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

[ohms12]

I am sure I can.


But my point was based solely on what he has posted, if that is indicative of what is produced from the A7 with those manual lenses, that is unacceptable.

So you’re saying, based on a non-professional, enthusiast photographer using 20-30 year old lenses, that his results are “unacceptable?”

Do you know many professional photographers using cheap film lenses on modern digital bodies and providing those photos to clients? I certainly can’t think of any.

If anything, this whole thing just comes across as judgemental, sneering and in very poor taste. I’m pretty sure you know that the original A7 is more than capable, but can’t resist a snide remark to another user. Pathetic.

 

[nandbytes]

The 50 was an easyish choice, there is only one best..... 35 is a minefield.

It's the best 50 I have used. I don't really use that focal length much

I use 35-40mm a lot and sony is

 

[twist]

It's the best 50 I have used. I don't really use that focal length much

I use 35-40mm a lot and sony is

Yeah, thats why Ive kind of given up on 35 for now, its to much of a pita.

 

[ohms12]

It's the best 50 I have used. I don't really use that focal length much

I use 35-40mm a lot and sony is

55 is a touch tight for me, but the size and portability of that lens means I can’t get rid!

40 is my sweet spot, I reckon. Would be awesome to have a good AF 40 on E mount.

 

[nandbytes]

55 is a touch tight for me, but the size and portability of that lens means I can’t get rid!

40 is my sweet spot, I reckon. Would be awesome to have a good AF 40 on E mount.

I am hoping that batis 40mm f2 rumour is true.

 

[Riz_Guru]

55 is a touch tight for me, but the size and portability of that lens means I can’t get rid!

40 is my sweet spot, I reckon. Would be awesome to have a good AF 40 on E mount.

Zeiss Batis 40mm f2.0 coming soon

 

[Simes123]

I have found them for £56

Thanks for the tip I'll check the serial number.

Any chance of sharing - that's a great price if genuine. I've seen others claiming to be genuine for £27....

 

[nandbytes]

Any chance of sharing - that's a great price if genuine. I've seen others claiming to be genuine for £27....

Bristol cameras

Now that I think about it if you factor in delivery charges that's more like £62

 

[Simes123]

Bristol cameras

Now that I think about it if you factor in delivery charges that's more like £62

I was just going to say - £62 with delivery. Still a good price though - best I've seen, and should be the real deal with Bristol Cameras.

 

[Raymond Lin]

So you’re saying, based on a non-professional, enthusiast photographer using 20-30 year old lenses, that his results are “unacceptable?”

Do you know many professional photographers using cheap film lenses on modern digital bodies and providing those photos to clients? I certainly can’t think of any.

If anything, this whole thing just comes across as judgemental, sneering and in very poor taste. I’m pretty sure you know that the original A7 is more than capable, but can’t resist a snide remark to another user. Pathetic.

Let's go back to the start shall we?

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 thinking about getting a Sony A7 or A7II.

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.

I said old Sony bodies are not comparable to his Fuji gear.

Non-professional, enthusiast has nothing to do with his quality of images, I am talking about technical, not artistically speaking.

Using old lenses has nothing to do with the quality of his images, I am talking about technical, not artistically speaking..

His images are his images. The whole argument was whether @wibbly should chop in his Fuji gear to an older A7 or A72. @woofwoof ‘s argument is that he should because of the superior image quality and because of all the options of legacy lenses.

The only person here that I know uses an A7 and legacy lenses are him. I know of no one else. If those are the resulting images from them…it’s not really a solid argument to get an A7.

Is that not a logical argument?

I don’t look at those images and think “god, my Fuji gear can’t get those awesome colours and definition”. Would that not be what someone want to do when they upgrade gear?

This isn’t about whether the user on the other end is professional or amateur, instead of saying “I find them unacceptable to produce them to a client” is just a way of qualify them in terms of IQ. I am not, and in NO POINT have I ever mentioned the quality of the photo from an artistic merit, I have never said they are crap. I am merely talking about the IQ of the image as a result of the camera through those legacy lenses.

If the argument is using those lenses and the A7 can get you great looking images, prove it. Because it is a very hard sell to get someone who is used to using auto focus lenses to drop that habit to go into a system for the reasons of legacy lenses when you can’t even see the fruits on the other side.

