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

We moved out to Spain in 2007 and came back in 2009 (our son has special severe needs and while the people out there are brilliant with kids with learning disabilities their schools are exactly the opposite). The Spaniards are on the whole really bad with animals, especially dogs and we got one from one of the many local sanctuaries . He is a german shepard/Husky cross and was found in a bin thrown into a skip along with 5 of his siblings, 3 of which were dead and still had the cords attached.

Anyway we brought him back with us and he's coming up 13 now (which is a very good age for a dog of his size) he's starting to get trouble with his back legs, can't get up the stairs any longer and some other things and I doubt he will see another Xmas ... really not looking forward to that and especially trying to explain it to our son (I honestly think the dog would die protecting him)

Couple of months old (2008)


Finlay by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

Latest photo in August ... still a bloody good looking dog


Finlay by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
How does it compare to your R5 for tracking?
Click to expand...

R6? The Sony Doesn’t appear track as well or when it does it doesn’t grab the face as often. This could well be that I’ve not found the best focus option to use on the Sony, but the canon seemed to hit the face more often. Even the RP with adapter 3rd party glass was very accurate but let down by the FPS rate.

The r4 resolution is really really handy though in terms of what’s still available after a heavy crop.
 
addicknchips said:
R6? The Sony Doesn’t appear track as well or when it does it doesn’t grab the face as often. This could well be that I’ve not found the best focus option to use on the Sony, but the canon seemed to hit the face more often. Even the RP with adapter 3rd party glass was very accurate but let down by the FPS rate.

The r4 resolution is really really handy though in terms of what’s still available after a heavy crop.
Click to expand...
I've found the A7RIV struggles with dogs running towards the camera. I've found having a larger AF point helps a lot.
 
A different lens has peaked my interest in the wide angle range.
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 DG DN, rather than the Sony 20mm f1.8.
I'd always want something like a 14mm anyway so seems sensible to get one lens to do both.
I was originally thinking the 20 F1.8 and a Samyang 14mm. Certainly from a cost basis the Sigma is a good choice, just need to decide if the quality is worth it rather than two primes.

Why is it always such a difficult thing to pick lenses. You can almost see a use for having them all.
 
addicknchips said:
R6? The Sony Doesn’t appear track as well or when it does it doesn’t grab the face as often. This could well be that I’ve not found the best focus option to use on the Sony, but the canon seemed to hit the face more often. Even the RP with adapter 3rd party glass was very accurate but let down by the FPS rate.

The r4 resolution is really really handy though in terms of what’s still available after a heavy crop.
Click to expand...

Ah thought you had the R5. With animals I am too finding that while it's great at tracking a subject it may not necessarily be thier face. Same issue with birds. Half the time the wings are in focus.
 
Thinking..... which is dangerous for me :cool:

Could keep the A9 and get a Fuji XT-4 for video, I’d only need one Fuji lens.

This solution would allow me to continue taking out of focus seagull shots with no compromise:)
 
robj20 said:
A different lens has peaked my interest in the wide angle range.
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 DG DN, rather than the Sony 20mm f1.8.
I'd always want something like a 14mm anyway so seems sensible to get one lens to do both.
I was originally thinking the 20 F1.8 and a Samyang 14mm. Certainly from a cost basis the Sigma is a good choice, just need to decide if the quality is worth it rather than two primes.

Why is it always such a difficult thing to pick lenses. You can almost see a use for having them all.
Click to expand...
I’ve lusted after the Sigma 14-24 for months but can’t get over how exposed that front element is, the fixed hood and not being able to use standard filters hence I’ve gone for the 20
 
robj20 said:
A different lens has peaked my interest in the wide angle range.
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 DG DN, rather than the Sony 20mm f1.8.
I'd always want something like a 14mm anyway so seems sensible to get one lens to do both.
I was originally thinking the 20 F1.8 and a Samyang 14mm. Certainly from a cost basis the Sigma is a good choice, just need to decide if the quality is worth it rather than two primes.

Why is it always such a difficult thing to pick lenses. You can almost see a use for having them all.
Click to expand...

If you get one that's centered properly the sigma is literally a bunch of primes. It gives my 24GM a run for its money at equal apertures and that's the weakest point of the zoom range!!

The lens isn't all that big but it's very dense and heavy.

