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

snerkler said:
I must admit I didn't actually look at the price of the RX1R III, I just assumed it would be similar to the RX1R II launch price. What are Sony smoking?????? £4199 :eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

I thought that was almost a pleasant surprise as I thought it was going to be around £5k. If I was having my arm twisted I'd take that at £1k cheaper over the Q3 every time.
 
woof woof said:
I thought that was almost a pleasant surprise as I thought it was going to be around £5k. If I was having my arm twisted I'd take that at £1k cheaper over the Q3 every time.
Click to expand...
I see it a bit like Casio vs Rolex, Casio make some very nice watches and have great tech giving better function than Rolex but they’re not in the same bracket.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I don't find the difference on the A7C series noticeable at all since they can't fit anywhere in my bags the A9 can't while smaller cameras like the RX100 or RX1 can.

In terms of MFT, I think you're making the wrong comparison to a 1in camera. Even the smallest MFT camera is far larger than an RX100 series never mind something that has a 200mm range, I use the 1in camera because I don't have the space for an MFT camera. The RX100 will easily fit in a pocket and offers a staggering 24-200mm range so the realistic comparison is to a phone and clearly the Sony will easily win that one. If I have space for an MFT camera than I have space for an FF camera so again, there's no point in using an MFT camera. I did like MFT initially but the market has moved and it's failed to offer the size advantage it initially promised, it's surprising how large the cameras are even compared to the APS-C cameras.
Click to expand...

There is still a point to MFT if you choose the kit wisely and play to its strengths but we have to make our own minds up when looking at IQ, bulk and weight. All I can say is that sometimes I choose MFT over my A7 kit. A GX80 plus the teeny tiny 14mm f2.5 is IMO a lovely thing, a Gx the size of an A7 and a kit lens the size of the old Sony 28-70mm is less lovely IMO and I do struggle to see the point of combinations like that. MFT + a small prime of a long zoom make the most sense to me.

1" is a bit meh for me. The small ones are better than a phone and not as fiddly but still a bit fiddly and can't match mft for IQ and the bigger ones... well, might as well take something else really. I can see how and why some love their 1" sensor cameras and good luck to them.
 
snerkler said:
I see it a bit like Casio vs Rolex, Casio make some very nice watches and have great tech giving better function than Rolex but they’re not in the same bracket.
Click to expand...

Oooh. Rolex. I'll go off topic just a bit :D Big scandal at the mo as it might just be that they're not as Swiss made as some would like us believe. One look at the sales numbers should raise an eyebrow. I can't see myself spending £6k+ on an explorer but an NH35 powered lookalike for £60 will do me fine :D

I can't see myself ever owning a Leica. I'm not into brands and although we'll have to wait and see I wouldn't be surprised if the Sony is the better camera in a couple of areas and if those areas matter it's £1k cheaper.

I wouldn't critisise anyone spending thousands on a camera and I've told you you should treat yourself and you should and at least you don't have to buy more lenses for this RX1rIII but at mo I can't bring myself to spend that much on camera kit. Not in one go. 100 film era 50's and 28's at £50 a piece would tempt me more :D
 
woof woof said:
There is still a point to MFT if you choose the kit wisely and play to its strengths but we have to make our own minds up when looking at IQ, bulk and weight. All I can say is that sometimes I choose MFT over my A7 kit. A GX80 plus the teeny tiny 14mm f2.5 is IMO a lovely thing, a Gx the size of an A7 and a kit lens the size of the old Sony 28-70mm is less lovely IMO and I do struggle to see the point of combinations like that. MFT + a small prime of a long zoom make the most sense to me.

1" is a bit meh for me. The small ones are better than a phone and not as fiddly but still a bit fiddly and can't match mft for IQ and the bigger ones... well, might as well take something else really. I can see how and why some love their 1" sensor cameras and good luck to them.
Click to expand...
You're completely missing the point...a 1in camera is when you don't have space for an MFT camera, it doesn't matter how much better you think a an MFT camera is because it will not fit. I don't choose to use a 1in sensor camera and find the sensor limiting however it's by a country mile the best image quality and performance you're going to get in a package that size, I can easily carry it in pockets that a MFT or similar camera will not fit. I could make endless claims about how much better my FF cameras are than a 1in sensor which is just as pointless as comparing an RX100 with an MFT camera because like the MFT camera, the FF camera will not fit either. I genuinely don't think you understand how small the 1in cameras are otherwise you wouldn't keep making these flawed comparisons, I've used the smallest micro 4/3 cameras with the 14mm and 20mm but they dwarf an RX100.

