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

Personally I think that anyone heavily invested in a either Canon or Nikon it's a no brainier to be get the relevant mirror less offering if they are after a mirrorless camera, let's face they any camera produced in the last 10 years is capable of producing stunning work.
It's people who have a few lenses who in my opinion who are more likely to switch systems so why wouldn't a Canon shooter who fits in to this criteria look at the Nikon and vice versa. I know if that was me I would be looking at all the options.
I'm all in favour of different systems getting talked about in camera threads I know if I was in the market I would be reading theses threads and the more info the better.

I think that the view that any camera is good enough is maybe true for many of us but some people do use the more advanced features to good effect and for these people some kit clearly has an advantage... for example the Sony eye AF may be very useful for wedding guys and the super duper AF performance, frame rate and silent shooting of the A9 must be advantages for others. If there's something you need to get a particular result then there is surely a difference in the kit and an advantage in changing systems sometimes for some people who want the abilities the kit brings and are able to use it.
 
Personally I think that anyone heavily invested in a either Canon or Nikon it's a no brainier to be get the relevant mirror less offering if they are after a mirrorless camera, let's face they any camera produced in the last 10 years is capable of producing stunning work.
It's people who have a few lenses who in my opinion who are more likely to switch systems so why wouldn't a Canon shooter who fits in to this criteria look at the Nikon and vice versa. I know if that was me I would be looking at all the options.
I'm all in favour of different systems getting talked about in camera threads I know if I was in the market I would be reading theses threads and the more info the better.

Is it though or is it better to ditch the dying mount before prices plummet?
Whichever way you look at it, both the traditional Nikon and Canon mounts will eventually become like the Sony A-Mount.
I don’t buy the “use your old lenses on the new body” approach as that’s just a short-term approach to saving some costs. Native lenses will always have advantages on many different fronts..... :)
 
Personally I think that anyone heavily invested in a either Canon or Nikon it's a no brainier to be get the relevant mirror less offering if they are after a mirrorless camera, let's face they any camera produced in the last 10 years is capable of producing stunning work.
It's people who have a few lenses who in my opinion who are more likely to switch systems so why wouldn't a Canon shooter who fits in to this criteria look at the Nikon and vice versa. I know if that was me I would be looking at all the options.
I'm all in favour of different systems getting talked about in camera threads I know if I was in the market I would be reading theses threads and the more info the better.

People take photographs, not cameras. Absolutely agree that any camera from any manufacturer in the right hands is capable of taking great photographs.

Choosing a camera or system isn't just about image quality any more though and hasn't been for a long time. It's about finding something that best suits what your needs/wants are and there is no such thing as the perfect camera.

For me personally I wanted a mirrorless system as I liked the evf and the ability to see the exposure and depth of field before taking hitting the shutter button.

It then came down to a choice of the current options that are available. I held of deciding until Nikon & Canon's specs for their new mirror less options where released before making a decision on what suited me best.

It took some persuading for me to ditch Nikon after the best part of 20 years but there mirrorless option just didn't suit my requirements.

It would have been easier and much cheaper to stay with Nikon and keep the lenses etc. that I already had but the one card slot thing killed any chance of staying with Nikon stone dead straight away so it absolutely isn't a no brainer for everyone to just stick with Nikon or Canon.

I could have made the decision just to stick with what I had which worked well until Nikon eventually offered the same advantages as the current Sony options, but that would have mean't waiting possibly another 1-2 years and that wasn't something I wanted to do.

I was especially disappointed in the Nikon offering as it really brought nothing new to the table at all. At least Canon to be fair to them, have some exciting lenses and added a few new features like the shutter closing when changing lenses. Neither of the Canon or Nikon offerings offered anything like what I wanted from a new camera body. The Sony options came closest for what I wanted so I jumped ship to them.

I can't see any advantage for anyone that choose Nikon or Canon mirrorless over Sony other than ergonomics are better and it may be cheaper in terms of being able to use there current lenses via an adaptor.
 
Is it though or is it better to ditch the dying mount before prices plummet?
Whichever way you look at it, both the traditional Nikon and Canon mounts will eventually become like the Sony A-Mount.
I don’t buy the “use your old lenses on the new body” approach as that’s just a short-term approach to saving some costs. Native lenses will always have advantages on many different fronts..... :)

But reports from using EF lenses on the R is that there isn’t a trade off in performance and canon have stated that the MkIII lenses will have a performance advantage even using the adaptor.

