The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!
- Thread starter woof woof
- Start date
@JYC An interesting read, bearing in mind he couldve used a 2.8 instead of 4 to bring up the aperture (f4.8 ish) and still maintain a 918mm EFL!!!
https://photographylife.com/capturing-birds-flight-nikon-1-v2-ft-1-adapter
https://photographylife.com/capturing-birds-flight-nikon-1-v2-ft-1-adapter
Last edited:
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 40,122
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not sure that EVF lag is a real world issue, well I'm at least pretty sure that it isn't a real world issue for me.
I don't often attempt to shoot fast moving things but when out with my Panasonic G1 once I spotted workmen playing cricket on the beach so I thought I'd take a snap and my aim was to capture the ball in flight half way between the wickets. This is a 60% crop as I was quite far away...
The ball isn't smack bang in the middle of the wicket but to be honest the accuracy is pretty good and any delay is possibly as much down to me and the time it takes my eyes to send the image to my brain and my brain to send the shoot command to my finger as it is down to EVF or indeed shutter lag.
As the G1 is a relatively ancient camera now I'd expect any camera induced lag to be much reduced with more modern cameras. In low light I can see stuttering in the EVF but I think that's down to the additional processing time taken to boost the ISO and EVF brightness etc... and maybe could be improved by turning off the constant preview. I don't know. Of course turning the constant preview off will give a much darker image but would I see more with an unaided and unboosted optical system? I doubt it.
Anyway, EVF lag just isn't an issue for me in good light. I'm not too sure about very low light but next time I'm out shooting at night I'll make a mental note of what's going on and any way I can see around it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,444
- Edit My Images
- No
his sold his a7II but thanks for the link anyway.
which cleaning solution is recommended from amazon to clean both a7 series and canon body sensors?
nah they chose to severaly neglect the people who bought into their orignal system, which was at 10% market share and bigger than pentax and growing.
So they could well do the same with E mount in the future, if the head of the camera division decides rx fixed lens cameras are better for example.
I'm not sure that EVF lag is a real world issue, well I'm at least pretty sure that it isn't a real world issue for me.
I don't often attempt to shoot fast moving things but when out with my Panasonic G1 once I spotted workmen playing cricket on the beach so I thought I'd take a snap and my aim was to capture the ball in flight half way between the wickets. This is a 60% crop as I was quite far away...
The ball isn't smack bang in the middle of the wicket but to be honest the accuracy is pretty good and any delay is possibly as much down to me and the time it takes my eyes to send the image to my brain and my brain to send the shoot command to my finger as it is down to EVF or indeed shutter lag.
As the G1 is a relatively ancient camera now I'd expect any camera induced lag to be much reduced with more modern cameras. In low light I can see stuttering in the EVF but I think that's down to the additional processing time taken to boost the ISO and EVF brightness etc... and maybe could be improved by turning off the constant preview. I don't know. Of course turning the constant preview off will give a much darker image but would I see more with an unaided and unboosted optical system? I doubt it.
Anyway, EVF lag just isn't an issue for me in good light. I'm not too sure about very low light but next time I'm out shooting at night I'll make a mental note of what's going on and any way I can see around it.
i think it comes more into play with consecutive shot, and worse light (frame rate drop), in that pic above the video lag would probably be about the same as the mirror flap time of a dslr, i think the better dslrs move the mirror faster... but with evf you get a longer blackout, and perhaps the video feed is abit delayed or slowed down by the camera processing the taken shot. i think there maybe a small sensor nikon that does decent live view while shooting, and the new a6300 may too at 8fps. and iphone u can spam the shutter too well, atleast on static stuff.
its something most noticable when your moving the camera, otherwise it doesnt matter, and the external site method you get no issues with that stuff, just alignment xD
- Messages
- 1,132
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Looking for opinions on the Sony FE 16 - 35 mm F4 from those that have it.
I was set on going for a Batis 25mm as my next lens (only have the 24-70 f4 so far) but I'm thinking I'll miss having the really wide option that the zoom gives. Maybe I'd be better covering the ranges first and then buy primes at a later date?
