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

f/2.8 said:
I would say that’s pretty close it’s also gonna have the A9III body which is a huge improvement and the new card slots that support the quicker CFExpress
Click to expand...
I’m yet to see an A9 III but I’m really happy with the design of the A1 and A7RV so I hope I’m going to like the newer bodies.
 
snerkler said:
I’m yet to see an A9 III but I’m really happy with the design of the A1 and A7RV so I hope I’m going to like the newer bodies.
Click to expand...

The newer body design is much better best ergonomics to date for sure.
 
f/2.8 said:
The newer body design is much better best ergonomics to date for sure.
Click to expand...
Yeah they’ve tended to improve them all the way along. However, I really like the current design and don’t want them to stray too far off it.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I didn't say it earlier, but you've got the processing just right for these. Great contrast between light skin - which looks warm and alive - and dark fabrics with the BG velvety and just a touch darker.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much.
 
I see from another thread that West Yorkshire Cameras are closing. They gave me a reasonable quote for some film era lenses I wanted to sell and then when they got the lenses they reduced the quote to the point that I didn't think it was acceptable. I didn't pick and choose, I just told them to send the lot back. I know people tend to over estimate the condition and value of their kit but I did think they were going too far and no one I've sold a lens to on here has complained.

They rated a couple of my lenses as "Ugly" but I just can't see it. I had another look when I got them back and I shone a torch through them and I honestly can't see their point even with these being decades old lenses. I'd describe both as being in very good condition. Where they trying to boost their profits a bit? I don't know.

Oh well. It's still sad to see anything photography related wither away.
 
Last edited:
Selling my little used film era lenses has got me looking at my Sony mount lenses. I've used my Sony 35mm f2.8 a lot and when I've managed a holiday that's the lens I've taken and it's been on a lot of days out but I haven't used it since I got the 40mm f2.5 which I think is the better lens even if it isn't 35mm.

Other lenses I've hardly used are the 20mm f1.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 35mm f1.8, 55mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and 28-70mm f3.5-5.6. In other words everything except the 35mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.5 are little used. I think I want to keep all of them even if just for occasional use but I think I will think about selling the 35mm f2.8 but then again what would I get for it? Might as well keep it :D
 
woof woof said:
Selling my little used film era lenses has got me looking at my Sony mount lenses. I've used my Sony 35mm f2.8 a lot and when I've managed a holiday that's the lens I've taken and it's been on a lot of days out but I haven't used it since I got the 40mm f2.5 which I think is the better lens even if it isn't 35mm.

Other lenses I've hardly used are the 20mm f1.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 35mm f1.8, 55mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and 28-70mm f3.5-5.6. In other words everything except the 35mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.5 are little used. I think I want to keep all of them even if just for occasional use but I think I will think about selling the 35mm f2.8 but then again what would I get for it? Might as well keep it :D
Click to expand...
In what way is the 40mm f2.5 better than the 35mm f2.8?
 
the_accidental said:
If you really like the 40/2.5G sell the 35 and a few others to get the set of small G lenses, perhaps used?
Click to expand...

I have the 24 and 40mm G's so the only one left that I haven't got is the 50mm but I think it's maybe too close to 40mm to bother with. At the moment I have the 40mm on my A7III and the 24mm f2.8 on my A7. I took then both out a few weeks ago and having 24 and 40mm on two cameras does save changing lenses.
 
snerkler said:
In what way is the 40mm f2.5 better than the 35mm f2.8?
Click to expand...

Build wise obviously it has the aperture ring and perhaps it's overall a nicer looking build. IQ wise I think it's a bit sharper across the frame, a bit sharper at wide apertures and to me it gives a more finished look straight out of the camera, slightly different colours, the 40mm focuses closer and is maybe a bit faster to focus. I think the 40mm is the better lens than the old 35mm f2.8 but I think you do have to obsess and go looking for the differences.
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
Yeah, that's way too much variety for me..... :ROFLMAO:

Just pick your most used and favourites and be done with it ;)
Click to expand...

Like with the old lenses I used to rotate them then the 35mm f2.8 sort of took over unless I fancied using a MF lens. The 35mm f1.8 is nice as you get f1.8 and it focuses closer but of course it's bigger. I like 50mm and the 55mm is 55mm and I seem to have a mental block about it. The 85mm is a bit long and it's bigger and heavier. I like the 20 and 28mm lenses but they haven't seen a much use as the 35, 40 and Voigtlanders. I've used the 24mm f2.8 a bit and it's a nice pairing with 35/40mm.