 

[nandbytes]

I was just going to say - £62 with delivery. Still a good price though - best I've seen, and should be the real deal with Bristol Cameras.

Still cheaper than £75.

I am in two minds right now. 3rd party or this...
With the new larger batteries I wouldn't need more than a one spare I think.

 

[Raymond Lin]

If an image is under exposed, is it judgemental to say it is under exposed?

If an image has a colour tint, is it judgemental to say it has a colour tint?

If an image is over exposed with a wrong white balance, is it judgemental to say it is what it is?

I find the images from the A7 with legacy lenses as presented have an unacceptable image quality. Yes, I am sure the camera can do better, but should I argue for both sides in the same post?

No, you shouldn’t get the A7 because it is well known that Sony’s colour science wasn’t good during the A7 and A7II. They are a lot better now.

Yes, you should get the A7 because despite the crap AF and weird colour science I can get great images from it if you put in some work.

No, you shouldn’t get the A7 because I think the Fuji you have now has better colours.

Yes, you should get the A7 because you might end up getting a lot of old manual lenses, discover a love for legacy glass that you never knew you had.

No, you shouldn’t get the A7 because it was a below par camera when it came out, it is still a below par camera now, even lower.

Yes, you should get the A7 because you can get into FF.

Sometimes you just pick a side and stick to it, I am sure anyone who in this section of the forum will know most if not all of the above, it is down to you to priorities what is more important to you, as a poster you pick one side and make your case. My feeling is that the negative of the A7 wayyyyyy outweigh its positive.

 

[Deleted member 41401]

OK, something a bit different from me...

Sony A73 with 85mm f1.8 lens (at f2)…

In the wild by CFC Photo, on Flickr​

 

[nandbytes]

The Ebay ones are generally fakes. A good clue is that they all have the same serial number on the hologram (it ends in 9E - possibly 59E or 89E). I've not found a genuine one for less than £70.

I'd say watch out. Loads of fakes.

Yep ones on ebay are fake.
This thread helped me figure it out - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61269873

 

[Deleted member 66768]

Just got the Tamron 28-75 (for video mainly) pretty impressed with it !

 

[Simes123]

Still cheaper than £75.

I said it was the best price I'd seen

I am in two minds right now. 3rd party or this...
With the new larger batteries I wouldn't need more than a one spare I think.

I've got 1 spare. Which feels abnormally few, but has so far been totally fine and I've not fully depleted a single battery yet. I'm tempted to get 1 other, but I generally always have too many batteries. I had 5 with my XT-2 and used at most 4 in a day. I might get a fake for £27 for the third I don't really need.

 

[nandbytes]

I said it was the best price I'd seen

I've got 1 spare. Which feels abnormally few, but has so far been totally fine and I've not fully depleted a single battery yet. I'm tempted to get 1 other, but I generally always have too many batteries. I had 5 with my XT-2 and used at most 4 in a day. I might get a fake for £27 for the third I don't really need.

Yes I know, sorry didn't mean jump on you. Was just thinking out loud about prices

Think I'll buy a genuine one for the first spare.

Just 5? I had 7 genuine Sony ones and 6 3rd party ones at one point (of the older smaller np-fw50 ones that is)
Funnily I hadn't even paid for most of them, I somehow amassed them lol

 

[Simes123]

Yes I know, sorry didn't mean jump on you. Was just thinking out loud about prices

Think I'll buy a genuine one for the first spare.

Just 5? I had 7 genuine Sony ones and 6 3rd party ones at one point (of the older smaller np-fw50 ones that is)
Funnily I hadn't even paid for most of them, I somehow amassed them lol

Yes, 2 genuine batteries is probably sensible. It really feels a lot like the battery life on a DSLR in that there is very little range anxiety. A lot easier to manage and less weight to carry!

 

[stevelmx5]

Let's go back to the start shall we?



@wibbly thinking about getting a Sony A7 or A7II.



I said old Sony bodies are not comparable to his Fuji gear.

Non-professional, enthusiast has nothing to do with his quality of images, I am talking about technical, not artistically speaking.

Using old lenses has nothing to do with the quality of his images, I am talking about technical, not artistically speaking..

