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

[simonbe]

A6700 with Signa 56mm is gonna be a good weight saving against A9, A7rIV or A7IV with an 85 f/1.4 which is my other options.

773g vs 1485g so nearly half the weight.

Still a bit more conspicuous than I would like in an ideal world.

View attachment 416404

The olly with a 50-150 f/2.8 won’t give me any weight savings tbf.

Have you thought about A7CR or A7Cii? Both now have the Ai autofocus and front dial wheel.

Full frame, share all your lenses.

I’ve just added the A7CR to my Sony kit for when I want to travel lighter. Batteries the same, menu the same. I will use it as a 2nd shooter when out with the A1 for sport and wildlife.

A7CR and Sony 85mm f1.8 is 890g. I’m running it with the 40mm was a walk around (688g).

 

[f/1.2]

Have you thought about A7CR or A7Cii? Both now have the Ai autofocus and front dial wheel.

Full frame, share all your lenses.

I’ve just added the A7CR to my Sony kit for when I want to travel lighter. Batteries the same, menu the same. I will use it as a 2nd shooter when out with the A1 for sport and wildlife.

A7CR and Sony 85mm f1.8 is 890g. I’m running it with the 40mm was a walk around (688g).

Lenses will still be the same weight is the main thing really against the A7C series.

Never been a fan of the 85mm f/1.8 I don’t like the bokeh and it has quite bad C.A. So would have to use my 85 f/1.4 which is 800g or something like that on its own.

 

[snerkler]

Lenses will still be the same weight is the main thing really against the A7C series.

Never been a fan of the 85mm f/1.8 I don’t like the bokeh and it has quite bad C.A. So would have to use my 85 f/1.4 which is 800g or something like that on its own.

What exactly will you be shooting with the smaller gear, and is wide aperture important? Are you looking at primes or a zoom?

 

[simonbe]

Lenses will still be the same weight is the main thing really against the A7C series.

Never been a fan of the 85mm f/1.8 I don’t like the bokeh and it has quite bad C.A. So would have to use my 85 f/1.4 which is 800g or something like that on its own.

Other options out there, 55mm and smaller options from Sigma and Sammy.

This is the thing with cameras - it’s down to what suits you and only you can decide. No matter what we say. Many people come on forums asking for help with options when actually they are not open to suggestion more looking for confirmation of the decision already made.

I went back to APSC as a 2nd body - just couldn’t get on with the results. I am sure tho it suits many.

I’m loving the A7CR.

 

[snerkler]

Other options out there, 55mm and smaller options from Sigma and Sammy.

This is the thing with cameras - it’s down to what suits you and only you can decide. No matter what we say. Many people come on forums asking for help with options when actually they are not open to suggestion more looking for confirmation of the decision already made.

I went back to APSC as a 2nd body - just couldn’t get on with the results. I am sure tho it suits many.

I’m loving the A7CR.

I don’t think there’s enough difference between FF and APS-C to run two systems and have one as your lightweight setup, for me it has to be m4/3 or smaller. YMMV

For some the compromise of IQ of m4/3 and smaller may be too much. We’ve all be searching for the Holy Grail, it just doesn’t exist At least with Sony mirrorless it is lighter and smaller overall compared to my Nikon DSLR stuff

 

[ancient_mariner]

Other options out there, 55mm

55 has really hideous colour fringing/CA. That's about the only fault/character it does have.

 

[LeeRatters]

I might have some Sony shots for you all in a weeks time.....

 

[f/1.2]

Other options out there, 55mm and smaller options from Sigma and Sammy.

This is the thing with cameras - it’s down to what suits you and only you can decide. No matter what we say. Many people come on forums asking for help with options when actually they are not open to suggestion more looking for confirmation of the decision already made.

I went back to APSC as a 2nd body - just couldn’t get on with the results. I am sure tho it suits many.

I’m loving the A7CR.

For sure everyone is different and has their own opinions.

The 55 was one of the first lenses we bought for the system and my wife always liked it because it’s smaller, I was never a fan of the images it produced though. Have also been down the Samyang lottery route a few times and they aren’t for me. I already have the Sigma 85 f/1.4 and it is not small enough for what I am looking for.

In terms of image quality the A6400 I had as a travel camera was fine so I am not really worried about that. We have 6 Sony bodies for work if I was worried about I.Q I would just use one of them.

 

[f/1.2]

What exactly will you be shooting with the smaller gear, and is wide aperture important? Are you looking at primes or a zoom?

Will just be for shots of my pup and whatever I see when I am out and about. I promised myself this year I would try and shoot more stuff just for myself although to be fair I say that every year I managed 3 photos last year.

I am out and about with the pup a fair bit and traveling all over the place. On days I have work we are out for an hour or so on days I don’t we are out for 2-3 hours.


Would prefer prime lenses as I get on better with them. Something around 85mm equivalent for the pup should be fine for me and around 35mm equivalent in full frame for other stuff.

