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

woof woof said:
Oh dear. And here was I about to order one :D
Click to expand...
Was always going to be this price, the Mark I is still listed as £2500 on the Sony site. Cheaper than the RF though.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
yeah priced as expected. will wait for a year or so to see if I can pick up one sub-2K.
Click to expand...
I wonder how long it will take the likes of Panamoz to discount it? I doubt it’ll go sub £2k uk price as the Mark I is still £2100 (although there’s £200 cash back at the mo).

As you know I’ve been waiting for this lens for a while but I do like the portability of the Tamron, fits in a nice small bag, so I’m not convinced I’ll get this lens after all. We’ll see, too early yet anyway.
 
snerkler said:
I wonder how long it will take the likes of Panamoz to discount it? I doubt it’ll go sub £2k uk price as the Mark I is still £2100 (although there’s £200 cash back at the mo).

As you know I’ve been waiting for this lens for a while but I do like the portability of the Tamron, fits in a nice small bag, so I’m not convinced I’ll get this lens after all. We’ll see, too early yet anyway.
Click to expand...
The Mk 1 is £1739 at E-fin so I guess it will be a good while before the Mk 2 is sub 2000
 
LeeRatters said:
On the A7......

Menu > DISP button > Display/Finder & you can select what you want displayed for each.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Lee, I will have a play when I get in from work tonight..
 
snerkler said:
I wonder how long it will take the likes of Panamoz to discount it? I doubt it’ll go sub £2k uk price as the Mark I is still £2100 (although there’s £200 cash back at the mo).

As you know I’ve been waiting for this lens for a while but I do like the portability of the Tamron, fits in a nice small bag, so I’m not convinced I’ll get this lens after all. We’ll see, too early yet anyway.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of buying used than from panamoz
 
I don't really like the format but some may prefer this to a scroll down all in one or multi page review but I suppose it is easy to go from one section to another.
 
I’ve never really taken ‘that’ much notice how big the 70-200mm f2.8 is until they’ve announced the Mark II is the same size. It’s actually slightly bigger than the 100-400mm and way bigger than the Tamron 70-180mm :oops: :$

224954C8-4207-459B-A34C-40E09329C9E6.jpeg
 
nandbytes said:
I was thinking more along the lines of buying used than from panamoz
Click to expand...
They may be a bit like rocking horse poo for a good while at least on the used market. I know far less are sold but it is exceptionally rare to find 400mm and 600mm Sony primes used. The 70-200 II will be bought as it is clearly the best lens in that range for Sony cameras. Far more people upgrade than downgrade and there is nothing to upgrade to and not likely to be for a long time. I suppose some will buy the zoom and think they would be better with a 135mm but I think it will be many months before they are under £2k on the used market even if you find one. Not unusual for lenses to be cheaper to import than buy used in the UK and it is only really here than being imported reduces the value so much. On ebay etc and even selling to MPB it doesn't seem to matter
 
My view is that these lenses along with the 100-400 and 200-600 aren't designed to pack and walk around with, they are the lenses you put in your bag for when you have a shot/shots in mind that you know you can only get with those lenses.
Weirdly, I use my 24-105 as a benchmark, that lens only gets used on holidays or days out with my wife, and that or close to it is probably my limit when combined with my a7r2 for how much I want to carry around all day on a casual basis. If I had a certain shot I wanted, I would be happy to carry more but more short term...
 
wookie6262 said:
They may be a bit like rocking horse poo for a good while at least on the used market. I know far less are sold but it is exceptionally rare to find 400mm and 600mm Sony primes used. The 70-200 II will be bought as it is clearly the best lens in that range for Sony cameras. Far more people upgrade than downgrade and there is nothing to upgrade to and not likely to be for a long time. I suppose some will buy the zoom and think they would be better with a 135mm but I think it will be many months before they are under £2k on the used market even if you find one. Not unusual for lenses to be cheaper to import than buy used in the UK and it is only really here than being imported reduces the value so much. On ebay etc and even selling to MPB it doesn't seem to matter
Click to expand...

While I largely agree, there is a significant portion of the gear-buying group of toggers that will buy an A1, top GM lenses, then flog the lot after a few months to buy a Canon R series outfit. These are the people who naturally provide used kit that's barely seen the sunlight to guys like Anand and others.
 