I changed from sigma 14-24mm/2.8 to Sony 16-35GM to now Sony 12-24mm f4.
Can't seem to settle one UWA lens... :-/
Before these had laowa 10-18mm and laowa 15mm f2
 
Last edited:
imattersuk said:
I’ve lusted after the Sigma 14-24 for months but can’t get over how exposed that front element is, the fixed hood and not being able to use standard filters hence I’ve gone for the 20
Click to expand...
I've never really used filters so that's not an issue for me.
It's just another lens to consider.
 
imattersuk said:
Thinking..... which is dangerous for me :cool:

Could keep the A9 and get a Fuji XT-4 for video, I’d only need one Fuji lens.

This solution would allow me to continue taking out of focus seagull shots with no compromise:)
Click to expand...

Why not video with the A9 but even if there's a good reason not to can't you get another Sony to do video with?

IMO restricting yourself to just one lens with the Fuji might be difficult and sooner or later you might just be able to justify another... and before you know it you've got a second system, even if only a mini second system :D In your position I'd think about what I really want to achieve and why that can't be achieved with the A9 and perhaps also what I could buy from Sony for the price of that XT-4 and lens as if you can keep it in the Sony family you'll have the advantage of one common lens mount.
 
Last edited:
trevorbray said:
Downloaded some colour profiles for the A7Riv
Just a grab, processed in Photoshop after applying the profile in Lightroom.
This is the portrait profile/
Click to expand...

Looks good to me. Are you happy? Does this save time faffing about with sliders in PS?
 
imattersuk said:
I’ve lusted after the Sigma 14-24 for months but can’t get over how exposed that front element is, the fixed hood and not being able to use standard filters hence I’ve gone for the 20
Click to expand...

I had the 12-24mm which I assume has similar issues. All I can say is that in years of ownership and regular use I never managed to damage the front element but the filter thing could be a problem for some people. The 12-24mm did have one of those funny two part bucket lens hood things which enabled filter use at longer settings and if the 14-24m has something similar that's a partial work around for some and there's always the possibility of rigging something with card and blutack :D

I hope you enjoy the 20mm :D I think it's a very good lens.
 
woof woof said:
Why not video with the A9 but even if there's a good reason not to can't you get another Sony to do video with?

IMO restricting yourself to just one lens with the Fuji might be difficult and sooner or later you might just be able to justify another... and before you know it you've got a second system, even if only a mini second system :D In your position I'd think about what I really want to achieve and why that can't be achieved with the A9 and perhaps also what I could buy from Sony for the price of that XT-4 and lens as if you can keep it in the Sony family you'll have the advantage of one common lens mount.
Click to expand...
Think it's fair to say the Fuji will give better results on video than any Sony except maybe the Siii which is way too expensive for me.
 
I must have missed this...

www.dpreview.com

Field review: Sigma 35mm F2 DG DN

Sigma's 35mm F2 DG DN designed specifically for mirrorless cameras is a compact, well-built lens that produces lovely images. Is it a good fit for you? Find out in our field review.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

I was really keen on getting this lens and maybe the 65mm too but I've cooled now and apart from the lovely build what would this offer over the Sony 35mm f1.8 I already have? The build plus the arguably better rendering reported by some could be enough but I'm not desperate to buy this lens now.

There's a thread on this 35mm and the similarly built 24 and 65mm here...


Anyone planning on getting one of these? 24, 35 or 65mm?
 
imattersuk said:
Think it's fair to say the Fuji will give better results on video than any Sony except maybe the Siii which is way too expensive for me.
Click to expand...

I'm not into vid at all so I know nothing but why? Wont an A7III be good enough?
 
woof woof said:
I had the 12-24mm which I assume has similar issues. All I can say is that in years of ownership and regular use I never managed to damage the front element but the filter thing could be a problem for some people. The 12-24mm did have one of those funny two part bucket lens hood things which enabled filter use at longer settings and if the 14-24m has something similar that's a partial work around for some and there's always the possibility of rigging something with card and blutack :D

I hope you enjoy the 20mm :D I think it's a very good lens.
Click to expand...
The sigma accepts rear filters, so that's an option. Could easily put an ND in for instance, just not that easy to change. I try to limit changing lenses out and about if I can.

I do really like the look of the new Sigma lenses I think I might replace my 35 f2.8 with the f2. But I still want a really fast lens f1.2 preferably at some point for night time use but could replace my 50mm with that option.

