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

chrism_scotland said:
Realistically I'd be unlikely to be forking out for an A9 just now anyway, maybe in the summer when I'm more flush!
A used A7 and 35mm f2.8 is unlikely to set me back much more than £1000 all in, but I am quite tempted by the prices of new grey bodies actually.
Click to expand...

This! An a7rii will be around the 2300 quid mark at launch for body only. That's a huge leap in price. Seems people keep forgetting new models cost a fortune.
 
twist said:
This! An a7rii will be around the 2300 quid mark at launch for body only. That's a huge leap in price. Seems people keep forgetting new models cost a fortune.
Click to expand...

I'd expect the A7rii to be more like £1899 if it's to follow the price adjustment of the A7ii. Original rrp of the A7r was £1699. The A9 might be more like £2300-£2500
 
rodd1000 said:
I'd expect the A7rii to be more like £1899 if it's to follow the price adjustment of the A7ii. Original rrp of the A7r was £1699. The A9 might be more like £2300-£2500
Click to expand...

True, I was going by A7s price. Still a hefty increase in price compared to current gen.
 
twist said:
True, I was going by A7s price. Still a hefty increase in price compared to current gen.
Click to expand...

It is but it could be to create room for a new base model at around £999 (possibly without EVF?) No idea if the old A7 is still in production but if it is I guess it won't be for long. I've no doubt Sony have the capability to be the first company to release a FF interchangeable camera for under 1k.
 
rodd1000 said:
It is but it could be to create room for a new base model at around £999 (possibly without EVF?) No idea if the old A7 is still in production but if it is I guess it won't be for long. I've no doubt Sony have the capability to be the first company to release a FF camera at under 1k.
Click to expand...

Im sure they will release a less advanced model below the A7 as you say for under £1k, Id like to hope it has an EVF but you never know. But the A7 will still be a good camera and be great value at £700-800 because it will more than likely have better build, ergonomics and functions. The new model at that price point will likely be an 'nex' with a big sensor.
 
Last edited:
The 28mm looks to be very reasonably and temptingly priced... but it's USD and we wont know for sure until it hits the shops in GBP :D

PS. My Rokkor 50mm f1.2... is blisteringly sharp when stopped down a bit. I gave it a little test yesterday and it's paid for itself already :D Whenever I get new kit I wait for the first shot that I'm really happy with and I've got it already :D and of course I couldn't possibly have got it with any other lens that I already had :D so the f1.2 has now paid for itself :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The 28mm looks to be very reasonably and temptingly priced... but it's USD and we wont know for sure until it hits the shops in GBP :D

PS. My Rokkor 50mm f1.2... is blisteringly sharp when stopped down a bit. I gave it a little test yesterday and it's paid for itself already :D Whenever I get new kit I wait for the first shot that I'm really happy with and I've got it already :D and of course I couldn't possibly have got it with any other lens that I already had :D so the f1.2 has now paid for itself :D
Click to expand...

EDIT whats the USD price?
 
Last edited:
EDIT again, damn well done Sony. Now if only they would rerelease the 35 and a 50mm f1.8 or f2 as non Zeiss lenses. IMO then they would really be onto a winner (along with a 85 1.8)
 
Last edited:
twist said:
EDIT again, damn well done Sony. Now if only they would rerelease the 35 and a 50mm f1.8 or f2 as non Zeiss lenses. IMO then they would really be onto a winner (along with a 85 1.8)
Click to expand...

Ah, I take it non Zeiss would be cheaper?

As I've said many times now I'd be very happy with a range of compact and just good enough lenses rather than lenses aiming to be amongst the best mass market AF lenses on sale.

If they'd make lenses of the optical quality of my Rokkors and just added AF hopefully without bulking them up too much I'd very probably buy them.
 
woof woof said:
Ah, I take it non Zeiss would be cheaper?

As I've said many times now I'd be very happy with a range of compact and just good enough lenses rather than lenses aiming to be amongst the best mass market AF lenses on sale.

If they'd make lenses of the optical quality of my Rokkors and just added AF hopefully without bulking them up too much I'd very probably buy them.
Click to expand...

Sony has 2 lines of excellent lenses, G lenses and Zeiss, G lenses are still very good although they are cheaper than the Zeiss line. Id like to think of Sony introducing a line of G cheaper primes like Nikon has its new 1.8 G primes. Its what I wanted since I first bought an A7 at launch. And thats what it seems they are doing, Im pretty sure the 28mm F2 isn't a Zeiss or is it (if it is thats one hell of a cheap Zeiss)?
 
Last edited:
Hoping for a 24-70 f2.8 - f4 G lens but pigs might fly. The zeiss version just isn't worth the money.
 
woof woof said:
Ah, I take it non Zeiss would be cheaper?

As I've said many times now I'd be very happy with a range of compact and just good enough lenses rather than lenses aiming to be amongst the best mass market AF lenses on sale.

