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

ancient_mariner said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, I read a misleading article suggesting E Mount where the needed lenses, and they are somewhat cheaper from what I have seen.
 
ancient_mariner said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as FE mount. The lenses are all E mount.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sony E-mount - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
robj20 said:
There is no such thing as FE mount. The lenses are all E mount.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sony E-mount - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

You are correct that they all bear the E mount - perhaps I should have said that the A7 requires FE lenses. Nevertheless the information I gave conveyed the knowledge that was required unambiguously and would ensure the OP would not buy an A7 with an unsuitable lens.
 
Crotal Bell said:
That's interesting, I read a misleading article suggesting E Mount where the needed lenses, and they are somewhat cheaper from what I have seen.
Click to expand...
Just for clarity Sony mirrorless is e-mount, however as ancient mariner said Sony E lenses are for their APS-C cameras (A6000 series and Nex) and Sony FE lenses are for their full frame cameras (A7 series, A9 series and A1). You can use E mount lenses on FE cameras however due to the smaller image circle of the E lenses it crops the image meaning it alters the effective focal length and you will lose megapixels. On a 24mp camera like the A7 it would take it down to roughly 10mp.

There are some exceptions to this rule but I don't want to confuse you ;)
 
snerkler said:
Just for clarity Sony mirrorless is e-mount, however as ancient mariner said Sony E lenses are for their APS-C cameras (A6000 series and Nex) and Sony FE lenses are for their full frame cameras (A7 series, A9 series and A1). You can use E mount lenses on FE cameras however due to the smaller image circle of the E lenses it crops the image meaning it alters the effective focal length and you will lose megapixels. On a 24mp camera like the A7 it would take it down to roughly 10mp.

There are some exceptions to this rule but I don't want to confuse you ;)
Click to expand...
Presumably the full frame FE lenses are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the E mount for the APS range?
 
Crotal Bell said:
Presumably the full frame FE lenses are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the E mount for the APS range?
Click to expand...
Generally yes. The larger the sensor the larger the image circle created by the lens has to be therefore the larger the lens (when talking comparative lenses).
 
snerkler said:
Generally yes. The larger the sensor the larger the image circle created by the lens has to be therefore the larger the lens (when talking comparative lenses).
Click to expand...
From what I can see, if you want really good images on a budget, a crop sensor DSLR from say 2015 onwards looks like the best value option on a budget.
Nikon cameras with very low shutter count for around £300 and cheap good quality lenses if you hunt around.
You sacrifice some of the mirroless advantages of say the Sony cameras but they push the budget up and up.
 
Crotal Bell said:
From what I can see, if you want really good images on a budget, a crop sensor DSLR from say 2015 onwards looks like the best value option on a budget.
Nikon cameras with very low shutter count for around £300 and cheap good quality lenses if you hunt around.
You sacrifice some of the mirroless advantages of say the Sony cameras but they push the budget up and up.
Click to expand...

Don't do it... There's just too much to lose going from a relatively modern mirrorless to a 7 year old DSLR, IMO. I think the only possible advantage is that the DSLR kit could be cheap.
 
woof woof said:
Don't do it... There's just too much to lose going from a relatively modern mirrorless to a 7 year old DSLR, IMO. I think the only possible advantage is that the DSLR kit could be cheap.
Click to expand...
But is there too much to lose? The Sony A7 series and the A6000 series has a lot of great features, but I find that I don't use features. That's the big thing, I'm a simple chap and I use Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and I like using exposure compensation. I don't use a lot else apart from shot burst on occasions.
 
Crotal Bell said:
From what I can see, if you want really good images on a budget, a crop sensor DSLR from say 2015 onwards looks like the best value option on a budget.
Nikon cameras with very low shutter count for around £300 and cheap good quality lenses if you hunt around.
You sacrifice some of the mirroless advantages of say the Sony cameras but they push the budget up and up.
Click to expand...
IMO DSLRs are still worth considering, especially if you're on a budget and unlikely to expand your kit/want to upgrade. Image quality is absolutely comparable to mirrorless (when comparing similar aged bodies) and some people still prefer optical viewfinders over electronic viewfinders. The only thing I would say is that DSLRs are a bit bulkier on the whole.

With regards to your posts about features, obviously you don't have to use them but of course they increase the price of the gear.

What exactly are you wanting to shoot and what are your future requirements likely to be? I know you were recently discussing the benefit of Nikon APS-C DSLR vs m4/3, HDR and editing but I'm not sure exactly what type of photography you want to do?
 
