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

ancient_mariner said:
The Sammy 35 f2.8 is a real favourite for street work because it makes the A7 look like a chunky compact, and using silent shutter and composing on the flipped screen like a WLF it lets me take pictures without being obvious. I used it a lot on the street in Morocco, and barely raised an eyebrow. Stopped down it's sharp corner to corner. If you use it wide open then the corners can look a little ugly - bokeh is NOT a strong point either - but the tiny size and feather weight make it a winner for me.
Click to expand...

You certainly take nice pictures with it but could you post some 'orrible ones too just so I/we can see those ugly corners and questionable bokeh?
 
woof woof said:
I could describe exactly what I thought about any of my cars from torque, acceleration, engine note and characteristics through to fit and finish and ride and handling from normal road use through pushing on and into outright hooliganism.

If fanboyism isn't involved then fair enough and if I ever use a woolly phrase here when a more descriptive and helpful one could have been used I'll expect to be rightly castigated :D
Click to expand...
twist said:
I think woof woof might have a point here, not that we agree on most things all the time and that's okay. An explanation as to why something is soul less etc should be quite easy to back up, a v8 for me makes a wonderful noise, lots of low end torque, the motor doesn't need to be wrenched to do something, just wonderful. I feel the SZ 55 is clinical, there's another one of those terms, to my eyes its flat, very corrected which some love, but to my eyes it doesn't pop as much as some other lenses in as many scenarios, it can do it, just not most of the time.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re right, but I’ve never been good at descriptives tbh. I understand what people mean by soul and character so I have no issue hearing folk use these terms, but I also understand when folk use descriptives despite maybe not being able to find them myself (y)
 
snerkler said:
Maybe you’re right, but I’ve never been good at descriptives tbh. I understand what people mean by soul and character so I have no issue hearing folk use these terms, but I also understand when folk use descriptives despite maybe not being able to find them myself (y)
Click to expand...

Well you've described that you don't like the handling of the sonys, some do, some don't, but that's a perfectly understandable/relatable comment. I hated canons spinny wheel... and their menus are the worst.
 
twist said:
I think woof woof might have a point here, not that we agree on most things all the time and that's okay. An explanation as to why something is soul less etc should be quite easy to back up, a v8 for me makes a wonderful noise, lots of low end torque, the motor doesn't need to be wrenched to do something, just wonderful. I feel the SZ 55 is clinical, there's another one of those terms, to my eyes its flat, very corrected which some love, but to my eyes it doesn't pop as much as some other lenses in as many scenarios, it can do it, just not most of the time.
Click to expand...

The 55mm f1.8 isn't perfect and it's flaws do impact on the pictures it produces and for some pictures this can be a good thing. A more corrected lens like the Voigtlander 50mm f2 I keep going on about may be sharper with fewer aberrations and may well produce a different picture. For example the Sony 55mm may suit portraits better as the optical imperfections may well make the bokeh and sharpness fall off look nicer whilst the Voigtlander may be better if you want an architectural shot or are doing copying.

TBH I've never agreed with the view that the 55mm is soulless or clinical as it has a set of properties which can be exploited. If you're really clever and talented you can know what those properties are and how to use them. I'm not BTW :D It is the best 50-ish mm lens I've ever used and my film era ones only beat it for the tactile stuff as I like metal lenses with aperture rings and real focus rings and for giving a different look because of their won set of properties, mainly not being as good as the Sony 55mm :D
 
snerkler said:
Maybe you’re right, but I’ve never been good at descriptives tbh. I understand what people mean by soul and character so I have no issue hearing folk use these terms, but I also understand when folk use descriptives despite maybe not being able to find them myself (y)
Click to expand...

Maybe you should ignore a lot of what I say. Imagine me staring at a circuit board and fiddling with knobs on a scope and I might begin to make sense. I could get myself diagnosed with something if I wanted too. The main thing is I'm clumsy but I mean no harm :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
You certainly take nice pictures with it but could you post some 'orrible ones too just so I/we can see those ugly corners and questionable bokeh?
Click to expand...

OK, lens testing - f2.8, this is from a DNG of the original ARW file, with no processing at all - even basic sharpening & noise reduction turned off in Lightroom. You can see the vignetting.

35mm demo-00820.jpg
Centre at 1:1 - detailed enough
35mm demo-00820-2.jpg
Bottom left corner - this actually looks better than I remembered - I'd previously been 'wowed' by the Sammy 50 f1.4 and then the Sony 24-105G, so this was a bit ordinary after those performances. It's certainly crisper than my A mount Sony 50 f1.4 stopped to f1.8.
35mm demo-00820-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't think the vignetting is a problem for me. The corner doesn't look good but I'll need to look at my old 17 and 19mm film era lenses. This is a 100% from the bottom left from the 19mm, I think, but I can't be sure what aperture.

