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

manualfocus-g said:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.408,487.395,ha,t

Oh really?!
Click to expand...

Yes, really....

Maybe I did fudge a bit with "a X-T1+prime is possibly going to be a bigger package than an A7+prime" and maybe the apertures are different but the combination I had in mind was the 35mm f2.8 and the Fuji 23mm f1.4. Not that you can read my mind but, even so.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,487.394,ha,t

Care to go back and make some more comparisons?

http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.448,487.393,ha,t
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.448,487.396,ha,t

Some on this forum have repeatedly commented on the huge size of A7 lenses and I was merely making the point that sensor size and quality can make for a bigger overall package

As I said, I can see the appeal of the Fuji but for the same or comparable bulk IMVHO the A7 series offers the potential for higher image quality whilst MFT offers a more compact package so for me the Fuji falls a little through the cracks. It may be a Goldilocks system for some but personally after weighing the pros and cons on balance if going for just one system I think I'd choose MFT or maybe Sony APS-C.
 
Last edited:
rodd1000 said:
The old a7 and xt1 are about the same size. A7ii is a little chunkier but it's six and two threes. A7ii build quality equals the Xt1 but I wouldn't say that about the first A7. When it comes to iq theres no contest. A7 mops the floor with x trans. if fuji could produce files even as good as a6000 I would have kept mine. But they're not, imo they are a good way behind.
Click to expand...

One of the things that puts me off is that I've read several articles about which processing package to use to get the best results. At the mo I use CS5 and to be honest I secretly hate it... but I hate the thought of having to learn to use something new more than I hate the thought of continuing to use CS5.
 
Haha, we could play this all night :) For me, mirrorless cameras are brilliant for taking everywhere and therefore I think the smaller primes suit the cameras very well, be they full frame, aps-c or MFT.

With that in mind, I think Sony could do with a smaller normal lens to complement the 35/2.8 (the lens I think they got right) and the 28/2 (which looks about right too).

With Fuji, you have the 18/2, 27/2.8 and 35/1.4 (27mm, 41mm and 52mm equiv.) with a smaller 35/2 on the way.

For MFT, you've got a whole bunch of options e.g. 17/1.8, 20/1.7, 25/1.8, Sigma 30/2.8, Sigma 60/2.8 but the best MFT sensors just aren't as good as the APS-C ones, which I feel are a good compromise.

Just for giggles: http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.388,487.394,ha,t :D
 
woof woof said:
One of the things that puts me off is that I've read several articles about which processing package to use to get the best results. At the mo I use CS5 and to be honest I secretly hate it... but I hate the thought of having to learn to use something new more than I hate the thought of continuing to use CS5.
Click to expand...

I use Lightroom 5 to process all my images. There are definitely occasions where the Lightroom algorithm causes problems with x-trans files, obvious when sharpening is attempted. I used Photo Ninja to compare, and this produced nicer images with more detail and no artifacts (at 100% zoom). That said, I've switched to a different method of sharpening within Lightroom and results are now almost on a par. If I don't pixel peep (I know, it's difficult :D), I much prefer the output from the X-Trans to that of any other camera I've had, particularly at high ISO where the noise is so organic, it's almost film like. But I guess these things are subjective! The biggest pull to Fuji to me is that I enjoy using the camera and the system associated with it. My poor Contax lenses are getting lonely.
 
manualfocus-g said:
With that in mind, I think Sony could do with a smaller normal lens to complement the 35/2.8 (the lens I think they got right) and the 28/2 (which looks about right too).
Click to expand...

I think one problem with the Sony A7 lenses is shared to a degree by Fuji and it's that they are both aiming for a quality system and quality often means more big heavy elements so that the bench test results look very good.

I've not followed the Fuji system all that closely but I think it's fair to say that the lenses or at least some of them are regarded as being very good. I do know that the Sony 55mm f1.8 (one of the two native lenses I own) is reportedly (by one well known site) to be the sharpest AF lens ever tested. That's only one measure of goodness and quality but it's something that a lot of people care about. Perhaps its vignetting and distortion figures are very good too. Who cares... As I've said more than once on this forum what I'd like to see is more compact lenses which are merely good and not necessarily aiming to be amongst the best mass market lenses available.

