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

Nikon? Nah. Too much invested in Sony.

A7III and Sony 40mm f2.5. Two views, same subject. Near sunset.

DSC00292.JPG

DSC00307.JPG

I wanted to go to Marske (seaside) to photograph some beached boats at around sunset but there was partial cloud cover and generally poor light. I might try again tomorrow.

Also, I won a picture frame at the church tombola on Saturday but I donated it back. I sort of wish I'd kept it now. I fancy printing and framing some pictures.
 
Last edited:
Zadro said:
Thank you all, there is a lot for me to think about here. Visiting Wex tomorrow, they have a much larger range of cameras / lenses. I don't want to simply rush into a purchase but do understand there is an element of personal preferences which I will only learn by getting started!
Click to expand...
A7iii is currently £1,000 on Amazon or other places (i.e. now sale price as was post cashback but no longer need to claim cashback afterwards) but also with the kit lens is only £1,100.

Even if you didn't want the kit lens then could sell it for more than it cost you so bringing the price of the camera down further.
 
@mike_6480 I hadn’t had chance to have a look at the deals today. £1,100 for the camera with the kit lens seems amazing!

Do you think that they may be discontinuing the A7iii soon?
 
Zadro said:
@mike_6480 I hadn’t had chance to have a look at the deals today. £1,100 for the camera with the kit lens seems amazing!

Do you think that they may be discontinuing the A7iii soon?
Click to expand...

They still make & sell the MkI version. No, they are unlikely to discontinue the III because it's a good way to get new users into the Sony system, and it's still a really good camera. It's almost cheap enough to make me wonder about buying a new one & moving my 5 year old model on.
 
Zadro said:
@mike_6480 I hadn’t had chance to have a look at the deals today. £1,100 for the camera with the kit lens seems amazing!

Do you think that they may be discontinuing the A7iii soon?
Click to expand...
I doubt it, but what does it matter?
 
Zadro said:
@mike_6480 I hadn’t had chance to have a look at the deals today. £1,100 for the camera with the kit lens seems amazing!

Do you think that they may be discontinuing the A7iii soon?
Click to expand...

The kit lens and a fast prime would be nice, maybe the Sony 35mm f1.8. It has a useful close focus distance.
 
Before bed time.

A7 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4. Staithes. Hard to believe it's a colour picture.

DSC04828.jpg

A two picture stitch from the same day.

Staiths-29-2-2024.jpg
 
Last edited:
@snerkler having had a think about it I am probably concerned about nothing; it is not like a computer really that is only supported for so long!

@woof woof hmm I was just pricing this up this morning before seeing your post.

Definitely getting closer and I did get the opportunity to see and handle a Zf the other day. It was ergonomically the most awkward thing so I’ve ruled that out no matter how good it looks. Really liked the Canon offering but R7 is a crop sensor and still more expensive than the A7iii and the R6 mkii is lovely but my whole target budget spent on the body alone and there seems very little lens options compared to Sony. Menus were more intuitive but once you’re used to where everything is I’m not sure how much that really matters.

Love the first of your two photos.
 
If you care about weight and size, why not consider a crop or micro 4/3 sensor camera? The lenses are much smaller for a similar field of view, and for architecture and indoors you’ll primarily want large depth of field not shallow, so there’s no loss there. You’d get a lot more for your money too.

There are reasons to go full frame, but image quality is not normally the limiting factor on photo quality for most people (and I say this owning a full frame camera, amongst others). Similarly you’re not looking at very high resolution options so that’s not a limit either, you’d get ~20Mp in all the options in your budget.

You mentioned wide angle as a reason before IIRC, but there’s no different between the options. Yes, the same focal length on each sensor gives a different FOV but you just use shorter focal lengths on smaller sensors. E.g. a crop super zoom might be an 18-200 and a full frame would be 28-300 but both lens & sensor combos cover the exact same range of field of view.
 
