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

owenb said:
If I'm honest if I fully changed to sony I would have invested in more glass etc the initial lure of the Sony for me wasn't size etc it was the sensors and the fact i could use my canon glass on it in hindsight I probably should of just got the 1 body and better glass so will prob be selling the a72 in the summer to get a bit of glass for the a7r2 as the a7s2 is the wife's for video
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm really looking forward to the weather improving so can get out and shoot more. Unsure whether or not to take my Batis glass away to Holland with me this weekend.

May be interested in the a7ii if the price is right ;)
 
No worries i will let you know before it goes up mate.......

It's either that or the r I'm not 100 percent yet but one of them will be going as my house is getting a bit silly with all the camera equipment and the q was bought to get rid of a few bit so will prob sell one body and the 28mm ;-)

What other lens would you take to holland a zoom?
 
image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg
owenb said:
No worries i will let you know before it goes up mate.......

It's either that or the r I'm not 100 percent yet but one of them will be going as my house is getting a bit silly with all the camera equipment and the q was bought to get rid of a few bit so will prob sell one body and the 28mm ;-)

What other lens would you take to holland a zoom?
Click to expand...

Last time I took a7 and 55 zeiss. Am thinking something wide and something fast. Not sure whether to go with a6000 or a7rii. A6000 complicates things a little but easier to replace if anything should happen.

Few photos from last time.
 
Looking g at those shots the 35mm is a good bet as well (im not sure what lenses you own though mate so forgive me)
 
owenb said:
Looking g at those shots the 35mm is a good bet as well (im not sure what lenses you own though mate so forgive me)
Click to expand...

The Batis is a good shout. Will check my insurance policy first.

I have the sigma art 35mm but it's a bit on the large side for travel.
 
Yep cracking lens not the easiest prime to travel with the art though your defo right there
 
Rizvan said:
Yup, it's good ain't it? :)
Zeiss pop, Zeiss contrast, Zeiss colour!
Click to expand...
Very good. Probably all round better than my 55mm, which is saying a lot. Maybe even the best lens I've ever owned.

Only problem now is that my two favourite lenses are a little too close in focal length for comfort.
 
What is it that's excellent? The 25 or 85mm Batis?
 
owenb said:
Zeiss 55 and native 28mm
Metabones 70-200 2.8 85 1.2 sigma art 35 and a 8-15mm fisheye at one point
Nissan flash with air commander
No.worries in the church at all set shooting to high for some scenes and was fine ... focus a bit slower in the dark but got used to this and learning to anticipate...
Formal shots spot on can't complain once
Reception etc spot on although by now had to search a power post as had used 5 of my 6 batteries up and was almost touching cloth..... so take plenty of batteries.....
Flash was a bit hit and miss to be honest think this may have been me somehow but it sure what I done lol even after looking at exit lol
Icelight for night scenes as just couldn't focus with native or metabones that great..... a7s2 done 10 shots outside to test but mainly used for video but was as expected at high iso spot on and focuses about the same as the a7r2 which I was surprised at.....

My technique needs changing a little to get what I had with the Canon BUT I have a 1dx2 on the way so a bit of the Sony kit will prob be going in the summer due to me getting some local football and rugby contracts for saturdays
Click to expand...
I remember last year i shot a wedding reception with my Sony a7s using the 35mm ART lens and shooting very thin DOF, all in manual focusing mode!

And i was surprised at how accurate all my shots where.

i could never have shot manual on my 5d3 in such low light. Redicolous how clean my shots where at high ISO

Ally and Nas's Wedding -1347.jpg by Jonathan Richards, on Flickr
 
Manual focus would of probably been the best way jonney to be honest at the time I went in to panic mode and just grabbed the ice light but yep in hindsight could have used the peaking etc....
I have a civil partnership next weekend and they already said I can use the photos for my promo purposes so will share them and hopefully my technique has improved with the sony
 
DSC05417 by owenbarnfield, on Flickr

That was with the 70-200 2.8 at sunset and focused instantly despite a heavy backlight never had a problem in good light which is a good confidence boost for the sony with weddings....
defo going to manual focus the next first dance to try it as don't have an issue with high iso :-)
 
Last edited:
owenb said:
Manual focus would of probably been the best way jonney to be honest at the time I went in to panic mode and just grabbed the ice light but yep in hindsight could have used the peaking etc....
I have a civil partnership next weekend and they already said I can use the photos for my promo purposes so will share them and hopefully my technique has improved with the sony
Click to expand...
Yea manual focus on something like a 35mm is quite easy. I however find manual focus on my 14mm samyang difficult though because the focus peaking doesn't seem accurate when shooting on super wide angle focal length. It just says everything is in focus when technically it ain't if u do zoom in magnification focus.
 
