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

oddly they announced new a mount glass, well ssm upgrades
but now emount has better ibis is there much point?
 
stevelmx5 said:
Personally I think the IBIS is a massive upgrade and something the A7 maybe should have had at launch. I don't see it as a huge benefit for native lenses but the strength of the Mirrorless bodies for a lot of users (myself included) is manual legacy glass.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as you say 135mm and longer...

I tend to use my 50mm most followed by 85mm and then 28mm so to be honest the lack of IS hasn't really hit me that hard but it would be nice and given the choice of having it or not I'd say Yes Please :D

The MK2 could attract more people into the system, where else you can you gat a full frame body and have the luxury of stabilised primes?
 
As a former Sony A Mount user I was a little puzzled by the lack of IBIS when the NEX and then the A7/A7r were released, particularly when they were very keen to promote the A mount adaptor.
I've been considering downsizing from the D800 and this looks like it could potentially tick some boxes for me, looks slightly larger with a better grip, pricing will be interesting.
 
There now appears to me at least to be no functional difference between an A7II with LAE4 adaptor and an A99. I'm currently looking for 2 full frame bodies for my A mount glass and now the decision seems to be on ergonomics only.
 
The A9 should close the gap even further. Be interesting to see what it offers as that will be a good indicater for what we might expect in the A7 the year after.

Also why no A8?
 
Using the A6000 as my go anywhere camera whilst I make up my mind about the A7/r/s/Mk2. Always carry the Canon EX270 flash - small, light and tilt head - perfect.
 
Its bigger than i thought.

47-700x525.jpg


Fair bit thicker and that grip adds a lot as well.
 
I think I joined the a7 party too early, my a7 / LA-EA4 / Zeiss 135mm 1.8 would have been even more spectacular on this new body (in terms of handling and IBIS)
 
chrism_scotland said:
I suppose it depends what you want, for some the D750 would be the best 24mp FF you can buy
Click to expand...

Maybe but as you say, it depends what you want and as I want to use old lenses mirrorless is best. Squinting into a DSLR and hoping to acquire focus when you could be looking at a greatly magnified view and choosing your point of focus is so last century :D
 
pingu666 said:
well its the best ff 24mp camera you can get surely?
Click to expand...

Unlikely - unless the AF performance matches a DSLR / DSLT.

However this is (IMO) a really good move move by Sony as it bridges the new FF bodies with the unstabilised A-mount lenses.
 
Dryce said:
Unlikely - unless the AF performance matches a DSLR / DSLT.
Click to expand...

I could argue that some CSC already exceed DSLR focus in a couple of areas, accuracy and speed. The only area in which DSLR's are superior seems to be tracking but IMVHO CSC's will catch up sooner or later and as of now if we look at the best performing from each camp (DSLR v CSC) it's only the highest top end DSLR's that show a lead and how many DSLR owners own those top end best performing models? Possibly a tiny percentage.
 
Last edited:
hmm, i guess if you need tracking AF then dslr is better, but cant say i use that alot, and imo most peoples day to day shooting af-s is what they are using/needing

on the pro end i guess 5 axis ibis with otus'es, and focus peaking is pretty damn tempting.
 
More money to spend!!:rolleyes:

I love the new grip especially moving the shutter button forward which for me will be much more comfortable. 5 Axis Ibis will be a blessing BUT..... As far as i know you can not have the sensor cleaned and it has to go back to Sony!! I hope i'm wrong there!
 
woof woof said:
I could argue that some CSC already exceed DSLR focus in a couple of areas, accuracy and speed. The only area in which DSLR's are superior seems to be tracking but IMVHO CSC's will catch up sooner or later and as of now if we look at the best performing from each camp (DSLR v CSC) it's only the highest top end DSLR's that show a lead and how many DSLR owners own those top end best performing models? Possibly a tiny percentage.
Click to expand...

Honestly, after owning many CSCs incl the A7 I can say that is complete nonsense. My D700 and now my D750 are vastly superior in AF to the A7 (or my other CSCs) in terms of AF speed. Accuracy is debatable as it depends on light.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Maybe but as you say, it depends what you want and as I want to use old lenses mirrorless is best. Squinting into a DSLR and hoping to acquire focus when you could be looking at a greatly magnified view and choosing your point of focus is so last century :D
Click to expand...

Agreed, for MF CSC is superb.
 
twist said:
Honestly, after owning many CSCs incl the A7 I can say that is complete nonsense. My D700 and now my D750 are vastly superior in AF to the A7 (or my other CSCs) in terms of AF speed. Accuracy is debatable as it depends on light.
Click to expand...

