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

Faldrax said:
Sony need to bring out a better range of APS-C lenses before a new APS-C body.
Click to expand...

I have the 10-18, 16-70 and FE 70-300 which I use on my A6300 and they all great lenses and give a 35mm equiv 15-450mm. I know the 70-300 is an FE lens but it's still fairly compact and I doubt an APS-C lens would be much smaller. The 10-18 and 16-70 are compact enough.
What do folk want, a few more APS-C primes?
 
Kiwi Paul said:
I have the 10-18, 16-70 and FE 70-300 which I use on my A6300 and they all great lenses and give a 35mm equiv 15-450mm. I know the 70-300 is an FE lens but it's still fairly compact and I doubt an APS-C lens would be much smaller. The 10-18 and 16-70 are compact enough.
What do folk want, a few more APS-C primes?
Click to expand...

the 16-70mm and 10-18mm while very nice lenses are overpriced.
A fast 16-50mm/2.8 would be nice.

A few nice affordable pancake primes like canon EF-M 22mm/2 STM would be nice. The sony 20mm/2.8 is more expensive. The EF-M 22mm f2 is as sharp wide open as Sony is at f5.6. To make things worst the EF-M 22 is as sharp as sony zeiss 24mm f1.8 which is a few time more expensive!
The sony 16mm/2.8 is probably the worst prime lens in history. Don't think I have come across a worst one.
Sony 55-210mm is crap also at long end.
I can carry on ranting but you get the idea... sony APS-C is crap

though sigma jumping with a few nice fast sharp primes has made it slightly more bearable.
 
Kiwi Paul said:
I have the 10-18, 16-70 and FE 70-300 which I use on my A6300 and they all great lenses and give a 35mm equiv 15-450mm. I know the 70-300 is an FE lens but it's still fairly compact and I doubt an APS-C lens would be much smaller. The 10-18 and 16-70 are compact enough.
What do folk want, a few more APS-C primes?
Click to expand...

Knocking the Sony APS-C lens line up seems to be SOP but as a non user reading the reviews and looking at the pictures the lenses I've bothered to look at look at least adequate to me with some appearing to be more than adequate and maybe even very good. The prices of some of them in comparison to the competition is maybe another issue. I remember people being apoplectic at the cost of one more recent lens despite it being in the region of what the competition charge for a similar lens.

If there was a 24mm f1.x that appealed to me more than the current one I'd be a lot more tempted to an Axxxx body. MFT is hard to give up though.
 
Last edited:
Kiwi Paul said:
The 55-210 is actually a very nice lens for the money and I've taken many a shot throughout the focal range and been quite pleased.
This Pheasant was taken with one at 210mm wide open through a window too.
Click to expand...

Can't say that example is doing your cause any favours tbh.

What is a very nice lens for the money is my canon 100-300mm I got £10

DSC01863 by Anand Gopinath, on Flickr

DSC01884 by Anand Gopinath, on Flickr

DSC01760 by Anand Gopinath, on Flickr

the 55-210 is not a good lens, probably worst in its class tbh. I used to own one too when I had A6000.
 
Kiwi Paul said:
I would have thought 35 and 55mm are a bit close together, have you considered the lovely little Sony FE28 f2.0 and the 55?
Click to expand...

I’d agree there - I also had the 35/55 combo, but I’ve recently switched to the 85/1.8. Much better now!
 
I have shot a few wedding now, a few portrait shoots now with the A73 with a combination of Sony, Sony Zeiss and Canon L and I have slowly realised:-

1 – Sony colours, white balance at least, can be really off, it can go way too blue, I can see the EVF actually changing in real time. I find the white balance is worst when people stand in front of a lot of green, like a garden...

2 – I love the AF, it is extraordinary.

3 – Sony 85/1.8. Great technically but I was going through the latest images and at one point I switched to the 85L but I forgot, when I was culling all of the sudden I notice the rendering went up to another level but not as sharp….Sigh...I guess in the end the 85/18 isn’t the 85L, the look of the photo isn’t on par. I can sharpen the 85L images and it is sharp enough but the 85/1.8 just do not have that background render. I might buy the 85GM and see how that is, I actually think the ultra sharp of the Sigma might be a negative for skin.

