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

woof woof said:
Tony agrees with me, this is a one trick pony.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx_bpHl3mco


Well, actually I said one trick but he says two, small size and IQ.
Click to expand...
I don’t pay much attention to what Tony says, he sings from a different hymn sheet every week just to get clicks.

People will justify the cost to themselves if they want it, simple as that. We all do it to be fair, just some need more of a justification than others ;)
 
I think there's way too much OTT stuff on the forums and reviews with people having ranting meltdowns and spewing insane hyperbole. The camera makes sense to me because I've been shouting about smaller lighter kit since digital began and I do think that's the point of this camera. There's nothing else like it at the moment unless you go bigger and more expensive with Leica Q, bigger and without a compact f2 lens with the A7cII or APS-C.

There are too many annoyances for me though. The lack of IS doesn't bother me as most of the time I want to freeze motion but the lack of a tilting screen does and the shutter speed issues would have me tearing my hair out. Why wont Sony fit an auto shutter option to automatically switch between the mechanical and electronic shutters? My Panasonic cameras have had that for about 50 years :D

I took my A7III and 40mm f2.5 out today and the weight of it and everything else I was carrying did annoy me. For me smaller and lighter is better for carrying and unobtrusiveness.
 
woof woof said:
I think there's way too much OTT stuff on the forums and reviews with people having ranting meltdowns and spewing insane hyperbole. The camera makes sense to me because I've been shouting about smaller lighter kit since digital began and I do think that's the point of this camera. There's nothing else like it at the moment unless you go bigger and more expensive with Leica Q, bigger and without a compact f2 lens with the A7cII or APS-C.

There are too many annoyances for me though. The lack of IS doesn't bother me as most of the time I want to freeze motion but the lack of a tilting screen does and the shutter speed issues would have me tearing my hair out. Why wont Sony fit an auto shutter option to automatically switch between the mechanical and electronic shutters? My Panasonic cameras have had that for about 50 years :D

I took my A7III and 40mm f2.5 out today and the weight of it and everything else I was carrying did annoy me. For me smaller and lighter is better for carrying and unobtrusiveness.
Click to expand...
I know you keep saying the size appeals to you, and I think it appeals to most, however do you think just because something is smaller or should cost more?

That doesn’t make sense to me, for me value comes from the components and tech, and when I put these things together it’s well over priced.

That being said, if I really wanted something I may be willing to pay slightly over the odds than what I think it’s worth, but not that much. As much as I wanted the A1 at launch I couldn’t justify the cost, even though parts of it were groundbreaking. The sum of the parts just didn’t add up to me, however grey prices 18 months later were more in line with what I thought it was worth.

I do think Sony have generally been guilty of over inflating their camera prices for a while now, especially when you consider the prices of some of the Canon and Nikon prices. The Z8 for example is a great bang for buck,… if you don’t mind holding a camera with the ergonomics of a brick.
 
snerkler said:
I know you keep saying the size appeals to you, and I think it appeals to most, however do you think just because something is smaller or should cost more?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily but there's no exact competition so the price is hard to judge and then there's the question of should a niche product appealing to a smaller audience and selling in smaller numbers cost more or less? Again it's hard to judge.

RX1rIII = £4,200.
A7crII at £2,650 + 35mm f1.8 at £550 = £3,200. That's cheaper but it's a bigger and heavier combination.
So is it worth an extra £1k for a smaller lighter camera with a different and more compact lens?

I have no money worries so it possibly is to me but at the moment I can't get past the lack of a tilting screen and the annoying shutter speed issue. Plus another issue is the file sizes. If it didn't have these issues I might have already ordered one as ever since my Canon DSLR days I've thought that digital cameras and lenses are too big and too heavy and too attention grabbing.

I've tried the X100s/f and they had good points but on the whole they annoyed me and as with MFT the IQ, DR and depth control are not the same as FF.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Not necessarily but there's no exact competition so the price is hard to judge and then there's the question of should a niche product appealing to a smaller audience and selling in smaller numbers cost more or less? Again it's hard to judge.

