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

twist said:
So the ransomware was your fault!
Click to expand...

Haha! Believe it or not (probably), we were in the clear and was touted as how to do it properly. Unfortunately it was mainly the providers (acutes etc) who were reliant upon out of date systems that were hammered the hardest. Years of using IT budgets to fund front line staff in that space.
 
Last edited:
Barrysprout said:
70-200 f4 just arrived, very nice. My major gas attack is over for the moment. So much for my idea of using older lenses!
Click to expand...
You won't be disappointed as its a great lens.... just don't drop it as they have a weak design. :)
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Didn't know the first ff mirrorless camera was out in 2004
Click to expand...

twist said:
You'd never guess the manufacturer either..... Epson... RD1
Click to expand...


Consumer yes, but in my world of machine vision, they go back before that. 1MP Kodak Megaplus circa 1997 (10 bit mono 30FPS), and lower resolution cameras before that as well.
 
dancook said:
What lens can't keep up with the A9?
I assume their top level 24-70 and 70-200 zooms are some of the fastest in terms of AF.
But what about fast primes, 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4 ZA lenses? I remember having the 35mm 1.4 ZA on the A7S and it was a bit slow, but that could have been the body
Click to expand...

35mm/1.4 is pretty fast and accurate with my A7RII. I haven't used 50mm/1.4. I hear the 85mm/1.4 GM is pretty slow but that's the case with all other fast 85mm lenses.

dancook said:
Also would you buy other brand lenses just to adapt? even if you didn't have that system.
Click to expand...

Yes, mainly canon lenses. Never owned a canon DSLR in my life :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
ThinkTank bag or VanGuard case? :D
I bought my 70-200mm f4 when I used to own my original Sony A7... also had the 24-70mm f4 and the 55mm f1.8.
Good little setup that was....
All shot with the Sony A7 and 70-200mm f4.... https://www.flickr.com/photos/rizvanhussain/albums/72157645949808315
The sharpness was good for me. :)
Click to expand...

I've not got the A7 anymore. it lasted a few weeks but was upgraded to the A7Rii during the attack. Got the 24-70 f4 too and the 55 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 35 f2.8, 16-35 f4...:runaway:
 
nandbytes said:
I hear the 85mm/1.4 GM is pretty slow but that's the case with all other fast 85mm lenses.
Click to expand...
It is indeed slow but find it better with the latest firmware mounted on the Sony A9. the Zeiss Batis f1.8 is still faster though.
Like you said, I wouldn't say its any worse than the Nikon and Canon equivalents as all three of them need to move some big bits of glass.
 
Barrysprout said:
I've not got the A7 anymore. it lasted a few weeks but was upgraded to the A7Rii during the attack. Got the 24-70 f4 too and the 55 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 35 f2.8, 16-35 f4...:runaway:
Click to expand...
Excellent, the force is strong with you :D lol.
The AF of the A7R II is vastly superior to the original A7 so it was a good upgrade..... seems you have had a big GAS attack and covered off a big focal range with decent lenses too :D
 
addicknchips said:
@Riz_Guru re your question about the xh1 - no, I’ve just bought a couple of lenses for e mount. Will have one last try with this system before admitting defeat.
Click to expand...

When you give up I’m lookjng for a 24-70 gm lol.

Seriously not sure now though whether the g master will be worth (probably) double the price of the new tamron, which is said to be designed from ground up for emount, as opposed to the sigma.

Shame it’s only 28mm at the wide end.
 
david357 said:
When you give up I’m lookjng for a 24-70 gm lol.

Seriously not sure now though whether the g master will be worth (probably) double the price of the new tamron, which is said to be designed from ground up for emount, as opposed to the sigma.

Shame it’s only 28mm at the wide end.
Click to expand...
You have to factor the weight and size of the G Master too, the Tamron looks a lot lighter and smaller compared to the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 G Master.
I guess the price could big a big factor.... if its price at £1000, you could possibly pickup a G Master for a few hundred more used etc.
 
david357 said:
When you give up I’m lookjng for a 24-70 gm lol.

Seriously not sure now though whether the g master will be worth (probably) double the price of the new tamron, which is said to be designed from ground up for emount, as opposed to the sigma.

Shame it’s only 28mm at the wide end.
Click to expand...

I believe the the 28mm wide end is to keep it compact and light weight. The only reason I hadn't bought the GM was because of the size, so for me while 24mm is much nicer to have the size difference is worth the trade-off
 
I read A9 reviews by wedding photographers, who typically say something like 20 FPS is overkill, but sometimes it's handy for such and such scenario

I just read

"12 images per second at maximum when shooting uncompressed RAW."

So, common place a wedding photographer is probably shooting uncompressed RAW right, and couldn't achieve 20 FPS like this?

- or does everyone shoot compressed?
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I read A9 reviews by wedding photographers, who typically say something like 20 FPS is overkill, but sometimes it's handy for such and such scenario

I just read

"12 images per second at maximum when shooting uncompressed RAW."

