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

Raymond Lin said:
And when Canon does release one, you know it will be reliable, won’t overheat and don’t need firmware updates. This quality control, so to speak, seems to be holding them back.
Click to expand...
Mind you, Nikon are terrible with QC and its only canon that gets it right.

Sony not too bad nowadays
 
F/1.4 said:
Gale force winds lmao

In all seriousness though, my findings so far between the 35, 50 and 85 is that the autofocus seems faster on the 50 and 85.

Are they know to have more powerful AF motors?
Click to expand...

And even those are slower than the Zeiss 55/1.8 according to Thatcameraguy on YouTube.
 
Dave Semmens said:
I think that both Nikon and Canon have their work cut out with releasing a mirrorless camera. I think they will make a good job of it - eventually.
Click to expand...

I think the latest rumor is that Canon are releasing an APS-C CSC this September and both Canon and Nikon releasing a FF second quarter next year. Sony will have sold a lot of MKIII bodies by then. It'll be interesting to see what Sony do in APS-C, I'd like to see an APS-C RF style body with dials front and back for aperture and shutter and a compensation dial rather than the one dial and back wheel arrangement. I think they could also do a mini SLR style APS-C for those who prefer that layout.
 
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
 
My 35mm lenses :D

P1000248.jpg

P1000249.jpg

Interesting to see the Sony f2.8 with the Voigtlander f1.4 and Zuiko f2.8. I took those pictures with a 17mm f1.8 Oly on my GX9 so I suppose that's another 35mm FoV lens :D

I was going to take a picture of my 50mm lenses but obviously they wouldn't all fit on the top there.
 
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

The bodies are a bit smaller and I think a bit lighter too so you are always going to save a bit of weight there even if the lenses were the same size and weight.

I suppose it depends what lenses you're interested in, I only have the kit lens, 55mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8 and they are IMO small for "FF" lenses and there are other compact and light primes and zoom lenses too so you're best off looking at the spec of the bodies and lenses you're interested in and comparing the weights. You'll probably save some bulk and some weight by going Sony over a DSLR so the question will then be is it enough?

PS.
I suppose the biggest saving will be if you can limit yourself to a camera and just one or two lenses. For example an A7x and Sony 35mm f2.8 would do me nicely and would I guess be about the same size and weight as your Fuji and a 23mm.
 
Last edited:
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

Stick to F4 lenses zooms and you'll be okay. Avoid wide angle Auto focus primes.
 
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

we'd be able to advice better if you mentioned the kind of lenses you care about.

for proper weight saving without sacrificing much quality I'd suggest the vanilla A7R with small primes, CV10/12/15, samyang 24mm/2.8, samyang 35mm/2.8 or sony 35mm/2.8, sony FE 55mm, Sony FE 85mm.
 
F/1.4 said:
First impression is that it blows the samyang away. Not even comparable
Click to expand...
F/1.4 said:
Gale force winds lmao

In all seriousness though, my findings so far between the 35, 50 and 85 is that the autofocus seems faster on the 50 and 85.

Are they know to have more powerful AF motors?
Click to expand...

The sony zeiss is pretty awesome and doesn't miss a beat. The question is how well the this 35mm ART compares? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

Jase - I am not sure what focal range you currently take out with you but as has already been mentioned above the F4 lenses do save on weight and money.

If I was looking to travel light but still retain excellent quality I would choose the A7R3 with the 16-35 2.8GM and the 24-105 F4G.

The 16-35GM is utterly superb and reviews are saying the same about the 24-105.

That will give you 16 to 105mm - I rarely shoot over 100mm with the 70-200 I carry but your usage may vary.

You will save weight in the body and I think the 16-35 2.8 GM is actually the same weight as the Nikon 16-35 F4.

Dave..
 
Last edited:
The Batis lenses are lightish and seem to match the cameras in that respect; and produce good IQ.
 
Gave the 35 a good run through

Af is perfect which is my main concern. Razor sharp, even done a brick wall test lmao

Great at achieving sharp focus even on long range which I was happy with. In AFS mode it never done aswell in the distance tests

Ill know tomorrow more when I shoot a wedding with it
 
F/1.4 said:
Yeah I am glad to get it.

Not sure if im imagining it but the 50 and 85 seem a tad faster.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t be too surprised, at its base level the Sigma 35 is the oldest of the Art lenses (2012 I think?)
 
Dave Semmens said:
Jase - I am not sure what focal range you currently take out with you but as has already been mentioned above the F4 lenses do save on weight and money.

If I was looking to travel light but still retain excellent quality I would choose the A7R3 with the 16-35 2.8GM and the 24-105 F4G.

The 16-35GM is utterly superb and reviews are saying the same about the 24-105.

That will give you 16 to 105mm - I rarely shoot over 100mm with the 70-200 I carry but your usage may vary.

You will save weight in the body and I think the 16-35 2.8 GM is actually the same weight as the Nikon 16-35 F4.

Dave..
Click to expand...

Hi Dave, my usual kit is Nikon D850, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and a DJI Mavic Pro together with filters, torches etc (sometimes I'll switch the 16-35 for my 14-24).

I can obviously cut the Mavic out, the 70-200 I find useful but I would say is the least used on most landscape shoots.

It would be interesting to have a change and see how I get on with it. If I've got time I may go to a camera store over the weekend, it's going to kill me not being able to do my landscape/mountain photography over the summer.
 
Jase said:
Hi Dave, my usual kit is Nikon D850, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and a DJI Mavic Pro together with filters, torches etc (sometimes I'll switch the 16-35 for my 14-24).

I can obviously cut the Mavic out, the 70-200 I find useful but I would say is the least used on most landscape shoots.