His images are his images. The whole argument was whether @wibbly should chop in his Fuji gear to an older A7 or A72. @woofwoof ‘s argument is that he should because of the superior image quality and because of all the options of legacy lenses.

The only person here that I know uses an A7 and legacy lenses are him. I know of no one else. If those are the resulting images from them…it’s not really a solid argument to get an A7.

Is that not a logical argument?

I don’t look at those images and think “god, my Fuji gear can’t get those awesome colours and definition”. Would that not be what someone want to do when they upgrade gear?

This isn’t about whether the user on the other end is professional or amateur, instead of saying “I find them unacceptable to produce them to a client” is just a way of qualify them in terms of IQ. I am not, and in NO POINT have I ever mentioned the quality of the photo from an artistic merit, I have never said they are crap. I am merely talking about the IQ of the image as a result of the camera through those legacy lenses.

If the argument is using those lenses and the A7 can get you great looking images, prove it. Because it is a very hard sell to get someone who is used to using auto focus lenses to drop that habit to go into a system for the reasons of legacy lenses when you can’t even see the fruits on the other side.

Whilst you're right on a lot of points, you also have no idea about other people's budgets or requirements? You may be happy having three totally separate systems with three matching lens lineups, where each lens may cost upwards of £1k but not everyone else in that position.

Wibbly didn't state anywhere that he was hoping to deliver high level portrait/wedding photography, they stated that they fancied dipping their toe in to see what the Sony is like. Your response comes across more snobby than helpful as you've simply written off an excellent value entry level full frame system because someone else suggested using legacy lenses as an affordable way to try out what is still (sometimes) quality glass. Yes, it may not have AF or use the features like eye AF but that doesn't mean they should be written off.

I've used various legacy lenses on my A7 and have been happy with the results. I've even delivered portraits/weddings for paying clients using them so whilst you may choose to only use the highest level AF lenses to deliver your work, you shouldn't disparage others for choosing to use alternatives.

 

[Riz_Guru]

I have said this many times... if you want a compact FF system ... the Sony A7 with the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 lenses is a great choice.

 

[stevelmx5]

I have said this many times... if you want a compact FF system ... the Sony A7 with the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 lenses is a great choice.

I've got an A7mk1 and agree that the AF can be frustrating in lower light and the jpeg output can often be too warm/orange but I've seen the same colour results from A7Rii/A7Riii bodies too and it's nothing that can't be fixed in most situations. Whilst I will probably upgrade to an A7iii at the end of this year, I still feel that the results from the mk1 can be excellent and easily equal to similar priced full frame cameras from other manufacturers.

 

[Riz_Guru]

I've got an A7mk1 and agree that the AF can be frustrating in lower light and the jpeg output can often be too warm/orange but I've seen the same colour results from A7Rii/A7Riii bodies too and it's nothing that can't be fixed in most situations. Whilst I will probably upgrade to an A7iii at the end of this year, I still feel that the results from the mk1 can be excellent and easily equal similar priced full frame cameras from other manufacturers.

I agree, to be fair the Sony A9 sensor IQ isn't too far ahead of the A7 / A7II in terms of ISO / DR etc which for me has always been acceptable, hence I had no worries about the IQ output of the A9.
It's a great time for Sony.. lets hope their momentum continues.....

 

[nandbytes]

I've got an A7mk1 and agree that the AF can be frustrating in lower light and the jpeg output can often be too warm/orange but I've seen the same colour results from A7Rii/A7Riii bodies too and it's nothing that can't be fixed in most situations. Whilst I will probably upgrade to an A7iii at the end of this year, I still feel that the results from the mk1 can be excellent and easily equal similar priced full frame cameras from other manufacturers.

The skin tones on A7RII is lot better than A7 (having owned both at the same time). There is definitely a positive improvement in colour science.
I recently got A7RIII. There are claims that it's even better now but I haven't really been able to test it fully.

 

[nandbytes]

Yes, 2 genuine batteries is probably sensible. It really feels a lot like the battery life on a DSLR in that there is very little range anxiety. A lot easier to manage and less weight to carry!

I got CVP match Bristol cameras. But they also have delivery charge of £5 unless I buy two batteries

 

[Riz_Guru]

Did you hear about the story about the wildlife photographer who had his face seriously burnt when his 3rd party battery in his A7R III exploded?

