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

nandbytes said:
for nikons sake I hope you are right. But I just don't see it. Because the days where people walked into curry or dixon or jessops or whatever and walked out with a rebel+kit lets they used in liveview like their phones are mostly gone. People (good majority I mean, I am sure there will be exceptions) buying >£1000 bodies will be slightly more clued up.

Lastly I think an electronics company inc. cameras really need inspire the early adopters and early reviewers who make things a success. The professionals and the rest only come later. Professionals and mass didn't look at sony seriously till A7III but early adopters like myself and others who bought into it liked what they were doing. I liked the idea of owning the first small FF mirrorless body i.e. A7 even though it was pretty much in every way inferior to DSLRs.

R5 also has something special (even though i don't care for video specs), amazing eyeAF, tracking, lens selections (even though I can't afford half of them) all are very inspiring for me to buy into. I guess that why nikon made the Noct but that thing is crazy unlike RF lenses lol.
Click to expand...

I think the other issue for Nikon is the RP, £1350 including EF adapter and a much better 24-105mm STM lens.
 
Last edited:
I am gonna say it right now that Z5 is going to be a huge flop.

While its about 7 years ago now and times change I have worked in retail and sold cameras in a retail environment.

Nobody that shops retail buys a camera at that price without knowing what they are buying. Nobody that buys online buys a camera at that price without knowing what they are buying.

Nobody with a bit of a clue is gonna buy a Z5 with what is available from other brands in comparison. An entry level camera even full frame would need to be a fair bit cheaper than this to get interest and while these will drop in price, I still don't see them being competitive. If this is aimed at those jumping up from crop sensor cameras and those that are wanting something better than their phone this won't be the camera they will buy.

I fully expect this to be a huge flop and to see it for sale very cheap before the end of the year.
 
f/2.8 said:
I am gonna say it right now that Z5 is going to be a huge flop.

While its about 7 years ago now and times change I have worked in retail and sold cameras in a retail environment.

Nobody that shops retail buys a camera at that price without knowing what they are buying. Nobody that buys online buys a camera at that price without knowing what they are buying.

Nobody with a bit of a clue is gonna buy a Z5 with what is available from other brands in comparison. An entry level camera even full frame would need to be a fair bit cheaper than this to get interest and while these will drop in price, I still don't see them being competitive. If this is aimed at those jumping up from crop sensor cameras and those that are wanting something better than their phone this won't be the camera they will buy.

I fully expect this to be a huge flop and to see it for sale very cheap before the end of the year.
Click to expand...

It will definitely be cheaper, look at the spec, Nikon is offering the superior Z6 at pretty much the same price. They have built a big price cut into the Z5.
 
saw fro's video on YouTube he seems to think its the d750 sensor as it's the same specs and not BI like the z6/z7.

price wise im,not really sure on it, compared to the z6 it seems quite expensive but compared to say the d780 its not a bad price, I expect the z6/7s will jump a fair but in price then it might look better
 
pmac said:
saw fro's video on YouTube he seems to think its the d750 sensor as it's the same specs and not BI like the z6/z7.

price wise im,not really sure on it, compared to the z6 it seems quite expensive but compared to say the d780 its not a bad price, I expect the z6/7s will jump a fair but in price then it might look better
Click to expand...

D750 sensor was great for its time but things have moved on. I'd be really surprised if they used that old sensor.

Also would be really surprised if they increased the price of z6/7. would be a stupid move.
I think what is likely to happen is they will announce the rehashes of Z6/7 as rumoured at a slightly higher price which is also stupid IMO.

they really need to make something a bit more exciting and their lenses fall short for the most part.
 
That new Nikon is 4.5fps. They seem to be getting slower!!
 
nandbytes said:
D750 sensor was great for its time but things have moved on. I'd be really surprised if they used that old sensor.

Also would be really surprised if they increased the price of z6/7. would be a stupid move.
I think what is likely to happen is they will announce the rehashes of Z6/7 as rumoured at a slightly higher price which is also stupid IMO.

they really need to make something a bit more exciting and their lenses fall short for the most part.
Click to expand...

The new updated versions of the Z6/Z7 will likely go out at the launch price they originally went for, the new updated versions should have been what they launched initially.