Last edited:
Zadro said:
having had a think about it I am probably concerned about nothing; it is not like a computer really that is only supported for so long!
Click to expand...
No it doesn't matter with cameras, the only time it will be an issue is if they stop developing the system which is not going to happen any time soon, and even then it's not as though the camera would stop working ;)
the_accidental said:
If you care about weight and size, why not consider a crop or micro 4/3 sensor camera? The lenses are much smaller for a similar field of view, and for architecture and indoors you’ll primarily want large depth of field not shallow, so there’s no loss there. You’d get a lot more for your money too.

There are reasons to go full frame, but image quality is not normally the limiting factor on photo quality for most people (and I say this owning a full frame camera, amongst others). Similarly you’re not looking at very high resolution options so that’s not a limit either, you’d get ~20Mp in all the options in your budget.

You mentioned wide angle as a reason before IIRC, but there’s no different between the options. Yes, the same focal length on each sensor gives a different FOV but you just use shorter focal lengths on smaller sensors. E.g. a crop super zoom might be an 18-200 and a full frame would be 28-300 but both lens & sensor combos cover the exact same range of field of view.
Click to expand...
This does depend, but in the right scenarios there is little difference in normal viewing instances. I dare say that FF may shine over m4/3 with indoor architectural photography simply due to the large dynamic range and being able to bring out the shadows better.
 
I've had MFT since the GF1 but for me the image quality of my ancient A7 is easily better if you go looking for the differences or start pushing things ISO or crop wise. MFT pictures can get lost in a plie or slideshow of pictures together with FF and even 1" but when the ISO rises or the crop gets heavy or you start looking closely or pushing things in processing the differences IMO can be seen.

For me the smaller RF style MFT cameras fitted with smaller lenses make the most sense but once you get into the more modern SLR style camera and the better lenses the bulk and weight savings may begin to disappear and the cost maybe becomes less attractive too.
 
the_accidental said:
If you care about weight and size, why not consider a crop or micro 4/3 sensor camera? The lenses are much smaller for a similar field of view, and for architecture and indoors you’ll primarily want large depth of field not shallow, so there’s no loss there. You’d get a lot more for your money too.

There are reasons to go full frame, but image quality is not normally the limiting factor on photo quality for most people (and I say this owning a full frame camera, amongst others). Similarly you’re not looking at very high resolution options so that’s not a limit either, you’d get ~20Mp in all the options in your budget.

You mentioned wide angle as a reason before IIRC, but there’s no different between the options. Yes, the same focal length on each sensor gives a different FOV but you just use shorter focal lengths on smaller sensors. E.g. a crop super zoom might be an 18-200 and a full frame would be 28-300 but both lens & sensor combos cover the exact same range of field of view.
Click to expand...

In all honesty m43 sucks pretty bad.

I spent about 3k on m43 equipment and traded it all in the very next day as found image quality was very disappointing compared to the full frame images I am used too.
 
f/2.8 said:
In all honesty m43 sucks pretty bad.

I spent about 3k on m43 equipment and traded it all in the very next day as found image quality was very disappointing compared to the full frame images I am used too.
Click to expand...

This I can understand. The X100f IQ is just about good enough for me and what I want. I wouldn't want anything less I don't think.
 
I’m not saying there isn’t an IQ difference, just that it’s rarely the thing that makes the difference. Even the noise advantage of newer cameras is reduced if you’re viewing at smaller sizes on screens where you can resample to lower resolution.

I’ve had m43 cameras since the G1 (though nothing recent), and Nikon crop and full frame at home and professionally (plus a bunch of other weird work cameras), had an X100 till recently and currently shoot Sony full frame myself. So I’m not speaking from no experience - my point was for a given budget if size and weight are in the balance then it is worth considering smaller sensors.

Eg sticking with Sony, a colleague uses the A6700 (and previously the 6400) and has got some very good results. The body is similar to my A7Cii but for a given view angle range the lenses are certainly smaller and cheaper.

