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

snerkler said:
Bigger yes, but better? Depends what aspect you’re looking at. They’ve certainly done better with the A9, but the EM1-2 and EM1x can certainly hold their own in performance compared to other cameras.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's true.
It was meant a little tongue in cheek.
 
snerkler said:
I understand that people (wrongly) think that but to say Sony’s a game changer when something similar was already out before is wrong,... imo.
Bigger yes, but better? Depends what aspect you’re looking at. They’ve certainly done better with the A9, but the EM1-2 and EM1x can certainly hold their own in performance compared to other cameras.
Click to expand...
FF sensor Man. you can't beat physics
 
snerkler said:
I understand that people (wrongly) think that but to say Sony’s a game changer when something similar was already out before is wrong,... imo.
Bigger yes, but better? Depends what aspect you’re looking at. They’ve certainly done better with the A9, but the EM1-2 and EM1x can certainly hold their own in performance compared to other cameras.
Click to expand...

You'd understand if you owned a Sony. Stop being jealous and just move over to the dark side :D
 
Sony A7 series =game changer. More lenses, real f.o.v values, small body.
That's a benchmark. I want a 50mm lens to be a 50mm lens.
So there.:banana:
 
jonneymendoza said:
FF sensor Man. you can't beat physics
Click to expand...
That’s why I said bigger, but you’re only considering one aspect. Mirrorless format wasn’t a Sony invention, Olympus had class leading s-af for quite some time, arguably still have class leading IBIS (although I get it’s easier to stabilise a smaller sensor), have hand holdable hi-res function (which I don’t believe other cameras have), have in camera ND, live composite (brilliant feature), 60fps, etc. So are the Sony cameras better? I’d argue not based on function, features, and size/weight but of course they are in terms of ultimate IQ. Ultimate IQ isn’t the be all and end all for everyone (y). That being said, some of the best wildlife photography I’ve seen has been shot with Olympus.

https://500px.com/sulasulacom/galleries/olympus
 
steveclem said:
Sony A7 series =game changer. More lenses, real f.o.v values, small body.
That's a benchmark. I want a 50mm lens to be a 50mm lens.
So there.:banana:
Click to expand...

Well, there is that, yes :D

For younger people who've possibly never used film these things may be confusing or irrelevant. I wonder what the demographics are of DPR readers? Maybe mostly male, perhaps some from the days of film will have voted but maybe quite a few would be younger because this is all taking place on the net and more so, on DPR, and if that's the case it's maybe more surprising that the A7 series got the votes.
 
woof woof said:
Well, there is that, yes :D

For younger people who've possibly never used film these things may be confusing or irrelevant. I wonder what the demographics are of DPR readers? Maybe mostly male, perhaps some from the days of film will have voted but maybe quite a few would be younger because this is all taking place on the net and more so, on DPR, and if that's the case it's maybe more surprising that the A7 series got the votes.
Click to expand...
But what about those that started on medium format, the 35mm equivalence is just a ‘standard’ ;)
 
snerkler said:
That’s why I said bigger, but you’re only considering one aspect. Mirrorless format wasn’t a Sony invention, Olympus had class leading s-af for quite some time, arguably still have class leading IBIS (although I get it’s easier to stabilise a smaller sensor), have hand holdable hi-res function (which I don’t believe other cameras have), have in camera ND, live composite (brilliant feature), 60fps, etc. So are the Sony cameras better? I’d argue not based on function, features, and size/weight but of course they are in terms of ultimate IQ. Ultimate IQ isn’t the be all and end all for everyone (y). That being said, some of the best wildlife photography I’ve seen has been shot with Olympus.

https://500px.com/sulasulacom/galleries/olympus
Click to expand...

I think the main argument was based on the fact that they were the first mirrorless FF. That’s literally it.

The MFT and APS-C stuff that came before was great, but the big step was getting the FF out there. Sony did that so definitely the biggest step IMO.
 
snerkler said:
But what about those that started on medium format, the 35mm equivalence is just a ‘standard’ ;)
Click to expand...