9Y43RCH.jpg
 
ancient_mariner said:
So I have both samyang 35mm f2.8 and 18mm f2.8. Worth saying that I actually like Samyang lenses and tend to choose them over others - the price advantage usually doesn't do any harm at all either, but that's not the sole driver.

Before buying the Sammy 18 I considered the Tamron 20. Price isn't especially different, but the Tammy is a much bulkier lens despite having 2mm less wideness. It's key selling point - very close focus - isn't attractive *to me* and because the Sammy is tiny, lightweight and was available as a UK purchase for just a few quid more than E-Infin pricing I grabbed one. So far it's the sharpest super-wide angle I've ever owned, and I'm happy with it, as you can tell. Flare resistance is good for a WA and if stopped down it's sharp right into the corners (I don't usually use a WA wide open).

Between 2 temples 4 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Between 2 temples 1 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr


The Sammy 35 f2.8 is a real favourite for street work because it makes the A7 look like a chunky compact, and using silent shutter and composing on the flipped screen like a WLF it lets me take pictures without being obvious. I used it a lot on the street in Morocco, and barely raised an eyebrow. Stopped down it's sharp corner to corner. If you use it wide open then the corners can look a little ugly - bokeh is NOT a strong point either - but the tiny size and feather weight make it a winner for me.

Bike and barrowman mogador by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Market-06000 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr


The thing that would put me off the Tammy 17-28 is that it's just the wrong range for a WA zoom. 17mm at the wide end tells me it should go to 35-40mm at the tele end and be a true all-rounder for street use. Alternatively with 28mm at the tele end it should go down to 12-14mm at the wide end, but it isn't a really ultra-wide WA. Granted the f2.8 aperture is fast, but a fast aperture isn't especially important for a UW in my opinion, and it's too dear just to have as an 'in case' lens. Others will feel differently.
Click to expand...

Thanks that’s a really useful post :)
Apart from the fact that I’d pretty much changed my mind to buying the Tamron but now aren’t so sure
 
And soft corners at f2.8 wouldn’t worry me as I’d very rarely be shooting at f2.8 - except maybe for close ups
 
Last edited:
justa1972 said:
Thanks that’s a really useful post :)
Apart from the fact that I’d pretty much changed my mind to buying the Tamron but now aren’t so sure
Click to expand...

Confusion comes FOC with any equipment thread here. ;)

Which Tamron?
 
woof woof said:
I don't think the vignetting is a problem for me. The corner doesn't look good but I'll need to look at my old 17 and 19mm film era lenses. This is a 100% from the bottom left from the 19mm, I think, but I can't be sure what aperture.

9Y43RCH.jpg
Click to expand...

Y'know, looking back, it's actually quite hard to fault the Sammy 35 lens *for the price* as FE mount lenses go.
 
justa1972 said:
20mm f2.8
Click to expand...

Figures. Optically it's likely at least as good, and if close focussing might be a useful tool in your capability bag then it may be the better lens for you. Having previously owned a Sigma 12-24, I would like the 18mm to be a bit wider still, but if you've never had anything as wide as that then I doubt you'll miss the 2mm difference between T&S.
 
woof woof said:
Are you getting something else?

As for the sad face, they're just things and you can always rebuy them in a few years time if you feel the need.
Click to expand...

Nothing yet, looking forward to what Fuji do with the incoming Fuji X100V though.
Keeping my A9 + f1.8 primes for now though,
The sad face is because they are great lenses but realistically I rarely use them vs cost etc so the wise choice is to get rid and put the money in the piggy bank.
 
The character/soul thing in machinery/tech is always interesting. I find the Sony approach (in general) to be like Lexus' and Honda's approach in cars. Lots of petrolheads don't get their cars' character, but I do.

I think ultimately it comes down to this: if your car/camera/etc was stolen or lost and you replaced it with the exact same model, would you feel any emotional loss? If not, then it had no character (for you; maybe for someone else).

The only characterful camera I ever had was a Zenit E! Lost in house moves many years ago... :oops: :$
 
goldtop said:
The character/soul thing in machinery/tech is always interesting. I find the Sony approach (in general) to be like Lexus' and Honda's approach in cars. Lots of petrolheads don't get their cars' character, but I do.

I think ultimately it comes down to this: if your car/camera/etc was stolen or lost and you replaced it with the exact same model, would you feel any emotional loss? If not, then it had no character (for you; maybe for someone else).

The only characterful camera I ever had was a Zenit E! Lost in house moves many years ago... :oops: :$
Click to expand...

The thing with tech is it has to work as that's the point so you have to have a degree of technical competency and fitness for purpose and if you only look superficially I suppose these things can be seen as soulless and clinical. Look deeper though and even a piece of technology can be seen to have its own beauty, strengths and weaknesses which all add up to a uniqueness maybe as unique as a piece of conventional art.

