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

I have a spot behind the infamous suspension bridge, but this would be a very popular spot, so super early morning or camp until sunset for night shots ha ha
It's it possible to do an overnight trip?
So arrive for sunset, sleep in car, wake up for sunrise, drive back
 
This comment at The Online Photographer caught my eye...

"Do we have any lenses that are going to resolve at this level? I calculate the pixel pitch equivalent to 133 line pairs / mm. Using tools from Cambridge in Colour, I calculate images shot at apertures narrower than f/5.6 will be in diffraction. Probably OK if your photography is shooting portraits close to wide open; not so much if you shoot landscapes. Come on, if you really need 61 MPx, look for it on a larger sensor."

Here's a link to the whole thing...

https://theonlinephotographer.typep...ney-we-need-to-talk-sony-a7r-iv.html#comments

I may be wrong and in fact I probably am but I thought that high resolutions enabling you to see diffraction was a good thing? Surely pixel level or near pixel level effects will only be visible when extreme pixel peeping and will not be visible in the final image unless you print the file at 100% or more and view it with a high powered magnifying glass. I thought that it'd be good if the camera had a high enough resolution to show diffraction at any aperture?

If the A7RIV camera shows diffraction at f5.6 and another camera, lets say the Canon 5D MK1 doesn't isn't it because the 5D doesn't have the resolution to show it?

I'd have thought that the A7RIV would therefore be a great camera for landscape as it'll show you so much detail that you will be able to detect the effects of diffraction at f5.6 if you look closely enough whereas the 5D picture would have long since turned to mush at that magnification.

Or maybe the guy making the comment is right and I'm wrong? Anyone know for sure? :D
 
The A7R4 bores me. High MP - Yawn.

Really surprised at them announcing it this soon. A high end APSC or A7SIII would be more welcome I think. They really honestly need to add the colour change option for focus point for other cams as a FW update, its literally the only thing I thought looked worthwhile on the R4
 
The A7R4 bores me. High MP - Yawn.

Really surprised at them announcing it this soon. A high end APSC or A7SIII would be more welcome I think. They really honestly need to add the colour change option for focus point for other cams as a FW update, its literally the only thing I thought looked worthwhile on the R4

:LOL:

Not so long ago you would have been all over the A7R4 like a dog on a bitch in heat.
 
The only questions unanswered so far:

Does the clock do seconds?
Can you reassign the REC button in stills mode?

I'm guessing 'no' to both.
 

I don't really agree with the article in general and this attitude always irritates me:

Because these companies have something Sony doesn’t: heritage. They understand imaging in a way that Sony doesn’t, and Sony might just bury them anyhow because it understands marketing and consumer electronics in a way that these older companies are only just starting to grasp.

It's a surprisingly common opinion but one I think is a load of nonsense, Sony have a long history in imaging through Konica-Minolta and their video products but more importantly, I think any cameras should be evaluated as they are not what happened in the distant past. Furthermore this article makes this opinion even more ridiculous as everything the author accuses Sony of is exactly what Canon have done in the past but worse despite their 'heritage'.

In 2013 Canon released the EOS 700D, the EOS 100D and the EOS 70D then in 2014 they released two more APS-C DSLRs with the 1200D and the 7D mk II then yet another two in 2015 with the 750D and the 760D and the 80D and 1300D in 2016. That's nine cameras in just three years while the author complains about Sony releasing ten in six years.

Other companies don't need to match Sony's relentless pace to compete nor is it a problem with technology, Sony's biggest advantage would be its sensors if they didn't sell them to other companies and indeed it's rumoured there will be a new Nikon Z series with the A7RIV sensor. The problem, Nikon and Canon have is that they've chosen to try and protect their existing DSLR market and been more cautious in the mirrorless market whereas Sony along with Panasonic and Olympus chose to abandon their existing DSLR market and put all their weight into mirrorless. It's no surprise in turn that Nikon and Canon are starting to struggle as the DSLR market stagnates while Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are prospering. Even now, Canon have chosen to launch lower featured mirrorless models rather than go all out with flagship mirrorless models to compete with Sony's best. Both Canon and Nikon could actually benefit from Sony's numerous models to take advantage of what Sony have learnt and compete straight away.

