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

leaky5 said:
If you Google this issue, it comes back with quite a few hits, although the newest is about 2016. Maybe they fixed the issue.

I might keep an eye out for a SAL1650 2.8, that fits the bill I think
Click to expand...
Yes, the SAL 1650 f/2.8 is a good option - it wasn't out when I bought my CZ 1680, otherwise it would have been my choice.

The problem with using Google to determine the scale of a problem is that you only see how often things went wrong (or people repeated hearing about someone else having the problem) - you don't see the numbers where the lens / camera performed flawlessly. So unless you know how many copies of the item actually sold, it's impossible to determine the scale of the issue. 100 faulty items of something that sold 1000 copies is a significant problem, but if 1M copies were sold, it's a minor problem.
 
woof woof said:
I've never attempted to take any sort of group shot at that sort of focal length. I suppose a lot depends on the topography and what you want, head and shoulders, half body, full body etc but the more you want in, obviously, the further away the camera and lens need to be.
Click to expand...

Not group shots but individual usually and natural. The 35mm works most of the time for this so I do think the 135mm will not get used properly.
 
Mike.P said:
Not the 200-600mm?

That lens is the reason I bought another A9.
Click to expand...

That was the top choice initially, but if the Sigma is just as good then it's a tidy saving. But is it good enough?
 
gman said:
That was the top choice initially, but if the Sigma is just as good then it's a tidy saving. But is it good enough?
Click to expand...
Sigma zooms have a bit of a reputation for being dust hoovers
 
All the reviews on the 135 GM say how good it is, but lots also say it is a specialist lens which does not get used a lot and its a bit of a lump to carry around in your bag, but the bokeh on it is impressive and supposed to be very fast & accurate focusing. Bargain compared to the 70-200 GM 2 but not a s flexible
Looked at it a few times but not got one as think it would be in the bag a lot, though just looking at 135 gm pictures on Flickr it is tempting, again:)
 
imattersuk said:
Sigma zooms have a bit of a reputation for being dust hoovers
Click to expand...
I’ve never had an issue with Sigmas with this, Tamron on the other hand……
 
snerkler said:
I’ve never had an issue with Sigmas with this, Tamron on the other hand……
Click to expand...
I've seen lot's of reports of dust with the 100-400 and 150-600 as neither are weather sealed, just a rubber gasket at the mount. The Tamron 150-500 apparently has full weather sealing.

What lens did you have issues with ?
 
imattersuk said:
I've seen lot's of reports of dust with the 100-400 and 150-600 as neither are weather sealed, just a rubber gasket at the mount. The Tamron 150-500 apparently has full weather sealing.

What lens did you have issues with ?
Click to expand...
Tamron 150-600mm, crazy how much dust got in that. Very well known issue and I believe Tamron would clean it free of charge. That was weather sealed too.
 
snerkler said:
Tamron 150-600mm, crazy how much dust got in that. Very well known issue and I believe Tamron would clean it free of charge. That was weather sealed too.
Click to expand...
Well all of WEX's used stock has dust throughout apparently :ROFLMAO:
 
Mike.P said:
I went with the Sony because of the internal zoom and very slightly better IQ ... plus it will take the Sony 1.4x which gives very acceptable results in decent light.

Click to expand...

Hmm, internal zoom would be nice. Plenty to think about.
 
gman said:
Hmm, internal zoom would be nice. Plenty to think about.
Click to expand...
Is it still the long reach pano stitch lens you’re looking for? If so I think lenses like the 200-600mm are too heavy to be carrying around countrysides. YMMV of course.
 
snerkler said:
I’ve never had an issue with Sigmas with this, Tamron on the other hand……
Click to expand...
For some reason the mirrorless Sigma zoom lenses are very prone to dust. Much more than Tamron it’s was very much the other way around with DSLR lenses.
 
f/2.8 said:
For some reason the mirrorless Sigma zoom lenses are very prone to dust. Much more than Tamron it’s was very much the other way around with DSLR lenses.
Click to expand...
Good to know (y)
 
ancient_mariner said:
Yes, it is. I would only buy from a shop with warranty.
Click to expand...

FWIW I have one. Optically it's Just much nicer than any other zoom I've had on APS-C, though far from perfect, but mine has problems with fcussing gears, and has never close-focussed correctly. It can give images a bit of a 3D pop that you don't often get with zooms generally. There were a couple of lenses that I always had on my Sony A58- this and the old A mount 50 f1.4 - and when I switched to Nikon Fx I was quite disappointed in image quality to begin with, expecting a jump.
 
gman said:
Probably more for the fast running dog shots as she grows up, but perhaps this is going to be a focal length just for special occasions and probably shelved.

The Tamron 35-150mm mentioned covers an awful lot of focal range I don't need and is rather expensive when taking that into account. If looking near the 150mm end of it then I may as well get the 135mm prime?

Looks like it is going to be between the Sigma 100-400mm and Sigma 150-600mm. If nobody has them to comment on then I better start my research! lol
Click to expand...
I have the Sigma 100-400
I use it mainly with the a7R4a
An amazing lens for the money

Red Deer Stag by Mike Stephen, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I've noticed recently that used prices are high and not much saving over new if you want a mint copy, not sure why. For example I've been keeping an eye on the Sony RX100 VI prices, £849 new and £809 used "like new".
Click to expand...