So, common place a wedding photographer is probably shooting uncompressed RAW right, and couldn't achieve 20 FPS like this?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on the photographer, however you'd only notice the differences between compressed and uncompressed RAW files if you had to push into the upper limits of the bodies DR.
20 fps is handy for nailing the money shot but not a must.
 
dancook said:
I read A9 reviews by wedding photographers, who typically say something like 20 FPS is overkill, but sometimes it's handy for such and such scenario

I just read

"12 images per second at maximum when shooting uncompressed RAW."

So, common place a wedding photographer is probably shooting uncompressed RAW right, and couldn't achieve 20 FPS like this?

- or does everyone shoot compressed?
Click to expand...
You can shoot at 20fps in uncompressed i believe but it goes down to 12bit
 
Riz_Guru said:
You have to factor the weight and size of the G Master too, the Tamron looks a lot lighter and smaller compared to the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 G Master.
I guess the price could big a big factor.... if its price at £1000, you could possibly pickup a G Master for a few hundred more used etc.
Click to expand...

The tamron should be a lot lighter, I suppose the decision will depend on the tamron price vs sony weight (and possibly used price). I am due a treat, and I get very little use out of the wide end of the 16-35.
 
This A7 III stripe issue is becoming big news....

Bill Claff wrote:

Compared with the A9 the A7III has “Dramatically (3 stops) higher Read Noise in the PDAF blue pixels” :eek:
 
Riz_Guru said:
You have to factor the weight and size of the G Master too, the Tamron looks a lot lighter and smaller compared to the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 G Master.
I guess the price could big a big factor.... if its price at £1000, you could possibly pickup a G Master for a few hundred more used etc.
Click to expand...

That's half the battle with the 24-105, £1200 but a used 24-70 is around £1400.
 
dancook said:
I read A9 reviews by wedding photographers, who typically say something like 20 FPS is overkill, but sometimes it's handy for such and such scenario

I just read

"12 images per second at maximum when shooting uncompressed RAW."

So, common place a wedding photographer is probably shooting uncompressed RAW right, and couldn't achieve 20 FPS like this?

- or does everyone shoot compressed?
Click to expand...

I'd think that it's only really the bouquet shot where you'd really be looking at machine gunning. Unless you seriously screw up your exposure (by 5+ stops) I doubt you will notice any difference at all between compressed/uncompressed raw files (apart from file size and processing time!). I certainly wouldn't see it as a major concern regarding the FPS performance.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Size and weight aside, the 24-70mm f2.8 G Master is a pretty good lens :D
Click to expand...

You have this lens Riz? Thoughts?

chrism_scotland said:
That's half the battle with the 24-105, £1200 but a used 24-70 is around £1400.
Click to expand...

24-105 was in my amazon basket at £1064 until they changed the price :(
I do still miss the 24-70 f2.8 lens on the nikon though, that’s my dilemma!
 
david357 said:
You have this lens Riz? Thoughts?



24-105 was in my amazon basket at £1064 until they changed the price :(
I do still miss the 24-70 f2.8 lens on the nikon though, that’s my dilemma!
Click to expand...

It's a great lens David, easily an equal to any 24-70 I've used before....
 
I may be swayed over to Sony when I can afford the A7RIII. Although that will be some time and there may be a 4 or 5 out by then!!
 
In other news, I can heartily recommend the Peak Design Capture Clip... It's literally changed the way I shoot. Previously I either had my camera in hand, or in the bag - so ready to shoot, or a faff to shoot. With the clip, it's now hands free, but always ready to shoot (I haven't ever used a neck strap on my Sony).

Anyway, carry on with the techno babble - don't forget to put up some pictures ;)
 
Durbs said:
In other news, I can heartily recommend the Peak Design Capture Clip... It's literally changed the way I shoot. Previously I either had my camera in hand, or in the bag - so ready to shoot, or a faff to shoot. With the clip, it's now hands free, but always ready to shoot (I haven't ever used a neck strap on my Sony).

Anyway, carry on with the techno babble - don't forget to put up some pictures ;)
Click to expand...
Try rapid strap. That's my go to
 
So which of these Sony cameras are best for sports? I know they have high FPS but can any of them go toe to toe with say the D500 for sports or is this something that will come in time?

I mean the trouble is I do tracking and follow my subjects through burst mode, which with an EVF may not be as easy?
 
JJ! said:
So which of these Sony cameras are best for sports? I know they have high FPS but can any of them go toe to toe with say the D500 for sports or is this something that will come in time?

I mean the trouble is I do tracking and follow my subjects through burst mode, which with an EVF may not be as easy?
Click to expand...

A9. Jonney can tell you about how it’s changed the game for sports shooters
 
JJ! said:
So which of these Sony cameras are best for sports? I know they have high FPS but can any of them go toe to toe with say the D500 for sports or is this something that will come in time?

I mean the trouble is I do tracking and follow my subjects through burst mode, which with an EVF may not be as easy?
Click to expand...

A9
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top