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

addicknchips said:
sigma 135mm f1.8 arrived today. its a big old beast (typically sigma) and a good bit heavier than my canon 135mm f2.
looking forward to using it.
Click to expand...

It is supposed to be very good.

saul01 said:
That made me laugh, mainly family pics and looking at getting into portraits a bit more.

Nothing professional just as a hobby for now.
Click to expand...

Easiest way to start, is to use it in manual with auto I.S.O.

In terms of the autofocus settings AF-C and flexible spot small works well.
 
Ok, so with a bit of cash coming my way I've decided to delve into the Sony world once again. I'm probably going to go for a Sony A7III - possibly second hand if I can get a good price. I already have a MC-11 EF-E adaptor which I managed to pick up cheap so it's just a case of finding a basic lens - either a Sony or a Canon lens which works well with my MC-11 which will start my collection and allow me to start using the body and familiarise myself with the menus and custom functionality. Funds will be tight after shelling out for the body, so something offering good bang for my buck - and to start my lens collection off. A good friend who shoots Canon has agreed to lend me some of his lenses until I get my hands on my own collection of Sony lenses next year. With a family trip abroad for a month, it seems the perfect time to start changing over during my down time with a hope to start using it professionally next year. Any recommendations on a cheap prime perhaps. Maybe something with close focusing macro for insects. Maybe a 50mm of some sort.@NewBeetle has given me inspiration to try the Canon f2.8 200mm USM MkII, and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary Canon Mount in the future.
 
Last edited:
gilbouk said:
Ok, so with a bit of cash coming my way I've decided to delve into the Sony world once again. I'm probably going to go for a Sony A7III - possibly second hand if I can get a good price. I already have a MC-11 EF-E adaptor which I managed to pick up cheap so it's just a case of finding a basic lens - either a Sony or a Canon lens which works well with my MC-11 which will start my collection and allow me to start using the body and familiarise myself with the menus and custom functionality. Funds will be tight after shelling out for the body, so something offering good bang for my buck - and to start my lens collection off. A good friend who shoots Canon has agreed to lend me some of his lenses until I get my hands on my own collection of Sony lenses next year. With a family trip abroad for a month, it seems the perfect time to start changing over during my down time with a hope to start using it professionally next year. Any recommendations on a cheap prime perhaps. Maybe something with close focusing macro for insects. Maybe a 50mm of some sort.@NewBeetle has given me inspiration to try the Canon f2.8 200mm USM MkII, and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary Canon Mount in the future.
Click to expand...

There's a Tamron 28-75 for around £600 in the classifieds that would be a good starting point - native mount too, so you get all the AF benefits.
 
woof woof said:
Are they high though? I thought much of it is quite well priced when you look at the competition.
Click to expand...

Not expensive compared to current mirrorless competition, but expensive compared to DSLR that many are used to, especially as the used market is still maturing.
 
ancient_mariner said:
There's a Tamron 28-75 for around £600 in the classifieds that would be a good starting point - native mount too, so you get all the AF benefits.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I'll have my body in time to buy that - and it will probably be outside my budget. I'm thinking about something around the £100-£300 mark
 
pmac said:
I ditched all my Nikon kit and moved to Sony and I’m glad I did.
I have no issue with the Sony ergonomics, I find it no less comfy than my old d750.( though I have small girly hands)
Af is a million times better, lenses are small and lighter for what I’ve got.

I had looked at the Z but as I would be selling all my glass to go native I was put off by the limited selection and what seemed like overly priced glass.

Nikon seems to be the kit that depreciates the most which is also a reason I was put off. the a7iii was released at a lower price,about 8 months before the z6 but is still priced higher.
The z6 has lost £700 in value on a year so when the time came to upgrade it will be worth even less.
It seems that all there lenses have done similar.
So anyone that’s bought into the Z system and bought all the kit at release is well out off pocket now.

I really noticed this when selling all my dslr kit too the canon equivalents though many older held value a lot better.

For a non professional this has to be taken into consideration.


The only reason Nikon seemed to be doing so well the past few years was due to Sony supplying all there sensors ..had they not or if they decided to stop I’m sure Nikon would be pretty screwed.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I've not found Nikon depreciate anymore than any other gear tbh. The worst for me was the Sony Alpha system, I lost a fortune on that :eek:
 
What do A7iiis go for second hand (in good condition)? Too much of a newbie to access the market on here though the offer posted a few pages back (new body for ~£1400 is an absolute steal).
 
gilbouk said:
Not sure if I'll have my body in time to buy that - and it will probably be outside my budget. I'm thinking about something around the £100-£300 mark
Click to expand...