RX1rIII = £4,200.
A7crII at £2,650 + 35mm f1.8 at £550 = £3,200. That's cheaper but it's a bigger and heavier combination.
So is it worth an extra £1k for a smaller lighter camera with a different and more compact lens?

I have no money worries so it possibly is to me but at the moment I can't get past the lack of a tilting screen and the annoying shutter speed issue. Plus another issue is the file sizes. If it didn't have these issues I might have already ordered one as ever since my Canon DSLR days I've thought that digital cameras and lenses are too big and too heavy and too attention grabbing.

I've tried the X100s/f and they had good points but on the whole they annoyed me and as with MFT the IQ, DR and depth control are not the same as FF.
Click to expand...

RX1riii at £4200 & 489 grams.....? I'd rather spend less on a used Leica Q2 at 718 grams ;)

And I'd also rather have an A7Cii & 40G new from Panamoz for £2000 at 687 grams ;)

1181 grams for the A7Riii & 35GM - plus my L Bracket.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Not necessarily but there's no exact competition so the price is hard to judge and then there's the question of should a niche product appealing to a smaller audience and selling in smaller numbers cost more or less? Again it's hard to judge.

RX1rIII = £4,200.
A7crII at £2,650 + 35mm f1.8 at £550 = £3,200. That's cheaper but it's a bigger and heavier combination.
So is it worth an extra £1k for a smaller lighter camera with a different and more compact lens?

I have no money worries so it possibly is to me but at the moment I can't get past the lack of a tilting screen and the annoying shutter speed issue. Plus another issue is the file sizes. If it didn't have these issues I might have already ordered one as ever since my Canon DSLR days I've thought that digital cameras and lenses are too big and too heavy and too attention grabbing.

I've tried the X100s/f and they had good points but on the whole they annoyed me and as with MFT the IQ, DR and depth control are not the same as FF.
Click to expand...
You obviously think/feel differently to me which is obviously absolutely fine. However, I won’t buy something that I don’t feel is worth it even if I have the money (y)
 
I'm nervous about posting a snap here with all this £4000 camera talk, but here goes anyway
Click to expand...

I’ll join in the B&W with one from my super light, compact pocket 35mm(ish) Sony from a walk about London the other week:
DSC03421.jpg

Somewhat (16x) less expensive than a RX1RIII and it’s even got a flippy screen ;-)

IMG_3240.jpg

Resize for upload mashed the crispness of the morning sun somewhat, was striking contrast in person hence the B&W.
 
Last edited:
mstphoto said:
Nicely composed but I'd be tempted to add a bit more contrast ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks. In the past I've tended to do my digital B&W with CCD cameras that naturally give more film-like contrast, and I admit that I'm still struggling to get the hang of CMOS sensor B&W. That's a helpful tip that it looks a bit too low contrast.:)
 
Tavitonian said:
Thanks. In the past I've tended to do my digital B&W with CCD cameras that naturally give more film-like contrast, and I admit that I'm still struggling to get the hang of CMOS sensor B&W. That's a helpful tip that it looks a bit too low contrast.:)
Click to expand...
Tbh I thought it was intentional, it looks more film like and I like it (I’m only looking on the phone though).
 
Tavitonian said:
I'm nervous about posting a snap here with all this £4000 camera talk, but here goes anyway. This is Siward's Cross on Dartmoor a couple of days ago with the Nex 6 and Takumar 20mm.

Siward's Cross (AKA Nun's Cross) by David Holland, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Actually taking and posting photos, what is this? I like the low contrast look here, a nice change from so many digital b&w photos.
 
snerkler said:
Tbh I thought it was intentional, it looks more film like and I like it (I’m only looking on the phone though).
Click to expand...

Gold said:
Actually taking and posting photos, what is this? I like the low contrast look here, a nice change from so many digital b&w photos.
Click to expand...

