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

Gandalf said:
QQ Guys,

Is the a7R3 still a good bank for buck camera? Still acceptable resolution?

It would be used solely for portraiture, paired with Sigma 85 f1.4 & Sony G Master 135 f1.8?

42mp file size more manageable than the 61mp from the a7Riv & a7R5.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes it is but it’s worthwhile looking at alternative ICC files if you go that route. If you use Capture One, there is a choice of several and the more natural one avoids the problem that the A7R3 has with unrealistic greens that adds processing work to landscapes in particular.
Once the colours are fixed I prefer it to the later cameras in situations where advanced focussing isn’t necessary.
 
Last edited:
A few shots from frosty morning stroll in country park near our home in Woodley near Reading. All A1 and 300GM, first one with 2xTC, second two with 1.4xTC. The third one is closestI've been to one of these birds. A walk I've done probably hundreds of times, and it was sat on a branch at head height very close to the path. Couldn't believe my luck!


2025-02-02 09.12.53 (DSC01127).jpg
2025-02-02 08.46.17 (DSC09028).jpg

2025-02-02 08.35.43 (DSC08535).jpg
 
Hi All. I've got GAS again... thinking of trading in my much-loved RX10iv for an A6700 and 70-350. The weight is around the same and although I'd lose a bit in effective reach (600mm v 525mm) I'd gain a bit on the megapixels (20MP v 26MP). Benefits would be much better autofocus for birding and better low light performance. Any thoughts/advice welcome! Cheers :)
 
Tricky01 said:
A few shots from frosty morning stroll in country park near our home in Woodley near Reading. All A1 and 300GM, first one with 2xTC, second two with 1.4xTC. The third one is closestI've been to one of these birds. A walk I've done probably hundreds of times, and it was sat on a branch at head height very close to the path. Couldn't believe my luck!


View attachment 444686
View attachment 444687

View attachment 444688
Click to expand...
Is this why you are selling the 200-600mm and 500DN?

how does the sharpness compare to the above these two lenses with 2x TC on 300GM?
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Hi All. I've got GAS again... thinking of trading in my much-loved RX10iv for an A6700 and 70-350. The weight is around the same and although I'd lose a bit in effective reach (600mm v 525mm) I'd gain a bit on the megapixels (20MP v 26MP). Benefits would be much better autofocus for birding and better low light performance. Any thoughts/advice welcome! Cheers :)
Click to expand...
I have long debated this myself...
I think in terms of reach and light gathering its a wash between the two. I don't think there is much in it.

RX10iv give you 24-75mm range and higher FPS while A6700+70-350mm gives you updated AF with subject detection and USH-ii card slot.

will be interested to hear how you get along
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Hi All. I've got GAS again... thinking of trading in my much-loved RX10iv for an A6700 and 70-350. The weight is around the same and although I'd lose a bit in effective reach (600mm v 525mm) I'd gain a bit on the megapixels (20MP v 26MP). Benefits would be much better autofocus for birding and better low light performance. Any thoughts/advice welcome! Cheers :)
Click to expand...
Obviously you're missing the 24-105mm eq range with the 70-350mm but if you don't use this then the A6700 combo will likely work better for birding. In terms of noise I don't think there'll be much in it, 1" type at f4 vs APS-C at f6.3.
 
nandbytes said:
I have long debated this myself...
I think in terms of reach and light gathering its a wash between the two. I don't think there is much in it.

