
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Having owned a couple of Sony 42.2mp A7R II's in the past, I can say that the higher resolution does have its advantages, however as mentioned, the trade off is slower write times.
I pretty happy with 24mp for now but if Sony managed to get the speed of the Sony A9 with a 42.2 sensor it would be a nice option. :D
 
Messages
11,577
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Why?

Storage is cheap!
I find the images much slower to process than Nikon equivalent 24mp images: they are about twice the size and the computer takes longer to open and make changes to the images. And storage IS cheap, but as a hobbyist I keep all my primary images on my laptop drive (presently 2TB, filling rapidly).
 
Messages
2,359
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I find the images much slower to process than Nikon equivalent 24mp images: they are about twice the size and the computer takes longer to open and make changes to the images. And storage IS cheap, but as a hobbyist I keep all my primary images on my laptop drive (presently 2TB, filling rapidly).
Sounds like you need a better computer. I have noticed no difference at all in terms of editing speed between Nikon and Sony.
 
Messages
11,577
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
A faster computer is always nice, but this was fine previously. Money is spent now, anyway.

On a different topic just had a viltrox Nikon:FE mount adapter turn up, and it seems nicely made.
 
Messages
6,346
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Sony's compressed RAW is pretty good. I'll be really surprised if you notice any difference at all.
I always use Sony's compressed RAW :)
 
Top