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

gilbouk said:
I would say about 3 - 4 meters away on the second one. Here's the original frame shot at 600mm

DSC07470 2 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
Thanks very much. I'm still in two minds whether to hire the 400mm f2.8 for my Kingfisher shoot next month. I'd use it with the 1.4 x TC so would be 560mm f4 as opposed to 560mm f8 with my 100-400mm. My 'concern' is light and cluttered background. It's just £130 is a lot of money to spend on one shoot, especially when you're not guaranteed decent weather or even to see the birds. Also, I'd be annoyed with myself if I get there and find I need to shoot at f8 to get enough DOF for the kingfisher to be in full focus.

Proper 1st world problem :LOL:
Click to expand...

Worth double-checking on the distance? Normally they are a lot further away, no? We can sense check with a field of view calculator e.g. https://www.scantips.com/lights/fieldofview.html#top. Kingfishers are approx 15cm tall. In this example the body would fit about 2.5 times in the height of the frame, so the actual height of the frame captured is approx 15cm x 2.5 = 38cm. Using the FoV calculator for 600mm focal length on full-frame sensor suggests the distance is approx 9.5m. The DOF for 600mm f4.0 at 9.5m is 6cm which is about the width of the bird side on. This fits with my experience, it's usually about this distance and f4 gives good results. I'd take the plunge and rent Toby :)
 
snerkler said:
Thanks very much. I'm still in two minds whether to hire the 400mm f2.8 for my Kingfisher shoot next month. I'd use it with the 1.4 x TC so would be 560mm f4 as opposed to 560mm f8 with my 100-400mm. My 'concern' is light and cluttered background. It's just £130 is a lot of money to spend on one shoot, especially when you're not guaranteed decent weather or even to see the birds. Also, I'd be annoyed with myself if I get there and find I need to shoot at f8 to get enough DOF for the kingfisher to be in full focus.

Proper 1st world problem :LOL:
Click to expand...

£130 is a lot of money but it's also £10k lens.
Normally when I need a lens for something specific or temporarily I buy and sell used at minimal loss. But 400mm f2.8 isn't a lens you can easily achieve that with!

From I remember your kingfisher experience is quite a good one which was all booked out well in advance. I imagine you have probably have 90+% chance of seeing it. You probably have to be super unlucky not to see one. He wouldn't be selling out so quickly if people were going home without having seen one.
 
Last edited:
TimHughes said:
Worth double-checking on the distance? Normally they are a lot further away, no? We can sense check with a field of view calculator e.g. https://www.scantips.com/lights/fieldofview.html#top. Kingfishers are approx 15cm tall. In this example the body would fit about 2.5 times in the height of the frame, so the actual height of the frame captured is approx 15cm x 2.5 = 38cm. Using the FoV calculator for 600mm focal length on full-frame sensor suggests the distance is approx 9.5m. The DOF for 600mm f4.0 at 9.5m is 6cm which is about the width of the bird side on. This fits with my experience, it's usually about this distance and f4 gives good results. I'd take the plunge and rent Toby :)
Click to expand...
I’ve been told they’re likely to be 4-5m away, 560mm f4 is going to give about 1.5cm DOF, however this assumes he’s estimated the distance correctly. I guess if I rent I have options.
 
trevorbray said:
This combination is on my mind constantly. I absolutely loved this lens.
Click to expand...
I did this for a while but needed to ditch the 35 and 85 to do it. I still look back at those photos longingly, but ultimately the two lenses have served me better. Expensive mistake, but a fun one!
 
ukaskew said:
I did this for a while but needed to ditch the 35 and 85 to do it. I still look back at those photos longingly, but ultimately the two lenses have served me better. Expensive mistake, but a fun one!
Click to expand...
Or just have all 3 :p

As much as I love the rendering the f1.2 has never taken my fancy due to the weight, it will be interesting to see how the f1.4 renders in comparison. Of course it won't be as nice, but if it's 95% as good it could be worth the weight saving.
 
Thanks for the feedback, very interesting for sure!