 

[snerkler]

Will just be for shots of my pup and whatever I see when I am out and about. I promised myself this year I would try and shoot more stuff just for myself although to be fair I say that every year I managed 3 photos last year.

I am out and about with the pup a fair bit and traveling all over the place. On days I have work we are out for an hour or so on days I don’t we are out for 2-3 hours.


Would prefer prime lenses as I get on better with them. Something around 85mm equivalent for the pup should be fine for me and around 35mm equivalent in full frame for other stuff.

If you're a bokeh whore with your primes then I would probably rule out m4/3 as you'd need to get f1.2 for any kind of meaningful subject isolation, but even then it's only equivalent to around f2.5 on FF. That being said, so is f1.8 on APS-C

 

[woof woof]

To be fair to the Sony 55mm f1.8 the fringing will only show in specific instances. It's not something that's going to ruin every single shot.

My biggest complaint about it is that it's 55mm not 50mm and it does generally get good reviews including the bokeh.

 

[snerkler]

I've actually uploaded some photos to instagram this week (I don't do a lot on social media) and as a result I've been resizing some portrait orientation photos to the 5:4 ratio so that it's not cropped when uploaded, I actually quite like this format. 99% of the time my photos are in the 3:2 ratio, odd ones in 4:3 but never before (I don't think) in 5:4.

Do others change the ratio or stick to the native 3:2? I'll always shoot in 3:2 to get the full res but may consider resizing more in the future.

 

[nandbytes]

I've actually uploaded some photos to instagram this week (I don't do a lot on social media) and as a result I've been resizing some portrait orientation photos to the 5:4 ratio so that it's not cropped when uploaded, I actually quite like this format. 99% of the time my photos are in the 3:2 ratio, odd ones in 4:3 but never before (I don't think) in 5:4.

Do others change the ratio or stick to the native 3:2?

I change in post based on the composition. But not in camera.
I quite like 4:3 but prefer 1:1 i.e. square crop to 5:4.

 

[snerkler]

I change in post based on the composition. But not in camera.
I quite like 4:3 but prefer 1:1 i.e. square crop to 5:4.

Ahh yes, I meant in post. I've just amended my post as I'd prefer shoot in native to get the full resolution .

That's reminded me, I think I've actually done a couple of square crops in the past

 

[snerkler]

@f/2.8 if you're still considering m4/3 this looks a good offer



The 45mm f1.8's actually a nice little lens.

 

[LeeRatters]

I've actually uploaded some photos to instagram this week (I don't do a lot on social media) and as a result I've been resizing some portrait orientation photos to the 5:4 ratio so that it's not cropped when uploaded, I actually quite like this format. 99% of the time my photos are in the 3:2 ratio, odd ones in 4:3 but never before (I don't think) in 5:4.

Do others change the ratio or stick to the native 3:2? I'll always shoot in 3:2 to get the full res but may consider resizing more in the future.

Typically I use 3:2 for horizontal and 3:4 for vertical.

But I sometimes do 4:3 for horizontal.
And I sometimes do 5:4 in either.
I rarely do 1:1.

What I don't do, is just crop freely. It HAS to be a ratio!

 

[ancient_mariner]

I will crop for the photo, but always as little as possible. Occasionally 1:1, sometimes 5:4, but also sometimes 16:9, 2 or even 3:1

I will crop freehand often, then see if a standard ratio can be made to fit in case I want a print.

 

[f/1.2]

So what do we reckon never been done before he says, so f/0.8 maybe?

 

[ancient_mariner]

5mm hyper wide angle with 270 degrees angle of view.

 

[f/1.2]

5mm hyper wide angle with 270 degrees angle of view.

Most seem to think it’s gonna be an 85 f/1

 

[snerkler]

So what do we reckon never been done before he says, so f/0.8 maybe?

View attachment 416518

Could be owt, normally when he hypes stuff up like this it’s a big disappointed so I’m not holding my breath.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Most seem to think it’s gonna be an 85 f/1

What about 86mm f/6.3? Well thats more like what canon would do these days

 

[Raymond Lin]

85/1.0 would be great, but it will likely to be like £3k+...it would be a halo kind of lens.

 

[f/1.2]

Based on the updated post on SAR now reads more like a new type of lens a.f system and the first of a new range of lenses.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Typically I use 3:2 for horizontal and 3:4 for vertical.

But I sometimes do 4:3 for horizontal.
And I sometimes do 5:4 in either.
I rarely do 1:1.

What I don't do, is just crop freely. It HAS to be a ratio!

