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

woof woof said:
On the rumor site...

Crazy: A camera bag raises half a million dollars on Kickstarter… | sonyalpharumors

You can see why it's special on their official Kickstarter page (Click here).
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Direct link...

www.kickstarter.com

The Top Shelf - Super-Fast, All-Access Camera Bag

Now you can instantly access all your gear while keeping it organized and secure. Never miss the shot & bring your camera everywhere!
www.kickstarter.com www.kickstarter.com

Who's getting one?
Click to expand...

Will the price include the physiotherapy once you’ve ruined your back by having that much kit in a sling/shoulder bag?

Several years back I got a think tank shoulder bag. At the time I put a 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 in it along with the Nikon D7000. I took it to the Focus on Imaging photography show at the NEC (it was one of my first visits and I thought that’s what people did - now I know better and leave the camera kit at home!). I learnt the hard way that day that heavy kit in a shoulder bag isn’t for me. My shoulder hurt for several days afterwards.
 
snerkler said:
I don’t think the 24-70mm is as bad as people say, or maybe it’s because I picked up a mint copy for £400 and judge it at this. It is soft and distorted in the corners compared to similar lenses (although still better than a number of older lenses) although there does appear to be copy variation and newer ones seem to be better than early ones. Also this is only really obvious when printing large or pixel peeping.

The 24-105mm is noticeably sharper across the frame.

I’ve been seriously considering replacing the 24-70mm f4 with the 24-105mm but I’m not sure whether I’d regret the extra size and weight.
Click to expand...

The 24-70 was what I originally planned to buy, but when I investigated real world examples of pictures taken with that lens it was not significantly better than the kit lens. I can only imagine they fixed the issues that gave quite soft edges, especially at wider apertures, possibly through careful adjustment rather than re-design and therefore did not offer a 'gen II' update. Perhaps the lens was always capable of being good, but simply assembled badly. Whatever the cause, the problems that were very real in early samples do seem to have gone away in more recent copies.

As for replacing the 24-70 with the 24-105, it's only worth it if you keep wishing for a bit more reach. I'm keeping mine for holiday use, but almost never use it in the UK, and I'm a little tempted to move over to the Tamron 28-200 because I do sometimes with for something a little longer, though I think I'd miss the extra wide angle capability.
 
rob-nikon said:
Will the price include the physiotherapy once you’ve ruined your back by having that much kit in a sling/shoulder bag?

Several years back I got a think tank shoulder bag. At the time I put a 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 in it along with the Nikon D7000. I took it to the Focus on Imaging photography show at the NEC (it was one of my first visits and I thought that’s what people did - now I know better and leave the camera kit at home!). I learnt the hard way that day that heavy kit in a shoulder bag isn’t for me. My shoulder hurt for several days afterwards.
Click to expand...

I have been known to carry quite a bit of kit at times, especially when younger. On one family trip to Austria I took a Bronica ETR + 75mm and 40mm lenses, grip & prism PLUS Minolta 7000 35mm body, 50, 18, 28-70 and 70-210 lenses, and some days I carried the lot along with a toddler. Now I semi-train by always taking a full kit in the camera bag for every walk I do at the weekend so that when I travel the kit doesn't feel like a burden. Not everyone is comfy with that approach, but it works for me and gives me freedom not to worry about selection so much - if I have a bag full of lenses but only use one for the whole day as happens sometimes - then I have no regrets at all.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The 24-70 was what I originally planned to buy, but when I investigated real world examples of pictures taken with that lens it was not significantly better than the kit lens. I can only imagine they fixed the issues that gave quite soft edges, especially at wider apertures, possibly through careful adjustment rather than re-design and therefore did not offer a 'gen II' update. Perhaps the lens was always capable of being good, but simply assembled badly. Whatever the cause, the problems that were very real in early samples do seem to have gone away in more recent copies.

As for replacing the 24-70 with the 24-105, it's only worth it if you keep wishing for a bit more reach. I'm keeping mine for holiday use, but almost never use it in the UK, and I'm a little tempted to move over to the Tamron 28-200 because I do sometimes with for something a little longer, though I think I'd miss the extra wide angle capability.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing isn’t it, always a compromise. I keep being tempted by the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 but then I’m pretty sure I’ll find 28mm not wide enough, on travels I sometimes find 24mm not wide enough especially when visiting a Basilica or something. 70mm often proves not enough reach, and often I wish I’d got an f1.8 or f1.4 lens for some more ‘arty’ stuff.

I think it’ll be a long time before we get a travel friendly 18-600mm f1.4 FF lens though :lol:
 
NewBeetle said:
The new kit lens? I think Sony's kit lenses are always 'decent'.
Click to expand...

