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

Ah I remember you now :) your into old film cameras too.. Some interesting images there mate
 
Yeah, that's me :0). I'm in the middle of 3D printing my own Instax Mini backs for TLRs as well as building a one off 35mm converted TLR so keeping busy :0)
 
Last edited:
Something came to my attention earlier and only noticed..

I though the Sony Lens and Body are suppose be weather sealed? If they are why doesnt the lens have the rubber on the mount like the nikon and canon lens do have?
 
Ok
 
stevelmx5 said:
I don't think any Sony bodies are weatherproof, only weather resistant?
Click to expand...
Don't most manufacturers claim weather sealed/resistant rather than weatherproof though? Also, when I queried Nikon on what they actually mean by weather sealed they wouldn't give a definitive explanation, which I took to mean that if any damage was caused by 'weather', no matter how little, wouldn't be covered. Or at least there's a get out. Could be wrong, but that was my impression.
 
Didn't Sony originally claim the first gen a7 and a7r were weather resistant, until they started getting complaints that they were getting trashed in the rain? The weather resistant line disappeared from their marketing shortly after as far as I remember.
 
Feeling better today after a week laid up with E-Coli poisoning, so we popped to West Cornwall for a few hours.

The sky wasn't playing ball at all (thick white cloud), but lovely to get out for a while with the camera.

Levant Mines by David Black, on Flickr

Was quite funny when this guy wandered over and stood right beside me. He wasn't taking photos, just standing there with his camera held up. Then I notice he has an A7 as well, but he had the Batis 25 attached. I think he was just showing his lens off :) Once I'd said hi etc and acknowledged his lens he walked away again looking happy. I turned to my Missus with a kind of WTF look on my face, she was fighting back tears of laughter :D
 
rookies said:
Another I like to share for today not too sure if it works or not.. I not always been good at BW processing just can never get the balance right...


DSC00466.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Works for me :) Squirrel shot is great too. They tend to like mirrorless cameras, DSLRs not so much. Unless you have nuts of course, at which point you could roll up with a large format camera and they wouldn't give too hoots!
 
I personally thing mirror less cameras are more addictive than dslr
 
rookies said:
I personally thing mirror less cameras are more addictive than dslr
Click to expand...

They're lot easier to take out for a start, which means you're more likely to take it with you :)

I just bought an a7 for giggles (having just sold all my DSLR kit), but I'm still not a fan third time around lol
 
What is it you don't like?? And what is it you like with Fuji?
 
manualfocus-g said:
They're lot easier to take out for a start, which means you're more likely to take it with you :)

I just bought an a7 for giggles (having just sold all my DSLR kit), but I'm still not a fan third time around lol
Click to expand...

To buy something you've owned and sold already even once seems odd but to not be a fan on at the third time of buying seems like a case for which nurse should be summoned :D
 
rookies said:
You would never believe how close I got to this little buddy.. hardly any cropping at all...
Click to expand...

My GF occasionally gets them to take a nut from her hand but I can't get within 10ft. I think they see me as a dangerous predator and her as a mother figure.
 
rookies said:
I personally think mirror less cameras are more addictive than dslr
Click to expand...
And that's all that matters, only you can decide what's right for you (y)
 
manualfocus-g said:
They're lot easier to take out for a start, which means you're more likely to take it with you :)

I just bought an a7 for giggles (having just sold all my DSLR kit), but I'm still not a fan third time around lol
Click to expand...

You got me thinking of the whole gas thing and I went on to read this Steve Huff review of the Leica MD and 28mm f1.4... No, it's not a Sony but my excuse for posting it here is that we've been talking about gas and I think that we all have gas to some extent (even me!) and this write up to me illustrates it quite well.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/08/07/the-leica-m-d-camera-review-part-2-i-truly-get-it/

Gas aplenty in that write up but this Leica to me makes no sense as you can set up pretty much any camera (A7? :D) so that everything is either turned off or can be ignored and you could train yourself not to review shots and the A7 would arguably better than the Leica (better sensor?) but of course it wouldn't be a Leica :D
 
First two days with the Helios 58/2. Surprisingly sharp lens, especially given the price and age (1977!), but in good light it's insanely sharp from f/4 upwards, even f/2 is good. Still getting use to full manual, the aperture is smooth as anything, but there's a lot of focus travel which makes candids tricky.
Peaking helps, but isn't always 100% accurate as far as I can tell.
Well chuffed.
 