 

[twist]

The skin tones on A7RII is lot better than A7 (having owned both at the same time). There is definitely a positive improvement in colour science.
I recently got A7RIII. There are claims that it's even better now but I haven't really been able to rest it fully.

Yup, definite improvement and there is again a big improvement from a7rii to a7iii.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Whilst you're right on a lot of points, you also have no idea about other people's budgets or requirements? You may be happy having three totally separate systems with three matching lens lineups, where each lens may cost upwards of £1k but not everyone else in that position.

Wibbly didn't state anywhere that he was hoping to deliver high level portrait/wedding photography, they stated that they fancied dipping their toe in to see what the Sony is like. Your response comes across more snobby than helpful as you've simply written off an excellent value entry level full frame system because someone else suggested using legacy lenses as an affordable way to try out what is still (sometimes) quality glass. Yes, it may not have AF or use the features like eye AF but that doesn't mean they should be written off.

I've used various legacy lenses on my A7 and have been happy with the results. I've even delivered portraits/weddings for paying clients using them so whilst you may choose to only use the highest level AF lenses to deliver your work, you shouldn't disparage others for choosing to use alternatives.

At no point have I ever suggested anyone getting what I have? Did I suggest any kind of lenses?

I have not mention a single auto focus lens at all.

I am saying, and I will try to be perfectly clear now if I wasn’t before....for someone who is used to auto focus lenses, to suggest to them getting an A7 FOR the option and the main reason to get into it is difficult, the manual focus aspect is one that a lot of people will have difficulty overcome.

This isn’t anything to do with budget, this isn’t anything to do with quality of glass, this isn’t anything to do with snobbery. Not sure how you got the idea of using MF lenses = budget and less good...I looked into a Canon 50/0.95 the other day and that legacy glass is anything but cheap! This is to do with the method. That’s what I’m talking about.

The other thing is if you want to sell it to someone that the body combined with the legacy glass are the way to go, I’m all for that but if I’m in a position of total unknown, wouldn’t I want you to show me some samples that looks better than what I can do now?

 

[stevelmx5]

At no point have I ever suggested anyone getting what I have? Did I suggest any kind of lenses?

I have not mention a single auto focus lens at all.

I am saying, and I will try to be perfectly clear now if I wasn’t before....for someone who is used to auto focus lenses, to suggest to them getting an A7 FOR the option and the main reason to get into it is difficult, the manual focus aspect is one that a lot of people will have difficulty overcome.

This isn’t anything to do with budget, this isn’t anything to do with quality of glass, this isn’t anything to do with snobbery. Not sure how you got the idea of using MF lenses = budget and less good...I looked into a Canon 50/0.95 the other day and that legacy glass is anything but cheap! This is to do with the method. That’s what I’m talking about.

The other thing is if you want to sell it to someone that the body combined with the legacy glass are the way to go, I’m all for that but if I’m in a position of total unknown, wouldn’t I want you to show me some samples that looks better than what I can do now?

Manually focusing a lens isn't difficult. I agree that if you've only ever used AF then it's a different approach but your post gave the impression that it wasn't worth bothering yet some of the most powerful photographs in the world were shot on manual cameras and I think they will be remembered long after any of our portrait/wedding images are forgotten about.

This was the first hit I've just got back from a search for A7 with legacy lenses to give you some examples and advice;

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-lenses-sony-a7/

Nobody is trying to sell anything? The poster suggested that they were considering trying out Sony instead of their Fuji gear and asked for opinions. They even said that they don't like the output from their two current Fuji bodies so it would be a good thing that the Sony output is different!

Your posts regarding Woof Woof's images were sneering and derogatory, suggesting that because you don't like his images (sorry they're, "unacceptable"..) then nobody can deliver good images using legacy lenses is frankly ridiculous. Also, your suggestion that 99% of photographers here only use AF lenses is also baseless. Just because you choose to only buy the top AF lenses doesn't mean you should judge anybody else's decisions on their needs. I don't shoot weddings/portraits professionally anymore so I personally wouldn't choose to spend £1500 on a lens to take family snaps but that's my choice and I wouldn't question anyone else who wants to.

