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

f/2.8 said:
At the moment I am gonna say I don't want one as we now have 3 x 35mm's, 1 x 45mm and 2 x 50mm's but it will probably be as dirt cheap as the 20mm. So won't say never :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

That's the thing. If these lenses are reasonably priced and not terrible... why not try one?
 
My new toy arrived.

It's a new made in Hong Kong lens, an Artralab Nonikkor MC 35mm f1.4 in Sony mount. It looks like a 1980's manual Nikon lens even down to the box. Mine is the 1980's look alike version with a thin rubberised focus ring. They do another older looking one with a metal scalloped focus ring (like a Voigtlander) but they didn't have one in Sony mount so I went for this one.

DSC06771.jpg

DSC06772.jpg

These two pictures were taken at f1.4 where it's a bit soft but it is for me useable and there's quite a bit of vignetting which doesn't really disappear until f5.6 but it is within the range of my raw software to fettle so that's not too bad and is probably in line with what you'd expect from a small 35mm f1.4. In fact I've seen worse.

I've had a quick look and apart from the softness and vignetting which improve when stopping down it seems quite good (but more on that later.) Infinity isn't at the end stop which is always a bit annoying, there is some blooming at f1.4 but not too much and CA doesn't look to bad either. Bokeh seems to be not too bad too and minimum focus distance is ok as it's where you'd expect it to be at a bit over 1ft or there abouts. So so far... better than I expected. I can't really look at flare as it's an overcast day but I'm expecting some.

Having run into oddities regarding depth of field, bokeh and light transmission when comparing the Pergear 35mm f1.4 to other lenses I had a look at this Artralab v my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and as with the Pergear there's something very amiss here. I'm assuming that the Voigtlander is nearer the mark as all my Voigtlanders are about in line with each other and also with my Sony 35mm f1.8. With this Artralab at f1.4 and f2 the shutter speed and ISO are pretty close to the Voigtlander but after that it all gets a bit funky.

Artralab and then / Voigtlander.
Aperture / Shutter speed / ISO for Artralab and then Voigtlander.

f1.4. - 1/60 - 125 / 1/80 - 100
f2 - 1/60 - 160 / 1/60 - 160
f2.8 - 1/60 - 200 / 1/60 - 320
f4 - 1/60 - 250 / 1/60 - 800
f5.6 - 1/60 - 400 / 1/60 - 1,600
f8 - 1/60 - 640 / 1/60 - 3,200
f16 - 1/60 - 3,200 / Not Measured.

Looking at the Artralab aperture at f8 it looks to be about the same size as the Voigtlander at something just a bit wider than f4 and that would fit in with the shutter speed and ISO relationship above.

So, as with the Pergear the markings on this lens are way out when looking at the shutter speed and ISO settings when compared to another lens which is almost certainly more on the mark and also if you set the aperture by looking at the physical aperture in the lens rather than using the lens markings the shutter speed and ISO results would be more believable.

As with the Pergear I wonder, as they've gone to the effort of designing and making this why didn't they make a better effort at making things add up a bit more?

One good thing is that this lens seems to be very well centered with little to no difference at f1.4. This is IMO quite remarkable.

The build quality seems nice but one thing does annoy me, The aperture ring is near the camera and is partly knurled but smooth where the markings are and this makes using the aperture ring at f1.4 and f2 a bit awkward if you want to grip the knurled section. Ideally I'd have liked the knurled ring to be raised above the markings and continuous, rather than having a big gap in it.

When I can get out and when there's a sky rather than the usual grey out I'll have a look at flare and also field curvature.

I will use this lens but I think the fact that the markings are so far out v the shutter speed and ISO and the physical aperture size that you can see when looking into the lens could well put people off unless they just not a triggered ocd sufferer like me. I think its a shame that none of the reviews I've watched or read mentioned this rather obvious when you come to fiddle with the lens thing.

PS.
I forgot to mention that as this is a copy of a Nikon lens the focus and aperture are backwards compared to some other lenses.
ie. You turn the aperture ring clockwise to stop down and you turn the focus ring ani clockwise to focus closer.
 
Last edited:
Just had a play in the garden with this Artralab 35mm f1.4 to try and look at flare resistance and it looks very good. I could only get it to flare with the sun well into the frame. Maybe just field curvature and backlit for me to look at now.

A couple of 100% crops, hand held.