I don't know if we'll see more compact merely good lenses any time soon. Maybe if the system really really takes off...
 
manualfocus-g said:
Absolutely, the 55/1.8 looks a stunner performance wise.
Click to expand...

And it is and it's better than any of my old film era 50's but... TBH for me the differences are only really obvious in real world pictures in two instances...

- Wide open... my older lenses are softer and have more fringing and vignetting. Vignetting is easily cured and sharpening helps and in a whole image no normal person will notice or care. Stop the old lenses down a bit and they're so sharp in the centre area of the frame they'll cut you even when you're not looking at the picture. It's only us geeks who care about these things though. Normal people don't.

- When stopped down out of focus highlights are rendered as angular by my old lenses but some people prefer that look. If they notice at all.
 
Last edited:
The Sony FE 55mm f1.8 is amazing.
The Sony FE 70-200mm f4 isn't too shabby either.
The Sony FE 24-70mm f4 also isn't as bad as some make out.

Next on my list is either the Sony FE 90mm f2.8 Macro or the future FE 85mm f1.8

:D
 
Which
Rizvan said:
The Sony FE 55mm f1.8 is amazing.
The Sony FE 70-200mm f4 isn't too shabby either.
The Sony FE 24-70mm f4 also isn't as bad as some make out.

Next on my list is either the Sony FE 90mm f2.8 Macro or the future FE 85mm f1.8

:D
Click to expand...
body u got
 
How do u guys feel
With these over the Dslr as they not that much smaller with the size of the lens?? Is the A7 still good or A7ii better. Which of the a7 got loud shutter
 
I gave up the following equipment to move to the Sony A7 and have no regrets so far :)

Nikon D7000
Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8
Nikkor 35mm f1.8
Nikkor 16-70mm f3.5-5.3
Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6
Nikon SB-600
Batteries and a whole array of accessories

The Sony A7 overall is a smaller and lighter system for me but mirrorless has other advantages too like EVF etc.

It depends on your usage and if you need razor AF tracking etc.
I managed to shoot places at the Cleethorpes Air Show and didn't really think the AF was poor etc.
It's in poorer light you might struggle with AF sometimes.
The A7 II is nice but also larger & heavier that the A7. With the IQ being on par, do you need IBIS? The price difference is big A7 £799 vs amA7II £1299
 
Last edited:
Do any of the Sony lens have IS in them as I do like to have IS to be honest as always comes in handy....

Also is it the A7 with the loud shutter or is it the A7R
 
I have heard the A7R shutter and unless you do stealth photography it's nothing that would put me off.
Sony FE lenses do have OS.....
16-35mm
24-70mm
70-200mm
28-70mm

I think.
 
Rizvan said:
The Sony FE 55mm f1.8 is amazing.
The Sony FE 70-200mm f4 isn't too shabby either.
The Sony FE 24-70mm f4 also isn't as bad as some make out.

Next on my list is either the Sony FE 90mm f2.8 Macro or the future FE 85mm f1.8

:D
Click to expand...

The new wide angle zoom seems to be getting very good reviews too.
 
rookies said:
How do u guys feel
With these over the Dslr as they not that much smaller with the size of the lens?? Is the A7 still good or A7ii better. Which of the a7 got loud shutter
Click to expand...





The A7 plus a prime (it's a prime and an adapter in that shot) is a lot smaller than a 5D + a prime.

Just buy one.

What I ditched...
5D, Canon 20-35mm, 70-300mm. Sigma 20mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1,4, 150mm f2.8, 12-24mm.

Rizvan said:
The Sony A7 overall is a smaller and lighter system for me but mirrorless has other advantages too like EVF etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, WYSIWYG, the in view histogram, peaking, zebras and the magnified view are all attractive features. Even with my G1 I am much more likely get a difficult lighting shot first time without blowing the highlights or blocking the shadows up too much than with the 5D as with a conventional DSLR you have to guess how much compensation to dial in and then check the shot and reshoot if necessary. That palava has pretty much disappeared now for me. In very difficult situations I might have to take a shot twice... but in such difficult lighting with the 5D I'd have to take more shots chimping and deleting as I go.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:




The A7 plus a prime (it's a prime and an adapter in that shot) is a lot smaller than a 5D + a prime.