Edit, a few of your generalised statements regarding Woof Woof's images and his suggestion that using legacy lenses on an A7 is a good idea;

Your obsession (?) of being able to use old lenses are VERY VERY niche, 99% of people will want auto focus and old Sony body sucks, we all know that.

Also, from what you have posted, and don't take it negatively, the files you posted, the colours from the A7 are frankly unacceptable to me, in my opinion, I would not deliver those to my clients.

But my point was based solely on what he has posted, if that is indicative of what is produced from the A7 with those manual lenses, that is unacceptable.

The only person here that I know uses an A7 and legacy lenses are him. I know of no one else. If those are the resulting images from them…it’s not really a solid argument to get an A7.

If the argument is using those lenses and the A7 can get you great looking images, prove it. Because it is a very hard sell to get someone who is used to using auto focus lenses to drop that habit to go into a system for the reasons of legacy lenses when you can’t even see the fruits on the other side.

Maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental of other photographers who choose to use their camera differently to the way you do.

 

[jonneymendoza]

A7 af sucks though

I have said this many times... if you want a compact FF system ... the Sony A7 with the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 lenses is a great choice.

 

[stevelmx5]

A7 af sucks though

Yep, in lower light it's as slow as any other similar generation mirrorless but the sensor is still excellent, which is why using manual/legacy glass on it makes it a good value entry into FF mirrorless.

 

[stevelmx5]

I've just grabbed some examples from my Flickr feed showing manual/legacy glass used on various bodies. I'm not suggesting that a current top of the line AF lens won't deliver results with better edge sharpness/micro-contrast or will need more practice to focus than an MF lens but as an entry into the Sony system they are a good option depending on your budget.

A7 & OM Zuiko 24/2.8

A7 & Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4



A6000 & OM Zuiko 50/1.8



NEX5 & OM Zuiko 50/1.4



NEX5 & OM Zuiko 50/3.5 macro

 

[Riz_Guru]

A7 af sucks though

Everything is relative my friend.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rizvanhussain/albums/72157645949808315

All shot with the Sony A7

 

[stevelmx5]

Everything is relative my friend.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rizvanhussain/albums/72157645949808315

All shot with the Sony A7

Nah, you're lying their Riz. It's clearly impossible to use an A7 now that the newer generations exist

 

[Raymond Lin]

Manually focusing a lens isn't difficult. I agree that if you've only ever used AF then it's a different approach but your post gave the impression that it wasn't worth bothering yet some of the most powerful photographs in the world were shot on manual cameras and I think they will be remembered long after any of our portrait/wedding images are forgotten about.

This was the first hit I've just got back from a search for A7 with legacy lenses to give you some examples and advice;

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-lenses-sony-a7/

Nobody is trying to sell anything? The poster suggested that they were considering trying out Sony instead of their Fuji gear and asked for opinions. They even said that they don't like the output from their two current Fuji bodies so it would be a good thing that the Sony output is different!

Your posts regarding Woof Woof's images were sneering and derogatory, suggesting that because you don't like his images (sorry they're, "unacceptable"..) then nobody can deliver good images using legacy lenses is frankly ridiculous. Also, your suggestion that 99% of photographers here only use AF lenses is also baseless. Just because you choose to only buy the top AF lenses doesn't mean you should judge anybody else's decisions on their needs. I don't shoot weddings/portraits professionally anymore so I personally wouldn't choose to spend £1500 on a lens to take family snaps but that's my choice and I wouldn't question anyone else who wants to.

Edit, a few of your generalised statements regarding Woof Woof's images and his suggestion that using legacy lenses on an A7 is a good idea;

Your obsession (?) of being able to use old lenses are VERY VERY niche, 99% of people will want auto focus and old Sony body sucks, we all know that.

Also, from what you have posted, and don't take it negatively, the files you posted, the colours from the A7 are frankly unacceptable to me, in my opinion, I would not deliver those to my clients.

But my point was based solely on what he has posted, if that is indicative of what is produced from the A7 with those manual lenses, that is unacceptable.

The only person here that I know uses an A7 and legacy lenses are him. I know of no one else. If those are the resulting images from them…it’s not really a solid argument to get an A7.

