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

TGphoto said:
Just out of interest what do you take pictures of that would really test a lens? The only thing I’ve seen you post is snaps from walks etc which, I presume is not all you use these expensive cameras for.

Genuine question
Click to expand...
Are landscapes not a good test of sharpness? o_O For me landscapes are one of the best tests for edge to edge sharpness (y)
Cupotea said:
I briefly had a Z7 and the only reason I kept my A7Riii was the uncertainty of the Z system future, eye-AF (Nikon hadn't implemented at the time) and limited lenses at the time. Ergonomically and button wise the Z was leagues ahead (subjectively) and going back to the Sony was very jarring. I find myself having to think about what's where more rather than concentrating on what I'm trying to capture. Weather proofing also concerns me with the A7riii.

The Nikon 24-70 f4 S is also a lovely lens that seemed to produce very pleasing pictures for me. I don't know technically why but I was happier with them than those from my Sony with Tamron 28-75.
Click to expand...
The Z system is still very immature for sure. That being said the roadmap looks great, and of course you've got the whole back catalogue of G lenses to use (y).
nandbytes said:
Always preferred canon, then sony and last nikon personally :)

I have a EOS R colours preset profile in LR that I apply to a lot of my pictures :D
Click to expand...
Colours are always personal. I've always preferred Nikon as they look more natural to me. I know a lot of people rave about Olympus colours, but I have a preset to match my Olympus as closely to Nikon as possible, Olympus are always a little too blue to me somehow, and I don't mean in terms of temp.
gilbouk said:
One thing that’s really attracting me towards Sony is the AF system. I just don’t get a good feeling about AutoFocus set to Continuous Auto on Nikon for fast moving subjects. The feedback through the optical viewfinder suggests the AF is completely missing which isn’t very reassuring.
Click to expand...
What are you referring to with fast moving? I've not found anything yet where my Z7 is lacking, but I've not tried BIF tbh.
 
nandbytes said:
in my experience D850 was still better than my A7RIII (I think you will hear argument both ways but for me with tracking birds I felt D850 gave better hit rate) but supposedly A7RIV is now better than D850. Z6/7 doesn't match any of these bodies.
Click to expand...
I compared the Z7 and D850 side by side and agree the Z7 isn't quite as good. It wasn't far off at all though, and that was using the FTZ adapter on the Z7. Pretty good first attempt that imo. In my eyes the Z's are comparable to the D750 in most scenarios, and it wasn't that long ago we all raving about the D750 ;)
 
snerkler said:
Colours are always personal. I've always preferred Nikon as they look more natural to me. I know a lot of people rave about Olympus colours, but I have a preset to match my .
Click to expand...

After recently digging deep into this I realised no one brand is good for everything either. So if someone tell me brand X is better for colours than brand Y to be that's like saying apple is better than orange lol.

Personally I prefer Fuji for skin tones i.e. people, Canon for landscapes and greens/foliage and Sony for other bits.
 
Fast moving? My A7 can shoot fast moving stuff... easily.

I just set the 35mm lens to f8 and zone focus :D which makes it fast enough to catch a snowball in flight / dog running etc :D

Sorry :D I'll be quiet for a bit now :D
 
snerkler said:
I compared the Z7 and D850 side by side and agree the Z7 isn't quite as good. It wasn't far off at all though, and that was using the FTZ adapter on the Z7. Pretty good first attempt that imo. In my eyes the Z's are comparable to the D750 in most scenarios, and it wasn't that long ago we all raving about the D750 ;)
Click to expand...

definitely not D750 IME. also Z lenses are for some reason not as fast focussing as my FE or F lenses.
 
nandbytes said:
After recently digging deep into this I realised no one brand is good for everything either. So if someone tell me brand X is better for colours than brand Y to be that's like saying apple is better than orange lol.

Personally I prefer Fuji for skin tones i.e. people, Canon for landscapes and greens/foliage and Sony for other bits.
Click to expand...
That's why I always state my preference is for Brand X rather than saying Brand X is better (y) I think an area that Nikon excel in (imo) which helps with colour accuracy is WB, I rarely have to tweak this in post.

I know a lot of people like Canon as they're aesthetically pleasing (which they are) but I prefer colour accuracy. I recently went through a whole load of old photos from when I was growing up and the colours of the film vary massivley and are about as far away from natural as you can imagine :LOL: Makes you realise how lucky we are with the current gear we have (y)
 
nandbytes said:
definitely not D750 IME. also Z lenses are for some reason not as fast focussing as my FE or F lenses.
Click to expand...
I can only speak from my experience, I appreciate others have different experiences (y). I have owned the D750, D850 and now Z7 though, for whatever that's worth ;)
 
snerkler said:
That's why I always state my preference is for Brand X rather than saying Brand X is better (y) I think an area that Nikon excel in (imo) which helps with colour accuracy is WB, I rarely have to tweak this in post.