Last edited:
Crotal Bell said:
But is there too much to lose? The Sony A7 series and the A6000 series has a lot of great features, but I find that I don't use features. That's the big thing, I'm a simple chap and I use Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and I like using exposure compensation. I don't use a lot else apart from shot burst on occasions.
Click to expand...

I meant there's a lot to lose going from mirrorless to 7 year old DSLR. If your talking about going from MFT to an A7... I don't use a lot of features either but I think you might notice the difference in general speed and responsiveness, it really is like going from a sports car to a Land Rover, IMO.

If like me you're happy in the 24-50mm equivalent focal length range and are happy with the smaller and cheaper f1.8 or 2.5/f2.8 primes the bulk and weight of an A7 camera and lens wont be that much greater than a MFT setup but once you start going for longer focal length primes or f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms the bulk, weight and costs could well be greater than a similar MFT set up. Also there's no electronic shutter on the original A7.

Just as long as you know the plus and minus points of each mirrorless system and DSLR v mirrorless. Other than that, good luck choosing :D
 
All other things being equal, the 2 things that matter most for image quality are the lens and the sensor, pretty much in that order. @Crotal Bell I suggest that if you're looking for an upgrade in image quality you buy based on those - not features you don't use.
 
Probably 99% of my photography is wildlife and suchlike that needs a long telephoto but I bought a Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG EX HSM Art in EF mount last week so thought I would try it yesterday. I never do wide stuff because I lack the imagination to see a "picture" worth taking but decided I needed one for the Autumn leaves (like I need an excuse to buy a new lens!!)

Anyway, lens seems to work ok.


Hythe Marina by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr


Hythe Marina by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr


Hythe Marina by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
 
bl0at3r said:
Anyone got the A7C ?
Thoughts ?
Click to expand...
Yes. Love it, best camera I've ever had for my needs.
Amazing auto focus, feels better built than most of the A7 camera I've held as well probably due to the metal unibody so it feels really solid.
Only downside for me is the poorer EVF but it's plenty usable it just isn't as nice on the bigger cameras.
 
Last edited:
No Longer Available.
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
Anyone got the A7C ?
Thoughts ?
Click to expand...

I've been tempted but a few things put me off...

The lack of a second top of camera control, vertical thumb wheel acts as the second on camera control dial.
Missing buttons.
AFAIK it's EFCS all the time except with the electronic shutter.
Mechanical shutter limit of 1/4,000. No clear answer on if the camera will automatically switch from the mechanical shutter to the electronic shutter to achieve a faster shutter speed.

None of these will matter to some but they add up to a big fat No Thanks from me.
 
Been offered £554 from WEX for the Sony 24-105mm. Was hoping for at least £600, it's immaculate and barely used with the box and all accessories but then I've noticed used prices for this lens isn't as strong as some other lenses, despite the new price remaining strong.

Need to think about this as it's then going to cost me £650 to get the lens I want, but with winter coming how much use will I get, considering it's not idyllic snow scenes up here but horizontal rain. Man maths says that £650 pays for over 2 winters worth of logs and lets me put a finger up to British Gas.... :p Decisions.....
 
gman said:
Been offered £554 from WEX for the Sony 24-105mm. Was hoping for at least £600, it's immaculate and barely used with the box and all accessories but then I've noticed used prices for this lens isn't as strong as some other lenses, despite the new price remaining strong.

Need to think about this as it's then going to cost me £650 to get the lens I want, but with winter coming how much use will I get, considering it's not idyllic snow scenes up here but horizontal rain. Man maths says that £650 pays for over 2 winters worth of logs and lets me put a finger up to British Gas.... :p Decisions.....
Click to expand...

Any chance of selling it on here?
 
Been offered £554 from WEX for the Sony 24-105mm. Was hoping for at least £600, it's immaculate and barely used with the box and all accessories but then I've noticed used prices for this lens isn't as strong as some other lenses, despite the new price remaining strong.

Need to think about this as it's then going to cost me £650 to get the lens I want, but with winter coming how much use will I get, considering it's not idyllic snow scenes up here but horizontal rain. Man maths says that £650 pays for over 2 winters worth of logs and lets me put a finger up to British Gas.... :p Decisions.....
Click to expand...


Shop around, I’ve found offers can vary quite a bit, I had offers that differed by £165 for my Sigma 85mm
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Been offered £554 from WEX for the Sony 24-105mm. Was hoping for at least £600, it's immaculate and barely used with the box and all accessories but then I've noticed used prices for this lens isn't as strong as some other lenses, despite the new price remaining strong.
Click to expand...

LOL ... I literally had one of these turn up this morning that I bought off Ebay Saturday.

