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

meduk1 said:
Annoyingly I'm down the middle with my requirements here! I do display pics on a large 4k TV and print as canvas', so the extra MP helps a lot. Likewise the better AF really appears, one of my pet hates is my number of throwaways due to missing the AF point!

The EVF - agreed not a deal breaker either way, but it is very noticeably better in the R. Argh - decisions decisions!
Click to expand...
If you can afford the R, get the R. Make sure you can also afford expensive fast UHS-II cards also otherwise things will slow down and you won't like it :p

IMO you don't lose a huge lot in terms of AF. It's not like A7RIII AF or frame coverage is bad, just not entire frame.

I went with A7RIII but for me the resolution and pixel shift feature comes in handy.
 
nandbytes said:
If you can afford the R, get the R. Make sure you can also afford expensive fast UHS-II cards also otherwise things will slow down and you won't like it :p

IMO you don't lose a huge lot in terms of AF. It's not like A7RIII AF or frame coverage is bad, just not entire frame.

I went with A7RIII but for me the resolution and pixel shift feature comes in handy.
Click to expand...

I’m still reading up and thinking No rush for a decision as I need to sell some kit before I can purchase. I’m ignoring price as grey price is virtually the same, and over the lifetime I’ll have the camera it doesn’t really factor.

Mega pixels I’m also putting to one side, as I simply don’t think I’ll benefit from it.

That then comes down to better evf vs better af. Having more pics in focus is winning on that front.
 
meduk1 said:
I’m still reading up and thinking No rush for a decision as I need to sell some kit before I can purchase. I’m ignoring price as grey price is virtually the same, and over the lifetime I’ll have the camera it doesn’t really factor.

Mega pixels I’m also putting to one side, as I simply don’t think I’ll benefit from it.

That then comes down to better evf vs better af. Having more pics in focus is winning on that front.
Click to expand...

A better evf won't improve your hit rate.
 
meduk1 said:
I’m still reading up and thinking No rush for a decision as I need to sell some kit before I can purchase. I’m ignoring price as grey price is virtually the same, and over the lifetime I’ll have the camera it doesn’t really factor.

Mega pixels I’m also putting to one side, as I simply don’t think I’ll benefit from it.

That then comes down to better evf vs better af. Having more pics in focus is winning on that front.
Click to expand...

Then get the A7III :D

If you don't appreciate the pixels and pixel shift there is not must point in the getting the A7RIII. I wouldn't get the A7RIII for just the EVF alone.
 
meduk1 said:
Thanks, that’s the best price I’ve seen. Not used them before, I’m presuming there a similar setup to digitalrev, so grey import with warranty provided by them.

Interesting that there lens prices don’t seem much cheaper than normal places
Click to expand...

Better than digital rev in my opinion! I think a very high % of people on here have used them at some point!
 
meduk1 said:
Thanks, that’s the best price I’ve seen. Not used them before, I’m presuming there a similar setup to digitalrev, so grey import with warranty provided by them.

Interesting that there lens prices don’t seem much cheaper than normal places
Click to expand...

Very good seller... Better than DR.
 
Whats the low light high ISO capability of the A7R3 compared to the A73?

It must be poorer with that bloody great 40 odd mp sensor?
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Whats the low light high ISO capability of the A7R3 compared to the A73?

It must be poorer with that bloody great 40 odd mp sensor?
Click to expand...
Going by graphs on photonstophotos not a lot. About 1/3rd stop max.
There isn't much in it to make it a useful deciding factor.

If low light high ISO is your main thing might be worth waiting for A7SIII but end up sacrificing base ISO dynamic range for that.
It's all a compromise which ever way you look at it :D
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised there's not much in it.

Not a deal breaker no but good to know.

I tried some astro the other night at Elan Valley with my M43 gear but it's really not cut out for it.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about any slight noise differences. Many of my pictures are downsized anyway which makes the noise less apparent and if you downsize too you may not see any significant difference.
 
There's a nice little piece here on the creation, rise and persistence of 24x36mm....

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...8/10/the-remarkable-persistence-of-24x36.html

I agree that "full frame" is daft.

Also interesting that the first lens fitted was a 42.5mm.

I'm ok with 3:2 for landscape but I prefer 4:3 for portrait. On the long lens / wide aperture / zero dof cudos issue I do like shallow dof now and again but I do think it's overdone and looking at the pictures I like best from the pioneers and greats few if any are razor thin dof pictures.
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
I'm surprised there's not much in it.

Not a deal breaker no but good to know.

I tried some astro the other night at Elan Valley with my M43 gear but it's really not cut out for it.
Click to expand...

Well you'll probably get better results with m43 if you use their really fast lenses. But those cost a huge lot.

Having said that I have shot night sky successfully with f4 lenses on A7RII.
 
nandbytes said:
Well you'll probably get better results with m43 if you use their really fast lenses. But those cost a huge lot.

Having said that I have shot night sky successfully with f4 lenses on A7RII.
Click to expand...

