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

nandbytes said:
Not according to Northrups. You are better off with R5
Click to expand...
Northrups enough said :) I really don't think i will wish for a r5 over the a1 both will do what i want but there is no RF 600 f4 yet so that puts it in the shadow for me.

Rob.
 
GyRob said:
Northrups enough said :) I really don't think i will wish for a r5 over the a1 both will do what i want but there is no RF 600 f4 yet so that puts it in the shadow for me.

Rob.
Click to expand...
Mmmm, 600mm f4 :love:

I’m not sure why there’s not more people wanting slower, lighter more affordable primes such as a 400mm f5.6 or 600mm f8.
 
I watched a video on YouTube last week showing that you can change the colour of the frame box that flashes on the A9/A9ii to show you’re taking photos in electronic shutter mode but I can’t find it and can’t find the video, anyone have any ideas how to do it?

The person on the video could change it to teal I think. I can find the option to change the colour of the AF box (white/red) but not the one that flashes when taking photos.
 
snerkler said:
I watched a video on YouTube last week showing that you can change the colour of the frame box that flashes on the A9/A9ii to show you’re taking photos in electronic shutter mode but I can’t find it and can’t find the video, anyone have any ideas how to do it?

The person on the video could change it to teal I think. I can find the option to change the colour of the AF box (white/red) but not the one that flashes when taking photos.
Click to expand...

A9 v6.0. Now allows select Focus Frame Color !!!: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
 
dcash29 said:

A9 v6.0. Now allows select Focus Frame Color !!!: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
Thanks, but that seems to be the af focus box, but maybe changing that changes the frame I mentioned to. Trouble is I like the AF box white though if that’s the case :banghead:
 
nandbytes said:
Not according to Northrups. You are better off with R5
Click to expand...
After watching their video the lenses used stood out to me. Would the smaller aperture of the Canon lens aid focusing! :thinking: There would obviously be less light because of that, which could be detrimental to focusing in low light, but they seemed to be in a bright day with lots of reflective snow.

If looking at their video in isolation, without seeing any previous Sony cameras, some of which they themselves have lauded for the AF, you may get the impression that the a1 is rubbish at focusing. I doubt it is, and I doubt it would be worse than what Sony have done before.

It will be interesting to see more comparisons. And if there are any AF deficiencies, how quick Sony will address them with firmware updates.
 
snerkler said:
Mmmm, 600mm f4 :love:

I’m not sure why there’s not more people wanting slower, lighter more affordable primes such as a 400mm f5.6 or 600mm f8.
Click to expand...

Something like the Nikon 300mm f4 PF would be nice. can use 1.4x for 420mm/5.6 and 2x for 600mm f8.
 
redhed17 said:
After watching their video the lenses used stood out to me. Would the smaller aperture of the Canon lens aid focusing! :thinking: There would obviously be less light because of that, which could be detrimental to focusing in low light, but they seemed to be in a bright day with lots of reflective snow.

If looking at their video in isolation, without seeing any previous Sony cameras, some of which they themselves have lauded for the AF, you may get the impression that the a1 is rubbish at focusing. I doubt it is, and I doubt it would be worse than what Sony have done before.

It will be interesting to see more comparisons. And if there are any AF deficiencies, how quick Sony will address them with firmware updates.
Click to expand...

indeed I find it really surprising that they said even the human tracking and eyeAF was better on R5.
yes I got the impression from that video that A1 was worst than my A7RIV lol
 
footman said:
The one lens I miss from my Canon days is the 300mm f2.8, razor sharp and took teleconverters perfectly. I believe Sony made one for A mount, is there one made for E mount that I've missed?
Click to expand...
No, just the 400mm f2.8 which is a bit of a beast.
 
