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

woof woof said:
Nice to see people usung MF but I'm actually thinking of selling some MF lenses as the native AF 35mm f2.8 and 55mm are so good and I don't reeeeeaaaally need three sets of manual lenses.
Click to expand...

I'm not an MF zealot by any means but I find I get more tack sharp keepers with the Loxia than I did with the 55. I think I'll be getting the AF 35/2.8 if one comes up used - AF will be very handy for the sort of things I'd use it for. If anything is moving fast kids at the beach etc, I get out the Nikon V2.
 
Last edited:
The 17-85mm does have some things going for it... the focal range is nice as are the USM and IS but the distortion at the wide end is epic and there's fringing and optical nasties galore. I'm not sure that it's actually the worst lens ever made but I do think it's relatively poor by modern standards.
 
paulcamcas said:
I'm not an MF zealot by any means but I find I get more tack sharp keepers with the Loxia than I did with the 55. I think I'll be getting the AF 35/2.8 if one comes up used - AF will be very handy for the sort of things I'd use it for. If anything is moving fast kids at the beach etc, I get out the Nikon V2 - a very underrated bit of kit.
Click to expand...
I have a very good hit rate with MF lenses but ditto with the AF lenses too as I don't shoot in a way which would task the kit too much.

Pixel peeping is a killer but if there's time great things can be accomplished with manual lenses.

Good luck with getting a bargain 35mm f2.8. Can't remember exactly what I paid in the used section here but when I price checked against ebay I convinced myself that I'd got a bargain.
 
Last edited:
I must admit that I'm seriously thinking about this system. I want more from my MFT that what I can see the future is delivering. But don't necessarily want the bulk/form factor of ordinary DSLRs. Sure I appreciate that from a lens perspective it has to have a certain minimum size for like-for-like comparison, I don't think we should underestimate what the feel of the body itself contributes to the overall size.

But that is not it alone. There is something else where in my opinion Sony is doing really well, and attracts me above anything. I think the rendering of some the images and models, the level of detail and sharpness without getting clinical about it. That is what I find quite attractive above all and is really pulling me towards the A7 platform.

It is a hard one, I'm ever so tempted...
 
dejongj said:
I must admit that I'm seriously thinking about this system. I want more from my MFT that what I can see the future is delivering. But don't necessarily want the bulk/form factor of ordinary DSLRs. Sure I appreciate that from a lens perspective it has to have a certain minimum size for like-for-like comparison, I don't think we should underestimate what the feel of the body itself contributes to the overall size.

But that is not it alone. There is something else where in my opinion Sony is doing really well, and attracts me above anything. I think the rendering of some the images and models, the level of detail and sharpness without getting clinical about it. That is what I find quite attractive above all and is really pulling me towards the A7 platform.

It is a hard one, I'm ever so tempted...
Click to expand...

The image quality from these little cams is top notch mate, if you can live with the quirks the system can really deliver. They are moving technology along nicely and its definitely the future if the A6000 AF is anything to go by.
 
dejongj said:
I must admit that I'm seriously thinking about this system. I want more from my MFT that what I can see the future is delivering. But don't necessarily want the bulk/form factor of ordinary DSLRs.
Click to expand...

Don't know what MFT you have, I have a GX7 and a G1 and my A7+35mm f2.8 is about the same size as my G1+17 or 25mm f1.8. The A7 is really just the pentaprism hump bigger than the GX7.

I have a bit of a love hate relationship with MFT but on the whole I think it's a good system with good lenses but if you move to a A7 series I think you'll see the following...

- A better EVF than I've got on my two Panny's.
- Greater dynamic range and more ability to expose to the right or boost exposure post capture.
- Better higher ISO performance.
- More ability to crop and still end up with good image.
- Lovelier files. IMVHO the A7 produces lovely files and pixel peeping is a pleasure :D
 
woof woof said:
Don't know what MFT you have, I have a GX7 and a G1 and my A7+35mm f2.8 is about the same size as my G1+17 or 25mm f1.8. The A7 is really just the pentaprism hump bigger than the GX7.

