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

T_J_G said:
You wouldn't want to see mine then:p
As a side, but related note, what value would anyone put on a severely worn A7iii with a 200k shutter count? I'm considering letting one of mine go.
Click to expand...

A good condition used one is about £1100 on a shop. I suspect they buy it off people 2/3rd of that price, or may be a touch lower as they need to pay VAT on the sale. So probably £700.

That means a well worn, well used one with high shutter count...to a store, like £500, perhaps £700 if it's to another person....

Side note, Clifton camera still have an offer until the 15th which £300 bonus to trade in the A73 if you want, you might get £500 for it, add £300 so you get £800 towards a A74.

That would be the best you will get IMO.
 
gilbouk said:
Does anybody have the Viltrox 85mm f/1.8 II? I'm considering a change from my Sony 85mm f/1,8 as I'm getting a lot of green and purple fringing on back lit situations. I understand the VIltrox doesn't exhibit the same characteristics. Anybody got any experience of the VIltrox lens?
Click to expand...
Don't know much about viltrox, seems to get good reviews but so does Sony. My main issue with viltrox was the size given that its "only* F1.8.

I suggest either the sigma 85mm f1.4 DN or the new samyang 85mm f1.4 II
 
On the (cold) beach.

A7 and 24mm f2.8 G.

eIZsdoB.jpg


Our usual picnic spot.

Kc5GJCW.jpg
 
gilbouk said:
Does anybody have the Viltrox 85mm f/1.8 II? I'm considering a change from my Sony 85mm f/1,8 as I'm getting a lot of green and purple fringing on back lit situations. I understand the VIltrox doesn't exhibit the same characteristics. Anybody got any experience of the VIltrox lens?
Click to expand...

I had the gen 1 and the rendering was lovely, but the AF broken. Gen 2 should be good if the AF is fixed.
 
woof woof said:
More on that 20-70mm...

RUMOR: Sony 20-70mm f/4.0 is sharper than the first generation 24-70mm GM! | sonyalpharumors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrWgF842NJc I got some good news about the upcoming Sony 20-70mm f/4.0 lens. First of all I can now confirm it has constant f/4.0 aperture and that lens will be announced next week on Jan 17. I also have been told the lens is optically superb with very little...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrWgF842NJc
Click to expand...
Some interesting lenses around and out soon.

This is the Tamron 20-40 f2.8. Speed Vs range.
 
I wouldn’t choose 20-40mm over a 16-35mm personally. The extra reach is neither here nor there and nothing a bit of cropping can’t sort, but 16mm vs 20mm is a big difference.

The 20-70mm is a decent range and definitely something I’d consider, but at £1600 I don’t think I’m interested and will just continue to use the 16-35mm and 24-70mm
 
snerkler said:
I wouldn’t choose 20-40mm over a 16-35mm personally. The extra reach is neither here nor there and nothing a bit of cropping can’t sort, but 16mm vs 20mm is a big difference.

The 20-70mm is a decent range and definitely something I’d consider, but at £1600 I don’t think I’m interested and will just continue to use the 16-35mm and 24-70mm
Click to expand...

We'll see but bulk, weight and costs may come into it as good 16-35mm's can tend to be hefty and expensive.

And also I can't see myself paying a lot for a zoom as I'm almost exclusively a prime guy.
 
To me, 20-70 is near ideal for round town walkabout lens, but too restrictive at the long end for the country. However 16-35 paired with 28-200 would be a great combination. The 20-40 is a loser for me because it's not usefully wide at such wide focal lengths, and the zoom range isn't 'better' than say 16-35.
 
woof woof said:
We'll see but bulk, weight and costs may come into it as good 16-35mm's can tend to be hefty and expensive.

