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

Mike.P said:
Amazon have the 20-70mm for £1128 ATM plus you get £75 credit after a month.

Tempting.
Click to expand...
Bought a Zeiss lens from Amazon once, got sent a pair of kiddies binoculars instead and spent hours trying to get a refund while they basically accused me of lying. Put me off ever buying camera gear from them again. Just a heads up!
 
Mike.P said:
@snerkler Toby, have you tried your 70-200mm MKII with both teleconverters?

Thinking about getting one and maybe selling on the 100-400mm GM.
Click to expand...
You have got me thinking. I used the 70-200 with the 1.4x yesterday and it was excellent. I have the 100-400 too and it is a great lens but I really dislike trombone style lenses as they are so much harder to keep dry in poor conditions and I don't like the handling as much. I was shooting a charity walk and it absolutely bucketed down most of the day. I'd usually use the 100-400 but chose the 70-200 and 1.4 as a simple poly bag and elastic band kept it nice and dry. I might do some tests as it would be good to free up some cash and I don't really use the 100-400 very often.
 
Robjwilli said:
Bought a Zeiss lens from Amazon once, got sent a pair of kiddies binoculars instead and spent hours trying to get a refund while they basically accused me of lying. Put me off ever buying camera gear from them again. Just a heads up!
Click to expand...
Bought several lenses from Amazon over the years, never had an issue including returns. Sounds like you just had a bad experience :(
 
wookie6262 said:
You have got me thinking. I used the 70-200 with the 1.4x yesterday and it was excellent. I have the 100-400 too and it is a great lens but I really dislike trombone style lenses as they are so much harder to keep dry in poor conditions and I don't like the handling as much. I was shooting a charity walk and it absolutely bucketed down most of the day. I'd usually use the 100-400 but chose the 70-200 and 1.4 as a simple poly bag and elastic band kept it nice and dry. I might do some tests as it would be good to free up some cash and I don't really use the 100-400 very often.
Click to expand...
The 70-200mm is nicer handling but I sometimes use the 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC so the 70-200mm can’t really be a substitute for me.
 
wookie6262 said:
I have the 200-600 so would use that if I needed to get to 600.
Click to expand...
That's a great combo (assuming the 70-200mm with 2x TC stands up, which it appears to do), it's just a shame for me that the 200-600mm is as heavy as it is.
 
A few from yesterday's Ashover Classic Car and Motorcycle Show, unfortunately a very poor turnout yesterday with less than a 1/4 of the number of cars that usually turn up. Probably due to the hit and miss weather.

A lot of photoshopping going on to remove cars and people next to the subjects. Due to the feedback from the last show I did try various apertures this time, my preference is still generally wide open :p

1.

A1_05634-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

2.

A1_05641-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

3.

A1_05673-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

4.

A1_05678-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

5.

A1_05700 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

6.

A1_05731-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

7.

A1_05742-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

8.

A1_05765-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have the 135gm and the 70-200 II, how do they compare?

Have the 135 gm and really like it but the zoom would get used a lot more
 
JohnMcL7 said:
25,600 is the setting I use for the max iso when using auto iso on the FF cameras but it's absolutely nowhere near max iso, on the A9 that's over 200,000 and the A7SII it's over 400,000 neither of which produce usable shots for me hence why I'd never use the max iso of the camera on the auto iso setting as standard.
Click to expand...

Each to their own and we obviously have very different views on this but we're right back to my original point here. I'm not going to stand with a camera and not take a picture because I think the IQ performance will be too poor, I'm going to take the picture if at all possible because at least then when I have it on the pc I can make a choice.

I've had a look at the A7IV sample gallery DPR but I found them useless. I suppose one day when my A7 conks I'll get to try a modern camera with a very high ISO setting. I can't say 100% yet but I bet I'll use those high ISO's at some point to get a picture :D
 
snerkler said:
A lot of photoshopping going on to remove cars and people next to the subjects. Due to the feedback from the last show I did try various apertures this time, my preference is still generally wide open :p
Click to expand...

