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

also: i think once you use the a9, its a simpy stunning camera to use. in all honestly all of the latest camera's and lenses released from many manufacturers are great.

For me it was always a dream that i can finally afford and buy a sports high end camera.

dont forget i nearly bought the 1dx2 instead
 
jonneymendoza said:
also: i think once you use the a9, its a simpy stunning camera to use. in all honestly all of the latest camera's and lenses released from many manufacturers are great.

For me it was always a dream that i can finally afford and buy a sports high end camera.

dont forget i nearly bought the 1dx2 instead
Click to expand...

Yup, Sonys really come a long way.
 
twist said:
You're the one dismissing DPreview by saying the tests they conducted on the AF system are lab tests because you dont like their comments. You have the opinion yet you dont offer any proof and dont own both cameras either.

You have read the difference is night and day, I have read it isnt.
Click to expand...

Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.
 
Riz_Guru said:
You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)
Click to expand...

My brain likes to tell me a grey market A9 is £2469 and a UK supplied A7 III is £1999, it's trying to sway me to the A9 ;)
 
Riz_Guru said:
The whole A9 vs A7 III debate will always rage on, the A9 is better but for so many different reasons apart from its AF performance.... anybody who thought the A7 III had the identical AF performance like the A9 for £1999 was a little optimistic.

- EVF
- 20 fps
- Deep buffer
- 100% silent shutter (no distortion)
- Drive Mode Dial
- Blackout free EVF
- FTP / RJ45
- 6K -> 4K Recording
- CMOS RS with high response rate

You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)
Click to expand...

Fully agree and I compare the A7III against the 5DMKIV in all honesty but would love to have a go with an A9 to actually run it up against my 1DX MKII.

Biggest problem I have is having come up through most of the 1 series bodies that are built like tanks the Sony’s won’t take the knocks off of pit walls or paddock stands and tool trucks and keep working,have even had water running out the end of the 500 f4 hood while waiting for races to re-start.

My hope was to use the A7III with adapted lenses for grid and pit mainly but the difference using the 70-200 G master is massive for grid and people shots but is lacking for the pace of bikes on track even compared to my 7D MKII with the 70-200 MKII.
Most annoying thing was the delay of the EVF switching on when lifting up to take a picture as I never remember the X-T2 having a similar lag when in boost mode.

I’m not a fanboy of any make to be honest but will use what ever makes my job easier but I still can’t find any one camera that can do this although I would say Sony are now very close.

The A9 ticks many boxes now but lacks that dynamic range given by the A7III,build of the brick like 1 series cameras and controls of the Fuji X-T2.

If I could blend them all together and have a universal lens mount across all cameras I might be happy for a while
 
Last edited:
jj_glos said:
Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.
Click to expand...
relax bro. i dont think @twist trying to diss a9 users.

He actually admires the a9 camera but for his needs, the A7mk3 offers more for him then the A9.

It doesnt mean to him the A9 is a s*** overpriced camera, it just means for his needs, the A9 is not for him.

Anyways yea the A9 is superb. i cant compare with the mk3 though, just the Rmk3 which i have
 
jj_glos said:
Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.
Click to expand...

Im not arguing with myself because Im replying to your responses :D. DP are very good at testing cameras and you said they were lab tests when they weren't.
 
jonneymendoza said:
relax bro. i dont think @twist trying to diss a9 users.

He actually admires the a9 camera but for his needs, the A7mk3 offers more for him then the A9.

It doesnt mean to him the A9 is a s*** overpriced camera, it just means for his needs, the A9 is not for him.

Anyways yea the A9 is superb. i cant compare with the mk3 though, just the Rmk3 which i have
Click to expand...

The A9 is getting nearer the point where for me its possibly worthwhile, the price difference isnt huge so the A9 VFM is better now. But at the same time there are things like DR at base and 10FPS MS that are a7iii benefits. Its a bit tricky as both have pros and cons..... need both :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Well I have never tried an A9 but it does look incredible.

However there are actually things I think I prefer the A73 for (on paper anyway)

I might be in the minority but for some reason I do like the good old mechanical shutter and the fact it does 8fps is great With live view. Also the blackout at 8fps is minimal. Actually don’t think it’s a lot different from a DSLR.

