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

[JohnMcL7]

I was going to say I liked the Sigma 100-400mm for giving a good amount of reach but in a relatively compact package so I can easily carry it around with me while I've found with anything bigger I just can't which limits the use. However looking at the stats for the 50-400mm that seems pretty much the same size and weight which is really impressive, I've been toying with getting a 100-400mm in Z-mount since I had a lot of use out of the Sigma but I see the Tamron is available so worth a look.

I've been toying endlessly with a new compact camera and tried a Fuji with a fixed 28mm lens which I've not been getting on with so decided to go back to looking at the RX100 VII. However stock seems to be drying up and second hand prices have been creeping up as well however I noticed on WEX they had an RX100 VIIA listed which I thought might be a USB-C variant to comply with the new EU mandate. However some eagle eyed spotted in the manual that the camera comes with a charger and it seems that's how they're getting round the mandate, no-one has been able to confirm it but it seems likely in camera charging has been disabled. The A6100 and A6400 also get A-variants so I assume the same treatment, I'm not sure if any of the current FE-mount cameras are still micro USB? Something to bear in mind if planning on a new camera.

 

[the black fox]

As others have said Jeff, it's a cracking lens, nice and sharp at all focal lengths. Not the quickest focussing lens of all time, (but certainly not slow), and have so far used it very successfully on both my A6700 and my A7RV bodies (the latter in crop mode).

About the only thing about it that isn't great is it's F6.3 aperture at the long end (but then that's why it's so compact and light). But when you are coming from something like the 300mm F4 Olympus, that lens is not only much brighter (by 1 1/3 stops), but also one of the quickest focussing telephotos I've ever used on any brand and tack sharp right from wide open. The Olympus lens does somewhat spoil you.

Been going through a lot of options all day today Andrew , the 28-70 arrived this morning and yes it’s a super option for a slightly larger apeture and covers a nice range for me .. . Still vying over the 70-350 though in a moment of madness nearly bought a 200-600 .. luckily a good friend brought me back down to earth and reminded me I have the om1 and 300.f4 ,plus a load of Olympus f2 .8 lenses .
So I don’t think I’ll rush into anything till the weather improves and I can test the camera and lenses out in decent light , I’ve also been wondering if it might be better to swop the body for an a6400 ? .?

 

[Bungieben]

Educational this photo malarkey, Egyptian Geese cropped head shots A1 200-600G
Egyptian goose by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
Egyptian goose a by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr

 

[Sootchucker]

Been going through a lot of options all day today Andrew , the 28-70 arrived this morning and yes it’s a super option for a slightly larger apeture and covers a nice range for me .. . Still vying over the 70-350 though in a moment of madness nearly bought a 200-600 .. luckily a good friend brought me back down to earth and reminded me I have the om1 and 300.f4 ,plus a load of Olympus f2 .8 lenses .
So I don’t think I’ll rush into anything till the weather improves and I can test the camera and lenses out in decent light , I’ve also been wondering if it might be better to swop the body for an a6400 ? .?

Sony has some world class F2.8 lenses and some very top tier super telephotos, but my god are they expensive. I.e. the equivalent to your 300mm F4 Olympus is the Sony 600mm F4 and that’s a monster and £12k. Whilst I’ve heard the 200-600 is a cracking alternative (I would expect it to be very similar to my Nikon Z 180-600), whilst it’s a lot more affordable, it still weighs over 2.1 kg on its own (compared to the Olympus at 1.2kg. I know when I first handled my Nikon Z7 II with the 180-600 coming from micro four thirds the size and weight difference was extremely noticeable.

 

[snerkler]

Sony has some world class F2.8 lenses and some very top tier super telephotos, but my god are they expensive. I.e. the equivalent to your 300mm F4 Olympus is the Sony 600mm F4 and that’s a monster and £12k. Whilst I’ve heard the 200-600 is a cracking alternative (I would expect it to be very similar to my Nikon Z 180-600), whilst it’s a lot more affordable, it still weighs over 2.1 kg on its own (compared to the Olympus at 1.2kg. I know when I first handled my Nikon Z7 II with the 180-600 coming from micro four thirds the size and weight difference was extremely noticeable.