I find peaking best at wider apertures as less in the frame peaks and you can therefore get more accuracy. At smaller apertures pretty much everything peaks and there'll be a lot of focus ring movement with apparently no effect but if you look closely at the shot maybe your subject wont be the point of focus and wont be sharp.
 
woof woof said:
You got me thinking of the whole gas thing and I went on to read this Steve Huff review of the Leica MD and 28mm f1.4... No, it's not a Sony but my excuse for posting it here is that we've been talking about gas and I think that we all have gas to some extent (even me!) and this write up to me illustrates it quite well.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/08/07/the-leica-m-d-camera-review-part-2-i-truly-get-it/

Gas aplenty in that write up but this Leica to me makes no sense as you can set up pretty much any camera (A7? :D) so that everything is either turned off or can be ignored and you could train yourself not to review shots and the A7 would arguably better than the Leica (better sensor?) but of course it wouldn't be a Leica :D
Click to expand...
I don't get that Leica either, if you want to replicate film so bad then why not just buy a film camera and save a wad? I picked up a very good condition Olly OM1 with 50mm f1.8 with 12m warranty for £60 earlier this year. Mind you, I'm still struggling to manually focus at f1.8 :lol:
 
At least if you get bored you can put the OM1 down for a while and put the 50mm on your Sony. I think that the Oly OM lenses are lovely.
 
woof woof said:
At least if you get bored you can put the OM1 down for a while and put the 50mm on your Sony. I think that the Oly OM lenses are lovely.
Click to expand...
Don't have a Sony ;)
 
rookies said:
What is it you don't like?? And what is it you like with Fuji?
Click to expand...

On the positive side, I think it looks nice! But I never really got on with the handling, the auto ISO annoys me (the constant 1/60th second ISO step up is a pain) and the files are a bit meh for a full framer. But...I wanted a full frame body for my Zeiss primes (Contax/Yashica mount). It was this or a 5D classic, and I can't see me lugging the 5D around with two kids hanging off either hip :D Let's see how it goes :)
 
There's a bloke at DPR who'd disappointed with the results he's getting from a Canon FD 24mm compared to a Sony 35mm f2.8...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4036576

I like my old lenses but I do realise that they'll never compete with the technical excellence of a modern lens if you go looking for the shortcomings and I just find it amazing that someone is surprised that an old mass market film era lens doesn't stand up to comparison with a modern lens.
 
woof woof said:
There's a bloke at DPR who'd disappointed with the results he's getting from a Canon FD 24mm compared to a Sony 35mm f2.8...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4036576

I like my old lenses but I do realise that they'll never compete with the technical excellence of a modern lens if you go looking for the shortcomings and I just find it amazing that someone is surprised that an old mass market film era lens doesn't stand up to comparison with a modern lens.
Click to expand...

True, I think people forget sometimes that modern lens have coatings, etc and are specifically build for digital. As an aside I had an FD 24mm on an Oly EP2 many years ago and loved it!
 
woof woof said:
There's a bloke at DPR who'd disappointed with the results he's getting from a Canon FD 24mm compared to a Sony 35mm f2.8...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4036576

I like my old lenses but I do realise that they'll never compete with the technical excellence of a modern lens if you go looking for the shortcomings and I just find it amazing that someone is surprised that an old mass market film era lens doesn't stand up to comparison with a modern lens.
Click to expand...

The only thing that could ever shock me on that site would be an intelligent, well rounded thread ;)

Of course this will never happen.
 
chrism_scotland said:
True, I think people forget sometimes that modern lens have coatings, etc and are specifically build for digital. As an aside I had an FD 24mm on an Oly EP2 many years ago and loved it!
Click to expand...

I went for the Minolta 24mm as I read that it's one of the classic designs of all time so that got me interested.

I wouldn't want to compare it to a modern lens though.

Actually one thing that people may not take into consideration is that modern lenses are often at their best at relatively wide apertures whereas older lenses might need to be stopped down a lot more.

I posted some Minolta 24mm shots here a while ago...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/the-sony-a7x-i-ii-owners-thread.511885/page-279
 
I've got a Tokina 24mm RMC in FD mount but the aperture doesn't change. Tried all the various locks and breech-lock pin things but can't get the blades to move - the dial and the pin move, just not the blades. Haven't checked it for IQ yet
 
woof woof said:
There's a bloke at DPR who'd disappointed with the results he's getting from a Canon FD 24mm compared to a Sony 35mm f2.8...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4036576

I like my old lenses but I do realise that they'll never compete with the technical excellence of a modern lens if you go looking for the shortcomings and I just find it amazing that someone is surprised that an old mass market film era lens doesn't stand up to comparison with a modern lens.
Click to expand...

