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

nandbytes said:
I know people like debating about colours, now someone's made a tier list :ROFLMAO:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl_nZG_ziRE
Click to expand...
I haven't watched this but did just flick to a couple of sections for 5 seconds or so, my take is that he's scoring it on colour accuracy rather than pleasing to the eye. This is the only scientific way to do it as pleasing to the eye is preference rather than fact, however I bet the majority still prefer Canon and Fuji.
 
snerkler said:
I haven't watched this but did just flick to a couple of sections for 5 seconds or so, my take is that he's scoring it on colour accuracy rather than pleasing to the eye. This is the only scientific way to do it as pleasing to the eye is preference rather than fact, however I bet the majority still prefer Canon and Fuji.
Click to expand...

If you remember I think it was Luminous Landscape who did a test years ago and found that people prefer Sony colours until the cameras are revealed and then they prefer Canon and Fuji. Seems people just can't leave the fan boy gene at home.
 
snerkler said:
however I bet the majority still prefer Canon and Fuji.
Click to expand...
I think it's just bias or as Alan said that's simply a predisposed position

But i agree pleasing to the eye is different and as Gerald also said Fuji isn't about having the best colour accuracy it's more to do with satisfying what their customers want. I like fuji colours too especially the GFX, and one be ranks best i.e. Nikon is probably my least favourite :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
If you remember I think it was Luminous Landscape who did a test years ago and found that people prefer Sony colours until the cameras are revealed and then they prefer Canon and Fuji. Seems people just can't leave the fan boy gene at home.
Click to expand...
On blind tests I have swayed more towards Sony over Canon, but it's only probably a 60:40 split.
 
I might have been missing something but I've been much more interested in the differences between lenses than cameras and I've never really given colour science a thought. I don't use jpegs now and haven't for years though. I think I only used jpegs when I had my first two digitals, Fuji S602 pro zoom and Canon 300D. I briefly used jpegs when I got my 20D but switched to raws and I had that camera 7 years before moving to the 5D, then MFT than the A7.
 
Looks like you had nice light Toby. It was dull here.

A7III and 24mm f2.8.

DSC00989.jpg

DSC00997.jpg

PS2026 and dehaze has created some sky, much more than was visible by eye.
 
snerkler said:
It was on Saturday, today's been very bleak.
Click to expand...

I had a a couple of hours to myself so I thought I'd take a camera out but it was dull and the light was poor so I just had a quick walk and went home. The tide was very low and when it is you can walk waaaay out on the rocks and it's a while since I've done that so I'm going to try when a low tide and good light combine. If I'm lucky that could happen one day in the next 20 or 30 years.

DSC00978.jpg
 
Last edited:
Playing around with a somewhat unwieldy setup - Hasselblad 80mm/2.8 adapted to Nikon, adapted to E mount via a tilt-shift adapter, then my a5100 on the back. A modified lens collar to clamp the Nikon adapter, then the a5100 in portrait shifted across the image circle of the lens to give a kinda panoramic of about 70Mp.

Not the most interesting subject as I couldn’t get far, but it all worked, which was the object of the exercise. Could I have got the same picture a different way in one click? Yes, but it wouldn’t look like it’d been shot through my ~70yr old Zeiss lens :)

https://flic.kr/p/2s3x1wG
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Looks like you had nice light Toby. It was dull here.

PS2026 and dehaze has created some sky, much more than was visible by eye.
Click to expand...
Here's how bleak it was yesterday, dehaze has added more sky detail in this too


A1_08945 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
I got something today too.

A Miyota 8215 movement, dial and hands. They're not photography related but I enjoyed selecting them and I'm looking forward to the build :D
 
Last edited:
The Rumor site reports that Sigma have a design for a 28mm f1.2...

New Sigma patent discloses the designs for the 28mm f/1.2 and 24mm f/1.2 lenses. | sonyalpharumors

We just got the excellent Sigma 35mm f/1.2 II, and it looks like they’re planning to release even more fast wide-angle primes. A newly published patent reveals the optical designs for the: Sigma 24mm f/1.2 Sigma 28mm f/1.2 I think both would be very welcome additions, don’t you agree? - via Asobinet
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

If they do make one maybe that'll push Sony to do a 28mm too? I'm not interested in a honker but I would be interested in a more compact f2/f1.8. I have the existing f2 but I'm a bit disappointed with its performance into the corners which IMO are pretty poor at f8 and wider.

PS.
I see Sigma already have a 28mm f1.4.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I got something today too.

A Miyota 8215 movement, dial and hands. They're not photography related but I enjoyed selecting them and I'm looking forward to the build :D
Click to expand...