4 – Both Sony Zeiss are nice, bokeh are very smooth, still different to the Canon but just smooth.

Great camera, would get another, when shooting with it I am loving it, but when editing and reviewing I am left in a little mix bag. Amazing DR, it is so sharp, it’s like a scalpel but I think deep down I want a paint brush. I am sure shooting things like motorsport is fine but the camera isn’t that flattering on skin, both in colours or rendering. At a glance, or if you have not been shooting Canon for like 10 years like me or able to look at them at pixel level you probably won’t notice, but something that I can tell and hope Sony will improve upon.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I have shot a few wedding now, a few portrait shoots now with the A73 with a combination of Sony, Sony Zeiss and Canon L and I have slowly realised:-

1 – Sony colours, white balance at least, can be really off, it can go way too blue, I can see the EVF actually changing in real time. I find the white balance is worst when people stand in front of a lot of green, like a garden...
Click to expand...

Why don't you use a WB preset or custom WB for colour consistency? Any large swathes colour will fool any Auto White Balance.
 
redhed17 said:
Why don't you use a WB preset or custom WB for colour consistency? Any large swathes colour will fool any Auto White Balance.
Click to expand...

It's a wedding, inside, outside, shade, open light. There isn't time to set WB every 2 mins.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's a wedding, inside, outside, shade, open light. There isn't time to set WB every 2 mins.
Click to expand...
I know the locations can change (quickly) at a wedding, but if for example you are in the garden on a sunny day, would it not be easy to change to Daylight WB as you may be there for awhile? On my camera changing the WB is pressing a button and moving the wheel a click or two. Is it not as easy on the Sony, or Canon?
 
redhed17 said:
I know the locations can change (quickly) at a wedding, but if for example you are in the garden on a sunny day, would it not be easy to change to Daylight WB as you may be there for awhile? On my camera changing the WB is pressing a button and moving the wheel a click or two. Is it not as easy on the Sony, or Canon?
Click to expand...

It's just easier to fight the WB in post than faff with changing settings all the time.
 
Cagey75 said:
Wait, what?? You got a Canon 100-300 for £10?
Click to expand...

I found someone who was selling the canon 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM with fungus plus a camera bag for £20. So I took a small risk and bought it. The lens was rather easy to remove and the fungus cleaned out nicely without leaving any marks. The bag was also surprisingly useful and I used it for a year till I replaced it with a tenba DNA 10. Then I sold the bag the £10. So I essentially paid £10 for the lens :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's just easier to fight the WB in post than faff with changing settings all the time.
Click to expand...
If I am in quickly changing situations I will use Auto WB as it gets it pretty close to correct most of the time, and if needs be, fix it in post, but if I am in a specific lighting situation for awhile I will choose an appropriate WB. One second changing the WB when shooting can save 20-30 secs highlighting groups of images to make a global WB change, or changing the WB for each specific image that was wrong.

There are times when I forget to change it back AWB, (to be ready for anything) but on a mirrorless camera that shouldn't happen as often as on a DSLR because you could see an incorrect WB in the viewfinder.

Just trying to offer a solution to one of your occasional problems. :)
 
Outdoors I like the WB manually set on 5800 most of the time and shift that customising feature about one point down and one right.
 
received a couple of Fuji UHSII cards yesterday and I tried fast bursts with A7RIII. Not slow at all in fact its pretty quick to get into preview mode. Not sure why people complain about it being slow. Just get fast cards?
 
nandbytes said:
received a couple of Fuji UHSII cards yesterday and I tried fast bursts with A7RIII. Not slow at all in fact its pretty quick to get into preview mode. Not sure why people complain about it being slow. Just get fast cards?
Click to expand...
Slow to clear buffer
 
jonneymendoza said:
Slow to clear buffer
Click to expand...
Wasn't particularly slow tbh. It actually took me a while to fill the buffer in the first place. I am not sure who'd hold the shutter down that long. Normally you'd burst in short periods when you expect some kinda action rather than holding it down?