Silent shooting is great, but I choose not too use it all the time. Not because of distortion as from what I have taken nothing is distorted (obviously this is subject dependant).

The 2nd dial looks a bit of an afterthought and half empty. Everything on that dial is easily adjusted at the touch of a button. Would have much preferred a stack design like a DSLR on just one dial.

No doubting the A9 is better and probably would have one instead but I think most users who know what they are doing would be just fine with the A73!
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
relax bro. i dont think @twist trying to diss a9 users.

He actually admires the a9 camera but for his needs, the A7mk3 offers more for him then the A9.

It doesnt mean to him the A9 is a s*** overpriced camera, it just means for his needs, the A9 is not for him.

Anyways yea the A9 is superb. i cant compare with the mk3 though, just the Rmk3 which i have
Click to expand...

I'm fine, I'm not the one getting all bent out of shape.
 
jj_glos said:
You are arguing with yourself, you created a response/lie to argue with.
Click to expand...

Still responding... no lies. I backed it up with quotes from a very well known test site which you didn't like and called them lab tests.

Shall we move on?
 
Last edited:
RPhotos said:
But then if you had used the 24 G master you would of dropped the mic and changed the game ;)

But on a more serious note what was it that made you change your pre order from the sigma to the g master, debating the sigma but no where near the budget for the g master
Click to expand...

I admit it's not really the IQ between them because I've never tried neither before so everything I know is read online and with the Sony being so new to market (me having one of the very first one) there are no comparison from users or reviews online. The reason to get it was base on a few TINY things

1 - I believe in native being best, and for this lens (as opposed to the 105/1.4), the intention of use for this lens is candids so it needs to be fast and I believe the GM will be faster, even if by a fraction
2 - I won't ever have the upgrade urge now ever, knowing myself if I didn't get it, I will forever wanting to try it.
3 - Smaller and lighter is a bonus, I don't think weight is a big factor but I like it being shorter so fits into day bag easier.

The price is hard to swallow being doubled of that of the Sigma, it's probably not great value for money compared to that but I think its better than the Canon version and the Canon version cost the similar. This speaks more about what fantastic value the Sigma is.
 
Last edited:
I don’t agree with the AF in low light comments thought. The A73 for me seems to focus in almost pitch black conditions and continues to fire at 8fps where as my D750 just couldn’t keep up.

I’m getting used to the EVF and the small niggles I have with the camera I am working around.
 
JJ! said:
I don’t agree with the AF in low light comments thought. The A73 for me seems to focus in almost pitch black conditions and continues to fire at 8fps where as my D750 just couldn’t keep up.

I’m getting used to the EVF and the small niggles I have with the camera I am working around.
Click to expand...

I agree the A7III is better than the D750 in low light although it was no slouch either. The A9 is better again but not by much.
 
f/2.8 said:
I agree the A7III is better than the D750 in low light although it was no slouch either. The A9 is better again but not by much.
Click to expand...

We need less in post fighting. Can we get back to bitching the Canon R!?
 
Riz_Guru said:
The whole A9 vs A7 III debate will always rage on, the A9 is better but for so many different reasons apart from its AF performance.... anybody who thought the A7 III had the identical AF performance like the A9 for £1999 was a little optimistic.

- EVF
- 20 fps
- Deep buffer
- 100% silent shutter (no distortion)
- Drive Mode Dial
- Blackout free EVF
- FTP / RJ45
- 6K -> 4K Recording
- CMOS RS with high response rate

You could argue that for the additional £1800-2000 premium, the Sony A9 isn’t worth it over the A7 III.
It comes down to your requirements, others just want the best of the best regardless of the outlay :)
Click to expand...

The video downsample is the exact same AND the A7III has log and picture profiles. It's a far far superior camera for videographers and the main reason I didn't get another A9
 
jj_glos said:
Please do carry on arguing with yourself, inventing your own facts as you wish. No, I don't care at all about DP. I've already said I prefer the testimony of those actually using the camera. I have never said the difference is night and day, that is just an outright lie you have invented to continue your troll argument.
Click to expand...