I have a bit of a love hate relationship with MFT but on the whole I think it's a good system with good lenses but if you move to a A7 series I think you'll see the following...

- A better EVF than I've got on my two Panny's.
- Greater dynamic range and more ability to expose to the right or boost exposure post capture.
- Better higher ISO performance.
- More ability to crop and still end up with good image.
- Lovelier files. IMVHO the A7 produces lovely files and pixel peeping is a pleasure :D
Click to expand...
I've got the Oly PEN EP-5 and the Panny G6. Lenses I'm very pleased with, the E-P5 with 17mm f1.8 is brilliant, as is my 35-100 f2.8 panasonic. The VF4 evf is brilliant compared to the Panny but yes you've highlighted all the reasons for me :)
 
dejongj said:
I've got the Oly PEN EP-5 and the Panny G6. Lenses I'm very pleased with, the E-P5 with 17mm f1.8 is brilliant, as is my 35-100 f2.8 panasonic. The VF4 evf is brilliant compared to the Panny but yes you've highlighted all the reasons for me :)
Click to expand...

Go for it, you haven't really got 'fast' lenses so the 35 2.8 easily replaces your 17 and the 70-200 f4 could also easily replace your fast tele if you don't mind the size of it. The sensor will make up for the loss in aperture and dof. Like Alan says, you gain the usual ff sensor benefits of more push in post, better sensitivity and DR.

You really want to look at the 28, 35 and 55 as IMO they are what the systems about, small, light and decent aperture, shame the 35 isnt f1.8 though. If there was only one for me though it would be the Zeiss 35 1.4. :naughty:
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree, you are spot on there. I wasn't actually interested in 'fast' zooms, I am really really pleased with the '70-200 f2.8' equivalent on MFT, and likely will keep that as my second camera. It is really good at what it does...

I am very interested in the primes, it is right up my street if you pardon the pun :)
 
dejongj said:
Yes I agree, you are spot on there. I wasn't actually interested in 'fast' zooms, I am really really pleased with the '70-200 f2.8' equivalent on MFT, and likely will keep that as my second camera. It is really good at what it does...

I am very interested in the primes, it is right up my street if you pardon the pun :)
Click to expand...

theres a 35-100 f1.4 constant zoom? :p
 
pingu666 said:
theres a 35-100 f1.4 constant zoom? :p
Click to expand...
Aperture remains constant regardless of sensor size ;) Best not to go down that route...
 
So we just take a few steps forward and although we get a different FoV we get the thin DoF :D It'll be a different shot but still a thin DoF and hopefully still a nice shot :D
 
Ok so this may be a stupid question but here goes. I have been using my hvl42 flash today just in auto mode while on s and a modes. The focus seems slower. I also didn't realise that having the flash mounted gave a preview in the evf but it does appear to show a brighter image when flash turned on.
I presume this is normal?
 
Ok so the evf appearing brighter when flash turned on seems to have stopped but it definitely seems to focus slower when flash attached. This is with both 28-70 and 55mm
 
I don't have the HVL42, but I have an HVL43 and don't notice anything like that. Focus and evf seem the same both with and without the flash mounted.
 
Hello

Just wondering if anyone could give me any indication at AF performance on the A7II using Canon EF lenses.

I know it wont be lightning fast, and tracking is out of the equation... but wondering what its like in AF-S (one-shot) mode? Ive read some reviews which say it is excellent and others which say its useless... really confusing!
Does it matter which adaptor you use in terms of AF performance?

Lenses Id like to use:

Sigma 35mm f1.4
Canon 24L II
Canon 50L
Canon 85L II

Thanks for any help :)
 
futureal33 said:
Hello

Just wondering if anyone could give me any indication at AF performance on the A7II using Canon EF lenses.

I know it wont be lightning fast, and tracking is out of the equation... but wondering what its like in AF-S (one-shot) mode? Ive read some reviews which say it is excellent and others which say its useless... really confusing!
Does it matter which adaptor you use in terms of AF performance?

