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

nandbytes said:
Well you'll probably get better results with m43 if you use their really fast lenses. But those cost a huge lot.

Having said that I have shot night sky successfully with f4 lenses on A7RII.
Click to expand...

F1.8 an even f1.4 lenses can be very reasonable both new and especially on the used market but it'll depend on focal length. 17 and 25mm f1.8/f1.4 primes are IMO a bargain for what you get. The wider FoV wide aperture lenses are more expensive but cheaper than some of the FF 24mm f1.4's, the Oly 12mm f2 is IMO a bit of a bargain, maybe.
 
woof woof said:
F1.8 an even f1.4 lenses can be very reasonable both new and especially on the used market but it'll depend on focal length. 17 and 25mm f1.8/f1.4 primes are IMO a bargain for what you get. The wider FoV wide aperture lenses are more expensive but cheaper than some of the FF 24mm f1.4's, the Oly 12mm f2 is IMO a bit of a bargain, maybe.
Click to expand...

Those lenses are not so useful for astrophotography. You'll get better results with a 24mm f2.8 on a recent FF body than with a 12mm f2 on m43.
Panasonic 12mm f1.4 isn't exactly cheap and will only perform as well as a 24mm f2.8 lenses on FF which are cheaper.

I wouldn't buy m43 for astro stuff but if I already had m43 for shooting various other things and wanted to do astro also there are options to do so (and pretty well too).
 
nandbytes said:
Those lenses are not so useful for astrophotography. You'll get better results with a 24mm f2.8 on a recent FF body than with a 12mm f2 on m43.
Panasonic 12mm f1.4 isn't exactly cheap and will only perform as well as a 24mm f2.8 lenses on FF which are cheaper.

I wouldn't buy m43 for astro stuff but if I already had m43 for shooting various other things and wanted to do astro also there are options to do so (and pretty well too).
Click to expand...

They may not be so useful but there are quite a few nice examples on line. I suppose it hangs on what you think is a useful focal length. The point was that there are wide aperture options at pretty decent system costs not that you'll get quality that'll rival the more expensive FF body and lens system. As with other formats the wider you go in FoV and aperture the more expensive it's probably going to be.
 
woof woof said:
They may not be so useful but there are quite a few nice examples on line. I suppose it hangs on what you think is a useful focal length. The point was that there are wide aperture options at pretty decent system costs not that you'll get quality that'll rival the more expensive FF body and lens system. As with other formats the wider you go in FoV and aperture the more expensive it's probably going to be.
Click to expand...

Except with m43 the returns is not worth it for going faster. You might as well go with APS-C/FF.

Compare e-m1ii+25mm/1.2 vs. A7III+FE55 vs. x-t3+35mm f1.4 vs. a6500+touit 32mm/1.8

E-M1II combo doesn't win in size, price or quality. It's pointless buying m43 for going wider in aperture if that's your main use case. There are of course other areas where it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
But Terry already has MFT? Yes? So the question I'd be asking in their place is what can be done with MFT before getting my money out and going for a FF body and lens.

As I've often said, whenever I think the kit is limiting me I look at what others are doing with the same kit and I usually change my mind. For eg there are some really nice MFT 12mm f2 night sky shots out there. If Terry takes a look at what's possible with MFT and does the money sums and isn't happy either way then FF is always there as an option.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
But Terry already has MFT? Yes? So the question I'd be asking in their place is what can be done with MFT before getting my money out and going for a FF body and lens.

As I've often said, whenever I think the kit is limiting me I look at what others are doing with the same kit and I usually change my mind. For eg there are some really nice MFT 12mm f2 night sky shots out there. If Terry takes a look at what's possible with MFT and does the money sums and isn't happy either way then FF is always there as an option.
Click to expand...

If you read my response to him it's mostly along the lines of getting best out of his m43 gear.

I responded to you in relation to someone with no baggage which is just pure discussion about gear, nothing else :D
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I hear what you're both saying but I didn't buy the M43 kit for astro.

I've had some success but I know it'll never compare to an FX sensor (I used my 6D and D750 for astro and enjoyed it)

Milky Way over Tintagel by Terence Rees, on Flickr


I've a pension payout coming and wondering if I can justify a Sony alongside the M43.
Click to expand...