It would be interesting to have a change and see how I get on with it. If I've got time I may go to a camera store over the weekend, it's going to kill me not being able to do my landscape/mountain photography over the summer.
Click to expand...

I would check what focal length you have used the 70-200 at and if under / around 105mm max then you have an answer with the 24-105.

Or consider the 70-200 F4 - the Nikon version is a great lens and will save you quite a lot of weight in the bag.

In all seriousness you could just get out with the D850, 16-35 and buy yourself a 24-120 F4. At least you would still be taking pictures :)
 
Update on the 35, I have noticed that when I focus sometimes between things it will like half jump to get focus, then stop for a fraction of a second then jump into focus. The 50 and 85 definitely dont do this and it just doesnt seem right to me

The images are razor sharp and the focus is really accurate though! Bit of a head scratcher
 
F/1.4 said:
Update on the 35, I have noticed that when I focus sometimes between things it will like half jump to get focus, then stop for a fraction of a second then jump into focus. The 50 and 85 definitely dont do this and it just doesnt seem right to me

The images are razor sharp and the focus is really accurate though! Bit of a head scratcher
Click to expand...
umm sounds worse then my sigma art 35mm canon adapted
 
woof woof said:
I think the latest rumor is that Canon are releasing an APS-C CSC this September and both Canon and Nikon releasing a FF second quarter next year. Sony will have sold a lot of MKIII bodies by then. It'll be interesting to see what Sony do in APS-C, I'd like to see an APS-C RF style body with dials front and back for aperture and shutter and a compensation dial rather than the one dial and back wheel arrangement. I think they could also do a mini SLR style APS-C for those who prefer that layout.
Click to expand...

APS-C sensor body again? Another M5 wannabee body, sigh ... disappointing but :canon: :p:D
 
F/1.4 said:
Update on the 35, I have noticed that when I focus sometimes between things it will like half jump to get focus, then stop for a fraction of a second then jump into focus. The 50 and 85 definitely dont do this and it just doesnt seem right to me

The images are razor sharp and the focus is really accurate though! Bit of a head scratcher
Click to expand...

It sounds like its micro adjusting, which mirrorless systems do, it may be more noticeable because its slower than the 50/85.
 
woof woof said:
I think the latest rumor is that Canon are releasing an APS-C CSC this September and both Canon and Nikon releasing a FF second quarter next year. Sony will have sold a lot of MKIII bodies by then. It'll be interesting to see what Sony do in APS-C, I'd like to see an APS-C RF style body with dials front and back for aperture and shutter and a compensation dial rather than the one dial and back wheel arrangement. I think they could also do a mini SLR style APS-C for those who prefer that layout.
Click to expand...

Woohoo another Canon CSC APSC......... put it in the bin. Wheres the poo emoji!
 
Last edited:
robinsslee said:
APS-C sensor body again? Another M5 wannabee body, sigh ... disappointing but :canon: :p:D
Click to expand...
There's a few Sony APS-C cameras to choose from but none afaik have the more traditional twin dials, one front and one back, and some do prefer the mini dslr form plus of course there are those who see aps-c as the sweet spot mix of quality v bulk and weight.

From a manufacturing point of view I'm sure they could do one pdq as per Fuji, Oly and Panny.
 
twist said:
It sounds like its micro adjusting, which mirrorless systems do, it may be more noticeable because its slower than the 50/85.
Click to expand...

It doesnt always do it and its really fast otherwise. Im seriously impressed with it bar that quirk. Im not sure its meant to do it though so may get another one sent out ! Be gutted if the replacement wasnt as sharp though lol
 
F/1.4 said:
It doesnt always do it and its really fast otherwise. Im seriously impressed with it bar that quirk. Im not sure its meant to do it though so may get another one sent out ! Be gutted if the replacement wasnt as sharp though lol
Click to expand...

Go for it if you think its really faulty, sounds like a characteristic as its not a constant fault..... like not AFing at all. Could be its not picking up the contrast enough or there isnt enough contrast between the 2 objects which is confusing the AF system.
 
Last edited:
Try something definitive like a box or deo can or something at close range on a window cill, focus on the deo can get lock (snap) then move at least 2 small AF squares away from the edge of the can and lock on the background (whatever that is and snap) so you're moving from close to fairly far.

You should have a can snap and a BG snap... both locked in focus.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Try something definitive like a box or deo can or something at close range on a window cill, focus on the deo can get lock (snap) then move at least 2 small AF squares away from the edge of the can and lock on the background (whatever that is) so you're moving from close to fairly far.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it just doesnt do it and its the same sort of target. Its really fast and accurate, i just noticed it and thought it was maybe a quirk of the lens.

The accuracy like I say is about as good as ive seen
 
jj_glos said:
To be honest I've not noticed much of a difference at all AF performance wise between my adapted 35mm Art and FE mount 50mm Art. This is in good light, I'd expect to see a difference in low light?
Click to expand...

Ive noticed a huge difference in good light and even more so in low light with extreme AF tests (its what I like so...), what I wouldn't consider acceptable has become very good. The 35 and MC11 hit rate with subject tracking toward me was nowhere near what Im seeing with the native mount 50. Posed stuff the MC11 is a good option though and it locks fast.
 
twist said:
Ive noticed a huge difference in good light and even more so in low light with extreme AF tests (its what I like so...), what I wouldn't consider acceptable has become very good. The 35 and MC11 hit rate with subject tracking toward me was nowhere near what Im seeing with the native mount 50. Posed stuff the MC11 is a good option though and it locks fast.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I wonder if it is an A7III/A9 difference? I haven't used the 35 to track someone sprinting at me (not really my choice of lens for that!), but it's perfectly fine for walking/playing about so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top