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

T_J_G said:
Really? If they’re overpaid then wedding photographers must be way overpaid.
Click to expand...

TBH I am not sure how anyone can generalise teachers or wedding photographers in to one banding like that. The pay scales for both is so large and varied, I am sure you'll find folks at both side of the spectrum.
 
Looks like someone’s been having a pop at teacher wages, I wonder who.

All I will say is that people that have a pop at teachers generally have no clue what we do on a day to day basis. Also that there is a reason for the massive shortage of teachers in the UK. I think some people forget that to be a teacher you have to have a minimum of a degree and most have either a masters, or some other post grad education, in some cases a PHD.
 
TGphoto said:
Looks like someone’s been having a pop at teacher wages, I wonder who.

All I will say is that people that have a pop at teachers generally have no clue what we do on a day to day basis. Also that there is a reason for the massive shortage of teachers in the UK. I think some people forget that to be a teacher you have to have a minimum of a degree and most have either a masters, or some other post grad education, in some cases a PHD.
Click to expand...

So do many other professionals who don't keep trying to impress everyone with how learned they are.
Please don't start about teachers and teaching, picking on the wrong person because I know exactly what goes on
 
TGphoto said:
Looks like someone’s been having a pop at teacher wages, I wonder who.

All I will say is that people that have a pop at teachers generally have no clue what we do on a day to day basis. Also that there is a reason for the massive shortage of teachers in the UK. I think some people forget that to be a teacher you have to have a minimum of a degree and most have either a masters, or some other post grad education, in some cases a PHD.
Click to expand...

I'd love to teach but the way things are run and the unnecessary high entry bars with crap salary put me off.
 
04fa8e9b6879ce4580622cad893c9937ad4581-wm.jpg
 
Code PROSPER10 gives 10% off on eBay.

Minimum spend £100, max discount £50.

Works on E-infinity eBay store for example.
 
Lensrentals have a teardown of the new RF 70-200mm/2.8 on their blog:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

Also for those trying to convince us this lens is a better hoover than Henry, this is what has to Roger say:
"Some of you HATE extending barrel lenses. That’s cool; don’t get one. Some of you like to call them dust pumps. That’s cool, too, although it’s incorrect. (We take care of over 20,000 lenses. The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all.)"

Canon may suck at lot of things but designing lenses isn't one of them. I think they are the best brand in terms of lens designing just as Sony is for sensors.
 
nandbytes said:
Lensrentals have a teardown of the new RF 70-200mm/2.8 on their blog:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

Also for those trying to convince us this lens is a better hoover than Henry, this is what has to Roger say:
"Some of you HATE extending barrel lenses. That’s cool; don’t get one. Some of you like to call them dust pumps. That’s cool, too, although it’s incorrect. (We take care of over 20,000 lenses. The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all.)"

Canon may suck at lot of things but designing lenses isn't one of them. I think they are the best brand in terms of lens designing just as Sony is for sensors.
Click to expand...
Sony are pretty good at lens designs as well but yes canon are better
 
nandbytes said:
Lensrentals have a teardown of the new RF 70-200mm/2.8 on their blog:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

Also for those trying to convince us this lens is a better hoover than Henry, this is what has to Roger say:
"Some of you HATE extending barrel lenses. That’s cool; don’t get one. Some of you like to call them dust pumps. That’s cool, too, although it’s incorrect. (We take care of over 20,000 lenses. The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all.)"

Canon may suck at lot of things but designing lenses isn't one of them. I think they are the best brand in terms of lens designing just as Sony is for sensors.
Click to expand...

I love the bit about "people want metal lenses", OK Boomer lol

There is a guy here that I put on ignore last year which insists that is a sign of a great lens, how it feels in the hand (but not how it is built inside), and he claims he is an engineer too (I find that suspect), I forgot his name now, been that long.

Should really link him to this teardown.

"
There are some of you who are going to scream about how you want metal lenses. OK, Boomer, go get you a metal lens and show us how strong you are. On every other 70-200mm lenses we’ve disassembled, there are multiple metal parts that we can bend with our fingers. There’s not a damn thing we can bend with our fingers in this bad boy. This is going to hold up better than a metal lens, it’s probably sturdier, and it weighs far less.