RX10iv give you 24-75mm range and higher FPS while A6700+70-350mm gives you updated AF with subject detection and USH-ii card slot.

will be interested to hear how you get along
Click to expand...
Thanks. I need to ponder a bit further but I do feel like I'll have to do something eventually as it looks like Sony is never going to make an RX10v and the RX10iv is getting pretty long in the tooth already unfortunately...
 
snerkler said:
Obviously you're missing the 24-105mm eq range with the 70-350mm but if you don't use this then the A6700 combo will likely work better for birding. In terms of noise I don't think there'll be much in it, 1" type at f4 vs APS-C at f6.3.
Click to expand...
Thanks Toby. Yes agreed on the range... I was going to get a 10-20 for the wide end (I occasionally shoot landscapes) but I do use it mainly at the long end for birds. The noise is an interesting one as I thought that would likely be a win for the A6700 even taking into account the darker maximum aperture of the 70-350? Maybe I am am wrong here!
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Thanks. I need to ponder a bit further but I do feel like I'll have to do something eventually as it looks like Sony is never going to make an RX10v and the RX10iv is getting pretty long in the tooth already unfortunately...
Click to expand...

I'm also rather annoyed at Sony for not making the RX10v :(

dibbly dobbler said:
The noise is an interesting one as I thought that would likely be a win for the A6700 even taking into account the darker maximum aperture of the 70-350? Maybe I am am wrong here!
Click to expand...
Once you "equalise" the aperture and resolutions/crop factors it's about equal.

For example in FF terms RX10IV gives f11 (f4×2.7) equivalent at 20mp with 600mm FoV.

The A6700+70-350mm once you crop down to 20mp gives f11 (f6.3x1.52x1.14) with 600mm field of view.
There is some minutes difference which is basically in the rounding errors, so as I said above its a wash in terms of reach and light gathering capabilities.

Though the A6700 is a newer gen sensor but it's not leaps and bounds new. With newer processors and being a larger sensor i think you'll get slightly better noise performance overall but nothing that'll change your life :D
 
nandbytes said:
I'm also rather annoyed at Sony for not making the RX10v :(


Once you "equalise" the aperture and resolutions/crop factors it's about equal.

For example in FF terms RX10IV gives f11 (f4×2.7) equivalent at 20mp with 600mm FoV.

The A6700+70-350mm once you crop down to 20mp gives f11 (f6.3x1.52x1.14) with 600mm field of view.
There is some minutes difference which is basically in the rounding errors, so as I said above its a wash in terms of reach and light gathering capabilities.

Though the A6700 is a newer gen sensor but it's not leaps and bounds new. With newer processors and being a larger sensor i think you'll get slightly better noise performance overall but nothing that'll change your life :D
Click to expand...
Great reply - thanks again for taking the time :)

I had a look at one of these iso comparison sites and it did seem like the A6700 at 1 and a 1/3 stops higher iso was still a bit less noisy than the RX10iv but I've no idea how accurate this is likely to be so I suspect it's probably very close as you say. So I'd be losing a chunk of range at the wide end and gaining the fancy eye tracking focus modes but not a lot else by the sounds of it... hmm not sounding clear cut at all.

Oh well - more pondering required and probably invoke rule 1: 'when in doubt do nowt'

Cheers
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Great reply - thanks again for taking the time :)

I had a look at one of these iso comparison sites and it did seem like the A6700 at 1 and a 1/3 stops higher iso was still a bit less noisy than the RX10iv but I've no idea how accurate this is likely to be so I suspect it's probably very close as you say. So I'd be losing a chunk of range at the wide end and gaining the fancy eye tracking focus modes but not a lot else by the sounds of it... hmm not sounding clear cut at all.

Oh well - more pondering required and probably invoke rule 1: 'when in doubt do nowt'

Cheers
Click to expand...

That sounds about right. But the issue is you'll also need bump the ISO by 1.33 stop extra since f6.3 is exactly 1.33 stops lower than f4 lens on RX10iv.

So whatever you are gaining in terms of ISO performance from larger sensor you are losing from the light gathering capabilities of the lens.
 
nandbytes said:
Is this why you are selling the 200-600mm and 500DN?

how does the sharpness compare to the above these two lenses with 2x TC on 300GM?
Click to expand...
Yes, selling them along with the car, the kids and the kitchen sink! It's a lovely lens but it's still really hard to afford. luckily found one second hand but it's still a lot of money.