Paid more than £600 for it as well :rolleyes:
 
I go to WEX really out of convenience because it's not far away and I can have it checked in branch, rather than post it away and it gets "damaged".

Was thinking about on here, but they didn't seem to be shifting very well at over £600, I think?
 
gman said:
I go to WEX really out of convenience because it's not far away and I can have it checked in branch, rather than post it away and it gets "damaged".

Was thinking about on here, but they didn't seem to be shifting very well at over £600, I think?
Click to expand...

Trade ins might be a bit low in the next couple of weeks because if the run- up to the photography show - dealers won’t want to get stuck with a/h stock they can’t shift - and we don’t know what the show promotions may bring - you never know the difference between buy and sell may end up being the same if the lens goes on promotion
 
gman said:
I go to WEX really out of convenience because it's not far away and I can have it checked in branch, rather than post it away and it gets "damaged".

Was thinking about on here, but they didn't seem to be shifting very well at over £600, I think?
Click to expand...
Packaged properly and they shouldn't get damaged, plus places like MPB collect with insured collection. £600 sounds about right I think, maybe £625 at a push if mint, boxed etc, MPB quoted £625 for mine a while back.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
IMO DSLRs are still worth considering, especially if you're on a budget and unlikely to expand your kit/want to upgrade. Image quality is absolutely comparable to mirrorless (when comparing similar aged bodies) and some people still prefer optical viewfinders over electronic viewfinders. The only thing I would say is that DSLRs are a bit bulkier on the whole.

With regards to your posts about features, obviously you don't have to use them but of course they increase the price of the gear.

What exactly are you wanting to shoot and what are your future requirements likely to be? I know you were recently discussing the benefit of Nikon APS-C DSLR vs m4/3, HDR and editing but I'm not sure exactly what type of photography you want to do?
Click to expand...
What I'm really after is a fairly modest set up without adding a ton of lenses, BUT, I want lovely pictures. With limited budget for lenses my theory is that bigger sensors and more pixels will help me get the best from the more all round lenses (I can't afford big zooms so some cropping often comes in) Sometimes I shoot moving subjects but I think most modern-ish cameras do a decent job. I love the feel of my G80, but 16MP and a MFT sensor may be losing me something when I can't afford all the lenses/accessories, and some of the Sony cameras seem to offer a bit more for what I need (as does the canon M5)

Video is not my thing, so basic stuff for that is all I need.
 
Crotal Bell said:
What I'm really after is a fairly modest set up without adding a ton of lenses, BUT, I want lovely pictures. With limited budget for lenses my theory is that bigger sensors and more pixels will help me get the best from the more all round lenses (I can't afford big zooms so some cropping often comes in) Sometimes I shoot moving subjects but I think most modern-ish cameras do a decent job. I love the feel of my G80, but 16MP and a MFT sensor may be losing me something when I can't afford all the lenses/accessories, and some of the Sony cameras seem to offer a bit more for what I need (as does the canon M5)

Video is not my thing, so basic stuff for that is all I need.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong and I know I've said this before but I think a better processing package could be a help. Other than that, I think that apart from a lack of DR against FF 16mp MFT pictures aren't that bad, IMO, until you start pushing the envelope of (DR) and ISO. Stick to wide open to f4 or f5.6 or so and try and keep the ISO down if at all possible and the image quality should be ok. Getting smaller subjects like birds and dragon flies big in the frame is always going to be a problem but remember that MFT can help a bit with this as 300mm on MFT gives more reach than it does on APS-C and much more than on FF.
 
woof woof said:
I could be wrong and I know I've said this before but I think a better processing package could be a help. Other than that, I think that apart from a lack of DR against FF 16mp MFT pictures aren't that bad, IMO, until you start pushing the envelope of (DR) and ISO. Stick to wide open to f4 or f5.6 or so and try and keep the ISO down if at all possible and the image quality should be ok. Getting smaller subjects like birds and dragon flies big in the frame is always going to be a problem but remember that MFT can help a bit with this as 300mm on MFT gives more reach than it does on APS-C and much more than on FF.
Click to expand...
To be honest Alan, the cheap FZ82 usually beats the 100-300mm because it goes double the zoom and there's little need to crop, however, I do notice more noise in low light with the FZ82 especially when auto ISO ramps it up. I took a string of shots today of a cyclist coming towards me, the FZ82 did a great job of of tracking the cyclist but the ISO went to 1600 and they images were very noisy. I tend to use the 12-60mm on the G80 which I find has a great range for framing and composing scenic shots and portraits. I guess the Sony Alpha ranges appeal because I think the added pixels and larger sensor will give the images a boost.
 