I’ll not deny the A7Cii gives the best technical quality however, but body alone would nearly blow the budget we’re discussing here.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
In all honesty m43 sucks pretty bad.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It's just that it can't match FF of today. To keep MFT in perspective I don't compare it to my A7 but to the Canon DSLR's I used years ago and IMO MFT is better than any of those cameras I owned and better than the 5DII my wedding pictures were taken with, I ended up processing the pictures. Even the early Panasonic G1 I had gave my 5D a good fright in some situations.

OK. Things like the 20D, 5D and 5DII are ancient now and can't compete with current kit for IQ but at the time and even now people are taking good pictures with them and Googling today should get you to outstanding MFT pictures which stand comparison with just about anything. You just need to know the limitations and stay within them.
 
LeeRatters said:
This I can understand. The X100f IQ is just about good enough for me and what I want. I wouldn't want anything less I don't think.
Click to expand...

As I've said before and you may disagree, I saw no IQ advantage for the f over the 16 and 20mp MFT cameras I have and in some instances such as harsh light I saw an advantage for MFT DR wise but this may have been due to some sort of metering quirk or something applied in camera to the f raws v MFT as it did seem to sometimes blow highlights when MFT did not. Other than the highlights I thought MFT and the f were pretty much on a par for IQ but for me MFT shaded it in other areas such as focus speed and accuracy and the MF experience. "Want one" wise the Fuji is very attractive though.

1" is as small a system as I'm happy with but even then pixel peeping will make me less happy.
 
the_accidental said:
I’m not saying there isn’t an IQ difference, just that it’s rarely the thing that makes the difference. Even the noise advantage of newer cameras is reduced if you’re viewing at smaller sizes on screens where you can resample to lower resolution.

I’ve had m43 cameras since the G1 (though nothing recent), and Nikon crop and full frame at home and professionally (plus a bunch of other weird work cameras), had an X100 till recently and currently shoot Sony full frame myself. So I’m not speaking from no experience - my point was for a given budget if size and weight are in the balance then it is worth considering smaller sensors.

Eg sticking with Sony, a colleague uses the A6700 (and previously the 6400) and has got some very good results. The body is similar to my A7Cii but for a given view angle range the lenses are certainly smaller and cheaper.

I’ll not deny the A7Cii gives the best technical quality however, but body alone would nearly blow the budget we’re discussing here.
Click to expand...

The G1 was one of my favourites ever. The EVF was annoying in low light as it failed to show detail clearly visible by eye and kicked out so much light it was painful to use but the bulk, weight and handling were pretty much spot on for me and the IQ at low to what then would count as middling ISO's was/is IMO good if limited by DR.

At the moment MFT still has advantages for me, mainly the bulk and weight, just about instantaneous AF and the small form factor with some body and lens combinations.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree M43 is nice and light. When I was using my Nikon D610 and Nikon zooms then the quality wasn't far off. But after Sony and G/GM lenses or even budgety Samyang, the quality doesn't hold up if you really look at the photo. Still a lot better than a phone though.
 
woof woof said:
No it doesn't. It's just that it can't match FF of today. To keep MFT in perspective I don't compare it to my A7 but to the Canon DSLR's I used years ago and IMO MFT is better than any of those cameras I owned and better than the 5DII my wedding pictures were taken with, I ended up processing the pictures. Even the early Panasonic G1 I had gave my 5D a good fright in some situations.

OK. Things like the 20D, 5D and 5DII are ancient now and can't compete with current kit for IQ but at the time and even now people are taking good pictures with them and Googling today should get you to outstanding MFT pictures which stand comparison with just about anything. You just need to know the limitations and stay within them.
Click to expand...
We will have to disagree there for me m43 is absolute rubbish in terms of image quality. Compared to everything else I have ever used.