I'd imagine they're in tiny numbers and those going on line to DPR will be tinier numbers still.
 
snerkler said:
That’s why I said bigger, but you’re only considering one aspect. Mirrorless format wasn’t a Sony invention, Olympus had class leading s-af for quite some time, arguably still have class leading IBIS (although I get it’s easier to stabilise a smaller sensor), have hand holdable hi-res function (which I don’t believe other cameras have), have in camera ND, live composite (brilliant feature), 60fps, etc. So are the Sony cameras better? I’d argue not based on function, features, and size/weight but of course they are in terms of ultimate IQ. Ultimate IQ isn’t the be all and end all for everyone (y). That being said, some of the best wildlife photography I’ve seen has been shot with Olympus.

https://500px.com/sulasulacom/galleries/olympus
Click to expand...
Feature set of Olympus cameras are certainly brilliant if not the best. I wish Sony would try to get at least half way. At the moment Olympus doesn't offer me much in terms of reach or AF for wildlife, I can get more out of my Sony setup.
If the E-M1iii and the 150-400mm changes that I may well buy into it then.
 
Last edited:
There's an A6400 and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 in the classifieds.

Someone should buy them before I'm tempted to.
 
TGphoto said:
I think the main argument was based on the fact that they were the first mirrorless FF. That’s literally it.

The MFT and APS-C stuff that came before was great, but the big step was getting the FF out there. Sony did that so definitely the biggest step IMO.
Click to expand...
We’ll agree to disagree on that (y).
 
nandbytes said:
Feature set of Olympus cameras are certainly brilliant if not the best. I wish Sony would try to get at least half way. At the moment Olympus doesn't offer me much in terms of reach or AF for wildlife, I can get more out of my Sony setup.
If the E-M1iii and the 150-400mm changes that I may well buy into it then.
Click to expand...
The EM1-II and 100-400mm gives me 800mm reach, then there’s the 300mm with 2xtc (y)
 
As a brand, I’m surprised Olympus are still going. Quite niche imo. Maybe I’m completely ignorant of what they have (definitely) but I’ve never considered them in the digital age.
 
Livin The Dream said:
As a brand, I’m surprised Olympus are still going. Quite niche imo. Maybe I’m completely ignorant of what they have (definitely) but I’ve never considered them in the digital age.
Click to expand...
The features in their camera actually makes Sony look like they are from the past decade. As explained by @snerkler above they actually have quite a number of very useful shooting aids like focus stacking, long exposure live preview, in camera ND, amazing IBIS etc.
 
One market share report suggests that Olympus and Panasonic have a 1% share. I’ve always wondered who actually buys the OM-D flagship model? The business has had two major scandals in the last decade but the rest of the business seems to be doing ok, with circa $850M turnover. If that is the real share (can’t be far off) you must wonder why they continue in the photography sector, must make some serious margin in what they do sell.
 
I use a EM1X with a 300f4 after the light drops with my a7r4 200/600 f6.3 it gives me a little longer to be out birding,I have just ordered a a9mk II and hopefully it will have lower noise at a higher iso to preserved detail in lower light each camera has it's own strengths I just hope I have the right one in my hand at the right time lol
Rob.
 
GyRob said:
I use a EM1X with a 300f4 after the light drops with my a7r4 200/600 f6.3 it gives me a little longer to be out birding,I have just ordered a a9mk II and hopefully it will have lower noise at a higher iso to preserved detail in lower light each camera has it's own strengths I just hope I have the right one in my hand at the right time lol
Rob.
Click to expand...

I was wondering this morning if they’d have sold any of those EM1X cameras. Can get an A9 for less.

Seems that’ll be redundant for you now?
 
GyRob said:
I use a EM1X with a 300f4 after the light drops with my a7r4 200/600 f6.3 it gives me a little longer to be out birding,I have just ordered a a9mk II and hopefully it will have lower noise at a higher iso to preserved detail in lower light each camera has it's own strengths I just hope I have the right one in my hand at the right time lol
Rob.
Click to expand...
How much longer does it actually give you?
Not that I'm jealous or anything, but an A9ii, A7R4 and EM1X?
Are you a pro?
(I do use one of your gimbals) :-)
 
Last edited:
Which 70-200 to use with A7ii+A6500?