In terms of use, the RX100 is also significantly better than a phone, both in handling and image quality. The phone handling is clumsy and generally needs two hands but the RX100 can be easily used one handed with full access to the controls from one hand. Also the difference from a phone to the RX100 is a much, much larger jump from the 1in series to the MFT which you claim to be more significant which should make you appreciate how much better the 1in sensor actually is.

LeeRatters said:
Can pick up a used Q3 for about the same price as a new RX1R iii ;)

I know which I'd choose :)
Click to expand...
I suspect most others do too especially given the Leica Q series has been very successful and the cheaper RX1 series were not.
 
Last edited:
the_accidental said:
RX1R II inflation adjusted is £3600, so it’s in the ballpark.
Click to expand...

Even back then I could not justify it when compared to back then the nearest Sony body like the A73 plus a lens.

Now they have released the ACR line where the body is even smaller....I find it even harder to justify. I know there is value to get something smaller and pocketable but their own other line of bodies has decreased the RX1R line somewhat and with the increase in price, it make that value even slimmer.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Even back then I could not justify it when compared to back then the nearest Sony body like the A73 plus a lens.

Now they have released the ACR line where the body is even smaller....I find it even harder to justify. I know there is value to get something smaller and pocketable but their own other line of bodies has decreased the RX1R line somewhat and with the increase in price, it make that value even slimmer.
Click to expand...
TBH the RX1's aren't really pocketable anyway as the lens sticks out quite a bit.
 
snerkler said:
TBH the RX1's aren't really pocketable anyway as the lens sticks out quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I remember trying it in a shop and found it really difficult to hold without feeling I am going to drop it. It’s very square and needs a grip which then makes the whole pocket friendly thing pointless. Especially when their grip is so expensive.

Ultimate pocket-ability isn’t my no.1 priority, once it’s small enough like a Fuji/AC line it’s fine by me, if I’m going out for a day I will almost always have a small bag that’s large enough for any of these cameras. So personally I won’t be getting the RX1R. Either stay with X100 line or go big to a Leica Q.
 
I watched a Ken Rockwell piece on Youtube during which he seemed to like it although he did claim that the latest Fuji X100 does "the same thing". Looking on the comparison site the RX1rIII does look noticeably smaller than the A7cII particularly when viewed from above but if this matters to most people I don't know..The A7 is included here just for comparison because I'm used to me creaking old A7...

Compact Camera Meter

Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.
camerasize.com

I was a bit surprised by the max shutter speeds at various settings, a result of the leaf shutter. I can see the appeal. I think this is the smallest FF camera and it has a nice lens and a leaf shutter so despite it's price and some would say limitations and lack of IS and relatively low spec evf I can see some people being very happy with one. I could be persuaded to stretch to £2-2.5k or so because I like compact kit and it's 35mm which will always appeal to me but at £4k it is more than I can see myself paying for a camera. In reality an A7cII although bigger and with no compact AF 35mm f2 available is more my thing and it does have an adjustable screen but I think I would prefer a tilting rather than articulating one.

I think I'd quite like one and it'd probably get me out and about with a camera more but not at £4k or anything like it. Good luck to those willing to spend that much and I'm sure they'll get a lot of enjoyment from this camera.
 
Last edited:
JohnMcL7 said:
You're completely missing the point...a 1in camera is when you don't have space for an MFT camera, it doesn't matter how much better you think a an MFT camera is because it will not fit. I don't choose to use a 1in sensor camera and find the sensor limiting however it's by a country mile the best image quality and performance you're going to get in a package that size, I can easily carry it in pockets that a MFT or similar camera will not fit. I could make endless claims about how much better my FF cameras are than a 1in sensor which is just as pointless as comparing an RX100 with an MFT camera because like the MFT camera, the FF camera will not fit either. I genuinely don't think you understand how small the 1in cameras are otherwise you wouldn't keep making these flawed comparisons, I've used the smallest micro 4/3 cameras with the 14mm and 20mm but they dwarf an RX100.

In terms of use, the RX100 is also significantly better than a phone, both in handling and image quality. The phone handling is clumsy and generally needs two hands but the RX100 can be easily used one handed with full access to the controls from one hand. Also the difference from a phone to the RX100 is a much, much larger jump from the 1in series to the MFT which you claim to be more significant which should make you appreciate how much better the 1in sensor actually is.


I suspect most others do too especially given the Leica Q series has been very successful and the cheaper RX1 series were not.
Click to expand...

John. I'm not missing any point and I think you are missing mine, including that I did make reference to smaller 1" cameras. After all, I have one.

