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

ohms12 said:
Yeah, the native mount FE lens.

View: https://youtu.be/7nRcmRhgPvI
Click to expand...

Watching the video there doesn't seem to be a lot in it, but then his conclusion is damning which is odd. It's only one person though, need to see if everyone says the same.

I don't shoot video (have very little interest there) but it would seem neither are that suitable? Sigma slightly slower, although you could work with that? The Samyang has loud AF-C focus? You'll have to buy the Sony :D
 
My sigma order was cancelled for a couple weeks while I consider actually needing a 35. The Zeiss AFC was quite a bit better than samyang in holding moving targets, hit rate was excellent. The sigma 50 is a bit better than the 35 in terms of afc so I'd expect it to be alright not great.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
My sigma order was cancelled for a couple weeks while I consider actually needing a 35. The Zeiss AFC was quite a bit better than samyang in holding moving targets, hit rate was excellent. The sigma 50 is a bit better than the 35 in terms of afc so I'd expect it to be alright not great.
Click to expand...

:eek:

You moving away from the 35-85 combo :eek:

How could you!?
 
footman said:
Went into Jessops today intending to p/ex 2 Olympus Pro lenses for a couple of Sony lenses to complete my line-up. Two things happened, one was that they offered me vastly more than I was expecting for 1 lens and very slightly more for the other. The other was that today they are starting a 20% bonus on p/ex prices. Suddenly I was hundreds of pounds “better off” than I had imagined I would be.

The 16-35 F4 was always going to be in my bag but after handling the 24-70 F4, the 24-105 F4 they suggested that I try the 24-70 F2.8 GM they happened to have lying around. Suddenly (in my mind) the extra money I had to play with meant that I didn’t dismiss the GM lens out of hand.
I was hooked, completely and utterly and walked away with the 16-35 F4 and the 24-70 F2.8. That 20% bonus really swung it for me.
Click to expand...
Just discovered I get £200 cashback on top of all this goodness, what's going on?:banana:
 
nandbytes said:
Interesting @F/1.4 claims sigma to be lot better than samyang. I wonder if he used the samyang with updated firmware?

I guess we should wait for @twist to give his opinion also. He's in fact owned all three.
Click to expand...

I did update the firmware. I actually owned 3-4 copies of the Samyang. Hard to decern which is faster but the Sigma is in a different league with consistency. Image quality is much better as is the Bokeh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Raymond Lin said:
In short, Sony Zeiss 50/1.4 is the best one if budget is not a criteria. A little surprised how badly the Rokinon did though but i am impressed by the Sigma, that looks to have the softest bokeh.

Click to expand...
After watching that video I'll stick with the Loxia f2

Maybe get a Noctilux 0.95 ;)
 
Last edited:
F/1.4 said:
I did update the firmware. I actually owned 3-4 copies of the Samyang. Hard to decern which is faster but the Sigma is in a different league with consistency. Image quality is much better as is the Bokeh
Click to expand...

As in, you found the AF is more consistent with the Sigma? Most of what i've read has been unfavourable towards the Sigma, lol. I also find the bokeh a little too distracting, it's too contrasty.
 
ohms12 said:
As in, you found the AF is more consistent with the Sigma? Most of what i've read has been unfavourable towards the Sigma, lol. I also find the bokeh a little too distracting, it's too contrasty.
Click to expand...

Sources? Sigma is slower than Sony lenses in video for sure. For photography though I haven't seen anything negative yet. They do have focus breathing in AF-S but they perform really well in AF-C. Even my adapted Sigma 35mm does really well in that regard. If I keep the Sony I was going to swap my 35mm for a native mount, seems odd that the native mount would be worse than adapted.
 
CharleyBird said:
After watching that video I'll stick with the Loxia f2

Maybe get a Noctilux 0.95 ;)
Click to expand...

Have quite seriously been looking at the Nocturnus 0.95; madness I suppose
 
twist said:
Just buy the Mitakon
Click to expand...
After reading reviews I wouldn't because I'd be wanting it wide open and the Mitakon reviews all say it ain't anywhere near sharp at 0.95.
The Nocturnus is reviewed as sharper with better colour and seems a sensible compromise to the noctilux. All reviews say the Nocturnus build quality is far better than the Mitakon and that is important to me.
Will version 3 be an improvement on 1&2 I wonder, or just a new manufacturing run?
 