DSC06787-c.jpg

DSC06786-C.jpg

Full image at MFD.

DSC06784-c.jpg

IMO this lens is very good in a number of ways, build seems good although not to Voigtlander standards, sharpness and across the frame performance and flare resistance and even bokeh all seem better than I expected.

The downsides for me being backwards Nikon operation and fantasy aperture markings.

I use f5/5.6 and f8 a lot for scenic pictures so with this lens I'll be using f11/f16 and f16 is the minimum. For limited depth and light gathering I suppose with mirrorless it's not really a biggie as you can wysiwyg but it is all a bit... triggering for me and I have considered sending it back but even with the Nikon esque handling and the barmy aperture markings it is a good lens.

What would you do? Send it back or keep it?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just had a play in the garden with this Artralab 35mm f1.4 to try and look at flare resistance and it looks very good. I could only get it to flare with the sun well into the frame. Maybe just field curvature and backlit for me to look at now.

A couple of 100% crops, hand held.

View attachment 428032

View attachment 428030

Full image at MFD.

View attachment 428031

IMO this lens is very good in a number of ways, build seems good although not to Voigtlander standards, sharpness and across the frame performance and flare resistance and even bokeh all seem better than I expected.

The downsides for me being backwards Nikon operation and fantasy aperture markings.

I use f5/5.6 and f8 a lot for scenic pictures so with this lens I'll be using f11/f16 and f16 is the minimum. For limited depth and light gathering I suppose with mirrorless it's not really a biggie as you can wysiwyg but it is all a bit... triggering for me and I have considered sending it back but even with the Nikon esque handling and the barmy aperture markings it is a good lens.

What would you do? Send it back or keep it?
Click to expand...
I’ve got it in Nikon Z mount. It’s a keeper for me.
 
This seems to be something that the new Chinese marques seem to be struggling with (assuming it isn't deliberate) as all of mine, Pergear 35mm f1.4, TTArtisan 50mm f2 and Syoptic 50mm f1.1 and now this Atralab have all been out of whack in this respect to one extent or another. I'm glad I remembered that this could be an issue and checked as if I had taken some pictures on a day out at f5.6 / f8 I would have been disappointed with the results, depth of field wise as this lens is just waaaay off.

Shame as it seems such an easy issue to fix. Just mark the lens up properly.
 
Last edited:
Actually I've decided it's going back. Such a shame as it is a nice lens but I shouldn't have to remember to set this piece of tat to a much smaller aperture than I want to get the result I want.

I think I'll keep away from these new marque far eastern lenses from now on as I'm just sick of this happening as even when it's a good lens it's the same issue time after time with the apertures and I'm sick of it.
 
woof woof said:
Actually I've decided it's going back. Such a shame as it is a nice lens but I shouldn't have to remember to set this piece of tat to a much smaller aperture than I want to get the result I want.

I think I'll keep away from these new marque far eastern lenses from now on as I'm just sick of this happening as even when it's a good lens it's the same issue time after time with the apertures and I'm sick of it.
Click to expand...

Try a fixed ISO and shutter speed and adjust aperture one stop at a time for different exposures. See what they need to bring them back to the original wide open exposure levels in Lightroom. Ideally it should be +1, then +2 etc etc

I think the backwards operation would be enough of a no no for me :)
 
LeeRatters said:
Try a fixed ISO and shutter speed and adjust aperture one stop at a time for different exposures. See what they need to bring them back to the original wide open exposure levels in Lightroom. Ideally it should be +1, then +2 etc etc

I think the backwards operation would be enough of a no no for me :)
Click to expand...

This lens would over expose if it wasn't for the camera setting the shutter and ISO as the physical aperture diameter is much wider than the marked aperture. *For eg f8 on another lens is something wider than f4 on this one.* When you look at the aperture in the lens the difference to the Voigtlander is massive and obvious. It's nowhere near right and I don't have to rely on the Voigtlander here as I just have to look in the lens and if I do that I don't even need to pick up a ruler for certainty as it's obviously nowhere near what it should be (aperture diameter in mm = focal length / f number so for f8 the aperture should be 4.375mm and it is clearly much wider and more like 10mm which would tie in with the shutter speed and ISO results I got above.)

Exposure is just one issue, depth of field is another and in this case and for me the biggest issue. I don't often go to f11 / 16 but if I wanted to it'd be impossible to do and get the expected DoF with this lens and remembering to set it to f11 when I want f5.6 depth or f16 when I want f8 depth is I know going to trigger me.

