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

[Faldrax]

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 know what you mean - we had a big family trip to Australia last year, spending a couple of weeks with a motor-home going from Brisbane to Cairns - I decided to take my A7iv, 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-300G (all A-mount with the LA-EA5) rather than the smaller A6000 kit as I knew I'd regret not having FF and better lenses at some locations, but often on a short family trip it's just too bulky.

 

[T_J_G]

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.

This is exactly how I felt, I loved the ZVE10 (had the new realtime tracking too, my first camera that did) but the AutoISO was a big annoyance for me. But the AF kept up with my lad whilst on holiday and was relatively impressed with the 45 1.8 for what it is. Now I don't have a "family camera" and I just take my work body with me as I know it does everything I want.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I have always taken my Canon 5D or Sony A7/R3 travelling. Only last year when I thought my Fuji gear got to an acceptable level with the X-S10.

When I get the X100VI I will probably go with a A7R3 (24-70) and X100VI combo.

 

[woof woof]

A7 and 35mm f2.8 and my TZ100 for me.

 

[snerkler]

One thing I do miss about the Olympus for travel is the 40-150mm. Having 300mm eq in a lens so small and light (190g) meant you could just carry it around in your coat pocket for those occasions you needed to get a bit closer. Nothing comes close in the Sony world to match it’s size and weight, not even APS-C lenses.

 

[woof woof]

I have a Panasonic 45-150mm on my GX9. I sometimes take this out together with my A7 and a prime. The Panasonic lens is sharp enough to use from wide open.

 

[nandbytes]

One thing I do miss about the Olympus for travel is the 40-150mm. Having 300mm eq in a lens so small and light (190g) meant you could just carry it around in your coat pocket for those occasions you needed to get a bit closer. Nothing comes close in the Sony world to match it’s size and weight, not even APS-C lenses.

I had the panasonic 35-100mm. Really small with 200mm field of view. I have really nice shots with it on G100.
Even printed out a couple for family.

 

[LeeRatters]

We're down in North Devon at the moment. And I think I've brought..... almost everything....

So far the most used is the Tamron 70-180mm and X100f. I brought the Sony FF for dedicated sunrise, sunset and night skies though. Which is fine because I just take out what I think I'm going to need.

 

[nandbytes]

all the hype on SAR was for a 24-70mm f2 lens it seems

Sony will soon announce a world’s first: The Sony 24-70mm f/2.0 lens Full Frame E-mount lens! | sonyalpharumors

https://youtu.be/KOMKBddOI08 According to two trusted sources Sony will soon announce a new 24-70mm f/2.0 lens. No one in the history of photography has ever made such a lens! The closest lens is the current Canon 28-70mm f/2.0. But having 4 mm more at the wide end makes this lens much more...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

A bit underwhelmed....

 

[f/1.2]

all the hype on SAR was for a 24-70mm f2 lens it seems

Sony will soon announce a world’s first: The Sony 24-70mm f/2.0 lens Full Frame E-mount lens! | sonyalpharumors

https://youtu.be/KOMKBddOI08 According to two trusted sources Sony will soon announce a new 24-70mm f/2.0 lens. No one in the history of photography has ever made such a lens! The closest lens is the current Canon 28-70mm f/2.0. But having 4 mm more at the wide end makes this lens much more...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

A bit underwhelmed....

Exactly my thoughts all the hype for that. Meh…

Wouldn’t be for me I have the 24-70GMII which to be fair is excellent only use it for cutting of the cake and the dancing. Have zero need for the same lens only f/2 that needs a wheel barrow to cart around.

 

[ancient_mariner]

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

Yes, it's possible to make good pictures with that oufit, but if you're after finely detailed landscape pictures and the fine detail is a bit smudgy - I have a set of pictures from Andalucia that are disappointing - then it's just not good enough. I've revisited the images often since then, and they are only OK if you 'stand back a bit', but also have that small sensor+zoom flatness that's disappointing.

 

[snerkler]

all the hype on SAR was for a 24-70mm f2 lens it seems

Sony will soon announce a world’s first: The Sony 24-70mm f/2.0 lens Full Frame E-mount lens! | sonyalpharumors

https://youtu.be/KOMKBddOI08 According to two trusted sources Sony will soon announce a new 24-70mm f/2.0 lens. No one in the history of photography has ever made such a lens! The closest lens is the current Canon 28-70mm f/2.0. But having 4 mm more at the wide end makes this lens much more...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

A bit underwhelmed....

I did say that it's always disappointing when he's hyped it up so much. Not a lens that interests me in the slightest.

