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

nandbytes said:
longer you resist more painful and expensive it will be.
like ripping a bandaid. do it quick ;)
Click to expand...
Lol. As I keep saying it’s only an itch, if I was ‘desperate’ to do it I would and would go without certain lenses for a while. However, I’m pretty sure Nikon will bring something out that has A7iii performance or better and when they do I’ll be wanting that ;)
 
snerkler said:
Lol. As I keep saying it’s only an itch, if I was ‘desperate’ to do it I would and would go without certain lenses for a while. However, I’m pretty sure Nikon will bring something out that has A7iii performance or better and when they do I’ll be wanting that ;)
Click to expand...

Then Sony be even better
 
The online photographer has a link for a vid of a dye transfer print being made.

This is a link to the page, note that if you click on the "The second one" link I think it starts to download the vid. Sadly I don't think you can view it on the site. Anyway, if anyone wants to see it here's a link to the site where you can clicky on the linky..

https://theonlinephotographer.typep...-is-a-nice-surprise-josh-reichmann-son-o.html
 
nandbytes said:
think the sun has fried your brains ;)

life's too short to be hoping and waiting :D
Click to expand...
Well it’s pretty much a cert, unless they go bust of course ;)
rookies said:
Then Sony be even better
Click to expand...
Probably, but would I need that? My D750 pretty much nailed everything, the A7iii is apparently better than that so it’d be more than adequate. Having the best of the best AF system sure is nice, but it’s not the be all and end all and certainly not essential. I don’t see many A7iii owners complaining, whilst not the best of the best it’s pretty damn good ;)

Blackout free shooting’s a nice thing to have I must admit, but I’m a bit doubtful that Nikon will introduce that anytime soon.
 
snerkler said:
I’m pretty sure Nikon will bring something out that has A7iii performance or better and when they do I’ll be wanting that ;)
Click to expand...

Probably 6 months after the A7 IV get's released and makes the gap even larger ;)
 
NewBeetle said:
Probably 6 months after the A7 IV get's released and makes the gap even larger ;)
Click to expand...

I think A7IV will come first. It's pretty clear to me they are trying to keep ahead of the curve. They released A7III is bit of a hurry and the CEO commented that he expected canikon to join in later last year which they did.
They released A7RIV before others had a chance to significantly beat A7RIII. Sure canon may come out with an 80mp body but a lot is unknown. who is going to wait year and a half for it.

I am not sure why they are lagging behind in APS-C. Even canon has caught up!
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I think A7IV will come first. It's pretty clear to me they are trying to keep ahead of the curve. They released A7III is bit of a hurry and the CEO commented that he expected canikon to join in later last year which they did.
They released A7RIV before others had a chance to significantly beat A7RIII. Sure canon may come out with an 80mp body but a lot is unknown. who is going to wait year and a half for it.

I am not sure why they are lagging behind in APS-C. Even canon has caught up!
Click to expand...

I am all bodied out and would like see some new lenses.

35 GM
50 GM

Sigma 150-600mm or Tamron 150-600

Would buy all 3 of these.
 
f/2.8 said:
I am all bodied out and would like see some new lenses.

35 GM
50 GM

Sigma 150-600mm or Tamron 150-600

Would buy all 3 of these.
Click to expand...

There are options now
The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens. So is the sigma ART 35mm F1.2.

The Sony 200-600mm is also rather good. It's best of the bunch and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
 
nandbytes said:
There are options now
The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens. So is the sigma ART 35mm F1.2.

The Sony 200-600mm is also rather good. It's best of the bunch and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Click to expand...

Sigma 35 f/1.2 - No interest at all in this way too big and heavy to be carrying around all day at a wedding, along with two, sometimes three bodies and an 85GM plus maybe something else. Sony have already shown what they can do with the 24GM in terms of size, weight and performance.

Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 - Not really interested in this one either, again it's big and heavy as it's an older design. I borrowed one from a buddy for a couple of weeks a good while back and wasn't that impressed with it. Thought the Sigma 50 f/1.4 was a better lens personally, but again it is too bulky for my needs. I prefer the 55mm out of all the 50ish options but would swap it out for a 50 GM if they could bring the heft down a bit, which I think they could now.