Years back I use to fix a piece of kit and the main pcb was really a thing of beauty if you were the sort of person who saw beauty in such things. I am and I was glad that particular thing ended up in the technology display in a museum whilst it was still in production too.

I have an emotional attachment to my Kodak Instamatic as I've had it since I was 10 but the modern stuff could be replaced with identical models or the newer release and I'd be just as happy. Maybe happier. The pictures though can't be retaken so are much more valuable than the hardware because of the memories that go with them.
 
goldtop said:
The character/soul thing in machinery/tech is always interesting. I find the Sony approach (in general) to be like Lexus' and Honda's approach in cars. Lots of petrolheads don't get their cars' character, but I do.

I think ultimately it comes down to this: if your car/camera/etc was stolen or lost and you replaced it with the exact same model, would you feel any emotional loss? If not, then it had no character (for you; maybe for someone else).

The only characterful camera I ever had was a Zenit E! Lost in house moves many years ago... :oops: :$
Click to expand...

While I enjoy using my camera I wouldn't miss it, its a replaceable 'thing', I have no real attachment to it, I have a huge attachment to the images I've taken though, or rather the content.
 
LeeRatters said:
Glastonbury Tor - This is the first photo I've taken in any blue sky or sunlight since the 18th of November....... :)


*** by Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Now that's an example, at least as posted here, of an uncomfortably sharp skyline. Quite unsettling. It's got me on edge ;-).

It looks like a crude cut & paste job.

Bring back film!
 
goldtop said:
The character/soul thing in machinery/tech is always interesting. I find the Sony approach (in general) to be like Lexus' and Honda's approach in cars. Lots of petrolheads don't get their cars' character, but I do.

I think ultimately it comes down to this: if your car/camera/etc was stolen or lost and you replaced it with the exact same model, would you feel any emotional loss? If not, then it had no character (for you; maybe for someone else).

The only characterful camera I ever had was a Zenit E! Lost in house moves many years ago... :oops: :$
Click to expand...

I think cameras are a little too consistent and commonplace to have much 'soul' compared to something like a car, mortorcycle or guitar (do you still have that Love Rock?). The Zenit was an agricultural beast, and that gave it some charm compared with the Honda etc of a modern camera. Yes, they have character, but I think there's more of that in the lenses we use than the camera bodies.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I think cameras are a little to consistent and commonplace to have much 'soul' compared to something like a car, mortorcycle or guitar (do you still have that Love Rock?). The Zenit was an agricultural beast, and that gave it some charm compared with the Honda etc of a modern camera. Yes, they have character, but I think there's more of that in the lenses we use than the camera bodies.
Click to expand...
Generally true, but overall it's a conspiracy of lenses, sensors and processing engines. And high resolution isn't always a benefit, especially in the digital realm, which can easily incline to the clinical. It seems to me that film, even if of the larger formats, had a certain texture.

In the end, we need to be satisfied by an image emotionally. If an image is just in essence a technical exposition, it's not going to travel far.

It's about communication. Otherwise, why bother? Guts are more important than tech.
 
Does nobody want to do business in the Classifieds anymore......people post ‘For Sale” items then don’t come back to the thread... Sign of the times, me thinks....
 
Gandalf said:
Does nobody want to do business in the Classifieds anymore......people post ‘For Sale” items then don’t come back to the thread... Sign of the times, me thinks....
Click to expand...
There is an issue where if you activate the watch function after not visit the thread for a period of time you aren’t told of new posts on them. It surprised me when I came across it. I wrongly thought I would get an alert for every reply because I’d selected ‘watch’ but may not be the case. I found by revisiting the thread and finding 2-3 day old posts I’d not replied to!
 
Last edited:
@TGphoto .... Tom, for your information I ain’t sold anything... also if the OP wants to spout on that’s his business... We all use the surf the Classifieds looking for and asking for a Bargain... You included, so don’t proceed to lecture me.
 
@Bobsyeruncle .... Sorry Robert, forgot you were a Saint !!!
 
Gandalf said:
@TGphoto .... Tom, for your information I ain’t sold anything... also if the OP wants to spout on that’s his business... We all use the surf the Classifieds looking for and asking for a Bargain... You included, so don’t proceed to lecture me.
Click to expand...
He's not lecturing you.
You're moaning about the classifieds and you're part of the problem....
 
Gandalf said:
@TGphoto .... Tom, for your information I ain’t sold anything... also if the OP wants to spout on that’s his business... We all use the surf the Classifieds looking for and asking for a Bargain... You included, so don’t proceed to lecture me.
Click to expand...

No, you were asking about buying something, the guy gave you a very comprehensive response and you ignored him.

I am not lecturing, just pointing out that when people do respond to you, you ignored them.
 
Last edited:
@TGphoto ...... I chose to not communicate a response, in hindsight my error.... Mud sticks obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top