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

Nice but if you buy something in a different mount you can use it on different cameras via an adapter. These will be tied to Sony and possibly couldn't be used on something else, MFT or some other mount which may come along in the future. I realise that's true of the AF FE lenses too.

TBH I'm more tempted by the Voigtlanders.
 
woof woof said:
Nice but if you buy something in a different mount you can use it on different cameras via an adapter. These will be tied to Sony and possibly couldn't be used on something else, MFT or some other mount which may come along in the future. I realise that's true of the AF FE lenses too.

TBH I'm more tempted by the Voigtlanders.
Click to expand...

CV are very nice. Build quality is amazing.
 
My first guess was Panasonic as they'll probably be the ones providing everything apart from the Leica badge...and possibly the sensor.

Maybe Panasonic have decided that a Leica badged camera will make them more money than one carrying their own name.
 
woof woof said:
My first guess was Panasonic as they'll probably be the ones providing everything apart from the Leica badge...and possibly the sensor.

Maybe Panasonic have decided that a Leica badged camera will make them more money than one carrying their own name.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, Im not so sure about that, they arent a big sensor seller are they, certainly not known for FF? Not like Tosh / Sony / Samsung.
 
Well, they certainly can make sensors but not sure how many companies use them. There'll probably be endless arguments as to who makes this Leica sensor starting any day now.

When I see the Leica badged Panasonics it always amazes me that people are willkng to pay vastly more for a Panny in drag than a Panny wearing its own clothes. I doubt we'll see a Panasonic badged version of this rumoured camera though. Even if it is very largely a Panasonic in drag I expect Leica to have the rights very securely secured.

Actually another thought, I wonder how many people would prefer a Leica badge to a Sony? One thing that irritates me is the badge snobs who make references to Sony cameras being computers.
 
Last edited:
Well I managed to get out in the daylight to play with the A7ii and Loxia, and I have to say the camera itself is great to use, the EVF is fantastic although I need to get my head around where the settings are buried and probably look at re-mapping some controls but overall very good.
The files are brilliant, I can't see any difference between this and my old Nikon D750, plenty of scope in Lightroom for post processing and of course room to crop if needed.

The Loxia is a cracking lens, IQ seems good and manual focusing feels good (although I'm not 100% even with the focus aids!) I do still have the nagging feeling over the £979 cost though, especially having read a load of reviews today which suggest that the 35 f2.8 is all but the same in regards IQ......
 
chrism_scotland said:
The Loxia is a cracking lens, IQ seems good and manual focusing feels good (although I'm not 100% even with the focus aids!) I do still have the nagging feeling over the £979 cost though, especially having read a load of reviews today which suggest that the 35 f2.8 is all but the same in regards IQ......
Click to expand...

As you may know I'm a bit of a MF fan but also own the AF 35mm f2.8 which I think is a really nice lens. Maybe my little thought processes will help you to decide which way you want to go?

I still like my manual lenses but shooting with them can be a slow and deliberate process if you want to pixel peep. I find that peaking is pretty good especially at wide apertures as very little will be peaking and I find the point of focus pretty easy to judge. At smaller apertures pretty much everything can be peaking and there can be quite a bit of movement of the focus ring before anything alters and of course even at smaller apertures the actual plane of focus is quite thin and if you pixel peep at high magnification pictures that might look good as whole images may disappoint if you view them at 100%+ on screen and realise that the point of focus is ever so slightly off. I find that the technique that stands up the best to high magnification pixel peeping is to focus wide open and then stop down. But that takes time.

I think that MF can produce very accurate results if you have the time or if you can resist the urge to pixel peep. MF can indeed possibly produce better results than AF because you can be sure you focus on exactly what you want to focus on. At the extreme with the magnified view you can choose your point of focus along the length of an eyelash and that's something that AF isn't going to allow you to do but the price of this accuracy and choice is time and time is what has pushed me more towards AF lenses recently as when out with other people I think that taking time to MF is really a little too selfish and there are times when I don't want to be the geek with the camera slowing everything up especially when I'm out with my GF. If I'm by myself maybe I'll choose a nice MF lens but when out with other people or if I think I'll be pushed for time I'll probably choose an AF lens.

So for me it's probably MF for self indulgent luxury when there's time and AF to get the shot quicker and not be slowed up by the whole MF process but of course there may be times when AF wont cut it and MF lenses are a better option. Macro, low light or confusing subjects maybe, zone and hyperfocal, these are things that MF will be probably always be better for.

Regarding the cost, you know your finances better than me and presumably photography is a major hobby, you'll have to do the sums...