The Olympus 300mm f4 and Sony 600mm f4 are not really comparable, except for equivalent focal length. The Olympus lens is always a 300mm lens, it’s just that you’re cropping it and of course a 300mm f4 will always be smaller and lighter than a 600mm f4, not to mention cheaper.

Also in terms of DOF and total light gathering the Olympus 300mm f4 is more akin to a 600mm f8 in FF terms but of course you can’t get a 600mm f8 for Sony. Sigma do the 500mm f/5.6 which is in a similar ballpark to the Olympus 300mm f4 in terms of size, weight and cost.

 

[the black fox]

Think your missing the point here toby Andrew was just pointing out the fact that I already own and use a 300 F4 which due to the fact it’s designed for a 2x crop gives me 600mm of reach at F4 . That’s a fact that all of the silly equivalent arguments overlook ..
But yes I do see the potential in running both systems side by side ,, if I hadn’t got such a good deal on the a6000 I would already be considering a upgrade to either a 6400 or 6700 body .but as the shutter count is currently at 82 shots I think it’s a keeper for a while ,so my attention is building up a decent e series lens collection before going further , love the lightness of the system as even the Olympus is starting to feel heavy as my age and health deteriorate.
At this point in time I have the a6000 body and a 55-210 lens and also a 28-70 all in as new condition , hovering over getting the 50-350 after a day of going through

options .. it was only meant to be a backup and for the wife to use but it’s quickly becoming a bit more than that .. now the choice comes down to do I hold fire for a bit or sell some of my little used Olympus lenses and buy into Sony as my go to rig 98% of the time is the OM1 +300mm f4 + 1.4 tc

 

[snerkler]

Think your missing the point here toby Andrew was just pointing out the fact that I already own and use a 300 F4 which due to the fact it’s designed for a 2x crop gives me 600mm of reach at F4 . That’s a fact that all of the silly equivalent arguments overlook ..
But yes I do see the potential in running both systems side by side ,, if I hadn’t got such a good deal on the a6000 I would already be considering a upgrade to either a 6400 or 6700 body .but as the shutter count is currently at 82 shots I think it’s a keeper for a while ,so my attention is building up a decent e series lens collection before going further , love the lightness of the system as even the Olympus is starting to feel heavy as my age and health deteriorate.
At this point in time I have the a6000 body and a 55-210 lens and also a 28-70 all in as new condition , hovering over getting the 50-350 after a day of going through

options .. it was only meant to be a backup and for the wife to use but it’s quickly becoming a bit more than that .. now the choice comes down to do I hold fire for a bit or sell some of my little used Olympus lenses and buy into Sony as my go to rig 98% of the time is the OM1 +300mm f4 + 1.4 tc

Yeah I get that, I was just trying to give some perspective of cost as the two lenses aren’t equal. Don’t get me wrong 600mm f4 lens prices are eye watering but it’s not ‘fair’ to compare the price against a 300mm f4 as they aren’t the same. I would hazard a guess if Sony made a 300mm f4 it would be a similar size and weight, and a similar cost to the Olympus

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Also in terms of DOF and total light gathering the Olympus 300mm f4 is more akin to a 600mm f8 in FF terms

Unless I've been missing something for the past 60 years or so, f4 on any two lenses lets through the same amount of light, regardless of focal length. Hence, a half frame 300mm f4 puts the same effective amount of light on the sensor as a full frame 600mm f4 would. So far as depth of field goes, allowing for the chosen circle of confusion, a 300mm will make available the same depth of field on a half frame camera as on a full frame camera.

 

[snerkler]

Unless I've been missing something for the past 60 years or so, f4 on any two lenses lets through the same amount of light, regardless of focal length. Hence, a half frame 300mm f4 puts the same effective amount of light on the sensor as a full frame 600mm f4 would. So far as depth of field goes, allowing for the chosen circle of confusion, a 300mm will make available the same depth of field on a half frame camera as on a full frame camera.