It's funny, I tried the lens out at that LCE event last April and it actually made me appreciate the 200-600 more, it faired very well against the 300, 400 and 600. Sharpness wise, I think they're all very strong, though the 300 does have an edge. Where the 300GM notably excels:

1. The 30fps vs. Sigma (for smaller birds that's the difference between 4 shots and 8 shots as they fly from a branch)
2. Autofocus vs 200-600 (it's very good on the 200-600 but it's obscenely fast on the 300)
3. Weight vs the 200-600

This morning, heading into a wooded area at sunrise I could be at 300 2.8 and get shots I wouldn't have got before. Then as more light came through, popped on the 1.4x for 420 f4, and then later the 2x for 600 5.6, all handheld. Previously I tended to keep the 1.4x TC on the 200-600 and lug the tripod and gimbal around with it. That said, all three of these shots I would have got with the 200-600 - the buzzard up in the branches and sky is the one which I think wouldn't have been quite as sharp / good contrast though.

Specifically with the 2x TC, sharpness is great. Tiny amount of CA creeping in, but very good performance, very happy - as per the robin.

Update - I think @Bungieben has provided some great examples of how sharp that 200-600 is though
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering what Sony are planning doing with the RX10iv and the RX100VII, I've been toying with picking up the latter but supplies seem to be drying up and no stock with the grey importers I've checked. As I understand it neither camera can be sold in Europe for much longer because they use micro USB and not the required USB-C connection under the new rules. That said I can't see them doing anything particularly different with the cameras even if they do announce new versions.
 
Tricky01 said:
A couple more from this morning. Can anyone identify them? I'm sure the first is a red kite, but not sure about the second?
Click to expand...
Buzzard I think
 
T_J_G said:
I like that, hopefully you have more luck than me. I bought a new car in October and it’s been crashed into twice already after having zero accidents since I started driving 16 or so years ago
Click to expand...
Thanks, sorry to hear that, that sucks :(
 
Question for the Pro Portrait photographers out there.

Apart from 35mm & 85mm, would you prioritise a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 over a 135mm f1.8 ? Would you have both ? Would you even use a 70-200 f2.8 for the compression ?

I know some will probably say for Studio work 50mm & 85mm and for outside 135mm…

I am interested to hear your interpretations. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Gandalf said:
Question for the Pro Portrait photographers out there.

Apart from 35mm & 85mm, would you prioritise a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 over a 135mm f1.8 ? Would you have both ? Would you even use a 70-200 f2.8 foe the compression ?

I know some will probably say for Studio work 50mm & 85mm and for outside 135mm…

I am interested to hear your interpretations. Thanks
Click to expand...
Any reason you’re only asking for pro portrait photographers advice? I’m not 100% sure but I don’t think any of us are pro portrait photographers. There’s a few wedding togs though.
 
Gandalf said:
Question for the Pro Portrait photographers out there.

Apart from 35mm & 85mm, would you prioritise a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 over a 135mm f1.8 ? Would you have both ? Would you even use a 70-200 f2.8 foe the compression ?

I know some will probably say for Studio work 50mm & 85mm and for outside 135mm…

I am interested to hear your interpretations. Thanks
Click to expand...

From a working wedding photographer, I use primarily 35 & 85. I did have a 135mm for portraits but found it a bit too long and didn't offer me enough over the 85mm to be swapping lenses etc.

If I was to add either I'd add a 50mm as it would be far more useful for me.
 
Gandalf said:
Question for the Pro Portrait photographers out there.

Apart from 35mm & 85mm, would you prioritise a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 over a 135mm f1.8 ? Would you have both ? Would you even use a 70-200 f2.8 foe the compression ?

I know some will probably say for Studio work 50mm & 85mm and for outside 135mm…

I am interested to hear your interpretations. Thanks
Click to expand...
For studio 50 f/1.2 is probably a better choice unless your studio is massive.

For outdoors the 135 f/1.8 is a much better choice it’s absolutely outstanding. Wish I got to use mine more. It renders beautifully and with the extra compression it produces much nicer images than any of the 85’s.

