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

nandbytes said:
I have generalised a little, I suppose it depends for example on how big the subject is in the frame etc. But I rarely need to point my centre point at the face of a person for it to lock on to the eye. It generally finds them without much problems.
Click to expand...
I guess I really need to play with it to learn it's behaviour in certain situations but I'm really keen to get a Sony A7IV given it's got the latest algorithms and features etc and it's got a considerably higher resolution to my R6. I may also use some of my EF glass for a little while until I finalise on which to keep - Canon or Sony!! Am I right in saying that MC-11 Sigma adapted EF glass won't have the AF features available compared to using native E mount glass? I think my first lens would be either the Tampon 28-75 G2, or the Sony 55mm f/1.8 - just to have a play around.
 
gilbouk said:
I guess I really need to play with it to learn it's behaviour in certain situations but I'm really keen to get a Sony A7IV given it's got the latest algorithms and features etc and it's got a considerably higher resolution to my R6. I may also use some of my EF glass for a little while until I finalise on which to keep - Canon or Sony!! Am I right in saying that MC-11 Sigma adapted EF glass won't have the AF features available compared to using native E mount glass?
Click to expand...
With MC-11 you will have most of the AF feature for stills. it won't work well for video.
gilbouk said:
I think my first lens would be either the Tampon 28-75 G2, or the Sony 55mm f/1.8 - just to have a play around.
Click to expand...

not sure Tampons will get you very far but I have heard good things about tamron :D
Also consider sigma 24-70mm f2.8 which is rather good.
 
nandbytes said:
I have generalised a little, I suppose it depends for example on how big the subject is in the frame etc. But I rarely need to point my centre point at the face of a person for it to lock on to the eye. It generally finds them without much problems.
Click to expand...
I've just tried again with the subject larger in the frame and mine now also jumps from the torso to the eye, but cleverly doesn't if you focus on something that's not part of the person.

@gilbouk here's an example I just took

View: https://youtu.be/FI_37kamRtM
 
snerkler said:
I've just tried again with the subject larger in the frame and mine now also jumps from the torso to the eye, but cleverly doesn't if you focus on something that's not part of the person.

@gilbouk here's an example I just took

View: https://youtu.be/FI_37kamRtM
Click to expand...
That's pretty cool!! It's going to be fun trying it out and putting it through it's paces in real life situations :). I have found that with the R6 there are too many people that it doesn't recognise too. Thick glasses, or naturally narrow eyes and it seldom sticks - maybe I have had the minority as luck would have it, but I'd like to see how Sony performs in comparison. It does seem to be much more intelligent with how it recognises and reacts to subject selection
 
Last edited:
gilbouk said:
That's pretty cool!! It's going to be fun trying it out and putting it through it's paces in real life situations :). I have found that with the R6 there are too many people that it doesn't recognise too. Thick glasses, or naturally narrow eyes and it seldom sticks - maybe I have had the minority as luck would have it, but I'd like to see how Sony performs in comparison. It does seem to be much more intelligent with how it recognises and reacts to subject selection
Click to expand...
That was with the Samyang 50mm f1.4 FE II lens too.
 
snerkler said:
I've just tried again with the subject larger in the frame and mine now also jumps from the torso to the eye, but cleverly doesn't if you focus on something that's not part of the person.

@gilbouk here's an example I just took

View: https://youtu.be/FI_37kamRtM
Click to expand...

As surprising as it may sound I do use my camera sometimes :ROFLMAO:

I haven't actually missed the A1 as much as I thought I would. May be A7IV could work for you too?
 
gilbouk said:
I actually don't use electronic shutter much on the R6 because I'm so used to the audible click. The audible click on the R6 is so subtle compared to my old D750 I can't imagine it being hugely distracting. The other reason I prefer mechanical is I tend to take too many photos with electronic as I find it harder to perceive whether I actually took a photo!! I also seem to get a lot more exposure anomalies / I think it's artificial lighting flickering, and flickering reduction setting helps somewhat though. I don't think I'd be that fussed with the high frame rate tbh - I've never found that to be limiting unless the buffer stops me from taking more photos which I found annoying on the D750
Click to expand...
With the A9/A9ii and A1 you don’t tend to get exposure anomalies due to the faster readout of the sensor. I was concerned about the artificial last weekend but I was worrying about nothing as it was not an issue. With the A9ii and A1 (and possibly the A9) you get set it so that a white/teal frame flashes when you take a photo. You can of course enable an artificial sound with the electronic shutter which I actually had to do at the weekend as it was confusing the models not hearing the shutter going off and they didn’t know when they could break pose :LOL:
nandbytes said:
As surprising as it may sound I do use my camera sometimes :ROFLMAO:

I haven't actually missed the A1 as much as I thought I would. May be A7IV could work for you too?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t doubting you lol. I just wondered why mine behaved differently, but it turns out it doesn’t ;)
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
I can't comment on the Sony, but I've certainly no complaints with the Tamron 70-180mm
Click to expand...
I thought the Tamron was excellent considering the price, optically it's great.