Lenses Id like to use:

Sigma 35mm f1.4
Canon 24L II
Canon 50L
Canon 85L II

Thanks for any help :)
Click to expand...

Slooooooooooooow imo 7:30

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZO_U5DLOpw
 
futureal33 said:
Thanks for that :)

Looks good to me tbh, was expecting a lot worse.

Can I just confirm... I can control the lens aperture with this adaptor? Ie..I can shoot in AV mode and select my own AV. Or in manual where I manually set the AV in camera?

Thanks:)
Click to expand...

:eek: okay.

Yes, its a smart adapter so you could control aperture on camera.
 
futureal33 said:
Thanks for that :)

Looks good to me tbh, was expecting a lot worse.

Can I just confirm... I can control the lens aperture with this adaptor? Ie..I can shoot in AV mode and select my own AV. Or in manual where I manually set the AV in camera?

Thanks:)
Click to expand...
are you blind ??? lol
 
The rumour site links to a DxO test of the 90mm macro which says it's "outstanding."

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dxo-...utstanding-optical-performance/#disqus_thread

They also say it's big but I wonder are people jumping on the FE lenses are BIG bandwagon too quickly? I checked the spec of this lens against my old Minolta fit Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro and 90mm is only about the same length of the Sigma when the Sigma is extended, that IMVHO is hardly gargantuan.

Anyway, the best way to judge size will be on the camera and I the hand.
 
woof woof said:
The rumour site links to a DxO test of the 90mm macro which says it's "outstanding."

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dxo-...utstanding-optical-performance/#disqus_thread

They also say it's big but I wonder are people jumping on the FE lenses are BIG bandwagon too quickly? I checked the spec of this lens against my old Minolta fit Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro and 90mm is only about the same length of the Sigma when the Sigma is extended, that IMVHO is hardly gargantuan.

Anyway, the best way to judge size will be on the camera and I the hand.
Click to expand...
Big to me is more than a handful :)
 
woof woof said:
The rumour site links to a DxO test of the 90mm macro which says it's "outstanding."

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dxo-...utstanding-optical-performance/#disqus_thread

They also say it's big but I wonder are people jumping on the FE lenses are BIG bandwagon too quickly? I checked the spec of this lens against my old Minolta fit Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro and 90mm is only about the same length of the Sigma when the Sigma is extended, that IMVHO is hardly gargantuan.

Anyway, the best way to judge size will be on the camera and I the hand.
Click to expand...

its about the same size as other lenses that do the same thing, but the sigma and tamron ones are a 1/3rd of the price, and are very good too
 
Really want a decent macro but i would prefer one around the £500 mark. Stick with my old canon 100mm and extender for now that gets me plenty close, just lacks the punch.
 
pingu666 said:
its about the same size as other lenses that do the same thing, but the sigma and tamron ones are a 1/3rd of the price, and are very good too
Click to expand...

Prices at Wex...

Sony fe 90mm = £989.
Canon 100mm L = £635.
Nikon 105mm = £619.
Sigma 105mm = £379.
Tamron 90mm = £289.

It's expensive compared to that lot but looking at the review which has now strangely been taken down (maybe Canon complained after the drubbing their L lens got?) but Sony are obviously aiming at the top end of the market and lenses capable of giving very good results with high resolution sensors and aiming to be the best usually go on sale for a higher price, even Sigma charge more than they usually do for their Art range and isn't the Zeiss 100mm about £1,200?

Can't be sure but I'd be mildly surprised if the £300-£400 Tamron's and Sigma's match the Sony 90mm in front of high resolution sensors and although either of the former would almost certainly be more than good enough for me (I had a Sigma 150mm which I thought was very good) I can imagine that Sony will find buyers who want one of the best macro lenses available and when looking for the best maybe we need to compare the Sony to lenses like Zeiss rather than the good but probably ultimately not so good £300-£400 Tamron and Sigma lenses?

