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

But wouldn't an a6000 be a better choice then over an a6300. What features does the a6300 have that you'd want over an a6000.

Personally I'd want the ibis of the a6500 and the better performance on adapted glass.

But then have to remind myself how much I disliked the a6000 with its muddy viewfinder and lack of controls. Lovely output though.

Pretty much just the electronic shutter.

I know I'd be irritated by the lack of a front dial but nothing's perfect and maybe I'd adapt but in reality I'd gain little over my MFT kit so although I keep looking I can't see myself buying an A6xxx body yet. It'd make sense though as I could use my current lenses on either an A6xxx or my A7. On the VF's, I'm sort of getting used to the GX80 and GX7's field sequential EVF so I'm pretty sure the A6000's would be a step up.

I don't get the chance to use adapted lenses much now as I'm now living with my GF who has like me given up work now (luckily we can both afford not to work) so I don't get to go on long walks by myself so much now and when with her I prefer the speed of AF shooting. Anyway, I'm sure I'd be happy with the image quality of any A6xxx body with just about any lens fitted.
 
Last edited:
Remind me how much the higher end MFT and APS-C CSC's are from the competition. Are they £800-850?
Yes but those have a decent APS-C and M4/3 lens line up to pick from, the Sony APS-C line-up is poor! :D
 
Yes but those have a decent APS-C and M4/3 lens line up to pick from, the Sony APS-C line-up is poor! :D

Its not poor by any means tbh. But there are some poor lenses. Also considering the excellent adapter support I'd say its better than competition.
 
Yes but those have a decent APS-C and M4/3 lens line up to pick from, the Sony APS-C line-up is poor! :D

Maybe but I just don't think you're going to get a camera with the spec of an A6500 for £850 unless it's from a Chinese maker we've never heard of or some Del Boy character you meet down the pub. Check the evil bay sold listings and see what used A6500's are going for.

Sorry to bring reality crashing in on this little price whinge fest (and I do agree that gear is generally expensive these days but look what it cost years ago in todays terms and the chances are that things aren't all that different, then there's rip off Britain, Brexit and wages not rising and everything should cost £50 with free delivery before 9am) but despite all that Sony just aren't going to sell their cameras for half the price of the competition and less than used ones go for on evil bay.

Sorry :D
 
Its not poor by any means tbh. But there are some poor lenses. Also considering the excellent adapter support I'd say its better than competition.

I think rather than say that the lens line up is poor it'd be fairer to say that there are gaps, like maybe a range of f2.8 zooms.

I'm sure I'd be very happy with the quality of the lenses that would interest me, 24, 35 and 50mm f1.x's.
 
Well you could adapt the SAL 16-50mm which is probably one of the best f/2.8 lenses. Even with the adapter its cheaper and less bulky than fuji alternative and just as good along with IBIS if used on A6500.
As for tele-lenses manufactures i.e. canon and nikon produce only FF versions as there is little weight to be saves just making APS-C version.

As for number of lenses Sony e-mount has more APS-C lenses than Canon for EF-S :p
 
Yes but those have a decent APS-C and M4/3 lens line up to pick from, the Sony APS-C line-up is poor! :D

I guess that depends on what you're (realistically) looking for in a system. On my A6000, the lenses I use the most are;

Samyang 12mm F2 - Fantastic landscape lens. tiny, light, sharp, simple to focus.

Sony E 50mm 1.8 - Excellent all round portrait lens. Fast AF, sharp at 1.8, light, not huge overall

Sony 16-50 - Generic kit lens aperture but is excellent for general holiday video/photographs. Tiny lens, fast AF, good colour. Just need to accept the fact it's not fast aperture.

Sony E 55-210 - I've only borrowed one of these from a friend but the results were excellent for such a cheap telephoto.

Tokina 80-210 F4 - £10 manual lens that delivers surprisingly solid results if you've got the ability to manually focus.

Sony E 35/1.8 - Again, I've only borrowed one of these but it was an excellent lens, similar to the 50/1.8 in weight/performance but obviously a wider fov

If people are honest, a lot of the demand for G Master lenses and the latest full frame bodies is more down to GAS than necessity (you know that @Fuguru !) so anyone saying that they couldn't do with APS-C bodies and lenses as a general camera system to take family/holiday/flower pictures is probably wrong.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to also add that I rented an FE 70-200 F4 and shot it on my A6000 for the last wedding I covered, along with a D750/28-75. Along with the 50/1.8, the A6000 didn't miss a beat all day and held its' own alongside the D750 which for me is the better measure of how good a camera system is than reading MTF charts on DPReview.
 
The focus and tracking on A6000 while not as advanced as A6300/6500 or even nikon D750 is still surprisingly very good. Certainly gives any mid range DSLRs a run for their money.
 
The focus and tracking on A6000 while not as advanced as A6300/6500 or even nikon D750 is still surprisingly very good. Certainly gives any mid range DSLRs a run for their money.

Again, it depends on what you're using it for. If I was shooting sports for a living, I'd be using a 1Dx or D5. For everything else (portraits, events, weddings), I haven't seen many people running down the aisle or across the studio so the performance is as good as anything else.
 
I wonder if Sony can change this to "If I was shooting sports for a living, I'd be using a 1Dx or D5 or A9" :LOL:

I think one of the most interesting and thought provoking comments about the A9 for me was the one about the massed photographers shooting political speeches and the like silently and the possibility that only silent cameras would be allowed. That could certainly be a change that could happen.
 