Just buy one.

What I ditched...
5D, Canon 20-35mm, 70-300mm. Sigma 20mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1,4, 150mm f2.8, 12-24mm.



Yes, WYSIWYG, the in view histogram, peaking, zebras and the magnified view are all attractive features. Even with my G1 I am much more likely get a difficult lighting shot first time without blowing the highlights or blocking the shadows up too much than with the 5D as with a conventional DSLR you have to guess how much compensation to dial in and then check the shot and reshoot if necessary. That palava has pretty much disappeared now for me. In very difficult situations I might have to take a shot twice... but in such difficult lighting with the 5D I'd have to take more shots chimping and deleting as I go.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for that and it does look quite a bit smaller. Ok put the kit lens on it then if you got it so i can see it next to that 5D pls... This will help massively..

If I went sony

I think it be A7II for IBIS...
 
rookies said:
Thank you very much for that and it does look quite a bit smaller. Ok put the kit lens on it then if you got it so i can see it next to that 5D pls... This will help massively..

If I went sony

I think it be A7II for IBIS...
Click to expand...

I sold the 5D but I can show you a shot of the A7+28-70mm next to the G1 with 14-42mm if that helps? Or, you could look here...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#328.308,487.396,ha,t

That's the A7+28-70 and a 5D+28-105mm as I don't think that Canon do a 28-70mm variable aperture. Just for fun here's the same set up but with a 5D and 24-70mm f4...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#328.367,487.396,ha,t
 
rookies said:
Thank you very much for that and it does look quite a bit smaller. Ok put the kit lens on it then if you got it so i can see it next to that 5D pls... This will help massively..

If I went sony

I think it be A7II for IBIS...
Click to expand...

Remember that lens on the a7 is manual focus only. Check if the lenses suit you before buying.
 
woof woof said:
I sold the 5D but I can show you a shot of the A7+28-70mm next to the G1 with 14-42mm if that helps? Or, you could look here...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#328.308,487.396,ha,t

That's the A7+28-70 and a 5D+28-105mm as I don't think that Canon do a 28-70mm variable aperture. Just for fun here's the same set up but with a 5D and 24-70mm f4...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#328.367,487.396,ha,t
Click to expand...

Doent really help making comparisons when the apertures aren't the same. Faster lenses are bigger.
 
One thing with these Sony jesus the lens prices
 
rookies said:
One thing with these Sony jesus the lens prices
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

Canon 24-70 f4 IS - £719 vs Sony Zeiss OSS - £840
Nikon 70-200 f4 VR - £899 vs Sony OSS - £919
The only lens comparable to the Zeiss 55 wide open is the Otus and thats thousands more.
The Zeiss 35 again is one of the best lenses against all mounts and thats under £600.

Supposedly the 16-35 justifies its price easily, I dont do wide so cant personally comment and the new 28-135 with an A7s is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread for video people.
 
Last edited:
rodd1000 said:
Shutter shock puts me off to be honest. You can really see the effects of this on many of the a7r files.
Click to expand...
Yes I though the shutter was weird on the A7r you can even feel it was shock
 
twist said:
Why do you say that?

Canon 24-70 f4 IS - £719 vs Sony Zeiss OSS - £840
Nikon 70-200 f4 VR - £899 vs Sony OSS - £919
The only lens comparable to the Zeiss 55 wide open is the Otus and thats thousands more.
The Zeiss 35 again is one of the best lenses against all mounts and thats under £600.