Whilst f4 lenses let the same amount of light in the surface area of the FF sensor is 4 times larger so effectively 2 stops of light, therefore a full frame sensor at f8 will gather the same total light as f4 on m4/3. I believe this is part of the reason FF sensors produce less noise.

DOF is a combination of aperture, distance to the subject and focal length, with the focal length being the actual focal length and not the equivalent focal length. A 300mm lens will produce a greater DOF than a 600mm lens for a given subject distance and aperture. It's not quite 100% accurate but the equivalent DOF is approximately 2 stops larger with m4/3 compared to FF.

 

[Sootchucker]

Wish I'd never said anything now....

 

[Tricky01]

gives me 600mm of reach at F4 .

I agree with @snerkler, you're not getting this. Light capture wise, perhaps, but not in depth of field, which is key.

Following your logic though, the Sony 600mm f4 is actually a 1200mm f4 when you crop down to olympus sensor size - and APSC mode on Sony allows you to frame the image accordingly.

So a 600mm f4 vs 1200mm f4 still explains the difference in price. (Ignoring the whole DOF aspect, which shouldn't be ignored)

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Whilst f4 lenses let the same amount of light in the surface area of the FF sensor is 4 times larger so effectively 2 stops of light, therefore a full frame sensor at f8 will gather the same total light as f4 on m4/3. I believe this is part of the reason FF sensors produce less noise.

A very sophisticated argument but specious in this context..

1. Take a piece of HP5 and cut it into two pieces.
2. Chose a subject with a reasonably wide range of tones.
3. Place one piece in a full frame camera with the 600mm f8 lens.
4. Place the other piece in the half frame camera with the 300mm f4.
5. Set both lenses to their maximum aperture.
6. Set the shutter speed on each camera according to your meter
7. Expose both pieces of film at the same time.
8. Develop both pieces of film together for the same length of time.
9. Place each piece of film in a densitometer and read off the density at the same points of the scene.
10. Compare the two sets of readings.

DOF is a combination of aperture, distance to the subject and focal length, with the focal length being the actual focal length and not the equivalent focal length. A 300mm lens will produce a greater DOF than a 600mm lens for a given subject distance and aperture. It's not quite 100% accurate but the equivalent DOF is approximately 2 stops larger with m4/3 compared to FF.

This is a valid description of depth of field and its relationship to focal length and aperture.

However, I wrote: "allowing for the chosen circle of confusion, a 300mm will make available the same depth of field on a half frame camera as on a full frame camera." which is exactly what you have described.

 

[the black fox]

For gawds sake give it a rest , it’s not in the least bit important or worth breaking your brain over , the reason I switched to Olympus from canikon bodies and lenses was due to needing to carry less weight due to heart failure six years ago , I get extremely good shots with the Olympus gear and thanks to modern PP noise or d.o.f is not a problem .. . .
I’m not swopping systems just adding another even lighter system to my available gear . It may take back seat or may ? Become no1 ,I’m close to 80 now and have health issues so I don’t really care about equivalence etc just results with useable equipment
So please behave accordingly! ! !

 

[snerkler]

For gawds sake give it a rest , it’s not in the least bit important or worth breaking your brain over , the reason I switched to Olympus from canikon bodies and lenses was due to needing to carry less weight due to heart failure six years ago , I get extremely good shots with the Olympus gear and thanks to modern PP noise or d.o.f is not a problem .. . .
I’m not swopping systems just adding another even lighter system to my available gear . It may take back seat or may ? Become no1 ,I’m close to 80 now and have health issues so I don’t really care about equivalence etc just results with useable equipment
So please behave accordingly! ! !

It's not an arguement, it's a discussion

 

[snerkler]

A very sophisticated argument but specious in this context..

1. Take a piece of HP5 and cut it into two pieces.
2. Chose a subject with a reasonably wide range of tones.
3. Place one piece in a full frame camera with the 600mm f8 lens.
4. Place the other piece in the half frame camera with the 300mm f4.
5. Set both lenses to their maximum aperture.
6. Set the shutter speed on each camera according to your meter
7. Expose both pieces of film at the same time.
8. Develop both pieces of film together for the same length of time.
9. Place each piece of film in a densitometer and read off the density at the same points of the scene.
10. Compare the two sets of readings.