But as always what lenses I like the look of is changing daily.

I basically like the following.
1. A walkabout zoom that does a bit of everything, especially useful for holidays.
2. A compact 35 for a small option to a walkabout lens.
3. A landscape lens.
4. A fast night time lens to compliment option 2.
5. A macro lens.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
The sigma accepts rear filters, so that's an option. Could easily put an ND in for instance, just not that easy to change. I try to limit changing lenses out and about if I can.

I do really like the look of the new Sigma lenses I think I might replace my 35 f2.8 with the f2. But I still want a really fast lens f1.2 preferably at some point for night time use but could replace my 50mm with that option.

But as always what lenses I like the look of is changing daily.
Click to expand...
I researched the rear filters and the general consensus was that the ones that fit weren't great quality.

As for 1.2 the Sigma 35 remains high on my wanted list. The 40mm Sigma 1.4 is also fantastic but even bigger and heavier than the 35 beast.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm not into vid at all so I know nothing but why? Wont an A7III be good enough?
Click to expand...
For me right now yes, but as I hopefully get better and learn how to edit and grade properly it appears the Fuji would give better results.
 
robj20 said:
But as always what lenses I like the look of is changing daily.

I basically like the following.
1. A walkabout zoom that does a bit of everything, especially useful for holidays.
2. A compact 35 for a small option to a walkabout lens.
3. A landscape lens.
4. A fast night time lens to compliment option 2.
5. A macro lens.
Click to expand...

It's good to keep the mind active :) :ROFLMAO:
 
At least the Tamron 28-200 is proving a good buy. Brilliant for the young lad, only criticism is it starting at 28, but that's probably because I'm so used to 24-70.

28 feels like a slightly wider 35, I know that sounds odd because of course it is. But I think when you get to 24 it becomes that much more useful for mild landscape, where as the 28 doesn't. I hope that makes sense, it does in my head.
This is my logic behind the 14-24 it would give me the useful landscape range while 24 can be used as a bit of a do it all, where as 20mm not so much.

God my head hurts trying to decide.
 
robj20 said:
At least the Tamron 28-200 is proving a good buy. Brilliant for the young lad, only criticism is it starting at 28, but that's probably because I'm so used to 24-70.

28 feels like a slightly wider 35, I know that sounds odd because of course it is. But I think when you get to 24 it becomes that much more useful for mild landscape, where as the 28 doesn't. I hope that makes sense, it does in my head.
This is my logic behind the 14-24 it would give me the useful landscape range while 24 can be used as a bit of a do it all, where as 20mm not so much.

God my head hurts trying to decide.
Click to expand...

With the A7C I'd go with the 12-24mm f4 or may be the tamron 17-28mm.
The sigma will make it really front heavy. Don't think you'll enjoy the handling as much
 
nandbytes said:
With the A7C I'd go with the 12-24mm f4 or may be the tamron 17-28mm.
The sigma will make it really front heavy. Don't think you'll enjoy the handling as much
Click to expand...
Tamron is a no go I'd still then want something wider. 16mm wasnt wide enough for me.
The Sony 12-24 f4 from what in reading isn't all that, the f2.8 maybe but that's silly money really.
In the end I may up with separate lenses at least then the 20mm would be nice and light for hiking.
Then when I want uwa a 14, or maybe one of those fancy 9 or Voigtlander 10mm lenses.
 
Last edited:
mstphoto said:
This could be the answer to the filter problem.
I have the Sony 12-24 f4 and considering getting one of these ;)

Sony Alpha Clip-In Filters - Kase Filters UK
Click to expand...

I have been considering these but I have read they can induce some severe field of curvature problems and cause softness in the corners. I made a thread about it here but not many replied so I am not able to get proper idea about what's what.

If you are willing to get a little creative you can use regular 77mm filters with it:

Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G with 77mm regular filters!

www.fredmiranda.com
 
robj20 said:
Tamron is a no go I'd still then want something wider. 16mm wasnt wide enough for me.
The Sony 12-24 f4 from what in reading isn't all that, the f2.8 maybe but that's silly money really.
In the end I may up with separate lenses at least then the 20mm would be nice and light for hiking.
Then when I want uwa a 14, or maybe one of those fancy 9 or Voigtlander 10mm lenses.
Click to expand...