 

[Raymond Lin]

It’s going to be enormous and probably like £4k.

 

[woof woof]

Is it even a first?

I dunno.

PS.
It's not for me. I'm far more likely to be interested in a £100 manual prime

 

[LeeRatters]

We're down in North Devon at the moment. And I think I've brought..... almost everything....

So far the most used is the Tamron 70-180mm and X100f. I brought the Sony FF for dedicated sunrise, sunset and night skies though. Which is fine because I just take out what I think I'm going to need.

Scrap that! All changed.....

24GM, 35GM and FE85 sunset frames.

Loads of 24GM night sky frames..... Orion and multi row panorama arch. Plus FE85 frames of that new Comet.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

all the hype on SAR was for a 24-70mm f2 lens it seems

Sony will soon announce a world’s first: The Sony 24-70mm f/2.0 lens Full Frame E-mount lens! | sonyalpharumors

https://youtu.be/KOMKBddOI08 According to two trusted sources Sony will soon announce a new 24-70mm f/2.0 lens. No one in the history of photography has ever made such a lens! The closest lens is the current Canon 28-70mm f/2.0. But having 4 mm more at the wide end makes this lens much more...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

A bit underwhelmed....

Excellent news. As long as they don't sacrifice optical performance in the chase of the number! Very nice to see Sony moving to quality glass and not going all in for the light or die craze. They do their fair share and that's fine as long as they also make this.

It will be expensive for sure. If you do weedings on a regular basis I think you can still pretty happily afford it. OR else you probably just prefer primes and multiple bodies which is what I'm currently leaning to.

By the way this will be a very nice FU Canon! Leaving pretty much not a single exclusive reason to go with them , well unless you like the most overpriced and world's slowest mirrorless zooms . They have plenty of that.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

It’s going to be enormous

And here is the hope they also do an "enormous" body to match. Pretty much a Z9. Would be lovely.

 

[nandbytes]

Excellent news. As long as they don't sacrifice optical performance in the chase of the number! Very nice to see Sony moving to quality glass and not going all in for the light or die craze. They do their fair share and that's fine as long as they also make this.

It will be expensive for sure. If you do weedings on a regular basis I think you can still pretty happily afford it. OR else you probably just prefer primes and multiple bodies which is what I'm currently leaning to.

By the way this will be a very nice FU Canon! Leaving pretty much not a single exclusive reason to go with them , well unless you like the most overpriced and world's slowest mirrorless zooms . They have plenty of that.

I use f4 zooms and f1.4 primes. Its a good trade off between weight, quality and versatility.
I use primes where they are best i.e. speed and use where they are best i.e. versatility.
Trying to combine the two just makes things heavy and uncomfortable for me.

apart from viltrox 16mm which a f1.8... the sigma 14mm f1.4 is just crazy big!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I use f4 zooms and f1.4 primes. Its a good trade off between weight, quality and versatility.
I use primes where they are best i.e. speed and use where they are best i.e. versatility.
Trying to combine the two just makes things heavy and uncomfortable for me.

apart from viltrox 16mm which a f1.8... the sigma 14mm f1.4 is just crazy big!

I see no need for 14mm. However I am very much looking forward to placing my hands on 105mm f1.4 art once a good affordable copy hits eBay. 135mm is stellar, so likely this is too

 

[snerkler]

Excellent news. As long as they don't sacrifice optical performance in the chase of the number! Very nice to see Sony moving to quality glass and not going all in for the light or die craze. They do their fair share and that's fine as long as they also make this.

It will be expensive for sure. If you do weedings on a regular basis I think you can still pretty happily afford it. OR else you probably just prefer primes and multiple bodies which is what I'm currently leaning to.

By the way this will be a very nice FU Canon! Leaving pretty much not a single exclusive reason to go with them , well unless you like the most overpriced and world's slowest mirrorless zooms . They have plenty of that.

I think optical performance will be 'sacrificed' as, like a lot of modern lenses they'll likely rely on lens corrections to make it smaller and lighter than it would be otherwise. That's not to say optical performance will be bad of course, those current lenses that rely on lens corrections still have excellent IQ

 

[f/1.2]

It will be expensive for sure. If you do weedings on a regular basis I think you can still pretty happily afford it.

Not sure if someone who is a gardener would have any need for a 24-70 f/2.

I haven’t seen a wedding photographer regularly use a 24-70 since Jesus was a wee lad.

A lot of amateur photographers like 24-70’s for handinesses reasons. Sports photographers always seem to have one I guess for stadium shots and the press often use them.