Not quite... The APS-C Sony 16-50 PZ is possibly the worst kit lens and the 16mm/2.8 pancake prime is the worst prime lens in history which also doubled up as kit lens for some camera packages.
FF is a different story of course. There isn't a single lens I'd consider bad but some could do with an update.
 
snerkler said:
That’s the thing isn’t it, always a compromise. I keep being tempted by the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 but then I’m pretty sure I’ll find 28mm not wide enough, on travels I sometimes find 24mm not wide enough especially when visiting a Basilica or something. 70mm often proves not enough reach, and often I wish I’d got an f1.8 or f1.4 lens for some more ‘arty’ stuff.

I think it’ll be a long time before we get a travel friendly 18-600mm f1.4 FF lens though [emoji38]
Click to expand...
To me, the Tamron zooms only work if you buy the whole kit of 3 or have a very specific set of requirements, and I'm sure this is part of the design. Wonder when they'll release a 180-500? The faster aperture isn't of interest because I'd choose a prime for that need.

24-120 is the sweet spot really, but 105 is definitely more useful than 70mm.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah it’s a “good” lens but I think it gets judged because it carries the Zeiss name. Of course Sony Zeiss is very different to Zeiss.

The 28-70mm kit lens is actually a very good lens. I’m not sure we should even use the term kit lenses anymore as modern ’kit lenses’ are a far cry from the kit lenses of yesteryear.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 and I do think it's a good lens. I can't remember the main two guys names over at Luminous Landscape but from what I remember the guy who sadly died and his friend highly rated that 24-70mm. I remember a picture of those two guys they posted lusting over a large print they'd made. In isolation it may look to be a good or even very good lens but in direct comparison to the very best of the type it may not be all that special but bulk, handling and price also need to be considered and for all I know when viewed as a package maybe it is still a good buy?
 
snerkler said:
I don’t think the 24-70mm is as bad as people say, or maybe it’s because I picked up a mint copy for £400 and judge it at this. It is soft and distorted in the corners compared to similar lenses (although still better than a number of older lenses) although there does appear to be copy variation and newer ones seem to be better than early ones. Also this is only really obvious when printing large or pixel peeping.

The 24-105mm is noticeably sharper across the frame.

I’ve been seriously considering replacing the 24-70mm f4 with the 24-105mm but I’m not sure whether I’d regret the extra size and weight.
Click to expand...
Thats the issue with all manufacturers, quality control is crap
 
rob-nikon said:
Will the price include the physiotherapy once you’ve ruined your back by having that much kit in a sling/shoulder bag?

Several years back I got a think tank shoulder bag. At the time I put a 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 in it along with the Nikon D7000. I took it to the Focus on Imaging photography show at the NEC (it was one of my first visits and I thought that’s what people did - now I know better and leave the camera kit at home!). I learnt the hard way that day that heavy kit in a shoulder bag isn’t for me. My shoulder hurt for several days afterwards.
Click to expand...

I usually use either a cheap man bag bought from a Thai floating market or one of my Billinghams. I don't like big bags or carrying lots of kit. Actually I also have a couple of old Town and Country bags I very occasionally used when I was able to get out by myself for a days walk and they'll take my A7 and maybe three or four primes. That's the most I'd take out. Those T&C bags sometimes crop up for bargain prices.
 
woof woof said:
Yes, I have the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 and I do think it's a good lens. I can't remember the main two guys names over at Luminous Landscape but from what I remember the guy who sadly died and his friend highly rated that 24-70mm. I remember a picture of those two guys they posted lusting over a large print they'd made. In isolation it may look to be a good or even very good lens but in direct comparison to the very best of the type it may not be all that special but bulk, handling and price also need to be considered and for all I know when viewed as a package maybe it is still a good buy?
Click to expand...
I've been tempted to pick up the kit zoom because it's small, light and not expensive - the 24-105 is a heavy lump and really bulky for what it does.
 
snerkler said:
That’s the thing isn’t it, always a compromise. I keep being tempted by the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 but then I’m pretty sure I’ll find 28mm not wide enough, on travels I sometimes find 24mm not wide enough especially when visiting a Basilica or something. 70mm often proves not enough reach, and often I wish I’d got an f1.8 or f1.4 lens for some more ‘arty’ stuff.

I think it’ll be a long time before we get a travel friendly 18-600mm f1.4 FF lens though :LOL:
Click to expand...

I suppose at the wide end if it's not enough there's sometimes the option for a light stitch?
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've been tempted to pick up the kit zoom because it's small, light and not expensive - the 24-105 is a heavy lump and really bulky for what it does.
Click to expand...

