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

Riz_Guru said:
Nice, shot on the A7RII? What settings?
I wonder how much worse the Sony A9 is in real-world situations compared against the mighty 42.2mp A7RII?
@jonneymendoza have you had a chance to compared low, mid and high ISO photos against the too? Big difference in the real world?
Click to expand...
Yea a7r2.

I need to try some landscaping shots on the a9 and also high iso ones too and see how it goes but if you have a Canon 24-70. There's no point getting the g master. Only get it if you desperately need eye af and the other af settings plus if you need that extra 5percent af speed and reliability. For sports I would go native all day long. Why?

What's the point in the a9 if you are gimping on af speed and accuracy?

I am eyeing on 100-400 native with Tele converter. But may prefer if sigma launched there 150-600 on e mount!

Real world difference I can say is ibis. It's a godsend. Look) that pic I posted shows what these cameras with ibis can do.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Nice, shot on the A7RII? What settings?
I wonder how much worse the Sony A9 is in real-world situations compared against the mighty 42.2mp A7RII?
@jonneymendoza have you had a chance to compared low, mid and high ISO photos against the too? Big difference in the real world?
Click to expand...

It says it was 1/5th ISO 400. Was it a "resting on a balcony" shot? You'd probably get bad shake on an A7R. It's an excellent image, it was taken in November and the air does not appear very clear. Personally I would have shot with a much higher ISO and faster, but the fact is it works, so bravo A7RII.
 
Gaz J said:
I've always got an open mind. When the system has developed to the point where it offers me what i need then I would look into it further and if i thought it was beneficial i would consider changing. If i was a landscape photographer I would have an A7IIR without hesitation but I'm not so it would be a bit pointless to run another system alongside my Canons for the odd occasion that I take a landscape. As I get older i find carrying a big camera and lens a bit wearing sometimes after 4 or 5 miles but the weight difference for my needs is insignificant with regards to the total weight.
Click to expand...

I've always liked small and unobtrusive kit and truth be told my spiritual home is rather with fixed lens cameras like the Kodak Instamatic I started with and later 35mm compact cameras than SLR's so I like CSC's more than DSLR's.
 
Nuzik said:
Should have been clearer an 85mm 1.8 batty boy. Who the f*** thinks of these names for lenses absolute cretins.
I'll let you know if it arrives in 2 weeks or so. $735 delivered!! So I am a little sceptical. But I've paid via standard PayPal and $500 upfront and the rest upon delivery. But yes it was damn cheap I had to take the gamble.
Click to expand...
Should hav took the gimble or gimbal lol
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yea a7r2.

I need to try some landscaping shots on the a9 and also high iso ones too and see how it goes but if you have a Canon 24-70. There's no point getting the g master. Only get it if you desperately need eye af and the other af settings plus if you need that extra 5percent af speed and reliability. For sports I would go native all day long. Why?

What's the point in the a9 if you are gimping on af speed and accuracy?

I am eyeing on 100-400 native with Tele converter. But may prefer if sigma launched there 150-600 on e mount!

Real world difference I can say is ibis. It's a godsend. Look) that pic I posted shows what these cameras with ibis can do.
Click to expand...

I agree, if its speed and accuracy you need stick with native FE lenses.
Also you only get the full 20fps on lenses released within the last year or so... so the G Masters etc. (compatibility charge on Sony site).
Sigma will be releasing FE mount lenses so we'll just have to wait and see what they bring to the table.

I haven't seen any real-world reviews of the new FE 100-400mm G Master yet but looking forward to seeing some.
 
StevenS said:
It says it was 1/5th ISO 400. Was it a "resting on a balcony" shot? You'd probably get bad shake on an A7R. It's an excellent image, it was taken in November and the air does not appear very clear. Personally I would have shot with a much higher ISO and faster, but the fact is it works, so bravo A7RII.
Click to expand...
no just technique. breath in and out slowly, tense your body and shoot in 2 second timer
 
Can I play? But this is with my 5D at ISO 3200, f1.4 and 1/6 sec.

IMG_9505-r.jpg

100% follows.

IMG_9505-c.jpg

I remember taking a shot with a Canon DSLR at 1 sec and it was ok but I can't remember what the picture was of. Not that I can hand hold at those speeds on demand :D
 
Last edited:
Nuzik said:
Lol what f1.4 are you using the sigma art?

I like a 50mm but I want wider I like a 35mm it just has a look I like.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the ART.

