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

Just need more confirmation on low light AF but Anthony on here says he see no difference
 
rookies said:
Just need more confirmation on low light AF but Anthony on here says he see no difference
Click to expand...
Why on earth are you relying on other peoples views as confirmation, you need to test it yourself to see if its good enough at low-light AF for your needs.??? (n)
I've seen some people comment they see no difference between Fuji and Sony IQ, doesn't mean its true.
 
Last edited:
It nice to know other people though incase they know more. I have says I like the camera but not seen poor low light af as we know we can’t tear this properly till we get it home for a few days. In store testing doesn’t do justice.

Anyway f*** it another break from here bye
 
rookies said:
Just need more confirmation on low light AF but Anthony on here says he see no difference
Click to expand...

It’s pretty clear that different people have a different ideas on what is good and bad low light performance. Won’t know if it’s good enough for yourself until you have a go. I imagine it’s fine for most
 
addicknchips said:
It’s pretty clear that different people have a different ideas on what is good and bad low light performance. Won’t know if it’s good enough for yourself until you have a go. I imagine it’s fine for most
Click to expand...
Like me..... Sony A9 is way more than I need at this moment in time.... :D
Different expectations and outcomes.
 
T_J_G said:
Yeah but you only needed a nice ornament for a shelf...but you bought an expensive camera....:D
Click to expand...
I know, its been a costly ride with Sony! lol :D
But I like the gear soooooooo much.
 
rookies said:
20 mins in a bright place. Like I say nothing beats having it at home
Click to expand...

See there was your problem! I went outside, inside and then to the dark corners and not well lit places!

Just go buy one or you will always be thinking of one. You wanted a camera with decent live view and you are not doing sports so the D500 is not really what you need anyway!
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Tom Toby will have his d750 in the ads very soon, very well looked after as any lab tecnician would :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Nope, can't afford the switch.

simonbarker said:
I've been following this over on DPR (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60890104), roughly they're saying when it's set to a small aperture and AFC regardless of the live view setting on or off it will focus open then remain stopped down, which causes focusing problems because it's effectively too dark for the camera.

So is that intended behaviour or is the setting only relevant when you're in AFS?

In that thread there's reports of different lenses acting differently, not sure if that's accurate or user error though.
Click to expand...
That's crazy, surely that's a fault that needs fixing being as it was fixed in the A9 and A7Riii?



jonneymendoza said:
They probably had live view effects off. I can test tomorow if I can.
Click to expand...
See Simon's post I've quoted above, says live view effects makes no difference.



JJ! said:
I still don’t like EVFs even though this one is very good.
Indoor focus was not as fast as I wanted with the 70-200. And yes I tried different modes.
No top screen
Not as easy to change things on the fly (although this would improve with use)
Didn’t really feel comfortable in the hand

It is very nicely built
With the primes it felt lovely
Eye AF was really good
Much better than any mirrorless I have used or tried before
Quiet and discreet
Make a great wedding camera

I didn’t feel I was going to gain anything from swapping systems so I have decided for the moment not to make a move.
Click to expand...
Did you try the 70-200mm f2.8 or f4? Would you say it's slower than the D750 and VRII in similar conditions.
 
JJ! said:
See there was your problem! I went outside, inside and then to the dark corners and not well lit places!

Just go buy one or you will always be thinking of one. You wanted a camera with decent live view and you are not doing sports so the D500 is not really what you need anyway!
Click to expand...
I agree...... buy the Sony A7 III and join the Sony family :D @rookies
 
Musicman said:
Ffordes are doing well from me this year... another of those 'I must really try one of those some day lenses'* found its way to me on Thursday afternoon, a Zeiss C/Y Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 MM.

...

* The C/Y Tessar 45mm f/2.8 is also on this list; I don't know how many times I've very nearly bought one
Click to expand...

Well, I found a nice example of a Contax Tessar 45mm f/2.8 MM succumbed to its charms this week; for an SLR lens, it is tiny.

The extra few mm allow a little more breathing space over a 50, which can be a touch tight at times. It's a tad softer than the Planar 50/1.7 at similar apertures, but that's not really significant at 24 Mpx on my A7. Distortion is marginally better than the Planar, though.

A couple of my first images with it.