I know a lot of people like Canon as they're aesthetically pleasing (which they are) but I prefer colour accuracy. I recently went through a whole load of old photos from when I was growing up and the colours of the film vary massivley and are about as far away from natural as you can imagine :LOL: Makes you realise how lucky we are with the current gear we have (y)
Click to expand...

Auto WB can get it wrong but sometimes the result can look lovely.

I agree about film. When I look at some of mine I just cringe.
 
snerkler said:
I can only speak from my experience, I appreciate others have different experiences (y). I have owned the D750, D850 and now Z7 though, for whatever that's worth ;)
Click to expand...

yes I haven't owned any of them but have borrowed them enough times. Still not same as owning I grant you that :)
 
dcash29 said:
Seconded

Maybe sharpest 600 however in my experience the 100-400 was sharper and probably will be with the 1.4 converter but its still to big and white.
Click to expand...

Nope 200-600mm is definitely slightly sharper than 100-400mm+1.4x. the AF is better thanks to 2/3rd stop more light.
Have owned and extensively used all the above.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Nope 200-600mm is definitely slightly sharper than 100-400mm+1.4x. the AF is better to thanks 2/3rd stop more light.
Have owned and extensively used all the above.
Click to expand...
If you're happy carting round a big lens that's fine. All I need to decide is if I can put up with a telephoto prime and move away from Sony
 
dcash29 said:
If you're happy carting round a big lens that's fine. All I need to decide is if I can put up with a telephoto prime and move away from Sony
Click to expand...

Well yes that is the downside of 200-600mm.

There are good reasons to go with either option but sharpness isn't one of them. The differences are small enough to not worry about it either way, both are excellent.
 
Cupotea said:
That's really good to hear Woof Woof. I'm sure 99% of my concern is based on normal cross brand debate, which I try to take with a pinch of salt. I need to stop babying my gear so much!
Click to expand...

With the previous Sony bodies A7RIII, A9 etc they did not fill me with confidence when it came to weather sealing and I know a couple of people who had issues in adverse weather (nothing camera breaking but problems). With my Nikon Cameras (D850's etc) I would have 100% confidence in bad weather and wouldn't think twice about using them in pouring rain etc.

Last week I used my A7RIV in some pretty bad weather up Snowdon and it got soaked and was fine, I had already decided that I would use it no matter what the weather and if it broke so be it, at least I'd know. In this country if you avoid bad weather you miss out on some of the best opportunities and at the end of the day it's pointless worrying just use it, the resale price of the camera is only going one way, and that's down.
 
My comprehensive 100-400mm vs. 200-600mm

Apart from the obvious zoom range differences:
- Smaller and lighter vs. larger and heavier
- Extending zoom mechanism makes it easier to carry/transport when collapsed vs. internal zoom mechanism with standard benefits of internal zoom lenses.
- Longer zoom throw vs. shorter zoom throw
- 0.35x magnification vs. 0.2x magnification
- 2 stabilisation modes vs. 3 stabilisation modes (extra one added for tracking erratic subjects like birds)
- Slightly faster i.e. quicker/snappier to lock-on vs. slightly slower (once locked both do an equally good job of tracking and its down to body+photographer at this point).

Difference in IQ and f-stop at long end is minimal enough to ignore them while making choice between the two.
 
snerkler said:
Are landscapes not a good test of sharpness? o_O For me landscapes are one of the best tests for edge to edge sharpness (y)
The Z system is still very immature for sure. That being said the roadmap looks great, and of course you've got the whole back catalogue of G lenses to use (y).
Colours are always personal. I've always preferred Nikon as they look more natural to me. I know a lot of people rave about Olympus colours, but I have a preset to match my Olympus as closely to Nikon as possible, Olympus are always a little too blue to me somehow, and I don't mean in terms of temp.
What are you referring to with fast moving? I've not found anything yet where my Z7 is lacking, but I've not tried BIF tbh.
Click to expand...

Indoor badly lit sports is were the Sony excels against the mirrorless competition IMO - especially as they have the 2.8 glass required without needing an adaptor. I know the A73 is not classed as a sports camera but I think its a better sports camera than the Z6 in its current form with a 70-200 2.8 + adaptor.