I suppose I'll keep them all.

I've been looking at the Vougtlanders too. I have the 35mm f1.4 which is probably my most used lens, number of pictures taken wise, and I have the 35 and 50mm f1.2's and the 50mm f2 apo. I suppose I should really sell a 50mm. The f1.2 has f1.2 but the f2 is just an excellent lens. I suppose I'll just keep them all.
 
woof woof said:
Like with the old lenses I used to rotate them then the 35mm f2.8 sort of took over unless I fancied using a MF lens. The 35mm f1.8 is nice as you get f1.8 and it focuses closer but of course it's bigger. I like 50mm and the 55mm is 55mm and I seem to have a mental block about it. The 85mm is a bit long and it's bigger and heavier. I like the 20 and 28mm lenses but they haven't seen a much use as the 35, 40 and Voigtlanders. I've used the 24mm f2.8 a bit and it's a nice pairing with 35/40mm.

I suppose I'll keep them all.

I've been looking at the Vougtlanders too. I have the 35mm f1.4 which is probably my most used lens, number of pictures taken wise, and I have the 35 and 50mm f1.2's and the 50mm f2 apo. I suppose I should really sell a 50mm. The f1.2 has f1.2 but the f2 is just an excellent lens. I suppose I'll just keep them all.
Click to expand...

I've not used the 40G but I think it would be better than the 35Zeiss tbh and I think I'd pick 40mm out of the two.

24GM, 35GM and FE85 is a nice set up for me. For how much I used to shoot 50mm pre Sony, I don't really have a big want for 50mm anymore. I have been using the CV40/1.2 quite a bit lately though saying that..... I'm glad I didn't sell that now as it does have a few dedicated uses.
 
woof woof said:
Anybody taken any winter leaf shots yet?
Click to expand...
I collected some leaves from around the playground while my boys were playing and mucked about in a light tent once they’d dried out. Quite pleased with the results…


Sony A1, Sony 90mm shot at 1/125, f8 and ISO320 in a light tent, and processed in capture one
 
f/2.8 said:
An interesting lens at last with a new 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2 coming soon as well.


View attachment 438028
Click to expand...
Yes looks an interesting lineup, I wonder how big and heavy they will be. I’ve never used Viltrox and have no idea what their AF is like.
 
snerkler said:
Yes looks an interesting lineup, I wonder how big and heavy they will be. I’ve never used Viltrox and have no idea what their AF is like.
Click to expand...

I had the 85 f1.8 about 4 years ago and it was particularly poor, being very hit-or-miss (mostly miss). But things have moved on a lot, and I understand they're OK now.
 
LeeRatters said:
I've not used the 40G but I think it would be better than the 35Zeiss tbh and I think I'd pick 40mm out of the two.

24GM, 35GM and FE85 is a nice set up for me. For how much I used to shoot 50mm pre Sony, I don't really have a big want for 50mm anymore. I have been using the CV40/1.2 quite a bit lately though saying that..... I'm glad I didn't sell that now as it does have a few dedicated uses.
Click to expand...

When I had my 5D I mostly used a Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM but for some reason I just moved away and ended up liking 35mm more and now the 40mm but I still enjoy using a 50mm now and again. My first camera was a Kodak 36 Instamatic which has a 43mm f11 lens, I still have it but I don't think you can get film for it any more. I do keep thinking about getting the 35mm f1.4 GM but the truth is I know the bulk and weight would put me off.

As you might remember I had the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 but swapped it for the 35 and 50mm f1.2's.
 
woof woof said:
When I had my 5D I mostly used a Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM but for some reason I just moved away and ended up liking 35mm more and now the 40mm but I still enjoy using a 50mm now and again. My first camera was a Kodak 36 Instamatic which has a 43mm f11 lens, I still have it but I don't think you can get film for it any more. I do keep thinking about getting the 35mm f1.4 GM but the truth is I know the bulk and weight would put me off.

As you might remember I had the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 but swapped it for the 35 and 50mm f1.2's.
Click to expand...

