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

@addicknchips Restricting my budget was part of not moving to the A7rii in the end for me, when I started adding it all up it was becoming ridiculous. It was going to work out way more than the D750 and lens setup it had to replace. The other issue I personally had was AF, I had high hopes and it never lived up to its hype. Although the sensor performance seems fantastic.

D750 - 1480
Sigma 35mm 1.4 - 600
Sigma 50mm 1.4 - 600
Nikon 85mm 1.8G - 340
-------------------------
3020


A7rii - 2600
Zeiss 35mm batis - 1350
Zeiss 55mm - 660
Batis - 910
------------------------
5520

Thats without calculating the differences to get my lighting working with more expensive triggers, buying additional batteries etc. etc.
 
twist said:
@addicknchips Restricting my budget was part of not moving to the A7rii in the end for me, when I started adding it all up it was becoming ridiculous. It was going to work out way more than the D750 and lens setup it had to replace. The other issue I personally had was AF, I had high hopes and it never lived up to its hype. Although the sensor performance seems fantastic.

D750 - 1480
Sigma 35mm 1.4 - 600
Sigma 50mm 1.4 - 600
Nikon 85mm 1.8G - 340
-------------------------
3020


A7rii - 2600
Zeiss 35mm batis - 1350
Zeiss 55mm - 660
Batis - 910
------------------------
5520

Thats without calculating the differences to get my lighting working with more expensive triggers, buying additional batteries etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Well my head says stick clear of the a7rii. Currently I have Nikon d610
Sigma 85mm 1.4 - simply amazing.
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 105mm 2.8
Sigma 300mm 2.8
Tamron 24-70 2.8
Tamron 150-500
Nikon d5500

The only class I have for the a7 series now is the 55mm 1.8 zeiss. There's no chance of replacing all that Nikon glass but like the idea of a top end mirrorless system to run by its side. I really liked the a7 but had to move that on as the shutter noise was just too loud for my liking.
 
twist said:
Yup, I have 2, a D750 and an A6000 for for when I cant be bothered to carry the D750.
Click to expand...
Nice.

Wouldn't a a7 series be better with a Sony native glass to carry around as your second body?

I am wishing and hoping that the new 5DMK4 will have amazing DR and better iso and 40mp sensor.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Wouldn't a a7 series be better with a Sony native glass to carry around as your second body?
Click to expand...

The A7 AF is nowhere near as capable as the A6k, the ISO performance is less than 1 stop better and I prefer the A6k handling (Ive owned an A7 and an A7s). I also like having OSS on my primes for video. For me it doesnt add up at all, not just in terms of cost (which Id rather put towards my main system).

A7 - 550 used
35mm 2.8 - 400 used
55 1.8 - 500 used
------------------------
1450

A6k - 260 used
35 1.8 OSS - £220 used
50 1.8 OSS - £130 used
------------------------
610

Look at new prices and the gap is even bigger.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
The A7 AF is nowhere near as capable as the A6k, the ISO performance is less than 1 stop better and I prefer the A6k handling (Ive owned an A7 and an A7s). I also like having OSS on my primes for video. For me it doesnt add up at all, not just in terms of cost (which Id rather put towards my main system).
Click to expand...

On the plus side though I doubt that the A6k files are as gorgeous as the A7's if you want to look for the differences and as so many of us relative oldies think... there's something nice about having a 35mm camera. Crop cameras although nice and good enough most of the time maybe don't quite go the final yard and achieve parity never mind being better, if you want to look for the differences.

I view the A7 as my luxury system. Yup. My MFT cameras and my compacts and my phone all take pictures and when printed and framed who'd know the difference most of the time? But the A7 and indeed FF cameras (and probable larger ones too...) have their appeal :D and the additional appeal of the A7 series over DSLR's is (for me) the saving in bulk and weight, the advantages of the CSC system with its EVF and focus aids etc, fewer lens issues (MA etc) and the ability to use old lenses.

I do see the appeal of DSLR's, big manly beasts that they are but I don't need the additional focus tracking ability or any other possible DSLR advantage. The advantages of the A7 series are for me clearer and more applicable to me :D.
 
woof woof said:
On the plus side though I doubt that the A6k files are as gorgeous as the A7's if you want to look for the differences and as so many of us relative oldies think... there's something nice about having a 35mm camera. Crop cameras although nice and good enough most of the time maybe don't quite go the final yard and achieve parity never mind being better, if you want to look for the differences.

I view the A7 as my luxury system. Yup. My MFT cameras and my compacts and my phone all take pictures and when printed and framed who'd know the difference most of the time? But the A7 and indeed FF cameras (and probable larger ones too...) have their appeal :D and the additional appeal of the A7 series over DSLR's is (for me) the saving in bulk and weight, the advantages of the CSC system with its EVF and focus aids etc, fewer lens issues (MA etc) and the ability to use old lenses.