It's nuts. Obviously there are cheaper ones about to be had, but even if extra minty it should not be almost the same price as new, it's used after all.
 
Late Summer can be a bit hit and miss for birds but had a great day this week at Leighton Moss RSPB

1: Sedge Warbler
DSC02744 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

2: Sedge Warbler 2
DSC02722 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

3: Dunnock
DSC02764-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

4: Comma Butterfly
DSC02815-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

5: Migrant Hawker
DSC02862-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

6: Four Gadwall
DSC02894-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

7: Beautiful Greenfinch
DSC02916-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

8: Blue Tit
DSC02938-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I've noticed recently that used prices are high and not much saving over new if you want a mint copy, not sure why. For example I've been keeping an eye on the Sony RX100 VI prices, £849 new and £809 used "like new".
Click to expand...
I think the technical term is that some retailers are “ taking the p***”
 
Hello Sony people. The A7II looks a nice camera on the second hand market and some pretty cheap used lenses available too (E Mount I believe?)
Still a wee bit costly for my very small budget, what else in the range gives the image qualities of the A7II a bit cheaper in the used market?
(I'm not interested in fancy video capabilities, it's all about the stills for me)
 
Crotal Bell said:
Hello Sony people. The A7II looks a nice camera on the second hand market and some pretty cheap used lenses available too (E Mount I believe?)
Still a wee bit costly for my very small budget, what else in the range gives the image qualities of the A7II a bit cheaper in the used market?
(I'm not interested in fancy video capabilities, it's all about the stills for me)
Click to expand...

The original A7 if you can live without IBIS - Still not super cheap though I don't think!
 
Crotal Bell said:
Aha i guess the IBIS is pretty important, hence the addition for the A7II?
Click to expand...

I've never seen IS as all that important as my shutter speed is usually high enough to avoid camera shake and if the picture involves people or even just things that move under their own power or in the breeze the shutter speed will need to be high enough to freeze movement and that will again probably prevent camera shake being a problem. To me IS would only help with much longer lenses or when taking pictures of things that don't move in very low light and I don't tend to take either of those sort of pictures.

So maybe the first question could be, do I need IS?
 
woof woof said:
I've never seen IS as all that important as my shutter speed is usually high enough to avoid camera shake and if the picture involves people or even just things that move under their own power or in the breeze the shutter speed will need to be high enough to freeze movement and that will again probably prevent camera shake being a problem. To me IS would only help with much longer lenses or when taking pictures of things that don't move in very low light and I don't tend to take either of those sort of pictures.

So maybe the first question could be, do I need IS?
Click to expand...
I can't answer that. I don't have the knowledge of cameras to know if I need IS or not. My Pana G80 has it, but do I personally need it? I suppose the only response I can give is what I managed to do with a roll of film on a Canon SLR which I assume had far less stabilisation back then than any of the digital cameras do in the more modern era?
000085840023.jpg

000085840026.jpg
 
Crotal Bell said:
Aha i guess the IBIS is pretty important, hence the addition for the A7II?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't need IBIS depending on the lenses you want some Sony zoom lenses have OSS built in.
I'd have no issue having the original A7 for static subjects. Once things start moving the AF let's it down.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
You wouldn't need IBIS depending on the legs you want some Sony zoom lenses have OSS built in.
I'd have no issue having the original A7 for static subjects. Once things start moving the AF let's it down.
Click to expand...
Yeah you certainly don’t want jelly legs ;) :p
 
An easy way to test whether IS makes a difference is to turn it off and see if your pictures are different.

Lenses for the A7 series are FE- not E mount (those are crop format, though they fit, and will work to an extent). With the exception of minor makes like Meike etc FE lenses are more expensive than those for M43, often a lot more.

An A7 with kit zoom would be good value but might not be a lot better than your present outfit. Of course you could add a couple of 'cheap' Samyang primes at £350 ish each but that's getting spendy, relatively speaking.
 
Talking of IS I don't think Sony's IS is as obvious as other systems. For example with Nikon VR lenses you could see a stark contrast when VR kicked in, whereas with Sony it's more subtle.
 
ancient_mariner said:
An A7 with kit zoom would be good value but might not be a lot better than your present outfit. Of course you could add a couple of 'cheap' Samyang primes at £350 ish each but that's getting spendy, relatively speaking.
Click to expand...

IMO based on owning the kit an A7 and kit lens will be a match for and IMO better than a 20mp MFT camera and a f2.8 zoom as you get more DR and better general IQ. MFT may lead in some specific areas like sharpness into the corners if you've got a really good lens but I think for MFT to match or even pull ahead of the Sony for global image quality stuff you'd have to go for a recent body and a nice prime to stand any chance.

On Keith going for an A7 and kit lens rather than sticking with MFT I think it's worth thinking about other differences. For example MFT cameras are blisteringly fast in operation whilst the A7 isn't, it's relatively slow. Also there's the replacement lenses to think about.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Aha i guess the IBIS is pretty important, hence the addition for the A7II?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say important, just handy to have at times. One thing I would say is that if you are interested in the Sony system then go out and grab a hold of the gen 1 and 2 bodies before buying as the ergonomics and grip aren't for everyone. Also they don't have a joystick so there is no direct access to moving the AF point which I find highly irritating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top