I have had an FDn 24mm f/2.8 for years and I've taken some perfectly fine photos with it on film, m4/3 and with my A7. The OM Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 I own is sharper, but for anything up to an A3 print around f/8 on either I'm not sure I'd be able to tell that much difference between the two (I have a couple of A3 prints on my living room wall taken with the OM 24mm on my 12Mpx 5D and they are fine).

A few months ago treated myself to a FDn 24/2.0 that I found at a reasonable price from a local dealer in London. That is certainly better than either at a pixel level on the A7, but again I'm not sure I'd notice in a regular sized print. For me, f/2.0 was the main attraction and better performance at f/2.8 and f/4.0.

If you really want a quality modern lens at that FL, I suppose there is the Batis 25mm, Sony 24-70 f/4 or the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8, but those are going to cost several times more than even the FD 24/2.0.
 
Last edited:
I have two old 24mm lenses, the Minolta Rokkor and an Olympus Zuiko and I think that they both have their charms, I'd say that the Minolta is the best if you want to go looking for the differences but the Zuiko is very compact and I just love the compactness and the look of the Zuiko 24 and 28mm f2.8's and the 50mm f1.8.

Looking around these 24mm f2.8's seem to be nudging the £90-100 area although third party lenses in the camera makers mounts will no doubt be cheaper.

I'd agree that whole images can look good or even very good especially stopped down. I think it's when looking for problems and pixel peeping that they fall down against more modern lenses. I think that my Sony 28-70mm is better at the wide end and that my MFT lenses around that equivalent focal length are too especially if the difference in sensor sizes is taken into consideration.

And just to be clear, I'm not knocking these lenses, I think they're valid options if like me you like using old manual lenses and will accept that they're not going to give you modern state of the art image quality. I just thought that the thread over at DPR was a little silly... IMO you shouldn't be comparing these lenses to modern lenses and being disappointed... you should accept their weaknesses and enjoy the experience and character of them.
 
I shot this with the Minolta 24mm f2.8.

Whole image and then 100% crops of the bottom left / right of the frame. I think this will have been at f8 but I can't be certain. It'll look less good here via Photobucket than on my screen but either way, it's not terrible :D





 
Right folks....
I have a FE 35mm f2.8 heading my way but now having second thoughts, I was originally going to pair this up with my 55 1.8 and use the A7RII as my travelling setup but now considering the A6300, the 16-70mm f4 and keeping the 70-200mm f4 G OSS instead due to the zoom versatility/portability.

Going to be offloading the following....
1x A7RII body with extended Sony warranty and both the Batis 25mm f2.0 and the 85mm f1.8.

So my professional setup will be as follows:-
Sony A7RII
Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8
Sony 85mm f1.4 GM
Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM (when released)
Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM and a TC

My travelling setup:-
Sony A6300
Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8
Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f4 OSS (crop lens)
Sony 70-200mm f4 G OSS

The benefit of this is I still have two bodies for the two weddings I have lined up later on this year with the A6300 being a backup.
 
My only comment regarding your travelling setup would be to not discount the 16-50 kit lens. The 16-70 isn't exactly a small lens so kind of goes against the light option and the 16-50 performs perfectly well so long as you accept its' aperture limitation in comparison (f5.6 vs f4 throughout).

The last wedding I shot with a D750 and my A6K with 70-200 F4 and it was ideal for the weight it added versus the results it delivered.
 
Once you have the 35m f2.8 you may change your mind :D

I suppose it's all down to personally preferences and although I used to love the Sigma 50mm f1.4 on my 5D nowadays 50/55mm is a little tight for me for some uses and a 35mm is just a nice option to have. Of the two lengths, 35 and 50 I think I'd always pick the 35 for holiday use.
 
woof woof said:
Once you have the 35m f2.8 you may change your mind :D

I suppose it's all down to personally preferences and although I used to love the Sigma 50mm f1.4 on my 5D nowadays 50/55mm is a little tight for me for some uses and a 35mm is just a nice option to have. Of the two lengths, 35 and 50 I think I'd always pick the 35 for holiday use.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I ordered the FE 35mm f2.8, the 55 1.8 is a little too long.
May end up sticking with it and scrapping the A6300 route.
With the insane about if cropping ability on the A7RII I could easily crop closer on the 35mm if required. a.k.a Virtual Zoom lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top