Obviously there's some compromises such as build quality, whilst very good can't match the Sony 70-200's. AF was great except subject coming towards the camera where I'd say it's 'good'.

This is a bit nit picking though as it's a fraction of the price of the Sony 70-200mm f2.8's (y)
 
Mike.P said:
Anyone tried the Sony 70-200mm f/4?

Amazon Germany have them for around £780 (exchange rate dependent)
Click to expand...

It was one of the first lenses I got when I switched to Sony.

Has great build quality but it’s not that sharp at the long end unless you step down a bit and a.f speed is a bit pedestrian by todays standards. Probably due an update this one.

I have the Tamron now it’s okay I don’t use a lens at that focal length much so it hasn’t seen much use. The Tamron. Is small, light and has decent enough a.f, it’s also pretty sharp. Think I only paid £620 for it at the time from e-infin and it’s well worth that sort of money. The Tamron is very plasticky and feels like a cheap lens.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Does Mark Galer ever say anything bad about anything Sony
Click to expand...
I don’t think he’s a big fan of the 85 GM compared to the 85 1.8

There’s no doubt he gets the best out of Sony kit, that’s why he’s an ambassador.
 
imattersuk said:
I don’t think he’s a big fan of the 85 GM compared to the 85 1.8

There’s no doubt he gets the best out of Sony kit, that’s why he’s an ambassador.
Click to expand...

Being a Sony ambassador is more down to how many followers you have on Instagram and how many sub to you on YouTube than anything else.
 
f/2.8 said:
Being a Sony ambassador is more down to how many followers you have on Instagram and how many sub to you on YouTube than anything else.
Click to expand...
Ok so you can be a really crap photographer and get a massive following on YouTube lol
 
addicknchips said:
I think this is one of the most overlooked lenses in the Sony line up. Imo very underrated especially if you can find a bargain used one about. I only ever used it on the a7rii and it did well. The Tamron may be a better option for its weight and f2.8 but that lens sucks a**e at 200mm.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
addicknchips said:
I think this is one of the most overlooked lenses in the Sony line up. Imo very underrated especially if you can find a bargain used one about. I only ever used it on the a7rii and it did well. The Tamron may be a better option for its weight and f2.8 but that lens sucks a**e at 200mm.
Click to expand...
Better than sucking dust ? Matter of opinion :ROFLMAO:
 
imattersuk said:
Ok so you can be a really crap photographer and get a massive following on YouTube lol
Click to expand...

Not crap but you can certainly be very mediocre.

With YouTube it actually isn't that difficult if you have the time to put in.

You don't need millions of subscribers and none of the content that is on the Sony ambassadors channels has anything to do with actual images. Actually with quite a few of them the only images you will see are from when they are testing equipment and they are often quite mediocre. It isn't a quality contest it's a popularity contest. It is the same with all of these types of programmes regardless of the manufacturer.

My eldest before she got bored with it had over 600k subscribers (non photography related) at one point and got offered all sorts of free stuff, related to the videos she was making at the time. She didn't do anything other than post a video every day. YouTube also has it's own built in S.E.O related to the tags and location information and if you know what to do and have the time to put in, it isn't that difficult to force a video to have a lot of views and become popular.

If you have the cash to burn YouTube is also one of the easiest social media platforms to fake having a following as it's super easy to buy views, comments and followers using bot accounts and not as expensive as it is to do that on other platforms. My brother works in social media and when you know what to actually look for its surprising how many of the big accounts on YouTube are buying their way to being successful on there.

He isn't a Sony ambassador but as an example Dustin Abbots photos are very mediocre and look at the large online following he has.

We don't have a huge social media following and even we have been offered free stuff and been asked to be part of ambassador programmes, not for the likes of Sony off course but for other less well known brands.

I also know someone who was once a Fuji X photographer it was a while back but it was because of the amount of traffic his blog got at the time and very little to do with his actual photography. He told me that himself.
 
Last edited:
addicknchips said:
I think this is one of the most overlooked lenses in the Sony line up. Imo very underrated especially if you can find a bargain used one about. I only ever used it on the a7rii and it did well. The Tamron may be a better option for its weight and f2.8 but that lens sucks a**e at 200mm.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't tbh. Given the difference in sharpness you are just better off just cropping a little bit with the tamron. 200mm is the weakest point for the sony, its not all that sharp past mid frame at 200mm.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
No it doesn't tbh. Given the difference in sharpness you are just better off just cropping a little bit with the tamron. 200mm is the weakest point for the sony, its not all that sharp past mid frame at 200mm.
Click to expand...
It's not all about sharpness, some people will benefit from OSS, some like the extra button, some like the better build quality, many will prefer internal zooming, it's good to have a choice.

