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

anybody used the Sigma 30mm 1.4 e mount on a A6000,if so would you say its a good buy or should I be looking at something else.
so far considered this and the Sony 35mm 1.8
thanks
 
anybody used the Sigma 30mm 1.4 e mount on a A6000,if so would you say its a good buy or should I be looking at something else.
so far considered this and the Sony 35mm 1.8
thanks


I know a lot people recommend 35mm/1.8 but IMO it's not worth the hype or money. Makes me think they haven't used this lens at all.

Sigma 30mm/1.4 on the other hand is a beauty. The Zeiss tuoit 32mm/1.8 is very nice too.

Hmmm.... I must be having one of those bash Sony days :D
Don't worry guys no matter how much i bash Sony I will always dislike Fuji more :p
 
I know a lot people recommend 35mm/1.8 but IMO it's not worth the hype or money. Makes me think they haven't used this lens at all.

Sigma 30mm/1.4 on the other hand is a beauty. The Zeiss tuoit 32mm/1.8 is very nice too.

Hmmm.... I must be having one of those bash Sony days :D
Don't worry guys no matter how much i bash Sony I will always dislike Fuji more :p
yes I forgot I had seen the Zeiss also, so I had more or less discounted the 35mm Sony so its between these 2 then :)hmmm
 
well ive decided to try Sony, a bit nervous given past problems with the company's aftersales.
a7r11 arrived a couple of days ago. undecided as of yet what i think. need to use it a bit 1st, but ergonomics are not as good as dslr but it is smaller, the layout will take a bit of getting used to but this just comes down to muscle memory really. watch this space.....
 
well ive decided to try Sony, a bit nervous given past problems with the company's aftersales.
a7r11 arrived a couple of days ago. undecided as of yet what i think. need to use it a bit 1st, but ergonomics are not as good as dslr but it is smaller, the layout will take a bit of getting used to but this just comes down to muscle memory really. watch this space.....

and you must be loving the menu
 
Kind of, AF is missing some usual shots, it struggles with subjects approaching the camera which is annoying, I'll remain positive for now.

AF is a different experience to that of Nikon D750. Vastly for sports and action D750 would come out on top but while shooting people A7RII does have a few tricks you can exploit to get good results.

But give it sometime and you'll get the hang of it. I hope you don't get too annoyed while you are at it ;)
 
its the smaller footprint combined with high res sensor that made my mind up to try the a7r11 really. the dr wasn't as important to me as it is to some, i guess i don't push/recover shadows/highlights as much as others enjoy doing its more a bonus for me. but i wanted in body stabilization as well as the oly is so good in this respect and i would of missed it
 
A7RII isn't as good as oly e-m1ii in terms of stabilisation. But the larger sensor with such high resolution in a small body does make it harder to match a smaller sensor body which is about the same size.
 
Last edited:
How is the feedback of an actual photographer who makes their living taking actual photographs in the actual real world not a fact?
Fact = Something for which proof exists.

Someone's opinion is just that, someone else may have a different opinion. And opinions may not be unbiased, as the person having the opinion may emotionally and financially invested in whatever they have an opinion about. People are less likely to admit to large financial mistakes or problems with what they have spent their money on. If someone knows someone whose opinion they value, then it may mean more to someone than facts. It doesn't make the facts any less true, just to that individual they are not as important that first hand experience of someone they trust and respect.

Most people may not have someone in that situation, and so have to rely on testing, measuring and comparisons, hopefully unbiased reviews, and random internet users experiences, taking into account they their experiences may not be 100% unbiased. ;)

I understand that a graph/chart will give finite detail at all levels but surely photography isn't all about cold numbers?
It is not, unless it is talk of numbers that are facts and measurements, ;) which have hopefully been proved and are repeatable by anyone. :)
 
anybody used the Sigma 30mm 1.4 e mount on a A6000,if so would you say its a good buy or should I be looking at something else.
so far considered this and the Sony 35mm 1.8
thanks
I used the 35mm 1.8 on my A6000 and it's a gem, a real bargain second hand £200ish. Image stabilisation too.

One of the first shots I took with it, the sun was almost in the frame, no flare.

 
Fact = Something for which proof exists.

Someone's opinion is just that, someone else may have a different opinion. And opinions may not be unbiased, as the person having the opinion may emotionally and financially invested in whatever they have an opinion about. People are less likely to admit to large financial mistakes or problems with what they have spent their money on. If someone knows someone whose opinion they value, then it may mean more to someone than facts. It doesn't make the facts any less true, just to that individual they are not as important that first hand experience of someone they trust and respect.

Most people may not have someone in that situation, and so have to rely on testing, measuring and comparisons, hopefully unbiased reviews, and random internet users experiences, taking into account they their experiences may not be 100% unbiased. ;)

It is not, unless it is talk of numbers that are facts and measurements, ;) which have hopefully been proved and are repeatable by anyone. :)

Ok, now I'm really confused...

Fact = Something for which proof exists

My friend stating that he found the files out of the A7 to be much better than the D600 (in his eyes) is fact because it was one person's opinion so is therefore proven? I never mentioned that a graph on a random website stated that the DR for the A7 was 0.3 worse than the D600 (on a chart because it's not noticeable to the eye).