They do have some nice glass on its way including a 50 f/1.2.
 
f/2.8 said:
The new updated versions of the Z6/Z7 will likely go out at the launch price they originally went for, the new updated versions should have been what they launched initially.

They do have some nice glass on its way including a 50 f/1.2.
Click to expand...

one nice lens that doesn't even exist yet? that's all you have in their defence?
 
justa1972 said:
Yep thats a massive difference although not sure the 24-105 is great
Click to expand...

Its pretty well regarded.

Ephotozine
4 out of 5

Cameralabs
Indeed it's the only full-frame zoom with wide coverage, stabilisation and STM focusing, making it a no-brainer for owners of full-frame Canon bodies who shoot video as much as stills. But don't be fooled by the relatively low-cost: the optical quality punches well above its weight, making it preferable to the pricier L versions for many owners.

Dustin Abbot
  • Excellent focal range
  • Good optical performance across the focal range
  • Excellent maximum magnification figure of .30x
  • Excellent Image Stabilization
  • STM focus is quiet, quick, and accurate
  • Very good color rendition
  • Excellent flare resistance and no apparent ghosting
 
Last edited:
Z5 looks a nice little camera but I can't help think that £2k is pretty steep for an 'entry level' camera. Not sure about the f6.3 short zoom lens either :thinking:
 
nandbytes said:
one nice lens that doesn't even exist yet? that's all you have in their defence?
Click to expand...

I am not trying to defend them :ROFLMAO:

But they do have these on there way:

14-24 f/2.8
2 x new teleconverters
50 f/1.2

People that have them seem to be quite happy with the Z lenses they have launched already.
 
f/2.8 said:
I am not trying to defend them :ROFLMAO:

But they do have these on there way:

14-24 f/2.8
2 x new teleconverters
50 f/1.2

People that have them seem to be quite happy with the Z lenses they have launched already.
Click to expand...

people that use it and spent their cash on it? no wonder they like it lol

14-24 - meh, better options on Sony and canon.

the 14-30mm f4 was a really nice idea but its soft at f4.
 
nandbytes said:
people that use it and spent their cash on it? no wonder they like it lol

14-24 - meh, better options on Sony and canon.

the 14-30mm f4 was a really nice idea but its soft at f4.
Click to expand...

Horses for courses I guess, personally I would always choose Nikon above Canon and for now Sony above everything else.

People talk about Canon colours being nice etc. but I don't really see that just my personal preference I guess.

To be fair I have only used a couple of Canon bodies but I wasn't overly fussed on the handling and while its just personal preference I didn't like the skin tones even though that is what a lot of other people seem to like.

Canon have always made some nice lenses on paper, although most of the Nikon glass on DSLR's performed better and Canon bodies have always been a bit crap compared to the competition.

People want all different things from their gear. I only care about the finished images and things that make it easier to get them, I couldn't care less about handling, aesthetics or which camera has the fastest wifi etc. While other people might put handling at the top of the list and Nikon is far and away the best there. I see people here talk quite a lot about the "experience" being important. I find that hilarious. This is my work though, so its different than just a hobby.

The Z 1.8 prime lenses seem well regarded.

I would expect the Nikon 14-24 to be steller the old DSLR lens was best in class and I know many people who shot Canon who used that lens manually via an adaptor as Canon didn't have anything comparable.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Horses for courses I guess, personally I would always choose Nikon above Canon and for now Sony above everything else.

People talk about Canon colours being nice etc. but I don't really see that just my personal preference I guess.

To be fair I have only used a couple of Canon bodies but I wasn't overly fussed on the handling and while its just personal preference I didn't like the skin tones even though that is what a lot of other people seem to like.

Canon have always made some nice lenses on paper, although most of the Nikon glass on DSLR's performed better and Canon bodies have always been a bit crap compared to the competition.

People want all different things from their gear. I only care about the finished images and things that make it easier to get them, I couldn't care less about handling, aesthetics or which camera has the fastest wifi etc. While other people might put handling at the top of the list and Nikon is far and away the best there. I see people here talk quite a lot about the "experience" being important. I find that hilarious. This is my work though, so its different than just a hobby.