I used to only use 50mm 1.4 till I started wanting to do more environmental portraiture. I like shallow dof and with 35s it's not easy to achieve.... however... the micro contrast plus 1.4 aperture of the ART gives that 3d depth to images which I like. Its the only lens I need.

.... you got rid of yours.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Yeah, the ART.

I used to only use 50mm 1.4 till I started wanting to do more environmental portraiture. I like shallow dof and with 35s it's not easy to achieve.... however... the micro contrast plus 1.4 aperture of the ART gives that 3d depth to images which I like. Its the only lens I need.

.... you got rid of yours.
Click to expand...
I had a Nikon one to be fair it was beautiful but I can buy it again if I need to. I didn't shoot a whole load at 1.4. be interesting to see how the Sony fairs to be honest. Not sure why it's only a 2.8 mind you. But for the money £420 new it's not a bad punt. I'm sure optically it's lovely.
twist said:
The fe35 1.4 also has a lovely rendering from what I've seen. Way nicer than the 35 2.8 or the fe 55 1.8.
Click to expand...
I couldn't see a 1.4 is it manual?
 
Nuzik said:
I had a Nikon one to be fair it was beautiful but I can buy it again if I need to. I didn't shoot a whole load at 1.4. be interesting to see how the Sony fairs to be honest. Not sure why it's only a 2.8 mind you. But for the money £420 new it's not a bad punt. I'm sure optically it's lovely.

I couldn't see a 1.4 is it manual?
Click to expand...

It's tiny... so 2.8.

Nope, AF.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/fe3514za/pool/
 
Nuzik said:
Oh man I think I saw the 1.4! And whimped out on cost. That's my entire budget on one. I'll stick with the 85mm and the 35mm for now. Foot in the door and all that.
Click to expand...

I concur it's a lovely bit of glass.
A cheaper way to something that's pretty much as good is a used canon mount sigma with the mc11 adapter.
 
Nuzik said:
Oh man I think I saw the 1.4! And whimped out on cost. That's my entire budget on one. I'll stick with the 85mm and the 35mm for now. Foot in the door and all that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a big expensive lens with qc issues. If you never shot the ART much at 1.4 then there's probs not much use in lugging the fe3514 around tbh.

Is there a reason you never shot it wide open?
 
twist said:
Yeah, it's a big expensive lens with qc issues. If you never shot the ART much at 1.4 then there's probs not much use in lugging the fe3514 around tbh.

Is there a reason you never shot it wide open?
Click to expand...
If I used it for portraits at 1.4 it was far too soft on the outside and Street it was to narrow for focus for me. And the third factor I never used my bloody camera.
 
Nuzik said:
If I used it for portraits at 1.4 it was far too soft on the outside and Street it was to narrow for focus for me. And the third factor I never used my bloody camera.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that just natural sharpness fall off due to fast aperture? Can't say I've noticed any issues at the outer points.
 
twist said:
Wasn't that just natural sharpness fall off due to fast aperture? Can't say I've noticed any issues at the outer points.
Click to expand...
yes thats what i was getting at. You asked why i didnt shoot wide open. I didnt mean the lens was faulty in anyway shape or form. It was a bloody lovely lens.
 
Nuzik said:
yes thats what i was getting at. You asked why i didnt shoot wide open. I didnt mean the lens was faulty in anyway shape or form. It was a bloody lovely lens.
Click to expand...

I see, so you just wanted more dof.
 
Nuzik said:
Was only £420 new so I'll kinda live with that
Click to expand...

Only 420 quid for a grey 35mm 2.8. Suppose that's cheap for Sony these days... It's a decent performer.

Hopefully you like it.
 
Last edited:
After a bit of advice and help please. I have been looking to add a mirrorless camera to my 5d3, and was originally looking at the M5, so as to be able to use my favourite lenses (sigma 35mm art, 120-300 Sport, and 70-200 f4), however I have just seen a great price on the A7 ii and was reading about the Sigma MC11 Converter. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this converter. Basically I want something that is more portable and better suited to travel than my 5d3, however I love the images that FF provide.

Thanks in advance :)
 
jonneymendoza said:
Banding issue explained https://m.dpreview.com/articles/7370859353/sony-a9-banding-reported-by-fro-fact-or-fiction
Click to expand...

I was pretty close with my post in the A9 thread..

stevelmx5 said:
Also, as per his decision to not count them as failed shots, the advertising boards are showing banding due to the refresh rate of them and I'm guessing that those where the players showed faint banding were caused by the players standing close enough, or the 'right' angle, from the advertising boards.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top