F1.8 an even f1.4 lenses can be very reasonable both new and especially on the used market but it'll depend on focal length. 17 and 25mm f1.8/f1.4 primes are IMO a bargain for what you get. The wider FoV wide aperture lenses are more expensive but cheaper than some of the FF 24mm f1.4's, the Oly 12mm f2 is IMO a bit of a bargain, maybe.
 
woof woof said:
F1.8 an even f1.4 lenses can be very reasonable both new and especially on the used market but it'll depend on focal length. 17 and 25mm f1.8/f1.4 primes are IMO a bargain for what you get. The wider FoV wide aperture lenses are more expensive but cheaper than some of the FF 24mm f1.4's, the Oly 12mm f2 is IMO a bit of a bargain, maybe.
Click to expand...

Those lenses are not so useful for astrophotography. You'll get better results with a 24mm f2.8 on a recent FF body than with a 12mm f2 on m43.
Panasonic 12mm f1.4 isn't exactly cheap and will only perform as well as a 24mm f2.8 lenses on FF which are cheaper.

I wouldn't buy m43 for astro stuff but if I already had m43 for shooting various other things and wanted to do astro also there are options to do so (and pretty well too).
 
nandbytes said:
Those lenses are not so useful for astrophotography. You'll get better results with a 24mm f2.8 on a recent FF body than with a 12mm f2 on m43.
Panasonic 12mm f1.4 isn't exactly cheap and will only perform as well as a 24mm f2.8 lenses on FF which are cheaper.

I wouldn't buy m43 for astro stuff but if I already had m43 for shooting various other things and wanted to do astro also there are options to do so (and pretty well too).
Click to expand...

They may not be so useful but there are quite a few nice examples on line. I suppose it hangs on what you think is a useful focal length. The point was that there are wide aperture options at pretty decent system costs not that you'll get quality that'll rival the more expensive FF body and lens system. As with other formats the wider you go in FoV and aperture the more expensive it's probably going to be.
 
woof woof said:
They may not be so useful but there are quite a few nice examples on line. I suppose it hangs on what you think is a useful focal length. The point was that there are wide aperture options at pretty decent system costs not that you'll get quality that'll rival the more expensive FF body and lens system. As with other formats the wider you go in FoV and aperture the more expensive it's probably going to be.
Click to expand...

Except with m43 the returns is not worth it for going faster. You might as well go with APS-C/FF.

Compare e-m1ii+25mm/1.2 vs. A7III+FE55 vs. x-t3+35mm f1.4 vs. a6500+touit 32mm/1.8

E-M1II combo doesn't win in size, price or quality. It's pointless buying m43 for going wider in aperture if that's your main use case. There are of course other areas where it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
But Terry already has MFT? Yes? So the question I'd be asking in their place is what can be done with MFT before getting my money out and going for a FF body and lens.

As I've often said, whenever I think the kit is limiting me I look at what others are doing with the same kit and I usually change my mind. For eg there are some really nice MFT 12mm f2 night sky shots out there. If Terry takes a look at what's possible with MFT and does the money sums and isn't happy either way then FF is always there as an option.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
But Terry already has MFT? Yes? So the question I'd be asking in their place is what can be done with MFT before getting my money out and going for a FF body and lens.

As I've often said, whenever I think the kit is limiting me I look at what others are doing with the same kit and I usually change my mind. For eg there are some really nice MFT 12mm f2 night sky shots out there. If Terry takes a look at what's possible with MFT and does the money sums and isn't happy either way then FF is always there as an option.
Click to expand...

If you read my response to him it's mostly along the lines of getting best out of his m43 gear.

I responded to you in relation to someone with no baggage which is just pure discussion about gear, nothing else :D
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I hear what you're both saying but I didn't buy the M43 kit for astro.

I've had some success but I know it'll never compare to an FX sensor (I used my 6D and D750 for astro and enjoyed it)

Milky Way over Tintagel by Terence Rees, on Flickr


I've a pension payout coming and wondering if I can justify a Sony alongside the M43.
Click to expand...

Why not sell m43 and go solo Sony?

Or middle ground with Sony/Fuji APS-C
 
Currently tossing up my options.

Tried Fuji and thought it was okay but couldn't handle the artifacts.

Also Sony lenses are way more money than Olympus / Panasonic.
 
PauBass said:
What sd cards are you guys using on your a9 and a7iii cameras?
Click to expand...

I have a couple of Lexar UHD-II 64G but because I shoot dual cards and one slot is gimped so majority of the time I just put in Sandisk UHS-I 95mb/s cards at 128G size mostly.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I have a couple of Lexar UHD-II 64G but because I shoot dual cards and one slot is gimped so majority of the time I just put in Sandisk UHS-I 95mb/s cards at 128G size mostly.
Click to expand...

I do shoot to both slots too...not sure what you mean by one slot gimped? :)
 
PauBass said:
I do shoot to both slots too...not sure what you mean by one slot gimped? :)
Click to expand...

One is UHS-II and one is UHS-I, so if you shoot dual cards, the speed will be bottled necked by the slower card slot meaning putting UHS-II cards in won't make the write faster as it will wait for UHS-I slot to finish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top