I wonder if Sony can change this to "If I was shooting sports for a living, I'd be using a 1Dx or D5 or A9" :LOL:

I'm sure they (or someone else) will eventually. Nothing stays top of the game forever.

However, there is no single perfect camera for every requirement but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of good cameras that cover most bases for most photographers.
 
Out of interest, I've just looked back in my Flickr to find some shots I took on my old Mk1 5D in less than ideal conditions. I'm sure if anyone asked about the 5D today they'd be told that it had a good sensor but AF and higher ISO was poor so you'd need at least a 5D Mk3.

1) ISO 1000, f1.6 @ 1/60th with a Sigma 85/1.4

https://flic.kr/p/frjnV4

2) Literally, couldn't see my hand, pitch black up Moel Famau (a mountain in Wales) covering a night race where the only lights were head torches on the runners. I had a torch propped on the bridge to give me anything to pre-focus on, a flashgun on a stand at the left side of the bridge and another on camera. ISO 500, F5 @1/60th

https://flic.kr/p/fryhQ5

Technically, neither of these shots are perfect and I'm sure a more modern body would easily handle them but my point is that older or crop kit doesn't automatically mean that it can't do what the latest/most expensive can.

Most of us are barely pushing our kit with the photos we take (myself included), so discussions about what a camera can/can't do need to be realistic.
 
I sometimes push my files and the camera to its limits. I did so on the 5d4 in f1 as I was using a slow lens so the iso even on bright sunlight was high.

The af was good on it but the fps was slow and buffer rate did hit the limit sometimes.

With the a7r2 that's very easy to hit the limit. The buffer rate is bad and I push those shadows like it's nothing on some of my images.

I also print up to a3+ so I just don't see them online. On the 5d3 you can definitely tell it's weakness in banding and sharpness and noise levels when printing that size
 
I sometimes push my files and the camera to its limits. I did so on the 5d4 in f1 as I was using a slow lens so the iso even on bright sunlight was high.

The af was good on it but the fps was slow and buffer rate did hit the limit sometimes.

With the a7r2 that's very easy to hit the limit. The buffer rate is bad and I push those shadows like it's nothing on some of my images.

I also print up to a3+ so I just don't see them online. On the 5d3 you can definitely tell it's weakness in banding and sharpness and noise levels when printing that size

We all have our own standards but I'm surprised you think printing A3+ from a 5D3 was a struggle? I've printed 40"x30" prints from my old 40D for portrait clients and they were perfectly fine? I've also got an 18x12 (roughly A3) print from an old GF1 with the kit lens on the wall in front of me too and can see detail in the denim clothes.
 
Out of interest, I've just looked back in my Flickr to find some shots I took on my old Mk1 5D

I used to shoot my 5D at any ISO and regularly shot at 3200 but there was a drawback in that I'd be at f1.4 and 1/xx which gave no depth of field and 1/xx shutter speed which often wasn't enough. 3200 was ok for me after only basic processing (I can't do anything fancy) especially after downsizing. I think the largest these got printed was cropped and printed to fill an A4 sheet. They looked fine and everyone was very happy. Note though that the fishing rods shot was handheld at 3200, f1.4 and 1/6 which would be rubbish for many subjects.

Anyway, 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4.

IMG_9503.jpg IMG_9510.jpg

IMG_9505.jpg

IMG_9506.jpg
 
And... The advantage with more modern cameras is I can shoot at higher ISO's for a couple of reasons, to get a reasonable depth of field and / or to get a faster shutter speed.

ISO 5,000.

5000.JPG

"Take my picture with the Christmas trees" Ok, ISO 8,000.

8000.JPG

ISO 10,000.

10000.JPG

ISO 12,800.

12800.JPG

I've shot more than a few at 25,600 but these are all that was in my high ISO test folder. I think that ISO 25,600 is perfectly useable for screen viewing and reasonable prints viewed normally and I'm not stuck at f1.4 and 1/6 :D
 
I sometimes push my files and the camera to its limits. I did so on the 5d4 in f1 as I was using a slow lens so the iso even on bright sunlight was high.

The af was good on it but the fps was slow and buffer rate did hit the limit sometimes.

With the a7r2 that's very easy to hit the limit. The buffer rate is bad and I push those shadows like it's nothing on some of my images.

I also print up to a3+ so I just don't see them online. On the 5d3 you can definitely tell it's weakness in banding and sharpness and noise levels when printing that size

Sorry, I'm just going to call b******t on that. It's entirely possible the printing created banding and loss of sharpness, but hundreds of pro's and semi-pro's use the 5D3 and lesser cameras to print out larger shots and if it without complaint.

You either have unrealistic expectations, or are a chronic pixel peeper.
 
Sorry, I'm just going to call b******t on that. It's entirely possible the printing created banding and loss of sharpness, but hundreds of pro's and semi-pro's use the 5D3 and lesser cameras to print out larger shots and if it without complaint.

You either have unrealistic expectations, or are a chronic pixel peeper.
Lighting wasn't great.
 
LA-EA3 - "This update enables the camera to focus continuously on a subject during continuous shooting at speeds up to 10 fps (using Hi or Mid Continuous Shooting mode) when the adaptor is attached to the ILCE-9 camera."
 
When your drunk and this happens View attachment 102896

I knew I'd seen you somewhere before Jonney...

giphy.gif


;0)
 
You're only here once, life is for living, you can't take it with you, who dies with the most toys wins... etc...
 
Back
Top