I haven’t tested it optically. I haven’t even shot with it. But after looking inside it, I want it. The engineering in here is pure art. And even I, the person who mocks construction at any chance I get, can’t find anything to complain about.

Like Montel (sort of) said: This is how you do it! "
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
OK, Boomer, go get you a metal lens and show us how strong you are. On every other 70-200mm lenses we’ve disassembled, there are multiple metal parts that we can bend with our fingers. There’s not a damn thing we can bend with our fingers in this bad boy.
Click to expand...

I've got a lot of time for the lensrental people and the info they share, but that bit (above) is a sloppy bit of confirmation bias. An internal part (metal, plastic or made of pure unicorn horn) may be perfectly engineered for longevity in service, very high MTBF and yet still bend easily when removed and subjected to forces for which it wasn't designed. So what?

(Not promoting metal-vs-plastic, as it's also true that plastic might be perfectly suitable for many parts of a lens.)
 
goldtop said:
I've got a lot of time for the lensrental people and the info they share, but that bit (above) is a sloppy bit of confirmation bias. An internal part (metal, plastic or made of pure unicorn horn) may be perfectly engineered for longevity in service, very high MTBF and yet still bend easily when removed and subjected to forces for which it wasn't designed. So what?

(Not promoting metal-vs-plastic, as it's also true that plastic might be perfectly suitable for many parts of a lens.)
Click to expand...

Between the 3 of us (one being Lens Rentals), only 1 of us has tear down lenses.

I know who I trust and it isn't me.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I love the bit about "people want metal lenses", OK Boomer lol
Click to expand...

Back in the late 70's I was an electrician mostly in the industrial construction and back then we had some plastic kit you could sit and hit with a hammer all day long or run over it with a truck and it'd be fine. Some metal housed stuff would just crumple like a coke tin if you ran over it. How useless is that? I can only imagine that plastics have got better in more modern times. However, people like to feel something and decide that it's well made and a quality bit of kit.

One thing I can't stand is people who slam car doors and make quality judgements on the sound it makes.
 
Just for fun. A 55mm f1.8 review...

https://www.onportraits.com/sony-55mm-f18-review/

I walked to the shops by myself yesterday so I took my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and took about 50 pictures. I think manual lenses can be more involving if you have the time to MF, they're my quality time by myself choice but if I'm with someone else I'll probably got AF so I'm not so much the geek with the camera holding everyone up.
 
Last edited:
I've said before it's technically the best 50mm-ish lens I've ever used. Some seem to knock the bokeh and ca and some say it's clinical. I suppose you can make a case for any of these criticisms but I wouldn't and whilst it's certainly the case that some of my older lenses give a softer and more pictorial look it's a case of the best tool for the job and if you want an AF 55mm that's sharp across the frame from wide open it takes some beating. Maybe it can't be beaten for technical excellence with its combination of focal length, aperture, size and price.

You may know I have the 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8's.

For me the 55mm gets a bit lost between the 35mm with it's close focus ability and the 85mm with its perspective but I suppose if you're not bothered about the close focus ability the 55mm could potentially (almost) replace the other 2 lenses?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Between the 3 of us (one being Lens Rentals), only 1 of us has tear down lenses.
Click to expand...

Me, either, and I like their videos and blog info. But the bit I quoted shows that LR are playing to the crowd rather than actually talking about the engineering of internal lens parts. Any engineer knows that, for example, you can design a part that is perfectly strong in two dimensions but quite weak in the third. This is fine, because it suits the part's role in an assembled device, where it will never encounter a force normal to that third dimension. Then someone comes along (who can't or won't see the wood for the trees), he disassembles the device and finds a part that bends easily in that one dimension between his fingers, and he says it's de facto poor engineering. That's BS.

From what you said above, you may have no time for engineers, but engineering is not about making things unnecessarily strong/heavy/etc.
 
woof woof said:
One thing I can't stand is people who slam car doors and make quality judgements on the sound it makes.
Click to expand...

