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

Non Sony interlude...

Man City 6 - 0 Watford.

Not really all that surprising I suppose and Watford shouldn't feel too bad as they got there and City are capable of doing that to almost anyone so there's not even the suggestion of any shame :D

Back to the Sony stuff :D
 
Non Sony interlude...

Man City 6 - 0 Watford.

Not really all that surprising I suppose and Watford shouldn't feel too bad as they got there and City are capable of doing that to almost anyone so there's not even the suggestion of any shame :D

Back to the Sony stuff :D


Nothing they win counts for anything anyway as they have bought all their trophies. Might as well have got them on eBay.
 
Nothing they win counts for anything anyway as they have bought all their trophies. Might as well have got them on eBay.

Well there is that but there should be a level playing field in football (haha) and any European teams that in reality possibly don't comply with the financial rules should be punished but in reality that doesn't seem to always happen.

Anyway, I support Middlesbrough so obviously I don't know much about football.
 
Think I might treat myself a GM
 
That what I need decide on will sell one if mine to part fund.
 
That what I need decide on will sell one if mine to part fund.

I can't think of much camera related stuff I want to buy so thinking of buying a Jag or LR 4x4. A bit more expensive than an old Rokkor but hey-ho.
 
I can't think of much camera related stuff I want to buy so thinking of buying a Jag or LR 4x4. A bit more expensive than an old Rokkor but hey-ho.

I had an an XJ sport for a wee while. Was a total money pit, but felt like a total pimp every time I drove it. :LOL:
 
Nothing they win counts for anything anyway as they have bought all their trophies. Might as well have got them on eBay.
I think you could say that about most clubs who’ve won something in the past decade. City have spent big but it’s not like other top six clubs haven’t also spent ridiculous amounts too. The money in football does ruin it now, sadly that’s down to TV money and bank rolling owners. Nothings going to change, the FA and league associations don’t care. Just look down the leagues at clubs in financial trouble. There are such ex prem clubs now playing in league one or two. There are even a few sizeable clubs sadly playing non league now too. Until money filters down properly nothing is going to change.
 
Last edited:
I know it's in jest, but in hindsight, I do feel I've been suckered a little by the GM Marketing. I started many years ago with Canon, and very standard consumer lenses, and when I finally earned enough to buy some 'L' glass, the difference was significant, so I never looked back and only used 'L' glass by the time I switched to Fuji around 6 years ago. With Fuji, there was no choice, plus the Fuji glass was great, so it was a easy decision, but since switching to Sony at the start of this year, sticking with my Canon mindset, I only bought GM glass:
  • 85/1.4
  • 24-70/2.8
  • 100-400 + 1.4TC
  • 135/1.8
Other than one time, when looking for a very small lens, I bought the Zeiss 35/2.8 off our very own JJ. That has caused me to re-evaluate the need for GM. It's a great lens in terms of image quality, size, weight and cost, and got me thinking that going off old experiences of cheap Canon versus expensive Canon lenses really doesn't make all that much sense.

I'm certainly guilty of being driven in part by FOMO (Fear of missing out) - what if I don't get the 'best', what if I need it, buy cheap buy twice etc and that's something I need to work on, but the reality for me at least is the overall standard of lenses over the past 30+ years has improved significantly, so basing my buying decisions on patterns engrained so long ago is probably a bit silly - not easy to change though!

That said, I don't regret getting the GMs, they'll see me good in the end, but I'm sure they are overkill for me as a hobbyist.
 
I know it's in jest, but in hindsight, I do feel I've been suckered a little by the GM Marketing. I started many years ago with Canon, and very standard consumer lenses, and when I finally earned enough to buy some 'L' glass, the difference was significant, so I never looked back and only used 'L' glass by the time I switched to Fuji around 6 years ago. With Fuji, there was no choice, plus the Fuji glass was great, so it was a easy decision, but since switching to Sony at the start of this year, sticking with my Canon mindset, I only bought GM glass:
  • 85/1.4
  • 24-70/2.8
  • 100-400 + 1.4TC
  • 135/1.8
Other than one time, when looking for a very small lens, I bought the Zeiss 35/2.8 off our very own JJ. That has caused me to re-evaluate the need for GM. It's a great lens in terms of image quality, size, weight and cost, and got me thinking that going off old experiences of cheap Canon versus expensive Canon lenses really doesn't make all that much sense.

I'm certainly guilty of being driven in part by FOMO (Fear of missing out) - what if I don't get the 'best', what if I need it, buy cheap buy twice etc and that's something I need to work on, but the reality for me at least is the overall standard of lenses over the past 30+ years has improved significantly, so basing my buying decisions on patterns engrained so long ago is probably a bit silly - not easy to change though!