I included MFT in my size comparison v A7x because that's what I have and what MFT I have is pretty close to the size of the A7c range. I was not making any point about the viability of MFT size or IQ wise to you or anyone else.

Hopefully we can both move on from this line of debate now.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I remember trying it in a shop and found it really difficult to hold without feeling I am going to drop it. It’s very square and needs a grip which then makes the whole pocket friendly thing pointless. Especially when their grip is so expensive.

Ultimate pocket-ability isn’t my no.1 priority, once it’s small enough like a Fuji/AC line it’s fine by me, if I’m going out for a day I will almost always have a small bag that’s large enough for any of these cameras. So personally I won’t be getting the RX1R. Either stay with X100 line or go big to a Leica Q.
Click to expand...
As much as I like the 'idea' of pocketable the reality is that they're too small and fiddly to enjoy using, it's one of the reasons I never got on with the RX100.
 
Just on pocketability.

I didn't use to carry a bag but these days just about every time I go out I have some sort of man bag. I just have too much to carry these days and I don't like my pockets to be pulled down with shrapnel so in the bag it all goes. If I'm carrying a bag anyway maybe the size difference between a RX1rIII and an A7cII and for eq the 40mm f2.5 doesn't matter all that much. Having said that I would have an RX1rIII and live with the file sizes because it looks lovely and it has that 35mm f2.

What about you guys? I see Raymond usually has a bag. Do you mostly have a bag of some sort with you?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just on pocketability.

I didn't use to carry a bag but these days just about every time I go out I have some sort of man bag. I just have too much to carry these days and I don't like my pockets to be pulled down with shrapnel so in the bag it all goes. If I'm carrying a bag anyway maybe the size difference between a RX1rIII and an A7cII and for eq the 40mm f2.5 doesn't matter all that much. Having said that I would have an RX1rIII and live with the file sizes because it looks lovely and it has that 35mm f2.

What about you guys? I see Raymond usually has a bag. Do you mostly have a bag of some sort with you?
Click to expand...
I don't have a bag unless I'm carrying my camera gear, but if I'm taking my camera gear I always have a bag.
 
snerkler said:
I don't have a bag unless I'm carrying my camera gear, but if I'm taking my camera gear I always have a bag.
Click to expand...

I just have too much to carry, phone, change for car parks etc, pack of tissues, pen and paper (I'm old fashioned,) mints, a couple of plastic bags in case I buy anything and of course car and house keys which for me are too bulky and heavy for a pocket by themselves. That's the minimum but still way too much for me to shove into pockets.
 
No man-bag for me. What has it got in its pocketsies?
 
woof woof said:
I just have too much to carry, phone, change for car parks etc, pack of tissues, pen and paper (I'm old fashioned,) mints, a couple of plastic bags in case I buy anything and of course car and house keys which for me are too bulky and heavy for a pocket by themselves. That's the minimum but still way too much for me to shove into pockets.
Click to expand...
Surely that's what you wife's handbag's for??? ;) :p

Joking aside I don't need to carry a car key, I have a single house key, mobile phone and ridge wallet and that's it. I don't carry cash these days.
 
snerkler said:
Joking aside I don't need to carry a car key, I have a single house key, mobile phone and ridge wallet and that's it. I don't carry cash these days.
Click to expand...

Guitar picks, sometimes coins, otherwise it's the same for me.
 
The only time I don't have a bag is when I am off for a stroll as exercise, then it's just keys and phone. I stick some wireless headphones in my ear and even leave the case at home because I don't plan to take it out in the next hour.

Anything else I have my Wotancraft sling that is large enough for X100 and bottom of water, space for wallet or even just about fit a Steam Deck.

Next size up I have the Wotancraft Ryker and then the Peak Design 14L and then it;'s backpack time.
 
woof woof said:
Just on pocketability.

I didn't use to carry a bag but these days just about every time I go out I have some sort of man bag. I just have too much to carry these days and I don't like my pockets to be pulled down with shrapnel so in the bag it all goes. If I'm carrying a bag anyway maybe the size difference between a RX1rIII and an A7cII and for eq the 40mm f2.5 doesn't matter all that much. Having said that I would have an RX1rIII and live with the file sizes because it looks lovely and it has that 35mm f2.

What about you guys? I see Raymond usually has a bag. Do you mostly have a bag of some sort with you?
Click to expand...

I bought this not long after I got the X100f

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B078GMSP6J?ref_=ppx_hzod_title_dt_b_fed_asin_title_0_0&th=1 - I didn't pay that much for it though I don't think. Pretty good quality though.

