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

woof woof said:
It does have the VF and maybe more physical and arguably better placed controls though.

I think if the RX1 was any smaller we'd have people complaining louder about it being too small and they couldn't grip it and use the buttons. I could manage it at this size but even if technology allows I think making the body significantly smaller would only be an idea if it was to become a true point and shoot with limited buttons and dials and maybe just automated modes on the top dial like a more traditional point and shoot.

Anyway. A big car bill came and went today and the bank balance still looks healthy so I'll have to think about an A7cII. The stumbling blocks at the moment are worries about the VF quality but it will probably be ok for me and the articulated screen. One reason for going for the A7III over the 4 was the choice of screen type and there's no point buying something which I might not like. I'll have a think.
Click to expand...

I did once try a Ricoh GR series - And that I found to be much too small imo Plus other things I wasn't keen on.
 
LeeRatters said:
Makes you understand why some people are willing to give up 1 stop of aperture for that size & weight difference though!!
Click to expand...
Yeah it does. What I don't understand is why they can't make something similar for ILCE. OK it may have to be slightly longer for the flange distance but surely it's only a few mm :thinking:
 
LeeRatters said:
I did once try a Ricoh GR series - And that I found to be much too small imo Plus other things I wasn't keen on.
Click to expand...
I think 35mm is more versatile than 28mm but the ricoh is much more pocketable so I can see the appeal.
 
Might be a bit controversial and I don't want to upset people who like to shoot wide open but for me with every decimal point wider you get past something like f2.5 light gathering becomes less of an issue. I think with f2.8 there can be issues but the closer I get to f2 or there abouts the fewer complaints I have so that leaves DoF and bokeh. When I have a f1.x lens I do usually take some pictures at or near wide open but again the cut off point for me is usually something between f2 and f2.5 or so as for me that's about the point at which DoF differences become increasingly obvious. Most of the time I want what I think is appropriate depth for the picture and most often that isn't going achieved at f1.2-f1.4, it's usually at smaller apertures than that. Bokeh balls are a different thing and you can often see obvious differences between f1.2 and f1.8 but I don't take a lot of pictures which rely on bokeh balls as a main feature.

I'd be happy with an f2 lens. I don't see that as a big issue with the RX1. I see bigger issues as the leaf shutter imposed limits on aperture v shutter speed and the fixed rear screen.
 
LeeRatters said:
I did once try a Ricoh GR series - And that I found to be much too small imo Plus other things I wasn't keen on.
Click to expand...

No evf though. I did briefly have a Panny GF1 and that convinced me to never buy a camera without a vf again.
 
woof woof said:
Might be a bit controversial and I don't want to upset people who like to shoot wide open but for me with every decimal point wider you get past something like f2.5 light gathering becomes less of an issue. I think with f2.8 there can be issues but the closer I get to f2 or there abouts the fewer complaints I have so that leaves DoF and bokeh. When I have a f1.x lens I do usually take some pictures at or near wide open but again the cut off point for me is usually something between f2 and f2.5 or so as for me that's about the point at which DoF differences become increasingly obvious. Most of the time I want what I think is appropriate depth for the picture and most often that isn't going achieved at f1.2-f1.4, it's usually at smaller apertures than that. Bokeh balls are a different thing and you can often see obvious differences between f1.2 and f1.8 but I don't take a lot of pictures which rely on bokeh balls as a main feature.

I'd be happy with an f2 lens. I don't see that as a big issue with the RX1. I see bigger issues as the leaf shutter imposed limits on aperture v shutter speed and the fixed rear screen.
Click to expand...
Wide aperture’s are purely personal taste most of the time. With modern sensors we don’t need the light gathering of fast lenses like we use to so it’s primarily a look thing.

For me it’s not so much about shallow DOF as it is subject isolation, but of course the depth of field does play a large part in achieving that subject isolation. I like the slight sort of diorama/miniature appearance you get with wide apertures. Also wide apertures help remove distracting backgrounds.

It has its time and place though, and contrary to common belief I don’t shoot everything wide open :lol:
 
LeeRatters said:
That's the main 'plus other things....' :)

EVF or not though, it's still too small to handle & be comfortable.
Click to expand...

I think really small only makes sense if it's a true point and shoot running on auto everything as you don't need a magnifying glass and needle like fingers to push the buttons and turn the dials. My Canon Ixus and Medion compacts are credit card sized and they work because you really only need to press one button, the shutter button. I think I'd get frustrated if trying to set the apertures, shutter speed and compensation with a credit card sized camera but I can do these things with the TZ100.
 
woof woof said:
I think really small only makes sense if it's a true point and shoot running on auto everything as you don't need a magnifying glass and needle like fingers to push the buttons and turn the dials. My Canon Ixus and Medion compacts are credit card sized and they work because you really only need to press one button, the shutter button. I think I'd get frustrated if trying to set the apertures, shutter speed and compensation with a credit card sized camera but I can do these things with the TZ100.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. But that is still too small for me. I think the X100 series is about the right size for size, weight and usage I think.

