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

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,767
Edit My Images
Yes
Yep it is a bit of a p*** take that.

It is weird that they are so expensive for lens repairs yet for camera bodies thay are really cheap with a fixed rate price of £250.
As long as the sensor and EVF is intact I think they could probably replace everything inside the body under £250.

Optics on the other hand are a lot more expensive. Though for £1000+ which 2/3rd cost of a new one I expect them to replace all the optics lol
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,061
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Apart from better build quality and better close focusing, is it really worth the extra dosh over the Samyang 45 1.8? - which is brighter, lighter and a fair bit cheaper

As I ask, I'm thinking I probably would pay more for both of those attributes, but then it's getting up more toward the Sony 35 1.8 price region, which also can focus in nice and close
It''s got an aperture ring though :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
863
Edit My Images
No
Apart from better build quality and better close focusing, is it really worth the extra dosh over the Samyang 45 1.8? - which is brighter, lighter and a fair bit cheaper

As I ask, I'm thinking I probably would pay more for both of those attributes, but then it's getting up more toward the Sony 35 1.8 price region, which also can focus in nice and close
But does the Samyang perform as well, if not better, than the Sigma? I'm not sure it does. The appeal with the 45mm is the size, build and potential IQ. The 35mm 1.8 is a good alternative but it's bigger.
 
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
But does the Samyang perform as well, if not better, than the Sigma? I'm not sure it does. The appeal with the 45mm is the size, build and potential IQ. The 35mm 1.8 is a good alternative but it's bigger.
No idea, seen Dustin Abbot compare the 2 but it was more a physical comparison - they're about the same size when both have hoods on, the Sigma being heavier. Stopped down to 2.8 the Samyang probably easily matches it I would bet

It''s got an aperture ring though :D
For lenses like this that would be staying at it's widest mostly, otherwise aperture on your front dial, done
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,290
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
Got the Samyang 45 1.8 for the craic for when im out with the kids. Actually surprised by it, was anticipating it to be a turd but the performance looks to be quite good and the Bokeh looks nice
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,061
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I'll have a read up on that.

I've just checked the min focus distance and mag ratio for the Sigma 45mm f2.8 and Sony 35mm f1.8 and the Sony has a slightly higher magnification.

Safly the max mag of the Samyang is nowhere near the Sigma 45mm f2.8 or Sony 35mm f1.8.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,290
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
I'll have a read up on that.

I've just checked the min focus distance and mag ratio for the Sigma 45mm f2.8 and Sony 35mm f1.8 and the Sony has a slightly higher magnification.

Safly the max mag of the Samyang is nowhere near the Sigma 45mm f2.8 or Sony 35mm f1.8.
It will do for photos of the kids LOL
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,061
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Yes. The min focus and mag are interesting for me as I tale a lot of pictures of flowers and leaves and stuff like that when out for a walk. Having said that cropping is an option as most of the time all I'm after is a picture to be looked at on screen and a 100% crop or something like that will give me a 1500 to 2000 pixels wide picture which is enough.
 
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'll have a read up on that.

I've just checked the min focus distance and mag ratio for the Sigma 45mm f2.8 and Sony 35mm f1.8 and the Sony has a slightly higher magnification.

Safly the max mag of the Samyang is nowhere near the Sigma 45mm f2.8 or Sony 35mm f1.8.
The Sigma's magnification is actually a tip better - 0.25x vs 0.24x, you mean the Sony has better close focus distance? [22 vs 24cm] - and it does, impressively so for A 35mm I think
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
21,061
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
No, you're right.

I Googled before and whatever review site I looked at gave a smaller mag for the Sigma but checking the Sigma website shows it's a bit better. I'd like to see if this makes a difference in reality but maybe not enough to matter all that much, if at all. The main sticking points for me are that the Sigma is f2.8 and I have the Sony 55mm which I suppose makes buying the Sigma a bit daft. Maybe.
 
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
No, you're right.

I Googled before and whatever review site I looked at gave a smaller mag for the Sigma but checking the Sigma website shows it's a bit better. I'd like to see if this makes a difference in reality but maybe not enough to matter all that much, if at all. The main sticking points for me are that the Sigma is f2.8 and I have the Sony 55mm which I suppose makes buying the Sigma a bit daft. Maybe.
I use B&H for specs on most lenses, they seem to be as reliable as any ;) the closer focusing will make the difference, there's nothing in the magnification between them but the Sigma is a longer FL so doesn't need to get in as close. For a 45mm 24cm is pretty decent, most 35mm get to about 25-30cm at best
 
Last edited:

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
Yes
I am so very confused on what to do with gear now.