Wider than 12mm is too wide for me :D
Just didn't use it much.
I can see why 17mm may not be wide enough for you.

But if you want 10mm, Loawa 10-18mm is better than the voigtlander 10mm f5.6.

Sony 12-24mm is very good, not sure where the read otherwise. It's not the sharpest tool in the box, the sigma 14-24 is certainly sharper but it's still good enough even on 61mp.

My favourite of the lot has probably been the laowa 15mm f2 and Sony 16-35mm GM. Unfortunately one doesn't zoom and the other is shy of being wide enough. Ideally what I'd want is a 14-30mm like Nikon have made but sharper at f4.
 
That's another thing, there is almost never that perfect lens. I don't mean technically I mean for the user.
Id love the 12-24 f4 if it were as sharp and good value as the sigma.
Actually sigma needs to make an f4 version of the 14-24 to bring the weight down that would do me.
I might get the 20mm and see how I get on, it seems like a well loved lens and when people on the internet almost exclusively have nothing but good things to say it's usually a good sign.
 
robj20 said:
That's another thing, there is almost never that perfect lens. I don't mean technically I mean for the user.
Id love the 12-24 f4 if it were as sharp and good value as the sigma.
Actually sigma needs to make an f4 version of the 14-24 to bring the weight down that would do me.
I might get the 20mm and see how I get on, it seems like a well loved lens and when people on the internet almost exclusively have nothing but good things to say it's usually a good sign.
Click to expand...

Nothing is really as sharp as the sigma. Think you'll be disappointed with many lenses inc. some primes if you use it as the bar or base standard for measuring against.

It's all about the setting expectations I guess... You are happy with the tamron 28-200mm but you could compare it to 24-105mm if you want to make yourself a little unhappy :ROFLMAO:

But if you are happy with the tamron you'll be more than happy with 12-24mm f4 or for that matter most UWA options.
 
nandbytes said:
Nothing is really as sharp as the sigma. Think you'll be disappointed with many lenses inc. some primes if you use it as the bar or base standard for measuring against.

It's all about the setting expectations I guess... You are happy with the tamron 28-200mm but you could compare it to 24-105mm if you want to make yourself a little unhappy :ROFLMAO:

But if you are happy with the tamron you'll be more than happy with 12-24mm f4 or for that matter most UWA options.
Click to expand...
I'm happy with the Tamron as far as it's got a huge range and does okay.
It's far from perfect from a sharpness perspective though, although good for a super zoom.
Something like an uwa short zoom range I expect good things. Especially my landscape lenses I want them to be as sharp as possible, though for a zoom of any type it's expected to be lower than a prime.
The sigma looks great, good price compared to the Sony 12-24. Just the weight really.
I think it's going to be either the sigma zoom out the Sony 20mm and some other uuwa depends if I want the one lens option with weight or the two lens sacrificing the convenience.

Someone needs to invent some glass that doesn't weigh much.
 
robj20 said:
I'm happy with the Tamron as far as it's got a huge range and does okay.
It's far from perfect from a sharpness perspective though, although good for a super zoom.
Something like an uwa short zoom range I expect good things. Especially my landscape lenses I want them to be as sharp as possible, though for a zoom of any type it's expected to be lower than a prime.
The sigma looks great, good price compared to the Sony 12-24. Just the weight really.
I think it's going to be either the sigma zoom out the Sony 20mm and some other uuwa depends if I want the one lens option with weight or the two lens sacrificing the convenience.

Someone needs to invent some glass that doesn't weigh much.
Click to expand...
The new Nikon Z 14-24/2.8 is just as sharp if not sharper and weighs less. But costs like 2.5x more.
 
nandbytes said:
I have been considering these but I have read they can induce some severe field of curvature problems and cause softness in the corners. I made a thread about it here but not many replied so I am not able to get proper idea about what's what.
Click to expand...

I watched an Adam Gibbs vlog on these with none of the faults you mention.
The filters were used on the XT-4 though so whether that makes a difference ??

(20) Kase Clip In Filters/Are they any GOOD? - YouTube
 
A big thumbs up for me surviving the 1st week of juggling being a teaching and trying to work full time with my day job. We’ll have to take one day at a time.

Shot on the sigma 300mm f2.8 on Sony a9.
It can’t really do much with tracking movement but I love the compression it gives for portraits (although we might need walkie talkies to communicate at that distance).

1 week down by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top