Why not sell m43 and go solo Sony?

Or middle ground with Sony/Fuji APS-C
 
Currently tossing up my options.

Tried Fuji and thought it was okay but couldn't handle the artifacts.

Also Sony lenses are way more money than Olympus / Panasonic.
 
PauBass said:
What sd cards are you guys using on your a9 and a7iii cameras?
Click to expand...

I have a couple of Lexar UHD-II 64G but because I shoot dual cards and one slot is gimped so majority of the time I just put in Sandisk UHS-I 95mb/s cards at 128G size mostly.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I have a couple of Lexar UHD-II 64G but because I shoot dual cards and one slot is gimped so majority of the time I just put in Sandisk UHS-I 95mb/s cards at 128G size mostly.
Click to expand...

I do shoot to both slots too...not sure what you mean by one slot gimped? :)
 
PauBass said:
I do shoot to both slots too...not sure what you mean by one slot gimped? :)
Click to expand...

One is UHS-II and one is UHS-I, so if you shoot dual cards, the speed will be bottled necked by the slower card slot meaning putting UHS-II cards in won't make the write faster as it will wait for UHS-I slot to finish.
 
PauBass said:
What sd cards are you guys using on your a9 and a7iii cameras?
Click to expand...
In have A7RIII, I have two Fuji 32GB UHS-II cards and two adata 64GB cards.

I shoot RAW to UHS-II slot and jpg to UHS-I slot. So there is not much slow down.

Of course jpg isn't exactly replament for RAW but it's better than no photo.
 
Ah, I see know....so no point in spending on Sony G or fast cards then if shooting dual cards if you are shooting RAW to both.

Seems like a good compromise shooting RAW to one UHS-II card and fine Jpeg to a UHS-I. Yes the backup is not a Raw but a fine jpeg is usable enough for most situations.
 
PauBass said:
Ah, I see know....so no point in spending on Sony G or fast cards then if shooting dual cards if you are shooting RAW to both.

Seems like a good compromise shooting RAW to one UHS-II card and fine Jpeg to a UHS-I. Yes the backup is not a Raw but a fine jpeg is usable enough for most situations.
Click to expand...

That's right, if you shoot dual RAW then use UHS-I cards, if RAW+JPEG then a UHS-II and UHS-I combo for best results.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It'll be fine for instagram food photos :p
Click to expand...
Well there are professionals who shoot in time sensitive areas do this because they need to get the photos to clients ASAP or else they lose since someone else will have delivered them, then it's old news. They simply hand over the SD card full of JPGs.

Of course for shooting weddings like you do I'd want dual RAWs.

It's there anyone apart from Fuji who do dual UHSII?
 
Raymond Lin said:
That's right, if you shoot dual RAW then use UHS-I cards, if RAW+JPEG then a UHS-II and UHS-I combo for best results.
Click to expand...

I thought (from earlier threads on the subject), that the dual card slowdown was in part due to the cameras writing first to one card, then to the second?
In which case, although a UHS-II + UHS-I combo will be slower than just the UHS-II in single card mode, it should still be faster than dual UHS-I cards, as the write to the first card will be quicker.

It will also be faster to load the images from the primary card using a suitable card reader if it's the higher spec.
 
Last edited:
Faldrax said:
I thought (from earlier threads on the subject), that the dual card slowdown was in part due to the cameras writing first to one card, then to the second?
In which case, although a UHS-II + UHS-I combo will be slower than just the UHS-II in single card mode, it should still be faster than dual UHS-I cards, as the write to the first card will be quicker.

It will also be faster to load the images from the primary card using a suitable card reader if it's the higher spec.
Click to expand...

I know in the Canon it takes longer to write Raw + Jpeg than Raw into both.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I know in the Canon it takes longer to write Raw + Jpeg than Raw into both.
Click to expand...

That's quite possible, as you have to add in the processing time for the camera to generate the full sized jpeg (applying all camera settings) - of course, the jpeg is also smaller than the raw, so you save some time writing the image...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top