I've been hugely impressed with the build quality of the 28-75 G2, less so when handling a 70-180.
 
nandbytes said:
No it doesn't tbh. Given the difference in sharpness you are just better off just cropping a little bit with the tamron. 200mm is the weakest point for the sony, its not all that sharp past mid frame at 200mm.
Click to expand...

Tbh it does.
 
nandbytes said:
No it doesn't tbh. Given the difference in sharpness you are just better off just cropping a little bit with the tamron. 200mm is the weakest point for the sony, its not all that sharp past mid frame at 200mm.
Click to expand...

I agree the 70-200 f/4 is well passed being due for an update and really shows its limitations now compared to the Tamron.

It was a good option back when the only other option was adapting or buying the much more expensive G.M lens.

Maybe @addicknchips is looking back through rose tinted glasses a bit am sure it's probably been a good long time since he last used the f/4 lens.
 
imattersuk said:
It's not all about sharpness, some people will benefit from OSS, some like the extra button, some like the better build quality, many will prefer internal zooming, it's good to have a choice.

I've been hugely impressed with the build quality of the 28-75 G2, less so when handling a 70-180.
Click to expand...

It is indeed good have a choice but Sony 70-200 f4 isn't the best of choices IMO. I know a few people who preferred to adapt older canon EF 70-200mm f4 because it was cheaper and sharper than Sony version at 200mm. It's one of the earlier Sony lenses and it's not that good even when compared to many older lenses in its class.

tamron have "upgraded" the build quality of lenses with 35-150 and 28-75G2. Older lenses do feel less well built but I don't think they'll fall apart or anything.
 
nandbytes said:
It is indeed good have a choice but Sony 70-200 f4 isn't the best of choices IMO. I know a few people who preferred to adapt older canon EF 70-200mm f4 because it was cheaper and sharper than Sony version at 200mm. It's one of the earlier Sony lenses and it's not that good even when compared to many older lenses in its class.

tamron have "upgraded" the build quality of lenses with 35-150 and 28-75G2. Older lenses do feel less well built but I don't think they'll fall apart or anything.
Click to expand...
You keep failing to address the issue of the Tamron's performance at 200mm
 
imattersuk said:
You keep failing to address the issue of the Tamron's performance at 200mm
Click to expand...
I have already addressed that above in comparison to sony
nandbytes said:
Given the difference in sharpness you are just better off just cropping a little bit with the tamron. 200mm is the weakest point for the sony, its not all that sharp past mid frame at 200mm.
Click to expand...
 
nandbytes said:
It is indeed good have a choice but Sony 70-200 f4 isn't the best of choices IMO. I know a few people who preferred to adapt older canon EF 70-200mm f4 because it was cheaper and sharper than Sony version at 200mm. It's one of the earlier Sony lenses and it's not that good even when compared to many older lenses in its class.

tamron have "upgraded" the build quality of lenses with 35-150 and 28-75G2. Older lenses do feel less well built but I don't think they'll fall apart or anything.
Click to expand...

I believe the reason being there was about £1000 difference in the price being the driving force of people adapting the canon lens….The Sony being very expensive at the time for an f4 where a used canon could be picked up for about £350.

While the Sony won’t compete with a latest gm lens id never put it anywhere the same category as say the zeiss 24-70f4 in terms of sharpness.
 
addicknchips said:
I believe the reason being there was about £1000 difference in the price being the driving force of people adapting the canon lens….The Sony being very expensive at the time for an f4 where a used canon could be picked up for about £350.

While the Sony won’t compete with a latest gm lens id never put it anywhere the same category as say the zeiss 24-70f4 in terms of sharpness.
Click to expand...

Price wasn't the only driving force, the Sony wasn't optically as good either.

The Zeiss 24-70mm f4 isn't all that good either optically speaking. It was designed to be small and its quite good at that. The canon 24-70mm f4 for example is excellent optically but also a fair bit larger. Sony 70-200mm f4 was not smaller or lighter than its competition and it was not optically as good plus you had to pay a lot more.
 
nandbytes said:
Price wasn't the only driving force, the Sony wasn't optically as good either.

The Zeiss 24-70mm f4 isn't all that good either optically speaking. It was designed to be small and its quite good at that. The canon 24-70mm f4 for example is excellent optically but also a fair bit larger. Sony 70-200mm f4 was not smaller or lighter than its competition and it was not optically as good plus you had to pay a lot more.
Click to expand...

That’s my point. The zeiss is renowned for being a bit of a dog sharpness wise. I’d not put the 70-200 in the same category.

Anyway, probably best for interested parties do their own research as I know this won’t end until you get the last word in :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top