And also I can't see myself paying a lot for a zoom as I'm almost exclusively a prime guy.
Click to expand...
The 16-35mm Pz is light but it’s power zoom and of course f4. I’ve got a feeling the 20-70mm is going to be around 650g but I’ve not seen any figures regarding dimensions etc yet.
 
ancient_mariner said:
To me, 20-70 is near ideal for round town walkabout lens, but too restrictive at the long end for the country. However 16-35 paired with 28-200 would be a great combination. The 20-40 is a loser for me because it's not usefully wide at such wide focal lengths, and the zoom range isn't 'better' than say 16-35.
Click to expand...
I find 70mm long enough for the countryside, except when it comes to wildlife of course.
 
snerkler said:
I find 70mm long enough for the countryside, except when it comes to wildlife of course.
Click to expand...

105 isn't enough for me to isolate sections of landscape as I would like to, and I really need 200+ for that.
 
ancient_mariner said:
105 isn't enough for me to isolate sections of landscape as I would like to, and I really need 200+ for that.
Click to expand...
Very rare I’ll use a tele for landscapes, I should try it more often.
 
Not the right thread I know but I’ve just been reading about the X-T5 and that it crops the image when using burst mode with electronic shutter, why is this?
 
snerkler said:
The 16-35mm Pz is light but it’s power zoom and of course f4. I’ve got a feeling the 20-70mm is going to be around 650g but I’ve not seen any figures regarding dimensions etc yet.
Click to expand...

I think that 16-35mm is £1,300 which would rule it out for me. I could be tempted to a really nice prime costing that but I doubt I'll ever pay that for a zoom.

ancient_mariner said:
The 20-40 is a loser for me because it's not usefully wide at such wide focal lengths, and the zoom range isn't 'better' than say 16-35.
Click to expand...

To me there is a clear difference between 35 and 40mm. I used to like my wide lenses but these days not so much and even 24mm today created two problems, firstly any interesting features in the distance are rendered small and if there are any shadows it's difficult to keep them out of the shot. So, 20-40mm would probably satisfy 90%+ what I want, but it's a zoom :D

I probably wont buy one but I might take a close look.

I might take my 20 or 24mm out tomorrow, for reasons of perspective.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
To me there is a clear difference between 35 and 40mm. I used to like my wide lenses but these days not so much and even 24mm today created two problems, firstly any interesting features in the distance are rendered small and if there are any shadows it's difficult to keep them out of the shot. So, 20-40mm would probably satisfy 90%+ what I want, but it's a zoom :D

I probably wont buy one but I might take a close look.

I might take my 20 or 24mm out tomorrow, for reasons of perspective.
Click to expand...

0ne of the problems with ultra-wide lenses is that people want to use them like ordinary lenses, and that's wrong. An ultra-wide needs the user to utilise the distortion it creates as part of the picture - otherwise as you say, it doesn't work properly. If you simply need to get more in then you need to zoom with your feet and use a longer focal length or stitch multiple exposures.
 
ancient_mariner said:
0ne of the problems with ultra-wide lenses is that people want to use them like ordinary lenses, and that's wrong. An ultra-wide needs the user to utilise the distortion it creates as part of the picture - otherwise as you say, it doesn't work properly. If you simply need to get more in then you need to zoom with your feet and use a longer focal length or stitch multiple exposures.
Click to expand...

Well yes, we all should know that sometimes zooming with your feet is just not an option or if it is it can alter perspectives. Sometimes wides are mainly for getting it all in and the effect that also creates and wides can also be primarily for the perspective they can create and both of those scenarios are very valid uses and can combine especially when you have potentially dramatic lines / scene / sky or all of these things.

