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

Messages
882
Name
Omar
Edit My Images
Yes
I was *really* hoping the 35/1.8 would render the bokeh a little nicer (too fussy for me), I'd loved to have swapped my 34/1.4 out for it! :(

Poop.
 
Messages
2,268
Edit My Images
No
I can't see myself choosing between 35 and 85 unless it was because I could only afford one as they're just so different. If you're looking at an 85 why on earth would you look at a 35?
You're confusing two different aspects, yes 55mm is closer to 35mm, no one is arguing that point.

They're saying that other than focal length the 35mm and 85mm are a closer match than to the 55mm.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,108
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ll check those out - I was just going by the ones posted here. Are you picking one up?
I have one on pre-order but thinking of cancelling it simply because I prefer the 24GM.

As for the ones here that looked bad, the background was tricky. Not sure any other lens would have done massively better.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,450
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
More 35mm f1.8 fun...

f1.8 at about MFD...



f1.8, Her again...



f1.8 at about MFD again.



Same thing at f5.



Funnily enough I've noticed vignetting before but I didn't do any vignetting corrections on these. I'm quite happy with this lens but of course if it could be just a bit bigger than the f2.8 I'd love it :D
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,450
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I have one on pre-order but thinking of cancelling it simply because I prefer the 24GM.

As for the ones here that looked bad, the background was tricky. Not sure any other lens would have done massively better.
If you're talking about my 35mm f1.8 examples then I agree. That sort of background is IMO a torture test and on that day with that lighting and background I don't know what would have been needed to make it look good. The point was to see how it coped with a messy background, I didn't expect miracles and TBH it's probably about as good as could be expected, IMO.
 
Messages
13,364
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
More 35mm f1.8 fun...

f1.8 at about MFD...



f1.8, Her again...



f1.8 at about MFD again.



Same thing at f5.



Funnily enough I've noticed vignetting before but I didn't do any vignetting corrections on these. I'm quite happy with this lens but of course if it could be just a bit bigger than the f2.8 I'd love it :D
It's personal preference obviously, but I prefer a lens I can get a better grip under, I've never got on well with pancake lenses
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,450
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Well there is that too and if that's the case you might like lenses of this sort or size. It's really just about the size of some of my film era lenses once they're mounted on an adapter so I suppose being honest it's hardly massive.
 
Messages
13,364
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Well there is that too and if that's the case you might like lenses of this sort or size. It's really just about the size of some of my film era lenses once they're mounted on an adapter so I suppose being honest it's hardly massive.
Course I say that and in my profile image there's me holding a 35 F2 that is teensy, but I did sell it on and thinking on the 50 F2 which is also pretty small but is a bit longer.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,450
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
You're confusing two different aspects, yes 55mm is closer to 35mm, no one is arguing that point.

They're saying that other than focal length the 35mm and 85mm are a closer match than to the 55mm.
Yes the 35 may be closer to the 85 in technical good / bad terms with the 55mm being IMO the better lens but that comparison make no sense to me as 35 and 85 are such different focal lengths and will be used so differently and even very differently that I can't see why it matters which is slightly better or worse. To me the much more obvious lens to compare a 35mm to when considering buying one is a 50mm not an 85 as 35 and 50 could be used for more or less the same genres, street, general walk about, documentary and reportage etc.

Comparing a 35 and an 85 in any way other than to say which is the technically better lens seems like comparing my MX5 to a RR Evoque, ie pretty pointless as they're completely different. I'd much rather compare an MX5 to a hot hatch and maybe an Evoque some other lifestyle choice like higher end coupe or people carrier as those comparisons are ones more likely to be made by someone looking to buy.

YMMV and that's fine for you, I'm just stating my view.
 

West Camera

Can I be Frank?
Messages
166
Name
frank west
Edit My Images
No
I would like to ask a question - since the a7/a9 are meant more for the serious and capable photographer has Sony included the creative filters or creative effects feature often found on its point and shoot cameras? These were added to cameras to address those who wanted an effect, but did not want to do editing. I would presume that Sony must know that an a7/a9 user would be an accomplished editor as well, and so probably did not include these filters/effects on these cameras. But, if Sony did does this camera user often use them? By creative filter/effects I mean such as a toy camera effect or a pinhole effect or an hdr or illustration effect.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,572
Edit My Images
No
I would like to ask a question - since the a7/a9 are meant more for the serious and capable photographer has Sony included the creative filters or creative effects feature often found on its point and shoot cameras? These were added to cameras to address those who wanted an effect, but did not want to do editing. I would presume that Sony must know that an a7/a9 user would be an accomplished editor as well, and so probably did not include these filters/effects on these cameras. But, if Sony did does this camera user often use them? By creative filter/effects I mean such as a toy camera effect or a pinhole effect or an hdr or illustration effect.
Not in the new series.
 
Messages
13,205
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
I would like to ask a question - since the a7/a9 are meant more for the serious and capable photographer has Sony included the creative filters or creative effects feature often found on its point and shoot cameras? These were added to cameras to address those who wanted an effect, but did not want to do editing. I would presume that Sony must know that an a7/a9 user would be an accomplished editor as well, and so probably did not include these filters/effects on these cameras. But, if Sony did does this camera user often use them? By creative filter/effects I mean such as a toy camera effect or a pinhole effect or an hdr or illustration effect.
TBH when I first set up the camera I set all the pre-sets etc to neutral, since some of the settings can affect the quality of RAW output (even though it shouldn't) but if there were any such settings then I don't think that I'd ever use them. It's not snobbishness, but what I want is the most useful 'digital negative' the camera can create, and anything which messes with that is having a negative impact on the image for me.
 
Messages
910
Edit My Images
Yes
A lot of love for the 35mm which is nice to see a lot of happy people that were wanting this lens. I personally find I don't tend to use 35mm focal length a lot. Well, at least I don't think I do. I'm going to go back through my shots and check actually. I have the Sony 50mm prime I have used as a walkabout lens and yes, often as a walk about lens it's too narrow, but I think I prefer it to constantly being at 35.

For the amateur stuff I do, when on trips out I almost always find I whack the Tamron 28-75 on just because I need the flexibility to be able to capture anything, and to be honest it does a great job. I'm often at fully wide and fully long so I do wonder if the Sony 24-105 would have been better, but it's slightly more cumbersome, more expensive and lacks f/2.8 which I really like for the time I need it, or want a nice portrait shot at 75mm and cba to get the 85mm out. I really can't fault the Tamron. The only thing I would critique is the slight barrel distortion at the wide end, but one click in lightroom and it's fixed so it's not really an issue.

Speaking of Tamron, are they going to produce the ultra wide for Sony FE? At one point there was talk of a 15-28, 28-75 and 75-200 setup.
 
Messages
5,408
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
3,301
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
A lot of love for the 35mm which is nice to see a lot of happy people that were wanting this lens. I personally find I don't tend to use 35mm focal length a lot. Well, at least I don't think I do. I'm going to go back through my shots and check actually. I have the Sony 50mm prime I have used as a walkabout lens and yes, often as a walk about lens it's too narrow, but I think I prefer it to constantly being at 35.

For the amateur stuff I do, when on trips out I almost always find I whack the Tamron 28-75 on just because I need the flexibility to be able to capture anything, and to be honest it does a great job. I'm often at fully wide and fully long so I do wonder if the Sony 24-105 would have been better, but it's slightly more cumbersome, more expensive and lacks f/2.8 which I really like for the time I need it, or want a nice portrait shot at 75mm and cba to get the 85mm out. I really can't fault the Tamron. The only thing I would critique is the slight barrel distortion at the wide end, but one click in lightroom and it's fixed so it's not really an issue.

Speaking of Tamron, are they going to produce the ultra wide for Sony FE? At one point there was talk of a 15-28, 28-75 and 75-200 setup.
They recently released the 17-28 f/2.8 which is excellent and in October they will release a new zoom lens expected to be a 75-210 f/2.8 or there abouts and 3 new prime lenses expected to be 35,50 & 85.
 
Messages
2,710
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Am I right in thinking the A6500 has £300 cashback at present? Amazon now have it for £899 but don’t mention cash back. If it was up for the animal eye AF and had similar AF performance of the A6400 I would potentially be interested. I guess it means a replacement is on its way next week.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Compact-Stabilisation-Autofocus-Touchscreen/dp/B01M2WAE29
That’s correct. But it’s a special offer not a permanent reduction.

The AF on the A6500 is excellent, the only thing it’s missing is animal eye af and real time. Plus I think the AF time on the A6400 is like 0.03 seconds faster or something.

In the real world that’s basically nothing. Plus the a6500 has miles better ergonomics and IBIS.

Even if a replacement comes next week, it’ll likely be £1k more expensive.
 
Messages
3,044
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Very nice set of shots, liking all of these very much.

“I must give that place a look, must admit I didn’t even know it existed”

George.
Thanks George.
Well worth a visit. It’s in an original Docklands warehouse on Canary Wharf
 
Messages
15,572
Edit My Images
No
TBH when I first set up the camera I set all the pre-sets etc to neutral, since some of the settings can affect the quality of RAW output (even though it shouldn't) but if there were any such settings then I don't think that I'd ever use them. It's not snobbishness, but what I want is the most useful 'digital negative' the camera can create, and anything which messes with that is having a negative impact on the image for me.
Afaik (picture profiles) only affect jpg and your camera on screen preview, in LR you can select it to import using the closest camera profile interpretation you have set though.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,268
Edit My Images
No
Yes the 35 may be closer to the 85 in technical good / bad terms with the 55mm being IMO the better lens but that comparison make no sense to me as 35 and 85 are such different focal lengths and will be used so differently and even very differently that I can't see why it matters which is slightly better or worse. To me the much more obvious lens to compare a 35mm to when considering buying one is a 50mm not an 85 as 35 and 50 could be used for more or less the same genres, street, general walk about, documentary and reportage etc.
You mentioned you thought it odd the review compares the 35mm and 85mm but why should that be odd if they render in a similar fashion? You could take a Batis 40mm and Samyang 35mm f/2.8 and despite them sharing a similar focal length it's very easy to tell them apart, so if you were talking about the Samyang it wouldn't make much sense to say the Batis is close simply because it's in a similar focal length.

I'm not talking about which lens is better or worse and I agree with you that someone considering a 35mm is not going to suddenly grab a 85mm but I don't think anyone besides you has suggested that was a realistic consideration.
 
Messages
1,293
Edit My Images
No
I should be getting my A7RIV tomorrow and time to decide on the 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 as I'll also pick that up tomorrow.

I know I've asked before but really can't decide, Id like the 1.4 but I think I'd use the 1.8 more due to size as I'm more likely to put it in my everyday bag but equally I don't want to be disappointed. I'm assuming neither is bad.

Just on the off change, anyone have a photo taken with both for comparison?
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,450
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
You mentioned you thought it odd the review compares the 35mm and 85mm but why should that be odd if they render in a similar fashion? You could take a Batis 40mm and Samyang 35mm f/2.8 and despite them sharing a similar focal length it's very easy to tell them apart, so if you were talking about the Samyang it wouldn't make much sense to say the Batis is close simply because it's in a similar focal length.

I'm not talking about which lens is better or worse and I agree with you that someone considering a 35mm is not going to suddenly grab a 85mm but I don't think anyone besides you has suggested that was a realistic consideration.
I think 35 and 85 are so different there's no real point comparing them other than discussing which is the best like we sometimes do here... as in Sony brought out the 24/85/whatever and they were good but this latest thing is nowhere near as good, all in a technical sense. In that sense it sort of makes sense but the answer wont change what I want if I'm looking for a 35mm lens and in the context of a review of a 35mm such as the one I linked to I can think of better comparisons than to an 85mm such as the Batis 40mm but perhaps he doesn't have the Batis or the Sony 55? Maybe it's as simple as that.

As to what other people think... we're all entitled to an opinion and I think that Sony 35mm f1.8 v Batis 40mm and/or Samyang or Sony 35mm f2.8 are more valid comparisons. Reading a review of a 35mm that drifts too much into what an 85mm is capable of just makes me think I'm reading the wrong review.
 
