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

woof woof said:
The rumour site has a picture of the 12-24mm f2.8...

LEAKED image of the new Sony FE 12-24mm F2.8 GM lens! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

I had the Sigma 12-24mm variable aperture lens for Canon DSLR's and for a while it was my most used lens. This new Sony will possibly be better although one thing that impressed about the old Sigma was the lack of distortion. If Sony can beat that this will be a very nice lens.
Click to expand...
I have the f4 version. If this 2.8 version is only slightly heavier, I'll cop it
 
My first lens bought to use on my first DSLR, Canon 300D, was a Sigma 28-300mm. The lens wasn't wide enough on APS-C and it was by modern standards or even by the standards of the time an unremarkable lens but it was a good day out lens and I took pictures I still look at with that lens.

I'd imagine that new Tamron plus a wide aperture prime would cover most of my needs if I could stick to two lenses :D
 
TGphoto said:
Don't know if anyone uses zebras for exposure on the sony bodies but after getting annoyed with some of my images being dark when using the histogram and then importing RAWs to LR, that's the approach I am moving towards. Seemingly you can adjust them to being much more accurate for blown highlights (actual blown highlights) on a raw file, which will provide more wiggle room in the field and a better exposure once back in LR hopefully.

These links seem good:

Sony A7R3 zebras are truly RAW: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

www.dpreview.com

Sony a7R Mark III review

Sony's a7R Mark III shoots 42.4MP files at 10fps and incorporates a robust video feature set, large battery, refined ergonomics and more. It certainly looks impressive, but what is it like to use, and how does it stack up against the rest of the market? Find out in our full review.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
I tried zebras but I find them too distracting.
Click to expand...

Same as Alan. I have tried them several times but MF in backlit scenes they were just too distracting in real life!!
 
Pictures of the Canon R5 are on the various rumour sites, I see it has a top lcd. People seem to like these but I just don't feel the need to have one.

I also don't miss having a fully articulated screen since I sold my last Panasonic mini SLR styled camera. I can see how they can be useful for selfies and bloggers but I seem to be able to live without one. Actually the main use I had for one was to turn the back screen to the body.

It'll be interesting to see if Sony make any changes to the A7x/A9x bodies over the coming years.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Pictures of the Canon R5 are on the various rumour sites, I see it has a top lcd. People seem to like these but I just don't feel the need to have one.

I also don't miss having a fully articulated screen since I sold my last Panasonic mini SLR styled camera. I can see how they can be useful for selfies and bloggers but I seem to be able to live without one. Actually the main use I had for one was to turn the back screen to the body.

It'll be interesting to see if Sony make any changes to the A7x/A9x bodies over the coming years.
Click to expand...

While I can make do with the current screen a fully articulated screen is very helpful for low down, sideways and over the head shots.
I really do miss the screen on Sony A77ii and A99. They are the best articulating screens I have used. Sad that design never made it to e-mount.

Ergonomics and build wise Sony A77II was almost perfect and A7 series is far from it. Surprising how the same company can get it so right and so wrong lol.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Pictures of the Canon R5 are on the various rumour sites, I see it has a top lcd. People seem to like these but I just don't feel the need to have one.

I also don't miss having a fully articulated screen since I sold my last Panasonic mini SLR styled camera. I can see how they can be useful for selfies and bloggers but I seem to be able to live without one. Actually the main use I had for one was to turn the back screen to the body.

It'll be interesting to see if Sony make any changes to the A7x/A9x bodies over the coming years.
Click to expand...

More than a year on, I still miss a top plate LCD - why the hell should I have to keep shifting the camera in order to adjust aperture. With one of those 'PU' leather half-cases the handling is fine, but this is an almost constant source of irritation.

I've never had a fully articulating screen, but if it was a choice between a top plate LCD and articulated screen, I'd still pick the A7 over the D610 every day of the year - a fixed screen is crappy.
 
woof woof said:
Pictures of the Canon R5 are on the various rumour sites, I see it has a top lcd. People seem to like these but I just don't feel the need to have one.

I also don't miss having a fully articulated screen since I sold my last Panasonic mini SLR styled camera. I can see how they can be useful for selfies and bloggers but I seem to be able to live without one. Actually the main use I had for one was to turn the back screen to the body.

It'll be interesting to see if Sony make any changes to the A7x/A9x bodies over the coming years.
Click to expand...
I prefer a top LCD but it's not a biggie for me
nandbytes said:
While I can make do with the current screen a fully articulated screen is very helpful for low down, sideways and over the head shots.
I really do miss the screen on Sony A77ii and A99. They are the best articulating screens I have used. Sad that design never made it to e-mount.

Ergonomics and build wise Sony A77II was almost perfect and A7 series is far from it. Surprising how the same company can get it so right and so wrong lol.
Click to expand...
I've said this several times in the past. I really don't understand why they've never 'caught on' o_O
 
I'll try again later... I was trying to post a couple of pictures but something didn't look right.

A7 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 + No. 4 close up filter. Both very big crops.

loHiSA8.jpg



mXdmcHT.jpg


I think I may have been the only person for miles laying on the lawn taking pictures on a dull, breezy day while it was spotting on. Damn, sharper on my screen.
 
