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

Cagey75 said:
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
Click to expand...

Ah you edited you post after I saw it :D

I'll see if I can get in an offer. Thank you the video will watch it later. Just on my way home now from work.
 
nandbytes said:
Ah you edited you post after I saw it :D

I'll see if I can get in an offer. Thank you the video will watch it later. Just on my way home now from work.
Click to expand...

It's not much of a video really, but he does show the lens. See if I can find one that shows it off better and will post in that other thread
 
I see the 24-105 isn't marketed as being weather sealed? Is this the case with many Sony lenses? I'd probably look at the 16-35 f4 as well and that appears to have the same dust seals, but Sony are non-commital on water protection?

I hike a lot in Wales, so need to be clear on things like this :D
 
Matt. said:
I see the 24-105 isn't marketed as being weather sealed? Is this the case with many Sony lenses? I'd probably look at the 16-35 f4 as well and that appears to have the same dust seals, but Sony are non-commital on water protection?

I hike a lot in Wales, so need to be clear on things like this :D
Click to expand...
They both are weathersealed. All manufacturers are noncommittal on water protection because the bottom line is none of them offer any warranty on water damage. Some marketing departments are more enthusiastic about it than others but the bottom line remains the same.
Have used my Sony gear in rain and snow just fine. I am less concerned about the lenses and more about the body whose battery door could do with better weathersealing.
 
Last edited:
I went to look at cameras today.

I'm still confused.

I tried the EOS R, A7 III, A7R III.

Really it's between the EOS R and A7R III.


A7R III:
+ Appears well built and solid (inc lenses)
+ Small and light (I come from a 5d and 7d)
+ More MPs (useful for my landscapes)
+ Better DR
+ 2 card slots (probably doesn't really matter. I've had one dead card in 15 years and that was a CF card)
+ Smaller bodies available if I wanted a super lightweight body for hikes
- The grip. My fingers touch the lens. (my biggest issue with this camera by far)
- It will cost more. Probably.
- EVF is poor

EOS R:
+ I have lenses already
+ Good and familiar layout/menus (though I don't use them that often, so menus being better isn't that big of a deal for me)
+ Good ergonomics for the grip (much more space between grip and lens)
+ Cheaper
+ EVF feels just like optical, it's vastly better than the Sony
- Build quality really concerns me. I'm surprised the new RF lenses are so plasticky too. I am worried I'd break it when throwing it in my backpack to go hiking.
- 1 card slot (as above, probably not really that big of a problem)


I really don't know what to do. Why does every camera seem to have fairly major flaws?!

Has anyone else had this problem in deciding? Or am I making this more difficult than it needs to be? :D
 
Matt. said:
I went to look at cameras today.

I'm still confused.

I tried the EOS R, A7 III, A7R III.

Really it's between the EOS R and A7R III.


A7R III:
+ Appears well built and solid (inc lenses)
+ Small and light (I come from a 5d and 7d)
+ More MPs (useful for my landscapes)
+ Better DR
+ 2 card slots (probably doesn't really matter. I've had one dead card in 15 years and that was a CF card)
+ Smaller bodies available if I wanted a super lightweight body for hikes
- The grip. My fingers touch the lens. (my biggest issue with this camera by far)
- It will cost more. Probably.
- EVF is poor

EOS R:
+ I have lenses already
+ Good and familiar layout/menus (though I don't use them that often, so menus being better isn't that big of a deal for me)
+ Good ergonomics for the grip (much more space between grip and lens)
+ Cheaper
+ EVF feels just like optical, it's vastly better than the Sony
- Build quality really concerns me. I'm surprised the new RF lenses are so plasticky too. I am worried I'd break it when throwing it in my backpack to go hiking.
- 1 card slot (as above, probably not really that big of a problem)


I really don't know what to do. Why does every camera seem to have fairly major flaws?!

Has anyone else had this problem in deciding? Or am I making this more difficult than it needs to be? :D
Click to expand...

