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

owenb said:
Yep heard that it's better now I'm happy with my kit for the time being well until the a7 iii bodies come out ..... or the mythical a9..... or even the Sony branded medium format camera lol
Click to expand...

We'll see how long you last ;)
 
Lmao not long already thinking if trading in the 5dsr and lens for a 1dx ii lol
 
twist said:
Yeah, because you save the 100-200g on the body, the reg distance is also shorter so the setup appears smaller, the lens isnt actually any smaller than the DSLR equiv. I see it the same way, system makes most sense with smaller / slower AF primes or adapted glass. If people want to get ridiculous then theres the GM1 and kit lens.

View attachment 56135
Click to expand...
But it's not full frame.
 
guys i got a free Manfrotto monopod when i got my Tripod what type of head do you all use on the Monopods, Same as tripods or do you clamp direct, whats the common practice.

thanks
 
Image recovery Sony A7Rii

Balanced on the loo - shot West out of Velux window, rubbish image but wanted to see what could be done with it.
Course "you can't make a silk purse out of a Sow's ear" so just wanted to see what I could recover
Before
_DSC1024.jpg

After
_DSC1024_DxO-1.jpg
 
Coming from a canon like i did its a massive massive dynamic range improvement
 
Came from Canon too but I have to admit the original image should have been much better, now had I taken my socks off and got better foothold on the bog I may have done :dummy1:
 
How much better is the DR on the A7rii over the A7ii
 
Nope certainly isn't everything. .. I think dr is defo something that people use to compare now but if u nail the shot u don't really need to use dr to the full
 
owenb said:
Nope certainly isn't everything. .. I think dr is defo something that people use to compare now but if u nail the shot u don't really need to use dr to the full
Click to expand...

For sure, Dr is the new iso. What most people don't realise is that sensors Dr changes at various isos. E.g. the canon 6d is 2 stops worse at Base than the class leading d750 but when it gets to iso 1200ish the 6d is neck and neck, that 2 stop lead doesn't continue all the way through the iso range.
 
twist said:
Actually the first bit is correct from what I can see. The 'gap' makes up for the reg distance. All you need to do is compare the fe lenses size to regular ff lenses and you'll find the size and weight is very similar.
Click to expand...

Yeah he is correct. It's just the bitterness and hate he has for they system that gets me.
 
addicknchips said:
Yeah he is correct. It's just the bitterness and hate he has for they system that gets me.
Click to expand...

Lol. I guess he's just doing what YouTube/Internet "earn a living" people do, making a statement and getting hits. No different than any other blogger etc. that gets free gear / paid by manufacturers to try persuade us to part with our money or ignore a certain product. Look at a certain Sony promoter on YouTube reminds me of a dodgy secondhand car salesman. Tis da interwebs.
 
owenb said:
Nope certainly isn't everything. .. I think dr is defo something that people use to compare now but if u nail the shot u don't really need to use dr to the full
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that it's possible to always nail the shot. I don't know about using DR to the full but when shooting normally in daylight and typically at lower ISO's many people would protect the highlights and if you do this it could well mean that the shadows need to be boosted and with the ancient Canon's I had even in these relatively untaxing low ISO daylight conditions that meant trouble and I gather that Canon are still behind in this?

Even my G1 is better than my 20D was and even gave my 5D a scare in this regard although I'm just assuming that modern Canon's still aren't as good as the best. Are they?

We see shots posted on this site every day that are a poor capture if accurate reality was the goal and that's fine if the dark bits being too dark and lack of shadow detail are forgivable and sacrificed in the name of art but if you go for reality and boost the shadows can Canon match the best these days?
 
Last edited:
No defo not always ease but It depends what you shoot I guess portraits.etc require a lot less.... and no imho canon can't match the best ....... YET lol
 
Well I came from canon so have canon lens but have 2 native ones also
 
owenb said:
No defo not always ease but It depends what you shoot I guess portraits.etc require a lot less.... and no imho canon can't match the best ....... YET lol
Click to expand...

If Canon want to compete with even the best of the smaller format cameras for normal day to day shooting they're going to have to do one of three things, spend a lot of money on new plant (I don't believe that they currently have the plant to manufacture the sensors made by some of their competitors,) buy someone else's sensor or come up with a new disruptive technology.