I'm not really a zoom person these days but a small cheap but nice 28-70mm could make a nice general purpose day out and holiday lens for everything except low light. I used a lens like that for decades on my Nikon SLR.
 
snerkler said:
I’ve been seriously considering replacing the 24-70mm f4 with the 24-105mm but I’m not sure whether I’d regret the extra size and weight.
Click to expand...

If you dont wish to use the APS mode to achieve the focal length, have you considered the Sigma 24-105? Seems to hold up well against the Sony and half the price.
 
dcash29 said:
If you dont wish to use the APS mode to achieve the focal length, have you considered the Sigma 24-105? Seems to hold up well against the Sony and half the price.
Click to expand...
Isnt the Sigma an A mount lens?
 
A 24 to 105 there is not much in it .

Rob.
 
I'm amazed they have stuff so near an open door.

I was in our local high street on Friday and at the newsagents staff told me a teenager had just run out with an arm full of boxes of chocolates. Over the road at the mini market a teenager had just walked in, grabbed a box of cans of coke and run out while another shopper just walked out with his basket of shopping. A guy passing on a bike chased him and confronted him and he dropped the basket and the bike guy returned it to the shop. I thought he deserved a reward of some sort but all he got was a shouted "Thank you" from the staff behind the counter. Gosh knows how shops survive with thefts on top of the usual costs and of course c19.

Oh, this reminds me of a petrol station that used to have a display of watches on the counter. The staff said they sold the odd one but most were actually stolen. HQ was aware but staff weren't allowed to move them, the watches had to be on the counter. Eventually the contract ended and the watches were no more much to the relief of staff who were bored with it all.
 
dcash29 said:
A is the Sony 24-105
Click to expand...

B looks sharper at the edges to me although is the FOV slightly different? Can't see that affecting things though.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I took these the last time we were in Thailand. A7 and Sony 35mm f2.8 at f2.8, 1/100 and ISO 25,600 and maybe two stops under exposed. I should have dropped the shutter speed down as low as possible but there you go, I didn't. The main problem was the combination of the ISO and the dreadful artificial lighting and I considered the colour pictures unusable but in a bored few minutes today I thought I'd try and rescue something and the results follow. When Mrs WW saw these she asked for them as sadly Tangkraw (Cucumber) was unbeknown to us ill at the time and died a few months later.

Still awful but given the subject matter they are worth something for the memory.

yftPQ7h.jpg


N7Mf6In.jpg


Anyone else got anything that is technically dreadful but was worth saving? :D
Click to expand...

Yep. Managed to scratch the fillum when putting it on the spool. Gotta keep it though.

RollEight8 copy by -justTrev-
 
gman said:
B looks sharper at the edges to me although is the FOV slightly different? Can't see that affecting things though.
Click to expand...
The only noticeable difference is a step forward/backwards, both 24mm @6.3
 
Last edited:
dcash29 said:
The only difference is noticeably a step forward/backwards, both 24mm @6.3
Click to expand...

For me it makes it a little tricky to compare the edges properly, plus the size as Toni says. The yellow on the floor sign looks slightly more vivid/saturated in A. Exposure seems brighter in A as well.
 
Look pretty much the same in the big versions. The colours look better with the 24-105 which is perhaps a more obvious thing to me. When looking at the trim around the floor warning sign there is more detail with the 24-70. Really had to look for it though.
 
gman said:
For me it makes it a little tricky to compare the edges properly, plus the size as Toni says. The yellow on the floor sign looks slightly more vivid/saturated in A. Exposure seems brighter in A as well.
Click to expand...
gman said:
Look pretty much the same in the big versions. The colours look better with the 24-105 which is perhaps a more obvious thing to me. When looking at the trim around the floor warning sign there is more detail with the 24-70. Really had to look for it though.
Click to expand...
Camera settings were the same, bin was the focus point
 
dcash29 said:
Camera settings were the same, bin was the focus point
Click to expand...

So aside from internal lens corrections that we know the camera will make, you've not allowed for different transmission levels (t stop rather than f stop) and colours that lenses produce.

;)

Just ragging on you really, but as presented it's impossible to tell anything other than gross differences.
 
ancient_mariner said:
So aside from internal lens corrections that we know the camera will make, you've not allowed for different transmission levels (t stop rather than f stop) and colours that lenses produce.

;)

Just ragging on you really, but as presented it's impossible to tell anything other than gross differences.
Click to expand...
You certainly are!
Obviously somethings rattled your cage this today. You either see a difference or you don't. (y)
 
dcash29 said:
You certainly are!
Obviously somethings rattled your cage this today. You either see a difference or you don't. (y)
Click to expand...
I'd assumed the comparison was meant to be serious at first - I hadn't realised that it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top