In terms of exposure yeah the f4 will allow for a higher shutter speed or lower ISO, however I could shoot at 300mm f4 1/1000 ISO 200 on Olympus and 600mm f8 1/1000 and ISO 800 on FF and get pretty much the same shot.

I think we're both correct in what we're saying, obviously it depends which angle you are looking from. However, as I said before in terms of build cost, size etc it's not 'fair' to compare a 300mm f4 and 600mm f4 lens

 

[nandbytes]

 

[the black fox]

Sensible question requiring a sensible answer , taking into account I mainly shoot wildlife and need to keep both the gear weight and price down , would a A6400 and a 70-350 lenses be a good walkabout option and give reasonable results .
I have yet to test the a 6000 body in decent light ,( hopefully tomorrow ) but it does seem a tad noisy

 

[Hogboy]

Sensible question requiring a sensible answer , taking into account I mainly shoot wildlife and need to keep both the gear weight and price down , would a A6400 and a 70-350 lenses be a good walkabout option and give reasonable results .
I have yet to test the a 6000 body in decent light ,( hopefully tomorrow ) but it does seem a tad noisy

I would suggest a used A6600, has ibis and a much much much better battery, the 70-350mm is a great lens and a very compact combo for wildlife.

 

[the black fox]

No pop up flash though LOL , we shall see quite a few options to look at.. just had a run through 6600 images on Flickr ,surprisingly most were birding shots and I’m quite impressed ,worth investigating further

 

[snerkler]

Sensible question requiring a sensible answer , taking into account I mainly shoot wildlife and need to keep both the gear weight and price down , would a A6400 and a 70-350 lenses be a good walkabout option and give reasonable results .
I have yet to test the a 6000 body in decent light ,( hopefully tomorrow ) but it does seem a tad noisy

I guess it all comes down to where you set your goal posts. I would suggest the combo can give very good results, especially in good light.

The combo weighs 1028g, I would consider that OK as a walkabout setup, my walkabout is often 1255g, although I do now have a combo that weighs 901g if I want to travel uber light.

 

[the_accidental]

Just to take a swing at the dead horse…

Step 9 should be enlarge and print both exposures to the same size.

Then any measurement (saturation of the print if you have an appropriate densitometer ) is taken on the finished picture at the same viewing size.

If we’re comparing camera systems then it should be same scene, producing the same image at the same apparent size.

 

[the black fox]

I guess it all comes down to where you set your goal posts. I would suggest the combo can give very good results, especially in good light.

The combo weighs 1028g, I would consider that OK as a walkabout setup, my walkabout is often 1255g, although I do now have a combo that weighs 901g if I want to travel uber light.

I will hopefully finalise my decision today toby , the current weather in north wales hasn’t as yet allowed for a proper assessment of what I have at the moment and obviously money is not unlimited as well

 

[snerkler]

I will hopefully finalise my decision today toby , the current weather in north wales hasn’t as yet allowed for a proper assessment of what I have at the moment and obviously money is not unlimited as well

Is there a reason you're not considering the Olympus 75-300mm or Panny 100-300mm instead of the Sony 70-350mm as both would give 75mm extra reach?

 

[the black fox]

Is there a reason you're not considering the Olympus 75-300mm or Panny 100-300mm instead of the Sony 70-350mm as both would give 75mm extra reach?

had both of them in the past and already got olympus om1/300mm f4 /50-200/plus a few others and t.c's ,this is basically a backup system for the wife to use or just for a change when the fancy takes me .. so far quiet impressed with the a6000 body and 55-210 so thought I would build on it ,but it now looks like the 6600 I was viewing is gone anyway . so will hold fire for a bit no rush with current weather conditions

 

[Faldrax]

Sensible question requiring a sensible answer , taking into account I mainly shoot wildlife and need to keep both the gear weight and price down , would a A6400 and a 70-350 lenses be a good walkabout option and give reasonable results .
I have yet to test the a 6000 body in decent light ,( hopefully tomorrow ) but it does seem a tad noisy