From what I've read, a lot of people seem to think the 16-35 is brilliant. I shoot mainly landscape so f4 is fine. Is this lens really that good?
I was set on going for a Batis 25mm as my next lens (only have the 24-70 f4 so far) but I'm thinking I'll miss having the really wide option that the zoom gives. Maybe I'd be better covering the ranges first and then buy primes at a later date?
From what I've read, a lot of people seem to think the 16-35 is brilliant. I shoot mainly landscape so f4 is fine. Is this lens really that good?
- Messages
- 9,463
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,132
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you do decide to sell it Jonathan, say in the next month please let me know.
Thanks for the image as well. Mind is made up, 16-35 first, primes later
- Messages
- 9,463
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
If you do decide to sell it Jonathan, say in the next month please let me know.
Thanks for the image as well. Mind is made up, 16-35 first, primes later
Sure will give you a heads up before it goes public. Lens has been great on a7, a7rii and a6000
Why are you selling up?
- Messages
- 9,463
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
Last week bought a d810 so I'm covered for resolution. I can buy Nikon glass a lot cheaper than Sony glass so am thinking that may be the best route for me. Apart from a few landscape shots, mostly I've used the 55mm 1.8 and loved it. I've thoroughly enjoyed using the Sony system and am really comfortable using it. However, I can't see myself spending the money that's needed to get g master lenses.
A7rii is too expensive to be the camera that I chuck in my work bag every day, so may consider Fuji for that. So if I sell up I'll have money for a d750 to partner the d810 and some change in my pocket.
My concern is that I know the Sony controls like the back of my hand now and it might be a bit of a pain in neck to learn a new system again. Although I hear fujis are fun to use.
Obviously it's a big decision so giving it a lot of thought at the moment. May change my mind in the morning.
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 40,122
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I keep looking at the Fuji's as the manual dials appeal to me but for me there are just too many negatives...
- I don't like the idea of being limited to a relatively low maximum ISO for raws and I'm not interested in shooting JPEG's. The new models may fix the relatively low maximum raw issue but they're the new thing, an unknown quantity and they'll cost more...
- I don't buy into the view that the image quality is great... I think they fiddle the ISO and from the files I've downloaded they can't match my A7 and yet they don't leave MFT far enough behind, if at all behind.
- I don't think I'd like the idea that Adobe products aren't the best thing to use to get the best out of Fuji raw files and I hate the idea of paying for and learning another package.
- The argument levelled by many at the A7 system about lens size seems just as applicable to Fuji to me. The lenses seem pretty big, I suppose party for the same reason that Sony lenses are big as like Sony Fuji seem to be going for quality but for me if the camera and lens is going to be the size of a Fuji I might as well go for an A7 for the better image quality.
So, although the manual dials appeal to me the rest is just a whole load of negatives and if I was going for an APS-C CSC system I think I'd go Sony A6000 series despite the in some areas relatively lacklustre lens line up.
I have MFT for when I want the most compact system, even more compact than my A7+35 or 55mm lens.
In your place I'd not get the Fuji, it's a whole load of expense for less than A7 image quality. I'd at least get a cheap A7 and settle for a couple of compact primes. Hang on... that's what I've done!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,463
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
I keep looking at the Fuji's as the manual dials appeal to me but for me there are just too many negatives...
- I don't like the idea of being limited to a relatively low maximum ISO for raws and I'm not interested in shooting JPEG's. The new models may fix the relatively low maximum raw issue but they're the new thing, an unknown quantity and they'll cost more...
- I don't buy into the view that the image quality is great... I think they fiddle the ISO and from the files I've downloaded they can't match my A7 and yet they don't leave MFT far enough behind, if at all behind.
- I don't think I'd like the idea that Adobe products aren't the best thing to use to get the best out of Fuji raw files and I hate the idea of paying for and learning another package.
- The argument levelled by many at the A7 system about lens size seems just as applicable to Fuji to me. The lenses seem pretty big, I suppose party for the same reason that Sony lenses are big as like Sony Fuji seem to be going for quality but for me if the camera and lens is going to be the size of a Fuji I might as well go for an A7 for the better image quality.