That said, I don't regret getting the GMs, they'll see me good in the end, but I'm sure they are overkill for me as a hobbyist.

Depends what you use your gear for I guess, there is no other real alternative option if you want a 100-400 lens unless you are happy to adapt lenses.

If I was just using gear for my own use I probably wouldn't even bother with my A7III's. I am very impressed by the little A6400 I picked up for holidays etc. and would probably be more than happy with it and the few lenses I have for it.

Although in saying that when I was just shooting stuff for myself at one point I had a D700, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and a Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4. Times have moved on now though and even entry level stuff isn't bad at all and my own needs have changed. There is no way in the world I would cart that lot around with me these days just for my own use.
 
Last edited:
I know it's in jest, but in hindsight, I do feel I've been suckered a little by the GM Marketing. I started many years ago with Canon, and very standard consumer lenses, and when I finally earned enough to buy some 'L' glass, the difference was significant, so I never looked back and only used 'L' glass by the time I switched to Fuji around 6 years ago. With Fuji, there was no choice, plus the Fuji glass was great, so it was a easy decision, but since switching to Sony at the start of this year, sticking with my Canon mindset, I only bought GM glass:
  • 85/1.4
  • 24-70/2.8
  • 100-400 + 1.4TC
  • 135/1.8
Other than one time, when looking for a very small lens, I bought the Zeiss 35/2.8 off our very own JJ. That has caused me to re-evaluate the need for GM. It's a great lens in terms of image quality, size, weight and cost, and got me thinking that going off old experiences of cheap Canon versus expensive Canon lenses really doesn't make all that much sense.

I'm certainly guilty of being driven in part by FOMO (Fear of missing out) - what if I don't get the 'best', what if I need it, buy cheap buy twice etc and that's something I need to work on, but the reality for me at least is the overall standard of lenses over the past 30+ years has improved significantly, so basing my buying decisions on patterns engrained so long ago is probably a bit silly - not easy to change though!

That said, I don't regret getting the GMs, they'll see me good in the end, but I'm sure they are overkill for me as a hobbyist.

I did similar with Nikon. I don’t shoot for money, though at one point I had planned/ thought about it, so went out and bought all the kit needed for that. 24-70/70-200/ 85 1.4/ 35 1.4 and 50 1.8. Changed body 4 times (d700-800-800e-750)

Yes they all worked great and made life abit easier when capturing certain images but would anyone be able to tell that I had used a 2k lens over a £500 lens?
Probably not.

Now I know most make money from there photography when having so much expensive kit so it doesn’t affect them so much but was put me off buying kit like that again is the depreciation and loss I took selling them.

I spent about 5k ( just including my last body the d750)on all my kit and have only got absolutely 2k back with the 85 still to sell. That alone cost me £1400 and I can’t shift it for half that currently [emoji21].

I went for the tamron and 85 1.8 to get me started and I see no different (bar a few mm at the wide end)in the tamron compared to my old Nikon that justifies 1k more for the Nikon.
 
I know it's in jest, but in hindsight, I do feel I've been suckered a little by the GM Marketing...


The problem with choosing the 'right' lens is that as the lenses get better quality, the cost to add even more quality goes up significantly.
The difficulty is finding the one which offers the right combination of cost : performance for your budget (and needs).

If you can afford the best (GM) then go for it :)
 
I pop in to read this thread daily. Don't see it as elitist, pros will naturally want f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes and I enjoy your opinions and discussion. I also enjoy seeing the results from use of older lenses, the usual GAS, and cheery banter. Keep hoping loxia users will post photos

Despite the fact I seem to have/create little time to use my kit at the moment, can you tell me if I would notice the difference between the A7ii and A7iii sensors should I upgrade? Or jump to the A7r iii ?
 
Despite the fact I seem to have/create little time to use my kit at the moment, can you tell me if I would notice the difference between the A7ii and A7iii sensors should I upgrade? Or jump to the A7r iii ?


There are a lot of improvements in the new sensor:

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/sony-a7ii-vs-a7iii/

Although the resolution remains roughly the same (24.3MP vs. 24.2MP), the A7 III features a newly developed Exmor R CMOS sensor with BSI (Back-Illuminated) technology. The latter allows for more light collection and Sony claims 15 stops of dynamic range at low sensitivities, which should be more than a 1-stop improvement over the A7 II if we measure it against the DXO rating of 13.6.Furthermore, the new sensor of the A7 mark III has a front-end LSI chip that – just like on the A7r III – doubles the readout speed and increases the processing speed by approximately 1.8x in comparison to the A7 II, with the help of the updated BIONZ X image processor.