I think what frustrates me most though about this opinion is that as a consumer I'm grateful to Sony for it, each new model generally offers worthwhile upgrades but at the same time Sony don't bin the old one instead offering a wider range of cameras to suit more budgets. The development of the A7 series has largely been guided by customer feedback so they've improved the handling of the cameras, extended the batterylife, upped the EVF resolution, added two card slots (which neither Nikon or Canon chose to) etc. as well as splitting up the range to offer consumers the choice of a general purpose camera, high resolution or a high speed sports model. So while the A7, A7II, A7III, A7S, A7SII, A7R, A7RII, A7RIII, A7RIV and the A9 are a lot of different cameras all on the go at once I see it as a positive that consumers have such a wide choice offering an entry level full frame camera up to a super high resolution model with all the bells and whistles. Yet the author complains that Sony don't understand photographers or their needs despite the whole reason for such iterative releases is to improve the cameras in response to what photographers want from the cameras.

I was going to say I don't know why people are allowed to publish such rubbish but then I've read the article, read the comments and commented on it here so it's done its job.
 
Anyway enough of that, the question I'm pondering at the moment is whether it's worth getting an A7s solely for video?

I've been using an Osmo Mobile 2 gimbal with my phone and impressed with it but obviously the phone struggles badly in low light, I had been looking at the DJI Ronin gimbal to mount a larger camera instead but it seemed far too large for what I needed. Now that DJI have released the more portable Ronin-SC I've been looking at a camera to go with it, the A7s has caught my eye as it's around £700 second hand and I could stick a 28mm F2 on it to do what I want. The A7S II does offer improvements including onboard 4K and IBIS but if I'm using with a gimbal the IBIS isn't going to help, I generally find I'm fine with 1080p so the A7SII doesn't feel worth around double the cost at £1300 for a second hand one. I see a lot of people saying the A7RII is the better buy but when I read the discussions there's a lot of focus on other elements of the camera rather than just video.

Since I saw the first low light video demonstration of the A7S I've always fancied one but do wonder if I'm going to end up disappointed as it's not as great as it looks and I lack the skills to fully exploit it.
 
Anyway enough of that, the question I'm pondering at the moment is whether it's worth getting an A7s solely for video?

I've been using an Osmo Mobile 2 gimbal with my phone and impressed with it but obviously the phone struggles badly in low light, I had been looking at the DJI Ronin gimbal to mount a larger camera instead but it seemed far too large for what I needed. Now that DJI have released the more portable Ronin-SC I've been looking at a camera to go with it, the A7s has caught my eye as it's around £700 second hand and I could stick a 28mm F2 on it to do what I want. The A7S II does offer improvements including onboard 4K and IBIS but if I'm using with a gimbal the IBIS isn't going to help, I generally find I'm fine with 1080p so the A7SII doesn't feel worth around double the cost at £1300 for a second hand one. I see a lot of people saying the A7RII is the better buy but when I read the discussions there's a lot of focus on other elements of the camera rather than just video.

Since I saw the first low light video demonstration of the A7S I've always fancied one but do wonder if I'm going to end up disappointed as it's not as great as it looks and I lack the skills to fully exploit it.

Are you going to be okay with manual focus?
 
I don't really agree with the article in general and this attitude always irritates me:



It's a surprisingly common opinion but one I think is a load of nonsense, Sony have a long history in imaging through Konica-Minolta and their video products but more importantly, I think any cameras should be evaluated as they are not what happened in the distant past. Furthermore this article makes this opinion even more ridiculous as everything the author accuses Sony of is exactly what Canon have done in the past but worse despite their 'heritage'.

In 2013 Canon released the EOS 700D, the EOS 100D and the EOS 70D then in 2014 they released two more APS-C DSLRs with the 1200D and the 7D mk II then yet another two in 2015 with the 750D and the 760D and the 80D and 1300D in 2016. That's nine cameras in just three years while the author complains about Sony releasing ten in six years.

Other companies don't need to match Sony's relentless pace to compete nor is it a problem with technology, Sony's biggest advantage would be its sensors if they didn't sell them to other companies and indeed it's rumoured there will be a new Nikon Z series with the A7RIV sensor. The problem, Nikon and Canon have is that they've chosen to try and protect their existing DSLR market and been more cautious in the mirrorless market whereas Sony along with Panasonic and Olympus chose to abandon their existing DSLR market and put all their weight into mirrorless. It's no surprise in turn that Nikon and Canon are starting to struggle as the DSLR market stagnates while Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are prospering. Even now, Canon have chosen to launch lower featured mirrorless models rather than go all out with flagship mirrorless models to compete with Sony's best. Both Canon and Nikon could actually benefit from Sony's numerous models to take advantage of what Sony have learnt and compete straight away.