Thanks both. I'm in one of those phases at the moment where I know I'm aiming for a different look to my snaps than I've been in the habit of for the past few years, but I'm still not working with 100% idea of what I actually want. So the sort of feedback that you folk have given here is really genuinely helpful.:)
 
Tavitonian said:
Thanks both. I'm in one of those phases at the moment where I know I'm aiming for a different look to my snaps than I've been in the habit of for the past few years, but I'm still not working with 100% idea of what I actually want. So the sort of feedback that you folk have given here is really genuinely helpful.:)
Click to expand...
I've been working on my editing for 10 years and I'm still not happy with it :lol:
 
LeeRatters said:
RX1riii at £4200 & 489 grams.....? I'd rather spend less on a used Leica Q2 at 718 grams ;)

And I'd also rather have an A7Cii & 40G new from Panamoz for £2000 at 687 grams ;)

1181 grams for the A7Riii & 35GM - plus my L Bracket.
Click to expand...

The Leica is more expensive new but the killer for me is the size which makes me wonder why I'd choose one over my A7 kit plus the 28mm is apparently 26mm which makes it a touch wide and the other option of 43mm is getting a touch tight and even more expensive if 43mm is what it really is. Why would I choose one over my A7III and 40mm? Even at f2.5 I know I wouldn't. I'm not really looking at used prices as yes you can buy a used Q2 but once you start looking at used the world and an RX1II is your oyster.

I seem to be in a minority of maybe one :D but each to their own. The RX1 does make sense to me because it's a small FF camera with a small 35mm f2 and you just can't get that anywhere else.

Mrs WW would be ok with me getting one, as soon as I mentioned it she interrupted with "Get one" but I know that the lack of a tilting screen and the shutter speed issues would annoy me so I'm pretty sure I wont get one. Pretty sure :D

snerkler said:
You obviously think/feel differently to me which is obviously absolutely fine. However, I won’t buy something that I don’t feel is worth it even if I have the money (y)
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm deffo my own man with my own views and happy to be :D and although I hate to make the point again I will do one last time...

The RX1 at the moment is in a class of its own so the price is hard to judge and we are left comparing it to things which aren't quite the same thing namely Leica's which are bigger, different focal lengths and more expensive again or the A7cII range which is cheaper but bigger and you can't buy a compact AF 35mm f2 to fit and after those options we're looking at APS-C or used MFT which can't match the IQ or dof options.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The Leica is more expensive new but the killer for me is the size which makes me wonder why I'd choose one over my A7 kit plus the 28mm is apparently 26mm which makes it a touch wide and the other option of 43mm is getting a touch tight and even more expensive if 43mm is what it really is. Why would I choose one over my A7III and 40mm? Even at f2.5 I know I wouldn't. I'm not really looking at used prices as yes you can buy a used Q2 but once you start looking at used the world and an RX1II is your oyster.
Click to expand...

The Q3 28 is slightly wider than 28mm, but I understand that was to allow the software correction to fully resolve a 28mm image

The Q3 43 apperas to be 43mm, this lens is simply superb, its easily the 'best' lens I've every used, super sharp (even wide open), and the out of focus fall-off is very nice.

Buts its all horse for courses, every one of us is different, have different requirements and different goals. And I agree with you about the RX1 and its compactness/lightweight.
 
woof woof said:
The RX1 at the moment is in a class of its own so the price is hard to judge and we are left comparing it to things which aren't quite the same thing namely Leica's which are bigger, different focal lengths and more expensive again or the A7cII range which is cheaper but bigger and you can't buy a compact AF 35mm f2 to fit and after those options we're looking at APS-C or used MFT which can't match the IQ or dof options.
Click to expand...
I know it's in a class of it's own but I don't think it's hard to judge the price when you simply consider the sum of the components. I don't think a premium should be charged just because there's nothing else in the class, although of course I know that's not how the world works ;)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The Q3 28 is slightly wider than 28mm, but I understand that was to allow the software correction to fully resolve a 28mm image

The Q3 43 apperas to be 43mm, this lens is simply superb, its easily the 'best' lens I've every used, super sharp (even wide open), and the out of focus fall-off is very nice.