I do see the appeal of DSLR's, big manly beasts that they are but I don't need the additional focus tracking ability or any other possible DSLR advantage. The advantages of the A7 series are for me clearer and more applicable to me :D.
Click to expand...

Sure, the A7 files can be pushed and pulled a little more but theres not that much in it, the Sony crop sensors are actually really good. I get what youre saying about 35 being actual 35 though but it doesnt bother me much as the lenses are equiv to my FF lenses so Im used to the same FOVs.

Its not just the tracking though, I pretty much never use tracking with my DSLR, 99% of the time Im using single point (moving it within the frame) AFC and the lock speed and accuracy for moving subjects and low light is much better. I can see how some don't need that and for those people the A7 series will be a very good camera, its a nice size, decent albeit expensive glass (getting better) and the real USP imo is for legacy users like yourself.

As a main system I wouldnt look at crop again, those days are long gone. Fuji was great a few years ago but their sensor performance is just lagging behind now and its becoming a bit of a joke imo that they peddle the same sensor model after model.
 
Last edited:
I'm half tempted to buy the 24-70 as my native lens to start and look at picking up a few older primes (24/35/50) and see how I get on, in the long run I'd love the 25mm Batis (if its ever in stock!) and I'll probably keep an eye out for a used 35mm f2.8 but before committing fully I think manual glass would be a good choice.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I'm half tempted to buy the 24-70 as my native lens to start and look at picking up a few older primes (24/35/50) and see how I get on, in the long run I'd love the 25mm Batis (if its ever in stock!) and I'll probably keep an eye out for a used 35mm f2.8 but before committing fully I think manual glass would be a good choice.
Click to expand...

28 f2 seems an obvious choice.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I'm half tempted to buy the 24-70 as my native lens to start and look at picking up a few older primes (24/35/50) and see how I get on, in the long run I'd love the 25mm Batis (if its ever in stock!) and I'll probably keep an eye out for a used 35mm f2.8 but before committing fully I think manual glass would be a good choice.
Click to expand...

Yup. The manual route whilst thinking about it is pretty much what I've done. Manual lenses are lovely mechanical things with aperture rings and focus end stops but the native primes I have are simply gorgeous lenses even if they're fly by wire... I've actually been thinking of ditching the old and creaky 30+ year old SLR primes and buying nice new Voigtlanders and I can't say that I wont do that but I also might find myself just using the native AF's. Choices choices :D

On zooms, how about the 28-70mm?

The 24-70mm seems to divide opinion whereas pretty much everyone seems to think that the 28-70mm is actually quite good. I've read a lot of negative comments about the 24-70mm but some reviewers/bloggers seem to love it so I suppose it's down to personal opinion... It's obviously a constant f4 whereas the 28-70mm is variable and if you need the f4 or are just in the 24-70mm love camp then it makes sense but there's the option of the cheaper humble and actually quite good variable aperture zoom to consider.

I haven't used my 28-70mm outside of the house and garden to test it out (I'm a prime guy) but the 28-70mm does seem to be a nice lens...

Don't know if the sharpness and detail will be visible here as this is via the dreadful Photobucket...

Whole image...


100%...


This was f8 where you'd expect it to be good but even so, I'm impressed with it and actually if I could bring myself to use zooms maybe the 28-70mm and a fast prime is all I'd need.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Alan, Im not sure I could spend all that on the 24-70 which is probably only a little better than the kit lens from what people have to say.
 
Voigtlanders are lovely, Ive owned the 40 1.4 and 50 1.4. Both were excellent and quite cheap.
 
jonneymendoza said:
You mean 25mm betis f2?thats my next lens
Click to expand...

No, I mean the 28mm f2. For those on a budget its an obvious choice. That and the 55 1.8 used will cost about as much as a 24-70 f4 and imo will be a much better combo.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I agree with Alan, Im not sure I could spend all that on the 24-70 which is probably only a little better than the kit lens from what people have to say.
Click to expand...

Have to consider the f4 constant aperture though. In the past given the choice of a really good variable aperture lens and a slightly less good constant I'd probably have chosen the constant as it allows you to shoot at wider apertures in two scenarios.

Firstly and obviously you can shoot at f4 at any focal length. Secondly when trying to get a bit better performance and still shoot wide by stopping down a bit... with the variable aperture at 70mm you're going from f5.6 to f8 before you know it but with the f4 you have the option of stopping down a bit and still shooting wider than f8.

With todays really good lenses (compared to the old stuff...) and the ability to get good results at higher ISO's I'm not sure that my argument stacks up. But it's something to consider even if it ends up being rejected :D
 
woof woof said:
Have to consider the f4 constant aperture though. In the past given the choice of a really good variable aperture lens and a slightly less good constant I'd probably have chosen the constant as it allows you to shoot at wider apertures in two scenarios.