I think what frustrates me most though about this opinion is that as a consumer I'm grateful to Sony for it, each new model generally offers worthwhile upgrades but at the same time Sony don't bin the old one instead offering a wider range of cameras to suit more budgets. The development of the A7 series has largely been guided by customer feedback so they've improved the handling of the cameras, extended the batterylife, upped the EVF resolution, added two card slots (which neither Nikon or Canon chose to) etc. as well as splitting up the range to offer consumers the choice of a general purpose camera, high resolution or a high speed sports model. So while the A7, A7II, A7III, A7S, A7SII, A7R, A7RII, A7RIII, A7RIV and the A9 are a lot of different cameras all on the go at once I see it as a positive that consumers have such a wide choice offering an entry level full frame camera up to a super high resolution model with all the bells and whistles. Yet the author complains that Sony don't understand photographers or their needs despite the whole reason for such iterative releases is to improve the cameras in response to what photographers want from the cameras.

I was going to say I don't know why people are allowed to publish such rubbish but then I've read the article, read the comments and commented on it here so it's done its job.
I agree with the article in part, but I like everyone else cannot predict what will happen to other manufacturers. I personally prefer the approach of Olympus, not churning out body after body but offering seriously impressive firmware upgrades on its existing lines. However, I also realise that this isn't the best business model and Sony are a big business trying to make as much profit as possible. As the article suggests their business model is more akin to Apple and Samsung, and let's be honest that's been pretty successful for them.

Where I don't agree with the article is their comment about Sony's lack lustre approach to colour science. Now I"m the first to say that I'm not the biggest fan of Sony's colours and prefer Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji and Leica over Sony in this regard, however there's no doubt that Sony's colours have massively improved since the original A7 so clearly they are addressing this. Ergonomics, well that's very personal, and menus, well that's another issue ;)

What I always find interesting though is the comments that Sony have a lot of heritage in that they were formally Konica Minolta which isn't strictly true. Sony bought out Konica Minolta which is very different from being involved with Konica Minolta for a long time before re-branding. Now it isn't clear (at least to me) what Sony inherited from them, and how much of the Konica Minolta is left, I do know that there were a lot of people from KM that were laid off. What does all this matter? To me diddly squat, I'm not bothered if Sony have been making cameras for 2 years or 100 years, what matters to me is whether it's any good or not, and certainly Sony cameras are very good indeed.
 
'Heritage' part made me roll my eyes. Overall, I disagreed with most of that. Especially that somehow canon and nikon 'get' photographers while sony don't.

Canon gets that they can do mediocre updates to their cameras after many years, purposely strip features away from them to protect their other products and expect people to buy them because of heritage...
 
'Heritage' part made me roll my eyes. Overall, I disagreed with most of that. Especially that somehow canon and nikon 'get' photographers while sony don't.

Canon have been churning out crap bodies for years now and still seem oblivious to users demands. The drivel in that article is funny - makes you wonder what sorta agenda they're pushing
 
It's the same sort of view that thinks Sony should stick to making DVD's and games consoles. It's too biased and fanboyish to be given any time. We really shouldn't care who makes the kit. I'd like to buy British to support British jobs but as none of this kit is made here I honestly don't see why I should give a flying if the kit is made by Canon or Sony or anyone else. As long as it's good enough and at a good price and worker exploitation or undue environmental damage isn't involved that's all that should matter.
 

what a bunch of kaka :D

Camera is just a tool, a means to an end. The more a camera helps achieve ones aim with least possible effort or hindrances the better it is. Simples.
If you want heritage buy a Leica. Nikon Z, EOS R has as much heritage in them as the newly built apartments in Chelsea.

Now I"m the first to say that I'm not the biggest fan of Sony's colours and prefer Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji and Leica over Sony in this regard

For the original A7 I'd be right behind you. I have realised after having recently shot rigorously with various brands that some match certain aspects better than others. For example I prefer Fuji for portraits over Sony, Sony for landscape over fuji, canon for landscape over Sony and so on. All the tests on "colours" tests a very small sample and never give you the full story. I don't think there is one brand that's perfect for everything! Basically the conclusion I have arrived at is you can develop base profiles for all these brands and apply them to RAW. For example I now have EOS R profile which is a one click apply in LR, now looking to get some Fuji profiles. Simples.
 