This is a f1.4-f8 lens with highly inaccurate aperture markings.

There are good things about this lens. The across the frame performance and the centering are excellent, the bokeh is ok for a lens like this, performance at f1.4 is excellent if a bit soft, it's sharp enough at wide apertures, the vignetting is heavy but in the range of my software to correct with just the vignetting slider, CA looks acceptable and resistance to flare looks acceptable too. So it's almost all good except the apertures.

I have thought about cancelling the return but I do know that the whacky fantasy apertures are going to trigger me every single time I use this lens.

I've persisted with these 35mm f1.4's as I've been looking for something about the bulk and weight of my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but without the funky bokeh at the widest apertures and both the Pergear and this lens are good or even very good in some respects but these inaccurate apertures are very hard to take and sadly aren't picked up in any of the reviews I've read or watched.

On the way Nikon set up their controls, I do sort of understand why they do it like this but it just so happens that most other makers don't agree with Nikon and it's the don't agree lenses that I use the most.

Correction.
I got this wrong *For eg f8 on another lens is something wider than f4 on this one.* - That's wrong and should be "f8 on this lens is something wider than f4 on another lens." f8 on this lens is about 10mm which would be f3.5 on another 35mm lens.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
This lens would over expose if it wasn't for the camera setting the shutter and ISO as the physical aperture diameter is much wider than the marked aperture. For eg f8 on another lens is something wider than f4 on this one. When you look at the aperture in the lens the difference to the Voigtlander is massive and obvious. It's nowhere near right and I don't have to rely on the Voigtlander here as I just have to look in the lens and if I do that I don't even need to pick up a ruler for certainty as it's obviously nowhere near what it should be (aperture diameter in mm = focal length / f number so for f8 the aperture should be 4.375mm and it is clearly much wider and more like 10mm which would tie in with the shutter speed and ISO results I got above.)

Exposure is just one issue, depth of field is another and in this case and for me the biggest issue. I don't often go to f11 / 16 but if I wanted to it'd be impossible to do and get the expected DoF with this lens and remembering to set it to f11 when I want f5.6 depth or f16 when I want f8 depth is I know going to trigger me.

This is a f1.4-f8 lens with highly inaccurate aperture markings.

There are good things about this lens. The across the frame performance and the centering are excellent, the bokeh is ok for a lens like this, performance at f1.4 is excellent if a bit soft, it's sharp enough at wide apertures, the vignetting is heavy but in the range of my software to correct with just the vignetting slider, CA looks acceptable and resistance to flare looks acceptable too. So it's almost all good except the apertures.

I have thought about cancelling the return but I do know that the whacky fantasy apertures are going to trigger me every single time I use this lens.

I've persisted with these 35mm f1.4's as I've been looking for something about the bulk and weight of my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but without the funky bokeh at the widest apertures and both the Pergear and this lens are good or even very good in some respects but these inaccurate apertures are very hard to take and sadly aren't picked up in any of the reviews I've read or watched.

On the way Nikon set up their controls, I do sort of understand why they do it like this but it just so happens that most other makers don't agree with Nikon and it's the don't agree lenses that I use the most.
Click to expand...

Stop yer arsing about with all the cheapo Chinese 35mm f/1.4's and just buy either the 35GM or the Sigma 35 Art and be happy.
 
f/2.8 said:
Stop yer arsing about with all the cheapo Chinese 35mm f/1.4's and just buy either the 35GM or the Sigma 35 Art and be happy.
Click to expand...

The Sony 35mm f1.4 is the size of a bazooka, relatively, the cost doesn't really come into it.

As you may have noticed I like compact kit and even the Sony 35mm f1.8 is on the large side for me. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 is possibly my most used lens ever by counting the pictures I've taken with it but it can give messy bokeh with busy scenes at f1.4 or slightly narrower and only begins to tidy up at f2 plus there can be blooming at f1.4 or so. The Pergear and this Artralab are better at f1.4 although in the case of the Pergear I don't believe it is at f1.4. I haven't measured the aperture but the shutter speed and ISO just don't add up to f1.4.

The compact Sony range, the old 35mm f2.8 and the new 24mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.5 I have are good for me but you lose the shallow depth (and exposure) ability. I don't take a huge number of pictures at wide apertures, probably way below 10%, probably single figure by % but it is nice to have the ability when that's what I want.
 
