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

rookies said:
Well I though I have a nose as my ears was burning. Nice to know to be s*** on. That’s it then. Knew a long break needed.
Click to expand...

Man don’t take everything so personally. It’s all banter, and you don’t help yourself!

rookies said:
Well guys I said my bit. Going have a long break from here now like I did before not last time the time before that most of last year I reckon it was.

You all enjoy your gears etc. Happy snapping.
Click to expand...
 
addicknchips said:
Wonder when we’ll see a9’s commonly used at the football and boxing etc. Still seems be canikon at the stuff I attend.
Click to expand...
It’s hardly surprising events are still dominated by Canikon, truly capable bodies have only been out two minutes and it will take a long time for people to switch over, if at all. As a system e-mount is still small compared to the big boys.
 
snerkler said:
It’s hardly surprising events are still dominated by Canikon, truly capable bodies have only been out two minutes and it will take a long time for people to switch over, if at all. As a system e-mount is still small compared to the big boys.
Click to expand...

Yeah but but but but a9’s a game changer
 
Raymond Lin said:
I hate myself...I think I’ve managed to convinced myself that I won’t be happy with the 55/1.8 sonar and just go for the daddy Planar 1.4.....knowing myself I’ll end up upgrading eventually.
Click to expand...

I'm already decided to skip 1.8 and go 1.4

Maybe I'll order it tomorrow
 
dancook said:
I'm already decided to skip 1.8 and go 1.4

Maybe I'll order it tomorrow
Click to expand...

I’ve had the Canon 50/1.4 (it’s okay for the money), Sigma 50/1.4 Art (fantastic for the money). I don’t think I’d 100% happy with a 55/1.8 in both the weird focal length and 1.8 aperture.

It does cost more but cheaper in the long run that I don’t have to upgrade.
 
The 55mm f1.8 is a very nice lens though.

Is the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 all that significant? Ditto 50/55?
 
woof woof said:
The 55mm f1.8 is a very nice lens though.

Is the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 all that significant? Ditto 50/55?
Click to expand...

I am used to 35/50/85, by that I mean I know unconsciously what that focal length is like and where I need to stand with each of the lens. I really don't want to mess up my head even by 5mm.

Then the differences for the extra £700, according to the reviews you get

1 - weather sealing, although i's not a deal breaker, the Sigma don't have it.
2 - better CA control, after going from Canon 35L mk1 to mk2, the lack of CA is just so nice.
3 - 1.4 is 1.4 and 1.8 is 1.8.

Just like the Canon 35L, clients won't notice but I do.
 
Raymond Lin said:
3 - 1.4 is 1.4 and 1.8 is 1.8.

Just like the Canon 35L, clients won't notice but I do.
Click to expand...

f1.4 v f1.8... This may surprise you but... I know :D What I meant was is it more psychological or does it actually matter but given your closing comment I suppose what matters to you is the most important thing.

For me yes there is a difference between 50 and 55mm but I think it's one which is relatively minor and easily adjusted to and being honest I do think that the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is mostly in the mind of the photographer these days given the performance we now have at higher ISO's but bokeh in the mind of the photographer is another thing.
 
woof woof said:
f1.4 v f1.8... This may surprise you but... I know :D What I meant was is it more psychological or does it actually matter but given your closing comment I suppose what matters to you is the most important thing.

For me yes there is a difference between 50 and 55mm but I think it's one which is relatively minor and easily adjusted to and being honest I do think that the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is mostly in the mind of the photographer these days given the performance we now have at higher ISO's but bokeh in the mind of the photographer is another thing.
Click to expand...

It's the little thing, the detail.

If you know me, you'll know that's what I do.

All my lenses are the fastest aperture you can get, knowing I don't have it for the Sony will keep me awake at night :p
 
jonneymendoza said:
Could be epic
Click to expand...

A APS-C version of the Sony A9 would be epic.

New larger body design with Z-series battery.
(Same build & finish like A9)
APS-C RS BSI 24mp CMOS
5.5 IBIS
Pixel Shift
A9 AF system
Dual SD slots
Bionz X with LSI
12 fps zero-black out silent shutter
4K / 30 video

Would make for a good backup body.
Price would have to hover around the £1500-1600 mark?

:D
 
These MK3 cameras have really taken Sony to a new level. You have the choice of 3 seriously good cameras depending on your budget and needs.

Yes the lens line up is not quite there yet and some of the lenses are overpriced, but a lot of the lenses are pretty much like for like prices of the new glass from Nikon.

Panamoz are closed and not shipping new orders till Tuesday. Will have my lens first so it can sit in a glass cabinet for a bit!!
 
rookies said:
Well I though I have a nose as my ears was burning. Nice to know to be s*** on. That’s it then. Knew a long break needed.
Click to expand...

First time ever dropping into the Sony thread, I can remember this exact same post about 18 months ago in the D750 thread:D
 
Just tried the 55/1.8, couldn’t bring myself to buy it….

EDTr9AL.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest do people here print their pictures?
If so at home or outsourced or a mixture of both?

As much as I like pixel peeping being a techno/specs nerd, personally I like to print very much also. Due to cost reasons I do a mixture of both. I use canon selphy for personal/family prints at home (which takes care of 70% of our needs). For large prints I outsource them.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Just out of interest do people here print their pictures?
If so at home or outsourced or a mixture of both?

As much as I like pixel peeping being a techno/specs nerd, personally I like to print very much also. Due to cost reasons I do a mixture of both. I use canon selphy for personal/family prints at home. For large prints I outsource them.
Click to expand...

I used to, inks ran out haven't had a chance to replace as been to busy to print and changed my desktop so need to calibrate stuff. I use a Pixma Pro, goes up to A3 borderless.
 
nandbytes said:
Just out of interest do people here print their pictures?
If so at home or outsourced or a mixture of both?