Just giving capture one a try and not sure if anyone else thinks the same but the difference in colour rendering is HUGE. Actually would make you think adobe wants the A7III files to look terrible
 
F/1.4 said:
Just giving capture one a try and not sure if anyone else thinks the same but the difference in colour rendering is HUGE. Actually would make you think adobe wants the A7III files to look terrible
Click to expand...

If the differences can be seen at web size how about posting an example or two?

I've been thinking of replacing CS5 but subscribing to CC doesn't appeal to me.
 
woof woof said:
If the differences can be seen at web size how about posting an example or two?

I've been thinking of replacing CS5 but subscribing to CC doesn't appeal to me.
Click to expand...
Download it and try it. Run them side by side same files. Difference is absolutely huge for skin etc
 
Well that's half an hour of my life wasted.

The experience started with having to kill the same pop up time after time and ended with a package that wouldn't open anything and gave an error I'd never seen before. Click on repair.... failed again... What a crock of sh!t and reminded me why my life is too busy to waste on line. I suppose I'll have to try again another day when I've got a bit more patience but the sun is shining and I have a life to live.
 
I prefer LR colour, C1 is just a magenta boost and loads of contrast by default.

Have you tried switching the LR profiles?
 
twist said:
I prefer LR colour, C1 is just a magenta boost and loads of contrast by default.

Have you tried switching the LR profiles?
Click to expand...
Not Sony specific, but I create a profile using a Colorchecker Passport for each camera to not only hopefully give accurate colours, but also accurate colours that match between different cameras. It's up to me to add any 'style'. ;) I'm not sure if you can do that with C1.:thinking: I use Adobe Camera Raw and occasionally Lightroom.

If you have a 'style' you can save that as a default preset on top of the profile so that the images open with it. Again that is with ACR or LR, I'm not sure about other programs. :thinking:

Just putting it out there when people talk about how different image processors giving different colours, and in case anyone doesn't know that you can do things like that. :)
 
ohms12 said:
View: https://youtu.be/AZdzcaaqaeY
Click to expand...
Mmm, so he prefers the way C1 renders RAW files compared to Lightroom, but he felt everyone (on the internet) he could consult on the subject was biased towards Adobe, so he consults Phase 1! :confused: So people who use software may have a bias, but a maker of one of the the software being compared is going to be totally fair. And indeed the chap proved that for praising the way Adobe's software does certain things well. Yeah, OK then. :rolleyes: He didn't actually say, as far as I saw, which image, if any, looked like the scene in real life. :thinking:

I suppose it is good that they give trials of the software to try out. :)

As for saying that camera calibration using a colour chart is not relevant because there are many shades of colour, of course there are, but if you are showing the sensor specific colours, and then getting the profile to render those colours accurately with the profile, I would think that more of the colours in between those calibrated different colours would be more accurate. But then I don't work for Phase 1, or Adobe btw. ;)

What I do know is that I took pics of the same scene on holiday last week with a Sony RX100III and a Nikon D500, and the images look pretty much identical. And they both looked like what I was seeing with my eyes. Doesn't mean they would stay like that, but imho I have an accurate, consistent starting point, even between cameras. That works for me. :)

Try as many options as possible, and see what works for you. If something new pops up, try that, as it may be better. :) But it may not be too. ;)

A good thing he mentioned was maybe revisiting older images with new software, as the RAW processing software has made huge improvements over the years. There are some people whose old images are no longer of interest to them, each to their own. ;) I have favourite images that I always want to be the best they can be, and occasionally try new software or new techniques on them.
 
Last edited:
F/1.4 said:
Just giving capture one a try and not sure if anyone else thinks the same but the difference in colour rendering is HUGE. Actually would make you think adobe wants the A7III files to look terrible
Click to expand...
:agree:
But LR is a more complete package that offers more than CP one. I haven't found anything that does everything to a decent standard like LR6.
 
nandbytes said:
:agree:
But LR is a more complete package that offers more than CP one. I haven't found anything that does everything to a decent standard like LR6.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, everyone says they are better in some way (mostly processing) but most cant use catalogues or manage libraries, non destructive, etc etc.

They will also need to be able to read and implement Adobes file format and XML info for a seamless switch..... but that aint going to happen, most people dont want to lose all the work they've already done and thats why Adobe has a huge advantage already.
 
twist said:
Thats the problem, everyone says they are better in some way (mostly processing) but most cant use catalogues or manage libraries, non destructive, etc etc.