Last edited:
Just to waste my time and effort I've emailed Artralab.

When I tried this with Pergear I got nowhere and I'll be amazed if I get anywhere with Artralab.

I do find it surprising that these companies make these lenses with as far as I can see such inaccurate apertures. It's not as if this is all voodoo. A couple of minutes googling should tell them that with a 35mm lens at fx the aperture should be xmm diameter. How much more effort and money would it take to do it better? Making a more accurate aperture assembly can't be all that more effort or expense than making a highly inaccurate one. Surely?

I do hope they say mine is from a bad batch and they'll happily replace it with a good one. I'm sure that's what'll happen.

Three 35mm f1.4 lenses all set to f8. From left to right, Artralab, Pergear and Voigtlander.

1-P1380892.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm currently on the headland at West Pentire with the A7Riii/35GM, the Yashica FX3 with the just acquired ML35 and a point of Thatchers :) All this coastal walking is hard work. And makes you thirsty :)
 
Last edited:
Oh sugar.

After 11 years I'm sorry to have to report that my A7 has passed away. I'm gutted. But it's now new toy time.

I'm torn between the A7III and IV. Given that the A7 did just about everything I want I initially tended towards the III but I wonder is anything missing that I might like and is maybe in the IV?

My main criticisms of the A7 were that it was pedestrian slow, didn't allow silent shooting and the face recognition was a bit basic and would fail to recognise a face if it was small in the frame but still larger than the size that my MFT cameras would still recognise one.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen the million pictures taken with my A7 I've posted they're of static or slow loving things and I only use tracking when using face detect. Eye detect would be nice to have.

So, A7III or IV? What do you guys think? Does the A7III or IV do silent shooting and if they do is it too bandy to bother with? Do both have eye rather than face detect? Also do any of these use the same battery as my A7?

I'll have to order something on Monday as I'm missing my A7 already. I think I'm still leaning towards the III.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Oh sugar.

After 11 years I'm sorry to have to report that my A7 has passed away. I'm gutted. But it's now new toy time.

I'm torn between the A7III and IV. Given that the A7 did just about everything I want I initially tended towards the III but I wonder is anything missing that I might like and is maybe in the IV?

My main criticisms of the A7 were that it was pedestrian slow, didn't allow silent shooting and the face recognition was a bit basic and would fail to recognise a face if it was small in the frame but still larger than the size that my MFT cameras would still recognise one.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen the million pictures taken with my A7 I've posted they're of static or slow loving things and I only use tracking when using face detect. Eye detect would be nice to have.

So, A7III or IV? What do you guys think? Does the A7III or IV do silent shooting and if they do is it too bandy to bother with? Do both have eye rather than face detect? Also do any of these use the same battery as my A7?

I'll have to order something on Monday as I'm missing my A7 already. I think I'm still leaning towards the III.
Click to expand...

The III is available for £999 new inc cashback at the moment - £1299 buy, £300 cashback (not that I've been looking....................... ;) )
 
woof woof said:
Oh sugar.

After 11 years I'm sorry to have to report that my A7 has passed away. I'm gutted. But it's now new toy time.

I'm torn between the A7III and IV. Given that the A7 did just about everything I want I initially tended towards the III but I wonder is anything missing that I might like and is maybe in the IV?

My main criticisms of the A7 were that it was pedestrian slow, didn't allow silent shooting and the face recognition was a bit basic and would fail to recognise a face if it was small in the frame but still larger than the size that my MFT cameras would still recognise one.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen the million pictures taken with my A7 I've posted they're of static or slow loving things and I only use tracking when using face detect. Eye detect would be nice to have.

So, A7III or IV? What do you guys think? Does the A7III or IV do silent shooting and if they do is it too bandy to bother with? Do both have eye rather than face detect? Also do any of these use the same battery as my A7?

I'll have to order something on Monday as I'm missing my A7 already. I think I'm still leaning towards the III.
Click to expand...

Tbh you would probably be better of getting the A7IV at this point.

Better a.f with real time tracking
Better image quality
Better colour science
Better ergonomics
Better E.V.F
Option to use CF-A express cards and S.D cards

The only downside for me with the A7IV over the A7III is the flippy screen which I personally don't like. Banding is the same on both, no issue outdoors really. Both have eye a,.f. Neither use the same battery as the A7, you will be pleased with the battery actually much better then the old one.