I'm getting a little jaded at some of the prices currently thrown around for Sony lenses and seriously considering using Canon glass instead.

I know quite a few of you do this so thought I'd ask a little advice. What are the disadvantages to this?

Not worried about size and weight, these aren't the reasons I went for an A7.

On a related subject, the next lens I'll buy will be a wide zoom. I was set on the Sony 16-35 but now I'm wondering about one of the Canon's. Maybe even the Sigma 18-35? What are the rest of you using?

This lens will be used almost exclusively for landscape and more often than not on a tripod. I'm reading back what I've written before posting and it feels ridiculous looking at Canon L glass as a compromise. Is it?
 
Wissel said:
I'm getting a little jaded at some of the prices currently thrown around for Sony lenses and seriously considering using Canon glass instead.

I know quite a few of you do this so thought I'd ask a little advice. What are the disadvantages to this?

Not worried about size and weight, these aren't the reasons I went for an A7.

On a related subject, the next lens I'll buy will be a wide zoom. I was set on the Sony 16-35 but now I'm wondering about one of the Canon's. Maybe even the Sigma 18-35? What are the rest of you using?

This lens will be used almost exclusively for landscape and more often than not on a tripod. I'm reading back what I've written before posting and it feels ridiculous looking at Canon L glass as a compromise. Is it?
Click to expand...
You lack af-c and eye focus. And at anything above 100mm it focuses badly.

The 16 35 canon L are better then the Sony.
 
Last edited:
Wissel said:
I'm getting a little jaded at some of the prices currently thrown around for Sony lenses and seriously considering using Canon glass instead.

I know quite a few of you do this so thought I'd ask a little advice. What are the disadvantages to this?

Not worried about size and weight, these aren't the reasons I went for an A7.

On a related subject, the next lens I'll buy will be a wide zoom. I was set on the Sony 16-35 but now I'm wondering about one of the Canon's. Maybe even the Sigma 18-35? What are the rest of you using?

This lens will be used almost exclusively for landscape and more often than not on a tripod. I'm reading back what I've written before posting and it feels ridiculous looking at Canon L glass as a compromise. Is it?
Click to expand...

If you are shooting for fun and it doesn't matter if you miss the odd shot due to slow or miss focus or not focusing at all - then the use of adapters is amazing.

If it's critical that you get fast, accurate focus every time then stick with native glass. Or have a dslr by your side. Preferably Nikon...
 
Bad news. Last night I noticed I have a hair line Crack on my batis 25mm lcd part of the lens.. Ffs dunno how that happened. Didn't drop it or anything!
 
jonneymendoza said:
You lack af-c and eye focus. And at anything above 100mm it focuses badly.

The 16 35 canon L are better then the Sony.
Click to expand...

Not worried about af-c and eye focus tbh. The only time I'm likely to want these features is for portrait and for this I will buy the Sony 55. I rarely shoot people (lol).

I will want a 70-200 at some stage, but this will again be used for landscape. So would the focus be an issue for me do you think?

When you say the Canon 16-35 is better, do you mean the f4, f2.8 or both?


addicknchips said:
If you are shooting for fun and it doesn't matter if you miss the odd shot due to slow or miss focus or not focusing at all - then the use of adapters is amazing.

If it's critical that you get fast, accurate focus every time then stick with native glass. Or have a dslr by your side. Preferably Nikon...
Click to expand...

I shoot mainly for fun and the shots that do matter are static so should be fine I think.
 
Wissel said:
On a related subject, the next lens I'll buy will be a wide zoom. I was set on the Sony 16-35 but now I'm wondering about one of the Canon's. QUOTE]

I use the Sony 16 - 35 and it is superb, quick to focus and sharp.

hth
Click to expand...
 
The 70-200 2.8 canon is OK for static stuff I'll post some of my shots up later tonight when I'm on my pc the portraits I posted earlier are with the metabones and 70-200 2.8 in good light in ok in reasonable light it's OK in crap light it's well crap so depends on your use age. ....