The 'bulk and weight' is worth the performance and aperture imo ;)

tbh, I find very little noticeable difference between having the 24GM, 35GM or FE85 on the camera.
 
LeeRatters said:
The 'bulk and weight' is worth the performance and aperture imo ;)

tbh, I find very little noticeable difference between having the 24GM, 35GM or FE85 on the camera.
Click to expand...

I'd agree about the size : performance ratio.

And the 50 f1.2 is roughly the same size and weight as the 24-105.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'd agree about the size : performance ratio.

And the 50 f1.2 is roughly the same size and weight as the 24-105.
Click to expand...
I do sometimes question whether the size and weight of the 50mm f1.2 is worth it over the f1.4, but having never tried the f1.4 I can't say. I do prefer the size and weight of the 35mm f1.4 over the 50mm f1.2 though, and the 50mm f1.4 is roughly the same size and weight of the 35mm.
 
snerkler said:
Yes looks an interesting lineup, I wonder how big and heavy they will be. I’ve never used Viltrox and have no idea what their AF is like.
Click to expand...

The 35 is supposedly smaller and lighter than the Siggy 35 f/1.2 and if the a.f of the other lab lenses 16mm and 135mm is anything to go by this should be very good.

Interesting that they will be likely be the first to hit with an 85 f/1.2. They are coming hard for the other third part lens makers.

I think it’s clever as well how they have hooked people in with their ridiculously cheap lenses like the 20mm and 40mm. Both are ridiculous value for money they can’t be making a profit on those.
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
The 'bulk and weight' is worth the performance and aperture imo ;)

tbh, I find very little noticeable difference between having the 24GM, 35GM or FE85 on the camera.
Click to expand...

All those lenses are big and heavy and conspicuous for me, even the Sony f1.8's are a bit too big for me to be happy with. After not taking any pictures for a couple of weeks I noticed the weight of the A7III and 40mm yesterday and I thought it was a bit much. I do prefer my Panasonic GX80 but of course I'm not going to get A7 image quality out of that and it becomes more obvious as the ISO rises. The attention I get also bothers me and the bigger the kit the more people notice. I like small kit that other people hardly notice.

I can't see myself ever buying any of the f1.x GM's. It's not the money it's the bulk and weight and conspicuousness and TBH the difference between f1.8 and f1.4 or even f1.8 to f1.2 don't really bother me all that much. I don't take many pictures in very low light and the DoF differences to me are minimal and really for me only more obvious in the size of bokeh balls. I don't think I care about the actual depth of field difference between f1.8 and f1.4 with a 35mm lens.

PS.
I printed two people pictures to fill A4's recently and they're now framed and on the wall. One was taken with the Sony 35mm f1.8 at f4 and the other was taken with the Sony 35mm f2.8 at f5. Both stand up to 100% viewing on screen and close looking with a magnifying glass in print. Eyes, eye lashes and eye brows are easily sharp enough for me. The 40mm f2.5 is IMO better than those two lenses and I can imagine that a big f1.x GM might be a touch better again but I think the 40mm G is maybe good enough for me and I do have the Voigtlander 50mm f2 which I think is outstanding if I want even better IQ. If the mini G's were f2 or creeping up to the size of the Sony 28mm f2 that'd be great for the times when f2.8/f2.5 isn't quite enough.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
All those lenses are big and heavy and conspicuous for me, even the Sony f1.8's are a bit too big for me to be happy with. After not taking any pictures for a couple of weeks I noticed the weight of the A7III and 40mm yesterday and I thought it was a bit much. I do prefer my Panasonic GX80 but of course I'm not going to get A7 image quality out of that and it becomes more obvious as the ISO rises. The attention I get also bothers me and the bigger the kit the more people notice. I like small kit that other people hardly notice.

I can't see myself ever buying any of the f1.x GM's. It's not the money it's the bulk and weight and conspicuousness and TBH the difference between f1.8 and f1.4 or even f1.8 to f1.2 don't really bother me all that much. I don't take many pictures in very low light and the DoF differences to me are minimal and really for me only more obvious in the size of bokeh balls. I don't think I care about the actual depth of field difference between f1.8 and f1.4 with a 35mm lens.

PS.
I printed two people pictures to fill A4's recently and they're now framed and on the wall. One was taken with the Sony 35mm f1.8 at f4 and the other was taken with the Sony 35mm f2.8 at f5. Both stand up to 100% viewing on screen and close looking with a magnifying glass in print. Eyes, eye lashes and eye brows are easily sharp enough for me. The 40mm f2.5 is IMO better than those two lenses and I can imagine that a big f1.x GM might be a touch better again but I think the 40mm G is maybe good enough for me and I do have the Voigtlander 50mm f2 which I think is outstanding if I want even better IQ. If the mini G's were f2 or creeping up to the size of the Sony 28mm f2 that'd be great for the times when f2.8/f2.5 isn't quite enough.
Click to expand...
The difference in DOF is minimal, and I wouldn’t be able to tell if a photo is at f1.4 or f1.8 simply by looking at it. However I do like ‘character’ of lenses and whenever I see images shot with the 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4 they just have something special about them that I can’t put my finger on. That’s not to say I’d be able to recognise every shot with these lenses, but when I’ve been looking through images and thought that looked nice a lot of time they were shot with these which is what swayed me towards buying them.

I do think I’ll buy some lighter alternatives at some point though for when I want to pack light, and then have the GM’s for ‘best’.
 
snerkler said:
The difference in DOF is minimal, and I wouldn’t be able to tell if a photo is at f1.4 or f1.8 simply by looking at it. However I do like ‘character’ of lenses and whenever I see images shot with the 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4 they just have something special about them that I can’t put my finger on. That’s not to say I’d be able to recognise every shot with these lenses, but when I’ve been looking through images and thought that looked nice a lot of time they were shot with these which is what swayed me towards buying them.

I do think I’ll buy some lighter alternatives at some point though for when I want to pack light, and then have the GM’s for ‘best’.
Click to expand...

I do try to identify what I'm looking at and seeing when looking at lens attributes and differences and at wide apertures I can often tell what lens I've used and that includes my film era lenses but once you stop down lenses arguably show less character with bokeh, bokeh ball and aperture shape differences not being obvious factors and especially after processing when contrast and colour differences may effectively disappear, if you fiddle with these things, it can become more difficult or even impossible for me to tell other than when looking for FoV, compression and slight remaining bokeh clues. If all your lenses are sharp into the corners and show little if any ca, vignetting or bokeh character and if the colours and contrast are pretty consistent who's to know what lens was used?

Of my Sony lenses maybe the 35mm f1.8, 55mm f1.8 and the 40mm f2.5 are the ones with the more obvious look to some degree, each for their own reasons. I think the others are more in line with each other at least once stopped down other than focal length wise and the influence that has. My Voigtlander lenses are all pretty much unique in some way at least at wider apertures and of course there can be greater differences between some film era lenses.
 
Long post, bear with me, but TP is the place to ask… I’m considering trading RX10iv for used A7rii for wildlife. Crazy?

1” image detail suffers to my eye unless the ISO is under 1600-3200, woodland UK is dark except in the best weather. Flighty stuff it’s 1/1000 minimum, even with wide open f/4 ISOs are hard to keep down.

I shoot slow and steady, don’t need 5fps. I’d probably miss the RX’s easy tracking AF, but I did manage perfectly with SLR centre point PDAF for many years. (What I won’t miss is the power zoom, I’m used to riding a zoom in and out to locate stuff in the first place).

My thoughts are that the A7rii PDAF centre points are plenty good enough for my use. Pair, say, a Tamron 100-400 and even with that slower lens, cropping 42MP FF at ISO12800, even 25000, should yield more workable detail than the equivalent view on 20MP 1” at ISO3200.

I’d consider an A6400 but I prefer three dials, I set SS and aperture for the subject but adjust ISO on the fly - I just like the A7 series ergonomics. Money no object I’d be looking at more recent cameras, but I’m aware of budget and this is minimal cost to change. What would you do?
 
Thanks, the A7iii is another option I’ve considered and it isn’t too much more. I suppose the R models offer that extra ability to crop in and still retain pixel detail, but the Riii is out of budget. Certainly the ISO performance and AF of the Mk3 is better, but at the expense of ‘crop reach’.

I think I’m going to have to spend a while shooting both next time I’m in WEx: I was impressed with the A7rii at ISO 12800 shooting clear newspaper text at 30 feet with a 28-200mm though!
 
danbroad said:
I was impressed with the A7rii at ISO 12800 shooting clear newspaper text at 30 feet with a 28-200mm though!
Click to expand...

