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

As a break from my normal postings, I managed to get to YWP today and play with the 100-400. I also decided to test the Super-35 mode and was impressed with how useful it is. Although I’ve decided that the menu button is in the wrong place on the A7Riim it would also be helpful to be able to ad=sign it to a custom button or function menu. Anyway here are a couple

Untitled by Chris Heathcote, on Flickr

Untitled by Chris Heathcote, on Flickr
 
Shoot Em Up said:
Just out of interest, what Nikon kit did you have and why are you changing?
Click to expand...
I had the D750 and Nikon 85mm 1.8 and 35 sigma 1.4. I still have a d7100 and 50mm 1.4 as a second body

Main reasons to switching is silent shooting (although prob won’t use this that much), but biggest thing is being able to use the back of the screen for different angels and being able to see exposure before I take the pics, should open up time for more creativeness. I’d like to get a smaller walk around lens too, D750 was a little bulk for every day use, although appreciate there’s not going to be much in it with the sigma 35 on the a7iii.

Heard rumours of the d760 announcement next month so thought I’d sell before losts of people start selling theirs for an upgrade
 
trevorbray said:
It’s been clipped (haircut)
Click to expand...

Poor thing, reminded me of.... does it make them faster?

index-35.jpg
 
Anybody else see this?
https://www.sonyrumors.co/new-rumored-specs-of-sony-a7000/

I think this could complete my line-up if it is true. I currently have the A7rii which I love, my only criticism is the af tracking for wildlife and sometimes its nice to have the extra reach. I recently tried the crop mode and whilst it is great, if I then need to crop further I am losing a lot of pixels. A 32mp APSC with A9 AF and zero blackout would be great for wildlife and sports. I had thought of adding the 1.4x to add to the 100-400 when needed, but the loss of 1 stop puts me off.

Again the APSC with 32mp along with the 100-400 could prove to be a great set-up, leaving the A7 for landscapes, family etc

EDIT: Since discovered that those specs were fake, but hey it would be nice ;)
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
Anybody else see this?
https://www.sonyrumors.co/new-rumored-specs-of-sony-a7000/

I think this could complete my line-up if it is true. I currently have the A7rii which I love, my only criticism is the af tracking for wildlife and sometimes its nice to have the extra reach. I recently tried the crop mode and whilst it is great, if I then need to crop further I am losing a lot of pixels. A 32mp APSC with A9 AF and zero blackout would be great for wildlife and sports. I had thought of adding the 1.4x to add to the 100-400 when needed, but the loss of 1 stop puts me off.

Again the APSC with 32mp along with the 100-400 could prove to be a great set-up, leaving the A7 for landscapes, family etc
Click to expand...
But I just read in another thread that your "GAS had subsided!" :eek: ;) :LOL:
 
redhed17 said:
But I just read in another thread that your "GAS had subsided!" :eek: ;) :LOL:
Click to expand...

It has, I also said that I too like shiny new things ;)

Joking aside, my original plan when I switched from Canon was to have the Sony for general use, landscape etc and a Canon 7D2 for wildlife and motorsport. However I fell in love with the Sony the only downside to the Sony is the reach (not as bad due to the high MP and ability to crop heavily) and the af tracking.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Anybody else see this?
https://www.sonyrumors.co/new-rumored-specs-of-sony-a7000/

I think this could complete my line-up if it is true. I currently have the A7rii which I love, my only criticism is the af tracking for wildlife and sometimes its nice to have the extra reach. I recently tried the crop mode and whilst it is great, if I then need to crop further I am losing a lot of pixels. A 32mp APSC with A9 AF and zero blackout would be great for wildlife and sports. I had thought of adding the 1.4x to add to the 100-400 when needed, but the loss of 1 stop puts me off.

