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

TGphoto said:
Yeah, good point. Just tried it, actually prefer it as it is which is probably what I thought at the time of the edit. I can see some would prefer it corrected though
Click to expand...
More often than not I prefer shots like this uncorrected too.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about selling my pretty brand new Sony 24-105mm and getting a 200-600mm instead, although that would leave a fair gap between 35mm and 200mm.

I don't do portraits (if I did I would get the 85mm or 135mm). I've got the 35mm for family stuff so that leaves landscape/panoramic. Would the 200-600mm be useful for doing high detail stitched panos, or is it overkill?

Part of me is thinking that because the 200-600mm focal lengths are so far away from 35mm, then will I be more likely to actually make use of this lens? Whereas the 24-105mm overlaps and is much closer in focal length to the 35mm, so I can often make do by either stitching or moving physically?
 
gman said:
I've been thinking about selling my pretty brand new Sony 24-105mm and getting a 200-600mm instead, although that would leave a fair gap between 35mm and 200mm.

I don't do portraits (if I did I would get the 85mm or 135mm). I've got the 35mm for family stuff so that leaves landscape/panoramic. Would the 200-600mm be useful for doing high detail stitched panos, or is it overkill?

Part of me is thinking that because the 200-600mm focal lengths are so far away from 35mm, then will I be more likely to actually make use of this lens? Whereas the 24-105mm overlaps and is much closer in focal length to the 35mm, so I can often make do by either stitching or moving physically?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure anyone uses the 200-600 as a landscape lens. It would be a big lens to carry around. perhaps the 100-400 would be a better option.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I do.... :)
Click to expand...
Perhaps I would of been better to say ‘most wouldn’t use it as a landscape lens‘ as there is always the exception to the rule (you’re the first I know of who does). I’m guessing you don’t carry it far or take it up a mountain. It’s not what many would regard as a standard landscape lens that should be in every landscape photographer kit bag.
 
rob-nikon said:
Perhaps I would of been better to say ‘most wouldn’t use it as a landscape lens‘ as there is always the exception to the rule (you’re the first I know of who does). I’m guessing you don’t carry it far or take it up a mountain. It’s not what many would regard as a standard landscape lens that should be in every landscape photographer kit bag.
Click to expand...
You're correct, I don't carry it up mountains etc, but it is my most used lens, and it is used mainly for wildlife, but I've taken some good landscape shots with it, as well as portraits....
 
What about for stitched panoramic photos though, would that immense reach allow for very detailed results? The size and weight wouldn't bother me as I would only be taking it out for specific purposes in a backpack rather than a walkabout with the family.

The thing is, there have been many an occasion in the past when I wished I had more reach whether it be Faslane where you are shooting across Gare Loch and can't get any closer, or a warship sailing down the Firth of Clyde and even instances such as getting a shot of the lighthouse on Pladda from a vantage point in Kildonan.

However, how is the quality at 600mm whilst taking into account atmospheric effects?
 
gman said:
What about for stitched panoramic photos though, would that immense reach allow for very detailed results? The size and weight wouldn't bother me as I would only be taking it out for specific purposes in a backpack rather than a walkabout with the family.

The thing is, there have been many an occasion in the past when I wished I had more reach whether it be Faslane where you are shooting across Gare Loch and can't get any closer, or a warship sailing down the Firth of Clyde and even instances such as getting a shot of the lighthouse on Pladda from a vantage point in Kildonan.

However, how is the quality at 600mm whilst taking into account atmospheric effects?
Click to expand...
I've never tried stitching.
Most of the landscape stuff that I've taken is around the 300-400mm mark.
There's a couple of landscape shots in my Flickr taken with the 200-600mm.

https://flic.kr/p/2koTG2X
View: https://flic.kr/p/2koTG2X
https://flic.kr/p/2koTGea
View: https://flic.kr/p/2koTGea
flic.kr

Arran Ferry and Ailsa Craig.

Explore robertgshearer1's 662 photos on Flickr!
flic.kr flic.kr
 
Last edited:
gman said:
What about for stitched panoramic photos though, would that immense reach allow for very detailed results?
However, how is the quality at 600mm whilst taking into account atmospheric effects?
Click to expand...
That's the issue, detail will depend a lot on atmospheric conditions and how far away you are shooting.
 
I agree. Very chilling. Mrs WW would be terrified by that shot, she absolutely refuses to be anywhere near teenagers.
 
Last edited:
Just a simple tourist close up type Snapograph taken at Kent UK of a pile of Oyster Shells that have had the Oysters removed.
I've deliberately gone for a higher contrast gritty look to this snap to emphasise the texture.

Sony-RX, 1/1000th @ F5.6, ISO-100, Handheld.
Oyster Shells-03516 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):sony:
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Just a simple tourist close up type Snapograph taken at Kent UK of a pile of Oyster Shells that have had the Oysters removed.
I've deliberately gone for a higher contrast gritty look to this snap to emphasise the texture.

Sony-RX, 1/1000th @ F5.6, ISO-100, Handheld.
Oyster Shells-03516 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):sony:
Click to expand...
Great idea! Love the textures. Were the oysters tasty?
 
Stephen L said:
Great idea! Love the textures. Were the oysters tasty?
Click to expand...


Thank you Stephen, appreciate your reply.

"They were indeed although I do hasten to add I didn't have that many, half a dozen or so is about my limit in one go"
 
Is the A7R2 still a valid camera today? I’m considering something with greater crop-ability than my A7C as a second camera, but my budget is crippled. I can get a 7R2 new from E-Infin for just over £1k, which is just do-able. I never use video, and rarely shoot anything which moves. Most of my lenses are manual focus.
 
Stephen L said:
Is the A7R2 still a valid camera today? I’m considering something with greater crop-ability than my A7C as a second camera, but my budget is crippled. I can get a 7R2 new from E-Infin for just over £1k, which is just do-able. I never use video, and rarely shoot anything which moves. Most of my lenses are manual focus.
Click to expand...

Yep it's IQ is still up there with the latest and greatest. Things haven't actually improved a whole lot since that sensor.
But it uses a different battery to your A7C which can be annoying.
 
nandbytes said:
Yep it's IQ is still up there with the latest and greatest. Things haven't actually improved a whole lot since that sensor.
But it uses a different battery to your A7C which can be annoying.
Click to expand...
Are the batteries the same as the A6500? I might have some knocking about.
 
GeordieStew said:
I'm considering getting a 100-400ish lens for my a7R IV. Which lens in that bracket is "best"? What are the top 3 options?

Cheers
Click to expand...
The Sigma 100-400 gets really good reviews
Some say its not far from the Sony 100-400 in terms of IQ but at a fraction of the cost.
I had the same dilemma recently but in the end I went for the Sony 200-600G
 
There's a nice blue sky here and it's cold again, we had a bit of snow Monday and Tuesday. Might see if I can sneak out today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top