Nice shots, for me I'd still take a little more DOF, but then the background would bec ome a more busy! I too shoot wide open for these type of shots but my lens only goes to F2.8 (F2.2 FF equiv)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Nice shots, for me I'd still take a little more DOF, but then the background would bec ome a more busy! I too shoot wide open for these type of shots but my lens only goes to F2.8 (F2.2 FF equiv)
Click to expand...

Yup.

Maybe not f10 or anything like it but there could well be a compromise aperture to get more of the subject acceptably sharp but still blur some of the background.
 
woof woof said:
Yup.

Maybe not f10 or anything like it but there could well be a compromise aperture to get more of the subject acceptably sharp but still blur some of the background.
Click to expand...
The max I took it too yesterday was f2 (except for interiors) but it wasn't for me (y)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I think is how you want the photo to look, do you want to isolate the car from the background, or just the front of the car, I prefer the former, you prefer the latter :)
Click to expand...
It's not so much about isolating the front of the car it's 'the look' that I like that I can't quite describe. It's a cross between pop, miniaturisation and brenizer, I guess that's the best way to describe it, or maybe the most confusing way to describe it :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
That's a great combo (assuming the 70-200mm with 2x TC stands up, which it appears to do), it's just a shame for me that the 200-600mm is as heavy as it is.
Click to expand...
I only use the 200-600 for infrequent bird photography. The weight is fine for me shooting level and I would use a monopod for that anyways. However when you are pointing the lens down as I was at Bempton Cliffs it was a workout. The lens is a brilliant bit of glass for the cash though
 
woof woof said:
Each to their own and we obviously have very different views on this but we're right back to my original point here. I'm not going to stand with a camera and not take a picture because I think the IQ performance will be too poor, I'm going to take the picture if at all possible because at least then when I have it on the pc I can make a choice.

I've had a look at the A7IV sample gallery DPR but I found them useless. I suppose one day when my A7 conks I'll get to try a modern camera with a very high ISO setting. I can't say 100% yet but I bet I'll use those high ISO's at some point to get a picture :D
Click to expand...
I’m like you I would take the photo at whatever iso was needed then see what it’s like or what I can do on the PC.

I remember using 800asa film and pushing it to 3200 to do rugby. It was processed accordingly but had grain like golf balls. The paper still used it as that was all they could get.

25600iso is so clean on current cameras compared to that.
 
woof woof said:
Each to their own and we obviously have very different views on this but we're right back to my original point here. I'm not going to stand with a camera and not take a picture because I think the IQ performance will be too poor, I'm going to take the picture if at all possible because at least then when I have it on the pc I can make a choice.

I've had a look at the A7IV sample gallery DPR but I found them useless. I suppose one day when my A7 conks I'll get to try a modern camera with a very high ISO setting. I can't say 100% yet but I bet I'll use those high ISO's at some point to get a picture :D
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we do have different views as you said you use 25,600 as your max which is the same as what I use? The problem is cameras with much higher max isos don't have that value because they are much better at high iso, it's just it sounds better and the fact they're almost completely unusable at that iso doesn't matter. I've used cameras with a 1/2.3in sensor that were noisy above iso 100 and had a absurd high iso setting of 3200 which produced pictures that looked like an abstract painting the high iso noise reduction was so severe.
 
wookie6262 said:
I only use the 200-600 for infrequent bird photography. The weight is fine for me shooting level and I would use a monopod for that anyways. However when you are pointing the lens down as I was at Bempton Cliffs it was a workout. The lens is a brilliant bit of glass for the cash though
Click to expand...
When I do motorsports I carry my camera, 70-200mm, 100-400mm, 50mm and 1.4xTC, I think if I subbed the 100-400mm for the 200-600mm it would be too much. My shoulders and back ache after walking round the circuit all day as it is.
 