I’ve briefly used an A9 and thought it was pretty good. I’d buy one but the prices of their long lenses make it just financially not viable to change for a small improvement in performance. Perhaps eventually they will bring out the same focal lengths f4/f5.6 and then I might be interested. But by the time that happens Canon will probably have something competitive out and the whole shall I shan’t I process starts again.
 
Personally I would go the Sony A7R II route, the RX1 RII is just too expensive for what it is in my opinion and the battery life isn’t great.
The added flexibility of having a changeable mount could prove useful later down the line.... for a small setup I would go for the Sony A7R II, Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and Zeiss 55mm f1.8, both great lenses, with that massive 42.2mp resolution you could then use APS-C crop mode to give you a long length on the 55mm. :)

I keep looking at the RX1 cameras but looking at the size differences on the comparator site the A7's seem to be more or less just the evf hump bigger and have the advantages of being cheaper and allowing lens changes and IMO as none of these cameras are truly pocketable (for me) and need to be in a small bag I reasoned that if I was going to take a camera in a bag it may as well be an A7 for cost and flexibility reasons. The RX1 cameras do have that nice lens though.

The camera size comparison site is what I use and it seems like it's really only the EVF hump thats the major difference (and depth of lens by a small margin on the 35/2.8). There's also the IBIS in the A7Rii to consider as a plus. Honestly it's stupid, I just keep turning myself round in circles trying to figure out which camera it is that's gonna work best for me and what I want (50D is sitting gather dust as it's always "just too big" to take out, hence the quest for something smaller...). Thanks for the responses so far.
 
Last edited:
The camera size comparison site is what I use and it seems like it's really only the EVF hump thats the major difference (and depth of lens by a small margin on the 35/2.8). There's also the IBIS in the A7Rii to consider as a plus. Honestly it's stupid, I just keep turning myself round in circles trying to figure out which camera it is that's gonna work best for me and what I want (50D is sitting gather dust as it's always "just too big" to take out, hence the quest for something smaller...). Thanks for the responses so far.

One thing that swung it for me was that I wanted to use old film era lenses and of course that's a doddle on the A7 but slightly more difficult on the RX1 :D
 
But reports from using EF lenses on the R is that there isn’t a trade off in performance and canon have stated that the MkIII lenses will have a performance advantage even using the adaptor.

I’ve briefly used an A9 and thought it was pretty good. I’d buy one but the prices of their long lenses make it just financially not viable to change for a small improvement in performance. Perhaps eventually they will bring out the same focal lengths f4/f5.6 and then I might be interested. But by the time that happens Canon will probably have something competitive out and the whole shall I shan’t I process starts again.

This where a lot of people are going wrong especially in the Canon thread, yes there might be no performance disadvantages (trade offs) of EF lenses when compared to how they perform on their existing DSLR bodies, however compare them with native RF lenses and It’ll be a different story.
If EF lenses were that good and couldn’t be improved on, Canon wouldn’t have invented a new RF mount.
The RF mount brings new advantages which can only be taken advantage of with newly designed native RF lenses.

People forget that they also need to add the adaptor which makes the lens longer in length too.

If you want the best possible setup, buy native RF mount.
 
The camera size comparison site is what I use and it seems like it's really only the EVF hump thats the major difference (and depth of lens by a small margin on the 35/2.8). There's also the IBIS in the A7Rii to consider as a plus. Honestly it's stupid, I just keep turning myself round in circles trying to figure out which camera it is that's gonna work best for me and what I want (50D is sitting gather dust as it's always "just too big" to take out, hence the quest for something smaller...). Thanks for the responses so far.

Actually I've just remembered something else.

One thing that makes me nervous about spending a lot on a fixed lens camera is the possibility of getting dust bunnies. I know that with a fixed lens camera dust bunnies should be unlikely but it could happen or at least it could in my mind and if it does happen it's going to be an expensive fix not an easy clean as it is with a removeable lens camera. Dust bunnies may be unlikely and even very unlikely with a fixed lens camera and especially with one with a prime rather than a dust pumping zoom but once the thought enters my mind it's difficult to ignore.

Sorry if that puts you off :D
 
This where a lot of people are going wrong especially in the Canon thread, yes there might be no performance disadvantages (trade offs) of EF lenses when compared to how they perform on their existing DSLR bodies, however compare them with native RF lenses and It’ll be a different story.
If EF lenses were that good and couldn’t be improved on, Canon wouldn’t have invented a new RF mount.
The RF mount brings new advantages which can only be taken advantage of with newly designed native RF lenses.

People forget that they also need to add the adaptor which makes the lens longer in length too.