To give context it’s been a long while but I had my own studio for a couple of years before moving to 100% weddings. I don’t know of any pro portrait photographers that use this site any more in fact there aren’t that many pro’s at all any more as they all got fed up with the over moderation and moved on.

For weddings the 135 f/1.8 is a bit useless as you get the opportunity to use it so little were as probably 40-50% of everything I shoot are with the 50 f/1.2.

The 135 f/1.8 tends to be used a lot by pet photographers and portrait photographers who predominantly work outdoors.
 
Last edited:
The 135 1.8 is an incredible lens as a wedding guest I’ve found, which also encourages me to then find ways to use it for any paid for gigs I get. I love foreground bokeh, and allows you to use other guests to frame subjects. It works for me in my journalistic style because you can shoot from a distance without people being conscious of your presence.

As a guest it just gets you images no other guest can get. You get that compression and you get really close to the couple however far away you are.

And more generally it’s probably my favourite lens. First it was the minolta 135 2.8 ‘pocket rocket’, then it was the 1.8 CZ, and now the GM. I’ve used it at events, family get together, even sports (one of my favourite shots on centre court at Wimbledon was with the CZ, and took many shots at an evening red bull x-fighters event with the pocket rocket).
 
Tricky01 said:
The 135 1.8 is an incredible lens as a wedding guest I’ve found, which also encourages me to then find ways to use it for any paid for gigs I get. I love foreground bokeh, and allows you to use other guests to frame subjects. It works for me in my journalistic style because you can shoot from a distance without people being conscious of your presence.

As a guest it just gets you images no other guest can get. You get that compression and you get really close to the couple however far away you are.

And more generally it’s probably my favourite lens. First it was the minolta 135 2.8 ‘pocket rocket’, then it was the 1.8 CZ, and now the GM. I’ve used it at events, family get together, even sports (one of my favourite shots on centre court at Wimbledon was with the CZ, and took many shots at an evening red bull x-fighters event with the pocket rocket).
Click to expand...
I’ve tended to use 50mm and 35mm as a guest as I like to have some context of the venue/day. I find with a longer lens such as a 135mm or 200mm you can get some lovely portraits but because the background is completely obliterated and/or the field of view is so narrow you don’t get the context of where you’re shooting, if this makes sense?

Obviously this is only my preference and in no way am I suggesting that it’s better (y)
 
snerkler said:
I’ve tended to use 50mm and 35mm as a guest as I like to have some context of the venue/day. I find with a longer lens such as a 135mm or 200mm you can get some lovely portraits but because the background is completely obliterated and/or the field of view is so narrow you don’t get the context of where you’re shooting, if this makes sense?

Obviously this is only my preference and in no way am I suggesting that it’s better (y)
Click to expand...
35 is definitely in the bag too, but with some zooming (out) with your legs you can still get the context. Especially if you’re sat towards the back half of the venue.


p949710609-4.jpg


p912210118-4.jpg


p1685584560-4.jpg
 
Apologies @snerkler (Toby), what I meant to say was those that take Portraits and get paid for the privilege, just really those that would use the specified lenses regularly.
 
Gandalf said:
Apologies @snerkler (Toby), what I meant to say was those that take Portraits and get paid for the privilege, just really those that would use the specified lenses regularly.
Click to expand...
No apologies needed, it wasn’t the intention of my post. I often see posts on socials asking for pro advice and it feels like they’re missing out on a wider audience as there’s plenty of very talented non pros out that there can offer valuable info (y)
 
Last edited:
I was slightly jealous of NIkon releasing the 35mm f1.2 today until I saw the size and weight of that thing, 1060g :eek: :eek::eek:
 
I often think about “how big is too big?” For lenses.

It’s a trade off with the lens’ utility, and competition, but still. That sounds heavy but I have heavier…

Though at a certain point I may as well carry a medium format?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top