I have used Canon since the 300D, so a good ~15yrs or so.
I have the following kit... 5dmk2, 7dmk2, 17-40L, 24-105L, 100-400L mk2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8.

I only ever really shoot landscapes, and mainly hike with my gear, so mirrorless is attractive as theoretically it could be lighter!

I was somewhat set on just getting the EOS R and selling the unused 7d and 100-400L to fund it. Then I thought I might as well get the kit, so that would mean selling the 24-105L too.

This is the easy option. I don't shoot video, and am very used to Canon, so it seems the obvious and sensible way to go.

However, I'm not really that happy with the R in a number of ways, and want to consider the alternatives. The A7III is obvious (maybe the A7RIII is better for me though?). But it looks like it could be costly to change.

My primary reservation (other than cost), is the ergonomics of the a7. I don't like the small grip and how close it is to the lens and would find it difficult when wearing gloves. The menus I'm a little less bothered about as I wouldn't be using them constantly anyway.

I am so confused. What do I do! :D
 
Messages
581
Name
Ant
Edit My Images
No
I am so very confused on what to do with gear now.

I have used Canon since the 300D, so a good ~15yrs or so.
I have the following kit... 5dmk2, 7dmk2, 17-40L, 24-105L, 100-400L mk2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8.

I only ever really shoot landscapes, and mainly hike with my gear, so mirrorless is attractive as theoretically it could be lighter!

I was somewhat set on just getting the EOS R and selling the unused 7d and 100-400L to fund it. Then I thought I might as well get the kit, so that would mean selling the 24-105L too.

This is the easy option. I don't shoot video, and am very used to Canon, so it seems the obvious and sensible way to go.

However, I'm not really that happy with the R in a number of ways, and want to consider the alternatives. The A7III is obvious (maybe the A7RIII is better for me though?). But it looks like it could be costly to change.

My primary reservation (other than cost), is the ergonomics of the a7. I don't like the small grip and how close it is to the lens and would find it difficult when wearing gloves. The menus I'm a little less bothered about as I wouldn't be using them constantly anyway.

I am so confused. What do I do! :D
If you shoot mainly landscapes I would get the A7R3 and if you're happy with your lenses then just adapt them. Sounds like you won't been making use of the fast and tracking focussing of the current Sony cameras so this would be the cheapest way forward. If you're not happy with your current lenses then it gets more costly.
 

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
Yes
If you shoot mainly landscapes I would get the A7R3 and if you're happy with your lenses then just adapt them. Sounds like you won't been making use of the fast and tracking focussing of the current Sony cameras so this would be the cheapest way forward. If you're not happy with your current lenses then it gets more costly.
Googling suggests adapters are £300, so that's not exactly a cheap option. Probably better to buy new lenses as I believe the quality isn't perfect with adapters?

The only Canon kit I really use now is 5dmk2, 24-105L, and occasionally 17-40L. Everything else is very rarely used. So if switch to Sony I'd need to cover those ranges with similar/better quality and weather sealing.

The switch just seems prohibitively expensive? But I could be very wrong.
A7R3 ~£1,700
24-105 ~£900
16-35 ~£700
= £3,300
-£1,600 for selling some kit
= £1,800 to switch to Sony

EOS R + 24-105 RF = £2,100
-£1,400 for selling stuff
= £700 to stay Canon

When I write this down I don't think Sony is feasible. Which is a shame, and maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.
 
Messages
1,371
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Google suggests the Canon adapters aren't going to give me the performance I'd hope for though? Eg. focus issues with some of my gear. Is that correct?
I'm not certain. I'm in the original A7 so for me, AF adapting is a definite NO! Not that I've ever needed or wanted to.

Others can probably comment on the adapted performance but I thought the later bodies were much improved?!
 
Messages
2,627
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Google suggests the Canon adapters aren't going to give me the performance I'd hope for though? Eg. focus issues with some of my gear. Is that correct?
A7iii is fine for landscapes. A7riii if you want to print massive (one of the very best landscapers on this forum uses an XT3 and runs a gallery so MPs aren’t everything.

Get the MC-11, can be had for £120 ish used.

Why does slow focus matter if you’re just doing landscapes? I use the MC-11 on two lenses and it focuses fine.

*you’ll probably get better files out of the A6300,6400,6500 than you get out of your 5d2
 
Last edited:

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
Yes
Or get a A7RII for even cheaper with a MC-11.
I don't really think that makes as much sense as just staying Canon with the R.

Maybe I should look at the A7 III, it would be more inline with the R and cheaper.