That's my go to for general walkabout X100f & 35mm film. Sometime if I go out with just the X100f like Bath last weekend, I just take the camera, no bag.

I have a slightly bigger Crumpler messenger bag which I've had about 15 years or more! That will fit the A7Riii & a few lenses. Or the A7Riii/35GM & the Yashica Mat 124G with a spare section.

Otherwise, it's the Osprey backpack for longer distances/more weight/more stuff.
 
Can anyone settle an argument when shooting with a Sony A7riv with 200-600 lens should you be using electronic or mechanical shutter .. I said the electronic but the argument said that gives rolling shutter so he is using mechanical shutter?
HELP
 
the black fox said:
Can anyone settle an argument when shooting with a Sony A7riv with 200-600 lens should you be using electronic or mechanical shutter .. I said the electronic but the argument said that gives rolling shutter so he is using mechanical shutter?
HELP
Click to expand...
Definitely mechanical shutter especially on R series if you are shooting anything that moves. the electronic shutter readout speed is very slow and hence the rolling shutter issues.

Also the slow readout cause more banding issues in artificial lighting too.

So overall mechanical shutter mostly with electronic option available for the odd situations that demand quietness.
 
the black fox said:
Can anyone settle an argument when shooting with a Sony A7riv with 200-600 lens should you be using electronic or mechanical shutter .. I said the electronic but the argument said that gives rolling shutter so he is using mechanical shutter?
HELP
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what lens you’re using, if you or the subject is moving then use the mechanical shutter, if you and the subject are static the you can use either the electronic or mechanical.
 
I saw that. He's very shouty. I think he needs to attend some sort of meditation class before his health suffers.

I saw this, he ordered one.

View: https://youtu.be/a5nD0LGWI5M?si=BF4KEHp5zwFNxBld


I think I agree with him. In think I would like this camera just not at this price. The Leica Q keeps getting mentioned but compared to the Sony it's a relative big fat honker. IMO, it isn't a small compact option, the Sony is. The A7cII is also mentioned but there's no compact AF 35mm f2. I do have the Sony 24 and 40mm G's and the old 35mm f2.8 but none are f2 plus the TTA 50mm f2 and the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but those are MF.

I don't know what price the RX1rIII would need to be to get me to order one but maybe a price under £3K? That'd be about £1k for the lens (fair I think at nearly twice the price of the Sony f1.8) and about £2k for the camera and drop it from 60mp to 33 or 24mp. That'd seem reasonable to me. As it's £4k and change and Sony seem to be getting hammered in 99% of reviews maybe a sensor swap and a price reduction could happen after a year or so? Or, if someone brought out a nice compact 35mm f2 at a reasonable price I'd be interested but I don't think that's going to happen and of the two possibilities a RX1rIII £1k price cut for a lower mp count version is probably unlikely but more likely than the lens appearing.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I saw that. He's very shouty. I think he needs to attend some sort of meditation class before his health suffers.

I saw this, he ordered one.

View: https://youtu.be/a5nD0LGWI5M?si=BF4KEHp5zwFNxBld


I think I agree with him. In think I would like this camera just not at this price. The Leica Q keeps getting mentioned but compared to the Sony it's a relative big fat honker. IMO, it isn't a small compact option, the Sony is. The A7cII is also mentioned but there's no compact AF 35mm f2. I do have the Sony 24 and 40mm G's and the old 35mm f2.8 but none are f2 plus the TTA 50mm f2 and the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but those are MF.

I don't know what price the RX1rIII would need to be to get me to order one but maybe a price under £3K? That'd be about £1k for the lens (fair I think at nearly twice the price of the Sony f1.8) and about £2k for the camera and drop it from 60mp to 33 or 24mp. That'd seem reasonable to me. As it's £4k and change and Sony seem to be getting hammered in 99% of reviews maybe a sensor swap and a price reduction could happen after a year or so? Or, if someone brought out a nice compact 35mm f2 at a reasonable price I'd be interested but I don't think that's going to happen and of the two possibilities a RX1rIII £1k price cut for a lower mp count version is probably unlikely but more likely than the lens appearing.
Click to expand...
I'd still say £3k is a bit steep for this camera considering it has no IBIS or weather sealing, I don't agree that companies should charge more just because it's 'compact'.

All this being said, I'm not in the market for one anyway (y)
 
Wex have the A7cII at £1899 before cashback and that's without the compact 35mm f2 which doesn't exist from anyone so I think I would pay a bit over £3k for a RX1 with a nice 35mm f2 because there's nothing quite like it at the moment from Sony or anyone else. I can't see it dropping £1k and I can't see Sony bringing out a £1k cheaper 24/33mp version but time will tell.
 