Crotal Bell said:
What I'm really after is a fairly modest set up without adding a ton of lenses, BUT, I want lovely pictures. With limited budget for lenses my theory is that bigger sensors and more pixels will help me get the best from the more all round lenses (I can't afford big zooms so some cropping often comes in) Sometimes I shoot moving subjects but I think most modern-ish cameras do a decent job. I love the feel of my G80, but 16MP and a MFT sensor may be losing me something when I can't afford all the lenses/accessories, and some of the Sony cameras seem to offer a bit more for what I need (as does the canon M5)

Video is not my thing, so basic stuff for that is all I need.
Click to expand...
I would seriously suggest going the Fuji route, maybe pick up a used X-T 2 with the stellar XF 18-55mm 2.8-4 lens, should be able to get the combo for under 700 ish.
 
Crotal Bell said:
What I'm really after is a fairly modest set up without adding a ton of lenses, BUT, I want lovely pictures. With limited budget for lenses my theory is that bigger sensors and more pixels will help me get the best from the more all round lenses (I can't afford big zooms so some cropping often comes in) Sometimes I shoot moving subjects but I think most modern-ish cameras do a decent job. I love the feel of my G80, but 16MP and a MFT sensor may be losing me something when I can't afford all the lenses/accessories, and some of the Sony cameras seem to offer a bit more for what I need (as does the canon M5)

Video is not my thing, so basic stuff for that is all I need.
Click to expand...
I personally wouldn't swap from m4/3 to APS-C as there's not enough difference and you'd just be throwing money away imo if it's purely for IQ reasons. I've cropped pretty heavy with M4/3 and got decent results. IF you're worried about reach you can buy a used olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6 R (80-300mm eq) for under £100. It's really lightweight (to the point it feels a bit cheap) but IQ is very good. You can stick it in a coat pocket and barely know it's there.

Moving from m4/3 to FF I believe there is enough of a difference in IQ to justify the swap, however you then have to question whether your budget can stretch to something that you want and not just making do, plus the system is bigger and heavier.

What you have to ask yourself is whether you are going to see enough of a difference because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what others think.

Here's some comparisons from myself. Not exact comparisons but close.

m4/3

P8246787 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

FF

A9_05337-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

m4/3

P1250064-HDR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

FF

DSC_5098 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

m4/3

P2130021 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

FF

A9_04359 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I personally wouldn't swap from m4/3 to APS-C as there's not enough difference and you'd just be throwing money away imo if it's purely for IQ reasons. I've cropped pretty heavy with M4/3 and got decent results. IF you're worried about reach you can buy a used olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6 R (80-300mm eq) for under £100. It's really lightweight (to the point it feels a bit cheap) but IQ is very good. You can stick it in a coat pocket and barely know it's there.

Moving from m4/3 to FF I believe there is enough of a difference in IQ to justify the swap, however you then have to question whether your budget can stretch to something that you want and not just making do, plus the system is bigger and heavier.

What you have to ask yourself is whether you are going to see enough of a difference because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what others think.

Here's some comparisons from myself. Not exact comparisons but close.

m4/3

P8246787 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

FF

A9_05337-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

m4/3

P1250064-HDR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

FF

DSC_5098 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

m4/3

P2130021 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

FF

A9_04359 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Lovely shots, shows with the right hands you can take good pictures with whatever camera.

I actually have more m43 bodies than I do FF now lol.

Having said that the Panasonics I have are pants at tracking and action. They have 1/500s max limit on mechanical shutter.
We use them because they are small and still gives be nice image quality.

FF image quality in situations where you need to increase your ISO beyond 1600 is definitely noticeably better. Also Sony's tracking especially on something like A7IV is miles better than anything I have experienced on m43 (mind you I haven't used E-M1x or om-1)

If OP is just looking for a minimal setup with the likes of the new tamron 50-400mm for example that's perfectly possible. Just add a couple primes or a zoom at the wide end and you are done.
But FF does cost a lot more.
 
With all respect to those who own and love Fuji I wouldn't advise going down that route without being fully aware of Xtrans and any possible processing issues and preferences.

MFT long lens wise I have the Panasonic 45-150mm which is very compact and the 100-400mm which sits unused. Shorter zoom wise I have the Oly 11-18mm, the good 12-35mm f2.8 and the teeny tiny 14-45mm f3.5-5.6.
 
bl0at3r said:
Anyone got the A7C ?
Thoughts ?
Click to expand...
Had it, sold it. Ergonomics not to my taste, poor viewfinder, only really suited to primes (though that's not necessarily a bad thing). Good IQ though. Preferred my A6000 and A6500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top