So, although the manual dials appeal to me the rest is just a whole load of negatives and if I was going for an APS-C CSC system I think I'd go Sony A6000 series despite the in some areas relatively lacklustre lens line up.
I have MFT for when I want the most compact system, even more compact than my A7+35 or 55mm lens.
In your place I'd not get the Fuji, it's a whole load of expense for less than A7 image quality. I'd at least get a cheap A7 and settle for a couple of compact primes. Hang on... that's what I've done!
I still have a7 so may keep it along with the 55mm. Still up in the air. It's a decision whether to have Sony or Fuji as my casual kit - with Nikon (sorry!) being used for the serious stuff.
The raw issues I hear about is a bit of a concern as I don't shoot JPEG generally and post process in Lightroom. I've never used the system so will be going in a little blind.
Not a decision one should take on an empty stomach!
For balance.... regarding size, not quite, see below.... and this trend continues across the range btw.
I personally think ISO12800 (XP2) is enough, above that theres unacceptable levels of noise unless shooting in ideal conditions, not sure where I would ever need ISO12800 on a sunny day tbh.
ISO is fiddled which is annoying but ISO performance is 'better' than other APSC bayer, so you can afford to shoot that bit higher and get pretty much the same exposure, still annoying though.
Adobe has made improvements when reading Fuji files over the past couple of years, most of what you read is old rehashed comments. Looks like theyve done an even better job with supporting the XP2 though.
The A6000 is great, but the lens system is weak in comparison.
I personally think ISO12800 (XP2) is enough, above that theres unacceptable levels of noise unless shooting in ideal conditions, not sure where I would ever need ISO12800 on a sunny day tbh.
ISO is fiddled which is annoying but ISO performance is 'better' than other APSC bayer, so you can afford to shoot that bit higher and get pretty much the same exposure, still annoying though.
Adobe has made improvements when reading Fuji files over the past couple of years, most of what you read is old rehashed comments. Looks like theyve done an even better job with supporting the XP2 though.
The A6000 is great, but the lens system is weak in comparison.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,444
- Edit My Images
- No
Crop though so it would be smaller
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,405
- Name
- owen
- Edit My Images
- No
I had a Fuji for 3 months just couldn't get on with it tbh everything looked plastic I had the much fabled 56mm as well so couldn't understand it as really wanted to like iot lo.... I think after using full frame for so long my expectations were too high that's all I can think as it was a nice compact system and seeing some of other peoples pics I cant believe it was from the same camera lol
- Messages
- 837
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi all
I’m looking to sell up all my Canon gear and switch over to an Alpha 7 II setup.
A friend works for Sony so gets below grey-import prices…
Anyway, I’m trying to decide between the A7II and the A7RII. Obviously the price difference is significant (£700 with his prices), but is the camera that much better to justify the price?
I’ll mostly be shooting landscapes, portraits (including crawling/toddling baby – so fast focus is a must!), and occasional rock climbing (bouldering) too, as well as other random bits.
I can’t find any sites which directly compare the two, except for side-by-side stats comparisons which don’t mean much to me, so was just looking for some advice really.
I can either sell ALL my Canon gear and get a A7RII with 24-70 f/4 (or maybe the 35 f/2.8 – undecided), or possibly keep hold of my beloved Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART and get an adapter – but the reason for selling up is downsizing and this won’t be the smallest combo?
Alternatively I could go for the A7II with the 24-70 f/4 and should have enough for a second-hand x100t for more of a grab-and-go camera.
I’m not a pro, but a keen amateur – so will the ‘R’ be over spec’d for me?
I’m looking to sell up all my Canon gear and switch over to an Alpha 7 II setup.
A friend works for Sony so gets below grey-import prices…
Anyway, I’m trying to decide between the A7II and the A7RII. Obviously the price difference is significant (£700 with his prices), but is the camera that much better to justify the price?
I’ll mostly be shooting landscapes, portraits (including crawling/toddling baby – so fast focus is a must!), and occasional rock climbing (bouldering) too, as well as other random bits.
I can’t find any sites which directly compare the two, except for side-by-side stats comparisons which don’t mean much to me, so was just looking for some advice really.