They will also need to be able to read and implement Adobes file format and XML info for a seamless switch..... but that aint going to happen, most people dont want to lose all the work they've already done and thats why Adobe has a huge advantage already.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
Also migrating to new computer and backing up LR is easy.
Virtual copy and soft proofing is awesome if you print. It's so part of the workflow now.

But i don't like the subscription model. I'll need to eventually find an alternative
 
jj_glos said:
Might have to consider the 55mm f1.8 or maybe even the 50mm f1.8 if I stick with Sony. A small 50mm f2 would be nice.


Fuji X-T2, Sony A9 and Canon 5D4 with 50mm (or equivalent) lenses. by JJ, on Flickr
Click to expand...


ta da!

Got the Sony FE 85/1.8 arrived last week, now I have my favourite 3 focal lengths covered on 3 systems….crazy, can shoot a wedding on any one of these! Now this isn't the definitive of their size comparison as I can make the Sony and Fuji slightly smaller by removing the grips, I could have got the Canon 35/2.0 or the smaller Canon 50/1.4. Similarly the Sony I could have got the Sigma 85/1.4 Art E-Mount, and the resulting aperture/bokeh effect on the Fuji doesn't compare to FF, but this is what I chose to have. The Canon is the largest and heaviest as you expect but it is the lenses that is the biggest weight gain/lost.

However the Canon are pretty much as big or heavy as you can get it with the exception of the Sigma 85/1.4A but if I had put the Sigma for the Sony then essentially Sony will have the largest and heaviest lenses of all 3.


aJfcsFa.jpg


4jm3xHH.jpg
 
Last edited:
I really don't know what to do between keeping one (or two) of the systems I have. Sony is the expensive option, it would be cheaper for me to keep the Canon and Fuji setups I have. This would give me full frame and a lighter smaller APS-C setup... but neither have the A9 stacked sensor! Using the X-T2 after the A9 makes it feel a bit pedestrian as well.

I've nearly bought the Sony 70-200/100-400 multiple times the last couple of days...

It's just over 2 months to Photokina and whilst I'm pretty sure Canon and Fuji won't bring out new bodies to rival the A9, they might be close enough (unlikely, bit knowing my luck!). There is the rumour is a stacked sensor for the X-T3 but that all went quiet, and seems unlikely. Likely to be something more like what Sony did with the 6500. So no EVF blackout but rolling shutter problems.
 
I’ve been thinking about chopping in my Fuji kit and dipping a toe into Sony water with an older model to see how it feels. I’ll be honest and say I’ve been a bit underwhelmed when I’ve picked them up previously but hey I need to be a bit more prudent about these things at present.

I was thinking about picking up an older A7R or A7ii as the used prices on these are pretty good now.

In truth I don’t need the huge MP of the a7r2 which is what led me to look at the A7ii to start really. I’m also not really wanting to drop a huge amount of cash on the new a7iiir until I know Sony is for me.

I’m wondering if anyone here is still using them and their thoughts.
 
wibbly said:
I’ve been thinking about chopping in my Fuji kit and dipping a toe into Sony water with an older model to see how it feels. I’ll be honest and say I’ve been a bit underwhelmed when I’ve picked them up previously but hey I need to be a bit more prudent about these things at present.

I was thinking about picking up an older A7R or A7ii as the used prices on these are pretty good now.

In truth I don’t need the huge MP of the a7r2 which is what led me to look at the A7ii to start really. I’m also not really wanting to drop a huge amount of cash on the new a7iiir until I know Sony is for me.

I’m wondering if anyone here is still using them and their thoughts.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the older Sony cameras are a good indication of how good Sony is right now or because to be honest, I’d take a X-T2 over a A7II.
 
Performance wise I wouldn't be surprised in the Fuji is faster in operation but I'd take my A7 every single time and not just for the old lenses as pixel peeping I still haven't seen a Fuji APS-C raw that I've downloaded look as good as an A7 raw via my CS5.
 
For me LR wins over all the others, simply because of the fluidity of editing over different devices. I can either import to the Mac or to the iPad Pro, dependant on where I am or how anti social I’m feeling. The raw files end up on my home hardrive whichs back up to Backblaze, it the. It leaves me to edit on either device, again dependant on where I am, or if I’m being forced to spend time with the family. All photos are synced across all devices, raw files on hard drive, finished collection available across all.

I have looked at all the others and I am still to find anything else that enables me to edit the same file on both the Mac and IPad or even the wife’s macbook air
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top