Not saying it couldnt be faster. Sure it could but it does not seem to be such a big issue.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Wasn't particularly slow tbh. It actually took me a while to fill the buffer in the first place. I am not sure who'd hold the shutter down that long. Normally you'd burst in short periods when you expect some kinda action rather than holding it down?

Not saying it couldnt be faster. Sure it could but it does not seem to be such a big issue.
Click to expand...
Uncompressed raw you can only shoot for 3 odd seconds and it takes nearly a minute to completely clear buffer.

So if you burst shoot for just 2 seconds. Take another burst in 10 seconds. You will fill the buffer easily.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Uncompressed raw you can only shoot for 3 odd seconds and it takes nearly a minute to completely clear buffer.

So if you burst shoot for just 2 seconds. Take another burst in 10 seconds. You will fill the buffer easily.
Click to expand...

ah I generally shoot compressed RAW. I am still to come across a situation where I really needed uncompressed RAW. I know its cool to under expose your shots by 6 stops but I prefer to expose them properly :p
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Uncompressed raw you can only shoot for 3 odd seconds and it takes nearly a minute to completely clear buffer.

So if you burst shoot for just 2 seconds. Take another burst in 10 seconds. You will fill the buffer easily.
Click to expand...

Do you find any real world benefit, compared against the negatives, to shooting uncompressed raw for the work you do Jonney? From what I've read online, and examples I've seen, I haven't been convinced about the benefits other than online bloggers using it to get hits on their videos.
 
Kiwi Paul said:
I know the 70-300 is an FE lens but it's still fairly compact and I doubt an APS-C lens would be much smaller.
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at A-Mount, the 70-300 GII is 135mm, 750g, £899 while the aps-c 55-300 DT is 116.5mm, 460g £299

I appreciate the GII is superior to the DT, but it is also 3x the price and over 1.5x the weight - so there is clearly scope for something similar in E-Mount.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Do you find any real world benefit, compared against the negatives, to shooting uncompressed raw for the work you do Jonney? From what I've read online, and examples I've seen, I haven't been convinced about the benefits other than online bloggers using it to get hits on their videos.
Click to expand...

there is a slight benefit if you are shooting highly dynamic scenes like in landscapes. But for shooting action there is seldom any real benefit.
 
nandbytes said:
there is a slight benefit if you are shooting highly dynamic scenes like in landscapes. But for shooting action there is seldom any real benefit.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with these comments, I have been using compressed RAW since the very beginning and I am yet to come across a situation where I needed that extra DR headroom when pushing the files.
Yes some photographers may need the extra top end using uncompressed files but doubt I ever will. :) besides, it seriously reduces the fps ability of the Sony A9 which kind of defeats the point for action / sports photographers.
 
nandbytes said:
there is a slight benefit if you are shooting highly dynamic scenes like in landscapes. But for shooting action there is seldom any real benefit.
Click to expand...

That's generally why we have graduated ND's but if I was shooting landscape I wouldn't be machine gunning so like you say, not much benefit for anything else I imagine.
 
nandbytes said:
I found someone who was selling the canon 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM with fungus plus a camera bag for £20. So I took a small risk and bought it. The lens was rather easy to remove and the fungus cleaned out nicely without leaving any marks. The bag was also surprisingly useful and I used it for a year till I replaced it with a tenba DNA 10. Then I sold the bag the £10. So I essentially paid £10 for the lens :D
Click to expand...


I love a good bargain, nice.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I have to agree with these comments, I have been using compressed RAW since the very beginning and I am yet to come across a situation where I needed that extra DR headroom when pushing the files.
Yes some photographers may need the extra top end using uncompressed files but doubt I ever will. :) besides, it seriously reduces the fps ability of the Sony A9 which kind of defeats the point for action / sports photographers.
Click to expand...
Yea true
 
stevelmx5 said:
That's generally why we have graduated ND's but if I was shooting landscape I wouldn't be machine gunning so like you say, not much benefit for anything else I imagine.
Click to expand...

haven't carried ND grad in a while now :D
mainly because (Sony) sensors are so good these days and ND grads are a pain to use/carry. If I buy circular ones it limits the composition but I am not keen on carrying square filters everywhere.