I can either sell ALL my Canon gear and get a A7RII with 24-70 f/4 (or maybe the 35 f/2.8 – undecided), or possibly keep hold of my beloved Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART and get an adapter – but the reason for selling up is downsizing and this won’t be the smallest combo?
Alternatively I could go for the A7II with the 24-70 f/4 and should have enough for a second-hand x100t for more of a grab-and-go camera.
I’m not a pro, but a keen amateur – so will the ‘R’ be over spec’d for me?
Interesting, I found the feel of the XT1 better than the original A7, felt better built, was probably the textured paint/grips/dials for me., not to say the Sony was poor though. Looking through my LR cats the Fujis arent that far off in terms of IQ and in some ways exceeded with things like colour and skin tones. I found it good to around 6400 at a push but obviously FF takes the lead at 6400+ due to sensor size. If you saw such a difference in others pics maybe yours was faulty or not setup correctly or perhaps you just never got into what it had to offer.
Last edited:
Babies grow up fast so get the camera with the fastest AF you can.
- Messages
- 2,405
- Name
- owen
- Edit My Images
- No
honestly mine was crap hence can never use them again perhaps it was the raw convertor as havd it when released and never integrated with lr right or perhaps faulty... never had the original a7 so cant comment and to be fair to the Fuji its unfair for me to compare it to the a7r2
Sounds like you had a bad experience, shame it put you off though especially as youve seen what the system is capable of. If I stopped buying Sony the first time I tried a Sony CSC (first NEX) I wouldve saved a lot of money over the years lol.
Last edited:
My move didnt save me any money, it cost me loads. Never stopped me from buying Sony. Ive had pretty much every model theyve made since the A580/NEX excluding the A77ii and A99, A7ii and A7rii.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 837
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But I don't think the A7's are pocket-able are they?
x100t aside - any pointesr on the 'R' or not?
- Messages
- 1,132
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Completely agree and this is the reason I went with the A7ii.
- Messages
- 532
- Name
- Ray
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hello my new friend, and as the saying goes, any friend of yours is a friend of mine. I'd like to meet my new friend - I have cash...
A7RII main advantages over the A7II are resolution, overall image quality, AF speed/ability and video. For landscapes you'll absolutely notice the difference in image quality. For portraits the continuous eye AF is an enormous benefit. Video is far better if that matters to you. Personally I'd go for the A7RII, but the A7II may be the way to go if it frees up money in the budget for a better lens choice.
While the 35mm f2.8 is a decent enough lens, but I'm not sure it's wide enough to be a single lens covering landscapes, or long enough to be useful for portraits (especially tiny babies). The 24-70mm f4 is at best "blah". If your budget can stretch to it, I'd suggest instead a pairing of the surprisingly good 20mm f2 for landscape/wide end, and the amazing 50mm f1.8 for portraits.
- Messages
- 7,597
- Name
- Riz
- Edit My Images
- No
I thought a f2.8 rated crop lens is not the same as a f2.8 full-frame lens? More like the crop lens is f4.0?Duh. But the lenses are equiv
If that's the case they should be smaller, the XF graft lenses don't seem small to me.
Yes and no, it gathers the same light as it has the same aperture, but DOF is different. I think you may have misunderstood.
56 1.2 = 85 1.8. So equiv in every way.
35 1.4 = 50 1.8. So equiv in every way.
27 2.8 = Is what I meant by the same aperture.
So they are still much smaller
Last edited:
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 40,122
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
To me an inch or so on a lens might not really matter all that much ditto with the body but both body and lens have to be considered as a package and it all adds up and I don't see enough if any saving in bulk for the Fuji DSLR style against an A7 so may as well go for the better image quality option, the A7. A small RF style might offer more of a bulk saving IMO.
I think you need to see the cameras from the front or back too, not just from the top.