Of course, not everyone shooting the same things so the Z6/Z7 will be a better camera for some people and since I last tried a Z6 there has been a number of firmware updates so maybe its better than it was. But currently, the Sony is a better camera (for me).
 
JJ! said:
Indoor badly lit sports is were the Sony excels against the mirrorless competition IMO - especially as they have the 2.8 glass required without needing an adaptor. I know the A73 is not classed as a sports camera but I think its a better sports camera than the Z6 in its current form with a 70-200 2.8 + adaptor.

Of course, not everyone shooting the same things so the Z6/Z7 will be a better camera for some people and since I last tried a Z6 there has been a number of firmware updates so maybe its better than it was. But currently, the Sony is a better camera (for me).
Click to expand...
I’ve no doubt the Sony is a better camera in terms of AF (y)
Edited as was a numpty
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I’ve no doubt the Sony is a better camera in terms of AF, but that wasn’t my query. You were questioning Rookies comment about sharpness saying that his shots weren’t a good test for sharpness, but I asked why you don’t think landscape is a good test of sharpness? (Y)
Click to expand...

Nope not me? I didn’t ask him once about landscapes or sharpness!
 
JJ! said:
Nope not me? I didn’t ask him once about landscapes or sharpness!
Click to expand...
Sorry my bad, just had a snooze and am confused :oops: :$ edited my post accordingly (y)
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I’d be tempted to clone out the bit of land in the corner because that’s where my eyes is drawn to.
Click to expand...

Cheers, yeah, I see what you mean. I have versions without the near land, but I added this one to give an idea of how far the stack is offshore. Appreciate you commenting, as ever. (y)
 
Diamonddec said:
Cheers, yeah, I see what you mean. I have versions without the near land, but I added this one to give an idea of how far the stack is offshore. Appreciate you commenting, as ever. (y)
Click to expand...

I see that aspect too and I also see the problem without it but with it there, my eyes are drawn to it, and being that thing (I know there’s a name) is the focal point so the lesser of the 2 evil is remove the distraction. Especially when it’s just a tiny bit poking in the corner.
 
Last edited:
The A9 is a friggin nightmare.

At yesterdays wedding we used it along with 3 x A7III's still racked up an impressive 2000 odd images on it.

At todays wedding we used it along with 4 x A7III's and still managed to rack up over 2700 shots on the A9.

It so easy to way overshoot. :ROFLMAO:

It's like an A7III pumped full of steroids.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
The A9 is a friggin nightmare.

At yesterdays wedding we used it along with 3 x A7III's still racked up an impressive 2000 odd images on it.

At todays wedding we used it along with 4 x A7III's and still managed to rack up over 2700 shots on the A9.

It so easy to way overshoot. :ROFLMAO:

It's like an A7III pumped full of steroids.
Click to expand...

Haha I did exactly the same when I had mine shooting equestrian. I came back with so many shots and half of them were just so similar!

Miss the beast though.
 
f/2.8 said:
The A9 is a friggin nightmare.

At yesterdays wedding we used it along with 3 x A7III's still racked up an impressive 2000 odd images on it.

At todays wedding we used it along with 4 x A7III's and still managed to rack up over 2700 shots on the A9.

It so easy to way overshoot. :ROFLMAO:

It's like an A7III pumped full of steroids.
Click to expand...

It's basically like shooting a video at 20fps :D
 
JJ! said:
Haha I did exactly the same when I had mine shooting equestrian. I came back with so many shots and half of them were just so similar!

Miss the beast though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in one way it's great in another though culling is gonna be a right pain, I am gonna have to rain myself in a bit with it.
 
The Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo Lanthar and its price have been officially announced...

https://www.robertwhite.co.uk/voigtlander-50mm-f2-apo-lanthar-aspherical-e-mount-lens.html

I thought it'd be more than that. I'll have to make my mind up if I do want this.

I have the 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2 and have been thinking about the 50mm f1.2 so if I go for either of the 50mm's I suppose something should go as having 35, 40 and 50mm lenses wouldn't make a lot of sense. The one which should go seems to be the 40mm f1.2.

Anyone interested in this 50mm f2?
 
Wow, I shoot like 95% through the EVF, the only time I use the screen is when I'm shooting at ground level and it's too dirty/wet to lay on my belly :D
 
I use the screen a lot more than the evf so much so that I am getting through a full wedding now without having to change batteries.

It makes interacting with the couple a lot easier too.
 
f/2.8 said:
I use the screen a lot more than the evf so much so that I am getting through a full wedding now without having to change batteries.

It makes interacting with the couple a lot easier too.
Click to expand...
Why does the EVF use more battery? o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top