Buts its all horse for courses, every one of us is different, have different requirements and different goals. And I agree with you about the RX1 and its compactness/lightweight.
Click to expand...
Do you know the reason Leica chose 43mm, it seems a very odd focal length to me?
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The Q3 28 is slightly wider than 28mm, but I understand that was to allow the software correction to fully resolve a 28mm image

The Q3 43 apperas to be 43mm, this lens is simply superb, its easily the 'best' lens I've every used, super sharp (even wide open), and the out of focus fall-off is very nice.

Buts its all horse for courses, every one of us is different, have different requirements and different goals. And I agree with you about the RX1 and its compactness/lightweight.
Click to expand...

The Leica Q's are lovely things but I don't think I'd buy one because they're small because to me they aren't and I don't know if that's the main reason for buyers, it just wouldn't be mine and then there's the price. I do like both 28 and 40-ish mm focal lengths but I'd choose 35mm over them both if I could. The Sony 40mm f2.5 has been on my A7III since I got it because it's a good lens and it's small and IMO significantly better than the old 35mm f2.8 so it's a trade off for me but given the choice I'd rather have a really good compact 35mm but there isn't one.
 
I had emails yesterday about the Fuji XE5 release yesterday and the bundle with the 23mm f2.8mm pancake and it got me wondering why Fuji don't offer a 23mm f2 pancake similar to the X100 series as it would make a great alternative. I can only assume it's because they don't want to canibalise the X100 sales?
 
snerkler said:
Do you know the reason Leica chose 43mm, it seems a very odd focal length to me?
Click to expand...


43mm is the diagonal of a 24mmx36mm "full frame" sensor, which makes a 43mm lens the true normal for that format. It will capture the scene with the closest perspective possible to what the human eye sees. A 28mm lens does the same job on APS-C.
 
snerkler said:
I had emails yesterday about the Fuji XE5 release yesterday and the bundle with the 23mm f2.8mm pancake and it got me wondering why Fuji don't offer a 23mm f2 pancake similar to the X100 series as it would make a great alternative. I can only assume it's because they don't want to canibalise the X100 sales?
Click to expand...

Maybe it'd be similar to the RX1 issues? Maybe doing a removeable 23mm f2 would impact quality or size or price or all of these?

I do like small RF style cameras so I've sort of looked at this camera but decided against going for one as it's back to APS-C and I already have two RF style MFT cameras and a set of lenses. For anyone who doesn't have something similar I think it might be worth a look but for Sony A7x users maybe an A6xxx would be a better bet to share lenses.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The Leica is more expensive new but the killer for me is the size which makes me wonder why I'd choose one over my A7 kit plus the 28mm is apparently 26mm which makes it a touch wide and the other option of 43mm is getting a touch tight and even more expensive if 43mm is what it really is. Why would I choose one over my A7III and 40mm? Even at f2.5 I know I wouldn't. I'm not really looking at used prices as yes you can buy a used Q2 but once you start looking at used the world and an RX1II is your oyster.

I seem to be in a minority of maybe one :D but each to their own. The RX1 does make sense to me because it's a small FF camera with a small 35mm f2 and you just can't get that anywhere else.

Mrs WW would be ok with me getting one, as soon as I mentioned it she interrupted with "Get one" but I know that the lack of a tilting screen and the shutter speed issues would annoy me so I'm pretty sure I wont get one. Pretty sure :D
Click to expand...

Really? Doesn't that have the pop up EVF? I wouldn't have one if it was free :ROFLMAO:

Desire = Q2 > A7Cii > RX1riii
Financial = A7Cii > Q2 > RX1riii
 
Worst thread in Forum history.