I now simply carry a CPL, 3 stop and 10 stop circular filters.
 
Probably an easy one, but if I have a Nissin Air/Di700a combo for Fuji, can I just sell the Air, replace it with a Sony one and keep the Di700a? I'm assuming the flash is the same and it's just the Air unit that is system specific.
 
Anyone had any issues with the paint rubbing off on the A7iii? My friends A7Rii has some pretty bad rub marks.
 
nandbytes said:
Where on the body exactly?
My A7RII didn't have any such issues tbh.
Click to expand...

It’s on the corners and slight bit on the top hump. Nothing major. Might just be a rough bag!
 
nandbytes said:
Where on the body exactly?
My A7RII didn't have any such issues tbh.
Click to expand...

It’s on the corners and slight bit on the top hump. Nothing major. Might just be a rough bag!
 
JJ! said:
It’s on the corners and slight bit on the top hump. Nothing major. Might just be a rough bag!
Click to expand...

yeah the very edges of the corners will rub off mainly because they are sharp edges which easily loose paint compared to rounded off edges. But Its nothing major and something not immediately noticeable unless you are looking for it.

But if its particularly bad/noticeable then I think its your friend rather than the body itself. I regularly used my camera and it goes on a trip pretty much every weekend. So it can't be through normal regular use.

I'll also add Sony's painting is terrible when it comes to lenses, especially the expensive Zeiss ones (typical I know!). It easily scratches and leaves marks.
 
Last edited:
I decided that my life would not be complete without one of these:
43950276421_3d95980636_o.jpg

Kirk BL-A9 L-Bracket for Sony Alpha A9, A7 MkIII and A7R MkIII
150 of your English pounds in the UK:eek: but £109 in the USA...(thank you daughter in NYC)
 
nandbytes said:
yeah the very edges of the corners will rub off mainly because they are sharp edges which easily loose paint compared to rounded off edges. But Its nothing major and something not immediately noticeable unless you are looking for it.

But if its particularly bad/noticeable then I think its your friend rather than the body itself. I regularly used my camera and it goes on a trip pretty much every weekend. So it can't be through normal regular use.

I'll also add Sony's painting is terrible when it comes to lenses, especially the expensive Zeiss ones (typical I know!). It easily scratches and leaves marks.
Click to expand...

My old Pentax K5 was the worst for paint I think. It seemed to flake off if you looked at it wrong!!
 
ukaskew said:
Probably an easy one, but if I have a Nissin Air/Di700a combo for Fuji, can I just sell the Air, replace it with a Sony one and keep the Di700a? I'm assuming the flash is the same and it's just the Air unit that is system specific.
Click to expand...

Yup it works fine, I kept my Fuji i60a and use it on my Sony with a Sony Air1 :)
 
nandbytes said:
yeah the very edges of the corners will rub off mainly because they are sharp edges which easily loose paint compared to rounded off edges. But Its nothing major and something not immediately noticeable unless you are looking for it.

But if its particularly bad/noticeable then I think its your friend rather than the body itself. I regularly used my camera and it goes on a trip pretty much every weekend. So it can't be through normal regular use.

I'll also add Sony's painting is terrible when it comes to lenses, especially the expensive Zeiss ones (typical I know!). It easily scratches and leaves marks.
Click to expand...

Sharp metal edges Vs plastic covered DSLR. The paint will wear with friction.

As for the lenses, as you say they wear fast but the thin paint looks stunning.... Till it wears on cheaper nylon padding. Keep it in a sock or similar in the bag.

Like these should do it...

100pcs-lot-Colorful-Wool-Knit-Sock-Pouch-Case-Bag-for-iPhone-8-Plus-7-Plus-iPhone.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top