He did say some, not the A7. The A6000 is faster than the majority of DSLRs, and with the A7Mk2 having a tweaked version of the same i reckon it will widen the gap even more. Contrast based AF is more accurate than phase, so a system that uses both will be more accurate.
 
robj20 said:
He did say some, not the A7. The A6000 is faster than the majority of DSLRs, and with the A7Mk2 having a tweaked version of the same i reckon it will widen the gap even more. Contrast based AF is more accurate than phase, so a system that uses both will be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure it is ;)

A7 mk2 would need to be a lot more than 30% faster if it wants to keep up with a decent DSLR.

Contrast AF can be as accurate as it likes but if I haven't got all day to wait for it to work and lock then to me its pointless and thats where speed comes in or a combination of both. Im not sure what DSLRs you lot are using that you find so imprecise.

Mirrorless is getting there but they arent there yet and its still going to take a while before they are.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Honestly, after owning many CSCs incl the A7 I can say that is complete nonsense. My D700 and now my D750 are vastly superior in AF to the A7 (or my other CSCs) in terms of AF speed. Accuracy is debatable as it depends on light.
Click to expand...

Agree. Particularly in low light where my 6D is untouchable (can focus down to -3ev).

twist said:
Agreed, for MF CSC is superb.
Click to expand...

Don't agree :) Superb if you have time to do all the zooming, peaking etc. which means static or very slow moving subjects, which sadly doesn't match my style of photography. I get far better results using an OVF with none of the resolution and wash out issues of an EVF (the a7 drove me nuts in this respect - manual focusing outdoors in bright light was far too difficult).

However - if Sony can continue to deliver a decent range of native FE lenses, the FE series will make for a nice system, much like that of Fujifilm.

BTW - with reference IBIS, I'm not sure how useful this will really be unless shooting static or slow moving subjects (not me again) or using long lenses (on a small body?!). I think the real improvements will be around the ergonomics. Perhaps they will have fixed some of the annoying operational issues as well e.g. 1/60th second default speed and ability to knock the dials too easily.
 
twist said:
Honestly, after owning many CSCs incl the A7 I can say that is complete nonsense. My D700 and now my D750 are vastly superior in AF to the A7 (or my other CSCs) in terms of AF speed. Accuracy is debatable as it depends on light.
Click to expand...

No, it's not total nonsense.

Firstly and as earlier pointed out I did make a point of referring to "some CSC's." You may not like me being a little vague and it does run against the grain slight as I have an engineering background but we're all adults here and I expect a degree of comprehension on behalf of readers.

There have been a series of new CSC's announcements in recent times often claiming to be the fastest focusing interchangeable camera and lens combination and I do believe them. Of course to be accurate and sure of what they're claiming the manufacturers state a specific body and lens combination and that's perfectly correct to be expected. As I said, there have been a string of these claims in recent times and as far as I remember they've all been the latest CSC and lens combination none of them to my knowledge have been a DSLR and lens combination.

As for focus accuracy I think that the very best CSC are probably more accurate than the very best DSLR's in any light. I think that the biggest challenge is possibly low light and I've mentioned here before that my lowly GX7 will focus and achieve an accurate lock in almost complete darkness. It takes time to do so but it does it. It hunts backwards and forwards and then the EVF gains up and detail which can not be seen by eye becomes visible and it focuses. I've tested this in situations I'm never going to shoot in the real world... by sticking the camera and my head in a wardrobe in an unlit room. The challenge is there if you'd like to try the same test with your DSLR. Can your DSLR do that?

twist said:
Yeah, sure it is ;)

A7 mk2 would need to be a lot more than 30% faster if it wants to keep up with a decent DSLR.

Contrast AF can be as accurate as it likes but if I haven't got all day to wait for it to work and lock then to me its pointless and thats where speed comes in or a combination of both. Im not sure what DSLRs you lot are using that you find so imprecise.

Mirrorless is getting there but they arent there yet and its still going to take a while before they are.
Click to expand...

Instead of arguing on this forum why not spend a few minute Googling some reviews and see what the facts actually are? I'm certain you will find that the fastest focusing interchangeable lens camera and lens combination available today is a CSC + lens.

If I'm wrong you can come back here and crow about it :D
 
manualfocus-g said:
Agree. Particularly in low light where my 6D is untouchable (can focus down to -3ev).
Click to expand...

Try the wardrobe in an unlit room test and get back to me will you?

manualfocus-g said:
Don't agree :) Superb if you have time to do all the zooming, peaking etc. which means static or very slow moving subjects, which sadly doesn't match my style of photography. I get far better results using an OVF with none of the resolution and wash out issues of an EVF (the a7 drove me nuts in this respect - manual focusing outdoors in bright light was far too difficult).