If they'd make lenses of the optical quality of my Rokkors and just added AF hopefully without bulking them up too much I'd very probably buy them.
Click to expand...

I can't see many people spending over a grand on a camera only to settle for lenses that need stopping down a bit to get decent results though. What would be the point?

To me the answer is slower, smaller lenses that can produce decent results from wide open e.g. full frame version of Sigma's f/2.8 mirrorless offerings. Or if they could manage it in a small package, f/2 lenses (although the new Sony 28/2 already looks pretty big to me).
 
manualfocus-g said:
I can't see many people spending over a grand on a camera only to settle for lenses that need stopping down a bit to get decent results though. What would be the point?

To me the answer is slower, smaller lenses that can produce decent results from wide open e.g. full frame version of Sigma's f/2.8 mirrorless offerings. Or if they could manage it in a small package, f/2 lenses (although the new Sony 28/2 already looks pretty big to me).
Click to expand...

If you shooting for shallow dof the 28 f2 is equiv to 18mm f1.2ish apsc plus you have the ff iso advantage, which annhialates the fuji fake mushy high iso. Bigger lens sure but better performance as a package.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I can't see many people spending over a grand on a camera only to settle for lenses that need stopping down a bit to get decent results though. What would be the point?
Click to expand...

Depends on the purpose. If all you're shooting is landscapes then anything wider than f8 would be pretty pointless.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that most people buying an a7 won't just be shooting landscapes though, that's a barking comment :D

Not sure what your point is Twist, I never mentioned Fuji or shallow depth of field. Fast shutter speeds in low light conditions would be useful though, surely?
 
manualfocus-g said:
I'm pretty sure that most people buying an a7 won't just be shooting landscapes though, that's a barking comment :D
Click to expand...

I don't think you have much of a clue about this really. A7 is small, very light, ideal for hiking and with incredible DR and resolution. What do you think the purpose of the A7r is?
 
manualfocus-g said:
I'm pretty sure that most people buying an a7 won't just be shooting landscapes though, that's a barking comment :D

Not sure what your point is Twist, I never mentioned Fuji or shallow depth of field. Fast shutter speeds in low light conditions would be useful though, surely?
Click to expand...

Your comments are usually based on the Fuji system and I'm sure you would've mentioned Fuji primes as a comparison. Yes faster shutter speeds are useful, but with ff you get the shallower dof and the iso makes up for the shutter speed if you had to stop down.

Let's look at another type of photography instead of landscapes because your wider lenses are usually pancakes.

E.g. portraits. I'm using a nikon as an example because its ff like the sony sensor

Fuji 56
73.2 x 69.7 mm

Nikon 85 1.8g
78.7 x 73.7 mm

Not much difference.
 
Last edited:
rodd1000 said:
I don't think you have much of a clue about this really. A7 is small, very light, ideal for hiking and with incredible DR and resolution. What do you think the purpose of the A7r is?
Click to expand...

So what do you think the a7, a7s and a7II are for then?!
 
twist said:
Your comments are usually based on the Fuji system and I'm sure you would've mentioned Fuji primes as a comparison. Yes faster shutter speeds are useful, but with ff you get the shallower dof and the iso makes up for the shutter speed if you had to stop down.

Let's look at another type of photography instead of landscapes because your wider lenses are usually pancakes.

E.g. portraits. I'm using a nikon as an example because its ff like the sony sensor

Fuji 56
73.2 x 69.7 mm

Nikon 85 1.8g
78.7 x 73.7 mm mm

Not much difference.
Click to expand...

Um...

a) 5cm is actually quite a difference
b) I'm talking about small lenses in general for the a7 series and not comparing to other systems

As a rule, portrait lenses are usually longer anyway due to the large apertures employed. There are some smaller portrait lenses around with slower max apertures and decent IQ at wider apertures e.g. Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8, Sony 85/2.8?
 
manualfocus-g said:
Um...

a) 5cm is actually quite a difference
b) I'm talking about small lenses in general for the a7 series and not comparing to other systems

As a rule, portrait lenses are usually longer anyway due to the large apertures employed. There are some smaller portrait lenses around with slower max apertures and decent IQ at wider apertures e.g. Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8, Sony 85/2.8?
Click to expand...

Um I think you will find its 5mm! But you are comparing it to other systems as lenses are part of a system and you are saying Sony doesn't have any small lenses, I'm saying they are bigger for a reason, you can't say they are big without looking at why they are bigger. A compact is small with a small lens for a reason. And it will depend on what you shoot how stupidly sharp you need it wide open. I shoot wide open so it is important to me.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Um I think you will find its 5mm! But you are comparing it to other systems as lenses are part of a system and you are saying Sony doesn't have any small lenses, I'm saying they are bigger for a reason, you can't say they are big without looking at why they are bigger. A compact is small with a small lens for a reason.
Click to expand...