Sony 200-600 - The only thing that puts me off this is the price. I pre-ordered one then cancelled it but have been flirting with it ever since. Yeah it may not be uber expensive for what it is but for a lens that I would use only very occasionally I can't justify the cost of this one. A Sigma/Tamron 150-600 or there about's would likely be much cheaper and much easier to justify for me.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I’m looking forward to my 35mm f1.8, 55mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 setup.
Small and light in weight.
Considering the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
The A9 + 55mm f1.8 is a nice setup.
View attachment 262104
Click to expand...

Why do you need to even bother with a mid range zoom? You are already well covered at those focal lengths with those lenses?

Maybe a better option would be the Tamron 17-28 for the wide end were you are lacking once you get rid of the GM zooms.

Don't know if you have had the 85 f/1.8 before but I found it performs much better on my A9 than my A7III's, you might be pleasantly surprised with that one too.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Why do you need to even bother with a mid range zoom? You are already well covered at those focal lengths with those lenses?

Maybe a better option would be the Tamron 17-28 for the wide end were you are lacking once you get rid of the GM zooms.

Don't know if you have had the 85 f/1.8 before but I found it performs much better on my A9 than my A7III's, you might be pleasantly surprised with that one too.
Click to expand...

Was going to say the same, you’re covered well enough there. I’d cash in the A9 for an A73 personally too, do you really need that extra speed? For mostly your family, they are perfectly adequate.
Site upload so prob won’t be so sharp, but here’s a shot last weekend where my little one just threw herself at me and the af kept up. Love the af.

_KPR7429.jpg
 
Livin The Dream said:
Was going to say the same, you’re covered well enough there. I’d cash in the A9 for an A73 personally too, do you really need that extra speed? For mostly your family, they are perfectly adequate.
Site upload so prob won’t be so sharp, but here’s a shot last weekend where my little one just threw herself at me and the af kept up. Love the af.

View attachment 262116
Click to expand...

Wouldnt be a wise move to sell his A9 for an A7iii, he paid launch price so the loss is significant to save a only a few hundred buying an A7iii.
 
twist said:
Wouldnt be a wise move to sell his A9 for an A7iii, he paid launch price so the loss is significant to save a only a few hundred buying an A7iii.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t go back to a a7iii now having a a9
 
f/2.8 said:
I used my A7RIV at one wedding when I first got it, never again.

A.F just wasn’t as reliable as either my A7III’s or my A9 which is a given I guess.

I won’t be bringing it to another wedding it’s an excellent camera for what it’s designed for but isn’t a good fit for weddings for me.

Also the file size is an absolute nightmare.

Would probably be a good studio camera I don’t think the a.f is reliable enough for sports.
Click to expand...

Thank @f/2.8 2.8, good to hear first hand experiences.

After doing quite a bit of reading I thought the autofocus is better and more reliable.
I had the impression for weddings it would work well as some people shoot with a7rIII, with less reliable autofocus (in theory)
For wildlife some people seem pretty happy and shooting this one along the a9.

TGphoto said:
Fair enough, based on what you said above I'd have thought you'd be better with 42 rather than 61 MP to be honest.

Really can't see it holding value better than the RIII, I'd imagine you'd lose more. 61mp is pretty niche IMO. I honestly think the A7RIII is the sweet spot for people that want an R line camera.
Click to expand...

Cheers @TGphoto
I would be buying a used one so I would not expect to lose money (at least not much).
Another thing is I'm pretty sure Sony firmware updates will be for the newest models and the older ones will be somehow left out.

Yes, those files are big!...so still having second thoughts about the swap.
 
nandbytes said:
May be wait for sigma ART 24-70/2.8??
Click to expand...
It'll probably be big and heavy. I am going to hold fire on the Tamron for now as I prefer prime lenses, so its perhaps a pointless buy at this stage.

f/2.8 said:
Why do you need to even bother with a mid range zoom? You are already well covered at those focal lengths with those lenses?
Maybe a better option would be the Tamron 17-28 for the wide end were you are lacking once you get rid of the GM zooms.
Don't know if you have had the 85 f/1.8 before but I found it performs much better on my A9 than my A7III's, you might be pleasantly surprised with that one too.
Click to expand...