Alan, have you tried any of your Voigtlander lenses on your A7Cii yet. I'm asking as I have an A7Cii as well and was wondering how they fared with a modern sony sensor. I have tried Leica mount Voigtlanders previously on my Fuji gear but was quite disappointed with the images
 
Rosedale said:
Alan, have you tried any of your Voigtlander lenses on your A7Cii yet. I'm asking as I have an A7Cii as well and was wondering how they fared with a modern sony sensor. I have tried Leica mount Voigtlanders previously on my Fuji gear but was quite disappointed with the images
Click to expand...

I can't remember if I've used my Voigtlanders on either my A7cII or my A7III. I've had a quick look in my favourites folder and I can't see any pictures taken with them and that's a problem. I have a lot of A7+Voigtlander shots but few if any A7III or A7cII shots. Since I got the 40mm f2.5 and 24mm f2.8 my manual lenses both old and new haven't seen a lot of use, the only one I've used recently is the TTA 50mm f2. I was going to take my A7III and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 out the other day but I chose the 24mm f2.8 instead.

When I get finally make the decision and get around to it I should try and sell my remaining film era primes and my Sony mount Voigtlanders too but I don't know if I can part with that 35mm f1.4 as I've taken so many pictures with it.

I can't see any reason why they wont perform well on my newer cameras. I think that are good enough especially the 50mm f2 apo, actually they should perform a little better than on the A7 as that camera had the reflection issue which I think went away with other newer cameras. The reflection issue is clear here. I think I read that the 35mm f2.8 which this was taken with was particularly bad for this but I do have Voigtlander shots showing this to some extent but most of my pictures are on a backup drive now.

DSC04472.JPG

In what way were you disappointed with Voigtlanders on Fuji?

With some older less well performing lenses smaller formats may tend to show any weaknesses as they are effectively zoomed in. On FF lenses are exposed to less magnification so they don't have to work so hard. That's what I've read and I think I confirmed that to myself as some of my film era primes seemed quite poor on MFT and seem much better on FF. I had no worries about the new Sony mount Voigtlanders on my A7 (apart from the 35mm f1.4's messy corners) and I have no worries about how they'd perform on my A7III or A7cII and there are a lot of pictures taken with Sony mount Voigtlanders on later Sony cameras on other sites.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
With some older less well performing lenses smaller formats may tend to show any weaknesses as they are effectively zoomed in. On FF lenses are exposed to less magnification so they don't have to work so hard. That's what I've read and I think I confirmed that to myself as some of my film era primes seemed quite poor on MFT and seem much better on FF. I had no worries about the new Sony mount Voigtlanders on my A7 (apart from the 35mm f1.4's messy corners) and I have no worries about how they'd perform on my A7III or A7cII and there are a lot of pictures taken with Sony mount Voigtlanders on later Sony cameras on other sites.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info - maybe the issues I had were related to the lens being a Leica version on a Fuji camera (really poor detail when zoomed in and bad corners). I would hesitate to buy another Voigtlander lens even though they were lovely to operate. I just wondered if you'd seen any problems.
 
The usual "what to take" question I'm afraid. At the beginning of April the wife and myself are going on a 4 day city break to Rome. I've just purchased an A7CR which will definitely be the body of choice, however I'm debating over my lens choice.

For my Sony system, the usual two lenses are my 16-35PZ F4 and the 20-70 F4. This would give me 16-70mm at 61MP and up to 105mm in 26MP APS-C Mode. However, despite these lenses being nice and small and light for what they are (especially as FF lenses), that's still another 850g on both lenses plus the body (at 515g).

I then had this wild idea of just taking my FE 24mm F2.8 G and the FE 40mm F2.5 G prime pair only. Those two are obviously much smaller and only combined weigh 335g (over half a kilo saving). However that will only get me a F/L of 24mm to 40mm at FF, and 60mm in 26MP APS-C mode. Trouble is I'm not sure that such a limited range of focal lengths will leave me wanting, and the zoom lenses will scratch that itch.

I've never (ever) travelled anywhere before with just two primes, so it would be uncharted waters for me (could potentially be very liberating ?), and i notice many people travelling with a fixed lens compact (like a Fuji X100VI which has a fixed 35mm lens) and seem to cope just fine. Or should I just bite the bullet and take the zoom pair and put up with a small additional amount of weight ?
 
Last edited:
Rosedale said:
Thanks for the info - maybe the issues I had were related to the lens being a Leica version on a Fuji camera (really poor detail when zoomed in and bad corners). I would hesitate to buy another Voigtlander lens even though they were lovely to operate. I just wondered if you'd seen any problems.
Click to expand...
Perhaps have a try with the newer versions in Sony mount if budget allows. I currently have the 15mm f4.5 and 28mm f2 and as I'm new to Sony these are what I have gone with initially. On my Nikon Z8 & ZF I had the 35mm & 50mm f2 APO versions and I had no problems on the Z8 45MP sensor with either lens.
 