I always think that ergonomics and menu systems are moot points. Unless you really can’t stand the feel of it, you just get used to whatever you have. For landscapes it will be sat on your tripod more than not?
A lot has been made of the Sony menu system, but they are infinitely more customisable than most and in the end, you’ll set up your own menu for the handful of things that you use most often. You’ll get used to it. I still prefer the feel of my Nikon and I too had a 5D2, but the rest of it more than makes up.
 
Matt. said:
I went to look at cameras today.

I'm still confused.

I tried the EOS R, A7 III, A7R III.

Really it's between the EOS R and A7R III.


A7R III:
+ Appears well built and solid (inc lenses)
+ Small and light (I come from a 5d and 7d)
+ More MPs (useful for my landscapes)
+ Better DR
+ 2 card slots (probably doesn't really matter. I've had one dead card in 15 years and that was a CF card)
+ Smaller bodies available if I wanted a super lightweight body for hikes
- The grip. My fingers touch the lens. (my biggest issue with this camera by far)
- It will cost more. Probably.
- EVF is poor

EOS R:
+ I have lenses already
+ Good and familiar layout/menus (though I don't use them that often, so menus being better isn't that big of a deal for me)
+ Good ergonomics for the grip (much more space between grip and lens)
+ Cheaper
+ EVF feels just like optical, it's vastly better than the Sony
- Build quality really concerns me. I'm surprised the new RF lenses are so plasticky too. I am worried I'd break it when throwing it in my backpack to go hiking.
- 1 card slot (as above, probably not really that big of a problem)


I really don't know what to do. Why does every camera seem to have fairly major flaws?!

Has anyone else had this problem in deciding? Or am I making this more difficult than it needs to be? :D
Click to expand...

I am sure only like 2 weeks ago you can get the A7RIII for about £1600 with discounts (Jessops 10%) + Sony Cashback, or has that offer finished?

If you want light weight...Canon is not the system, have you seen all these new lenses? I know you have EF glass but eventually you will move to R mount and they are enormous.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I always think that ergonomics and menu systems are moot points. Unless you really can’t stand the feel of it, you just get used to whatever you have. For landscapes it will be sat on your tripod more than not?
A lot has been made of the Sony menu system, but they are infinitely more customisable than most and in the end, you’ll set up your own menu for the handful of things that you use most often. You’ll get used to it. I still prefer the feel of my Nikon and I too had a 5D2, but the rest of it more than makes up.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you are correct.
My current thought is that the Sony negatives are ones I can easily get past. The EOS R build quality is a bigger issue that I don't believe they will fix any time soon, especially the lenses. I don't think the build is an issue everyone will have, but it's a concern for my use case. I put my main camera straight into my hiking day pack with zero additional protection (to be fair it's in there with clothing mostly, so fairly safe, but it will get bounced around a lot. I am concerned the EOS R is just too plasticky to survive this.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am sure only like 2 weeks ago you can get the A7RIII for about £1600 with discounts (Jessops 10%) + Sony Cashback, or has that offer finished?

If you want light weight...Canon is not the system, have you seen all these new lenses? I know you have EF glass but eventually you will move to R mount and they are enormous.
Click to expand...

Yes I tend to agree. It's build of the new RF lenses I'm worried about less than size tbh. They don't feel anything like as solid as my current L lenses.

Cashback ended 1st September! That could have made the decision easier.
 
Last edited:
Matt. said:
Yes I tend to agree. It's build of the new RF lenses I'm worried about less than size tbh. They don't feel anything like as solid as my current L lenses.

Cashback ended 1st September! That could have made the decision easier.
Click to expand...

Don't let the plastic feel of the barrel put you off.

I had the 35Mk2 EF mount and it is £1700, the outside is plastic but it is what is on the inside that counts. Have a read of this. Canon knows how to construct a lens.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/
 
Matt. said:
I went to look at cameras today.

I'm still confused.

I tried the EOS R, A7 III, A7R III.

Really it's between the EOS R and A7R III.