According to Sony, the updated image processor should improve colour reproduction of skin tones and nature/landscape images, amongst other things.

After using and testing the A7 III for several months now, we can confirm that it has one of the best full frame sensors on the market. We were surprised to see how well it compares to the more expensive A7R III when it comes to dynamic range and indeed, we noticed that the JPG files have a better colour palette, especially in Portrait model as the dominant yellow tint is gone.

Both cameras can record 14-bit RAW in uncompressed or compressed format.


Of course you'd also notice the huge improvement in autofocus if you that's of interest.
 
Last edited:
Other than one time, when looking for a very small lens, I bought the Zeiss 35/2.8 off our very own JJ. That has caused me to re-evaluate the need for GM.

It seems to me that one needs to check lens quality beforehand to be sure that what you're interested in is of adequate quality for what you need. I'm happy to use a Samyang 35 f2.8 as a 'street' lens because it's tiny and cheap, and for that kind of work is absolutely fine. But when I wanted a general purpose lens I started looking at the Zeiss 24-70 f4 and quickly realised that it simply wasn't of acceptable quality - in order to get similar image quality to the Nikon 28-105 I had been using then I needed the 24-105G.

It's alway good to check both reviews an real world images on Flickr or similar.
 
I pop in to read this thread daily. Don't see it as elitist, pros will naturally want f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes and I enjoy your opinions and discussion. I also enjoy seeing the results from use of older lenses, the usual GAS, and cheery banter. Keep hoping loxia users will post photos

Despite the fact I seem to have/create little time to use my kit at the moment, can you tell me if I would notice the difference between the A7ii and A7iii sensors should I upgrade? Or jump to the A7r iii ?

The A7ii sensor is very similar to the A7i, which was ime a fairly big notch below the D750. Id put the A7iii sensor above the D750 though. Its not just the sensor, the A7iii is just a wonderful camera overall, it does everything incredibly well and since I bought it I haven't felt the need to switch (there is the a9 itch but I don't think it would offer much more for that chunk of cash) and Id just be endlessly culling in post. I switch a lot, but haven't done so since I got my A7iii at launch, so hopefully that provides some sort fo confidence.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the information. I do have a couple of autofocus primes, but was thinking about a tamron zoom for family gatherings, hoping to negotiate a body/lens deal somewhere.
Very tempting, always nice to have a second body.
 
I've got a hankering for the Sony 90mm Macro........
 
A7 and Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.8. I think this lens cost £15.

Hard at work.

0nzRwfK.jpg


Cheap watches, £15 and £17, heavy crops.

CTVP8HQ.jpg


SnCsO6X.jpg


We went out today, the light was dead and it was raining. No keepers :(

JI0hzpO.jpg


ogcjaeN.jpg
 
Last edited:
For someone that generally despises Samyang AF lenses I'm super interested in the 45 1.8 for out and about with the family. Any word on its release ?
 
I be well pls with that mate.

What difference in processing with Sony mate?

I'm not going to get in the good old worms and artefacts debate lol.

What I'm finding is that with the Sony I have been doing more natural colour type photos with the Sony and i'm enjoying it. With the Fuji I tended to go for Instagram type filter photos. There's pros and cons to both systems and you will never find the perfect camera but I am enjoying the Sony.
 
For someone that generally despises Samyang AF lenses I'm super interested in the 45 1.8 for out and about with the family. Any word on its release ?

:ROFLMAO:

You will just buy it, then a week later be on here moaning about it then flog it on again. Why bother?

Although I bought a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for my A6400 and a 45mm equivalent f.o.v isn't too bad to be honest. Have found myself using it more than the other lenses I got for the A6400.
 
Regarding gear, you need to work out whether you:

Are a habitual GAS sufferer; like to frequently have new shiny toys; are a very rare 'content' type; have disposable money.... or not; have to have the best of everything; are a 'content' type; want to be the envy of all your photographic peers and aspire to photography greatness..

Me? I did the cheap upgrade route. Bought. Sold. Bought a bit more... sold a bit more, and lost money in the process. But, I worked out that GM's are best in the end. For everyone that can pick them up. Simples.
 
I'm not going to get in the good old worms and artefacts debate lol.

What I'm finding is that with the Sony I have been doing more natural colour type photos with the Sony and i'm enjoying it. With the Fuji I tended to go for Instagram type filter photos. There's pros and cons to both systems and you will never find the perfect camera but I am enjoying the Sony.

Since you did mention it though, I just switched back to Fuji and find I would really have to force the issue, not seen any problems even using LR yet. Especially with images like you posted [urban] you should never experience those old issues, as it occurred more in landscape/foliage images. I am now more convinced than ever that it is down to how people process, or over cook as they say.
 
Back
Top