Have a look at the A7CII as well, I love this thing same image quality and better a.f than the A7IV with the much smaller size. You do lose as well tbf over the A7IV in terms of ergonomics and losing the second card, EVF is not as good and you also lose the joystick, I still love using mine though.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'll have to order something on Monday as I'm missing my A7 already. I think I'm still leaning towards the III.
Click to expand...

I have the III but would recommend the IV for better viewfinder, flip out screen, AF etc.
 
woof woof said:
Oh sugar.

After 11 years I'm sorry to have to report that my A7 has passed away. I'm gutted. But it's now new toy time.

I'm torn between the A7III and IV. Given that the A7 did just about everything I want I initially tended towards the III but I wonder is anything missing that I might like and is maybe in the IV?

My main criticisms of the A7 were that it was pedestrian slow, didn't allow silent shooting and the face recognition was a bit basic and would fail to recognise a face if it was small in the frame but still larger than the size that my MFT cameras would still recognise one.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen the million pictures taken with my A7 I've posted they're of static or slow loving things and I only use tracking when using face detect. Eye detect would be nice to have.

So, A7III or IV? What do you guys think? Does the A7III or IV do silent shooting and if they do is it too bandy to bother with? Do both have eye rather than face detect? Also do any of these use the same battery as my A7?

I'll have to order something on Monday as I'm missing my A7 already. I think I'm still leaning towards the III.
Click to expand...
my condolences, after all this time I am surprised your A7 hasn't got its own account!

I'd suggest the A7IV or A7CII. Considering you don't buy bodies very often I think it makes sense for to get the latest greatest as you will keep it forever.

One word of warning though is that the A7iii or A7iv will feel a fair bit bigger than the original A7. You might free more at home with A7Cii
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys.

Firstly, I'm down with something at the mo and not feeling myself so sorry about any waffling and lack of focus....

I thought of something else.

I use the AEL/AF/MF switch and button a lot and in fact it's one of my most used controls but I can't see one on the back of the newer cameras, have they done away with it? If so how to you do these things? It's just so easy and convenient on the A7 to do it all with the one control and I do use it a lot.

On the SLR v RF style, The increase in size and weight of the newer slr style cameras over the A7 will be obvious to me and I am a bit worried about that but I've always been put off by the "hobbling" of the A7c range but I can't remember exactly what it was at the mo. I think just generally the lack of this or that or the awkwardness of one thing or another just mount up and there's nowhere local I can try one and doing so would mean a day trip into a city and I don't want to walk let alone drive today.

I'll have to decide about the screen too as I've got used to the tilting one. Having a do it all one would be best but the A7x range don't seem to have one.

I'll try and make these the last questions :D
 
ancient_mariner said:
Only a single control wheel.
Click to expand...

But the II's do have front and back near top of camera controls for aperture and shutter?

Also with the A7cII I read that the evf is reduced resolution and as I do a lot of MF this worries me so does anyone know how the MF experience compares to the A7?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Only a single control wheel.
Click to expand...
not true with A7CII/A7CR, it has the forefinger dial now unlike the original A7C. Hence i suggested him the A7CII

woof woof said:
I use the AEL/AF/MF switch and button a lot and in fact it's one of my most used controls but I can't see one on the back of the newer cameras, have they done away with it? If so how to you do these things? It's just so easy and convenient on the A7 to do it all with the one control and I do use it a lot.
Click to expand...
New bodies are larger and have more buttons. Sony got around that on the original A7 bodies by adding that switch thing.

woof woof said:
Also with the A7cII I read that the evf is reduced resolution and as I do a lot of MF this worries me so does anyone know how the MF experience compares to the A7?
Click to expand...

Its better than the original A7 EVF and not as good as A7IV and about the same as A7III
 
Last edited:
@woof woof - interested in the outcome here, currently considering a FF body mainly to use with adapted glass, my current contenders are

A7 III
A7R III - currently £750 off at WEX
A7 IV
Nikon DF - this would work for you with a Z to E mount converter, which would then give you focus confirmation in manual operation with your adapated glass (though you would have two adapters on if you continued to use your extensive set of E mount adapters)
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
Nikon DF - this would woork for you with a Z to E mount converter, which would then give you focus confirmation in manual operation with your adapated glass (though you would have two adapters on if you continued to use your extensive set of E mount adapters)
Click to expand...
well if you just permanently stick the megadap adapter on to it, you can just treat is as a e-mount body.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@woof woof - interested in the outcome here, currently considering a FF body mainly to use with adapted glass, my current contenders are