MrMackyB said:
My view is that these lenses along with the 100-400 and 200-600 aren't designed to pack and walk around with, they are the lenses you put in your bag for when you have a shot/shots in mind that you know you can only get with those lenses.
Weirdly, I use my 24-105 as a benchmark, that lens only gets used on holidays or days out with my wife, and that or close to it is probably my limit when combined with my a7r2 for how much I want to carry around all day on a casual basis. If I had a certain shot I wanted, I would be happy to carry more but more short term...
Click to expand...
I have no issue carrying around a 70-200 and 100-400 all day. I'd only take the 200-600 for specific shoots. With the new 70-200 only around a kilo you could carry that and a 24-70mm F4 and it would be roughly the same weight as my old Nikon 70-200.
 
MrMackyB said:
My view is that these lenses along with the 100-400 and 200-600 aren't designed to pack and walk around with, they are the lenses you put in your bag for when you have a shot/shots in mind that you know you can only get with those lenses.
Weirdly, I use my 24-105 as a benchmark, that lens only gets used on holidays or days out with my wife, and that or close to it is probably my limit when combined with my a7r2 for how much I want to carry around all day on a casual basis. If I had a certain shot I wanted, I would be happy to carry more but more short term...
Click to expand...

Same here. Apart from some house interiors, the 24-105 hasn't been off the camera all through the present trip, but I almost never use it at home.
 
ancient_mariner said:
While I largely agree, there is a significant portion of the gear-buying group of toggers that will buy an A1, top GM lenses, then flog the lot after a few months to buy a Canon R series outfit. These are the people who naturally provide used kit that's barely seen the sunlight to guys like Anand and others.
Click to expand...
Hope you are right as I will be on the look out for one. They have the perfect formula now and I can see my Tamron 70-180 and Sony 100-400 being swapped out for a new 70-200. If I can get it for under 2K used then even better and I could keep the Tammy for a dog walking lens. I think The new lens with the extenders would replace the 100-400 for me and I would use the 70-200 far more
 
MrMackyB said:
My view is that these lenses along with the 100-400 and 200-600 aren't designed to pack and walk around with, they are the lenses you put in your bag for when you have a shot/shots in mind that you know you can only get with those lenses.
Weirdly, I use my 24-105 as a benchmark, that lens only gets used on holidays or days out with my wife, and that or close to it is probably my limit when combined with my a7r2 for how much I want to carry around all day on a casual basis. If I had a certain shot I wanted, I would be happy to carry more but more short term...
Click to expand...
The 24-105mm is borderline for me for a travel lens, heavier than I’d ideally like. The Olly EM1-II and 12-40mm f2.8 was great for this but I’ll have to ‘cope’ with the heavier Sony system now. I’ve actually wondered if the 16-35mm might be better for certain trips.
 
snerkler said:
The 24-105mm is borderline for me for a travel lens, heavier than I’d ideally like. The Olly EM1-II and 12-40mm f2.8 was great for this but I’ll have to ‘cope’ with the heavier Sony system now. I’ve actually wondered if the 16-35mm might be better for certain trips.
Click to expand...
12-40mm should really be compared with something like 24-70mm f4.
 
snerkler said:
The 24-105mm is borderline for me for a travel lens, heavier than I’d ideally like. The Olly EM1-II and 12-40mm f2.8 was great for this but I’ll have to ‘cope’ with the heavier Sony system now. I’ve actually wondered if the 16-35mm might be better for certain trips.
Click to expand...
Don't say that. I have my hopes on the as yet released 24-70 GM II, but if that's a no go the 24-105 is my next choice. Used to have the 24-70 f4 but it never wowed was just okay.
 
nandbytes said:
12-40mm should really be compared with something like 24-70mm f4.
Click to expand...
I wasn't making a direct. comparison just more what I prefer weight wise (y)
robj20 said:
Don't say that. I have my hopes on the as yet released 24-70 GM II, but if that's a no go the 24-105 is my next choice. Used to have the 24-70 f4 but it never wowed was just okay.
Click to expand...
YMMV, I prefer to travel light when walking around busy cities etc (y)
 
I have the similar Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 and it does give more zoom options on MFT and can give more of a FF look when using MFT zooms rather than primes but I don't know if it offers a great deal over the Sony 28-70mm f3.5 - f5.6, it's wider, obviously, so there is that but bulk, weight and IQ wise I might as well take the A7 and kit lens.
 
snerkler said:
I wasn't making a direct. comparison just more what I prefer weight wise (y)

YMMV, I prefer to travel light when walking around busy cities etc (y)
Click to expand...
I'll have to compare them to the 24-70f4 I had before, that was fine. Usually in the bag along with a bottle of water and sun cream.
 
robj20 said:
I'll have to compare them to the 24-70f4 I had before, that was fine. Usually in the bag along with a bottle of water and sun cream.
Click to expand...
I have the 24-70mm f4 too, definitely lighter to carry around.
 