snerkler said:
When I do motorsports I carry my camera, 70-200mm, 100-400mm, 50mm and 1.4xTC, I think if I subbed the 100-400mm for the 200-600mm it would be too much. My shoulders and back ache after walking round the circuit all day as it is.
Click to expand...
I don't do much motorsport but the last couple of times I have just taken a single lens and body. If I was taking more I would use my wheeled case
 
wookie6262 said:
I don't do much motorsport but the last couple of times I have just taken a single lens and body. If I was taking more I would use my wheeled case
Click to expand...
I've always thought they look a lot of hassle when I've seen people dragging them around as a lot of the time you're on grass or gravel. I prefer a backpack hence why I don't want the weight to get too ridiculous. I also tend to have my lunch and a 2l bottle of water in the bag too :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
I sent my Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5 away to be cleaned today as the focus ring gets stiff towards infinity, Once that's back I think I've decided I have everything I need :D

I have my Sony lenses a load of film era manual lenses and 6 modern manual lenses and I think that's more than enough although I'm always tempted by a wide lens and a long macro.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
When I do motorsports I carry my camera, 70-200mm, 100-400mm, 50mm and 1.4xTC, I think if I subbed the 100-400mm for the 200-600mm it would be too much. My shoulders and back ache after walking round the circuit all day as it is.
Click to expand...
Too much for me anyway even though I'd like a bit more reach at times, I was going to a race and packed the 150-600mm then thought am I really going to carry this all weekend? Then decided not to take it and after ending up walking 25 miles I was glad I made that choice, the 100-400mm is as big as I can manage to carry around with me.
 
woof woof said:
Size, weight and price need to be confirmed :D plus it's f4 although I do appreciate that making it f2.8 will have a knock on effect on size, weight and price :D
Click to expand...
Would make a great travel lens for me, could be a genuine replacement for my 24-70mm and 16-35mm. f2.8 isn't needed for me with a lens like this as I'm shooting at f8-11 99% of the time.
 
snerkler said:
Would make a great travel lens for me, could be a genuine replacement for my 24-70mm and 16-35mm. f2.8 isn't needed for me with a lens like this as I'm shooting at f8-11 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

I've had the 28-70mm since day 1 and have probably used it single figure times. I bought the collapsible 28-60mm thinking I might use it more and I think I've used it twice. If I could grow to love zooms maybe a wide to standard zoom and a fast prime would make a great pair.
 
The above car pictures remind me that I haven't taken a decent picture of my latest buy yet. The last car I took to a location to photograph was my current MX5. I used my Canon 20D and I think the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. This was framed and on the wall with other car pictures taken with my Nikon until I took them down to redecorate and they never went back up.

IMG_7649.jpg

That was April 2009, in a pull in on the way to Great Ayton, I think.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
2x TC was dire with the original 70-200mm f2.8 which made me sell it and get the 100-400mm.

you can use this tool for some comparisons

www.the-digital-picture.com

Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

Looks to be about usable if you are willing to stop down to f8 with the new GMii version.
Click to expand...
Finally got around to looking at this on the computer, to my eyes the 70-200mm with 2x TX at 400mm is much softer than the 100-400mm at 400mm with both at f5.6. If you stop the 70-200mm down to f8 it's still softer than the 100-400mm at f5.6, if that's true to life in the real world the 2x TC is definitely not for me.
 
snerkler said:
Finally got around to looking at this on the computer, to my eyes the 70-200mm with 2x TX at 400mm is much softer than the 100-400mm at 400mm with both at f5.6. If you stop the 70-200mm down to f8 it's still softer than the 100-400mm at f5.6, if that's true to life in the real world the 2x TC is definitely not for me.
Click to expand...
I did a very quick comparison the other day and that was my findings too. I think I will be keeping my 100-400 at least until there is a better option. I'd love to try a Sigma 120-300 Sport on teh A1 to see how well it works
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top