A7 III ~£1,400
24-105 ~£900
= £2,300
-£1,400 for selling some kit
= £900 to switch to Sony

That makes it more realistic. Though also makes me really confused :D
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,767
Edit My Images
Yes
Googling suggests adapters are £300, so that's not exactly a cheap option. Probably better to buy new lenses as I believe the quality isn't perfect with adapters?

The only Canon kit I really use now is 5dmk2, 24-105L, and occasionally 17-40L. Everything else is very rarely used. So if switch to Sony I'd need to cover those ranges with similar/better quality and weather sealing.

The switch just seems prohibitively expensive? But I could be very wrong.
A7R3 ~£1,700
24-105 ~£900
16-35 ~£700
= £3,300
-£1,600 for selling some kit
= £1,800 to switch to Sony

EOS R + 24-105 RF = £2,100
-£1,400 for selling stuff
= £700 to stay Canon

When I write this down I don't think Sony is feasible. Which is a shame, and maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.
Tbh the A7RIII is a much better body than the EOS-R. I'd argue even the A7RII is better which can be had around or less than £1K.
As mentioned A7iii is more than sufficient for landscapes which is also cheaper than A7RIII.

You can get sigma mc-11 adapter for £130-ish.
 
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'd argue even the A7RII is better which can be had around or less than £1K.
.
That's very debatable in general terms. For landscape sure, it'll have the upper hand for DR and resolution. But for other photography, some might say the R is better ergonomically, it's got the flip out screen - which has full touch functionality, it's got DPAF which has proven to be very good and with the upcoming update many say it'll match the A7III's AF, the 1080p is apparently stellar , something often overlooked by the 4K bandwagon people, and it's going to adapt EF glass way better than any other camera.

If the R had IBIS [ok, the 7RII also beats it on this front] I think it would be a fantastic camera for both video and photo, so long as 4K wasn't really important to you. Also it can be got for £1400 with the adapter nowadays - barely more than an A7RII [new]
 

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
Yes
For landscapes is af a big issue?

I assume that an adapter will allow aperture control and assuming the landscape isn't moving slow focus or even mf may be ok and mirrorless cameras are of course excellent to mf with.
If I’m spending thousands of £ I want quality and not too many compromises.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,767
Edit My Images
Yes
That's very debatable in general terms. For landscape sure, it'll have the upper hand for DR and resolution. But for other photography, some might say the R is better ergonomically, it's got the flip out screen - which has full touch functionality, it's got DPAF which has proven to be very good and with the upcoming update many say it'll match the A7III's AF, the 1080p is apparently stellar , something often overlooked by the 4K bandwagon people, and it's going to adapt EF glass way better than any other camera.

If the R had IBIS [ok, the 7RII also beats it on this front] I think it would be a fantastic camera for both video and photo, so long as 4K wasn't really important to you. Also it can be got for £1400 with the adapter nowadays - barely more than an A7RII [new]
Basing a debate on an unreleased firmware update says it all lol.

As it stands it's AF is no better than A7RII and eye AF on A7RII is more responsive. Also A7RII can shoot 5fps vs. 3fps.

Only thing canon really gets right is the back LCD and touchscreen which is generally a nice cherry on the cake but not the cake itself :p

Also desperately trying get one up on a body that is now 2 generations behind, while R is the current body. Come on that in itself pretty poor.

Also it may be £1400 but it's worth half that IMO. Considering its value is dropping like a lead balloon is a testament to how good it is. I am sure it'll get lower to it's actual worth soon enough :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Basing a debate on an unreleased firmware update says it all lol.

As it stands it's AF is no better than A7RII and eye AF on A7RII is more responsive. Also A7RII can shoot 5fps vs. 3fps.

Only thing canon really gets right is the back LCD and touchscreen which is generally a nice cherry on the cake but not the cake itself :p

Also desperately trying get one up on a body that is now 2 generations behind, while R is the current body. Come on that in itself pretty poor.
It's not really a debate, I'm just saying it is debatable - many would argue these point. I'm a neutral obviously, I've not used either but interested in both. There's no denying the adapting EF lens side though
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Wait a few more days it'll be cheaper than A7RII also ;)
I'm ever watching the market :D I'm happy with what i got for now, but I have the feeling I will at some stage switch to FF. All these new gear wars are great for the likes of me, a casual on a tighter budget. We'll take all of those falling crumbs thanks :D

Someone's just posted what the FW update for the R includes in the R thread, it's coming on the 26th and it is indeed all about improving Face/eye detect AF
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,767
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm ever watching the market :D I'm happy with what i got for now, but I have the feeling I will at some stage switch to FF. All these new gear wars are great for the likes of me, a casual on a tighter budget. We'll take all of those falling crumbs thanks :D
Bodies are always a loss. Lenses on the other hand I don't want to lose much money on if any. While EF lenses are holding their value for now that won't be the case in the long run. So doesn't work for me who is into recycling my gear a lot.
In some ways vintage lenses are actually better I have sometimes sold those for twice the amount I bought them for as they suddenly rise in popularity :D
 
Last edited:

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
Yes
A7R II isn’t of interest to me.

Only the EOS R or A7(R) III.

It’s fairly obvious the Sony will definitely cost more £. I don’t really want to adapt lenses in a less than perfect way, so I believe I’d need Sony lenses. This makes the switch expensive. I’m unconvinced that for me the benefits of Sony are worth the money for what is essentially a hobby. If the lens adapters were better I think Sony would be a very interesting option though.

However, I do think I need to go to a store and look at the Sony.

One point that to me is interesting is that with Sony there’s the option to get a smaller body as well. Eg the a6500. This could be a welcome addition for when I go hiking and want to go as light as possible.
 
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Bodies are always a loss. Lenses on the other hand I don't want to lose much money on if any. While EF lenses are holding their value for now that won't be the case in the long run. So doesn't work for me who is into recycling my gear a lot.
In some ways vintage lenses are actually better I have sometimes sold those for twice the amount I bought them for as they suddenly rise in popularity :D
I've never lost on vintage lenses, sometimes doubled what I paid when selling on. Btw, I recommended a good macro lens to you in that vintage lens thread
 
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
A7R II isn’t of interest to me.

Only the EOS R or A7(R) III.

It’s fairly obvious the Sony will definitely cost more £. I don’t really want to adapt lenses in a less than perfect way, so I believe I’d need Sony lenses. This makes the switch expensive. I’m unconvinced that for me the benefits of Sony are worth the money for what is essentially a hobby. If the lens adapters were better I think Sony would be a very interesting option though.

However, I do think I need to go to a store and look at the Sony.

One point that to me is interesting is that with Sony there’s the option to get a smaller body as well. Eg the a6500. This could be a welcome addition for when I go hiking and want to go as light as possible.
Canon have the smaller APSC body options too with the M line.

The only problems I'd have with the A7RII [as the output is much the same as the III] would be No joystick or TS, the menu is more of a mess than the newer bodies, the shutter sounds like a dying printer and only one card slot - but then the R only has one slot too and lacks IBIS. If you want it all, the A7III is really the best bet.
 

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
Yes
The Canon M series uses a different mount, so would be somewhat useless to me really. Maybe they will release a small RF mount camera but I’d be surprised as the mount is fairly large.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,767
Edit My Images
Yes
A7R II isn’t of interest to me.

Only the EOS R or A7(R) III.

It’s fairly obvious the Sony will definitely cost more £. I don’t really want to adapt lenses in a less than perfect way, so I believe I’d need Sony lenses. This makes the switch expensive. I’m unconvinced that for me the benefits of Sony are worth the money for what is essentially a hobby. If the lens adapters were better I think Sony would be a very interesting option though.

However, I do think I need to go to a store and look at the Sony.

One point that to me is interesting is that with Sony there’s the option to get a smaller body as well. Eg the a6500. This could be a welcome addition for when I go hiking and want to go as light as possible.
IMO adapting is less than perfect regardless of the brand/mount/flavour/combination. Unless you plan to adapt for ever it's just false economy. While it might be cheaper now your lens you are adapting will drop in value and you end up paying a larger difference to buy native lenses later on.
Adapting is great fun but it gets tiresome very quickly especially if you have a combination of adapted and native lenses. Been there done that ;)
Even though not with Eos R, have done it with EOS M and Sony with both EF and a-mount glass.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,767
Edit My Images
Yes
I've never lost on vintage lenses, sometimes doubled what I paid when selling on. Btw, I recommended a good macro lens to you in that vintage lens thread
Yes just saw that thanks. The reviews certainly make it sound perfect, it's just the question of finding one at a good price now.

Also need to figure out how big it'll be with an adapter.
 
Messages
13,025
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Yes just saw that thanks. The reviews certainly make it sound perfect, it's just the question of finding one at a good price now.

Also need to figure out how big it'll be with an adapter.
Be great if that camerasize website included vintage lenses :D I linked you to one for £95, don't think they go for much less than that n good nick but I would say well worth it for a good macro

This might give you an idea on the size
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKEDGaE778c
 
Last edited:
Top