Here I don't think that even an RF type Fuji offers enough bulk saving over an A7 but is bigger than the MFT option. Having repeatedly looked at these cameras the bulk and other issues just put me off and I sadly can't see them as a replacement for my A7 or MFT, bulk wise or IQ wise. No matter how many images I look at. They might just pull ahead of MFT and that's a might, but can't match the A7 and I don't see the magic in the Fuji colours that others seem to see. I see differences in brightness, saturation and WB / colour balance but no magic and to a raw shooters these shouldn't matter anyway or at least they don't seem to be a problem to me. Maybe these cameras make more sense if you're happy to shoot JPEG's.
The manual dials are a big draw for me but on balance I think they're the only draw. I used to think that APS-C was the Goldilocks system and maybe it is for many but I've been a bit spoilt by the A7 now and when I want an even more compact system I can use my GX7 which (arguably and IMO) is within touching distance of the Fuji IQ wise but a touch more compact, enough to make a difference to the A7.
I keep trying to convince myself that I should get a Fuji but I'm pretty sure I'd just end up selling it and going back to the A7 and MFT.
PS. Just on the Fuji magic files look thing... I originally decided not to include the following but changed my mind and now will...
Not necessarily talking about images on this site but on the wider net... I see a lot of people enthusing about images that I see as false and / or over saturated and I tire of the blown to high heaven highlights and crushed blacks look. If that's the magic, it's not for me.
Last edited:
To me an inch or so on a lens might not really matter all that much ditto with the body but both body and lens have to be considered as a package and it all adds up and I don't see enough if any saving in bulk for the Fuji DSLR style against an A7 so may as well go for the better image quality option, the A7. A small RF style might offer more of a bulk saving IMO.
I think you need to see the cameras from the front or back too, not just from the top.
Here I don't think that even an RF type Fuji offers enough bulk saving over an A7 but is bigger than the MFT option. Having repeatedly looked at these cameras the bulk and other issues just put me off and I sadly can't see them as a replacement for my A7 or MFT, bulk wise or IQ wise. No matter how many images I look at. They might just pull ahead of MFT and that's a might, but can't match the A7 and I don't see the magic in the Fuji colours that others seem to see. I see differences in brightness, saturation and WB / colour balance but no magic and to a raw shooters these shouldn't matter anyway or at least they don't seem to be a problem to me. Maybe these cameras make more sense if you're happy to shoot JPEG's.
The manual dials are a big draw for me but on balance I think they're the only draw. I used to think that APS-C was the Goldilocks system and maybe it is for many but I've been a bit spoilt by the A7 now and when I want an even more compact system I can use my GX7 which (arguably and IMO) is within touching distance of the Fuji IQ wise but a touch more compact, enough to make a difference to the A7.
I keep trying to convince myself that I should get a Fuji but I'm pretty sure I'd just end up selling it and going back to the A7 and MFT.
If an inch or two doesnt matter to you why do you keep saying DSLRs are so much bigger than your A7? Especially when FF lenses are all the same size no matter DSLR or ILC.
I see you choose your models for sizing very carefully but not realistically.
Why are you comparing a 23 1.4 (35 1.8 equiv) lens to a 35 2.8 and a pedestrian 17mm (35mm 3.6 equiv), if that was the case and you are effectively ignoring apertures perhaps you should post a picture of the FE35 1.4 vs the 23 1.4
Yes, as I can see the XT1 and A7 are the same size, but that was Fujis design by choice with all the manual controls, they can go smaller, e.g. see the XT10. Then add the clear to see equiv lens size savings I already posted and its a fair amount smaller. Just like M43 is vs the A7. Bigger sensor bigger lenses, you cant argue that fact.
Colour is subjective so thats a moot point, but Fuji RAW colour for skin tones is way more accurate than Sony. Not one companies RAW file is the same as anothers. Some take more work to get right or you need to shoot custom WB all the time. You need to use a Fuji before comparing to the GX7 though.
Last edited:
You've chosen the bloody biggest Fuji and the smallest Sony! And the 23mm is f1.4, so faster than the 35mm. Try that again with the X-T10 and the 35mm f2 and see what it looks like!
edit: GX7 wasn't great btw, the problem with m43 is that you have noise even at base ISO which is pretty irritating
edit: GX7 wasn't great btw, the problem with m43 is that you have noise even at base ISO which is pretty irritating
Last edited: