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

magicolor1 said:
Slightly less left-field - how about upgrading the body to an A7Rii or iii and then use the excellent Canon 70-200/4 on an MC11? That way you get more than enough extra resolution to crop to the equivalent of a 400mm on the A7 in a much lighter and more capable setup.
Click to expand...

I have the Canon 70-200L f/4 and use with the MC-11, it's great, I love it. But tracking focus on small birds etc will not be ideal. The Sigma 150-600 works very close to native lenses with the current bodies and firmware but the Canon doesn't use the full focus area and so will not track anywhere near as well. I'm not putting down the lens, it's very good and I enjoy using it on my A7 III.
 
Last edited:
It's a tricky one, because aside from legacy glass there's only expensive options - and I'm quite happy with the A7 otherwise. It might be sensible to invest in a body and lens from another system. Hmmm.
If anyone knows WEx in Norwich, here's two 100%-ish crops (phone compressions, sorry) from 150 feet or so (from the Sony stand at the back to the sales desk at the front). Handheld 1/350 at ISO 1250, 70-300G and 100-400GM on the A7. OK, so one is better - but 2.5x better it isn't IMO. However, real world and WEx interiors are often different. However, image quality isn't everything... AF speed I couldn't reliably test. WEx lights and dapped woodland shade.....

So, I could go 70-300G and eventually buy an A6xxx as an APS-C teleconverter, or I could buy, say, a Canon 7D used and a Sigma 150-600. I'm sure this is a fairly common decision process among Sony shooters, and I see some using MC-11's, but again many of you are using mk3's or A9's.
 

Attachments

  • F41E615E-1137-40EF-8048-63F09474EA7E.jpeg
    F41E615E-1137-40EF-8048-63F09474EA7E.jpeg
    114.5 KB · Views: 21
  • DCAA994E-C564-4A79-8AFB-7BB00FBAFE8A.jpeg
    DCAA994E-C564-4A79-8AFB-7BB00FBAFE8A.jpeg
    117.9 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:
danbroad said:
It's a tricky one, because aside from legacy glass there's only expensive options - and I'm quite happy with the A7 otherwise. It might be sensible to invest in a body and lens from another system. Hmmm.
If anyone knows WEx in Norwich, here's two 100%-ish crops (phone compressions, sorry) from 150 feet or so (from the Sony stand at the back to the sales desk at the front). Handheld 1/350 at ISO 1250, 70-300G and 100-400GM on the A7. OK, so one is better - but 2.5x better it isn't IMO. However, real world and WEx interiors are often different. However, image quality isn't everything... AF speed I couldn't reliably test. WEx lights and dapped woodland shade.....

So, I could go 70-300G and eventually buy an A6xxx as an APS-C teleconverter, or I could buy, say, a Canon 7D used and a Sigma 150-600. I'm sure this is a fairly common decision process among Sony shooters, and I see some using MC-11's, but again many of you are using mk3's or A9's.
Click to expand...

With Sony it is a difficult choice as there aren't that many options out there. Currently there is the 70-300, 100-400 and 400 f2.8. For most the 400 f2.8 is out so that leaves the option between the 70-300 and 100-400. Both are quite different lenses size wise, weight, price and quality (G and GM). There is also the rumoured 200-600mm lens coming too that no one knows the price or quality of.

Personally I don't think you can really test a lens in a shop as it could be quite different to a real situation. Can I ask what you are planning to use the lens for? To me this matters quite a bit as for some subjects 300mm won't be long enough, even 400mm can be too short too.

About 6 months back I started moving to Sony from Nikon. I've gone with the A7Riii (used bought off here for £1450) and 24-105 and 70 200 f4. It took me a month of searching (and a lot of luck) to find a used 100-400 which I purchased used for £1800. I didn't want to purchase new as the cost is quite a bit and there seemed to be potential for used savings. I did consider the 70-300 but felt the 100-400 would better as I was used to the nikon 200-400 and liked that range. Since I've got the 100-400 I've not used the 70-200 as the 100-400 is quite portable (my main reason whilst with nikon- though it feels I've stupidly dulipcated the same 3 lens setup on Sony when I probably don't need the 3 lenses). I'm currently trying to decide if I really need the 70-200 as the 24-105 and 100-400 covers the range quite well and its benefit is just a weight saving whilst out doing landscapes. Initially I photographed Otters with the 70-200. It did well but it would have been a little short if they weren't so close. I've since found for wildlife the 100-400 is definitely my first choice lens to use. On the A7Riii its pretty good, AF seems to be quite good.

For you its a difficult one as depending on what genres and subjects you plan to shoot would depend on my advice. I don't know the A7 that well but from my research of the A7iii and A7Riii I would say there are some good upgrades. Coming from Nikon I've seen some advantages- I've been really impressed by the silent shutter- for wildlife its very useful. So far it feels like I've not loss too much in the form of AF from the 200-400 and D810 (a 300 f2.8 is a different matter but thats to be expected). I've just started trying out Animal eye AF which is so far is better than expected and can be useful.

If you were happy to look at the used market an upgraded body and lens would be a possibility for £2500. There is the 200-600 to possibly consider in the future if it does come about. There is the potential that a used A7iii or A7Riii and used 70-300 FE (if 300mm is enough) would be under the £2500 mark plus you could sell the A7 on too. You could swap the 70-300 for the 200-600 or 100-400 in the future. Or just go with a used 70-300 for now and see how you get on with it on the A7. I feel the decision really depends on the focal length you need for your planned subjects. I know others find adapting lenses to be a good way and that could be another option to try out.

Where are you based in the country? I'm guessing need Norwich but the WEX reference. If you are near people on here Im sure a meet up could be arranged.
 
Last edited:
robinsslee said:
https://www.captureone.com/en/downl...-_p8IWYRZWVY3C2QN9KGbhh1dqPLL4QDXPcFcS0gdGMWo

free for Sony owners.
Click to expand...

I (we) downloaded that onto my son's laptop for his night sky editing. Maybe I'm too used to LR but I just couldn't get good results from it - this was astro photography though not 'conventional everyday stuff. I managed to get him LR5 working & after running through it on my PC to show him what was what, even he got better results from LR5 than C1Express.
 
Talking equipment, had my 'super-expensive' half case turn up yesterday - fits nicely and makes the grip a little less slippery. Only real complaint is that it also reduces the space between grip & lens a little too much, and it can be hard to get my fingers through the gap. I'll try it for a bit in place of the smallrig bracket in the hope it will be enough. I like the bracket *in principle* but the extra 160g and depth make the A7III as large and heavy as a D610.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not bad. Tempted to try it out for 3 days and see
Click to expand...

Given the purchase price I agree it's pretty reasonable, only 3% of the purchase price which is much better value in comparison to some other lenses.

Still a lot of cash though, I'm off to Pembrokeshire for 4 days at the end of this week to photograph stuff, the entire trip is costing less than renting this lens for 3 days :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
Talking equipment, had my 'super-expensive' half case turn up yesterday - fits nicely and makes the grip a little less slippery. Only real complaint is that it also reduces the space between grip & lens a little too much, and it can be hard to get my fingers through the gap. I'll try it for a bit in place of the smallrig bracket in the hope it will be enough. I like the bracket *in principle* but the extra 160g and depth make the A7III as large and heavy as a D610.
Click to expand...
Yes it spoils the rather pleasing way your fingers fit round the grip, not bad for $6 nonetheless.
It won't routinely be on mine though because of this, as I don't do proper straps flapping about in the way.
 
ukaskew said:
Given the purchase price I agree it's pretty reasonable, only 3% of the purchase price which is much better value in comparison to some other lenses.

Still a lot of cash though, I'm off to Pembrokeshire for 4 days at the end of this week to photograph stuff, the entire trip is costing less than renting this lens for 3 days :)
Click to expand...
Could have done with using it the other day :( the 100-400 is not good for flod light games...
 
I was at the open day event at WEX in London last weekend. Had a play with a number of things and spent a number of hours trying things, few highlights here… happy to expand further into anything if anyone cares ;)

Panasonic - Had a go with the S1R and 24-105mm f4 + 50mm f1.4 lenses. The 24-105mm lens seemed at least as good as my Sony version but with closer focusing which was very nice. The 50mm f1.4 is also very sharp but its a beast. The AF on both lenses didn’t feel as fast or snappy as with canon, Nikon or Sony FF mirrorless.

Canon - Had a go with RP+35mm f1.8 macro lens. That lens is awesome I’d almost switch systems for it, the body sucks on many levels.

Nikon - Tried the 14-30mm on Z7. The lens is actually rather small and very compact when locked in. Definitely a noticeable difference when compared to Sony 16-35mm f4. Yet another lens I think Sony missed a trick on by going down the old standard 16-35mm route. But I didn’t find the extreme corners very sharp at 14mm or 30mm.

Sony - tried the A9 and A6400 with latest firmware and real time tracking. It really is very good and possibly best I have come across especially on A9. Almost making want the A9 yet again!

Ricoh - Tried the GR III. Very compact and could fit it in my shirt pocket! Very nice little compact with great IQ. I am currently deciding between this and LX100ii.

Fuji - saving best for last ;) Tried a pre-production version of the GFX100 and its is fricken AWESOME!! Trying this out was a real treat and highlight of the week for me. Its like my inner pixel-peeper’s wet dream coming true. If I win the lottery this will probably be my first purchase :D
 
Have a wanted post up but thought I would post here, looking for an a9 if anyone is thinking of changing. And will be looking at selling an a7iii, after getting the a9 so will be open for trades as well
 
I've just Googled and shops seem to be saying it's expected "end of May."

It's cheap enough but I'm trying to reduce the buying and I know I may be tempted by any future Sony 35mm f1.8 so I'm hoping I can resist buying now... but we're off to Singapore in August and a f1.8 wider and a bit more compact than the 55mm would be nice.
 
I like reviews especially if the reviewer expresses an opinion. I like them because the chances of me getting to try before I buy are pretty low so reviews do help.
 
woof woof said:
I like reviews especially if the reviewer expresses an opinion. I like them because the chances of me getting to try before I buy are pretty low so reviews do help.
Click to expand...

Opinions are just that opinions and subjective. I prefer they state the facts with proof and let me make my mind up about whether it's for me or not.
 
Thinking about getting the wife a Sony camera as shes looking to give them a try. Anyone here using the A7II ? How is the autofocus on it etc
 
F/1.4 said:
Thinking about getting the wife a Sony camera as shes looking to give them a try. Anyone here using the A7II ? How is the autofocus on it etc
Click to expand...
it's not much better than the original A7. Its pretty basic, good enough for point focus and AF-S/DMF. Not one for tracking.
 
F/1.4 said:
Reckon an A6500 or 6300 would be better ?
Click to expand...

For AF tracking yes, lot better. A6300/6500 are on level of A7RII (or slightly better than A7RII)

Generally speaking here's the rating - A9 > A6400 > (A7III > A7RIII) > (A6300/6500 > A7RII) > A6000/5100 > (A7II > A7) > (A7SII > A7S) > A7R
where the difference is minimal (and part of similar generation) I have grouped them in brackets.

But A7S/II are unique in that they can focus down to -4EV i.e. they can lock focus in very low light which is the highest on Sony bodies.
 
Last edited:
F/1.4 said:
Reckon an A6500 or 6300 would be better ?
Click to expand...

6400 would give the most up to date performance, at the loss of IBIS
 
Just looking through some photos from a few months ago and the '3D pop' really jumped out at me, not sure if I've posted this one before but apologies if I have. A7III Sony 85mm f/1.8 (f/2.2 ISO125 1/2500s)

30891863557_067b01223e_o by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top