Yea that article is a load of rubbish tbh. Especially the heritage stuff.

They make it sound as if Sony is all about tech but not about the photos themselves which is rubbish.

They have improved there cameras in each generation with things outside of tech like improving the ergonomics. Menu ui, colour science, durability, ease of use etc etc.

Why should cameras only be updated once every 4 years? Canikon have purposely held back the photo industry since the early 90s and I'm glad there's a company that not having any of that anymore and is pushing the limits of tech each time.

The likes of fuji and Panasonic are doing more than canikon as well!
 
The heritage thing gets mentioned a lot.

Personally I don't care about brands at all. I used Nikon for many years before jumping to Sony because at the time they where best suited for my needs.

If another camera brand appeared from no where tomorrow morning and could offer me a better option in terms of making it easier to get the photos I want I would have no issue jumping ship again.
 
I can see that sticking with a brand that your lenses work well on makes sense and from that standpoint I can understand perfectly well why someone would want Canon / Nikon to succeed and bring out class leading cameras but I think that we must step back and view this as progression and if doing that I think that it's hard to argue that Sony are hurting photography. On the contrary, I think they're moving it forward. That's a hard pill to swallow if you want to use your Nikon/Canon lenses on the best camera available but to anyone starting from scratch or taking a wider and more long term view moving things forward is surely a good thing.

Look what Canon did when they moved from FD to eos, what happened to the heritage there? They abandoned it to move things forward. I think moving to mirrorless is similar, it's just abandoning aspects that held some developments back and allowing things to move forward in a real way.
 
Interesting reply’s and very much my feelings. I can see point though , like on the way that they have approached the business as other electronic companies rather than the insular approach Nikon and canon have taken over the years and how this has likely helped them.
It does mean better and faster improving tech but also faster devaluation on our kit.

I expect as some point even in mirrorless it’s going to hit a plateau like dslr’s have and then will be the time to see who leads.
 
With the release of the new camera I wonder now when we will see a A7 mk4 and what that might offer, definitely dual uhs2 slots I would imagine, faster AF, maybe a view finder upgrade but what else.
 
The differences between Canon’s releases and Sony’s is that each Somy model will bring something the old one does not, even if it’s a lower end model.

They improve upon each release, you will find features in APS-C bodies not in the FF.

With Canon they release a flagship every 5 years and for the next 5 years you will just get the same tech cut down version of it.

So if you buy a 1D, you know it’s the best camera with every feature for the next 5 years. If you buy a A9, there will be features in the next Alpha camera that might not be in the A9.

I know there are exceptions but that’s the general observations.

Even when Sony do a cut down version (A73), which is like a cut down A9, what it cut doesn’t really affect IQ, it’s not like the whole 6D sensor not as good as the 5D line. They don’t gimp the AF. So the core shooting experience is there. As a user I really appreciate that. I mean they lost a sale from me in upselling to the A9 but they gained in a user to the whole system which is worth a lot more.
 
For the original A7 I'd be right behind you. I have realised after having recently shot rigorously with various brands that some match certain aspects better than others. For example I prefer Fuji for portraits over Sony, Sony for landscape over fuji, canon for landscape over Sony and so on. All the tests on "colours" tests a very small sample and never give you the full story. I don't think there is one brand that's perfect for everything! Basically the conclusion I have arrived at is you can develop base profiles for all these brands and apply them to RAW. For example I now have EOS R profile which is a one click apply in LR, now looking to get some Fuji profiles. Simples.
TBH I like Nikon colours straight off the bat for everything, but yes with profiles you can get the colours you want (most of the time) with one click. I do this with my Olympus files, I don't like them as much SOOC and have set up a preset to try and get them as close to Nikon as I can. You could of course do this with Sony etc. Where I prefer Nikon again is with WB, I think they do a better job with this on the whole. Again, not much of a problem if you shoot RAW but I'd prefer it to be right SOOC if it can be.
Yea that article is a load of rubbish tbh. Especially the heritage stuff.

They make it sound as if Sony is all about tech but not about the photos themselves which is rubbish.

They have improved there cameras in each generation with things outside of tech like improving the ergonomics. Menu ui, colour science, durability, ease of use etc etc.
and the fact that Sony produce a lot of sensors, which is the part that captures the image after all ;) There's no doubt Sony (like the rest) are tech driven but I guess this is what the market demands. At the end of the day cameras like the D700 which are over 10 years old still produce some of the best images you get so how do you get past this and get people to continue to buy your products? Improve the tech and then hype it up as though this is the be all and end all and you have to have the latest tech to get the best images. On the whole this strategy works well I think.