Supposedly the 16-35 justifies its price easily, I dont do wide so cant personally comment and the new 28-135 with an A7s is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread for video people.
Click to expand...
think am comparing to m43 that the prob. But Sony lens got be bigger for the sensor hence reason they no cheaper than dslr
 
rodd1000 said:
Shutter shock puts me off to be honest. You can really see the effects of this on many of the a7r files.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, true, forgot about that. Can see your dilemma now, the A7s would be ideal apart from the MP, the A7r would be ideal apart from the lack of EFCS or delayed so the A7ii does make sense.
 
rookies said:
One thing with these Sony jesus the lens prices
Click to expand...

You don't need to buy all the zeiss glass. There are some real gems in the old Minolta lenses for eg. Some even comparable to Zeiss. The old 35-70 md 3.5 was apparently the same lens as the Vario Elmar leica produced and made by Minolta.
 
What the kit lens like with this Sony a7ii how close can it focus
 
rodd1000 said:
You don't need to buy all the zeiss glass. There are some real gems in the old Minolta lenses for eg. Some even comparable to Zeiss. The old 35-70 md 3.5 was apparently the same lens as the Vario Elmar leica produced and made by Minolta.
Click to expand...
but do they AF
 
rookies said:
think am comparing to m43 that the prob. But Sony lens got be bigger for the sensor hence reason they no cheaper than dslr
Click to expand...

Precisely, lens has to match sensor size, the Sony Zeiss lenses (incl A mount) have always been incredibly good and Canikon users thought theirs were better.

Could also get an LAEA4 and use A mount and 3rd party glass along with MF slr/RF/native glass, thats the nice thing about E mount, so much choice and Sony really is looking to the future. When I first bought an A7 (early adopter) I really didnt like the system, a short couple years later and sensor improvements for RF lenses along with a good roadmap and Im pretty happy (after being through all the other 'big boy' models).
 
rodd1000 said:
You don't need to buy all the zeiss glass. There are some real gems in the old Minolta lenses for eg. Some even comparable to Zeiss. The old 35-70 md 3.5 was apparently the same lens as the Vario Elmar leica produced and made by Minolta.
Click to expand...

Yup, nice lens.

@rookies no, the older glass doesnt, but its a good option, look at FE thats native, A mount is Sony DSLR, they will AF well with the LAEA 4 adapter (incl Sigma and Tamron).
 
This is the Mitakon 50 @ f0.95 at MFD, its a lot sharper 1m+ but its comparable to the Leica which is 9x more expensive! MF only, native E mount, I mainly take photos of people so dont really post what I do but heres a quick sample, love this lens.

 
twist said:
Remember that lens on the a7 is manual focus only. Check if the lenses suit you before buying.
Click to expand...

Obviously, check before buying :D

The native AF 55mm f1.8 is about the same size (to within a few mm length) as the Minolta 50mm f1.4+adapter pictured. There aren't all that many lenses available at the moment but when the recently announced lenses hit the shops they'll be the basis of a good system IMVHO.

twist said:
Doent really help making comparisons when the apertures aren't the same. Faster lenses are bigger.
Click to expand...

There aren't exact equivalents as as far as I know Canon don't make a variable aperture 28-70mm. Canon do make a 24-70mm f4 so you can compare the Canon and Sony 24-70mm f4...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#328.367,487.393,ha,t
 
rookies said:
think am comparing to m43 that the prob. But Sony lens got be bigger for the sensor hence reason they no cheaper than dslr
Click to expand...

To me comparisons to MFT are almost pointless as I personally see them as different systems.

If you want a little sports car of a system then go for MFT. They've got lots of lenses to choose from and you can pick up good used lenses around £100-£150. I bought most of my lenses used, 14mm f2.5, 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8, 14-42mm, 45-200mm, all cheap and useable. I bought my 20mm f1.7 new but you can find them used easy enough.

An A7 will give you what extra? Better mega high ISO performance and the ability to print bigger? An A7 series camera will have a greater dynamic range too but MFT will be good enough for most uses.

Personally I went for the A7 because I've got more money than sense and I wanted a nice camera to replace my 5D+nice lenses to use as my luxury kit. Also I wanted to play with manual lenses and I wanted high end (for this mass market stuff) image quality. If I didn't want those things and just wanted a good enough for 99% of the time system I wouldn't have bothered with the A7 and I'd have stayed with MFT.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top