This will be down to a mix of lens and technique more than body resolution. I had the same dilemma, but the III is around a better tool IMO, with software that can now increase the apparent pixel count.
 
danbroad said:
Long post, bear with me, but TP is the place to ask… I’m considering trading RX10iv for used A7rii for wildlife. Crazy?

1” image detail suffers to my eye unless the ISO is under 1600-3200, woodland UK is dark except in the best weather. Flighty stuff it’s 1/1000 minimum, even with wide open f/4 ISOs are hard to keep down.

I shoot slow and steady, don’t need 5fps. I’d probably miss the RX’s easy tracking AF, but I did manage perfectly with SLR centre point PDAF for many years. (What I won’t miss is the power zoom, I’m used to riding a zoom in and out to locate stuff in the first place).

My thoughts are that the A7rii PDAF centre points are plenty good enough for my use. Pair, say, a Tamron 100-400 and even with that slower lens, cropping 42MP FF at ISO12800, even 25000, should yield more workable detail than the equivalent view on 20MP 1” at ISO3200.

I’d consider an A6400 but I prefer three dials, I set SS and aperture for the subject but adjust ISO on the fly - I just like the A7 series ergonomics. Money no object I’d be looking at more recent cameras, but I’m aware of budget and this is minimal cost to change. What would you do?
Click to expand...

The newer bodies have much better A.F. You know the old saying buy cheap buy twice?

The best bodies at the moment for A.F within the Sony eco system are the A9III and the A7CII, A7CR. They have all of the new advanced A,I autofocus. Below those you have the A7RV which has slightly better A.F than the A1. Below those you have the A7IV, A7R4, then you have the A9II and A9 which lack a lot of the subject recognition stuff but have real time A.F. Then you have the A7III which had the first good implementation of eye a.f. Anything older that A.F was always considered to be very pedestrian.
 
danbroad said:
Long post, bear with me, but TP is the place to ask… I’m considering trading RX10iv for used A7rii for wildlife. Crazy?

1” image detail suffers to my eye unless the ISO is under 1600-3200, woodland UK is dark except in the best weather. Flighty stuff it’s 1/1000 minimum, even with wide open f/4 ISOs are hard to keep down.

I shoot slow and steady, don’t need 5fps. I’d probably miss the RX’s easy tracking AF, but I did manage perfectly with SLR centre point PDAF for many years. (What I won’t miss is the power zoom, I’m used to riding a zoom in and out to locate stuff in the first place).

My thoughts are that the A7rii PDAF centre points are plenty good enough for my use. Pair, say, a Tamron 100-400 and even with that slower lens, cropping 42MP FF at ISO12800, even 25000, should yield more workable detail than the equivalent view on 20MP 1” at ISO3200.

I’d consider an A6400 but I prefer three dials, I set SS and aperture for the subject but adjust ISO on the fly - I just like the A7 series ergonomics. Money no object I’d be looking at more recent cameras, but I’m aware of budget and this is minimal cost to change. What would you do?
Click to expand...
No I don't think it's a crazy idea considering trading the RX10 for an A7RII, you can crop FF heavily and still end up with better results than a 1" sensor (obviously a lot of variables).

99% of the time if I'm having to shoot at 12800 for wildlife I won't bother, the only time I stuck with it was shooting badgers but this was in the dark and high ISO's were expected. I don't mind shooting at 12800 ISO for some stuff if needed, but with wildlife you'll just lose too much detail in fur and feathers. Of course, this will also depend on how picky you are.

I disagree with Tommy a little bit in terms of the AF performance in the listed cameras. The A7RV isn't below the A7CII and A7CR, it has the same AF system with the same 693 points and AI system. In terms of AI and subject regocnition the A1 is slightly behind, however it is better in terms of acquisition and tracking ability so I guess it depends on what is most important. I do agree with buy cheap buy twice though. If you can stretch to a better body then it will be better in the long run, however if budget isn't felxible then both the A7RII and A7III are very decent cameras.
 
Honestly until at least the A7III DSLRs were significantly ahead still of mirrorless for wildlife. If I was on a tight budget I would still consider some of the later Nikon DSLRs - lenses are also cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top