Again the APSC with 32mp along with the 100-400 could prove to be a great set-up, leaving the A7 for landscapes, family etc

EDIT: Since discovered that those specs were fake, but hey it would be nice ;)
Click to expand...
Don't let the extra stop put you off, I got the 1.4x as soon as I could after getting the 100-400 and it hasn't come off. The sensor is excellent in coping with the higher ISO required.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
It has, I also said that I too like shiny new things ;)

Joking aside, my original plan when I switched from Canon was to have the Sony for general use, landscape etc and a Canon 7D2 for wildlife and motorsport. However I fell in love with the Sony the only downside to the Sony is the reach (not as bad due to the high MP and ability to crop heavily) and the af tracking.
Click to expand...
Have you thought about the A7R3? So far I’ve found the AF to be quite good on it (I’ve been photographing fishing otters and not found it lacking yet). I gather there were some good improvements over the previous model.


footman said:
Don't let the extra stop put you off, I got the 1.4x as soon as I could after getting the 100-400 and it hasn't come off. The sensor is excellent in coping with the higher ISO required.
Click to expand...
I would be intrigued to try the 100-400 with 1.4 TC myself (still looking at potential places to buy). With a 1.4TC I could see it being potentially limiting for me being f8. Previously I used to used the f4-f5.6 range quite a bit on a 200-400 to get reasonable shutter speeds so f8 could be a struggle.

I know we say the sensors have pretty good high ISO ability but I’ve yet to really try that out in really poor light. In good light I’ve never been too worried to really bump up ISO wheni want to get a very high shutter speed (1/2000 or 1/4000) but the same ISO in really low light when you are wide open and struggling for a reasonable shutter speed (1/100 or 1/200) ISO performance can potentially be quite different.



I’ve started to query the whole ‘not got enough focal length for wildlife’ thought over the past few years. I know there are times when I think a subject would potentially be too far away but I try to pick and choose subjects concentrating on ones that are within my ‘range’. I think think that once you get that little extra you will always want a little more. I’ve seen some fantastic images that are taken with shorter focal lengths that make you think you don’t always need a really long lens. I guess it’s the same thought that landscape photographs should be wide or ultra wide, a telephoto lens can be fantastic for landscapes and are often overlooked.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
Have you thought about the A7R3? So far I’ve found the AF to be quite good on it (I’ve been photographing fishing otters and not found it lacking yet). I gather there were some good improvements over the previous model.
Click to expand...

I have contemplated it and very almost did it, however although there are some significant gains and yes the AF would suffice, I would still be lacking the additional reach and pixel density of the APS-c. Therefore an crop version of the A9 would be awesome
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
The UK countryside never fails to amaze me, how much beauty there is on our doorstep. Anyway decided to take a family trip to the Peak District, I really do enjoy the 16-35mm f4

Dovedale by Chris Heathcote, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Peak District is not actually a place to door step away for us in london. It's actually quicker and sometimes cheaper to go to say marseille and trek over there!

Great image though
 
jonneymendoza said:
Peak District is not actually a place to door step away for us in london. It's actually quicker and sometimes cheaper to go to say marseille and trek over there!

Great image though
Click to expand...

I was going to say you are crazy but I have travelled to Italy and back for £42 while the trains to get anywhere in this country is silly expensive.
 
nandbytes said:
I was going to say you are crazy but I have travelled to Italy and back for £42 while the trains to get anywhere in this country is silly expensive.
Click to expand...
Yup exactly.

I went mersielle last year for 80 quid return?

Stayed at a massive airbnb apartment with friends paying no more than 20 quid each a night and the mountain range there is spectacular with better weather.

The government need to get there s*** together and make railway prices half of what it is
 
nandbytes said:
I was going to say you are crazy but I have travelled to Italy and back for £42 while the trains to get anywhere in this country is silly expensive.
Click to expand...
Done similar, flew to Amsterdam for £55 return and it was great, that was a few years ago now though.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yup exactly.

I went mersielle last year for 80 quid return?

Stayed at a massive airbnb apartment with friends paying no more than 20 quid each a night and the mountain range there is spectacular with better weather.

The government need to get there s*** together and make railway prices half of what it is
Click to expand...

It's not just the cost it's the time spent travelling.

Manchester to home takes about three hours, you can be where in the world in that time. Coming back to the UK the final train journey is a killer.
 
woof woof said:
It's not just the cost it's the time spent travelling.

Manchester to home takes about three hours, you can be where in the world in that time. Coming back to the UK the final train journey is a killer.
Click to expand...
Yea that also. It took me 8h to get to lake district from london a few years ago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top