If the argument is using those lenses and the A7 can get you great looking images, prove it. Because it is a very hard sell to get someone who is used to using auto focus lenses to drop that habit to go into a system for the reasons of legacy lenses when you can’t even see the fruits on the other side.

Maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental of other photographers who choose to use their camera differently to the way you do.

This is NOT about how you use your gear, I don’t judge how you shoot. will keep it as objective as I can.

Sony colour science between the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be “off”. This isn’t my opinion, this is the opinion of the general community.

Fuji colour science, even from the X-T1 are widely considered to be good, and better than the Sony of that era.

Sony Auto focus in the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be below par of that era.

Fuji auto focus from the X-T1 are considered to be great at the time, and still perfectly acceptable even now.

So it is perfectly logical for someone to suggest NOT getting the Sony A7 for those 2 reasons alone.

The argument is “go manual”. Sure you can do that, but you only have by-passed 1 of the 2 points above, it’s colour science is still below par, accordingly to the community.

And to suggest going manual lenses, then you would go into it wholly knowing the 2 downsides above, then you really have to love manual focusing that much to really sacrifice everything else. That is a niche, wouldn’t you say?

And let me be more clear now, I feel like I am repeating myself here a lot. I am sure you can get good images from it, but so can the Fuji or really most modern cameras, what we are talking here is the original files produced, the colours that comes out of the camera. Because we are talking about the camera, we are not talking about the skill of the photographer after you put it into the computer.

Sony A7/A72 would not get my recommendation given what @wibbly has already to hand.

p.s. at no point here have I talked about what lenses I have. At no point here have I talked about what lenses he should buy or any specific lenses at all. I don’t think I ever have suggested to anyone to buy any AF lenses.

The subject here is purely the A7 and its AF and files.

 

[stevelmx5]

This is NOT about how you use your gear, I don’t judge how you shoot. will keep it as objective as I can.

Sony colour science between the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be “off”. This isn’t my opinion, this is the opinion of the general community.

Fuji colour science, even from the X-T1 are widely considered to be good, and better than the Sony of that era.

Sony Auto focus in the A7 and A72 are widely considered to be below par of that era.

Fuji auto focus from the X-T1 are considered to be great at the time, and still perfectly acceptable even now.

So it is perfectly logical for someone to suggest NOT getting the Sony A7 for those 2 reasons alone.

The argument is “go manual”. Sure you can do that, but you only have by-passed 1 of the 2 points above, it’s colour science is still below par, accordingly to the community.

And to suggest going manual lenses, then you would go into it wholly knowing the 2 downsides above, then you really have to love manual focusing that much to really sacrifice everything else. That is a niche, wouldn’t you say?

And let me be more clear now, I feel like I am repeating myself here a lot. I am sure you can get good images from it, but so can the Fuji or really most modern cameras, what we are talking here is the original files produced, the colours that comes out of the camera. Because we are talking about the camera, we are not talking about the skill of the photographer after you put it into the computer.

Sony A7/A72 would not get my recommendation given what @wibbly has already to hand.

p.s. at no point here have I talked about what lenses I have. At no point here have I talked about what lenses he should buy or any specific lenses at all. I don’t think I ever have suggested to anyone to buy any AF lenses.

The subject here is purely the A7 and its AF and files.

But Wibbly doesn't like the results from his two Fuji bodies (that have the same sensor as the XT-1) so isn't it logical to suggest trying an alternative system, which was the point of their post.

"Go Manual" isn't an argument, it was a suggestion as a way to deliver a specific look that Alan likes for his own photography. We all have a personal style and tend to shoot the same variations of it. Some of us put lens flare in our shots deliberately, some of us choose to shoot in low light etc, we're all different but none of us are essentially right or wrong, that's the point of any creativity.

Whilst you didn't specifically state that Wibbly should only use certain AF lenses, you did completely rule out using manual/legacy lenses because manual focusing is too difficult and you didn't like Alan's images. I've seen many images taken on the latest kit with G-Master lenses that look ordinary at best and exactly the same as every other clinically sharp image all over Flickr at worst so again, it's impossible to generalise. I fully agree that the low light AF on the original A7 can be frustrating and the jpeg output tends to be warmer from early Sony bodies but that's why I'd shoot RAW with custom white balance for anything critical and why I also like to use manual lenses.