If you want the best possible setup, buy native RF mount.

And of course as time moves on there'll very probably be more new mirrorless lenses released and over time fewer new or updated DSLR lenses.
 
This where a lot of people are going wrong especially in the Canon thread, yes there might be no performance disadvantages (trade offs) of EF lenses when compared to how they perform on their existing DSLR bodies, however compare them with native RF lenses and It’ll be a different story.
If EF lenses were that good and couldn’t be improved on, Canon wouldn’t have invented a new RF mount.
The RF mount brings new advantages which can only be taken advantage of with newly designed native RF lenses.

People forget that they also need to add the adaptor which makes the lens longer in length too.

If you want the best possible setup, buy native RF mount.

I disagree. The priority for Canon was to give EF users equal performance to that they experience on a DSLR. They want to keep their customer base. Any other performance advantage for R lenses such as in lens IS which now appears to be as good as if not better than IBIS is always going to be welcome. Everything can be improved.
 
I disagree. The priority for Canon was to give EF users equal performance to that they experience on a DSLR. They want to keep their customer base. Any other performance advantage for R lenses such as in lens IS which now appears to be as good as if not better than IBIS is always going to be welcome. Everything can be improved.

Nobody is arguing that performance isn’t as good as if they were mounted on DSLR bodies, what I was trying to convey is that if you want the best out of the RF system, buy RF lenses, after all the bigger mount is touted as given Canon better options to design better / faster lenses etc. Something which can’t be done on the old EF mount. [emoji4]

Regarding IS or IBIS, having both is better.... Only having IS doesn’t give you every axis of stability so not quite sure how it can be better than IBIS.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is arguing that performance isn’t as good as if they were mounted on DSLR bodies, what I was trying to convey is that if you want the best out of the RF system, buy RF lenses, after all the bigger mount is touted as given Canon better options to design better / faster lenses etc. Something which can’t be done on the old EF mount. :)

I have my doubts that Canon will be producing long focal length lenses in RF mount very soon.

Anyway, the Sony A9 was impressive but just too much cash to spend for the gain. If I didn’t use a 500 than maybe.
 
I’ll take Robins assessment in the real world rather than some blogger who can’t be bothered to leave the house.

You should keep an open view when it comes to camera reviews, it’s best to test it for yourself and ultimately you should decided based on your own results. :)
 
Even if I was still just a dslr canon shooter I would not bother for my needs as its a downgrade for me and instead would have looked at other systems to see what they have.

Be open minded
 
I found the opposite and I had 5x d750 :confused:

I always shot at -0.7 exposure compensation with the D750, did the same at a wedding with the A73 and loads of shots are really dark SOOC.

Doesn't help that it was a sunny day so I had to have the monitor on bright
 
I always shot at -0.7 exposure compensation with the D750, did the same at a wedding with the A73 and loads of shots are really dark SOOC.

Doesn't help that it was a sunny day so I had to have the monitor on bright

I always had to +EV in post with the d750. It annoyed me a little.
 
I always had to +EV in post with the d750. It annoyed me a little.


I pretty much always felt I had to shoot the D750 in manual to avoid burning the highlights.

Not having the same issue with the A7III seems the metering is better.
 
I pretty much always felt I had to shoot the D750 in manual to avoid burning the highlights.

Not having the same issue with the A7III seems the metering is better.

Interesting, always felt the 750 was fine in that regard. Plenty of latitude too, if needed.
 
Anyone else find the A73 under exposes? (certainly more than the D750)

The D750 always overexposed and I also ran it at -.7EV by default, and then pulled the detail back.

With the Sony bodies you don't need to. The metering is way better anyway, and the files prefer to be exposed to the middle or slightly to the right and pull back the highlights. I run mine at 0.0EV. With the real-time metering in the EVF there's way more accuracy now. Just make sure you're watching the histogram in real-time rather than deriving what you think you're getting from the EVF (if that makes sense).
 
I couldn't resist any longer. Just wanted to be sure that I was happy with the A73 first. I have the 85G still to get rid of though.

You might want to keep that. I really regret selling my FE85 f/1.8.

It's an excellent lens and with it being so light weight it means I don't take an 85mm with me when I shoot stuff for myself as the 85GM is only lugged around for work.
 
5406244.P3.png

Just ordered a Swarovski T2 adaptor for my CTS 85 drawscope. Bit of fun as it will be a manual 800mm for snapping birdies (have used it previously on my old Nikon which made it a 1200mm!)
 
Back
Top