A7 III
A7R III - currently £750 off at WEX
A7 IV
Nikon DF - this would work for you with a Z to E mount converter, which would then give you focus confirmation in manual operation with your adapated glass (though you would have two adapters on if you continued to use your extensive set of E mount adapters)
Click to expand...
Assume you mean the Nikon ZF? As the DF is old enough that Judas used it as his second camera when shooting the last supper.
 
nandbytes said:
not true with A7CII/A7CR, it has the forefinger dial now unlike the original A7C. Hence i suggested him the A7CII


New bodies are larger and have more buttons. Sony got around that on the original A7 bodies by adding that switch thing.



Its better than the original A7 EVF and not as good as A7IV and about the same as A7III
Click to expand...

Thanks.

So with the newer cameras you have to assign AEL and AF/MF to two buttons? Seems a backward step to me but unless I go for a A7II it's something I'm just going to be stuck with.

Oh, I remembered what put me off the A7CII, as far as I remember the shutter speed is limited to 1/4,000 and I really don't want to start pressing buttons to select electronic shutter to get over this. My MFT are also limited to 1/4,000 but they switch to the electronic shutter automatically whilst I don't think the A7cII does and MTF don't seem to display any rolling shutter so it's a non issue. With the A7CII I don't want to run into annoying issues so I think it's out and I'll have to choose between the A7III and IV.

I'm sure either will be "better" than my A7 but also bigger and heavier and I lose the convenience of the AEL/AF/MF controls.

I do wish my A7 hadn't died but in reality there's just too much wrong with it to get it fixed and a used one would be a lottery. A7II is only £100 cheaper than the III and out of stock anyway.

So, I think for me it comes down to flippy or articulated screen.

Ref going Nikon.
As I had a Nikon SLR for decades if they'd brought out their "A7" before or even at the same time as Sony I'd probably have bought it but I have 11 (I think) Sony mount lenses now and it'll be too much hassle to switch and I don't really want to use adapters. I will for old film era lenses but I don't want to bother for AF.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Oh sugar.

After 11 years I'm sorry to have to report that my A7 has passed away. I'm gutted. But it's now new toy time.

I'm torn between the A7III and IV. Given that the A7 did just about everything I want I initially tended towards the III but I wonder is anything missing that I might like and is maybe in the IV?

My main criticisms of the A7 were that it was pedestrian slow, didn't allow silent shooting and the face recognition was a bit basic and would fail to recognise a face if it was small in the frame but still larger than the size that my MFT cameras would still recognise one.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen the million pictures taken with my A7 I've posted they're of static or slow loving things and I only use tracking when using face detect. Eye detect would be nice to have.

So, A7III or IV? What do you guys think? Does the A7III or IV do silent shooting and if they do is it too bandy to bother with? Do both have eye rather than face detect? Also do any of these use the same battery as my A7?

I'll have to order something on Monday as I'm missing my A7 already. I think I'm still leaning towards the III.
Click to expand...

Damn Alan. I never thought I'd see that post :(
I went out for sunset last night and use the A7 more than the A7Riii because it had the 24GM on it :ROFLMAO:

I think it's going to be a case of thinking over what you want (front dial, etc which type of screen, joystick.....) and go from there. On paper, all of them will do what you need them to do. It's more of "how" they do it. I was a bit like you loving the original A7 for many years, but jumping up to the A7Riii was such a good experience tbh
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
LeeRatters said:
Damn Alan. I never thought I'd see that post :(
I went out for sunset last night and use the A7 more than the A7Riii because it had the 24GM on it :ROFLMAO:

I think it's going to be a case of thinking over what you want (front dial, etc which type of screen, joystick.....) and go from there. On paper, all of them will do what you need them to do. It's more of "how" they do it. I was a bit like you loving the original A7 for many years, but jumping up to the A7Riii was such a good experience tbh
Click to expand...

Yup.

I did think about getting it repaired but it's had just about daily use in just about any and all environment and condition and apart from being dead it is showing its age. The covering is blistering basically all over and I've fitted a cheap half case to pull it all together, there's been a spot of debris of some sort in the evf for years and there's that minor point of it being dead too. I think in reality it's time to let it go as any repair shop will probably faint when they see it.