Even way back over 15 years ago my old APSC Nikon D7000 produced much better results than the latest M43 gear and any full frame camera I have had since then absolutely blows even the very latest m43 stuff completely out of the water in terms of image quality. If you think that M43 image quality is better than even the ancient 5DII your wedding photographer used that may be down more to the abilities of your wedding photographer because even the 5DII is light years better image quality than the very best M43 available. That is just my opinion of course. I didn't get rid of the M43 kit I had after only a day for no reason, honestly it was trash, get better results from my phone.
 
dcash29 said:
Toby, do you back up your cards in the field?
Click to expand...
I always write to 2 cards simultaneously but don’t load them onto the computer until I get home.
 
Nice comparisons of similar photos (and great photos). It’s not apples to apples, but eg that last pair of wide angles the camera and lens weight is 40% more for the full frame vs the micro 4/3. That’s a small full frame DSLR vs a large m43 camera too.

Harder to compare cost, different generations of camera.
 
the_accidental said:
Nice comparisons of similar photos (and great photos). It’s not apples to apples, but eg that last pair of wide angles the camera and lens weight is 40% more for the full frame vs the micro 4/3. That’s a small full frame DSLR vs a large m43 camera too.

Harder to compare cost, different generations of camera.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

1225g vs 956g. However if you compare the ‘heavy’ A1 with 24-70mm f4 which is more equivalent to the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro then it’s 956g vs 1167g.

Pair the 24-70mm with the A7 III and you’re down to 1080g, all of a sudden the weight saving of m4/3 isn’t significant (y)
 
You could go lighter on the m4/3 though too… but your point is well made. Either can be heavy or light depending what you compare. Cost wise a 24-70/4 is similar to a 14-40/2.8 too, and will be similar DoF etc. too.
 
the_accidental said:
You could go lighter on the m4/3 though too… but your point is well made. Either can be heavy or light depending what you compare. Cost wise a 24-70/4 is similar to a 14-40/2.8 too, and will be similar DoF etc. too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and you can go lighter still with FF.

F2.8 on m4/3 is equivalent to f5.6 on FF so you will get a stop more DOF with m4/3 (y).

I’m not anti m4/3 btw, it’s a great system, it’s just the weight saving isn’t what it once was.
 
Good comparison pix Toby, thanks for posting those.

At the size they're presented on TP viewed on my laptop, even with my poor eyesite, I can see the difference in the 2nd and 3rd pictures, with the M43 images much flatter than the full frame. Only the pictures with the bikes are difficult to tell apart. Going to flickr, when seen 'full size' I can see the Sony picture holds more detail, and especially greater range of tones in the white areas of the racing suit.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Good comparison pix Toby, thanks for posting those.

At the size they're presented on TP viewed on my laptop, even with my poor eyesite, I can see the difference in the 2nd and 3rd pictures, with the M43 images much flatter than the full frame. Only the pictures with the bikes are difficult to tell apart. Going to flickr, when seen 'full size' I can see the Sony picture holds more detail, and especially greater range of tones in the white areas of the racing suit.
Click to expand...
How weird, I think you can tell more with the bike photos :LOL:

I think the meerkat’s arguably the hardest to tell but that particular Olympus one was shot with the 300mm f4 vs the Tamron 150-600mm at f8 on the Nikon.
 
snerkler said:
How weird, I think you can tell more with the bike photos :LOL:

I think the meerkat’s arguably the hardest to tell but that particular Olympus one was shot with the 300mm f4 vs the Tamron 150-600mm at f8 on the Nikon.
Click to expand...

The meerkat with the M43 is a flat cut-out on a blurred background. The Sony image I can see the whiskers more readily, as well as the form having a little more depth.

I remember you posting those pictures of a river scene some years back - you didn't tell us which was which, but the FF image popped out of the screen while the M43 stayed flat.
 
f/2.8 said:
We will have to disagree there for me m43 is absolute rubbish in terms of image quality. Compared to everything else I have ever used.