Sootchucker said:
The usual "what to take" question I'm afraid. At the beginning of April the wife and myself are going on a 4 day city break to Rome. I've just purchased an A7CR which will definitely be the body of choice, however I'm debating over my lens choice.

For my Sony system, the usual two lenses are my 16-35PZ F4 and the 20-70 F4. This would give me 16-70mm at 61MP and up to 105mm in 26MP APS-C Mode. However, despite these lenses being nice and small and light for what they are (especially as FF lenses), that's still another 850g on both lenses plus the body (at 515g).

I then had this wild idea of just taking my FE 24mm F2.8 G and the FE 40mm F2.5 G prime pair only. Those two are obviously much smaller and only combined weigh 335g (over half a kilo saving). However that will only get me a F/L of 24mm to 40mm at FF, and 60mm in 26MP APS-C mode. Trouble is I'm not sure that such a limited range of focal lengths will leave me wanting, and the zoom lenses will scratch that itch.

I've never (ever) travelled anywhere before with just two primes, so it would be uncharted waters for me (could potentially be very liberating ?), and i notice many people travelling with a fixed lens compact (like a Fuji X100VI which has a fixed 35mm lens) and seem to cope just fine. Or should I just bite the bullet and take the zoom pair and put up with a small additional amount of weight ?
Click to expand...

I went to Rome with an X100F and the wide angle converter giving me 28mm and 35mm FF equiv - IMO wide angles are best in Rome as you have little space to back up, and everything is surprisingly 'big'. Inside some of the churches/buildings is surprisingly dark so lens options that allow you to shoot in low light would be beneficial.

I would be happy with both primes and equally happy with just the 16-35PZ (that still gets you to 50mm in APS-C mode and avoids any lens swapping).

BTW if the Vatican is open in the evening on any of your dates then I would recommend this (must book in advance) as although not all the rooms are open, the key ones are, and the crowds are non-existent, when we went, we were in the Sistene Chapel with only about 20 other people, and the Gallery of Maps was virtually empty :) Just watch out for Taxis on you way back to the hotel and berate them if they turn the meter off part way back!!! But if you don't get ripped off for something in Rome then you've not had the full Italian experience.
 
Last edited:
Rosedale said:
Thanks for the info - maybe the issues I had were related to the lens being a Leica version on a Fuji camera (really poor detail when zoomed in and bad corners). I would hesitate to buy another Voigtlander lens even though they were lovely to operate. I just wondered if you'd seen any problems.
Click to expand...

The modern Sony mount ones shouldn't be a problem at all. I can't avoid pixel peeping but I'm happy enough apart from those 35mm f1.4 corners.

I've had two non Sony mount Voigtlanders, a 35mm f1.4 in... some sort of Leica mount and also a 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar and on digital those lenses are in a completely different league to the Sony mount lenses. Even the Sony mount 35mm f1.4 which is a similar design to the Leica mount one is just so much better than the non Sony mount lens.

If you are ever tempted I could send you some raws to pixel peep but really, you shouldn't worry about them. My most used one is the 35mm f1.4 but I've taken a lot of pictures with them all. This is a 50mm f1.2 pano :D

1-Whitby-23-2-24-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
I then had this wild idea of just taking my FE 24mm F2.8 G and the FE 40mm F2.5 G prime pair only.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy with 24 and 40mm but if you are going to be taking any pictures handheld in low light the f2.8/f2.5 could have you upping the ISO.
 
Sootchucker said:
The usual "what to take" question I'm afraid. At the beginning of April the wife and myself are going on a 4 day city break to Rome. I've just purchased an A7CR which will definitely be the body of choice, however I'm debating over my lens choice.

For my Sony system, the usual two lenses are my 16-35PZ F4 and the 20-70 F4. This would give me 16-70mm at 61MP and up to 105mm in 26MP APS-C Mode. However, despite these lenses being nice and small and light for what they are (especially as FF lenses), that's still another 850g on both lenses plus the body (at 515g).

I then had this wild idea of just taking my FE 24mm F2.8 G and the FE 40mm F2.5 G prime pair only. Those two are obviously much smaller and only combined weigh 335g (over half a kilo saving). However that will only get me a F/L of 24mm to 40mm at FF, and 60mm in 26MP APS-C mode. Trouble is I'm not sure that such a limited range of focal lengths will leave me wanting, and the zoom lenses will scratch that itch.

I've never (ever) travelled anywhere before with just two primes, so it would be uncharted waters for me (could potentially be very liberating ?), and i notice many people travelling with a fixed lens compact (like a Fuji X100VI which has a fixed 35mm lens) and seem to cope just fine. Or should I just bite the bullet and take the zoom pair and put up with a small additional amount of weight ?
Click to expand...