The Z 1.8 prime lenses seem well regarded.

I would expect the Nikon 14-24 to be steller the old DSLR lens was best in class and I know many people who shot Canon who used that lens manually via an adaptor as Canon didn't have anything comparable.
Click to expand...

I dont think that Nikon produces better glass than Canon, Canon have always had the better and more varied lens range (incl specialist), Nikons newer PF stuff is very nice though and the Z1.8 primes are great lenses from what Ive seen and not hideously expensive either.
 
Last edited:
This is hard to describe. The advantages of Canon for me isn’t just about the bodies, how the body feels is very subjective so no point trying to argue it but the files. I find them they behave in a more linear way. The same processing on the slider on the same images from 2 bodies will yield 2 different results. This is partly due to the white balance but I think deep down how each part of the image, skin tones, greenery affects it when the image is processed.

Glass wise, I’ve always loved their glass, I’ve only had the EF ones and they are all very analogue feel to them. Half of them have optical designs that are 20 years old or something but they are sharp enough, or just the right amount of sharpness. Modern lenses can be TOO sharp if that’s possible. To the point you need to use the clarity brush on skins to make them nicer. Out of the camera, some of the Canon lenses is just right, you wouldn’t call them soft, but just right.

I do look back on it with fond memories, but there were some things that I didn’t like, like they felt like they spent a decade playing catch up, trying to throw money into things that I thought was unnecessary (70-200/2.8 mk3? What was the point?!). It is clear now that they had the RF 70-200/2.8 in R&D at that point so it is even more strange to put effort into that at all.

I always knew that they have all the tech, it was whether the ones in charge would let the engineers do their job and let them put in the tech they have into the cameras. Whoever it was in charge, may be he left or he hit his head, Canon is no longer gimping their releases like they used to, which is only good for competition.
 
snerkler said:
Z5 looks a nice little camera but I can't help think that £2k is pretty steep for an 'entry level' camera. Not sure about the f6.3 short zoom lens either :thinking:
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing that price? I'm seeing sites suggest £1589 inc the adapter, there's no way that crappy kit lens is £400 :O ?? It's still too much for what they are claiming is the cheapest entry into FF [they have heard of the RP right?}
 
Cagey75 said:
Where are you seeing that price? I'm seeing sites suggest £1589 inc the adapter, there's no way that crappy kit lens is £400 :O ?? It's still too much for what they are claiming is the cheapest entry into FF [they have heard of the RP right?}
Click to expand...

£1,859.00 incl kit lens and adapter
£1,719.00 body only
 
twist said:
I dont think that Nikon produces better glass than Canon, Canon have always had the better and more varied lens range (incl specialist), Nikons newer PF stuff is very nice though and the Z1.8 primes are great lenses from what Ive seen and not hideously expensive either.
Click to expand...

All of Canons E.F high end normal focal length primes are very soft. Nikon’s F mount high end primes are much sharper. It took Canon a long time to match the the sharpness of Nikon’s 70-200. Canons wide lenses never quite got to a point we’re they matched Nikon’s excellent 14-24.

For portrait / wedding photography Canon never got close to Nikon in terms of glass.

Canon only really had better lenses on the sports side of things and some of the more odd ball macro stuff.
 
twist said:
£1,859.00 incl kit lens and adapter
£1,719.00 body only
Click to expand...

Techradar suggest £1589 with the adapter: https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/nikon-z5-vs-z6-8-key-differences-you-need-to-know

And I thought that was ambitious, as they're aiming at budget photographers. There's a lot to like about it [besides price] with dual card slots, IBIS and WR - but the LCD is poor by today's standards, decent evf though - and no top LCD [probably won't bother many, I rarely use the one on the H1]
 
f/2.8 said:
All of Canons E.F high end normal focal length primes are very soft. Nikon’s F mount high end primes are much sharper. It took Canon a long time to match the the sharpness of Nikon’s 70-200. Canons wide lenses never quite got to a point we’re they matched Nikon’s excellent 14-24.

For portrait / wedding photography Canon never got close to Nikon in terms of glass.

Canon only really had better lenses on the sports side of things and some of the more odd ball macro stuff.
Click to expand...

