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

Joas Souza said:
I use Nik in every single shot I do! It became an indispensable piece of tool after Photoshop or Lightroom.
Click to expand...
Great stuff.

This software does seem to have fans and I'll have to explore beyond the b&w converter when I have time.
 
Shall I come back over lol
 
LoL I know I be back one day but when I dunno and will more likely go for best I can next time like A7rii replacement
 
You never know [emoji6]
 
But will keep hold of the Nikon gear though till very comfy
 
twist said:
So you've used both extensively and compared against the Sony?
Click to expand...
Looks. Not is hehe. If it is so what? Who cares which is better or not? Forget this comparison rubbish. I don't care anyway as I don't shoot that focal length much anyway
 
jonneymendoza said:
Looks. Not is hehe. If it is so what? Who cares which is better or not? Forget this comparison rubbish. I don't care anyway as I don't shoot that focal length much anyway
Click to expand...

But you made the comparison by saying it looks better after one post by a biased reviewer, lol, whatever mate. I'm sure it'll be decent for a 'cheaper' lens, wonder what UK rrp will be.
 
owenb said:
I'm estimating 280 ish......
Click to expand...

So the Canon at 90 quid and the Nikon g at about 140 are still way cheaper. I guess we could then say that the sigma 50 art and 55 zeiss are better seeing as we're taking budget out of the comparison and just assuming one is better than the other.
 
Last edited:
I was told its 300 dollars so I might be a bit of thinking about it..... Certainly not as good bang for buck as nifty fifty.....
 
All these r's and s's and mk2's, am I the only one with a mk1 A7?
 
Last edited:
So about 100 quid more than the nikon. Sony weighs more, is bigger and the nikon also has weather sealing. Both have asph element. How is the Sony better again?

Tbf though... I think this lens is good for the system and in comparison to others for fe it's cheap but for what it is its quite expensive. Gonna have to wait and see some decent reviews.
 
twist said:
So about 100 quid more than the nikon. Sony weighs more, is bigger and the nikon also has weather sealing. Both have asph element. How is the Sony better again?

Tbf though... I think this lens is good for the system and in comparison to others for fe it's cheap but for what it is its quite expensive. Gonna have to wait and see some decent reviews.
Click to expand...
totally agree on this mate even a cheap lens is relatively expensive
 
owenb said:
totally agree on this mate even a cheap lens is relatively expensive
Click to expand...

Leave it six months and the grey price will be a fair bit cheaper.
The 70-300 on the other hand is over a grand! Now that needs to be a little bit special.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
So the Canon at 90 quid and the Nikon g at about 140 are still way cheaper. I guess we could then say that the sigma 50 art and 55 zeiss are better seeing as we're taking budget out of the comparison and just assuming one is better than the other.
Click to expand...
The build quality on the nifty fifty canon is shocking though. This looks built much better.. Even the Nikon G is far better build then the canon
 
twist said:
Agreed. Nice camera and very cheap. As more options become available I'd also consider looking again.
Click to expand...

I think it's really good value for money buying a good used one. There will be some real bargains to be had this year I think.
 
twist said:
But you made the comparison by saying it looks better after one post by a biased reviewer, lol, whatever mate. I'm sure it'll be decent for a 'cheaper' lens, wonder what UK rrp will be.
Click to expand...
The graphs are there to be viewed but do leave the question of what production samples will be like but the design and spec do seem to suggest that the Sony will be a bit better than the cheap Canikon's. We'll soon know either way.

Who is the bias reviewer?
 
is there much difference in a7 to a72 apart from ibis and the pdaf???
 
Just thought of something that could matter... AFAIK the A7II can do uncompressed raw but there's been no firmware update for the mk1, AFAIK.

Have to say that I've never seen any compression artifacts.
 
Last edited:
I tried compressed and uncompressed can't see any diff lol... Tbh that does make the a7 sound like a bargain at the current prices ..... I know the a7r compared to the a7r2 is a diff story
 
Some people thought that moving the shutter button on the mk2's was a big improvement but the location on the mk1 doesn't bother me at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top