My city outfit is usually 24-105 walkabout plus a fast 50 and an 18mm f2.8 prime. I've also taken a 12-24 which is OK but too wide to look natural.

In your case I'd take the 16-35 and a fast 50 or 85. You can pan and stitch with a 50 or longer lens if needed, but wider lenses tend to distort too much for that.
 
I think you can go wider than 50mm. I've done pans with 40, 35 and 28mm without hitting problems.
 
woof woof said:
I think you can go wider than 50mm. I've done pans with 40, 35 and 28mm without hitting problems.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly lens and subject distance dependent. If there's no close foreground then images can be combined more readily.
 
Sootchucker said:
The usual "what to take" question I'm afraid. At the beginning of April the wife and myself are going on a 4 day city break to Rome. I've just purchased an A7CR which will definitely be the body of choice, however I'm debating over my lens choice.

For my Sony system, the usual two lenses are my 16-35PZ F4 and the 20-70 F4. This would give me 16-70mm at 61MP and up to 105mm in 26MP APS-C Mode. However, despite these lenses being nice and small and light for what they are (especially as FF lenses), that's still another 850g on both lenses plus the body (at 515g).

I then had this wild idea of just taking my FE 24mm F2.8 G and the FE 40mm F2.5 G prime pair only. Those two are obviously much smaller and only combined weigh 335g (over half a kilo saving). However that will only get me a F/L of 24mm to 40mm at FF, and 60mm in 26MP APS-C mode. Trouble is I'm not sure that such a limited range of focal lengths will leave me wanting, and the zoom lenses will scratch that itch.

I've never (ever) travelled anywhere before with just two primes, so it would be uncharted waters for me (could potentially be very liberating ?), and i notice many people travelling with a fixed lens compact (like a Fuji X100VI which has a fixed 35mm lens) and seem to cope just fine. Or should I just bite the bullet and take the zoom pair and put up with a small additional amount of weight ?
Click to expand...
I only take my fixed lens to places I don't mind if I don't get 'the shots' I want such as on dog walks and to places I revisit time and time again. For holidays and city breaks I will always take a flexible setup as I may never go back and I'd regret it if I don't get some shots as I don't have the right focal length. Of course YMMV.

My question with city breaks would be whether to take the 16-35mm or 20-70mm. For the inside of churches etc then the wider the better and so I'd probably sway towards the 16-35mm. For myself I have questioned whether to take the 20-70mm and then get something like the Sigma 10-18mm f2.8. Yes the latter is a crop lens but on my A1 I'd still get 22mp and I'd get the a wide FOV of 15-27mm. The Sigma is 'only 255g which isn't going to be too noticable in the bag. Your 16-35mm PZ is 'only' another 100g so is it going to be a huge burden?

You could always take the 20-70mm and then get one of the small Laowa primes but they're no lighter than the 10-18mm (except the cookie lens) and most oare manual focus only.
 
Sootchucker said:
The usual "what to take" question I'm afraid. At the beginning of April the wife and myself are going on a 4 day city break to Rome. I've just purchased an A7CR which will definitely be the body of choice, however I'm debating over my lens choice.

For my Sony system, the usual two lenses are my 16-35PZ F4 and the 20-70 F4. This would give me 16-70mm at 61MP and up to 105mm in 26MP APS-C Mode. However, despite these lenses being nice and small and light for what they are (especially as FF lenses), that's still another 850g on both lenses plus the body (at 515g).

I then had this wild idea of just taking my FE 24mm F2.8 G and the FE 40mm F2.5 G prime pair only. Those two are obviously much smaller and only combined weigh 335g (over half a kilo saving). However that will only get me a F/L of 24mm to 40mm at FF, and 60mm in 26MP APS-C mode. Trouble is I'm not sure that such a limited range of focal lengths will leave me wanting, and the zoom lenses will scratch that itch.

I've never (ever) travelled anywhere before with just two primes, so it would be uncharted waters for me (could potentially be very liberating ?), and i notice many people travelling with a fixed lens compact (like a Fuji X100VI which has a fixed 35mm lens) and seem to cope just fine. Or should I just bite the bullet and take the zoom pair and put up with a small additional amount of weight ?
Click to expand...
I would take the 20-70 and buy the Viltrox 14mm f/4 which is tiny and very very cheap.

The Viltrox is small enough to fit in your pocket and costs not much more than a Chinese takeaway for 4. It’s also surprisingly decent.
 
Last edited:
f/1.2 said:
I would take the 20-70 and buy the Viltrox 14mm f/4 which is tiny and very very cheap.

The Viltrox is small enough to fit in your pocket and costs not much more than a Chinese takeaway for 4. It’s also surprisingly decent.
Click to expand...
That looks a good option (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top