 

[snerkler]

Not sure if someone who is a gardener would have any need for a 24-70 f/2.

I haven’t seen a wedding photographer regularly use a 24-70 since Jesus was a wee lad.

A lot of amateur photographers like 24-70’s for handinesses reasons. Sports photographers always seem to have one I guess for stadium shots and the press often use them.

On the Sony Alpha FB group a lot of people use and recommend zooms for weddings, but I do think the majority on there are American. That being said, I don't recall ever going to a wedding where the tog used primes, not that I've been to that many

 

[f/1.2]

On the Sony Alpha FB group a lot of people use and recommend zooms for weddings, but I do think the majority on there are American. That being said, I don't recall ever going to a wedding where the tog used primes, not that I've been to that many

Only very old school, of which there are hardly any left, wedding photographers use zoom lenses in Northern Ireland anyway.

People that don't have a clue often advise newbie wedding photographers that they must have the old school trinity of wide, mid-range and longer zoom. Then the newbies quickly realise that trying to shoot in a church, chapel or dingey dark hotel event room isn't possible at f/2.8 without using flash, and nobody in their right mind wants to use flash during the ceremony.

Facebook is full of "experts" that don't have a clue what they are talking about. It tends to be older people that use Facebook too so while using a trinity of zooms was grand when Jesus was a wee lad, clients have much higher expectations now.

General rule of thumb is that if a wedding photographer is using zooms they are a bit crap at what they do.

Maybe different in other parts of the world though, even in the states though only budget type wedding photographers use zooms in the most part.

Vast majority of wedding photographers in the U,K will use a 35/85 for the vast majority of the day.

I use 35/50 my missus uses 35/85, we use a 90mm macro for detail shots during getting ready, we will sometimes use a zoom lens for thing like the cutting of the cake as we will often use flash for this anyway and we always use zoom lenses for the dancing. Most don't use zooms at all though. We only do because I am a total gear hound so have the option, very few even own zoom lenses.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I think optical performance will be 'sacrificed' as, like a lot of modern lenses they'll likely rely on lens corrections to make it smaller and lighter than it would be otherwise. That's not to say optical performance will be bad of course, those current lenses that rely on lens corrections still have excellent IQ

Is 24-70mm f2.8 gm2 software corrected? I thought it was one they pretty much left as is, like most gm2s? The g on the other hand - I will never own them

 

[f/1.2]

Is 24-70mm f2.8 gm2 software corrected? I thought it was one they pretty much left as is, like most gm2s? The g on the other hand - I will never own them

Dunno were you got that from all of the newer G.M lenses are software corrected.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I haven’t seen a wedding photographer regularly use a 24-70 since Jesus was a wee lad

Lol. You must have seen a lot

Not sure if someone who is a gardener would have any need for a 24-70 f/2.

You bet it can be very useful for gardens photography

People that don't have a clue often advise newbie wedding photographers that they must have the old school trinity of wide, mid-range and longer zoom. Then the newbies quickly realise that trying to shoot in a church, chapel or dingey dark hotel event room isn't possible at f/2.8 without using flash, and nobody in their right mind wants to use flash during the ceremony

You see this will be f2 - an entry level prime territory with convenience of all in 1 package.
2.8 was never that special until you go past like 50mm. While I prefer primes, and 35 + 85 1.4 is a very good combination you are also constantly swapping with 50 and 135 or even 16-35. 2 bodies is about the limit what you can use at a time unless you have 3 or 4 arms.
Basically not a bad option to have it in the bag as a backup, or in case there is just too much sudden change requiring variety of options.
Besides you don't always need max iso at f1.4. you certainly don't.
My guess is it will sell, and better than canon 28-70mm f2. Price may be the limiting factor though

 

[Raymond Lin]

I shot with a 24-70 for about 2 weddings back in 2008. Back then it was once in the Summer and then once in December.

Next year the first wedding I bought a 35/1.4L and a 85/1.8 for the longer shot, about 2 weddings after that I had a 35L and 85/1.2L combo and never looked back. The 24-70 back then was purely for either the wide end and back up to the 35/85 combo. The 24-70 might come out for group shots but even with those I tend to get it in with either a 35 or 50.

Once you have 2 bodies, you don't carry the 24-70, there is no point, and I never use the 70-200. That is enormous and never found it useful, just too long and heavy.