I agree, had a re-think and going to hold off getting any zooms for now.

Livin The Dream said:
Was going to say the same, you’re covered well enough there. I’d cash in the A9 for an A73 personally too, do you really need that extra speed? For mostly your family, they are perfectly adequate.
Site upload so prob won’t be so sharp, but here’s a shot last weekend where my little one just threw herself at me and the af kept up. Love the af.
Click to expand...
The A7 III is a great camera but I think I will keep the A9, I would take a massive hit on re-sale and I have already owned a A7 III, prefer the A9 for its AF, silent shooting and blackout free EVF etc.

twist said:
Wouldnt be a wise move to sell his A9 for an A7iii, he paid launch price so the loss is significant to save a only a few hundred buying an A7iii.
Click to expand...
Agreed, keeping the A9.

rookies said:
I couldn’t go back to a a7iii now having a a9
Click to expand...
Likewise.

LeeRatters said:
Lovely simple gear shot :)
Click to expand...
Cheers.

I am also going to have a big clear out of camera bags / rucksacks and any other gadgets which I do not use. :)
 
PauBass said:
Thank @f/2.8 2.8, good to hear first hand experiences.

After doing quite a bit of reading I thought the autofocus is better and more reliable.
I had the impression for weddings it would work well as some people shoot with a7rIII, with less reliable autofocus (in theory)
For wildlife some people seem pretty happy and shooting this one along the a9.
Click to expand...

That certainly has not been my experience. I only know one other photographer who bought an A7RIV for weddings, he ended up selling it on again after only 2 weddings, took a big hit on what he paid for it and replaced it with an A9

The a.f is okay, but it just isn't as reliable as the A7III and no where near as good as the A9. Yes the A7RIV does have real time a.f but it doesn't work anywhere near as well as it does on the A9. Because of the huge resolution camera shake is also an issue so you have to use faster shutter speeds than I would be used too, which isn't ideal at all for dimly lit ceremonies and other low light situations.

I like the camera, just not for weddings. I knew it wouldn't be good for weddings before I bought it but I bought it for a separate project I am working on, not wedding related and I won't be using at a wedding again.

Quite a few people seem to think that a.f performance on the A7RIII is more reliable, perhaps it will improve with firmware updates but at the moment the A7RIV for me isn't as good as my other bodies for anything that moves.
 
Last edited:
Anybody know if the standalone Lightroom v6.14 will support the new lenses I have bought?
35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8? :)
 
f/2.8 said:
Because of the huge resolution camera shake is also an issue so you have to use faster shutter speeds than I would be used too, which isn't ideal at all for dimly lit ceremonies and other low light situations.
Click to expand...

camera shake is as much of an issue on high res bodies as it is on low res bodies. On one you notice it more than the other. Downsize the files from high res to the same size as low res and you will get equivalent or sometimes better results. But upscaling lower res files to higher res won't give you the same result.

needing higher shutter speeds on a higher res body is simply a myth.
 
PauBass said:
After doing quite a bit of reading I thought the autofocus is better and more reliable.
I had the impression for weddings it would work well as some people shoot with a7rIII, with less reliable autofocus (in theory)
For wildlife some people seem pretty happy and shooting this one along the a9.
Click to expand...

Overall I find A7RIV more reliable than gen 3 bodies. I never felt there was much difference between A7III and A7RIII or at least not enough to pick one over the other.
I shoot wildlife a fair amount (inc. my toddler, doesn't get any wilder lol :D ).

Sometimes the RIII did feel more reliable shooting him. I feel its mostly because I was using a separate button for eyeAF telling the camera to explicitly look for eyes (you can always setup RIV do this also). With real-time AF in A7RIV it needs to work out if there's eyes in the frame along with having to process more information on the same processor as A7RIII. So logically sometimes it can fall short to A7RIII. But overall inc. in lower light situations or indoors A7RIV feel more reliable.

Also A7RIV focusses pretty darn well with 200-600+1.4x in good light. On A7RIII you only have slower CDAF with 200-600+1.4x and basically no tracking.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
camera shake is as much of an issue on high res bodies as it is on low res bodies. On one you notice it more than the other. Downsize the files from high res to the same size as low res and you will get equivalent or sometimes better results. But upscaling lower res files to higher res won't give you the same result.

needing higher shutter speeds on a higher res body is simply a myth.
Click to expand...