Brand matching says that I should logically buy the Sony FE f4 (because I can't justify the extra cost of the 2.8). But I don't mind using adapters and at the moment, I use an LA-EA4 for an old Tamron 70-300 (£50 bargain). But it's a bit slow and ponderous, being the old screw-type AF.

(As a side issue, I absolutely hate the white lens aesthetic! :confused:)
 
TGphoto said:
I was wondering this morning if they’d have sold any of those EM1X cameras. Can get an A9 for less.
Click to expand...

At least 3 people on here have the M1X, and a good bunch in the Oly thread are using the Em1 mkII. I think the problem is more to do with the fact an Em1 mkII does 90% of what an EM1 can for less than half the money, rather than how it stacks up against FF. Clearly anyone buying into that system for wildlife could just go FFML if they wished. But M43 excels for wildlife I think. Much less weight, much smaller overall package when it comes to tele options and better IBIS [Oly do IBIS better than anyone else]
 
woof woof said:
There's an A6400 and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 in the classifieds.

Someone should buy them before I'm tempted to.
Click to expand...
I initially saw that A6400 when it was added to another sales thread (A7Rii). The A6400 is currently £599 at e finity. Considering thats the same place the one in the classifieds came from its not a great price at £550. Personal I’d rather pay the extra and get the year warranty in my own name but that just me. If it was £500 or below it would definitely be more tempting.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
800mm reach at 20mp
200-600mm gives 900mm reach at 26mp.

I barely manage on FF with f6.3, no thanks to f8 on M43.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes, I forgot you had the A7R4 and 200-600mm, difficult combo to beat (y). Shame it’s too heavy a setup with my fibro.
Livin The Dream said:
One market share report suggests that Olympus and Panasonic have a 1% share. I’ve always wondered who actually buys the OM-D flagship model? The business has had two major scandals in the last decade but the rest of the business seems to be doing ok, with circa $850M turnover. If that is the real share (can’t be far off) you must wonder why they continue in the photography sector, must make some serious margin in what they do sell.
Click to expand...
I have what was the flagship model until the EM1x came out, and I have no regrets, it’s a truly superb camera. That being said there’s no way I’d have paid the £2k launch price, I paid under £900 for mine and it’s a lot of camera for that money. No it doesn’t have the seemingly holy grail of a FF sensor but the performance, and feature set is outstanding, and the IQ can hold it’s own (y)
 
goldtop said:
Which 70-200 to use with A7ii+A6500?

Brand matching says that I should logically buy the Sony FE f4 (because I can't justify the extra cost of the 2.8). But I don't mind using adapters and at the moment, I use an LA-EA4 for an old Tamron 70-300 (£50 bargain). But it's a bit slow and ponderous, being the old screw-type AF.

(As a side issue, I absolutely hate the white lens aesthetic! :confused:)
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the Canon 70-200L f/4 with MC-11 on my A7III, nice and light and good solid performance. (Sorry it's white ;-) )

https://www.e-infin.com/uk/item/169/canon_ef_70-200mm_f/4_l_usm_tele_zoom_lens
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
How much longer does it actually give you?
Not that I'm jealous or anything, but an A9ii, A7R4 and EM1X?
Are you a pro?
(I do use one of your gimbals) :)
Click to expand...
Not a pro just enjoy birding :) the extra stop plus gives me about 30 to 40 mins at the same iso hope my gimbal helps I tend to use my Traveler T1 model or the Mono Gimbal for the light weight gear on a mono pod .
Rob.
 
TGphoto said:
I was wondering this morning if they’d have sold any of those EM1X cameras. Can get an A9 for less.