Made me buy an A6700, Sigma 18-50 and a Sony 70-350 :ROFLMAO:

(Former Canon user 30D, 40D, 50D, 1D MkII, 7D Mk1, 5Dmk3, 70D)
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
Really? Doesn't that have the pop up EVF? I wouldn't have one if it was free :ROFLMAO:

Desire = Q2 > A7Cii > RX1riii
Financial = A7Cii > Q2 > RX1riii
Click to expand...
The pop up EVF on the RX100 VII isn't too bad so if the RX1 version is similar it would be quite useful. I'd rather have this than the one on the new one that sticks out and adds bulk, I'd imagine with a camera like this most of your shooting is going to be done using the LCD screen so the EVF is just there for occasional use in which case the pop up would suffice. YMMV
 
snerkler said:
The pop up EVF on the RX100 VII isn't too bad so if the RX1 version is similar it would be quite useful. I'd rather have this than the one on the new one that sticks out and adds bulk, I'd imagine with a camera like this most of your shooting is going to be done using the LCD screen so the EVF is just there for occasional use in which case the pop up would suffice. YMMV
Click to expand...

YMMV indeed :) I don't enjoy using the LCD much tbh so having to constantly pop the EVF up and down or constantly leave it popped up would probably get on my nerves. I would imagine it is pretty strong and secure though, well I would hope so anyway.
 
snerkler said:
I had emails yesterday about the Fuji XE5 release yesterday and the bundle with the 23mm f2.8mm pancake and it got me wondering why Fuji don't offer a 23mm f2 pancake similar to the X100 series as it would make a great alternative. I can only assume it's because they don't want to canibalise the X100 sales?
Click to expand...

It would be hard to make a 23mm F2 pancake, and keep the same size, the X100 has the advantage that the ILC flange distance doesn’t have to be maintained so the design has the freedom to position the sensor further back and effectively recess the lens into the body - same with RX1 and Q families
 
LeeRatters said:
Really? Doesn't that have the pop up EVF? I wouldn't have one if it was free :ROFLMAO:

Desire = Q2 > A7Cii > RX1riii
Financial = A7Cii > Q2 > RX1riii
Click to expand...
Well. Once you start moving the goal posts anything is I suppose on the list.
 
mikeyb said:
Worst thread in Forum history.

Made me buy an A6700, Sigma 18-50 and a Sony 70-350 :ROFLMAO:

(Former Canon user 30D, 40D, 50D, 1D MkII, 7D Mk1, 5Dmk3, 70D)
Click to expand...

It's for your own good :D

If you didn't spend your hard earned on camera gear you might waste it on booze, drugs and wild women. Oh, hang on, that doesn't sound like waste...
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Well. Once you start moving the goal posts anything is I suppose on the list.
Click to expand...

There's goal posts to move.

Out of those 3 cameras, right now that's the order I would look at them in :) And that's not including an X100vi which is probably the most "pocketable" out of all of them if size is important. And is also cheaper than all of those option, by quite a bit ;)
 
LeeRatters said:
There's goal posts to move.

Out of those 3 cameras, right now that's the order I would look at them in :) And that's not including an X100vi which is probably the most "pocketable" out of all of them if size is important. And is also cheaper than all of those option, by quite a bit ;)
Click to expand...

As I've now posted many times. The RX1 is for me a one trick pony. For me it's a small FF camera with a small 35mm f2 lens. That's it. I don't see any other point. Some could value the leaf shutter or some other feature but I don't care about the rest. All I care about is the small FF + small fast 35mm. That's all that interests me. Remove the small form factor or the FF format or the fast lens and I'm not interested because if you remove those I have other options.

I'm not interested in a Q because IMO they're not small enough and I'm not interested in APS-C because it's not FF. I have middling sized FF covered by my Sony A7 kit and I have small covered by my MFT kit. What I don't have is FF quality with a fast lens in a small body and at the mo and IMO there's only one thing that covers small and fast FF, the RX1. Even the A7cII doesn't compete for me as there's no small fast AF lens. But that's just my own assessment.

If other people want to see a Q or a X100 as a viable alternative to the RX1 then fill your boots. I'm happy for you :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top