Even way back over 15 years ago my old APSC Nikon D7000 produced much better results than the latest M43 gear and any full frame camera I have had since then absolutely blows even the very latest m43 stuff completely out of the water in terms of image quality. If you think that M43 image quality is better than even the ancient 5DII your wedding photographer used that may be down more to the abilities of your wedding photographer because even the 5DII is light years better image quality than the very best M43 available. That is just my opinion of course. I didn't get rid of the M43 kit I had after only a day for no reason, honestly it was trash, get better results from my phone.
Click to expand...

I processed the 5DII raws and yes, IMO MFT beats that camera for file quality and I think that (file quality) is independent of the photographer. I haven't looked at bench tests for the 5DII but some time back I looked at the 5DIII and MFT beats that camera for DR at least at base ISO and probably higher so must be better than the 5DII too but I do know DR isn't the be all and end all. What I can say is that having used Canon DSLR's for... er... about 10 years MFT beats anything Canon I owned. As above that doesn't mean MFT can compete with a modern FF camera but what it should mean is that it should be possible to get a decent picture from MFT just as it was possible with those creaking old Canon's.

Whenever I think I'm being limited by the kit I try to take a look at what other people are doing with the same or similar kit. However, I know I'm just a happy snapper and TBH I don't put a lot of work into either taking or processing pictures so for me the better the kit the more likely it is that I'll get a half decent result.

I have a folder I put my favourite pictures in and I often put them on a slideshow. Most are Sony pictures probably because I think I've taken more pictures with Sony than anything else now, the next biggest percentage is MFT with Canon, then Panny 1" and then Fuji (my first digital was a S602 pro zoom.) I really like some MFT. I could post hundreds and I probably have on this forum, image quality is just a part of it though as someone once said "The best camera is the one you have with you."

P1080363.jpg

Edit.
Just for fun here's a couple of Fuji S602 pictures. I think I remember just about every second of that holiday.

1 018-R.jpg

1 032-R.jpg

Horrible camera though :D
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
F2.8 on m4/3 is equivalent to f5.6 on FF so you will get a stop more DOF with m4/3 (y).
Click to expand...

I use MFT with the crop factor in mind for focal length and aperture. I generally use MFT wide open to f4 but with occasional nose bleed risking trips to f5 or so. I think this helps to keep the IQ up. With the variable aperture zooms you're stuck at quite restrictive equivalent apertures but the primes give flexibility for keeping the IQ up.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The meerkat with the M43 is a flat cut-out on a blurred background. The Sony image I can see the whiskers more readily, as well as the form having a little more depth.

I remember you posting those pictures of a river scene some years back - you didn't tell us which was which, but the FF image popped out of the screen while the M43 stayed flat.
Click to expand...
I think there's a lot of variables at play, as I think this one looks pretty flat


DSC_7618-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Then this one has quite a bit of pop/depth

A7R09986 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

And then flat again :thinking:

A7R09684 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
woof woof said:
I use MFT with the crop factor in mind for focal length and aperture. I generally use MFT wide open to f4 but with occasional nose bleed risking trips to f5 or so. I think this helps to keep the IQ up. With the variable aperture zooms you're stuck at quite restrictive equivalent apertures but the primes give flexibility for keeping the IQ up.
Click to expand...
Yeah I tended to shoot landscapes at f4-f5.6 on m4/3, and tend to shoot f8-11 on FF. The advantage of m4/3 in this is the faster shutter speed due to the wider aperture.
 
On the bike pics I noticed a difference in the colours. Which one is closet to the real thing?
 
Icee said:
On the bike pics I noticed a difference in the colours. Which one is closet to the real thing?
Click to expand...
The colours are slightly different from year to year but from memory the Sony ones. Overall the m4/3 needed much more doing in post and I probably overdid it in places.

I might dig the raw file out again one day and see if I can get it to look better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top