Last edited:
As things are slowly but surely getting back to a bit more normality I am thinking of treating myself to something new.

Been looking closely at the Canon R6 and the RF 50 f/1.2

Nothing around with Sony that tempts me at the moment.
 
The only things tempting me at the moment are the new 35 and 50mm f1.2 SE Voigtlanders.

Oh, and a long zoom.
 
f/2.8 said:
As things are slowly but surely getting back to a bit more normality I am thinking of treating myself to something new.

Been looking closely at the Canon R6 and the RF 50 f/1.2

Nothing around with Sony that tempts me at the moment.
Click to expand...

perhaps wait for A7Siii?

been tempted by R gear myself because EF lenses adapt so well. And if I can get near native-like AF with EF teleprimes that'd be awesome. I cannot afford Sony's 400mm and 600mm primes.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
perhaps wait for A7Siii?

been tempted by R gear myself because EF lenses adapt so well. And if I can get near native-like AF with EF teleprimes that'd be awesome. I cannot afford Sony's 400mm and 600mm primes.
Click to expand...

Not really interested in a video centric camera.

Would like a 50 f/1.2 though and at the moment if you want a.f that means Canon or Nikon when it launches.

Canon seemingly has the closest a.f performance to Sony of the two.

Wouldn't be looking at buying any other lenses for it very happy with Sony for everything else, just fancy a new toy.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Not really interested in a video centric camera.

Would like a 50 f/1.2 though and at the moment that means Canon or Nikon when it launches.

Canon seemingly has the closest a.f performance to Sony of the two.

Wouldn't be looking at buying any other lenses for it very happy with Sony for everything else, just fancy a new toy.
Click to expand...

we'll probably get a 50mm f1.2 eventually either by Sony or Sigma I imagine.
 
nandbytes said:
we'll probably get a 50mm f1.2 eventually either by Sony or Sigma I imagine.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be interested in a huge Sigma 50mm f/1.2 and while there was some talk of a Sony 50 f/1.2 around August last year it hasn't really been mentioned again since.

Sods law of course would be that I buy the Canon and then Sony release there own 50 f/1.2, but a man can only wait for a new toy for so long. :ROFLMAO:
 
Is this just gas?

A while ago I looked at the effect stopping the aperture down from wide open had on pictures and my own little conclusion was that much of the time the cut off point for me was f2.8, meaning that there wasn't a great deal in it other than in the size of bokeh balls from f1.x to f2.x but at f2.8 I could clearly see a difference that mattered to me. Going by my own little test and logic there's not a lot in it between f1.2 and f1.4 or even f1.8 (apart from bokeh balls) and I'd be at sub f2 apertures for only a tiny fraction of pictures anyway.

I have two f1.2's at the moment, an old Rokkor 50mm and a modern Voigtlander 40mm and they're nice things but for me f1.x has only limited appeal. Low light is one thing and the limited dof / bokeh look is another but neither are big deals for me when comparing to f1.2 to f1.4 or even f1.8 apart from the very occasional picture. The one use I have for f1.2 is half to full body people pictures but honestly if I had to make do with f1.4 or f1.8 I doubt anyone else would notice in fact I know they wouldn't. For a pro or serious amateur taking a lot of 1/2 to full body pictures of people I suppose f1.2 makes sense if going for that look and the knowledge it's at f1.2 (not f1.4) but I get tired of the zero dof look pdq. YMMV :D

The only reason I'm looking at the Voigtlander f1.2's is that although I like the 35mm f1.4 it's funky at f1.x with a messy subject and a more tidy and modern look might be nice plus although the 40mm is a sort of do it all it might make more sense to have 35 and 50mm lenses rather than 35 and 40 which are perhaps too close to justify having both.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Is this just gas?

A while ago I looked at the effect stopping the aperture down from wide open had on pictures and my own little conclusion was that much of the time the cut off point for me was f2.8, meaning that there wasn't a great deal in it other than in the size of bokeh balls from f1.x to f2.x but at f2.8 I could clearly see a difference that mattered to me. Going by my own little test and logic there's not a lot in it between f1.2 and f1.4 or even f1.8 (apart from bokeh balls) and I'd be at sub f2 apertures for only a tiny fraction of pictures anyway.

I have two f1.2's at the moment, an old Rokkor 50mm and a modern Voigtlander 40mm and they're nice things but for me f1.x has only limited appeal. Low light is one thing and the limited dof / bokeh look is another but neither are big deals for me when comparing to f1.2 to f1.4 or even f1.8 apart from the very occasional picture. The one use I have for f1.2 is half to full body people pictures but honestly if I had to make do with f1.4 or f1.8 I doubt anyone else would notice in fact I know they wouldn't. For a pro or serious amateur taking a lot of 1/2 to full body pictures of people I suppose f1.2 makes sense if going for that look and the knowledge it's at f1.2 (not f1.4) but I get tired of the zero dof look pdq. YMMV :D

The only reason I'm looking at the Voigtlander f1.2's is that although I like the 35mm f1.4 it's funky at f1.x with a messy subject and a more tidy and modern look might be nice plus although the 40mm is a sort of do it all it might make more sense to have 35 and 50mm lenses rather than 35 and 40 which are perhaps too close to justify having both.
Click to expand...