We're off to Bath Saturday & on Sunday there's a local(ish) MId Somerset Show which I think is like an agricultural, family day out type show - never been to that one before but I think it's £20 parking and free entry. Saturday will be street & the X100f. Sunday, I'm not too sure yet - maybe the Yashica Mat 124g as I think I've got 6 shots left on the roll of (expired) Fuji 400h and I wouldn't mind getting it finished & developed before we go to Wales next month & I shoot the other 4 rolls just in case there's any issues, I'll pair that with the X100f or A7Riii/35GM depending on what I want to carry :ROFLMAO: I should use the Sony kit really!
 
snerkler said:
Wide aperture’s are purely personal taste most of the time. With modern sensors we don’t need the light gathering of fast lenses like we use to so it’s primarily a look thing.

For me it’s not so much about shallow DOF as it is subject isolation, but of course the depth of field does play a large part in achieving that subject isolation. I like the slight sort of diorama/miniature appearance you get with wide apertures. Also wide apertures help remove distracting backgrounds.

It has its time and place though, and contrary to common belief I don’t shoot everything wide open :LOL:
Click to expand...

I don't often shoot in truly low light. I struggled at gigs at f4 with 1,600 film but although those days are long gone I did struggle on a night time walk in Singapore with the Sony 35mm f2.8 on my A7, sometimes I was at ISO 25,600. Newer cameras will do better though.

DoF isn't too much of an issue for me. If I'm taking a picture of someone the chances are I want the whole head in the DoF not just the face. I personally don't like a lot of pictures in which the DoF doesn't even make it past the face never mind the whole head. For a half body f2 is enough for me. The further back you go and depending on the scene I suppose even f1.2 wont get you enough separation.
 
LeeRatters said:
Yeah, I get that. But that is still too small for me. I think the X100 series is about the right size for size, weight and usage I think.

We're off to Bath Saturday & on Sunday there's a local(ish) MId Somerset Show which I think is like an agricultural, family day out type show - never been to that one before but I think it's £20 parking and free entry. Saturday will be street & the X100f. Sunday, I'm not too sure yet - maybe the Yashica Mat 124g as I think I've got 6 shots left on the roll of (expired) Fuji 400h and I wouldn't mind getting it finished & developed before we go to Wales next month & I shoot the other 4 rolls just in case there's any issues, I'll pair that with the X100f or A7Riii/35GM depending on what I want to carry :ROFLMAO: I should use the Sony kit really!
Click to expand...

If you're happy with film and the X100 why worry about not using the Sony kit? You'll use it for your night time shots. Don't Worry.... Be Happy :D

It sounds like it should be a good time, Enjoy and I'll look forward to seeing some pictures.
 
For me the lack of a hump does make a difference and the camera does feel smaller plus it fits into a bag better. The hump on my A7's always catches the bag, my evf in the corner humpless Panasonics seem to slide in and out much better.
Click to expand...

This was very noticeable going from A7 to Cii - it slides in and out of pockets and bags so much better. As you say, nothing to snag on it.

Also the articulated screen might not be ideal but again a benefit for transport or slinging over a shoulder on a strap - you can flip it screen in.
 
snerkler said:
I would question whether the lens stands up to the 61mp sensor. It certainly does on the 42mp sensor, it's not 35mm GM sharp but not much is and it's certainly better than I was expecting. It would go in my "very good" category. The focus motors definitely could do with updating, I'd forgotten what old lenses were like.
Click to expand...

There might be something that Sony do with software with the iii, I had a chat with a Fujifilm product manager long ago and he admitted that the X100F had some firmware change to get the best of of the lens. The F was a 24MP sensor, the original X100 was a 12MP sensor, my X100F was sharper at F2 (though admittedly still soft)) than my X100 ever was.

The Q3 is bitingly sharp with the original Q lens (61Mp from 24Mp), but the Leica does have inbuilt lens correction software so again, we don't know if anything is being doone to make the image sharper.
 
woof woof said:
I don't often shoot in truly low light. I struggled at gigs at f4 with 1,600 film but although those days are long gone I did struggle on a night time walk in Singapore with the Sony 35mm f2.8 on my A7, sometimes I was at ISO 25,600. Newer cameras will do better though.