@jonneymendoza gutted about your batis :-(
 
addicknchips said:
If you are shooting for fun and it doesn't matter if you miss the odd shot due to slow or miss focus or not focusing at all - then the use of adapters is amazing.

If it's critical that you get fast, accurate focus every time then stick with native glass. Or have a dslr by your side. Preferably Nikon...
Click to expand...

Lol gotta love the preferably nikon; -) lol
 
david357 said:
I use the Sony 16 - 35 and it is superb, quick to focus and sharp.
Click to expand...

Which one do you use David? f4 or f2.8?


owenb said:
The 70-200 2.8 canon is OK for static stuff I'll post some of my shots up later tonight when I'm on my pc the portraits I posted earlier are with the metabones and 70-200 2.8 in good light in ok in reasonable light it's OK in crap light it's well crap so depends on your use age. ....

@jonneymendoza gutted about your batis :-(
Click to expand...

Cheers Owen. If the lights bad I generally use manual focus. I assume that manual focus zoom works on all lenses?
 
Wissel said:
Which one do you use David? f4 or f2.8?




Cheers Owen. If the lights bad I generally use manual focus. I assume that manual focus zoom works on all lenses?
Click to expand...

Yep really easy with peaking and focus magnification but link I said depends what your doing and takes a bit of getting used to
 
addicknchips said:
If it's critical that you get fast, accurate focus every time then stick with native glass. Or have a dslr by your side. Preferably Nikon...
Click to expand...

Agreed, the reason I sold some kit to buy a Nikon again, :plus1:, just feels so much more positive.

Now the A7R2 will do what it's best at, portraiture (subjects fairly static) and landscapes, the Nikon will do sport and anything that moves suddenly.
 
Wissel said:
Which one do you use David? f4 or f2.8??
Click to expand...

I use the Sony FE mount f4, so no need for adapters, and am very pleased with it. I purchased it after using one for a day, I liked the range and the sharpness.
 
How good is the eye focus on the A7ii? I seem to read varying reports.
 
twist said:
Not very, its better on the A7rii.
Click to expand...
Thanks again Twist. As you can tell from the D750 thread I cant decide on my next camera!
 
twist said:
lol. know how that feels mate. Think about your requirements. Then think about the camera.
Click to expand...

TBH I start with image requirements... how a picture is going to be viewed and how big, next is how to get the picture which leads me on to lenses and cameras.

Not necessarily here but other places on the net I wonder if people only view pictures when displayed the size of a barn. Some of the stuff that people say and talk about relating to image quality and image characteristic seems very unreal world to me, but very DPR :D
 
woof woof said:
TBH I start with image requirements... how a picture is going to be viewed and how big, next is how to get the picture which leads me on to lenses and cameras.

Not necessarily here but other places on the net I wonder if people only view pictures when displayed the size of a barn. Some of the stuff that people say and talk about relating to image quality and image characteristic seems very unreal world to me, but very DPR :D
Click to expand...

Exactly. My concern is ultimately the final image but for that I need to consider everything else after taking those requirements into consideration.

1) Will the AF do what I need it to?
2) Are the lenses I want available?
3) Does the sensor perform well enough in difficult situations?
4) What size will I print up to?
5) Will I be bashing the camera around in harsh environments?
6) Are all my other 3rd party accessories compatible?
7) What accessories do I need? Are they available for the system?
8) Will it last a days shooting?
etc.
 
I've been doing a bit of research and think I've decide to go for a Canon 16-35 f4 IS.

Now, a 70-200. Does anyone use the Canon f4 or a Sony? Obviously it won't be as good as the f2.8 IS II, but I only want it for landscapes and as long as the IQ is good that's all that really matters to me. It is very cheap, has anyone tried this lens?
 
Wissel said:
I've been doing a bit of research and think I've decide to go for a Canon 16-35 f4 IS.

Now, a 70-200. Does anyone use the Canon f4 or a Sony? Obviously it won't be as good as the f2.8 IS II, but I only want it for landscapes and as long as the IQ is good that's all that really matters to me. It is very cheap, has anyone tried this lens?
Click to expand...

Its an excellent lens.
 
Wissel said:
Cheers Twist. I tried one a few years ago on my 7d and was impressed then for the cost. Have you tried one on an A7?
Click to expand...

No. What A7 do you have, in terms of speed, the A7 will be a slug, the A7ii and A7rii from what Ive seen perform alright in good light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top