Little bit of GAS probably, added to feeling like I deserve a new toy after a difficult few months and I do shoot wide open a fair bit so an f/1.2 lens is appealing.

For me I can see the differences between f/1.2 - f/1.4 - f/1.8, clients probably wouldn't notice but I do.

The Canon RF 50 f/1.2 is supposed to be stellar wide open so is quite appealing.

woof woof said:
PS.
Is there no Sony mount AF 50mm f1.2 at the mo?
Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of.
 
I can see the differences it's just that apart from the size of the bokeh balls it doesn't matter all that much to me.

I'm all for new toys though with the only caveat being that I worry about tiring of them after only a short while. One thing against ever wider apertures (apart from the price) is that the lenses get progressively bigger and heavier.

This is one thing I'll have to think about if replacing my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 with a f1.2 (they don't do a more modern e mount f1.4 afaik) as although the f1.4 gives a nervous old lens like look at f1.x (and stopped down I like the look it gives) a lens giving a less funky look at wide apertures is going to be both bigger and heavier and will probably only be better at f1.x to f2.x
 
woof woof said:
I can see the differences it's just that apart from the size of the bokeh balls it doesn't matter all that much to me.

I'm all for new toys though with the only caveat being that I worry about tiring of them after only a short while. One thing against ever wider apertures (apart from the price) is that the lenses get progressively bigger and heavier.

This is one thing I'll have to think about if replacing my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 with a f1.2 (they don't do a more modern e mount f1.4 afaik) as although the f1.4 gives a nervous old lens like look at f1.x (and stopped down I like the look it gives) a lens giving a less funky look at wide apertures is going to be both bigger and heavier and will probably only be better at f1.x to f2.x
Click to expand...

I can deal with some extra weight and size for an f/1.2 lens but I wouldn't want to get much bigger than the planar which for me is too big for a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Things have moved on a lot since that lens was launched though the 24mm f/1.4 for example is very small and light weight, so I think they can do it. The Canon RF 50 1.2 is a decent size considering.
 
f/2.8 said:
I can deal with some extra weight and size for an f/1.2 lens but I wouldn't want to get much bigger than the planar which for me is too big for a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Things have moved on a lot since that lens was launched though the 24mm f/1.4 for example is very small and light weight, so I think they can do it. The Canon RF 50 1.2 is a decent size considering.
Click to expand...
Sigma are making a lot of their lenses too heavy imo, heavy enough that I won't consider them anyway. Shame as they look cracking lenses.
 
snerkler said:
Sigma are making a lot of their lenses too heavy imo, heavy enough that I won't consider them anyway. Shame as they look cracking lenses.
Click to expand...

The size and weight are understandable I suppose as apart from having wide apertures these lenses are just generally very very good across the frame and that often means big and heavy. I'd settle for much less good :D I've always thought I'd like to see primes of the sort of size and quality of old MF Minolta / FD lenses but I would want decent AF. I'd buy lenses like that but I doubt we'll ever see them other than maybe from third parties with dubious AF and/or variable QC and some of the cheaper lenses from Sony seem to have crappy AF systems too.
 
I think it's been discussed before but what's the Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 like compared to the Sony FE 85mm f1.8?
 
snerkler said:
I think it's been discussed before but what's the Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 like compared to the Sony FE 85mm f1.8?
Click to expand...

The Batis is supposed to be better for video. It also doesn’t suffer from banding in backlit situations the way the Sony f/1.8 does.

Other then that they are basically the same lens. A.F speed and I.Q is pretty much identical.
 
I'm all for wide apertures lenses but with advancements in imaging software it's not too much extra effort and time to convert an F1.8 - F2.8 image into a realistic F1.0 to F1.8 image.
Photography is definitely moving away from needing heavy, big and expensive wide apertures lenses.
  • Higher pixel sensors reducing the need for 400mm+ lenses (crop into image)
  • Always ongoing advancements with higher ISO noise control.
  • Improved Software AI and filters allowing for more flexibility in post processing
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
I'm all for wide apertures lenses but with advancements in imaging software it's not too much extra effort and time to convert an F1.8 - F2.8 image into a realistic F1.0 to F1.8 image.
Photography is definitely moving away from needing heavy, big and expensive wide apertures lenses.
  • Higher pixel sensors reducing the need for 400mm+ lenses (crop into image)
  • Always ongoing advancements with higher ISO noise control.
  • Improved Software AI and filters allowing for more flexibility in post processing
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to consistently apply that process to 1,000+ images in the time you need to deliver them, its cheaper to buy the lens and do it properly. Why would you fake it?!

All your points have been posted by many over the years. When the user/client demands the best they will pay for the best.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Good luck trying to consistently apply that process to 1,000+ images in the time you need to deliver them, its cheaper to buy the lens and do it properly. Why would you fake it?!

All your points have been posted by many over the years. When the user/client demands the best they will pay for the best.
Click to expand...

Don’t think they are his points looks like a copy and paste.

Anyway yeah much easier and makes much more sense to do it right in camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top