I think I'm leaning towards the A7III for the tilting screen. I did briefly think about the A7rx with the do it all screen but it's massive overkill for what I do and there's the file size too although you may be able to select a smaller one. But no, I think it's overkill to go for one of those just for the screen options.

What's good about the A7rIII? Knowing what I do, would I notice?

Hmmm. A7III or A7rIII?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yup.

I did think about getting it repaired but it's had just about daily use in just about any and all environment and condition and apart from being dead it is showing its age. The covering is blistering basically all over and I've fitted a cheap half case to pull it all together, there's been a spot of debris of some sort in the evf for years and there's that minor point of it being dead too. I think in reality it's time to let it go as any repair shop will probably faint when they see it.

I think I'm leaning towards the A7III for the tilting screen. I did briefly think about the A7rx with the do it all screen but it's massive overkill for what I do and there's the file size too although you may be able to select a smaller one. But no, I think it's overkill to go for one of those just for the screen options.

What's good about the A7rIII? Knowing what I do, would I notice?

Hmmm. A7III or A7rIII?
Click to expand...

Well, tbh, I was actually thinking of an A7iii for a future upgrade at the time. And then I had an online forum conversation somewhere about the 50GM....... So it was suggested that with the A7Riii I could frame the 35GM a bit loose, crop for a tighter FOV, and still have a good size file. About a week later, a mate was selling his A7Riii so......

...... that's how I ended up with an A7Riii :)

I do shoot compressed RAW. And I prefer a tilt screen to a fully articulated I think. Most of the time I just tilt the screen up a little when I use it, I don't want to be flipping it out and around and having it sticking out the side of the body.......
 
Thanks.

I see the advantage of the r cameras for cropping but I seem happy enough to do heavy crops with my A7 as I don't print much these days and 1,500 pixels wide seems to be easily enough to fill a screen and look nice enough. Actually 1,000 pixels wide seems to be enough for on screen viewing for me.

I think I'm leaning ever more towards the A7III. I do use the back screen for taking pictures at lower levels and having it out to the side will be a difference and as I don't tend to take selfies I think the A7III could be less of a culture shock.

So, if no stops me with a better idea I think I'll have a cup of tea and then order an A7III.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Thanks.

So with the newer cameras you have to assign AEL and AF/MF to two buttons? Seems a backward step to me but unless I go for a A7II it's something I'm just going to be stuck with.
Click to expand...
yes, not backwards at all IME. you have two separate buttons and hence no need to be flicking switches. Its quicker and more ergonomic.

woof woof said:
Oh, I remembered what put me off the A7CII, as far as I remember the shutter speed is limited to 1/4,000 and I really don't want to start pressing buttons to select electronic shutter to get over this. My MFT are also limited to 1/4,000 but they switch to the electronic shutter automatically whilst I don't think the A7cII does and MTF don't seem to display any rolling shutter so it's a non issue. With the A7CII I don't want to run into annoying issues so I think it's out and I'll have to choose between the A7III and IV.
Click to expand...

I think we also established that you don't have many shots at 1/8000s. you just need to assign a single button to toggle the electronic shutter on and off. you can also do it via. fn menu.

Its all a compromise at the end of the day. pick your poison I guess.... larger body or having to put up with needing to toggle silent shutter on and off.

A7CII also has better IBIS, tracking than A7III or A7IV if that matters at all.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
yes, not backwards at all IME. you have two separate buttons and hence no need to be flicking switches. Its quicker and more ergonomic.



I think we also established that you don't have far too many shots at 1/8000s. you just need to assign a single button to toggle the electronic shutter on and off. you can also do it via. fn menu.

Its all a compromise at the end of the day. pick your poison I guess.... larger body or having to put up with needing to toggle silent shutter on and off.
Click to expand...

I had all my A7 buttons assigned to something so having AEL and AF/MF take up buttons may mean losing something but I suppose I'll just have to live with it. I did like that control as all options were in the same place and didn't need any thumb repositioning. It was all just second nature. Oh well. I may even prefer the new set up or at least get used to it.

I do use the faster shutter speeds probably for a single digit percentage of pictures but it's just something I don't want to compromise on as it's just another time and task adding thing to distract from taking the picture. I do use the custom menu for some options but it's even more faff on and not something I want to be doing shot to shot for reasons of shutter speed. And it's another button taken up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top