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

GaryS70 said:
I don't have a Sony but this thread is super busy and entertaining - reading this, genuinely curious - does it matter if a camera looks like a compact, or indeed, is a compact ? Isn't it the results that you get from the camera that matters, not what it looks like ?
Click to expand...
yes Gary but Andrew was just giving his opinion :giggle:
 
woof woof said:
Sony do the APS-C 24mm f1.8 which is apparently a very nice lens. It's not cheap but not horrendously expensive either.

TBH the lack of a decent compact 24mm f1.8 is one thing that puts me off the A6xxx line.
Click to expand...
Alan ,either it is or it isn't a nice 24mm 1.8? which is it ?:D
 
If anyone is remotely interested... V 35mm f1.4 stuff...

One thing I like to do when out and about is take close up shots of leaves, flowers and other interesting stuff so I like relatively close focusing lenses to reduce the amount of cropping. I've been testing the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and it's performing quite well for this sort of stuff.

I don't entirely agree with the comments at Admiring Light about f1.4 and close shooting as I think that at f1.4 at the point of focus it's good enough but I don't think that many people will want to take close up shots at 35mm and f1.4. To me f2.8 and beyond is much more likely to give some depth. At wider than f2.8 even with a 35mm there's going to be precious little in the DoF at anything approaching minimum focus distance.

Anyway, I continue to like this lens and using it for the occasional close up shots of flowers and stuff seems to be yielding good enough results for a general purpose 35mm.

100% crop at about minimum focus distance, f2.8, ISO 1250.

DSC09764-c.jpg

50% at f3.2, ISO 800, again at about MFD.

DSC09756-c.jpg
 
Last edited:
GaryS70 said:
I don't have a Sony but this thread is super busy and entertaining - reading this, genuinely curious - does it matter if a camera looks like a compact, or indeed, is a compact ? Isn't it the results that you get from the camera that matters, not what it looks like ?
Click to expand...

I would say how it feels over how it looks, but performance is key.
 
Sony need to bring out some good native E-mount APS-C lenses and a top end body like a Sony A7000.
Basically a APS-C version of the A9. :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
Sony need to bring out some good native E-mount APS-C lenses and a top end body like a Sony A7000.
Basically a APS-C version of the A9. :)
Click to expand...

I think they have some good APS-C lenses. For me there are just some holes in the line up... no f2.8 zooms... no compact and reasonably priced 24mm f1.8.

Plus I'd like to see two conventionally placed control wheels for shutter and aperture, one on the front and one on the back both towards the top of the camera just like pretty much every other camera :D rather than use the wheel on the back.

TBH even if they had all of these things I'd probably stick with MFT :D as the lenses are more compact and are pretty much always available on the used market at reasonable prices. The Oly 17mm f1.8 is lovely.
 
Well it depends what you plan to do sell and what to get. For me the move has been worth it another bonus wife will use this camera she hates using OVF or EVF prefer live view and this solves that for her.

Yes I know D500 had it but no where near as practical and good as this as we know
 
rookies said:
Well it depends what you plan to do sell and what to get. For me the move has been worth it another bonus wife will use this camera she hates using OVF or EVF prefer live view and this solves that for her.

Yes I know D500 had it but no where near as practical and good as this as we know
Click to expand...

I'd have to get rid of both Nikon bodies and lenses, as at a wedding I don't think I could deal with running two systems at once..
 
Riz_Guru said:
Sony need to bring out some good native E-mount APS-C lenses and a top end body like a Sony A7000.
Basically a APS-C version of the A9. :)
Click to expand...

I have been trying to keep up with this thread (which has been a little challenging of late, although not as bad as over on POTN which is fast moving at the best of times), and having ummed and aahhed over the 7iii and Riii, talking myself in and out of upgrading my Rii (GAS is a killer). Ive come to a couple of conclusions. Firstly I love the resolution and IQ that the Rii gives and whilst striving for that eutopia of a single body with a high resolution that allows for heavy cropping with excellent AF (one area I enjoy is wildlife and sport), secondly that the A9R may never come to fruition as why would Sony cannibalise 2 product lines, I also question whether at present the technology is available to process the high res files fast enough to support the high frame rates.

With this in mind it leaves me wondering how else to achieve this, other than the AF and lack of blackout, the A9 gives very little extra to what I already have, certainly not enough to drop a couple of grand on, also the drop in resolution would leave less options for cropping. However a 24mp APSC sensor which has the AF and zero blackout (possibly in the same body too) would be a game changer for amateur wildlife photographers like me, it would look rather funny with my Sigma 120-300 Sport on the front.
 
woof woof said:
I think they have some good APS-C lenses. For me there are just some holes in the line up... no f2.8 zooms... no compact and reasonably priced 24mm f1.8.

Plus I'd like to see two conventionally placed control wheels for shutter and aperture, one on the front and one on the back both towards the top of the camera just like pretty much every other camera :D rather than use the wheel on the back.

TBH even if they had all of these things I'd probably stick with MFT :D as the lenses are more compact and are pretty much always available on the used market at reasonable prices. The Oly 17mm f1.8 is lovely.
Click to expand...

But do you even need a 2.8 zoom?
 
Tom Green said:
But do you even need a 2.8 zoom?
Click to expand...

Yes.

There are advantages with f2.8 zooms which I'm sure you know... lower ISO for low light shooting, DoF when you want to go that way and on APS-C f2.8 helps you replicate the look you'd get from FF by allowing you to keep the quality up and get the shallower DoF look.

With FF I'd probably be mostly shooting in the f4/5 to f8 range so with APS-C being able to shoot from f2.8 instead of f5.6 which is where you'd be at the longer end with a variable aperture zoom is an advantage and helps to give the look I'd get if shooting FF in the f4/5-8 range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top