I have an A6000 as my 'travel' camera - to keep it small and light I just have the 2 kit lens (16-55, 55-210) and the 35 and 50 f/1.8 OSS primes.
Noise wise, I generally limit the ISO to 1600, but will go to 3200 on occasion (or if I'm goign to convert to B&W).
The sensor on the A6400 is fairly similar to that on the A6000 in terms of noise, as far as I know (it's rated for higher, but I'm not sure if it's usable range is much better).
The A6400 does have a better EVF, and much better AF (including tracking options) - so given a choice I'd pick the A6400 over the A6000 for wildlife.

 

[the black fox]

I have an A6000 as my 'travel' camera - to keep it small and light I just have the 2 kit lens (16-55, 55-210) and the 35 and 50 f/1.8 OSS primes.
Noise wise, I generally limit the ISO to 1600, but will go to 3200 on occasion (or if I'm goign to convert to B&W).
The sensor on the A6400 is fairly similar to that on the A6000 in terms of noise, as far as I know (it's rated for higher, but I'm not sure if it's usable range is much better).
The A6400 does have a better EVF, and much better AF (including tracking options) - so given a choice I'd pick the A6400 over the A6000 for wildlife.

just been out and took a few test shots , most at 1600iso and after cropping in i'm finding them extremely soft ,so is the answer a newer body with hopefully improved sensor or a longer better grade lens at the moment restricted to 6000+55-210 .should I sell that combo and upgrade or just forget it expected better iq in all honesty

 

[ancient_mariner]

just been out and took a few test shots , most at 1600iso and after cropping in i'm finding them extremely soft ,so is the answer a newer body with hopefully improved sensor or a longer better grade lens at the moment restricted to 6000+55-210 .should I sell that combo and upgrade or just forget it expected better iq in all honesty

If they're soft after cropping then probably the lens at fault, depending on how aggressive your noise reduction is.

 

[Faldrax]

just been out and took a few test shots , most at 1600iso and after cropping in i'm finding them extremely soft ,so is the answer a newer body with hopefully improved sensor or a longer better grade lens at the moment restricted to 6000+55-210 .should I sell that combo and upgrade or just forget it expected better iq in all honesty

The 55-210 is the basic APS-C kit lens - it needs good light, ideally stopped down a touch, and will show it's weaknesses if you over crop.
For me, it's good enough to get reasonable images when out with the family or on holiday, but it's not a 'wildlife' lens.
The 70-350 G should be much better.

 

[snerkler]

just been out and took a few test shots , most at 1600iso and after cropping in i'm finding them extremely soft ,so is the answer a newer body with hopefully improved sensor or a longer better grade lens at the moment restricted to 6000+55-210 .should I sell that combo and upgrade or just forget it expected better iq in all honesty

I guess part of it depends on why it's soft, is it missing focus, cropped too heavily, too much noise and/or NR or a combination? Usually the lens makes much more of a difference in IQ vs a newer version of the sensor.

 

[Sootchucker]

I know a lot of this depends on price, but I really can't praise the A6700 enough. It's a decent enough resolution increase over the 20mp Olympus bodies, is smaller and lighter, has absolutely killer AF and Tracking (the same system as in the A7RV, A9 II and the new A1 II), use the FF body batteries which seem to last ages, and is also a perfect video camera as well. Are there any downsides, sure - it's only got one card slot (as all the A6xxx bodies do), the viewfinder is perfectly OK and decently large but is a little on the lower resolution wise as is the rear screen, and there's no AF joystick, but if you can get round that, then I've found it's supplanted by OM-1 and 12-100 as my travel camera.

 

[the black fox]

My new a6700 should be arriving today …oops

 

[Sootchucker]

My little A6700 kit grew big quickly (a bit too quickly really ),

This is now my travel setup, and I love it. It all goes into a Bellroy Venture Sling 9L cross body bag.