However - if Sony can continue to deliver a decent range of native FE lenses, the FE series will make for a nice system, much like that of Fujifilm.

BTW - with reference IBIS, I'm not sure how useful this will really be unless shooting static or slow moving subjects (not me again) or using long lenses (on a small body?!). I think the real improvements will be around the ergonomics. Perhaps they will have fixed some of the annoying operational issues as well e.g. 1/60th second default speed and ability to knock the dials too easily.
Click to expand...

I've had this debate with you multiple times and it hardly seem worthwhile revisiting but I will for anyone new to this.

With an EVF equipped camera you can call up a magnified view and you can then focus accurately on detail that you simply can not see through an unaided OVF. Whatever you can focus on with an unaided OVF you can focus on more accurately at higher magnification. This should be common sense and it's born out in reality.

The problems you had with the A7 I don't have and I suspect that the majority of users don't have them either. Maybe your problems were due to light entering the EVF? I don't know. It's not a problem for me in real world shooting.

Yes, the Sony lens line up is rather limited at the moment but there is hope for the future and the lenses do seem to be aimed at the higher end of the market. In fact most of them seem to be outstanding. If Sony keep this up they'll have a very high end system. If may not be for you, in fact it obviously isn't for you but looking at the issues you have I think you're in a minority.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
No, it's not total nonsense.

Firstly and as earlier pointed out I did make a point of referring to "some CSC's." You may not like me being a little vague and it does run against the grain slight as I have an engineering background but we're all adults here and I expect a degree of comprehension on behalf of readers.

There have been a series of new CSC's announcements in recent times often claiming to be the fastest focusing interchangeable camera and lens combination and I do believe them. Of course to be accurate and sure of what they're claiming the manufacturers state a specific body and lens combination and that's perfectly correct to be expected. As I said, there have been a string of these claims in recent times and as far as I remember they've all been the latest CSC and lens combination none of them to my knowledge have been a DSLR and lens combination.

As for focus accuracy I think that the very best CSC are probably more accurate than the very best DSLR's in any light. I think that the biggest challenge is possibly low light and I've mentioned here before that my lowly GX7 will focus and achieve an accurate lock in almost complete darkness. It takes time to do so but it does it. It hunts backwards and forwards and then the EVF gains up and detail which can not be seen by eye becomes visible and it focuses. I've tested this in situations I'm never going to shoot in the real world... by sticking the camera and my head in a wardrobe in an unlit room. The challenge is there if you'd like to try the same test with your DSLR. Can your DSLR do that?


Instead of arguing on this forum why not spend a few minute Googling some reviews and see what the facts actually are? I'm certain you will find that the fastest focusing interchangeable lens camera and lens combination available today is a CSC + lens.

If I'm wrong you can come back here and crow about it :D
Click to expand...

Bold claims by all the CSC manufacturers but the facts are anyone who has used them alongside a good DSLR in various real world situations knows there is a big difference. Instead of making comparisons with your CSCs and a 10 year old 5d mk1 with the most basic AF perhaps you could try a newer generation DSLR? Because I have used a lot of CSCs alongside my DSLRs and can tell you theres a big difference.
 
my mums a6000 is *very* fast to focus, you wont make much gains on that as its already not far off instant
 
dp's, a77, a55, and ive tried a bunch of cameras in shops, and fast focusing lenses

a6000 is really bloody quick, near instant.
 
Im not saying CSCs are crap in terms of AF, Ive also owned far to many of them to be biased. I just think the manufacturers and some users claims are 'interesting' so Ill leave it there. Alans just as entitled to his opinion as I am so Its not worth banging on about.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Bold claims by all the CSC manufacturers but the facts are anyone who has used them alongside a good DSLR in various real world situations knows there is a big difference. Instead of making comparisons with your CSCs and a 10 year old 5d mk1 with the most basic AF perhaps you could try a newer generation DSLR? Because I have used a lot of CSCs alongside my DSLRs and can tell you theres a big difference.
Click to expand...

Groan....

The reviews and facts and figures are on the net and if you can prove them wrong then please do so.

What you have to realise, and I don't think you do, is that these claims and critisisms need to be specific. When the manufacturer claims that the latest model plus a specific lens is the fastest yet you can't compare your own experiences unless you've tried that specific combination.