Anyway, my point was that someone found the output from the A7 nicer, and to him, had better dynamic range.
 
Ok, now I'm really confused...

Fact = Something for which proof exists

My friend stating that he found the files out of the A7 to be much better than the D600 (in his eyes) is fact because it was one person's opinion so is therefore proven? I never mentioned that a graph on a random website stated that the DR for the A7 was 0.3 worse than the D600 (on a chart because it's not noticeable to the eye).

Anyway, my point was that someone found the output from the A7 nicer, and to him, had better dynamic range.

Just because Donald Trump says he has more people attending his inauguration is his opinion. It is not a Fact. A photo proves otherwise.

For your friend to "prove" that the A7 has better DR he needs to do better than "IMO" or in this case, in his opinion. He needs to test both cameras side by side, same photo, same time, same conditions, then compare.

Shooting weddings with his Nikon and then shoot a different wedding with another camera later in a different day, in different lighting, different everything, environment etc, that is not really a test.
 
Just because Donald Trump says he has more people attending his inauguration is his opinion. It is not a Fact. A photo proves otherwise.

For your friend to "prove" that the A7 has better DR he needs to do better than "IMO" or in this case, in his opinion. He needs to test both cameras side by side, same photo, same time, same conditions, then compare.

Shooting weddings with his Nikon and then shoot a different wedding with another camera later in a different day, in different lighting, different everything, environment etc, that is not really a test.

As per my original post, he had the D600 and A7 alongside each other in the same studio, shooting the same models, with the same lighting. It really doesn't matter, but there seems to be even more argumentative posts on this thread than usual!

At the end of the day, a photographer has decided that they like the Sony A7 files more that the D600 files. No more, no less, regardless of what a DxO score or any other excel line graph states :0)

Now, let's get back to discussing photography.
 
As per my original post, he had the D600 and A7 alongside each other in the same studio, shooting the same models, with the same lighting. It really doesn't matter, but there seems to be even more argumentative posts on this thread than usual!

At the end of the day, a photographer has decided that they like the Sony A7 files more that the D600 files. No more, no less, regardless of what a DxO score or any other excel line graph states :0)

Now, let's get back to discussing photography.

No one is disputing what he likes, people only disputing the difference between one man's opinion to a test done by people who's jobs are to test these things with charts, controlled measures, limited variables, charts and measuring equipment.

That is a difference here.
 
...test these things with charts, controlled measures, limited variables, charts and measuring equipment.

That is a difference here.

Yes, the difference between a real-world use case in a photographic environment (as I'd imagine the majority of users would use a camera) and a closed/controlled operating theatre environment.

I fully understand that the likes of DxO will report on actual technical abilities of sensors but as photographers, there surely has to be some precedence given to real world utilisation otherwise we would be forever chasing the impossible result.
 
Yes, the difference between a real-world use case in a photographic environment (as I'd imagine the majority of users would use a camera) and a closed/controlled operating theatre environment.

I fully understand that the likes of DxO will report on actual technical abilities of sensors but as photographers, there surely has to be some precedence given to real world utilisation otherwise we would be forever chasing the impossible result.

Stop quoting the term "real world" use like it is the end of the argument, real world use means something that has many variables. The fact that you said real world use it actually throws the argument off track.

DxO reports a lab test shows, the end user us how he uses it and how in interprets it. What he finds might not agree with the test, what do you get? you get 1 man's opinion vs test results. So what does that mean?

It means 1 man's opinion vs test results. That's it. If you can get me 10 other people who come away with the same "feeling" then you might get more weight to the argument, but 1 guy is just hearsay.

Without seeing the images, and I can only take your word (a random on the internet ) on it from your friend (a random of another random)….pardon my scepticism.

You see where I am coming from right?
 
Stop quoting the term "real world" use like it is the end of the argument, real world use means something that has many variables. The fact that you said real world use it actually throws the argument off track.

DxO reports a lab test shows, the end user us how he uses it and how in interprets it. What he finds might not agree with the test, what do you get? you get 1 man's opinion vs test results. So what does that mean?

It means 1 man's opinion vs test results. That's it. If you can get me 10 other people who come away with the same "feeling" then you might get more weight to the argument, but 1 guy is just hearsay.

Without seeing the images, and I can only take your word (a random on the internet ) on it from your friend (a random of another random)….pardon my scepticism.

You see where I am coming from right?

Why does it matter? The comparison on DxO shows (in lab conditions) such a tiny difference between the cameras that, even by their own description, is pretty much impossible to see with the naked eye that it's not so ridiculous for someone looking at the output to feel that one is better than the other for them.

I'm stating, "real world", because how many people actually shoot in the conditions that are used to generate the DxO graphs? This ongoing thread is part of the reason why I (personally, obviously) don't get dragged down with things like DxO scores because the arguments are ridiculous.

If the scores were night and day in favour of the D600 I would agree that the A7 clearly couldn't look better but you have to agree that they're not completely different.

All of this started because I shared a comment from a photographer who said that they felt the output of the A7 had more dynamic range in their given situation than the D600 that they were shooting alongside it. I'm not sure why people have got so worked up over that on a Sony thread?
 
Back
Top