 

[jj_glos]

Wow, what a witch hunt. Flame someone for airing their opinion but not the other for having the same opinion about other kit.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But Wibbly doesn't like the results from his two Fuji bodies (that have the same sensor as the XT-1) so isn't it logical to suggest trying an alternative system, which was the point of their post.

"Go Manual" isn't an argument, it was a suggestion as a way to deliver a specific look that Alan likes for his own photography. We all have a personal style and tend to shoot the same variations of it. Some of us put lens flare in our shots deliberately, some of us choose to shoot in low light etc, we're all different but none of us are essentially right or wrong, that's the point of any creativity.

Whilst you didn't specifically state that Wibbly should only use certain AF lenses, you did completely rule out using manual/legacy lenses because manual focusing is too difficult and you didn't like Alan's images. I've seen many images taken on the latest kit with G-Master lenses that look ordinary at best and exactly the same as every other clinically sharp image all over Flickr at worst so again, it's impossible to generalise. I fully agree that the low light AF on the original A7 can be frustrating and the jpeg output tends to be warmer from early Sony bodies but that's why I'd shoot RAW with custom white balance for anything critical and why I also like to use manual lenses.

So he can suggest he should go manual but I can't suggest he shouldn't?

Is that how it works?

And am I not allow to say I don't like the files (in terms of colours/contrast etc) of the files seen in the past from his legacy lenses? Is that considered judgemental? Am I not allowed that opinion?

Can we not ask whether @wibbly wants to shoot manual and put this to bed?

Wibbly asked whether the Sony A7 would be a good buy from what he has now.

My opinion is not, not only based on what Alan has posted, even if you take that out of the equation, but based on the technical aspect of the camera body alone, how is that judgemental?

 

[stevelmx5]

So he can suggest he should go manual but I can't suggest he shouldn't?

Is that how it works?

And am I not allow to say I don't like the files (in terms of colours/contrast etc) of the files seen in the past from his legacy lenses? Is that considered judgemental? Am I not allowed that opinion?

Wibbly asked whether the Sony A7 would be a good buy from what he has now.

My opinion is not, not only based on what Alan has posted, take that out of the equation, but based on the technical aspect of the camera body alone, how is that judgemental?

Of course we can all share opinions, that’s the point of a forum. My issue was the judgemental attitude towards Alan’s images because you don’t personally like them and the fact that you dictated a sweeping suggestion that Alan is the only person using legacy lenses.

Maybe we should agree to disagree from here because we both have different opinions that probably aren’t going to meet in the middle.

 

[stevelmx5]

Wow, what a witch hunt. Flame someone for airing their opinion but not the other for having the same opinion about other kit.

I’m not sure it’s a witch hunt, Alan gave an option of shooting with legacy glass (as he likes them) without being judgemental against people that choose to only shoot AF or the images they share. In contrast, his images were criticised directly and in turn, all legacy/manual lenses were ruled out in a sweeping statement.

I’m only suggesting a little extra consideration of each others’ creative choices.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Of course we can all share opinions, that’s the point of a forum. My issue was the judgemental attitude towards Alan’s images because you don’t personally like them and the fact that you dictated a sweeping suggestion that Alan is the only person using legacy lenses.

Maybe we should agree to disagree from here because we both have different opinions that probably aren’t going to meet in the middle.

I think I have been objective, if anyone taken that wrongly I apologise.

My "judgemental attitude" towards his images are one shared by many. We have commented on the past how they are off in colour, others have pointed it out also, Alan himself has corrected a few as a results of those. I am not sure why they were off, perhaps the A7 files are "off" SOCC, perhaps they do need more work in post. which all supports the point of Sony A7 files and its colour science are not that great in that era of Sony bodies.

As for sweeping generalisation of Alan being the only one using legacy lenses, it is just my observation of what I see in this thread of what is posted recently. Sorry you or anyone else were not included? But the point was Sony A7 colour science of that era needed work.

I don't think anyone is disputing that are we?

And we also agree that the AF is not really that great.

(again, I am not talking about they can't be made to look great, I am talking about what the camera actually produces, not what you do in the computer afterwards)