Sorry and no offence intended at all but that is complete nonsense.

I really don't mean any offence to you but I have found what you have said above to be completely untrue.

While I am sure your a fantastic amateur photographer, I took over a million frames in the last year alone and know what works well for me and what doesn't. (y)
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Sorry and no offence intended at all but that is complete nonsense.

I really don't mean any offence to you but I have found what you have said above to be completely untrue.

While I am sure your a fantastic amateur photographer, I took over a million frames in the last year alone and know what works well for me and what doesn't. (y)
Click to expand...

You may have taken a billion pictures but that doesn't make you right or me wrong.

What I have said above is logically and technically correct. It's been discussed a million times over on this forum and various others.

I cannot comment on what works for you, that's of course for you to decide. I can only comment on the technical validity of your claim which is where I am not wrong. You can go check it with anyone that's technically knowledgeable at these things.

I took 20K pictures last year :)

As long as it stays civil and doesn't get down to playground name calling there is nothing to be insulted by :)
Even then I won't be insulted but mods may not like it ;)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
You may have taken a billion pictures but that doesn't make you right or me wrong.

What I have said above is logically and technically correct. It's been discussed a million times over on this forum and various others.

I cannot comment on what works for you, that's of course for you to decide. I can only comment on the technical validity of your claim which is where I am not wrong. You can go check it with anyone that's technically knowledgeable at these things.

I took 20K pictures last year :)
Click to expand...

It's been discussed at length since your last post on a Facebook group I am a member of. Funny enough even the Sony rep agreed with me.

So there you go now.....
 
In my experience the sharper then lenses are, or the more MP....your technique needs to be better or it will show up flaws where before it wouldn't have been. That means hold it more steady or higher shutter speed to compensate, or now, IBIS.
 
Of course more megapixels shows more flaws I am not debating that. But you downscale the results to a lower Res equivalent and you won't see those flaws. So it's a fallacy that you need highest shutter speed on higher Res body. You don't, you'll just see the mistakes more than on lower Res body. If you want to hide those mistakes then just downscale the file to the lower Res equivalent.

But you can't upscale your lower Res files to higher Res equivalent and expect the same amount of details!
 
nandbytes said:
camera shake is as much of an issue on high res bodies as it is on low res bodies. On one you notice it more than the other. Downsize the files from high res to the same size as low res and you will get equivalent or sometimes better results. But upscaling lower res files to higher res won't give you the same result.

needing higher shutter speeds on a higher res body is simply a myth.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Higher res gear revels things that lower res gear can't so if you're happy with downsizing a high res image you should get the same or better results but if you want to use the high res gear to achieve high res results you'll need to do things that enable you to get those higher res results.

As I said in another thread, the first time I remember this being talked about a lot on the net was when the 50D came out and people started to see things that the 8mp cameras couldn't reveal.
 
nandbytes said:
Of course more megapixels shows more flaws I am not debating that. But you downscale the results to a lower Res equivalent and you won't see those flaws. So it's a fallacy that you need highest shutter speed on higher Res body. You don't, you'll just see the mistakes more than on lower Res body. If you want to hide those mistakes then just downscale the file to the lower Res equivalent.

But you can't upscale your lower Res files to higher Res equivalent and expect the same amount of details!
Click to expand...

Then there is no point using an A7RIV for a wedding, which was my point. The better option is to use cameras that are more suitable for the job.

If you want the high res files which is the whole point of having such a camera you need to use a faster shutter speed than normal, which is exactly what I said before.
 
Just buy a A9, job done.
I hated working with the Sony A7R II 42.2mp files..... slows the whole process down.
 
f/2.8 said:
Then there is no point using an A7RIV for a wedding, which was my point. The better option is to use cameras that are more suitable for the job.

If you want the high res files which is the whole point of having such a camera you need to use a faster shutter speed than normal, which is exactly what I said before.
Click to expand...
I agree, for weddings 24mp is just right, so the Sony A7 III or A9. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top