Why should cameras only be updated once every 4 years? Canikon have purposely held back the photo industry since the early 90s and I'm glad there's a company that not having any of that anymore and is pushing the limits of tech each time.

The likes of fuji and Panasonic are doing more than canikon as well!
I'd personally prefer it if they didn't release stuff so frequently so you got more of an upgrade between models, but then I guess no-one forces you to buy every model and you could skip a generation of two.
The heritage thing gets mentioned a lot.

Personally I don't care about brands at all. I used Nikon for many years before jumping to Sony because at the time they where best suited for my needs.

If another camera brand appeared from no where tomorrow morning and could offer me a better option in terms of making it easier to get the photos I want I would have no issue jumping ship again.
I like nostalgia and heritage, but I can't say it would sway my decision when making purchases, I just want what suits me best.
 
Heritage? I think they're starting with a faulty premise, if you remove Sony entirely we'd still find Canon losing a big chunk of profit thanks to mobile eating the bottom end of its market and its management failing to properly plan around that, they've had plenty of time to do so but I suppose all that 'heritage' gets in the way.
 
Heritage? I think they're starting with a faulty premise, if you remove Sony entirely we'd still find Canon losing a big chunk of profit thanks to mobile eating the bottom end of its market and its management failing to properly plan around that, they've had plenty of time to do so but I suppose all that 'heritage' gets in the way.
Sony are laughing then as they provide majority of camera phone sensors!
 
Sony are laughing then as they provide majority of camera phone sensors!

Nah that's just one division of Sony and they're winning regardless of the brand on whatever camera we all end up using.

It does seem like Canon missed a trick in not leveraging their sensor technology over all these years though.
 
Nah that's just one division of Sony and they're winning regardless of the brand on whatever camera we all end up using.

It does seem like Canon missed a trick in not leveraging their sensor technology over all these years though.
Why would anyone want to buy canon sensors? They are a bit outdated. Sony, Samsung and others are easily ahead.
 
Why would anyone want to buy canon sensors? They are a bit outdated. Sony, Samsung and others are easily ahead.
10 years ago why not? Why didn't they produce sensors for the first iPhone etc? This is where canon messed up at the bottom end. Not catering for the emerging phone market
 
10 years ago why not? Why didn't they produce sensors for the first iPhone etc? This is where canon messed up at the bottom end. Not catering for the emerging phone market

Perhaps because it wasn’t part of their business plan, they aren’t exactly going out of business.... where Sony imaging was in deep doo doo with a mount. Things change.
 
I was in a well known camera store today talking to their Sony camera rep. He and his colleagues were somewhat surprised that the A7R4 had come out and some what concerned about trying to sell sufficient numbers at a cost of £3500 when the A7R3 is as much as £1800 cheaper. He thinks their earlier cameras will be pick up sales as a result and most people will wait for the A7R4 to be discounted.
 
I was in a well known camera store today talking to their Sony camera rep. He and his colleagues were somewhat surprised that the A7R4 had come out and some what concerned about trying to sell sufficient numbers at a cost of £3500 when the A7R3 is as much as £1800 cheaper. He thinks their earlier cameras will be pick up sales as a result and most people will wait for the A7R4 to be discounted.

I called into my local WEX earlier, that store alone has already taken over 200 pre orders for the A7R4. One of the guys there said they have never taken as many pre orders as a company for a Sony camera before at this stage. While I was there they took another 3 pre orders over the phone and I was only there for about 10 minutes.

So that seems odd.
 
Last edited:
I called into my local WEX earlier, that store alone has already taken over 200 pre orders for the A7R4. One of the guys there said they have never taken as many pre orders as a company for a Sony camera before at this stage. While I was there they took another 3 pre orders over the phone and I was only there for about 10 minutes.

So that seems odd.
:eek::eek::eek:
 
I called into my local WEX earlier, that store alone has already taken over 200 pre orders for the A7R4. One of the guys there said they have never taken as many pre orders as a company for a Sony camera before at this stage. While I was there they took another 3 pre orders over the phone and I was only there for about 10 minutes.

So that seems odd.

Perhaps some one should tell the Sony sales guy I spoke to as he was a bit doom and gloom about it all :)
 
Back
Top