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

michaelg said:
Do you hold that down or the AF-ON? The last video I watched suggested you hold down the AF-ON but I have a feeling that might be for an older model or something. Lenses are great BTW, thanks again!
Click to expand...

If memory serves, whichever button you have assigned to eye af you would need to hold it down for it to maintain continuous eye af. Although this may have changed in the newer bodies. Hopefully you can get it sorted as it’s a really good feature.
 
michaelg said:
Do you hold that down or the AF-ON? The last video I watched suggested you hold down the AF-ON but I have a feeling that might be for an older model or something. Lenses are great BTW, thanks again!
Click to expand...

Holding down AF ON is like half press the shutter, I assign AEL to eye af and leave AF ON as it is. This way I can use AF ON to track a larger object and AEL to find the eye. For each you need to hold it down with your thumb and then press the shutter.
 
addicknchips said:
If memory serves, whichever button you have assigned to eye af you would need to hold it down for it to maintain continuous eye af. Although this may have changed in the newer bodies. Hopefully you can get it sorted as it’s a really good feature.
Click to expand...
Yup, holding down AEL did the trick. For some reason I thought you just turned it on and of with a single press instead of holding it down. Makes much more sense now!
 
Juts reading through the what we don't likes in the DPR review the follow struck me as being rather stupid (the sharpness comment) unfair (rolling shutter / FF / f2.8 zooms because they're mostly like that no matter who makes them / the fully tilting screen because that's very rare,) or idiotic (too many features? really? If the features weren't available wouldn't they whinge even more.)

Here they are...
  • With a sharp lens, the results can be so sharp as to be unflattering
  • Silent shutter could have rolling shutter artifacts
  • Tilting screen doesn't tilt all the way around for selfies
  • Zoom lenses for FE are almost universally large and / or expensive
  • Sony F2.8 zooms are very big and very heavy, negating compact size of camera
  • Sheer volume of features and options can be overwhelming or overkill for some users
I know they have to say something negative but I do think that some points are just extreme nit picking or simply stupid. If they're going to use these things to criticise the A7III I do hope we'll see the same complaints about future Canikons :D

Rant over.

While I'm here, a picture of some trees...

1-DSC09967.jpg

1-DSC09967-N1.jpg
 
woof woof said:
Juts reading through the what we don't likes in the DPR review the follow struck me as being rather stupid (the sharpness comment) unfair (rolling shutter / FF / f2.8 zooms because they're mostly like that no matter who makes them / the fully tilting screen because that's very rare,) or idiotic (too many features? really? If the features weren't available wouldn't they whinge even more.)

Here they are...
  • With a sharp lens, the results can be so sharp as to be unflattering
  • Silent shutter could have rolling shutter artifacts
  • Tilting screen doesn't tilt all the way around for selfies
  • Zoom lenses for FE are almost universally large and / or expensive
  • Sony F2.8 zooms are very big and very heavy, negating compact size of camera
  • Sheer volume of features and options can be overwhelming or overkill for some users
I know they have to say something negative but I do think that some points are just extreme nit picking or simply stupid. If they're going to use these things to criticise the A7III I do hope we'll see the same complaints about future Canikons :D

Rant over.
Click to expand...

I have to agree to some extent that they seem very poor negatives when people should already know about these prior to buying it. :)
Hey its increases the word count in their review :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
I have to agree to some extent that they seem very poor negatives when people should already know about these prior to buying it. :)
Hey its increases the word count in their review :D
Click to expand...

The sharpness and multitude of features comments were IMO particularly idiotic.
 
woof woof said:
Juts reading through the what we don't likes in the DPR review the follow struck me as being rather stupid (the sharpness comment) unfair (rolling shutter / FF / f2.8 zooms because they're mostly like that no matter who makes them / the fully tilting screen because that's very rare,) or idiotic (too many features? really? If the features weren't available wouldn't they whinge even more.)
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part.

woof woof said:
Tilting screen doesn't tilt all the way around for selfies
Click to expand...

I don't like the tilt screen implementation on the Sony, a fully articulating screen is convenient and I really wish Sony would just do it right. Don't get me wrong, I'll take a bad implementation rather than no implementation but it feels silly to have such a versatile device and they miss out something we've had for decades on crappy cheap camcorders.

woof woof said:
Sony F2.8 zooms are very big and very heavy, negating compact size of camera
Click to expand...

This too is stupid, if you want fast convenient glass then this is one of the prices but I would like to have more lightweight options as for some uses I want the best performance and others I'd rather have convenience. Canon gets criticism for this with their EF-M lenses but I can see some merit there.

woof woof said:
Sheer volume of features and options can be overwhelming or overkill for some users
Click to expand...

This is fairly stupid but I kinda understand, it's like complaints about the menu system. Yes it's terrible but so is almost every camera I've used, hunting through pages for a feature is always going to be a poor user experience, if it matters you put it on a custom menu and then you don't need to waste time delving.
 
simonbarker said:
I agree for the most part.
Click to expand...

I don't use my kit to anywhere near it's limits and I don't use most of the new features but I do accept that some do and I'm happy to therefore turn the stuff I don't want off or just ignore it. I'm just amazed that a credible review site lists a multitude of features and options as a negative. Ditto the other stuff but what FF camera has a fully articulating screen and what f2.8 zoom isn't a big fat expensive lump... actually if there is one it'll probably fix one of their whinges, it wont lead to unflatteringly sharp portraits :D

Anyway I've calmed down now.
 
Too sharp? No flipping screen for selfie? Too many options? Wide constantly aperture professional lenses too big for their little arms?


This sounds like a deliberate ploy to stop narcissistic idiots who plan to take selfies with it. In this instance I think they should stick to their iPhones with their beautifying filters. Simple 1 button shoot, can see yourself on the screen with a lens their arms can hold at the end of a selfie stick.


Good job by Sony, sounds perfect to me.


On a serious note, I am sick of people moaning about the size of lenses. Show me a small FF frame auto focus lens with an wide aperture that is smaller than a variable aperture zoom and I’ll show you a flying pig. Even if they can make the flange distance shorter you will lose that gap between the mount at the grip. Just go look at your A7 and imagine if the lens is mounted to the body without the last inch of the mount and tell me where you will put your fingers. So what are you going to do then? Make it a bigger wider body? Then the idiots will moan about mirrorless cameras don’t have a smaller body.

Before they go “oh, Leica’s 50/0.95 lens is tiny”. Sure, did you forget it is manual focus, it is like £10,000 and the Leica body has no grip, it’s flat!

Wide aperture lenses are too big, shock horror…somebody call CNN because this is breaking news.

/sarcastic mode
 
Raymond Lin said:
Too sharp? No flipping screen for selfie? Too many options? Wide constantly aperture professional lenses too big for their little arms?


This sounds like a deliberate ploy to stop narcissistic idiots who plan to take selfies with it. In this instance I think they should stick to their iPhones with their beautifying filters. Simple 1 button shoot, can see yourself on the screen with a lens their arms can hold at the end of a selfie stick.


Good job by Sony, sounds perfect to me.


On a serious note, I am sick of people moaning about the size of lenses. Show me a small FF frame auto focus lens with an wide aperture that is smaller than a variable aperture zoom and I’ll show you a flying pig. Even if they can make the flange distance shorter you will lose that gap between the mount at the grip. Just go look at your A7 and imagine if the lens is mounted to the body without the last inch of the mount and tell me where you will put your fingers. So what are you going to do then? Make it a bigger wider body? Then the idiots will moan about mirrorless cameras don’t have a smaller body.

Before they go “oh, Leica’s 50/0.95 lens is tiny”. Sure, did you forget it is manual focus, it is like £10,000 and the Leica body has no grip, it’s flat!

Wide aperture lenses are too big, shock horror…somebody call CNN because this is breaking news.

/sarcastic mode
Click to expand...

I am one of the idiots that moans that the bodies are too big :D
I much prefer the the first A7 version body which was nice and small/light. Before someone mentions I don't care for IBIS, I moved from a-mount which had IBIS to sony e-mount which didn't have IBIS. So Sony can take their IBIS and shove it...
I am hoping canon/nikon will come out with an A7 sized FF mirrorless. I will be jumping ship if they do... (and of course they need to have decent eye-AF like sony)
 
Raymond Lin said:
Too sharp? No flipping screen for selfie? Too many options? Wide constantly aperture professional lenses too big for their little arms?
Click to expand...

Raymond, it sounds like you're more upset than me... Maybe there's a helpline we can ring.

:D
 
There's a piece over at Luminous Landscape that's worth a read...

"The “Real” Factor – Evolution & Revolution In The Digital World"

Sony gets a mention.

My subscription is up for renewal and I don't think I'll bother as IMO the site is a shadow of what it was before the main guy died and banning me from the forums for having a pop at a precious fan boy was the icing on the cake. For others the small annual fee maybe worth the few good articles worth reading :D
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Too sharp? No flipping screen for selfie? Too many options? Wide constantly aperture professional lenses too big for their little arms?


This sounds like a deliberate ploy to stop narcissistic idiots who plan to take selfies with it. In this instance I think they should stick to their iPhones with their beautifying filters. Simple 1 button shoot, can see yourself on the screen with a lens their arms can hold at the end of a selfie stick.


Good job by Sony, sounds perfect to me.


On a serious note, I am sick of people moaning about the size of lenses. Show me a small FF frame auto focus lens with an wide aperture that is smaller than a variable aperture zoom and I’ll show you a flying pig. Even if they can make the flange distance shorter you will lose that gap between the mount at the grip. Just go look at your A7 and imagine if the lens is mounted to the body without the last inch of the mount and tell me where you will put your fingers. So what are you going to do then? Make it a bigger wider body? Then the idiots will moan about mirrorless cameras don’t have a smaller body.

Before they go “oh, Leica’s 50/0.95 lens is tiny”. Sure, did you forget it is manual focus, it is like £10,000 and the Leica body has no grip, it’s flat!

Wide aperture lenses are too big, shock horror…somebody call CNN because this is breaking news.

/sarcastic mode
Click to expand...
Ha brilliant.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Ha brilliant.
Click to expand...
It's true though... if you really want to see the size advantage of the Sony, compare it to the Fuji X-H1... which looks like a bigger body yet it only has a APS-C sensor inside it......
Sony have packed a lot of technology into the A7 bodies..... :)
 
I want a 35mm lens..

I would be happy with the Sammy 2.8

Why oh why am I considering the Sammy 1.4...
 
trevorbray said:
I want a 35mm lens..

I would be happy with the Sammy 2.8

Why oh why am I considering the Sammy 1.4...
Click to expand...

Because it’s better :p

The question is if it’s worth £700 better.

Wait, you said Sammy not Zeiss, change that to £300.

Tbh, I think it’s worth £300 difference.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Because it’s better :p

The question is if it’s worth £700 better.
Click to expand...

Samyang Raymond

The difference is more like £300

I promised myself to keep the kit a lightweight walkabout...:(
 
nandbytes said:
I am one of the idiots that moans that the bodies are too big :D
I much prefer the the first A7 version body which was nice and small/light. Before someone mentions I don't care for IBIS, I moved from a-mount which had IBIS to sony e-mount which didn't have IBIS. So Sony can take their IBIS and shove it...
I am hoping canon/nikon will come out with an A7 sized FF mirrorless. I will be jumping ship if they do... (and of course they need to have decent eye-AF like sony)
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.
trevorbray said:
I want a 35mm lens..

I would be happy with the Sammy 2.8

Why oh why am I considering the Sammy 1.4...
Click to expand...

i guess depends what your intended purpose for it is. of course the 1.4 is "better" -in some circumstances. but the 2.8 is better if you want something that adds little weight and size to the camera.
 
Can anyone recommend a flash to go with an A7 body. Should I be looking at one of the smaller flashes due to size of body?
 
saul01 said:
Can anyone recommend a flash to go with an A7 body. Should I be looking at one of the smaller flashes due to size of body?
Click to expand...

What do you want to use it for?

If for studio kind of thing, then it doesn't matter how small or big it is - you will need several of them with a trigger plus light stands and brollies/softboxes and other stuff anyway.

For day to day shooting, do you really need a flash? I find that a fast lens and Auto ISO eliminate the need for one. Just learn how to use available (natural or not) light.
 
Last edited:
saul01 said:
Can anyone recommend a flash to go with an A7 body. Should I be looking at one of the smaller flashes due to size of body?
Click to expand...

gunnar said:
What do you want to use it for?

If for studio kind of thing, then it doesn't matter how small or big it is - you will need several of them with a trigger plus light stands and brollies/softboxes and other stuff anyway.

For day to day shooting, do you really need a flash? I find that a fast lens and Auto ISO eliminate the need for one. Just learn how to use available (natural or not) light.
Click to expand...

As Alex has said it really depends on what you want to do with it. And what you want to spend. But here's a kit that covers a lot of uses.

DSC05962.jpg

Godox TT350 for a small carry around flash when you want a bit of fill in close quarters.
Godox/Pixapro AD200 for more power and off camera use.
The TT350 can be used as a trigger/controller for the AD200's or The XProS gives much easier access for controlling all three of them off camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top