And just in case you think I'm a selective fan boy I'm not. When making or disproving claims you need to be specific. For example my lowly G1 is quick to focus with my Oly 25mm f1.8, it's less quick with my Panny 20mm f1.7. My Canon DSLR's were quite quick with mu HSM/USM lenses but slow with the Canon 50mm f2.5.

twist said:
Im not saying CSCs are crap in terms of AF, Ive also owned far to many of them to be biased. I just think the manufacturers and some users claims are 'interesting' so Ill leave it there. Alans just as entitled to his opinion as I am so Its not worth banging on about.
Click to expand...

Instead of leaving it there why not be precise and provide proof or links to proof?

I've stated not merely my opinion but that there's been a string of "worlds fastest" claims from various CSC manufacturers as the latest models are released.

If they're wrong, prove it.

All it'll take is Googling time. Find the latest claim to be "worlds fastest" camera and lens combination and then find something, preferably a DSLR and lens combination that beats it.

The manufacturers claims are available on line.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Groan....

The reviews and facts and figures are on the net and if you can prove them wrong then please do so.

You've made the claims and now I think it's time to substantiate them.
Click to expand...

I can prove them to myself and thats the most important thing, Ive actually used the systems alongside.
 
twist said:
I can prove them to myself and thats the most important thing, Ive actually used the systems alongside.
Click to expand...

The manufactures have made claims and if you can prove them wrong then kudos to you. I suspect that you can't but I'd like to see you prove whichever manufacturer is claiming to be the latest fastest thing wrong.
 
And a PS to all this silliness.

My own opinion is that the CSC I've owned focus more accurately than any DSLR I've owned and I suspect that that will be true for even the latest models and we only have to look at MA to see why this may be so. You can MA a body and lens combo but only to a degree at specific distances. That's not an issue with CSC.

Years ago most people only had small prints and no one pixel peeped at 200% on screen because we didn't have the ability to but these days we have the ability to and we do. These days we have ever higher mp counts and screens and an increased ability to see every little focus miss, hence MA.

When AF first came out some resisted but in more recent years I think that most people accepted that for most uses and most people AF was better than MF. These days I'd argue that if you have the time to focus manually... MF is now more accurate than AF because with a greatly magnified view you can simply see more detail than you ever could by unaided eye and both choose and focus on things that an AF system simply will not be able to.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The manufactures have made claims and if you can prove them wrong then kudos to you. I suspect that you can't but I'd like to see you prove whichever manufacturer is claiming to be the latest fastest thing wrong.
Click to expand...

What you mean like Sonys claim that the A7 series was weather proof. LOL! You carry on believing things you read on the internet ;) After all look at all the pro shooters using CSCs.

I only need to prove it to myself. I use them alongside so should know pretty well what these cameras are capable of.
 
Last edited:
What I did do however was three tests:

1. Shot a big object in my dark study - 6D with Tamron SP 28-75mm and Fuji X-E1 with 35/1.4 coped fine
2. Shot a landscape outside in darkness - Both coped fine
3. Shot a series of 10 photos of my stationary toddler in low light in various areas of the living room - Both cameras had around an 80% hit rate (sharp photos) but the X-E1 hunted like mad, confused by background objects in 50% of the shots. This is the same behaviour I saw with my Oly E-PL5 before I sold it.

To me both cameras still have a place in my bag(s).
 
In terms of speed my A77 and any half decent lens is fast to lock on and does better than my mirrorless cams in every way apart from focus accuracy.

Mirrorless will catch up. The New A7II and rumoured A9 won't but a few generations down the line and owning a DSLR really will be pointless. By that time Canikon might just wake up and smell the coffee but it will probably be too late for them.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Um, I can't see how that would ever be relevant to my photography, so no! :D
Click to expand...

Double groan.

I can never work out if some of you are serious... :D

The ability of CSC to focus in low light has been questioned and it's been at least implied if not specifically stated that DSLR's do low light better. My own little tests have shown me that... the CSC's I've had are capable of focusing in much lower light than any DSLR I've had. Personally I can't see how any DSLR can match the low light focusing ability of the best CSC, without using live view that is.
 
twist said:
What you mean like Sonys claim that the A7 series was weather proof. LOL! You carry on believing things you read on the internet ;) After all look at all the pro shooters using CSCs.

I only need to prove it to myself. I use them alongside so should know pretty well what these cameras are capable of.
Click to expand...

Changing the goalposts again?

By all means prove things to your own satisfaction but if you want to go beyond opinion then a little more is needed. Opinions are fine and we all have them but if you questing figures that the manufacturers quote then I think that more than your opinion is needed otherwise it's just hyperbole.

You've made a series of statement that you can't substantiate so the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned, but yes, some pro's do indeed use CSC's. Google and you shall find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top