I'm maybe coming across as a Sony apologist but I think that we have to accept that with some of their offerings Sony are seemingly looking to offer the best mass market lenses available and when looking at the prices we need to be looking at the very best mass market stuff not just the rather good and when we look at the very best maybe the Sony 90mm doesn't actually look ridiculously expensive?

My current only macro lens is a film era 50mm f2.8 Sigma which I use on my Panasonic G1. The results are more than good enough for me and my only gripe is the shape of the out of focus highlights and I'd probably prefer round ones. Although this setup is good enough for me and cost way under £200 for the camera and lens I do accept that there's no way that it'll compete with a A7r or rII + 90mm across the frame and I'd imagine that very few set ups would and those that do will probably be comparable price wise.
 
Last edited:
.... perhaps Sony shouldnt just be aiming at the 'highest' end, it limits their overall sales/customer base.
 
It may do initially but I think it will pay off over time. There have been enough studies to demonstrated that when you can grab the high end market it is easier to extend downwards versus doing the opposite.

I think Sony are on the right path and have found an opening to have desirable kit amongst the established brands. When they keep that up it will be all good.

Just my view.
 
twist said:
.... perhaps Sony shouldnt just be aiming at the 'highest' end, it limits their overall sales/customer base.
Click to expand...
Yea possibly. Horses for courses but if they focused on the low end people would complain about lack of high end glasses and let's be honest. Many don't put cheap glass on full frame cameras to be fair.

Doesn't having loads if mp put a strain on cheaper lenses too?

On the 5ds it seems the case as even some old canon L lenses are not keeping up with that mp sensor.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yea possibly. Horses for courses but if they focused on the low end people would complain about lack of high end glasses and let's be honest. Many don't put cheap glass on full frame cameras to be fair.

Doesn't having loads if mp put a strain on cheaper lenses too?

On the 5ds it seems the case as even some old canon L lenses are not keeping up with that mp sensor.
Click to expand...

Who says they need to release the low end, aim for the middle like Nikon did with the 1.8Gs, optically they are fantastic and hardly expensive. Sigma also have the ARTs at a good price point, they arent low end at all. Im sure these lenses would cope with high resolution.

Why offer a 12MP and 24MP model if you only want to cater for the highest end and highest resolutions? The A7 is an entry level FF camera.

There are people that will want the best but there are far more that will want to see good optics at competing prices. How many are going to buy the 90 at £1000 vs how many who wouldve bought at say £600.
 
Last edited:
First, I'll admit that I'm still a film dinosaur, prefering to use large format cameras. My experience with modern autofocus lenses is minimal, and given some of the optical tricks that the lens makers have to do to accomodate autofocus, the old rules may have been torn up. But: it used to be the case that unless a lens was decentred (i.e. badly assembled/knocked out of kilter) then at the smaller apertures use in macro, all would pretty well perform to the limits allowed by diffraction. OK, that's only resolution, and there's still curvature of field and distortion, but unless you're photographing flat documents that's of less practical importance. So, here's the question: do modern lenses show a difference in actual macro use? Are the more expensive ones actually noticeably better?
 
twist said:
Who says they need to release the low end, aim for the middle like Nikon did with the 1.8Gs, optically they are fantastic and hardly expensive. Sigma also have the ARTs at a good price point, they arent low end at all. Im sure these lenses would cope with high resolution.

Why offer a 12MP and 24MP model if you only want to cater for the highest end and highest resolutions? The A7 is an entry level FF camera.

There are people that will want the best but there are far more that will want to see good optics at competing prices. How many are going to buy the 90 at £1000 vs how many who wouldve bought at say £600.
Click to expand...
Ok sure makes sense
 
my dads 105mm sigma is excellent, its honestly hard to imagine getting more out the sensor than it does, and my old tamron coped with 2x Tele and tubes and raynox fine, so modern ones probably do slightly better stopped down. Heck even the 100mm vivitar or whatever plasticy lightweight is shockingly good too
 
At £699 UK price brand new for an original A7, it is about as cheap as FF gets to be fair. UK price for a D7200 is £829, and that's APS-C!

Definitely with twist on this one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top