Messages
3,248
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
If the Nikon 16mm f2.8 lens has an aperture ring it could be used via a cheap dumb adapter. There's no AF of course with a dumb adapter.
I sold the Nikon 16mm fisheye with all my other Nikon gear but it would have been the obvious thing to do :banghead:

not a lot unfortunately. The only native option is FE28+fisheye adapter which gives 16mm f3.5 fisheye. But this setup is also (unnecessarily) huge.
You can adapt your nikon fisheye if you still have it. I personally used to adapt the Olympus OM 16mm f3.5 fisheye because it was small.
As above I stupidly sold my Nikon 16mm & I looked at FE28 and as you said it's huge with the adapter plus I have the 35mm f/2.8 which is very near the 28mm in focal length

There is also a Samyang 12mm fisheye for FE.
Thanks for the info on the Samyang I'll have a look at some reviews on the lens
 
Messages
13,205
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
No (picture profiles) only affect jpg and your camera on screen preview, in LR you can select it to import using the closest camera profile interpretation you have set though.
There was a youtube vid that demonstrated otherwise, even though it shouldn't happen. Possibly it's been fixed in later firmware revisions.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,450
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I would like to ask a question - since the a7/a9 are meant more for the serious and capable photographer has Sony included the creative filters or creative effects feature often found on its point and shoot cameras? These were added to cameras to address those who wanted an effect, but did not want to do editing. I would presume that Sony must know that an a7/a9 user would be an accomplished editor as well, and so probably did not include these filters/effects on these cameras. But, if Sony did does this camera user often use them? By creative filter/effects I mean such as a toy camera effect or a pinhole effect or an hdr or illustration effect.
I never use in camera filters and effects but I sometimes use Nik filters which were free at the time I downloaded them and I think you can still get them free today by searching around on the site...

https://nikcollection.dxo.com/nik-collection-2012/

I think this is worth having. I use the mono conversion, the color effects and the analogue effects.

PS.
You need Photoshop or Lightroom for this.
 
Last edited:
Messages
521
Edit My Images
Yes
I've not heard of this so I'll take a look later.
I switched from Lightroom as I didn’t like the subscription model and didn’t use it enough to justify the cost. Skylum Luminar does a good job for me and I find it easier to use. Seem to be regular updates (free) and it’s pretty quick on my Six year old mac mini. You can also get it as a plug-in for Lightroom.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,108
Edit My Images
Yes
Luminar is no different to lightroom their subscription is just hidden. They release a new version every year and if you want get updates you have to buy a new version every year. Also they still haven't properly delivered on their DAM promise which turns out to be a disappointment.

p.s. Not a fan of lightroom subscription model either. I still use the LR6 perpetual license and will do for as long as possible.
 
Messages
7,978
Edit My Images
No
And it landed :





First impressions feel (grip is really nice) and EVF is much better than previous model which was terrible.

Hope to get some time over the weekend to test out IQ, Focus etc. I'll report back when I have :)
Check to make sure the AF works fine as some users have reported some major issues with it
 
Messages
7,595
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Luminar is no different to lightroom their subscription is just hidden. They release a new version every year and if you want get updates you have to buy a new version every year. Also they still haven't properly delivered on their DAM promise which turns out to be a disappointment.

p.s. Not a fan of lightroom subscription model either. I still use the LR6 perpetual license and will do for as long as possible.
The way I do it now is to buy the LR 12 month sub on amazon prime day and Black Friday for £70 or something and it gives me 12 months.

Vesus I used to pay £110 or something at every release.

And I get photoshop for free (I know it’s not)
 
Messages
2,710
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
The way I do it now is to buy the LR 12 month sub on amazon prime day and Black Friday for £70 or something and it gives me 12 months.

Vesus I used to pay £110 or something at every release.

And I get photoshop for free (I know it’s not)
I do the same. Set up an alert on camel camel camel and they send you an email whenever it drops. Sometimes drops at random times.
 
Top