Has anyone used the 17-28mm Tamron. The back pocket is now nearly empty but I have bought every lens I will need for the Sony with the exception of a ultra wide angle. If we get our freedom back I will be regularly shooting landscapes and a 16-35mm was my lens of choice on both Nikon and Canon. I have the 24-70GM so not too fussed losing at the narrow end but I do wonder if I will miss 16mm. I am also hoping it will double up as an astro lens for the once or twice a year I shoot astros. The other options are a 16-35mm GM but one of the reasons I moved to Sony was size and the Tamron wins hands down there. The other option is don't go with an ultrawide zoom and get a 20mm F1.8 or even a 21mm F2.8 that can cover astro and when I need something wider. The Tamron is favourite right now as I think it will make a good street lens in crop mode on the A7R IV. Any views welcome.
 
wookie6262 said:
Has anyone used the 17-28mm Tamron. The back pocket is now nearly empty but I have bought every lens I will need for the Sony with the exception of a ultra wide angle. If we get our freedom back I will be regularly shooting landscapes and a 16-35mm was my lens of choice on both Nikon and Canon. I have the 24-70GM so not too fussed losing at the narrow end but I do wonder if I will miss 16mm. I am also hoping it will double up as an astro lens for the once or twice a year I shoot astros. The other options are a 16-35mm GM but one of the reasons I moved to Sony was size and the Tamron wins hands down there. The other option is don't go with an ultrawide zoom and get a 20mm F1.8 or even a 21mm F2.8 that can cover astro and when I need something wider. The Tamron is favourite right now as I think it will make a good street lens in crop mode on the A7R IV. Any views welcome.
Click to expand...
I have the Tamron 17-28 much better lens than the Sony 16-35 f/4. Not quite as good as the G.M but I prefer the Tamron anyway as it’s small and light weight.
 
wookie6262 said:
Has anyone used the 17-28mm Tamron. The back pocket is now nearly empty but I have bought every lens I will need for the Sony with the exception of a ultra wide angle. If we get our freedom back I will be regularly shooting landscapes and a 16-35mm was my lens of choice on both Nikon and Canon. I have the 24-70GM so not too fussed losing at the narrow end but I do wonder if I will miss 16mm. I am also hoping it will double up as an astro lens for the once or twice a year I shoot astros. The other options are a 16-35mm GM but one of the reasons I moved to Sony was size and the Tamron wins hands down there. The other option is don't go with an ultrawide zoom and get a 20mm F1.8 or even a 21mm F2.8 that can cover astro and when I need something wider. The Tamron is favourite right now as I think it will make a good street lens in crop mode on the A7R IV. Any views welcome.
Click to expand...
I’m happy with the 16-35mm f4, it’s usually used at f8-11 so sharpness is very good IMO. That being said f4’s too slow for Astro so the Tamron would be my choice.
 
Thanks chaps. I ruled out the Sony F4 due to astros and not wanting to buy an additional lens for such seldom use. Just snagged a Samyang 35mm F1.8 AF on ebay for £255 which looks as new and is well reviewed so my street lens is sorted. I also got the 135mm delivered from another member here today and that looks a fantastic lens. Here is my first real shot with it
 

Attachments

  • 148860359_4038062692890628_1791999178084385612_o.jpg
    148860359_4038062692890628_1791999178084385612_o.jpg
    129.1 KB · Views: 19
robj20 said:
I mine and have been making a fair bit recently. Should have enough for the 20mm f1.8 in a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

That's a nice lens. I read one review which claimed it was an almost perfect optic. I can't remember who that was though :D It wasn't the Northfrumps... so maybe believable :D

I haven't used mine a lot, I haven't used anything a lot recently. I got it because I used to love my Sigma 20mm f1.8 and I'd really love to go on a cruise and see and photograph (or try to) the northern lights one day.

I do like this picture.

5NITFWU.jpg


If you can see banding in the sky, it isn't visible in the original.

qwVOiZg.jpg
 
Last edited:
footman said:
The one lens I miss from my Canon days is the 300mm f2.8, razor sharp and took teleconverters perfectly. I believe Sony made one for A mount, is there one made for E mount that I've missed?
Click to expand...

None on e-mount yet. Not sure if they even made the A-mount version or they copied the Minolta version. A-mount had the most versions of 300mm f2.8. they are all very nice but the problem with adapting them is you can't use TC with the adapter. You wouldn't have this problem adapting EF mount glass on a RF body.
 
If the Canon tele F11 primes are successful I wonder if Sony, or even third party will bring out something to compete? F11 doesn't interest me, but if they could do an 600mm f8 sub £2k no more than 1.2kg that could be of interest.
 
snerkler said:
If the Canon tele F11 primes are successful I wonder if Sony, or even third party will bring out something to compete? F11 doesn't interest me, but if they could do an 600mm f8 sub £2k no more than 1.2kg that could be of interest.
Click to expand...

as i have said in other places I am sure there are parts of the world where f11 is perfectly fine but UK isn't one of them :p
same applies to some extent for f8 which is why I'd prefer a small 300mm f4 that I can use with teleconverters. And thanks to nikon we already know how light a good 300mm f4 can be.
 
nandbytes said:
as i have said in other places I am sure there are parts of the world where f11 is perfectly fine but UK isn't one of them :p
same applies to some extent for f8 which is why I'd prefer a small 300mm f4 that I can use with teleconverters. And thanks to nikon we already know how light a good 300mm f4 can be.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind using a 1.4 x TC but my experience with 2x TC’s isn’t great. A 400mm f4 would be nice, but seeing the cost, size and weight of Canon’s I’m not sure it’s a good idea :lol:
 
snerkler said:
I don’t mind using a 1.4 x TC but my experience with 2x TC’s isn’t great. A 400mm f4 would be nice, but seeing the cost, size and weight of Canon’s I’m not sure it’s a good idea :lol:
Click to expand...
Canon’s 400mm f4 isn’t huge for what it is. It’s about 30mm longer than Sony 100-400 when is closed. When the 100-400 is extended to 400mm it’s about 50mm longer the the 400mm f4. Of course it heavier than the 100-400 but 2.1kg isn’t that heavy in the scheme of lenses. I reckon they could get it below 2kg with new materials/tech.

It’s the one lens I’d be interested in if Sony did release a 400mm f4, but the down side is it would likely cost £6K+. It would be a great option against the 400mm f2.8 which isn’t as portable/travel friendly and the 100-400/200-600 that are a stop slower.
 
nandbytes said:
as i have said in other places I am sure there are parts of the world where f11 is perfectly fine but UK isn't one of them :p
same applies to some extent for f8 which is why I'd prefer a small 300mm f4 that I can use with teleconverters. And thanks to nikon we already know how light a good 300mm f4 can be.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand Canons thinking with the 100-500 f4.5-f7.1 let alone the 600mm f11!

I’ve been finding for how I photograph wildlife, which is usually dawn in low light, with the 100-400 at f5.6 I’m very often pushing over ISO6400. I’m then dropping the shutter speed way below my preferred 1/500sec just to keep ISO at 6400. I kind of miss the days I had the Nikon 200-400 f4 or 300 f2.8 and could use f2.8 or f4. Though saying that I don’t miss the 3kg+ of those lenses.

I hired one of the Nikon 300mm f4 PF’s for Skomer one year as I didn’t fancy carting the 200-400 around and hand holding it as there is limited room on the paths. Other than it being lightweight I wasn’t that impressed by it, but maybe I’d been seduced by the focusing speed of the 200-400 f4 / 300 f2.8 so it wasn’t a fair comparison.
 
HI, Just moved over to Sony from Canon and I need some advice on third party batteries, in this case Duracell for the A9, as I understand it Sony did something in there firmware so as make the camera not recognise these third party batteries but as Duracell are a well known company just wonder if anyone can tell me if the camera sees the battery as it would a Sony. I have two Sony but would like a couple back up's in this cold weather. Also on a side note I see that there is a lot of discussion on the bird eye tech as I state above just moved to Sony and really cannot see what this option would do as finding the A9 out performs my old Canon 7D MK II hands down just as it is. Thank You, Russ.
 
rob-nikon said:
Canon’s 400mm f4 isn’t huge for what it is. It’s about 30mm longer than Sony 100-400 when is closed. When the 100-400 is extended to 400mm it’s about 50mm longer the the 400mm f4. Of course it heavier than the 100-400 but 2.1kg isn’t that heavy in the scheme of lenses. I reckon they could get it below 2kg with new materials/tech.