Personally although I can afford any thing that I want I impose limits on myself and I think that knocking on for £1k for a lens stretches my moral compas just a bit and although I'm looking at Voigtlanders I may just restrict myself to the old SLR lenses I already have as to be honest I'm probably just as happy with an ancient Minolta 35mm f1.8 and an AF 35mm f2.8 as I'd be with a Voigtlander or Loxia.
 
on my a77 i have the punch in zoom thingy set to the ael button, or whatever is next to the thumb, so i can easily magnify for focusing, that works well for me, peaking lies so u cant really trust it full time

voightlander wise id be looking at 40mm, 12mm? and 15mm, maybe a 90mm
 
Just shot the world cup rugby match last night at the Olympic stadium using my 70-200 f2.8 and attached my 1.6 tele converter too and got some great results out of it. Af was pretty good. Was shocked. Thought it would suck


On at a7rii
 
woof woof said:
As you may know I'm a bit of a MF fan but also own the AF 35mm f2.8 which I think is a really nice lens. Maybe my little thought processes will help you to decide which way you want to go?

I still like my manual lenses but shooting with them can be a slow and deliberate process if you want to pixel peep. I find that peaking is pretty good especially at wide apertures as very little will be peaking and I find the point of focus pretty easy to judge. At smaller apertures pretty much everything can be peaking and there can be quite a bit of movement of the focus ring before anything alters and of course even at smaller apertures the actual plane of focus is quite thin and if you pixel peep at high magnification pictures that might look good as whole images may disappoint if you view them at 100%+ on screen and realise that the point of focus is ever so slightly off. I find that the technique that stands up the best to high magnification pixel peeping is to focus wide open and then stop down. But that takes time.

I think that MF can produce very accurate results if you have the time or if you can resist the urge to pixel peep. MF can indeed possibly produce better results than AF because you can be sure you focus on exactly what you want to focus on. At the extreme with the magnified view you can choose your point of focus along the length of an eyelash and that's something that AF isn't going to allow you to do but the price of this accuracy and choice is time and time is what has pushed me more towards AF lenses recently as when out with other people I think that taking time to MF is really a little too selfish and there are times when I don't want to be the geek with the camera slowing everything up especially when I'm out with my GF. If I'm by myself maybe I'll choose a nice MF lens but when out with other people or if I think I'll be pushed for time I'll probably choose an AF lens.

So for me it's probably MF for self indulgent luxury when there's time and AF to get the shot quicker and not be slowed up by the whole MF process but of course there may be times when AF wont cut it and MF lenses are a better option. Macro, low light or confusing subjects maybe, zone and hyperfocal, these are things that MF will be probably always be better for.

Regarding the cost, you know your finances better than me and presumably photography is a major hobby, you'll have to do the sums...

Personally although I can afford any thing that I want I impose limits on myself and I think that knocking on for £1k for a lens stretches my moral compas just a bit and although I'm looking at Voigtlanders I may just restrict myself to the old SLR lenses I already have as to be honest I'm probably just as happy with an ancient Minolta 35mm f1.8 and an AF 35mm f2.8 as I'd be with a Voigtlander or Loxia.
Click to expand...

Thanks Alan, I think my minds made up to return the Loxia, for now anyway, I don't feel that my own MF skills are good enough yet and I'd rather get up to speed with how the camera works first before trying to improve my manual focusing (because I do sometimes like a bit of a pixel peep... with a sensor like this who wouldn't?........ That said I will look at an adaptor and some older manual glass to go with whatever else I add to the bag.

Now a Batis 35mm f2.... that would be awesome... (or just being able to actually get a Batis 25mm)
 
woof woof said:
As you may know I'm a bit of a MF fan but also own the AF 35mm f2.8 which I think is a really nice lens. Maybe my little thought processes will help you to decide which way you want to go?

I still like my manual lenses but shooting with them can be a slow and deliberate process if you want to pixel peep. I find that peaking is pretty good especially at wide apertures as very little will be peaking and I find the point of focus pretty easy to judge. At smaller apertures pretty much everything can be peaking and there can be quite a bit of movement of the focus ring before anything alters and of course even at smaller apertures the actual plane of focus is quite thin and if you pixel peep at high magnification pictures that might look good as whole images may disappoint if you view them at 100%+ on screen and realise that the point of focus is ever so slightly off. I find that the technique that stands up the best to high magnification pixel peeping is to focus wide open and then stop down. But that takes time.