Office Dog by Rob Telford, on Flickr


Danny Oh by Rob Telford, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
A wise choice considering the amount of money involved to change over.
I had a suspicious feeling the Sony A7 III might struggle indoors and/or dim light hence my post earlier regarding low light performance compared to the Sony A9.
Will need to do a back to back test to really confirm but online videos / reviews show the Sony A7 III to be excellent in low-light.
Click to expand...
Lmao. Seriously ? It's the same. I've used both and it's indistinguishable to the A9 in terms of AF and like I've said, actually better Eye Af [emoji23][emoji23]
 
It's normal that someone wouldn't want to hear that a camera at half the price matches the AF ability of a 4300GBP one lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F/1.4 said:
Lmao. Seriously ? It's the same. I've used both and it's indistinguishable to the A9 in terms of AF and like I've said, actually better Eye Af [emoji23][emoji23]
Click to expand...

Yes, I have always been suspicious as Sony markets the AF as two times better than the previous A7 II, having owned the A7II, it wasn't great in most low light situations.
Clearly in your usage, the Sony A7 III AF system is good enough however I still firmly believe that the Sony A9's focusing and tracking abilities are better than the A7 III due to the stacked RS sensor design.
Most review's also confirm that even though both bodies have the same number of AF points, the Sony A9's is the faster / better system.
The Eye-AF might be better but is it better in low light at say 10-20fps? ;)

The Sony A9 is the king .... a game changer......
isn't that right @jonneymendoza :D lol
 
The most important thing to me is that wide aperture primes focus accurately, don't need tuned to each body to perform as they are meant. AF modules in dslr cameras (all of them) have issues wether it's a sigma art lens or a native L series lens. It's the single biggest reason I ditched dslrs.

Also all this banging on about d750 etc vs the 693 point af in a7iii and a9 isn't even up for debate, the outer points are at the very best poor in terms of accuracy. In fact they were that crap that I only ever used the better cross type points
 
F/1.4 said:
The most important thing to me is that wide aperture primes focus accurately, don't need tuned to each body to perform as they are meant. AF modules in dslr cameras (all of them) have issues wether it's a sigma art lens or a native L series lens. It's the single biggest reason I ditched dslrs.

Also all this banging on about d750 etc vs the 693 point af in a7iii and a9 isn't even up for debate, the outer points are at the very best poor in terms of accuracy. In fact they were that crap that I only ever used the better cross type points
Click to expand...
True :D end of debate lol Sony A9 wins ;) lol
 
JJ your reasons for not going to a7mk3 are interesting and I believe due to that. You won't ever be happy with anything Sony puts out due to evf and smaller form factor.

Its good that you have made that decision before wasting money.
 
Musicman said:
Well, I found a nice example of a Contax Tessar 45mm f/2.8 MM succumbed to its charms this week; for an SLR lens, it is tiny.

The extra few mm allow a little more breathing space over a 50, which can be a touch tight at times. It's a tad softer than the Planar 50/1.7 at similar apertures, but that's not really significant at 24 Mpx on my A7. Distortion is marginally better than the Planar, though.

A couple of my first images with it.


Office Dog by Rob Telford, on Flickr


Danny Oh by Rob Telford, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Yay - MOAR PHOTOS.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Why on earth are you relying on other peoples views as confirmation
Click to expand...

Well because I'm not perfect and sometimes people consider things I don't, I tend to make better decisions with more information.

Yes obviously first hand experience trumps all but I don't have time to pop into London to play around with the camera and until I do this kind of stuff is useful to me.

Plus every minute spent here is a minute not doing actual work!
 
Riz_Guru said:
Yup, baby Otus :D
Click to expand...
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Just need that absolutely pants weather to do one so I can get shooting with it! Have a photo gig to do tonight and a wedding next week so it'll be put through it's paces.

Will be mainly using the 28mm 55mm and 85mm with the 16-35 and 70-200 for maybe the odd few shots.
 
simonbarker said:
Well because I'm not perfect and sometimes people consider things I don't, I tend to make better decisions with more information.

Yes obviously first hand experience trumps all but I don't have time to pop into London to play around with the camera and until I do this kind of stuff is useful to me.

Plus every minute spent here is a minute not doing actual work!
Click to expand...
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top