I've owned both and can't really distinguish any difference in AF. In fairness shooting weddings isn't gonna be the same thing as sports etc
 
F/1.4 said:
Different times pal. The A9s silent mode was much better! The files look almost identical to me too
Click to expand...

Depending on how you shoot, a wedding still gives a camera a really good work out. Okay people are moving much slower, but then they are also moving much more unpredictably which still challenges the AF-C.

Personally I feel that pretty much any modern camera is going to meet my requirements for picture output quality. They've come a long way. I don't shoot landscapes or really push files around though.
 
If you are in to fast sports then get an A9.

If you are doing slower sports which is what I do, the A73 works perfectly.

If you want a good all round Camera, you can’t go wrong with either!

Do I wish I had the better EVF. ABSOLUTELY! But can’t have it all!
 
JJ! said:
If you are in to fast sports then get an A9.

If you are doing slower sports which is what I do, the A73 works perfectly.

If you want a good all round Camera, you can’t go wrong with either!

Do I wish I had the better EVF. ABSOLUTELY! But can’t have it all!
Click to expand...

The money I saved went towards all the overpriced Sony glass :p j/k
 
Is anyone having problem with LR reading the serial number in the metadata of the camera?

VIaWql2.png
 
Last edited:
Ups, sorry, I did not want to open the can of worms here. I only talked about my experience as someone asked on a post a couple of pages back.

Extremely low light venue, people moving around, not posed shots, the a7iii would not focus or would struggle, whilst the a9 did really well, it was a huge difference!

I did not buy the a9 because of the AF, but I was pleasantly surprised by it. The camera is so much quicker and snappier and an overall, to me, a better and faster user experience.
Obviously they are aimed for different purposes so one does not substitutes the other.

Original poster asked in relation to sports and that was my opinion based on that.

I have also used the a9 for landscapes since then, I would say the dynamic range in reality is more than enough.

Am I happy with a7iii? Of course I am, it is a great camera.
Am I OK having spent the extra money on a used a9 over a new a7iii? Yes, I do honestly think the price difference is well worth it iot just for the AF.

Which camera would I keep If I could only have one? The a9 now that I have it.

JJ! said:
No doubting the A9 is better and probably would have one instead but I think most users who know what they are doing would be just fine with the A73!
Click to expand...


Thanks for that..... glad to know I have no idea of what I'm doing! :p
 
Last edited:
PauBass said:
Ups, sorry, I did not want to open the can of worms here. I only talked about my experience as someone asked on a post a couple of pages back.

Extremely low light venue, people moving around, not posed shots, the a7iii would not focus or would struggle, whilst the a9 did really well, it was a huge difference!

I did not buy the a9 because of the AF, but I was pleasantly surprised by it. The camera is so much quicker and snappier and an overall, to me, a better and faster user experience.
Obviously they are aimed for different purposes so one does not substitutes the other.

Original poster asked in relation to sports and that was my opinion based on that.

I have also used the a9 for landscapes since then, I would say the dynamic range in reality is more than enough.

Am I happy with a7iii? Of course I am, it is a great camera.
Am I OK having spent the extra money on a used a9 over a new a7iii? Yes, I do honestly think the price difference is well worth it iot just for the AF.

Which camera would I keep If I could only have one? The a9 now that I have it.




Thanks for that..... glad to know I have no idea of what I'm doing! :p
Click to expand...

Oops that came across so wrong!

For the record I am one of those people! It will take a while to get used to camera!
 
3 year warranty is worth the extra. Especially as it will be repaired here and think the other place you have to send back to HK.
 
JJ! said:
3 year warranty is worth the extra. Especially as it will be repaired here and think the other place you have to send back to HK.
Click to expand...

Do you have to pay the repair place upfront and Panamoz reimburse you or do they pay for the repair direct.
 
NewBeetle said:
Do you have to pay the repair place upfront and Panamoz reimburse you or do they pay for the repair direct.
Click to expand...
I think I've heard that sometimes Panamoz will sometimes price match so they might match e-infinity at £2,469. Worth dropping them an email if you are thinking of buying
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top