I think that MF can produce very accurate results if you have the time or if you can resist the urge to pixel peep. MF can indeed possibly produce better results than AF because you can be sure you focus on exactly what you want to focus on. At the extreme with the magnified view you can choose your point of focus along the length of an eyelash and that's something that AF isn't going to allow you to do but the price of this accuracy and choice is time and time is what has pushed me more towards AF lenses recently as when out with other people I think that taking time to MF is really a little too selfish and there are times when I don't want to be the geek with the camera slowing everything up especially when I'm out with my GF. If I'm by myself maybe I'll choose a nice MF lens but when out with other people or if I think I'll be pushed for time I'll probably choose an AF lens.

So for me it's probably MF for self indulgent luxury when there's time and AF to get the shot quicker and not be slowed up by the whole MF process but of course there may be times when AF wont cut it and MF lenses are a better option. Macro, low light or confusing subjects maybe, zone and hyperfocal, these are things that MF will be probably always be better for.

Regarding the cost, you know your finances better than me and presumably photography is a major hobby, you'll have to do the sums...

Personally although I can afford any thing that I want I impose limits on myself and I think that knocking on for £1k for a lens stretches my moral compas just a bit and although I'm looking at Voigtlanders I may just restrict myself to the old SLR lenses I already have as to be honest I'm probably just as happy with an ancient Minolta 35mm f1.8 and an AF 35mm f2.8 as I'd be with a Voigtlander or Loxia.
Click to expand...
I found your post helpful I confess I am struggling in deciding if I should buy MF lenses but like you I feel bad when I take extra time when out and about.


I really like the reviews on the Samyang 135mm though they do mention the issue of shallow depth of focus perhaps the 70-200 f4 with OS looks a bit better
 
jonneymendoza said:
Just shot the world cup rugby match last night at the Olympic stadium using my 70-200 f2.8 and attached my 1.6 tele converter too and got some great results out of it. Af was pretty good. Was shocked. Thought it would suck


On at a7rii
Click to expand...

Cmon then. lets see em.
 
pingu666 said:
on my a77 i have the punch in zoom thingy set to the ael button, or whatever is next to the thumb, so i can easily magnify for focusing, that works well for me, peaking lies so u cant really trust it full time
Click to expand...

I found the same, I prefer to use the focus magnify.
 
The rumour site is saying that the rumoured upcoming Leica system will be two to three times the price of a "Sony A7." If we assume that it'll be twice the price of the original A7 then I'd be mildly surprised. If they mean 3 times the cost of the A7rII I'd not even raise an eyebrow except at the thought that people would buy it.

I'm sure it'll be very nice and I'm sure that people will buy it at just about any price but I doubt it'll be a true Sony A7 competitor in the minds of many people as many seem to think that the Sony system is overpriced and to them I say "You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till you see the Leica." :D
 
woof woof said:
Well, they certainly can make sensors but not sure how many companies use them. There'll probably be endless arguments as to who makes this Leica sensor starting any day now.

When I see the Leica badged Panasonics it always amazes me that people are willkng to pay vastly more for a Panny in drag than a Panny wearing its own clothes. I doubt we'll see a Panasonic badged version of this rumoured camera though. Even if it is very largely a Panasonic in drag I expect Leica to have the rights very securely secured.

Actually another thought, I wonder how many people would prefer a Leica badge to a Sony? One thing that irritates me is the badge snobs who make references to Sony cameras being computers.
Click to expand...


Is that a little like Sony using the Zeiss badge, which they have been using for a long time now especially in their compacts.?
 
No there are literally some Panasonic bodies badged as Leicas

eg. Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) is the Panasonic LX100 plus a few hundred quid :p
 
JYC said:
No there are literally some Panasonic bodies badged as Leicas

eg. Leica D-LUX (Typ 109) is the Panasonic LX100 plus a few hundred quid :p
Click to expand...

I know that!

What I was refering to is the use of the "badge" read my post again slowly. It's just marketing hype to fleece the general public more.

You have the Panasonic LX versions with the Leica badge, and Sony camera's and lenses with the Zeiss badge. Why do they do this? Probably to add a few extra quid to the price.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Is that a little like Sony using the Zeiss badge, which they have been using for a long time now especially in their compacts.?
Click to expand...

I don't know and I don't care :D I doubt very much that I'd be more likely to buy the 55mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.8 just because they carried a Zeiss badge and in fact I know I'd still have bought them if they were merely badged "Sony" but I didn't have a choice, they just came with a Zeiss badge.