That the A6700 Body
The 18-135 G F3.5-5.6 (which quite frankly is way sharper than it has any right to be - just wish it started at 16mm (24mm Equivalent) rather than 18mm)
The 10-20 G F4 PZ
The 15mm G F1.4
A dual USB Charger
The Sony GP-VPT2BT Bluetooth Tripod and grip
Not shown the amazing Sony ECM-M1 Microphone for the cameras MI shoe (so cable less).

 

[the_accidental]

which quite frankly is way sharper than it has any right to be

I borrowed one of those, and I'd agree with that assessment.

 

[snerkler]

My little A6700 kit grew big quickly (a bit too quickly really ),

This is now my travel setup, and I love it. It all goes into a Bellroy Venture Sling 9L cross body bag.

That the A6700 Body
The 18-135 G F3.5-5.6 (which quite frankly is way sharper than it has any right to be - just wish it started at 16mm (24mm Equivalent) rather than 18mm)
The 10-20 G F4 PZ
The 15mm G F1.4
A dual USB Charger
The Sony GP-VPT2BT Bluetooth Tripod and grip
Not shown the amazing Sony ECM-M1 Microphone for the cameras MI shoe (so cable less).

How’d you get on with the 10-20mm PZ? I have it for my A7RV, optically it’s very good but I’m not a fan of the electric zoom but I can’t find a good alternative that’s a similar size and weight and as good optically.

 

[Sootchucker]

Toby, I really like it. I also purchased the Full Frame 16-35 F4 PZ for the A7RV, but due to the formers diminutive size, and excellent optics I prefer using the 10-20. The Zoom rocker never really bothers me, as the few times I use it, I set the zoom speed in camera to be quite slow, so it's more of a very slow "reveal" shot. More often as not though, I tend to use the zoom ring rather than the rocker.

Optically I don't think it's quite as sharp and contrasty as my Nikkor 14-30 F4 S Z lens, (and that lens is also a touch wider), but there's not much in it, and the Nikon lens weighs nearly 500g on it's own and has to be "unlocked" before use (which is a touch annoying). The little Sony, only weighs 178g (and even the FF 16-35 only weighs 350g).

 

[snerkler]

Trevor, I really like it. I also purchased the Full Frame 16-35 F4 PZ for the A7RV, but due to the formers diminutive size, and excellent optics I prefer using the 10-20. The Zoom rocker never really bothers me, as the few times I use it, I set the zoom speed in camera to be quite slow, so it's more of a very slow "reveal" shot. More often as not though, I tend to use the zoom ring rather than the rocker.

Optically I don't think it's quite as sharp and contrasty as my Nikkor 14-30 F4 S Z lens, (and that lens is also a touch wider), but there's not much in it, and the Nikon lens weighs nearly 500g on it's own and has to be "unlocked" before use (which is a touch annoying). The little Sony, only weighs 178g (and even the FF 16-35 only weighs 350g).

Thanks. First time I've been called Trevor though

 

[Sootchucker]

Oops sorry about that

 

[the black fox]

Camera arrived this afternoon,set it up for photos so far , think I’ve got it right ? Video can wait for a while .. will take my time sorting out which lens to get next ,probably be the 70-350 but also looked at some of the Tamron ones 70-300 etc .
Think the 200-600 is pushing it though price and weight wise , I’m still keeping the Olympus and 300 f4 + tc that gives a effective 840mm reach with bird I.d , so really need to get near that if possible any reasonable priced suggestions.?

 

[snerkler]

Camera arrived this afternoon,set it up for photos so far , think I’ve got it right ? Video can wait for a while .. will take my time sorting out which lens to get next ,probably be the 70-350 but also looked at some of the Tamron ones 70-300 etc .
Think the 200-600 is pushing it though price and weight wise , I’m still keeping the Olympus and 300 f4 + tc that gives a effective 840mm reach with bird I.d , so really need to get near that if possible any reasonable priced suggestions.?

Used 100-400mm with 1.4x TC? Similar weight to the Olympus 300mm f4

 

[the black fox]

Used 100-400mm with 1.4x TC? Similar weight to the Olympus 300mm f4

Price though can’t stretch my pension that far, didn’t think you can use a tc on e.mount crop bodies ?