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

Riz_Guru said:
The Sony FE 70-200mm f4 is a wonderful lens mate, I think the GM is better obviously because its f2.8 and better built.
However if you need to walk about a lot, the f4 is hard to discount.

Prime example, I am off to Dubai soon and I won't be taking my FE 70-200mm f2.8 GM, yes when I went previously I happily took my 70-200mm f4 :D
Click to expand...
Is the iq comparable?
 
Teeny tiny flowers with my Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 at f22 but still not enough depth.

s-DSC01343.jpg

100% from that.

t-DSC01343-C.jpg

Funny how you can get used to focal lengths. I've been using 35mm a bit and even going to 40mm I was missing the 35mm :D
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
dxo isn't a good source for lens comparisons tbh. Too many discrepancies and contradictions.
Click to expand...
I know, but there's nothing else really to gauge it from. Looking at real world examples there's too many variables so test scores like this are probably the best source of a direct comparison, although as you say still not perfect.
 
snerkler said:
I know, but there's nothing else really to gauge it from.
Click to expand...

I'd be amazed if a few score points on a scale meant anything in the real world, technique would probably obliterate the difference anyway. Maybe I'm just not very fussy but very few lenses are even remotely approaching poor these days, so I just buy on focal length, AF speed and price.

I've never met a single client who'd care if my lens had a lower DXO score than something else :)
 
ukaskew said:
I'd be amazed if a few score points on a scale meant anything in the real world, technique would probably obliterate the difference anyway. Maybe I'm just not very fussy but very few lenses are even remotely approaching poor these days, so I just buy on focal length, AF speed and price.

I've never met a single client who'd care if my lens had a lower DXO score than something else :)
Click to expand...
No, I'm totally with you on that one. Was just trying to answer Jonney's question ;)
 
ukaskew said:
I've never met a single client who'd care if my lens had a lower DXO score than something else :)
Click to expand...

Maybe they wouldn't but I can imagine you or others going above and beyond what the client wants and will pay for just for your own reasons and if you enjoyed knowing that your lens was the sharpest or most bokeholicios ever that may make it worth the money and research time spent Googling even if no one else ever notices :D

With modern lenses I buy as much on the spec as anything else and for me it's mostly aperture range and focal length as a starting point, then the bulk and weight with the look and quality and the cost following on and deciding then on the package as a whole. With older lenses I'm much more interested in the look.
 
I guess I belong here now! Sold my old kit (D700 + glass, NEX 6) and got myself an A7III just over a month ago. Loving it so far, I was used to the Sony systems having owned the older Nex camera, but this is something else. Loving the new sensor too.
I only have the FE 16-35 f/4 at the moment but I will soon be getting a longer lens. Looking around at the 85 to 105mm prime options.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Is the iq comparable?
Click to expand...
Just been trying my 70-200 GM today. It's definitely sharper at 200mm and focussing feels faster also to focus! It's definitely a lens that's a grade or two above the 70-200 f4.
Unlike f4 version (and 100-400FM) the GM doesn't extend when zooming. So at 200mm the F4 version might actually be longer than GM.
The rendering and bokeh is very nice on the GM too.
 
IgorFB said:
I guess I belong here now! Sold my old kit (D700 + glass, NEX 6) and got myself an A7III just over a month ago. Loving it so far, I was used to the Sony systems having owned the older Nex camera, but this is something else. Loving the new sensor too.
I only have the FE 16-35 f/4 at the moment but I will soon be getting a longer lens. Looking around at the 85 to 105mm prime options.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the dark side :D

There are plenty of options in that focal range depending on your budget and size
 
nandbytes said:
Just been trying my 70-200 GM today. It's definitely sharper at 200mm and focussing feels faster also to focus! It's definitely a lens that's a grade or two above the 70-200 f4.
Unlike f4 version (and 100-400FM) the GM doesn't extend when zooming. So at 200mm the F4 version might actually be longer than GM.
The rendering and bokeh is very nice on the GM too.
Click to expand...
Well my tune may change because I'm currently in talks with a local football league to photograph the games and work on my personal project about it so the gm one I would get but I will need to shift my canon version first
 
jonneymendoza said:
Well my tune may change because I'm currently in talks with a local football league to photograph the games and work on my personal project about it so the gm one I would get but I will need to shift my canon version first
Click to expand...
Want to exchange mine for your 100-400mm? ;)
 
macvisual said:
Is the A7R III worth the extra bucks compared to the II version ?
Click to expand...