The issues I mentioned above are real and if faced with the interesting backdrop being rendered too small then a wide is clearly the wrong choice but on the plus side a more expansive scene might be the payoff so that's a choice and decision to be made. The shadow issue, ie the photographers shadow impinging into the shot could lead to the shot just not being taken or being reframed and I suppose that could count as the shot not being taken and that was one issue I had yesterday, my very long shadows appearing in the frame no matter what I did if I pointed my camera in that direction.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
To me there is a clear difference between 35 and 40mm. I used to like my wide lenses but these days not so much and even 24mm today created two problems, firstly any interesting features in the distance are rendered small and if there are any shadows it's difficult to keep them out of the shot. So, 20-40mm would probably satisfy 90%+ what I want, but it's a zoom :D
Click to expand...
There is a clear difference for sure, but if you shoot at 35mm you can make it 40mm with very little cropping (y)
ancient_mariner said:
0ne of the problems with ultra-wide lenses is that people want to use them like ordinary lenses, and that's wrong. An ultra-wide needs the user to utilise the distortion it creates as part of the picture - otherwise as you say, it doesn't work properly. If you simply need to get more in then you need to zoom with your feet and use a longer focal length or stitch multiple exposures.
Click to expand...
Agreed, although it's not always possible to get further back in which case UWA can help
Mike.P said:
Just out of interest ( I have always wondered ) at what focal length and under is a lens considered ultra wide. ?
Click to expand...
There's no set rule, some say wider than 24mm is UWA, some say wider than 16mm is UWA. I generally consider under 20mm to be UWA.
 
Mike.P said:
Just out of interest ( I have always wondered ) at what focal length and under is a lens considered ultra wide. ?
Click to expand...

28mm used to be considered wide. I remember asking for wider and being told "You're getting into fisheye." These days 28 and even 24 are pretty common so maybe wider than 20mm could be considered ultra wide? I don't know :D
 
woof woof said:
Well yes, we all should know that sometimes zooming with your feet is just not an option or if it is it can alter perspectives. Sometimes wides are mainly for getting it all in and the effect that also creates and wides can also be primarily for the perspective they can create and both of those scenarios are very valid uses and can combine especially when you have potentially dramatic lines / scene / sky or all of these things.

The issues I mentioned above are real and if faced with the interesting backdrop being rendered too small then a wide is clearly the wrong choice but on the plus side a more expansive scene might be the payoff so that's a choice and decision to be made. The shadow issue, ie the photographers shadow impinging into the shot could lead to the shot just not being taken or being reframed and I suppose that could count as the shot not being taken and that was one issue I had yesterday, my very long shadows appearing in the frame not matter what I did if I pointed my camera in that direction.
Click to expand...
I sometimes use UWA to get a pseudo panoramic shot and crop to a letterbox ratio in post. Doing this removes and pano distortion and stitching artefacts. That being said, I wish Sony would put the pano mode back.
 
To me, 28 & 24 are wide, less than that ultra wide.

Interesting how no-one seems to have noticed my comments about stitching images when wanting a wider field of view without making distant stuff small.
 
snerkler said:
There is a clear difference for sure, but if you shoot at 35mm you can make it 40mm with very little cropping (y)
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a mindset, I usually try not to crop. I suppose the scenario I'm most likely to do a crop in would be something like a detail shot when I can't get the framing I want for either minimum focus or perspective reasons.

Other than that I do think that there's a quite clear difference between 35 and 40mm. You can crop 35 to get 40mm but if you have a 40mm and you want a 35mm view then a panno could be the only way to do it.

ancient_mariner said:
To me, 28 & 24 are wide, less than that ultra wide.

Interesting how no-one seems to have noticed my comments about stitching images when wanting a wider field of view without making distant stuff small.
Click to expand...

There's a couple of issues there. Firstly time could be a factor as you need to set the camera up for the panoramic and anyone in the frame (for example Mrs WW with a backdrop) would need to be still whilst I took the xx number of frames and secondly if you stitch don't you end up creating the perspective you'd have got with a wider lens anyway?

28mm with Roseberry Topping reasonably big in the frame.

Yc9IMB6.jpg


Pan. Roseberry Topping clearly visible but not so big in the frame.

2Oyxqwi.jpg
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
To me, 28 & 24 are wide, less than that ultra wide.