 

[f/1.2]

Lol. You must have seen a lot

You bet it can be very useful for gardens photography



You see this will be f2 - an entry level prime territory with convenience of all in 1 package.
2.8 was never that special until you go past like 50mm. While I prefer primes, and 35 + 85 1.4 is a very good combination you are also constantly swapping with 50 and 135 or even 16-35. 2 bodies is about the limit what you can use at a time unless you have 3 or 4 arms.
Basically not a bad option to have it in the bag as a backup, or in case there is just too much sudden change requiring variety of options.
Besides you don't always need max iso at f1.4. you certainly don't.
My guess is it will sell, and better than canon 28-70mm f2. Price may be the limiting factor though

It will sell well just not to wedding photographers that know what they are doing.

 

[ancient_mariner]

This is mildly amusing - when I did weddings I used 85 and 45 on medium format. Obviously a pro.

 

[snerkler]

Is 24-70mm f2.8 gm2 software corrected? I thought it was one they pretty much left as is, like most gm2s? The g on the other hand - I will never own them

AFAIK most modern lenses require some kind of correction, for as long as I can remember there's been lens profiles in LR to correct distortion and/or vignette. It just appears nowadays manufacturers are more prepared to rely on the improvement in software corrections in an aim to acheive smaller, lighter lenses. I read somewhere that it can also help improve edge to edge sharpness but I'm not sure how true that is

 

[woof woof]

I decided to keep the Pergear 35mm f1.4 as despite its issues (aperture accuracy and/or light transmission) it has plus points too. Namely that it's tiny and cheap and also it does one or two things better than the much more expensive Voigtander 35mm f1.4, in particular it's better at longer distances wide open.

Anyway. A7 and Pergear 35mm, pictures and 100% crops as I couldn't get any closer.









As I mentioned elsewhere... We saw and heard the squirrels calling to each other and they sounded like ducks. I can't remember ever seeing and hearing this before.

 

[f/1.2]

I decided to keep the Pergear 35mm f1.4 as despite its issues (aperture accuracy and/or light transmission) it has plus points too. Namely that it's tiny and cheap and also it does one or two things better than the much more expensive Voigtander 35mm f1.4, in particular it's better at longer distances wide open.

Anyway. A7 and Pergear 35mm, pictures and 100% crops as I couldn't get any closer.

View attachment 416655

View attachment 416656

View attachment 416657

View attachment 416658

As I mentioned elsewhere... We saw and heard the squirrels calling to each other and they sounded like ducks. I can't remember ever seeing and hearing this before.

Greys aren't they supposed to be killed on site?

Those look way over sharpened on my screen

 

[woof woof]

Greys aren't they supposed to be killed on site?

Those look way over sharpened on my screen

Er... Not as far as I'm concerned.

The sharpening is only my own normal preset so if this is something you haven't noticed before with my pictures I don't know why you're seeing it with these unless the 100% crop is something to do with it.

 

[woof woof]

Good DR in video mode.

Surprise results from the CineD Lab test: The Sony A9III is the best Sony Alpha camera to date in video mode in terms of dynamic range! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

 

[GreenNinja67]

Grey squirrels are considered vermin and if trapped or caught it is illegal to release them back into the wild.

Killing on sight is a little extreme.

 

[woof woof]

Yes it's extreme.

I'd agree with making them infertile and so getting rid over a longer period and I'm sure there was something in the media about this recently but if they are gone how long until reds take their place? I may not see that in my lifetime and not seeing another squirrel in my lifetime is for me worse than only having greys.

If there's a list of animals which need more urgent controlling I'd have some birds higher up the list than grey squirrels, just my HO.

 

[f/1.2]

Er... Not as far as I'm concerned.

The sharpening is only my own normal preset so if this is something you haven't noticed before with my pictures I don't know why you're seeing it with these unless the 100% crop is something to do with it.

View attachment 416659

Looked way over sharpened on my screen.

Maybe the crop effected it :shrug:

 

[f/1.2]

Grey squirrels are considered vermin and if trapped or caught it is illegal to release them back into the wild.

Killing on sight is a little extreme.

We have quite a lot of greys here one of my neighbors has trained his dogs to hunt them they usually get a couple a day.

Haven’t seen a red in ages, likely killed off by the disease the greys carry.

 

[woof woof]

Looked way over sharpened on my screen.

Maybe the crop effected it :shrug:

With just about anything posted on this site I'd say that the posting process could in itself be the cause of issues.

I always do the same thing and yet some pictures look soft when I post them here whilst others look reasonably sharp and I've never been able to figure out why. It seems to be down to chance.

 

[snerkler]

I always do the same thing and yet some pictures look soft when I post them here whilst others look reasonably sharp and I've never been able to figure out why. It seems to be down to chance.

This really frustrates me and I can't figure it out either. My images range from not sharp to mush on here, great for a photography site