Ahahaha I can't defend 5mm :D

Seriously though, I wasn't being a fanboy with my post, I just think the Sony range would benefit from a set of smaller, highish quality but possibly slower lenses. It would make the system more interesting, and if they were cheaper, more accessible. I think Sony got it right with the 35/2.8 size wise. Slightly larger versions of the Sigma 19/2.8, 30/2.8, 60/2.8 would be pretty neat IMO, particularly if they were 28mm, 50mm and 90mm.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Ahahaha I can't defend 5mm :D

Seriously though, I wasn't being a fanboy with my post, I just think the Sony range would benefit from a set of smaller, highish quality but possibly slower lenses. It would make the system more interesting, and if they were cheaper, more accessible. I think Sony got it right with the 35/2.8 size wise. Slightly larger versions of the Sigma 19/2.8, 30/2.8, 60/2.8 would be pretty neat IMO, particularly if they were 28mm, 50mm and 90mm.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree, but I'd rather not have slower aperture, I'm used to big fast lenses so f2 with decent optics for me would be ideal, I think the Zeiss lenses are expensive and a bit bigger because optically they are ridiculously good, a slight decrease in build, size and optical properties would be ideal for me, for me they Dont need the ultimate edge sharpness or ca control or vignetting. But were all different.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Oh come on, be honest for a minute. Do you think that's all a7 owners take pictures of, hills?! I know several who don't have hiking boots at all! :D
Click to expand...

I know some who comment on these cameras and they've never even used one. ;) and how dare you suggest that their are other styles of photography.
 
rodd1000 said:
Not really, they're to busy taking photos of out of focus flowers.
Click to expand...

Hey don't knock it, when I started out my favourite subject was out of focus fake flowers :D

twist said:
If that was aimed at me. Its pretty easy to focus a lens at f11 with af at infinity of a humongous subject like a hill lol.
Click to expand...

:D
 
manualfocus-g said:
Hey don't knock it, when I started out my favourite subject was out of focus fake flowers:D
Click to expand...

In my defense that was taken at MFD 0.95 using MF and it is in focus but lacks some contrast on the focus point. The dof is like 1mm not 1 mile and it was a test shot :p

DPR forum is pretty bad.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I can't see many people spending over a grand on a camera only to settle for lenses that need stopping down a bit to get decent results though. What would be the point?
Click to expand...

Well, there are a lot of people doing exactly that and not just with Sony cameras. Unless you are going for class leading results at the very widest apertures and unless you are pixel peeping at 100%+ the differences in a whole final image could well be minimal and these old lenses aren't exactly useless at their widest aperture. The results are pretty good in whole images and it's only when looking closely that they lose out to new lenses. A little less sharpness, a little glow/blooming/fringing is hardly noticeable in many shots and normal people wont see these things in even quite large prints anyway.

I've had some nice lenses in the past and now I have the Sony 55mm f1.8 and it's a better lens than my Rokkor, Zuiko and FD lenses at the widest apertures but at anything other than the widest apertures you'll have to look very closely to see any differences in a final image and I seriously doubt that anyone could reliably tell whole real world images apart without doing some serious pixel peeping and tut-tutting.

manualfocus-g said:
So what do you think the a7, a7s and a7II are for then?!
Click to expand...

For most people I think the answer is FF image quality in a small form factor or maybe even FF in a CSC. For me it's two things...

- FF image quality in a small form factor.
- The ability to use old manual lenses at their intended FoV on a compact body with good focus aids.

To date there's nothing else on the market that can fulfil those two roles. If you want these things the answer is a Sony A7 series body.

manualfocus-g said:
Um...
a) 5cm is actually quite a difference
Click to expand...

After reading this and your comments about 40 v 50mm in the other thread I wonder what on earth you're going to obsess about next :D
 
Last edited:
rodd1000 said:
Depends on the purpose. If all you're shooting is landscapes then anything wider than f8 would be pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

It seems that on the internet all a lot of people want is minimal DoF and I do a fair bit of that myself but it's not the only trick available and most of my photographic life has been spent trying to get more DoF not less. This is where the smaller systems have an advantage for me for hand held general shooting but you don't quite get FF quality and you don't get to use old lenses at their intended FoV, not without something else like a speed booster.

I used to shoot a lot with my 5D and 50mm at f5, that gives shallow DoF but who would be able to reliably tell a modern AF 50mm f1.4 full image shot taken at f5 from a Minolta Rokkor f5 shot? It'd be pretty hard when viewing normally or even quite closely.
 
Its gone very handbags at dawn in here recently.
For me the purpose of the A7R is highly cropable images with high DR. Couldnt care less that its FF i just wanted high res, high DR and sharp images.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Woof - I love using old lenses on digital, particuarly on full frame hence I kept my 6D :) What I'm saying is that most mainstream lenses are now at least pretty good from wide open, so there's no way we should step backwards and make things worse again.
Click to expand...

What about rendering, older lenses just do things differently. Not necessarily better, just different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top