A7R III:
+ Appears well built and solid (inc lenses)
+ Small and light (I come from a 5d and 7d)
+ More MPs (useful for my landscapes)
+ Better DR
+ 2 card slots (probably doesn't really matter. I've had one dead card in 15 years and that was a CF card)
+ Smaller bodies available if I wanted a super lightweight body for hikes
- The grip. My fingers touch the lens. (my biggest issue with this camera by far)
- It will cost more. Probably.
- EVF is poor

EOS R:
+ I have lenses already
+ Good and familiar layout/menus (though I don't use them that often, so menus being better isn't that big of a deal for me)
+ Good ergonomics for the grip (much more space between grip and lens)
+ Cheaper
+ EVF feels just like optical, it's vastly better than the Sony
- Build quality really concerns me. I'm surprised the new RF lenses are so plasticky too. I am worried I'd break it when throwing it in my backpack to go hiking.
- 1 card slot (as above, probably not really that big of a problem)


I really don't know what to do. Why does every camera seem to have fairly major flaws?!

Has anyone else had this problem in deciding? Or am I making this more difficult than it needs to be? :D
Click to expand...

What are the lenses do you carry for hiking? In fair comparison between Canon to Sony similar lenses, how much weight do you actually save that validate the switch? If MP is utmost importance, have you look at A7RIV? Meanwhile Canon has the 5DsR is also another option also Canon RAW file size is smaller as well. Unless you are moving into ML world? If so, Sony A7R, Nikon Z7 or Panasonic S1R are the high MP FF option for now and with Sony and Panasonic easy adaptable with your existing EF lenses.
 
Matt. said:
I went to look at cameras today.

I'm still confused.

I tried the EOS R, A7 III, A7R III.

Really it's between the EOS R and A7R III.


A7R III:
+ Appears well built and solid (inc lenses)
+ Small and light (I come from a 5d and 7d)
+ More MPs (useful for my landscapes)
+ Better DR
+ 2 card slots (probably doesn't really matter. I've had one dead card in 15 years and that was a CF card)
+ Smaller bodies available if I wanted a super lightweight body for hikes
- The grip. My fingers touch the lens. (my biggest issue with this camera by far)
- It will cost more. Probably.
- EVF is poor

EOS R:
+ I have lenses already
+ Good and familiar layout/menus (though I don't use them that often, so menus being better isn't that big of a deal for me)
+ Good ergonomics for the grip (much more space between grip and lens)
+ Cheaper
+ EVF feels just like optical, it's vastly better than the Sony
- Build quality really concerns me. I'm surprised the new RF lenses are so plasticky too. I am worried I'd break it when throwing it in my backpack to go hiking.
- 1 card slot (as above, probably not really that big of a problem)


I really don't know what to do. Why does every camera seem to have fairly major flaws?!

Has anyone else had this problem in deciding? Or am I making this more difficult than it needs to be? :D
Click to expand...

The biggest negative for me on canon is I don't feel it's worth the price they are charging. At the heart of it the sensor is the worst one both IQ and AF wise plus the processor is one of the weaker ones which make the problem worst. I think you said when you are paying so much you'd like to buy something that works well in all areas then why buy something that's the worst in all the areas that count.
It also lacks things like IBIS, 3rd party lens support etc. (may come in future but who knows when)

So until canon makes a sensor (IQ and AF) that's competitive I won't be buying from them.
 
nandbytes said:
The biggest negative for me on canon is I don't feel it's worth the price they are charging. At the heart of it the sensor is the worst one both IQ and AF wise plus the processor is one of the weaker ones which make the problem worst. I think you said when you are paying so much you'd like to buy something that works well in all areas then why buy something that's the worst in all the areas that count.
It also lacks things like IBIS, 3rd party lens support etc. (may come in future but who knows when)

So until canon makes a sensor (IQ and AF) that's competitive I won't be buying from them.
Click to expand...
likewise and also hat ethe fact that they purposely cripple there camera's.

You wont ever get a canon camera body that has both great AF and Great sensor IQ. they will instead create two seperate bodies. one that has an awsome AF but still has a Canon 5d2 sensor or a 80mp 15 stop DR sensor with 5d1 AF system slapped on at 2fps and 5 frame rate buffer.
 
jonneymendoza said:
likewise and also hat ethe fact that they purposely cripple there camera's.

You wont ever get a canon camera body that has both great AF and Great sensor IQ. they will instead create two seperate bodies. one that has an awsome AF but still has a Canon 5d2 sensor or a 80mp 15 stop DR sensor with 5d1 AF system slapped on at 2fps and 5 frame rate buffer.
Click to expand...
That way they can see you two bodies instead of one :D
 
Guys.

I nearly bought that A6000 in the classifieds but I remembered the max shutter speed is 1/4000 which means ND's in good light for wide apertures and off again for the next shot because the ISO is too high and all that faff on puts me off as I've done that with MFT and hated it.

Does anyone know is later bodies have 1/8000 with or without an electronic shutter?

I also nearly bought a Fuji the other day but changed my mind at the last second :D
 
nandbytes said:
The biggest negative for me on canon is I don't feel it's worth the price they are charging. At the heart of it the sensor is the worst one both IQ and AF wise plus the processor is one of the weaker ones which make the problem worst. I think you said when you are paying so much you'd like to buy something that works well in all areas then why buy something that's the worst in all the areas that count.
It also lacks things like IBIS, 3rd party lens support etc. (may come in future but who knows when)

So until canon makes a sensor (IQ and AF) that's competitive I won't be buying from them.
Click to expand...

I’ve said it many times before, but Canon always demand the highest price point in the market, yet don’t warrant it these days. If you’re tied into a particular specialist lens etc then fine, but if money is a concern, others cover most eventualities at a better price point.

As a hobbyist too, for the most part, I do hope that once my core lenses are in place I can stick with a system and have a body upgrade every 4 years. Canon body upgrades are always priced highest. So, just need Sony to keep ahead of the game.
 
£530 brand new e-Mount Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art delivered next day via the recent 10% eBay discount code, winner!

A7303415 by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

Feels like having an old friend back, owned when I was Nikon and then a Canon mount when I had the MC-11. Makes a rather nice if weighty combo with the 135mm 1.8.
 
woof woof said:
Guys.

I nearly bought that A6000 in the classifieds but I remembered the max shutter speed is 1/4000 which means ND's in good light for wide apertures and off again for the next shot because the ISO is too high and all that faff on puts me off as I've done that with MFT and hated it.

Does anyone know is later bodies have 1/8000 with or without an electronic shutter?

I also nearly bought a Fuji the other day but changed my mind at the last second :D
Click to expand...


Does it not have electronic shutter? with the G80 I could go to 1/16000, some cameras can do 1/32000 - and I wouldn't worry about any weird warbling or rolling shutter if it's just for 'stills'

Which Fuji did you consider? I have been really impressed with the X-H1, I would say going on many reviews and comparisons it outshines the older Sony FF bodies in many ways, inc ISO performance - A7II and previous
 
The a6400 has a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 too, very frustrating at times!
 
Cagey75 said:
Does it not have electronic shutter? with the G80 I could go to 1/16000, some cameras can do 1/32000 - and I wouldn't worry about any weird warbling or rolling shutter if it's just for 'stills'

Which Fuji did you consider? I have been really impressed with the X-H1, I would say going on many reviews and comparisons it outshines the older Sony FF bodies in many ways, inc ISO performance - A7II and previous
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be electronic but with some cameras that may be the only way to shoot with shutter speeds fast enough to cope with wide apertures on sunny days.

The Fuji was one of the RF style ones.

Is was just a whim, I nearly bought the A6000 and I nearly bought a Fuji. I'd be cautious of the claims Fuji make about outperforming FF as perhaps they just cook their files more resulting in relatively low noise but with the penalties strong NR could bring. It's a while since I downloaded Fuji raws to look at but I do remember thinking they didn't leave MFT trailing all that far behind despite the claims Fuji make. Maybe newer Fuji's move things on a bit but I do think that their claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt and checked.
 
ukaskew said:
The a6400 has a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 too, very frustrating at times!
Click to expand...

This is something I try to remember when I fancy a new toy. The reality is that I found 1/4,000 a PITA with MFT and if I bought another with that limitation I know I'd regret it.

Actually the reality is that I don't need another camera and I shouldn't be looking at them.
 
Apr 29, 2015
woof woof said:
Yes, for me it's a Godsend as I get a CSC with the advantages that brings and I get to play with old lenses at their original FoV and get the focus aids and WYSIWYG etc plus I get good quality AF lenses for when I need to be quicker about it... when I'm with my GF.

I might actually buy an A6000 as I like having a smaller system and I love the constant preview and auto ISO is manual exposure mode which Sony has and MFT does not have. So, I might just end up being completely Sony, a nightmare for you but they seem to be offering what I want in both FF and a smaller CSC package.
Click to expand...

32 minutes ago
woof woof said:
Doesn't have to be electronic but with some cameras that may be the only way to shoot with shutter speeds fast enough to cope with wide apertures on sunny days.

The Fuji was one of the RF style ones.

Is was just a whim, I nearly bought the A6000 and I nearly bought a Fuji. I'd be cautious of the claims Fuji make about outperforming FF as perhaps they just cook their files more resulting in relatively low noise but with the penalties strong NR could bring. It's a while since I downloaded Fuji raws to look at but I do remember thinking they didn't leave MFT trailing all that far behind despite the claims Fuji make. Maybe newer Fuji's move things on a bit but I do think that their claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt and checked.
Click to expand...

Four and a half years! Just bloody buy one and be done with it! :D:D:D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Doesn't have to be electronic but with some cameras that may be the only way to shoot with shutter speeds fast enough to cope with wide apertures on sunny days.

The Fuji was one of the RF style ones.

Is was just a whim, I nearly bought the A6000 and I nearly bought a Fuji. I'd be cautious of the claims Fuji make about outperforming FF as perhaps they just cook their files more resulting in relatively low noise but with the penalties strong NR could bring. It's a while since I downloaded Fuji raws to look at but I do remember thinking they didn't leave MFT trailing all that far behind despite the claims Fuji make. Maybe newer Fuji's move things on a bit but I do think that their claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt and checked.
Click to expand...

It was on dpr's image comparison software, I was judging by eye and really surprised. I was comparing the H1 to the R, 7III and 7R2, only the III seemed to beat it and at that only by a stop at the very most. People claim all the time that Fuji are tricking us somehow, without any evidence, they're not, they just use a different iso system. I don't know the technicalities but neither way is wrong.
 
Cagey75 said:
It was on dpr's image comparison software, I was judging by eye and really surprised. I was comparing the H1 to the R, 7III and 7R2, only the III seemed to beat it and at that only by a stop at the very most. People claim all the time that Fuji are tricking us somehow, without any evidence, they're not, they just use a different iso system. I don't know the technicalities but neither way is wrong.
Click to expand...
Fujis base ISO is 200 while Sony, Nikon, canon use 100 as the native base ISO.
Fuji is not cheating per say they just use an inflated scale.
And X-H1 is not close to rii.
 
nandbytes said:
Fujis base ISO is 200 while Sony, Nikon, canon use 100 as the native base ISO.
Fuji is not cheating per say they just use an inflated scale.
And X-H1 is not close to rii.
Click to expand...

It is very close, unless my eyes are tricking me.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.14603875257968343&y=-0.9997894456289977

I was checking only cameras I'm interested in, I expected the 7R2 to blow it away beyond 1600 tbh. Maybe I'm being tricked I don't know, but I can only go by the numbers they offer. The reason I checked to begin with was because I was taking group shots at a party last week and had no flash. Shot between 3200 and 6400, where i rarely ever venture, and was pleasantly surprised how clean the images were to start, and how easy it was to clean them up further in post, so I went and looked this up. Even if in real world use the 7R2 is much better, I'm still happy enough that the Fuji holds up pretty well.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
It is very close, unless my eyes are tricking me.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.14603875257968343&y=-0.9997894456289977

I was checking only cameras I'm interested in, I expected the 7R2 to blow it away beyond 1600 tbh. Maybe I'm being tricked I don't know, but I can only go by the numbers they offer. The reason I checked to begin with was because I was taking group shots at a party last week and had no flash. Shot between 3200 and 6400, where i rarely ever venture, and was pleasantly surprised how clean the images were to start, and how easy it was to clean them up further in post, so I went and looked this up. Even if in real world use the 7R2 is much better, I'm still happy enough that the Fuji holds up pretty well.
Click to expand...
As I said Fuji ISO is 1 stop inflated. You'd have to compare iso 6400 on Sony/Nikon/canon to ISO 12800 on Fuji.

Fuji holds up pretty well but not to the level of FF. It is on the level of other APS-C bodies from same generation. Fuji don't have some physics defying magic dust they sprinkle over the sensors they buy from Sony ;)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
As I said Fuji ISO is 1 stop inflated. You'd have to compare iso 6400 on Sony/Nikon/canon to ISO 12800 on Fuji.
Click to expand...

Just did that there, still looks good to me :) in the end that's all that matters innit? That it performs very nicely within my limits. Where the FF sensor will absolutely win out is DR, but the Fuji has also impressed me on that front too, I can push the files pretty aggressively where needed.
 
Cagey75 said:
Just did that there, still looks good to me :) in the end that's all that matters innit? That it performs very nicely within my limits. Where the FF sensor will absolutely win out is DR, but the Fuji has also impressed me on that front too, I can push the files pretty aggressively where needed.
Click to expand...
Indeed Fuji are pretty good. It's just a Sony sensor with Fujis xtras. Sony are still using that sensor in their latest body. Not sure why they didn't use the one in X-T3. May be the Sony sensor division which is a separate business has some early access clause.
 
nandbytes said:
Indeed Fuji are pretty good. It's just a Sony sensor with Fujis xtras. Sony are still using that sensor in their latest body. Not sure why they didn't use the one in X-T3. May be the Sony sensor division which is a separate business has some early access clause.
Click to expand...

Weirdly the sensor in the H1/T2 has been shown to be slightly better in low light over the T3. The latter kicking it's butt in the AF dept but not for ISO performance.
 
Cagey75 said:
Weirdly the sensor in the H1/T2 has been shown to be slightly better in low light over the T3. The latter kicking it's butt in the AF dept but not for ISO performance.
Click to expand...

I think X-T3 has a slight DR advantage at base ISO. Think what it loses at high ISO it gains in DR at base ISO. I'd still go with X-T3 sensor if I was given a choice. I am sure others would say otherwise, just my preference.
 
nandbytes said:
I think X-T3 has a slight DR advantage at base ISO. Think what it loses at high ISO it gains in DR at base ISO. I'd still go with X-T3 sensor if I was given a choice. I am sure others would say otherwise, just my preference.
Click to expand...
Nah I think most would agree with you there, though there is a few in the Fuji thread who own both and say they prefer the H1. I went more for ergonomics and of course IBIS. AF speed isn't priority for me personally but If the T3 had IBIS I'd have gone with that maybe. I have extended ISO on and do shoot at 100 where possible, I know there's some processing going on there but I find the DR incredible for an APSC, plenty good enough for me at least.
 
Last edited:
Hi guys, anybody has been shooting timelapses with Sony?

I have stumbled on a problem with weird vignetting and color shift with my A6500, but also saw this issue also appears on A7.
Here are the two shots with exactly the same settings and were taken one after another automatically by the camera. This appears only once through the whole timelapse.


 
Cagey75 said:
It was on dpr's image comparison software, I was judging by eye and really surprised. I was comparing the H1 to the R, 7III and 7R2, only the III seemed to beat it and at that only by a stop at the very most. People claim all the time that Fuji are tricking us somehow, without any evidence, they're not, they just use a different iso system. I don't know the technicalities but neither way is wrong.
Click to expand...

It may depend what reviews you read or watch but I seen it said that fuji iso don't match those of others. I suppose if iso's are off as they seem to be with fuji the test is to use the same aperture and shutter speed with a fuji and another make.
 
Mitsuoka said:
Hi guys, anybody has been shooting timelapses with Sony?

I have stumbled on a problem with weird vignetting and color shift with my A6500, but also saw this issue also appears on A7.
Here are the two shots with exactly the same settings and were taken one after another automatically by the camera. This appears only once through the whole timelapse.


Click to expand...

I'd assume you set WB manually? ANd you weren't using Auto ISO or any other auto settings? other than that can't think of a reason for such a shift - been a long time since I did a TL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top