I was in the same position Pete and I ended up getting the III.
In my very limited experience of using both cameras it seems to me that you paying extra for the better AF, better handling, better battery life and to me the viewfinder seems better.
The IQ is the same.
Wether it's worth the extra is down to your needs I think, I can remember trying the II eighteen months and after coming from the Fuji I really did not like the way it handled, the body actually had a fault with the IBIS so when I had the chance of getting a refund I did and stuck with the Fuji. Now with hindsight I'm sure if I had got a replacement I would have got use to it a fact borne out by me nearly getting another one.
But I did find swapping to the III much easier and that was coming from what I consider to the best handling camera I have used the X-H1. It was all helped by me borrowing a mates A7RIII and 24-105 for a couple of days a few weeks back so at least I had some idea what I was getting into.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I was in the same position Pete and I ended up getting the III.
In my very limited experience of using both cameras it seems to me that you paying extra for the better AF, better handling, better battery life and to me the viewfinder seems better.
The IQ is the same.
Wether it's worth the extra is down to your needs I think, I can remember trying the II eighteen months and after coming from the Fuji I really did not like the way it handled, the body actually had a fault with the IBIS so when I had the chance of getting a refund I did and stuck with the Fuji. Now with hindsight I'm sure if I had got a replacement I would have got use to it a fact borne out by me nearly getting another one.
But I did find swapping to the III much easier and that was coming from what I consider to the best handling camera I have used the X-H1. It was all helped by me borrowing a mates A7RIII and 24-105 for a couple of days a few weeks back so at least I had some idea what I was getting into.
Click to expand...

IQ is slightly better. Especially the noise pattern is much nicer and easier to remove. The colour science has much improved and it's nearly there now.
While I wouldn't buy MK3 just for these they are nice additions with the rest you mentioned.
Also coming from Fuji who have their colour science nailed down I am sure you'd appreciate improvement in that area ;)
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Please post that in the Nikon mirrorless thread :LOL:
Click to expand...

How is that relevant to a camera that’s not even out? Olympus and Canon are still this market leaders in mirrorless globally I believe which is more relevant at this point in time :D

Riz_Guru said:
The Sony FE 70-200mm f4 is a wonderful lens mate, I think the GM is better obviously because its f2.8 and better built.
However if you need to walk about a lot, the f4 is hard to discount.

Prime example, I am off to Dubai soon and I won't be taking my FE 70-200mm f2.8 GM, yes when I went previously I happily took my 70-200mm f4 :D
Click to expand...

The GM was a lovely bit of kit. IQ on par with the Nikon ED I have. I would say a bit better built too. Silky smooth zoom and focus rings but with slightly worse paint job.

Never tried the F4, didn’t realise it extended in use though.
 
nandbytes said:
IQ is slightly better. Especially the noise pattern is much nicer and easier to remove. The colour science has much improved and it's nearly there now.
While I wouldn't buy MK3 just for these they are nice additions with the rest you mentioned.
Also coming from Fuji who have their colour science nailed down I am sure you'd appreciate improvement in that area ;)
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention the colour it is to my eye better, personally I find skin tones to be very nice now on the III and I do appreciate it, mind still miss the Fuji colours and film sims at the minute.
I did read that they improved the noise read out from the sensor ( not remotely the correct term) which I presume that accounts for the improvement.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Now one of these have to go…

hOc43OV.jpg
Click to expand...

Surely just pick the one you use the least? Or if you need funds the one that will get the most!
 
macvisual said:
As I don't know the Sony system very well, what's the average price of a good condition A7R II body please ?

Peter
Click to expand...
I've got one to sell so please stick something in the Classified/Wanted section if you decide not to go for the III.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top