As a 10 year + Canon DSLR shooter I'm no Sony / Panasonic fan boy but the facts and noise levels in the shadows when boosted do seem to speak for themselves. If I had to have a DSLR I'd go Nikon, I shot with a Nikon SLR for over a decade :D
 
Yep I agree I'm sure they will diversify in some way or push something else to compensate
 
On that note is there an old era lens you think it is definitely worth having, I have read so many reviews and I am having troubles trusting people now :D Every review states a different thing...
 
plamen_gb said:
On that note is there an old era lens you think it is definitely worth having, I have read so many reviews and I am having troubles trusting people now :D Every review states a different thing...
Click to expand...

I just went for mass market cheap stuff and it's ok for whole images and even cropping if you don't expect modern levels of sharpness across the frame and don't mind some CA and vignetting :D

It really depends upon what you want to do. An old macro lens could be a good idea as macro and close up shooting is often manual anyway, or you could save a few £ by buying manual lenses to cover the focal lengths you don't use so much or don't need AF for.

If going for new built manual lenses I think I'd go Voigtlander as they look lovely :D
 
woof woof said:
I just went for mass market cheap stuff and it's ok for whole images and even cropping if you don't expect modern levels of sharpness across the frame and don't mind some CA and vignetting :D

It really depends upon what you want to do. An old macro lens could be a good idea as macro and close up shooting is often manual anyway, or you could save a few £ by buying manual lenses to cover the focal lengths you don't use so much or don't need AF for.

If going for new built manual lenses I think I'd go Voigtlander as they look lovely :D
Click to expand...

What is your recommendation for an old 85mm
 
plamen_gb said:
What is your recommendation for an old 85mm
Click to expand...

I have three. Minolta Rokkor 85mm f2, Olympus Zuiko 85mm f2 and Canon FD 85mm f1.8.

I'd rate them as follows... The Minolta is the sharpest and suffers fewer optical nasties. The FD is next but fringing on highlights can be epic, the Zuiko comes in last and initially looks soft at wider apertures but sharpens up nicely on the pc.

All are ok for whole images when viewed on screen or reasonably sized prints and you'd have to be shooting at the widest apertures or in very demanding conditions (stuff like dark subject against bright backlit scene...) or you'd have to pixel peep or print BIG and nit pick.
 
Last edited:
actually canon would just need to build the body, they might be able to get the sony sensors like they do with 1" ones
lens wise they can churn out cheap adapter, the full electric ef mount makes that easy, and its only worth bothering to make certain lenses in short flange for them =
slow kit lens, and a couple of primes, others dont matter as you dont gain much / anything

the image on sar shows the a7x2 being longer and bigger with 24 70 than a canon dslr, which amused me.
 
woof woof said:
I have three. Minolta Rokkor 85mm f2, Olympus Zuiko 85mm f2 and Canon FD 85mm f1.8.

I'd rate them as follows... The Minolta is the sharpest and suffers fewer optical nasties. The FD is next but fringing on highlights can be epic, the Zuiko comes in last and initially looks soft at wider apertures but sharpens up nicely on the pc.

All are ok for whole images when viewed on screen or reasonably sized prints and you'd have to be shooting at the widest apertures or in very demanding conditions (stuff like dark subject against bright backlit scene...) or you'd have to pixel peep or print BIG and nit pick.
Click to expand...
I will check out the Minolta 85mm
 
plamen_gb said:
I will check out the Minolta 85mm
Click to expand...
There are quite a few different versions.

Personally I'd avoid the older ones as the coatings don't seem to be as good, they can be affected more by flare. That was the case with the one older Minolta I had anyway.

I'd advise sticking to the later MD versions.
 
I saw many beautiful amazing shots in the past, so what happened to DR back then?

I really didn't know about DR in the past until i kept reading much about it, then i was thinking, why people getting lazy about exposure and keep dreaming about technology to make them everything ready? how were people shooting with film saying then? if film DR is huge or still far better then please go and keep shooting film if you still do, i shoot film and it didn't give me much better than digital, i don't have that great scanner [drum] so i end up not much full potential then, i was happy with 1Ds2/5D then moved to 1Ds3 and became more happier until i bought Hasselblad H3DII-39 first then H4D-60 as trade-in and i never think about DR anymore, i use all my gear around their limits, i never ask them more, if so then i will never get satisfied with my gear and i will always ask for more and i will always keep testing my gear to try proving something and pleasing the manufacturers to make that ultimate perfect camera completely, and my answer is, they will never do because there will be always a room for more, even if they produce a camera with 1000mp and 2millions ISO with 250,000 ISO as clean as ISO 100 and 50fps and 500 focus points, there will be always something to complain about and asking for something more or else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top