Don’t you shoot weddings?

None of the lenses including the Canon 200mm will be any use at all. Just wait until you have the budget to get the Tamron at least it will be useful.

Adapted lenses aren’t ideal for work.
 
xibinim said:
What do A7iiis go for second hand (in good condition)? Too much of a newbie to access the market on here though the offer posted a few pages back (new body for ~£1400 is an absolute steal).
Click to expand...

Used bodies go for around the same price as a new grey body with warranty.
 
f/2.8 said:
Don’t you shoot weddings?

None of the lenses including the Canon 200mm will be any use at all. Just wait until you have the budget to get the Tamron at least it will be useful.

Adapted lenses aren’t ideal for work.
Click to expand...

More something just to allow me to use the body casually. Probably won't use my Sony until well into next year for work.
 
gilbouk said:
More something just to allow me to use the body casually. Probably won't use my Sony until well into next year for work.
Click to expand...

Why waste money on something that won’t be useful later on?

Just use the adapted lenses your friend offered for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
tamron 70-180mm may not work with TCs :(
canon 200mm can be used with Sony TCs if you have MBV adapter or with canon TCs.
 
f/2.8 said:
Why waste money on something that won’t be useful later on?

Just use the adapted lenses your friend offered for that purpose.
Click to expand...

Not sure he'll lend me his prized lenses for a whole month to take away with me but worth asking. Hear where you are coming from though :)
 
saul01 said:
That made me laugh, mainly family pics and looking at getting into portraits a bit more.

Nothing professional just as a hobby for now.
Click to expand...

I think you should have a look at face/eye detect as I find it frees up brain time so the you can concentrate on composition and when to press the button rather than faffing about moving the focus point about.
 
woof woof said:
I think you should have a look at face/eye detect as I find it frees up brain time so the you can concentrate on composition and when to press the button rather than faffing about moving the focus point about.
Click to expand...

That's my main frustration as a Wedding Photographer is having the spot in the right place at the right time. I find myself in a spontaneous situations trying to grab those magical shots - but constantly battling to move the spot to the right place instead of concentrating more on the composition. Maybe Sony's Face and Eye AF Tech will have the answer
 
Last edited:
gilbouk said:
That's my main frustration as a Wedding Photographer is having the spot in the right place at the right time. I find myself in a spontaneous situations trying to grab those magical shots - but constantly battling to move the spot to the right place instead of concentrating more on the composition. Maybe Sony's Face and Eye AF Tech will have the answer
Click to expand...

Almost certainly. You should see this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noAIMtBf4Ag
 
gilbouk said:
That's my main frustration as a Wedding Photographer is having the spot in the right place at the right time. I find myself in a spontaneous situations trying to grab those magical shots - but constantly battling to move the spot to the right place instead of concentrating more on the composition. Maybe Sony's Face and Eye AF Tech will have the answer
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the main reason wedding folks are moving to Sony. The uncanny eyeAF that just works and gets out of your way allowing you to concentrate on the composition.
This is even better on A9/A7RIV/A6400/6600
 
Last edited:
pmac said:
I ditched all my Nikon kit and moved to Sony and I’m glad I did.
I have no issue with the Sony ergonomics, I find it no less comfy than my old d750.( though I have small girly hands)
Af is a million times better, lenses are small and lighter for what I’ve got.

I had looked at the Z but as I would be selling all my glass to go native I was put off by the limited selection and what seemed like overly priced glass.

Nikon seems to be the kit that depreciates the most which is also a reason I was put off. the a7iii was released at a lower price,about 8 months before the z6 but is still priced higher.
The z6 has lost £700 in value on a year so when the time came to upgrade it will be worth even less.
It seems that all there lenses have done similar.
So anyone that’s bought into the Z system and bought all the kit at release is well out off pocket now.

I really noticed this when selling all my dslr kit too the canon equivalents though many older held value a lot better.

For a non professional this has to be taken into consideration.


The only reason Nikon seemed to be doing so well the past few years was due to Sony supplying all there sensors ..had they not or if they decided to stop I’m sure Nikon would be pretty screwed.
Click to expand...

Each to their own i guess but I've used a Nikon D7500 & a D500 and there's nothing wrong with focus or the ergonomics, although I do prefer the smaller D7500 body. They have a wide range of light weight AF lenses (inc. larger focal length) from 'various' manufacturers that 'dont' need adapters. I'm finding that the Sony's is not giving the same 'get up and go' feeling like the Dslr's and for that matter M4/3 gave me. As for the Nikon Z series, I think it is a big bland mistake.
 