Firstly and obviously you can shoot at f4 at any focal length. Secondly when trying to get a bit better performance and still shoot wide by stopping down a bit... with the variable aperture at 70mm you're going from f5.6 to f8 before you know it but with the f4 you have the option of stopping down a bit and still shooting wider than f8.

With todays really good lenses (compared to the old stuff...) and the ability to get good results at higher ISO's I'm not sure that my argument stacks up. But it's something to consider even if it ends up being rejected :D
Click to expand...

As above Id go for the 28 & 55 anyway.
 
I have to be honest and say the 28mm just isn't wide enough for me, over the last few years 24-70 has become "normal" for me, appreciate the costs though (a 28-70 went for £135 this week on the forum) Just under £600 new via Panamoz for the 24-70 though which at least is cheaper than the UK price.

Good shout on the 28mm Twist I'd forgotten about that actually, I may actually end up trying to go for a prime line-up on this A7ii and then picking up another DSLR (D810 likely) for more serious photography endeavours!
 
chrism_scotland said:
I have to be honest and say the 28mm just isn't wide enough for me, over the last few years 24-70 has become "normal" for me, appreciate the costs though (a 28-70 went for £135 this week on the forum) Just under £600 new via Panamoz for the 24-70 though which at least is cheaper than the UK price.

Good shout on the 28mm Twist I'd forgotten about that actually, I may actually end up trying to go for a prime line-up on this A7ii and then picking up another DSLR (D810 likely) for more serious photography endeavours!
Click to expand...

Take your pick.... wide stuff will be easy to focus anyway ;) Quite a few will do what youre looking for...

http://voigtlaender.com/vm.html

http://www.samyang-lens.co.uk/samyang-lenses.html
 
If 24mm is wide enough f2.8 SLR lenses are reasonably priced and crop up quite often. Camera brand lenses can reach the dizzy heights of around £100 and third party jobbies come in cheaper, maybe £40 or so. Going wider than f2.8 gets more expensive.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I have to be honest and say the 28mm just isn't wide enough for me, over the last few years 24-70 has become "normal" for me, appreciate the costs though (a 28-70 went for £135 this week on the forum) Just under £600 new via Panamoz for the 24-70 though which at least is cheaper than the UK price.

Good shout on the 28mm Twist I'd forgotten about that actually, I may actually end up trying to go for a prime line-up on this A7ii and then picking up another DSLR (D810 likely) for more serious photography endeavours!
Click to expand...

What's the shutter sound like on the a7ii?
 
twist said:
As above Id go for the 28 & 55 anyway.
Click to expand...
So would I Infact I have just bought a used 28-70 instead of the 24-70 even though the main thing people seem not to like is wider shots about 40mm and longer seem good (I have the 16-35)

If I get the Batis 85mm and I get more glass it's likely the 55mm or 70-200
 
Anyone recommend a starter for 10 video editing package please?
I see there is Adobe Premiere Elements 13, is that any good?
 
Really wanted a manual focus lens and I might just keep it as my only lens and see what I think to be honest, 35mm is by far my preferred prime length and I'm trying to simplify my photography a little.... D750 and a Nikon 35mm f1.8 would have been cheaper..... but then its not a Zeiss!!!
 
I have other decent MF lenses but it is handy to have the aperture and lens info passed to the exif and the way the focus assist image zoom works automatically with the Loxias is a boon.
 
Which lens would you buy, 90mm Macro or 85mm Batis. Is there a good macro alternative to go with the Batis, or does the 90mm do well at portrait and macro?

any thoughts?
 
If by portrait you mean a tightish shot such as head and shoulders or half body I wouldn't normally be taking a shot like that with an 85/90mm lens wider than f2.8 as depth of field is going to be thin so 90mm and f2.8 wouldn't be a problem for me. Arty razor thin DoF shots at f1.8 aren't going to be quite possible at f2.8 though.
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
Really wanted a manual focus lens and I might just keep it as my only lens and see what I think to be honest, 35mm is by far my preferred prime length and I'm trying to simplify my photography a little.... D750 and a Nikon 35mm f1.8 would have been cheaper..... but then its not a Zeiss!!!
Click to expand...
Well get the sigma art. It's as good as a ziess
 
woof woof said:
If by portrait you mean a tightish shot such as head and shoulders or half body I wouldn't normally be taking a shot like that with an 85/90mm lens wider than f2.8 as depth of field is going to be thin so 90mm and f2.8 wouldn't be a problem for me. Arty razor thin DoF shots at f1.8 aren't going to be quite possible at f2.8 though.
Click to expand...

Why would you not use an 85 0r 90mm for portraits?
 
pastyman said:
Why would you not use an 85 0r 90mm for portraits?
Click to expand...
You would, I would :D as it's pretty much a classic portrait length but what I meant was I probably wouldn't be shooting at that distance (85/90mm half body/head and shoulders) at wider than f2.8 because there's going to be next to no depth. So my theory is that I wouldn't need wider than f2.8 for that particular use.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top