I think the A7 III probably stays but look at some prime lenses to cover the type of photography I like to cover which is Landscapes, Architecture and Street Photography.
 
To those lusting after 50mm f1.2/f1.4's... I used to love my Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM but in recent years I've gone more for 35 and even 28 and 24mm. Yesterday when out with a 50mm it did seem just a bit tight and I did find myself missing the extra width of a 35mm.
 
woof woof said:
To those lusting after 50mm f1.2/f1.4's... I used to love my Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM but in recent years I've gone more for 35 and even 28 and 24mm. Yesterday when out with a 50mm it did seem just a bit tight and I did find myself missing the extra width of a 35mm.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say I had a favourite overall, it depends what mood I’m in (y)
 
El1te said:
Always the lens, IBIS will compensate for lack of suspension!

For everything else, NHS is still free for now!
Click to expand...

pWrldZt.jpg


Service, MOT, Tyres, CV boot, Springs, Suspension arms + labour + VAT, about £2600.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I feel your pain Raymond.

Stay happy :D

Or try to.
Click to expand...

I've paid for Service (£205), getting tyres tomorrow, about £420, then get the CV boot thing done on Wednesday, that will be £300 + MOT of £50. Which are all the Red items.

The orange items will have to wait as they can't get the rear springs at the moment. No stock in the UK, need to import from Sweden.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I've paid for Service (£205), getting tyres tomorrow, about £420, then get the CV boot thing done on Wednesday, that will be £300 + MOT of £50. Which are all the Red items.

The orange items will have to wait as they can't get the rear springs at the moment. No stock in the UK, need to import from Sweden.
Click to expand...

£300 for a CV boot :oops: :$

You need a new mechanic.
 
Last edited:
If it makes you feel any better you're not the only one with car bills. My Evoque will be going in for some work soon and JLR products tend to need expensive care :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
I did question that, but it seems the CV boot change will have gearbox oil to leak out in the process so need to replace or change that as well.

An OEM kit here is $73, so these things normally just translate the same to £ in my experience!

Volvo C30 Cv joint boot kit (inner) - 31256013 - Genuine Volvo Part

Cv joint boot kit (inner). Volvo C30. Genuine Volvo Part - 31256013
usparts.volvocars.com
Click to expand...
Are they using the oem kit?

We had a CV boot done in a car last year parts were about £15 and labour was £60 from memory.

Maybe 3 years ago we had one done at an Audi dealer was under £150.

I would ring Volvo and get a price for the parts gear box oil is dirt cheap as well and takes 2 seconds to fill.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
If it makes you feel any better you're not the only one with car bills. My Evoque will be going in for some work soon and JLR products tend to need expensive care :D
Click to expand...
Just had to replace all 4 tyres on my wife's Evoque, £910 and that's after 5% discount :( Checked everywhere online for cheaper but even Black Circles came up at £963.
 
snerkler said:
Just had to replace all 4 tyres on my wife's Evoque, £910 and that's after 5% discount :( Checked everywhere online for cheaper but even Black Circles came up at £963.
Click to expand...

This is why i am happy to have 17" wheels, I can get all 4 x Goodyear AS6 for £560.
 
Thinking about the A9iii that’s rumoured, I’d imagine it’ll be £4500 minimum based on the A9II launch price, it’s going to have to be something special to tempt some people when you can get an A1 from Panamoz for £4770.
 
snerkler said:
Thinking about the A9iii that’s rumoured, I’d imagine it’ll be £4500 minimum based on the A9II launch price, it’s going to have to be something special to tempt some people when you can get an A1 from Panamoz for £4770.
Click to expand...
I don't think they'll make an A9iii.

If they do the grey prices will also come down eventually just like it's done on A1 and it's doing on A7RV
 
snerkler said:
Thinking about the A9iii that’s rumoured, I’d imagine it’ll be £4500 minimum based on the A9II launch price, it’s going to have to be something special to tempt some people when you can get an A1 from Panamoz for £4770.
Click to expand...

My guess for the March announcement is a new RX model but we'll find out soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top