Sony Eye-AF is the best and really does make life easier for all kinds of photography.
I’m holding onto my Sony gear as changing to anything else is just a massive downgrade :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
Sony Eye-AF is the best and really does make life easier for all kinds of photography.
I’m holding onto my Sony gear as changing to anything else is just a massive downgrade :D
Click to expand...
Same conclusion I've reached. I'd end up spending everything I'd make from selling the Sony gear and end up with an inferior set up.
Just waiting for another ebay discount to come up and I'll purchase the 35mm f1.8.
 
gilbouk said:
Not sure if I'll have my body in time to buy that - and it will probably be outside my budget. I'm thinking about something around the £100-£300 mark
Click to expand...

You could do a lot worse than the Samyang 45mm f1.8 - £259 from E-Infinity grey. I keep nearly buying it because although I have a Sony A mount 50 f1.4 on an LA-EA4 adapter, it will give me eye-AF and is sharper across the frame. And I still want to pick up a used Samyang 50 f1.4 for the rendering that gives. Yes, you CAN have too many 50mm lenses. ;)

https://www.e-infin.com/uk/item/3904/samyang_af_45mm_f/1.8_fe_lens_for_sony_e
 
gilbouk said:
Looks like a great lens which isn't as expensive as the Sony 24-70. Definitely on my radar now!!
Click to expand...

I love mine and don’t think I would trade for the Sony version even if I could.

The small size is great and though I do slightly miss the extra 4mm on the wide end it’s not worth £200+ per mm.

Not shot much in low light but from all I have shot it matches or exceeds my old Nikon 24-70 and that was always one of my sharpest and most consistent AF wise out of all my Nikon lenses.
 
pmac said:
I love mine and don’t think I would trade for the Sony version even if I could.

The small size is great and though I do slightly miss the extra 4mm on the wide end it’s not worth £200+ per mm.

Not shot much in low light but from all I have shot it matches or exceeds my old Nikon 24-70 and that was always one of my sharpest and most consistent AF wise out of all my Nikon lenses.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m using currently, great lens the Nikon 24-70
 
Riz_Guru said:
Sony Eye-AF is the best and really does make life easier for all kinds of photography.
I’m holding onto my Sony gear as changing to anything else is just a massive downgrade :D
Click to expand...

Lately it seems to me that many are falling into the trap of dependence on features like eye-AF. It reminds me a lot of when Auto modes became a bit of a crutch for beginners to dslr, and the pros used to sneer at people who used them. Only now it seems it's the pros or advanced enthusiasts who are using the crutch.

Never used eye AF for images to date, never had any problems with eyes or faces being OOF
 
addicknchips said:
sigma 135mm f1.8 arrived today. its a big old beast (typically sigma) and a good bit heavier than my canon 135mm f2.
looking forward to using it.
Click to expand...

Thought you gave up on Sony? Though I think you're very much like me, only with money :ROFLMAO: Whatever suits at the time, and I like that (y)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Lately it seems to me that many are falling into the trap of dependence on features like eye-AF. It reminds me a lot of when Auto modes became a bit of a crutch for beginners to dslr, and the pros used to sneer at people who used them. Only now it seems it's the pros or advanced enthusiasts who are using the crutch.

Never used eye AF for images to date, never had any problems with eyes or faces being OOF
Click to expand...

It's hard to relate to the use of eye-AF until you've used it when implemented well.
If the type of photography you typically do doesn't make use of it then it's not something that would sway a buying decision but if it's something you can make use of it makes sense to have a camera that does it well.

To relate it to something that I have seen you mention before>
Although my Sony has IBIS it's not something which makes a lot of difference to my normal shooting and I wouldn't rule out a camera for purchase that doesn't have it. I've seen you mention in the past that it's something you would look for as it fits with your shooting.
 
Cagey75 said:
Lately it seems to me that many are falling into the trap of dependence on features like eye-AF. It reminds me a lot of when Auto modes became a bit of a crutch for beginners to dslr, and the pros used to sneer at people who used them. Only now it seems it's the pros or advanced enthusiasts who are using the crutch.

Never used eye AF for images to date, never had any problems with eyes or faces being OOF
Click to expand...

Have you tried it? Maybe you have and found it not really relevant to what and how you shoot?

I've never had a problem with eyes/faces being OOF either but they were different pictures. They were posed pictures or they had deep DoF to cover slight misses or they were zone focused again at smaller apertures. Getting consistently good results at wider apertures was difficult if not truly impossible and perhaps involved compromising and not capturing the exact moment you'd have wanted to capture.

I didn't bother with face/eye detect for a long time and then I gave it a go and it was a revelation and really does allow pictures to be taken which couldn't have been taken any other way. Not reliably and consistently so anyway. Specifically it allows fast and accurate focus on the subjects eye/face without the need to use any of the old methods such as moving the focus point (which takes time) or focusing and recomposing (which can lead to the plane of focus not being where you thought it should be) focusing on the body and relying on DoF to get the face sharp (which can be hit and miss) or zone focusing (which only works at smaller apertures.)

Eye/face detect are better than all of these older ways of doing things and allows fast and accurate focus without worrying about where the focus box is. I can't think of a better way of getting candid natural people pictures especially at wide apertures. The only other way to do it would be to zone focus, say with a 28/35mm set to 2/3m-Infin at f5.6/8. That'll get you candid natural shots of the moment you want to capture but they wont be at wider apertures, may not stand up to pixel peeping (which may not matter to you) and they wont be at 85mm.

Even a part time happy snapper like me can get focus on the face/eye with an 85mm at f1.8 with face/eye detect freeing me from worrying about focusing and letting me concentrate on the framing and capturing the moment I want. I really don't see a down side and I don't see this as a crutch as there's simply no other way of doing it as consistently and reliably.

You can see how technology has moved things on if you look at wedding shots. They've gone from posed static wooden/formal looking shots to the more candid natural style we often see today which would have been just about impossible with any RF or SLR and even difficult and inconsistent with DSLR's to date.
 
Last edited:
Barrysprout said:
It's hard to relate to the use of eye-AF until you've used it when implemented well.
If the type of photography you typically do doesn't make use of it then it's not something that would sway a buying decision but if it's something you can make use of it makes sense to have a camera that does it well.

To relate it to something that I have seen you mention before>
Although my Sony has IBIS it's not something which makes a lot of difference to my normal shooting and I wouldn't rule out a camera for purchase that doesn't have it. I've seen you mention in the past that it's something you would look for as it fits with your shooting.
Click to expand...

My A7 only has face detect but my Panasonic MFT has eye and it seems to work well at least with relatively slow normal movement.
 
For once I've actually started to read the manual to get to grips with my camera (A7ii) and I came across this...

Does this mean that my camera also has Eye AF, not had time to check the camera yet so thought I would quickly ask on here.

[84] How to Use Using shooting functions Adjusting the focus Eye AF The camera focuses on the subject's eyes while you keep the button pressed. 1. MENU → (Custom Settings) → [Custom Key Settings] → assign the [Eye AF] function to the desired button. 2. Point the camera at a person's face, and press the button to which you have assigned the [Eye AF] function. 3. Press the shutter button while pressing the button. Note Depending on the circumstances, the camera may not be able to focus on the eyes. In such cases, the camera detects a face and focuses on the face. If the camera cannot detect a person’s face, you cannot use [Eye AF]. Depending on the circumstances, you cannot use [Eye AF], such as when [Focus Mode] is set to [Continuous AF] or [Manual Focus], etc. [Eye AF] may not function in the following situations: When the person is wearing sunglasses. When the front hair covers the person’s eyes. In low-light or back-lit conditions. When the eyes are closed. When the person is in the shade. When the person is out of focus.
 
Last edited:
Barrysprout said:
It's hard to relate to the use of eye-AF until you've used it when implemented well.
If the type of photography you typically do doesn't make use of it then it's not something that would sway a buying decision but if it's something you can make use of it makes sense to have a camera that does it well.

To relate it to something that I have seen you mention before>
Although my Sony has IBIS it's not something which makes a lot of difference to my normal shooting and I wouldn't rule out a camera for purchase that doesn't have it. I've seen you mention in the past that it's something you would look for as it fits with your shooting.
Click to expand...

You got me there I guess, I am a bit IBIS pampered. And true, I have never really used eye-AF because the cameras I've used either didnt have that feature or it was badly implemented. I don't want to have to rely on something like that though ... on top of my IBIS fetish

woof woof said:
Have you tried it? Maybe you have and found it not really relevant to what and how you shoot?

I've never had a problem with eyes/faces being OOF either but they were different pictures. They were posed pictures or they had deep DoF to cover slight misses or they were zone focused again at smaller apertures. Getting consistently good results at wider apertures was difficult if not truly impossible and perhaps involved compromising and not capturing the exact moment you'd have wanted to capture.

I didn't bother with face/eye detect for a long time and then I gave it a go and it was a revelation and really does allow pictures to be taken which couldn't have been taken any other way. Not reliably and consistently so anyway. Specifically it allows fast and accurate focus on the subjects eye/face without the need to use any of the old methods such as moving the focus point (which takes time) or focusing and recomposing (which can lead to the plane of focus not being where you thought it should be) focusing on the body and relying on DoF to get the face sharp (which can be hit and miss) or zone focusing (which only works at smaller apertures.)

Eye/face detect are better than all of these older ways of doing things and allows fast and accurate focus without worrying about where the focus box is. I can't think of a better way of getting candid natural people pictures especially at wide apertures. The only other way to do it would be to zone focus, say with a 28/35mm set to 2/3m-Infin at f5.6/8. That'll get you candid natural shots of the moment you want to capture but they wont be at wider apertures, may not stand up to pixel peeping (which may not matter to you) and they wont be at 85mm.

Even a part time happy snapper like me can get focus on the face/eye with an 85mm at f1.8 with face/eye detect freeing me from worrying about focusing and letting me concentrate on the framing and capturing the moment I want. I really don't see a down side and I don't see this as a crutch as there's simply no other way of doing it as consistently and reliably.

You can see how technology has moved things on if you look at wedding shots. They've gone from posed static wooden/formal looking shots to the more candid natural style we often see today which would have been just about impossible with any RF or SLR and even difficult and inconsistent with DSLR's to date.
Click to expand...


I get all of that, and I'm sure the most up to the minute eye-AF tech is amazing in some ways, but do we 'need' it? I have Face and eye detect on my camera, but I've only ever turned it on to see if it works [it does] - then switched off because I can well manage without it. That's my point. I don't ever have to want to rely on something like that. It's bad enough I'm turned off certain cameras because they don't have IBIS ... makes me feel such a f'ing baby!!
 
Cagey75 said:
You got me there I guess, I am a bit IBIS pampered. And true, I have never really used eye-AF because the cameras I've used either didnt have that feature or it was badly implemented. I don't want to have to rely on something like that though ... on top of my IBIS fetish
Click to expand...

I think it just makes sense to use the tech which works well and is appropriate for what you shoot. IBIS works for you and it's readily available so why shouldn't you take advantage of it?
Nothing I shoot is of any consequence so it's all just a choice of what I get enjoyment from using.
 
Barrysprout said:
Nothing I shoot is of any consequence so it's all just a choice of what I get enjoyment from using.
Click to expand...

100% same here. I think that might be why I don't get the fascination or ultimate 'need' for this eye-AF thing - I personally don't want or need it so I don't understand it. But hey if that's how things are headed ... jaysis we are a pampered lot
 
saul01 said:
For once I've actually started to read the manual to get to grips with my camera (A7ii) and I came across this...

Does this mean that my camera also has Eye AF, not had time to check the camera yet so thought I would quickly ask on here.

[84] How to Use Using shooting functions Adjusting the focus Eye AF The camera focuses on the subject's eyes while you keep the button pressed. 1. MENU → (Custom Settings) → [Custom Key Settings] → assign the [Eye AF] function to the desired button. 2. Point the camera at a person's face, and press the button to which you have assigned the [Eye AF] function. 3. Press the shutter button while pressing the button. Note Depending on the circumstances, the camera may not be able to focus on the eyes. In such cases, the camera detects a face and focuses on the face. If the camera cannot detect a person’s face, you cannot use [Eye AF]. Depending on the circumstances, you cannot use [Eye AF], such as when [Focus Mode] is set to [Continuous AF] or [Manual Focus], etc. [Eye AF] may not function in the following situations: When the person is wearing sunglasses. When the front hair covers the person’s eyes. In low-light or back-lit conditions. When the eyes are closed. When the person is in the shade. When the person is out of focus.
Click to expand...

I think with the A7II eye a.f only works if you are in AF-S, unless they updated that in later firmware,
 
Cagey75 said:
100% same here. I think that might be why I don't get the fascination or ultimate 'need' for this eye-AF thing - I personally don't want or need it so I don't understand it. But hey if that's how things are headed ... jaysis we are a pampered lot
Click to expand...
Its the same as u saying back in the 70's i dont need AF at all, manual focus is king!

Tech moves to make our lifes easier and more to concentrate on the composition and less so on settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top