I used to have a Fiat X1/9 and the sound you heard when slamming the door shut was a piece of trim falling off on the other side of the car!
 
goldtop said:
Me, either, and I like their videos and blog info. But the bit I quoted shows that LR are playing to the crowd rather than actually talking about the engineering of internal lens parts. Any engineer knows that, for example, you can design a part that is perfectly strong in two dimensions but quite weak in the third. This is fine, because it suits the part's role in an assembled device, where it will never encounter a force normal to that third dimension. Then someone comes along (who can't or won't see the wood for the trees), he disassembles the device and finds a part that bends easily in that one dimension between his fingers, and he says it's de facto poor engineering. That's BS.

From what you said above, you may have no time for engineers, but engineering is not about making things unnecessarily strong/heavy/etc.
Click to expand...

I have time for engineers, and in this case they went into detail why this Canon lens is well made, there is lots of photos and text to support what they said in a paragraph. So it wasn’t written like fluff, it is a conclusion of a detail teardown.

You may have a problem with that sentence, I don’t, because to me it is supported by evidence.
 
goldtop said:
From what you said above, you may have no time for engineers, but engineering is not about making things unnecessarily strong/heavy/etc.
Click to expand...

A component in a lens is going to be subject to the normal movement and forces of use and potentially strains and knocks, all over time. So there's that. But none of this might matter if it looks or feels poorly made or even if it has the wrong badge. In my DSLR days I knew someone like that who'd write off a lens on how it looked and felt in hand.

goldtop said:
I used to have a Fiat X1/9 and the sound you heard when slamming the door shut was a piece of trim falling off on the other side of the car!
Click to expand...

That's a perfectly good example of real world quality/lack of. I approve of the door slam test in that application :D
 
Fix It Again Tomorrow
 
I remember sitting in a black one in a showroom when I was a teenager and thinking "WoW."

I got my first sports car at 21 or maybe 22. A rubber bumper MG Midget.

RlXQC8B.jpg


I wonder where it is now. I expect it was crapped years ago.
 
woof woof said:
I remember sitting in a black one in a showroom when I was a teenager and thinking "WoW."

I got my first sports car at 21 or maybe 22. A rubber bumper MG Midget.

RlXQC8B.jpg


I wonder where it is now. I expect it was crapped years ago.
Click to expand...

That looks like it was taken on a Canon lens..... proper sharp :D lol
 
haha.

I can't remember what I took it with, either my Kodak Instamatic 36 or a Jessops Quickshot, both fixed focus cameras. That picture is possibly softer as it was digitised by someone at work from a print. I have a larger film one framed and it looks nice.

I got my first SLR later when I had money to burn when I went from being a bench engineer to field service and you got more money doing that. I used to buy myself something every month and eventually I got to camera on the list and got a Nikon which I kept for a long time, until I went digital with a Fuji.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
haha.

I can't remember what I took it with, either my Kodak Instamatic 36 or a Jessops Quickshot, both fixed focus cameras. That picture is possibly softer as it was digitised by someone at work from a print. I have a larger film one framed and it looks nice.

I got my first SLR later when I had money to burn when I went from being a bench engineer to field service and you got more money doing that. I used to buy myself something every month and eventually I got to camera on the list and got a Nikon which I kept for a long time, until I went digital with a Fuji.
Click to expand...
My first digital camera was a Kodak EasyShare jobbie.
First proper DSLR was my Nikon D40. :D
First FF body.. Sony A9. Sony A7.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Your first FF body is the Sony A9?
Click to expand...
Oooops slip of the finger... it was the original Sony A9 Sony A7 with the Zeiss 24-70mm f4, 55mm f1.8 and then 70-200mm f4. :D
Sony should really revisit their 24-70mm f4 and try again, as the size of weight was great, IQ was hit and miss due to poor QC / lens variations.
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
Oooops slip of the finger... it was the original Sony A9 with the Zeiss 24-70mm f4, 55mm f1.8 and then 70-200mm f4. :D
Sony should really revisit their 24-70mm f4 and try again, as the size of weight was great, IQ was hit and miss due to poor QC / lens variations.
Click to expand...


You did it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top