Mike.P said:
I have a bit of a love/hate thing going on with th a9, hence the reason I'm not exactly pushing it in the sales section.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's always love/hate with Sony.
Has been like that for a while. I really wish they'd sort out the little niggles....
 
nandbytes said:
Yeah it's always love/hate with Sony.
Has been like that for a while. I really wish they'd sort out the little niggles....
Click to expand...
I’m pretty happy with Sony. Sure there’s some things lacking but that’s true of all cameras, it doesn’t spoil the overall experience for me.
 
I think I initially said back on page 1 that I thought the A7 looked as if someone had knocked it together in a garden shed but I've got used to it.

Just checked and I said that :D
 
woof woof said:
What's there to hate about the A9?

Just asking so that I'll have a reason not to buy one, other than being stingy :D
Click to expand...

For me it's all about the amount of MP ... for instance I shot this on my 7D MKII which is a 20MP crop sensor. the picture is then cropped to over 100% which left me with a 300 KB file, I would have liked to have gone in more but it just turned to mush. If I had done the same on the a9 which is half the MP in APS-C mode it just wouldn't have stood up at all. Ideally I would just get the A1 but I'm not prepared to spend 6k on a camera body.

Apart from that it's a fantastic camera and the 200-600mm is unbeatable in any other system IMO.
 
Last edited:
If this is accurate it looks like the new lens has been designed to give more room for your fingers on the grip.

975BE6B8-C7EE-46BE-A966-093AC6850B9E.jpeg
 
Mike.P said:
For me it's all about the amount of MP ... for instance I shot this on my 7D MKII which is a 20MP crop sensor. the picture is then cropped to over 100% which left me with a 300 KB file, I would have liked to have gone in more but it just turned to mush. If I had done the same on the a9 which is half the MP in APS-C mode it just wouldn't have stood up at all. Ideally I would just get the A1 but I'm not prepared to spend 6k on a camera body.

Apart from that it's a fantastic camera and the 200-600mm is unbeatable in any other system IMO.
Click to expand...
Yep you’re always going to lose reach with FF, that being said I’ve always found I can crop more heavily with FF than I can smaller formats.

In an ideal world I’d have the A1 too but like you I can’t justify or afford £6k for a camera.
 
snerkler said:
Yep you’re always going to lose reach with FF, that being said I’ve always found I can crop more heavily with FF than I can smaller formats.

In an ideal world I’d have the A1 too but like you I can’t justify or afford £6k for a camera.
Click to expand...
If I sold some of my film era 50mm primes I might be able to afford a downpayment on one.
 
Mike.P said:
For me it's all about the amount of MP ... for instance I shot this on my 7D MKII which is a 20MP crop sensor. the picture is then cropped to over 100% which left me with a 300 KB file, I would have liked to have gone in more but it just turned to mush. If I had done the same on the a9 which is half the MP in APS-C mode it just wouldn't have stood up at all. Ideally I would just get the A1 but I'm not prepared to spend 6k on a camera body.

Apart from that it's a fantastic camera and the 200-600mm is unbeatable in any other system IMO.
Click to expand...
To be fair to the A9 you can’t compare cropping on a 20MP APS-C camera with a 20MP full frame camera in cropped mode. the canon R6 would have the same issue as the A9 when shooting in APS-C mode and cropping in further. The ideal solution would either be an even longer lens or getting closer to your subject via field craft and hides. The latter is much harder and a lot more time consuming.

I’ve had a bit of a love hate relationship with the A9 too. I’m finding the sensor isn’t as forgiving regarding shadow recovery, which has at times meant my photos aren’t as good as they have been as when I’ve got thd exposure slightly wrong in field there isn’t the space to rectify in post. I’m starting to think much of my issues is that I haven’t sufficient time with the A9. I got it a couple of months before the first lockdown and haven’t really been out with the camera much since then. when I have been out I’ve been out in rubbish light and I’ve been fighting a loading battle with exposure settings. At the weekend I was at times down to 1/200, f5.6, iso6400. My move to the 100-400 has been great for weight saving but I’ve been missing the f2.8 and f4 of the fast Nikon telephoto lenses I used to use. Being able to reduce iso by a stop or two just by dropping to f4 or f2.8 used to be so useful. even with that stop or two extra I’d still be struggling with exposure as my ideal settings for wildlife are 1/800 with iso around 1600-3200. Starting to think I just need better light in the mornings!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top