Personally I think badge snobbery is rather odd... Paying twice the price for a Panasonic LX5 rebadged as a Leica didn't enter my head when I bought my LX5 and I'd have bought my GX7 and Panasonic lenses even if they didn't carry the Leica name. I think the LXx/Leica range is probably an extreme example as they're clearly just a badge job and yet people buy them but I do realise that owning nice things is nice and if people like Leica's then all's well and good. Anyway, I've vented on the application of the lovely Leica badge :D so I'll stop and yes I'm sure it's all down to marketing.

It will be mildly interesting to see what reception a Leica FF CSC will get. I'm pretty sure that the references to computer games we see regarding Sony cameras in some threads will be few and far between but may be replaced with references to designer handbags and Japanese surgeons and their display cases :D

PS.
Don't listen to anything I say as I have no class. I'm sure Victoria Beckham will look lovely pointing her Leica at something where's I'd just look like a scruffy northern bloke with two day stubble, an attitude and gargo trousers.
 
Last edited:
Sure you mean Cargo trousers:D

I know what your saying about Panny and Leica. I have owned the LX3, 5 & 7 and would never have bought a D-lux version.

As for Zeiss, my understanding was they only produced the Batis lenses for Sony, the other lenses were manufactured by Sony (or out sourced ?) and they worked together on the design on the other zeiss lenses???

I'm probably wrong but I'm sure I read it somewhere last year when I was looking to buy the A7.

I suppose it's a bit like Jaguar & Aston Martin when owned by Ford. Its all in the marketing to keep the business profits up. The sensible ones bought a Mondeo.;)
 
Swanseajack said:
Sure you mean Cargo trousers:D
Click to expand...
Maybe, just shows how fashion conscious I am, I don't know what they're called :D

Swanseajack said:
I know what your saying about Panny and Leica. I have owned the LX3, 5 & 7 and would never have bought a D-lux version.

As for Zeiss, my understanding was they only produced the Batis lenses for Sony, the other lenses were manufactured by Sony (or out sourced ?) and they worked together on the design on the other zeiss leonses???

I'm probably wrong but I'm sure I read it somewhere last year when I was looking to buy the A7.

I suppose it's a bit like Jaguar & Aston Martin when owned by Ford. Its all in the marketing to keep the business profits up. The sensible ones bought a Mondeo.;)
Click to expand...

I'm sure Zeiss and Leica have at least some input. They may design the products either in whole or in part, they may specify the tolerances and testing procedures or they may just supply the badges. Anything is possible but I'd hope that the more you pay the more input the badge supplier has.

I may have mentioned before that when I worked I worked for companies who amongst other things made stuff for other companies and "our" name was nowhere to be seen on the product or the box it came in and anyone who didn't know the awful truth would believe that the big name brand made it. Our customers input varied enormously and I'm sure this goes on in every sector.
 
twist said:
..... or those daft wannabe blads.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that there's something wrong with sellotaping a bit of wood to the front of a camera and selling it 6-12 months later at 6-12x the price?
Swanseajack said:
Is that a little like Sony using the Zeiss badge, which they have been using for a long time now especially in their compacts.?
Click to expand...
Not even "plain" Zeiss photo lenses are made by Zeiss. Some such as the Batis lens are quite probably not even designed by Zeiss.

Not that I care either way who makes or designs a lens, just how it performs. If it does the job at a price you're willing to pay, does it matter if it says "Zeiss" or "Tesco Value"? Not really.
 
Crossroads said:
Are you trying to say that there's something wrong with sellotaping a bit of wood to the front of a camera and selling it 6-12 months later at 6-12x the price?
Click to expand...

Just wish I'd thought of it first. But, who's going to pay £6k for a woof woof?
 
Any 70-200 f4 owner looking in could you help please

I use capture pro belt clip for carrying my camera in your opinion do you know if the lens mount would be safe with the lens hanging please.

My old walk about was my canon 5d3 with 24-105 f4 having checked total weight the A7m2 with 70-200 is about 220grm less only thing is I don't want to rip the mount off the camera

Any advice would be great please

Cheers

Allan
 
chrism_scotland said:
Anyone on here using the Sony 35mm f1.4? Interested to hear how it handles on the smaller body of an A7/A7ii, want to love the Loxia but can't manual focus to save my life sadly
Click to expand...

Oh dear... Thought you had the FE 35mm f2.8 too?
 
chrism_scotland said:
Anyone on here using the Sony 35mm f1.4? Interested to hear how it handles on the smaller body of an A7/A7ii, want to love the Loxia but can't manual focus to save my life sadly
Click to expand...

I'd say it balances well with the a7s and makes a great combo. AF of the combo wasn't as good or quick as my Leica Q but I enjoyed it for street and wedding.
 
Good pics, looks like Sony still struggles a bit with warm/yellow skintones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top