This^

A proper ratio is essential, it just balances the picture, and 3:2 vertical is just wrong

For horizontal I'm usually at one of these 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 16:10, 64:25

And Vertical invariably 5:4 but occasionally 4:3

 

[Redspider]

First chance to try the Sony A7CR Sony 70-350 combo. All shot on Lossless (S) raw. The seagul stayed just still enough to get silky waves in the background.
Flamingo 3 by Andy Williams, on Flickr
Seagull silky sea 3 by Andy Williams, on Flickr
Shelduck by Andy Williams, on Flickr

 

[Redspider]

Couple more.
Kestrel by Andy Williams, on Flickr
Flamingo. La Marina Spain by Andy Williams, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

I've no idea what a "fast lens" could be but I do hope it has that black and bronze look

 

[f/1.2]

I've no idea what a "fast lens" could be but I do hope it has that black and bronze look

God I hope not absolute awful and a good reason why A.I software should not be used for creating images.

 

[woof woof]

God I hope not absolute awful and a good reason why A.I software should not be used for creating images.

I just like the move away from the usual black tube of today.

 

[snerkler]

I just like the move away from the usual black tube of today.

I think it'd look wrong on the Sony bodies. Whilst the Sony styling is less than inspiring at least it matches

 

[Faldrax]

I don’t think there’s enough difference between FF and APS-C to run two systems and have one as your lightweight setup, for me it has to be m4/3 or smaller. YMMV

For some the compromise of IQ of m4/3 and smaller may be too much. We’ve all be searching for the Holy Grail, it just doesn’t exist At least with Sony mirrorless it is lighter and smaller overall compared to my Nikon DSLR stuff

I do have both APS-C and FF systems - but my APC-S 'travel' system is very much small/light/cheap - A6000, 16-50, 55-210, 35 & 50 f/1.8 OSS primes - and those 4 lenses together are within ~20g of just my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that I have on my FF setup.

 

[Redspider]

On small set up, high quality. I used to have the Sony A6300 & 18-135. It was pin sharp. 4K video and fitted into a very small, and I mean small camera case, with just enough room for one spare card and battery. My present set up is a few inches a longer because of the 70-350 lens, but it still fits in a small-ish case.

 

[snerkler]

I do have both APS-C and FF systems - but my APC-S 'travel' system is very much small/light/cheap - A6000, 16-50, 55-210, 35 & 50 f/1.8 OSS primes - and those 4 lenses together are within ~20g of just my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that I have on my FF setup.

Yep there can be a weight saving, I’m just not sure it’s ‘that’ big when you compare apples with apples, it’s certainly not as big a difference as it was

 

[Faldrax]

Yep there can be a weight saving, I’m just not sure it’s ‘that’ big when you compare apples with apples, it’s certainly not as big a difference as it was

Agreed - it was a conscious decision to stick with small/light aps-c lenses and accept the IQ/Aperture compromises that result, in order to keep the kit as small and versatile as possible.
The 2 primes give me the options of low light / wide aperture, while the zooms give flexibility in better light.
I was originally looking at a RX100, but that was just too small and fiddly.
I guess the next step up would be something based on an A7Cii and the Tamron 28-75 and 70-180, which would be fairly light / compact for a FF f/2.8 setup, but still a fair bit bigger then the A6000 kit.

 

[f/1.2]

I have decided to abandon ship on a smaller set up for now. I have just decided to enter the Samyang lottery again and have bought another 45mm just to see how I get along with that as just a general purpose lens.

The one I had before was pretty decent for the low cost and the big benefit is that it’s so small. It’s probably going to be useless for shots of the dog although I guess I could use APSC mode on my A7RIVa so will probably just bring along the Tamron 70-180 or the 135G.M for when I want specific images of the pup.

None of the currently available smaller stuff ticked all the boxes for me apart from maybe the OM-1 MkII but it was hard to justify the cost of it for what I want it for when we already have 6 Sony bodies.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I did the 'light travel camera ' thing for a little while with my A58, kit zoom and 50 f1.7, but after a bit started wishing for FF image quality. It was disappointing to visit exotic places with second rate kit.

 

[snerkler]

I did the 'light travel camera ' thing for a little while with my A58, kit zoom and 50 f1.7, but after a bit started wishing for FF image quality. It was disappointing to visit exotic places with second rate kit.

This has always been the conflict I've had, I look back at certain holidays (Venice and New York spring to mind) and regret not taking FF, or should I say wish there'd been lighter FF options. At the time I had the D750 and big Nikon lenses.

 

[nandbytes]

I did the 'light travel camera ' thing for a little while with my A58, kit zoom and 50 f1.7, but after a bit started wishing for FF image quality. It was disappointing to visit exotic places with second rate kit.

I wouldn't call it second rate tbh.
you can take really good picture with such a kit.

but I agree that its best to go with kit you will enjoy using and you can get most out of.

 

[nandbytes]

This has always been the conflict I've had, I look back at certain holidays (Venice and New York spring to mind) and regret not taking FF, or should I say wish there'd been lighter FF options. At the time I had the D750 and big Nikon lenses.

I went to Italy with A6000+IR converted nex7. Had a really good time with two small bodies.
got some really good IR images too.

just haven't got it in me to continue with IR photography, may one day in future again