It’s the one lens I’d be interested in if Sony did release a 400mm f4, but the down side is it would likely cost £6K+. It would be a great option against the 400mm f2.8 which isn’t as portable/travel friendly and the 100-400/200-600 that are a stop slower.
Click to expand...

Well the RF100-500mm is kinda equivalent to 100-400mm lenses. At 400mm is about the same as 100-400 and if you need it you can get that extra reach for less light. Its basically like a 100-400mm with a built in 1.25x TC :D

my 200-600mm is 2KG so anything with similar dimensions and weight is fine. Always wondered why 500mm f4 was so much larger than 400mm f4.
But with 400 f4+1.4x I don't gain a huge lot over my 200-600mm in terms of light, reach or size.
 
Kieran_89 said:
Does anyone actually take them serious? You can't watch one of their videos without them shoving their E-books or online tutorials down your throat every 15 seconds.
Click to expand...

I don't but I think a lot of people do, and anyone watching that will think A1 is a joke for £6.5k
 
nandbytes said:
I don't but I think a lot of people do, and anyone watching that will think A1 is a joke for £6.5k
Click to expand...

I thought the price was OTT but as per a few pages back I googled the Canon 1dx and it's the same price, someone else also posted the price of Nikons top sports camera. Compared to those high performance dinosaurs maybe the price of the A1 begins to make sense.

Looking at your recent posts you seem to be keen to switch to Canon so why not give it a go? You can afford it :D Looking at Canon for myself buying into that system wouldn't make sense as the lenses I'd want just aren't there but if the kit you need is there go for it.
 
Incidentally, I’ve ordered one of THESE for my A7C. For the price I thought it was worth a punt.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
None on e-mount yet. Not sure if they even made the A-mount version or they copied the Minolta version. A-mount had the most versions of 300mm f2.8. they are all very nice but the problem with adapting them is you can't use TC with the adapter. You wouldn't have this problem adapting EF mount glass on a RF body.
Click to expand...
Looking at the last of the Minolta 300 f/2.8's (which had SSM) and the Sony 300 f/3.8 SSM on Dyxum they appear identical, so I imagine it was just a rebadge (as Sony did with a number of the Minolta lenses).
 
nandbytes said:
I don't but I think a lot of people do, and anyone watching that will think A1 is a joke for £6.5k
Click to expand...
I think this is why Mark Galer got his new vid out quickly to put things right.
Rob.
 
nandbytes said:
Always wondered why 500mm f4 was so much larger than 400mm f4.
Click to expand...
It’s to do with the diffractive optics technology in the 400mm f4 isn’t it. I’m not 100% sure on the technology but thought it was similar in how the Nikon PF technology reduces the size of the Nikon 300mm f4 over standard lens construction.

If you’re thinking of using any lens at say around 600mm your usually better off with a 600mm lens than a shorter lens with a teleconverter. I quite like the 400mm focal length. I find it’s a sweet spot for the wildlife I photograph. It would nice to have a teleconverter for the odd occasions I need longer but Sony’s teleconverters are too niche to be a good buy as there are limited lenses you can use them on. The 100-400 has a good range as I can go wider if I want too. That’s something I’d miss with a prime lens but it’s the trade off of weight, aperture and size.
 
GyRob said:
I think this is why Mark Galer got his new vid out quickly to put things right.
Rob.
Click to expand...
That's what he says in the intro to the video - he's released it quicker than he normally would because he's had enough of people sending him questions about 'faults' highlighted in other reviews that are just wrong, as far as he can tell.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top