Seems that’ll be redundant for you now?
Click to expand...
the EM1X is my light weight system kit its about the same price as the a9 it also has the pro capture and far better image stabilizer No 1 camera has it all the 200/600 wasn't out when i bought the EM1X 300f4 -600mm field of view with just a small drop in iq it also does 18fps with continues af even 60fps locked so in some ways it's way ahead of many camera makes .
Rob.
Edit
At the time I bought the EM1X (it has a totally silent shutter ) I used a 1dxmkII and ef 600f4 mkII and the shutter noise often scared the birds so after sitting say for 3 hours waiting for an owl you know that once you press the shutter you have about 2 seconds left to get the shot Silent shutter gives you far far more time and is the main reason I changed.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Ahh yes, I forgot you had the A7R4 and 200-600mm, difficult combo to beat (y). Shame it’s too heavy a setup with my fibro.
I have what was the flagship model until the EM1x came out, and I have no regrets, it’s a truly superb camera. That being said there’s no way I’d have paid the £2k launch price, I paid under £900 for mine and it’s a lot of camera for that money. No it doesn’t have the seemingly holy grail of a FF sensor but the performance, and feature set is outstanding, and the IQ can hold it’s own (y)
Click to expand...
Too heavy? Diddnt you shoot with a d850? That weights 3kg alone bruv
 
goldtop said:
Were there any 'gotchas' with the combination? Seems that low-light AF can be an issue on some lenses...
Click to expand...

Yes, nothing is as good as a native lens (apart from image quality and sharpness). Everything is a little bit worse, FPS in burst, focus points available across the frame, speed of acquiring focus and tracking focus. You just have to weigh up the amount of money saved versus the performance gained against going native. For me, as long as image quality is there I'm happy to adapt with it's foibles along with the savings, others will feel different.
 
Thanks chaps. Food for thought. The the non-IS Canon 70-200 is certainly very affordable.

I don't do much moving-subject photography at the moment, although I did try a huskie-racing event with a M43 system a few weeks ago. That was a fun challenge, and I learned a lot (meaning I deleted a LOT of shots!) Perhaps I should stick with the old screw-drive Tamron until later this year, when their 70-180/2.8 comes along.
 
snerkler said:
Haha the comments are brilliant. I still don’t get why the A7 was a game changer tbh, that crown should really go to something like the EM5, Sony really only did the same thing but bigger.
Click to expand...

First mainstream FF mirrorless people could actually afford and theyve pushed the industry leaders to finally update their technology. Olympus just produced more of the same, Epson produced the first mirrorless so its not as if Olympus has done anything amazing.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Ahh yes, I forgot you had the A7R4 and 200-600mm, difficult combo to beat (y). Shame it’s too heavy a setup with my fibro.
Click to expand...

It's on the border line for me in terms of weight and size.
If the E-M1iii has like 25-30mp and 150-400mm is about the same size and weight. Then I may consider swapping.
 
nandbytes said:
It's on the border line for me in terms of weight and size.
If the E-M1iii has like 25-30mp and 150-400mm is about the same size and weight. Then I may consider swapping.
Click to expand...
Not forgetting vastly better low light performance and handling of ISO above 1000.
These are the main reasons I switched from the E-M1 Mkii to Sony full frame and I haven't regretted it for a moment. I still keep the Oly body for macro.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Too heavy? Diddnt you shoot with a d850? That weights 3kg alone bruv
Click to expand...
Lol, just over 1kg actually. But that with the 150-600mm made it a 3kg combo and unfortunately my fibrous put pay to me carrying heavy gear.
twist said:
First mainstream FF mirrorless people could actually afford and theyve pushed the industry leaders to finally update their technology. Olympus just produced more of the same, Epson produced the first mirrorless so its not as if Olympus has done anything amazing.
Click to expand...
Not sure what the Epson was like, but the EM5 seemed to revolutionise mirrorless (in my eyes) and make it a true alternative (for static things)
 
rob-nikon said:
I initially saw that A6400 when it was added to another sales thread (A7Rii). The A6400 is currently £599 at e finity. Considering thats the same place the one in the classifieds came from its not a great price at £550. Personal I’d rather pay the extra and get the year warranty in my own name but that just me. If it was £500 or below it would definitely be more tempting.
Click to expand...

Ah, I did a quick Google but the prices that came up must have been at UK suppliers. I should have checked grey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top