Interesting how no-one seems to have noticed my comments about stitching images when wanting a wider field of view without making distant stuff small.
Click to expand...
I alluded to it above, there are issues with panos/stitching including movement on top of those I've already mentioned. Here's a couple of 'pseudo' panos that I did whilst in the Lakes last year. Even with a 24mp you can still get 'decent' resolution.


A9_08269 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A9_08275 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
woof woof said:
I suppose it's a mindset, I usually try not to crop. I suppose the scenario I'm most likely to do a crop in would be something like a detail shot when I can't get the framing I want for either minimum focus or perspective reasons.

Other than that I do think that there's a quite clear difference between 35 and 40mm. You can crop 35 to get 40mm but


There's a couple of issues there. Firstly time could be a factor as you need to set the camera up for the panoramic and anyone in the frame (for example Mrs WW with a backdrop) would need to be still whilst I took the xx number of frames and secondly if you stitch don't you end up creating the perspective you'd have got with a wider lens anyway?
Click to expand...
I'd rather not crop either, it was just discussing my preference of 16-35mm over 20-40mm. You can make the 16-35mm a 16-40mm simply by cropping, but you can't make the 20-40mm a 16mm without stitching (y)
 
snerkler said:
I'd rather not crop either, it was just discussing my preference of 16-35mm over 20-40mm. You can make the 16-35mm a 16-40mm simply by cropping, but you can't make the 20-40mm a 16mm without stitching (y)
Click to expand...

I'll take a look at the 20-40mm at some point and will keep your comments about a 16-35mm in mind but the bulk and cost factors could well be... er... factors :D

I'll take a closer look sometime.

At one point my 12-24mm was my most used lens on my 5D but these days I seem to be happy with 35/50 and occasional outings with 20/24mm.
 
Last edited:
Shadows at 24mm and cropping them out :D

LKneBHd.jpg


MN4YYku.jpg


I suppose another answer is to take the picture from further away but that changes things too.
 
Last edited:
When I got up this morning it was pouring down but it seems to have stopped now so I'll take a camera out with me :D
 
snerkler said:
Not the right thread I know but I’ve just been reading about the X-T5 and that it crops the image when using burst mode with electronic shutter, why is this?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but my guess would be that hardware cropping means it reads a smaller section of the sensor, so the sensor readout time is reduced - this would both cut down rolling shutter and allow higher burst rates (as I assume the camera cannot start reading a new frame until it has finished reading the current frame).
 
woof woof said:
There's a couple of issues there. Firstly time could be a factor as you need to set the camera up for the panoramic and anyone in the frame (for example Mrs WW with a backdrop) would need to be still whilst I took the xx number of frames and secondly if you stitch don't you end up creating the perspective you'd have got with a wider lens anyway
Click to expand...

Time isn't really an issue - I just pivot carefully while hand holding. Cropping is ok because the image has more detail than a wide shot, often enormously more. And that partly answers the second point too, because although distant objects may be relatively small in the frame, there is much more information present if you want to go in closer. But also a lens with narrower angle of view often distorts less at the sides, so there's less of the feeling of nearby objects being dominant and more balance.
 
woof woof said:
Shadows at 24mm and cropping them out :D

LKneBHd.jpg


MN4YYku.jpg


I suppose another answer is to take the picture from further away but that changes things too.
Click to expand...

You don't need to crop anything those shadows could be removed in under a minute using content aware.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Time isn't really an issue - I just pivot carefully while hand holding. Cropping is ok because the image has more detail than a wide shot, often enormously more. And that partly answers the second point too, because although distant objects may be relatively small in the frame, there is much more information present if you want to go in closer. But also a lens with narrower angle of view often distorts less at the sides, so there's less of the feeling of nearby objects being dominant and more balance.
Click to expand...

Same. I often prefer to shoot a pano than a wide shot. Not that I often carry a wide lens anyway.... :ROFLMAO: I do like the whole procedure of leveling the tripod etc but yes, hand holding certainly can do the job easily enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top