You clearly never had the 35L, especially the mk2.
 
f/2.8 said:
All of Canons E.F high end normal focal length primes are very soft. Nikon’s F mount high end primes are much sharper. It took Canon a long time to match the the sharpness of Nikon’s 70-200. Canons wide lenses never quite got to a point we’re they matched Nikon’s excellent 14-24.

For portrait / wedding photography Canon never got close to Nikon in terms of glass.

Canon only really had better lenses on the sports side of things and some of the more odd ball macro stuff.
Click to expand...


You sure about that? Canon 24mm 1.4 mk2, 35mm 1.4 mk2, Canon 50mm 1.2 EF and RF, Canon 85mm 1.2 and 1.4 EF and RF, Canon 135mm F2, Canon 200mm F2 are very well know to be optically excellent and better than the Nikons. Canons 70-200 2.8 mk2 was better than the VR2, it didnt have focus breathing either and the 24-70L mk2 is also better than nikons VR.

Then theres the TSE lenses and the MP65 plus all the big white ones.
 
Last edited:
Optically soft as hell but there were also the 50/1.0 EF, Autofocus! And the unicorn 200/1.8 L.

I go back a few pages and use other's reasoning in getting these wide aperture lenses...not for the sharpness but for the blurry mess they make.
 
twist said:
You sure about that? Canon 24mm 1.4 mk2, 35mm 1.4 mk2, Canon 50mm 1.2 EF and RF, Canon 85mm 1.2 and 1.4 EF and RF, Canon 135mm F2, Canon 200mm F2 are very well know to be optically excellent and better than the Nikons. Canons 70-200 2.8 mk2 was better than the VR2, it didnt have focus breathing either and the 24-70L mk2 is also better than nikons VR.

Then theres the TSE lenses and the MP65 plus all the big white ones.
Click to expand...

Yes 100% sure!

The 24, 35, 50, 85 you mentioned were all very soft compared to the Nikon equivalents.

You obviously haven’t used any of them.
 
f/2.8 said:
Yes 100% sure!

The 24, 35, 50, 85 you mentioned were all very soft compared to the Nikon equivalents.

You obviously haven’t used any of them.
Click to expand...

the 35mm f1.4 Lii is considered the best in class, may be now superseded by the huge sigma ART 35mm f1.2.
 
I've recently taken the plunge and bought into Sony world after lurking here for many months.
I'm also into M43 with an Olympus EM1 mark iii and the 3 pro lenses - 12-40, 40-150 and 300mm prime (Plus 1.4 & 2x teleconverters)
My main interest is birds and wildlife so I've invested in a AR7IV and FE 200-600mm with 1.4 T/c - hoping I'll see decent ISO and obviously great 'cropability'.
I can see it's frowned upon but I thought I'd post an image! ;)
A pair of Great Crested Grebes this morning introducing their chick to a Crayfish lunch.

That's my boy! by Malcolm Fisher, on Flickr
 
f/2.8 said:
Yes 100% sure!

The 24, 35, 50, 85 you mentioned were all very soft compared to the Nikon equivalents.

You obviously haven’t used any of them.
Click to expand...

Nikon don't really have 85/1.2 or a 85/1.4 VR though. It's close, but not apples to apples.

Nikon also don't have Autofocus 50/1.2.

The 35mm Canon is considered best in class.

Can't compared the 24/1.4 L mk2, never thought it to be a soft lens.
 
f/2.8 said:
He edited his post to include the newer versions.
Click to expand...

Nope, why would I mention the Mk1 version and why would you say they are miles better referring to the OLDER lenses if you know the Mk2 are better.
 
twist said:
Nope, why would I mention the Mk1 version and why would you say they are miles better referring to the OLDER lenses.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro, there was no mention of RF lenses for example at all when I first read your post.
 
f/2.8 said:
Cool story bro, there was no mention of RF lenses for example at all when I first read your post.
Click to expand...

But it did state ALL the MK2 primes, dont pick and choose what I added bro. Even removing the RF lenses the EFs arent soft as you said.

f/2.8 said:
All of Canons E.F high end normal focal length primes are very soft. Nikon’s F mount high end primes are much sharper.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top