LeeRatters said:
I bought this not long after I got the X100f

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B078GMSP6J?ref_=ppx_hzod_title_dt_b_fed_asin_title_0_0&th=1 - I didn't pay that much for it though I don't think. Pretty good quality though.

That's my go to for general walkabout X100f & 35mm film. Sometime if I go out with just the X100f like Bath last weekend, I just take the camera, no bag.

I have a slightly bigger Crumpler messenger bag which I've had about 15 years or more! That will fit the A7Riii & a few lenses. Or the A7Riii/35GM & the Yashica Mat 124G with a spare section.

Otherwise, it's the Osprey backpack for longer distances/more weight/more stuff.
Click to expand...

I mostly use a cheap man bag from Thailand and it'll take an A7x with a small lens as well as the day to day stuff. If I'm taking more I use a Billingham and if not taking a camera I have a small bag that is mostly meant for a phone but everything I need will fit in too.

I don't know how people manage without a bag but I do hate to have pockets full of keys and change and the like.
 
50 1.2. Who has one and how is it?
Fell in love with the 20 1.8 on holiday and 50 is my favourite focal length so thought that would pair well.

Also Just bought the Viltrox 50/2 and while it’s great for the price I still want something more.

Considering selling the Viltrox and tamron 28-75 and putting that towards the 50 or saving abit longer and just swapping the 50’s.

I had considered the 1.4 but most the reviews seemed to be of the consensus that buy the 1.2 unless size and cost are an issue. At release or buying uk the gap in price is significant but from HK it’s less that £300 now (850/1099)
 
woof woof said:
Wex have the A7cII at £1899 before cashback and that's without the compact 35mm f2 which doesn't exist from anyone so I think I would pay a bit over £3k for a RX1 with a nice 35mm f2 because there's nothing quite like it at the moment from Sony or anyone else. I can't see it dropping £1k and I can't see Sony bringing out a £1k cheaper 24/33mp version but time will tell.
Click to expand...
The A7cR is a better comparison due to the 61mp sensor, and that's £2649. That has 7 stop IBIS and is weather sealed though, remove those and you have a body that's probably worth £2k or so, and on that basis you're paying £2.2k for a 35mm f2 lens which is bonkers.
 
pmac said:
50 1.2. Who has one and how is it?
Click to expand...

It's simply very good but not perfect. Optically focus breathing is dreadful, but that's the only real fault. Otherwise it may make you look at your other lenses and not want to bother with them. It's also extremely heavy but not as heavy or bulky as my other favourite lens, the 35 f1.2 from Sigma.
 
pmac said:
50 1.2. Who has one and how is it?
Fell in love with the 20 1.8 on holiday and 50 is my favourite focal length so thought that would pair well.

Also Just bought the Viltrox 50/2 and while it’s great for the price I still want something more.

Considering selling the Viltrox and tamron 28-75 and putting that towards the 50 or saving abit longer and just swapping the 50’s.

I had considered the 1.4 but most the reviews seemed to be of the consensus that buy the 1.2 unless size and cost are an issue. At release or buying uk the gap in price is significant but from HK it’s less that £300 now (850/1099)
Click to expand...
£1099 for the F1.2 is a bargain imo. This and the 35mm 1.4GM are the two nicest lenses I've used in terms of the end result, both offer great 3D rendering and lovely bokeh. I prefer using the 35mm as the size and weight is much better suited to the Sony bodies imo, and of course the 50mm f1.4 is pretty much the same size and weight so is worth considering. That being said, if you buy the 50mm f1.4 you'll always be wondering about the f1.2, but if you buy the f1.2 you'll not be wondering about the f1.4 ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
It's simply very good but not perfect. Optically focus breathing is dreadful, but that's the only real fault. Otherwise it may make you look at your other lenses and not want to bother with them. It's also extremely heavy but not as heavy or bulky as my other favourite lens, the 35 f1.2 from Sigma.
Click to expand...
I've never noticed the focus breathing, but then I've never looked for it and I don't shoot video (y)
 
ancient_mariner said:
I wanted to do some Orton effect images, but the oof areas don't align.
Click to expand...
I had no idea what that is so had to google it ;) Were you looking at doing it for landscapes? The reason I ask is that I thought focus breathing was only noticeable at close focus distances, and with landscapes you don't tend to focus 'that' close?
 
It's the other way round - with the landscapes you have to focus far and then for the OOF image it's necessary to focus close, which changes the effective focal length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top