As much as I like pixel peeping being a techno/specs nerd, personally I like to print very much also. Due to cost reasons I do a mixture of both. I use canon selphy for personal/family prints at home. For large prints I outsource them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I sometimes print and throughout the year I maybe manage to average using my printer once a week :D but as I haven't taken a picture for weeks now my average will fall until the weather gets better and I get time to go out.

I print at home with an Epson R2880. My most requested thing is usually my calendar but I didn't do one this year, other than that I get the odd request for family pictures or pictures taken when out and about.

I find printing a great leveller and it helps me to reduce the urge to pixel peep and it's sobering when cheap kit is good enough for a reasonably large printed picture :D

Other than printed pictures the pictures I take are resized to 1000 or 2000 pixels wide or high, saved as quality 9 and then zapped off electronically to Mrs Woof Woof's family, my family and / or a few other people.

As long as there are older family and friends I suppose I'll keep printing but the younger ones mainly just want their pictures in electronic format.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

This goes way back, I started my photographic journey with a old 300 series film camera, I returned it within a week and exchanged it for a EOS30 because I felt I had outgrown it.

Then my lenses at the time were the 28-105 3.5-4.5 and 50/1.8. I then got a 30D later and at this point I bought a sigma 24-70/2.8, the old one that weren’t very good and wrong focal length on a 30D. So I basically had a bunch of mediocre lenses and weren’t happy, something clicked in me which made me sold all my lenses and start from scratch, I rather save up months to buy it than to get something in between. I went for a while with a body and no lenses, and I had planned forward (way forward) at this time with the plan for Full Frame so when I sold it all I went straight for the Canon 16-35/2.8 L and slowly built my collection up from there. I went for the 16-35 because I know that focal length works for cropped to be 24mm on the wide end.

I did stumble a few times and needed some focal lengths for jobs and got the Canon 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for jobs but once I could afford it and once the Sigma 50Art came out, I opted for them.

I find getting the lens that I really want right away saves me money in the long run.

There are exceptions of course, I ruled out the Canon 50/1.0 and 1.2 because the former is rare and both are not focus critical when you need them the most.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
What did you think of it?
Click to expand...

It’s a great size, perfect proportion on the A9, id take it for holiday or day out. The reason I didn’t get it isn’t because it isn’t good, it’s because I want 1.4, even though I realise it’s a lot of money for 1/3rd of a stop.
 
What impresses me about the 55mm f1.8 is its quality across the frame even from wide apertures. I thought that the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 was good and also the Canon 50mm f2.5 I had too but the Sony is IMO easily better than both and the only thing against it is possibly that it isn't f1.4.

I do understand your view and to a extent I agree... there is a difference between f1.4 and f1.8 and when looking at shots of the same subject side by side you'll probably be able to pick the f1.4 shots out pretty quickly but what persuaded me to stay with the f1.8 once f1.4's became available was the bulk and weight penalties of the f1.4 lenses and accepting that in isolation f1.8 shots will be enough for me as these days I do try to limit the amount of times I take pictures with very thin depth of field.
 
Was watching eBay someone was asking £3000 for a A7III and Sigma mc-11, it didn't sell I'm glad to say, serves the greedy sod right.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It’s a great size, perfect proportion on the A9, id take it for holiday or day out. The reason I didn’t get it isn’t because it isn’t good, it’s because I want 1.4, even though I realise it’s a lot of money for 1/3rd of a stop.
Click to expand...

Yup. 1.4 lenses just render nicer ime. The 55 is sharp but a bit lifeless.
 
I'm often a bit baffled by this, what do you mean by lifeless?
 
woof woof said:
I'm often a bit baffled by this, what do you mean by lifeless?
Click to expand...

Images look flat, they don't have that depth / 3d look. The 35 ART and Zeiss 35 distagon have it, Loxias have it, old Carl Zeiss have it, Leica has it.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Images look flat, they don't have that depth / 3d look.
Click to expand...

You think the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is that much?

If you have a f1.4 lens a nice test will be to shoot the same subject in the same lighting at f1.4 and f1.8 and look for the differences.

Other than that in use the DoF at f1.8 can be miniscule, even shooting at f5 if going for a half body shot you'll probably not get the whole subject in the DoF.
 
woof woof said:
You think the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is that much?

If you have a f1.4 lens a nice test will be to shoot the same subject in the same lighting at f1.4 and f1.8 and look for the differences.

Other than that in use the DoF at f1.8 can be miniscule, even shooting at f5 if going for a half body shot you'll probably not get the whole subject in the DoF.
Click to expand...

Not so much aperture, the optical characteristics of the lens. Like some lenses swirl the OOF regions etc.
 
twist said:
Not so much aperture, the optical characteristics of the lens. Like some lenses swirl the OOF regions etc.
Click to expand...

To me the biggest difference when using f1.4 and f1.8 is the size of the out of focus highlights. Other than that maybe a lot of people would struggle to tell f1.4 pictures from otherwise identical f1.8 pictures.

If I had the time and the light was better I'd run a series of shots off from f1.2 to f5 or so, it'd be interesting to see at what point people think there's a decisive difference. I decided some time ago that apart from the size of the out of focus highlights the real world differences between f1.4 DoF and deeper DoF occurred at round about or a little wider maybe than about f2.8.

The differences between how two different lenses render at f1.4 and f1.8 is another issue to the differences between identical lenses (or two otherwise good lenses) and pictures at the two apertures.

Actually maybe what some people are seeing is the optical compromises that may come with the wider aperture. What some people see as the beginning of the end of optical goodness and drifting into optical effects others see as character :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top