DoF isn't too much of an issue for me. If I'm taking a picture of someone the chances are I want the whole head in the DoF not just the face. I personally don't like a lot of pictures in which the DoF doesn't even make it past the face never mind the whole head. For a half body f2 is enough for me. The further back you go and depending on the scene I suppose even f1.2 wont get you enough separation.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's obviously preference, I don't like it is just an eyelash in in focus, but if the back of the head is starting to fall out of focus then that's perfectly acceptable for me, such as these taken at f1.2


A7R04306-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A7R04238-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr



And then obviously you can get everything in focus if you're far enough away.

A7R04439-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Mr Perceptive said:
There might be something that Sony do with software with the iii, I had a chat with a Fujifilm product manager long ago and he admitted that the X100F had some firmware change to get the best of of the lens. The F was a 24MP sensor, the original X100 was a 12MP sensor, my X100F was sharper at F2 (though admittedly still soft)) than my X100 ever was.

The Q3 is bitingly sharp with the original Q lens (61Mp from 24Mp), but the Leica does have inbuilt lens correction software so again, we don't know if anything is being doone to make the image sharper.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know how much a sensor/software can improve sharpness but obviously it looks as though it can based on what Fuji said. The RX1R II has a neat trick in that you can turn the AA filter on/off and have it at varying intensities.
 
woof woof said:
If you're happy with film and the X100 why worry about not using the Sony kit? You'll use it for your night time shots. Don't Worry.... Be Happy :D

It sounds like it should be a good time, Enjoy and I'll look forward to seeing some pictures.
Click to expand...

Only because it feels like I never use the Sony kit :ROFLMAO: I'll be going to Wales and not remembering where the buttons are! Same for the drone actually, I need to get some time in with that to get used to it again it's been that long!

And night skies...... I've done 4 this year!
 
LeeRatters said:
Only because it feels like I never use the Sony kit :ROFLMAO: I'll be going to Wales and not remembering where the buttons are! Same for the drone actually, I need to get some time in with that to get used to it again it's been that long!

And night skies...... I've done 4 this year!
Click to expand...
We have a drone and same as you, went out a few days ago and at first hadn't a clue which button did what
 
the_accidental said:
This was very noticeable going from A7 to Cii - it slides in and out of pockets and bags so much better. As you say, nothing to snag on it.

Also the articulated screen might not be ideal but again a benefit for transport or slinging over a shoulder on a strap - you can flip it screen in.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even if the kit isn't significantly smaller it can feel like it is. When I had the G1 and G7 I mostly used them with the screens turned to the body but having got used to the A7 I think I will miss the tilting screen as it just seems so ergonomic and convenient. You can't take a selfie with one but you can use it at waist height or low down with the screen in line with the lens. It's something I've become comfortable doing and having the screen off to the left and not in line with the lens and having to look to the left will be a change.
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
Only because it feels like I never use the Sony kit :ROFLMAO: I'll be going to Wales and not remembering where the buttons are! Same for the drone actually, I need to get some time in with that to get used to it again it's been that long!

And night skies...... I've done 4 this year!
Click to expand...

Going from A7 to III and to the Panasonics too I sometimes forget so I try to remember to refamiliarise myself with the camera I'm taking out on the day just so I know what the custom buttons do. I have the custom menus set up the same so the options are always in the same place.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah it's obviously preference, I don't like it is just an eyelash in in focus, but if the back of the head is starting to fall out of focus then that's perfectly acceptable for me, such as these taken at f1.2
Click to expand...

Yup.

When I look at the people pictures I like that I've taken and also the ones I like that others have taken very few are with wafer thin DoF with the DoF stopping at the face and even the ears being way out of the depth. That style just isn't for me. As always good look to those who like that look and I may even have taken a few myself but for me they are not normally the pictures I like best.
 
woof woof said:
I've just saved £60 on car insurance (for my Evoque) and if I add that to the £4,199 I saved by not buying an RX1rIII that's £4,259 saved in one month.

I feel so Moneysupermarket.
Click to expand...
That's nothing, I didn't buy an A1ii and 600 f/4, so I saved over £18k - and I've done that every month so far this year! :LOL:
 
Faldrax said:
That's nothing, I didn't buy an A1ii and 600 f/4, so I saved over £18k - and I've done that every month so far this year! :LOL:
Click to expand...

You Sir are a Man God! :D

I'm having to stop myself from ringing my local dealer as Mrs WW has given me permission to change one of my cars. I will probably do it but I need another couple of good saving months first.
 
LeeRatters said:
What MX5 have you got Alan? It's an early one isn't it?
Click to expand...

It's a red 2001 1600.

This is my 3rd. 1st was a new black MK1 then a new red MK2. I got the current one used as I'd had a 4ltr Jag S for a few years and wanted to get back into a small 2 seat convertible. I looked at the new ones at the time, the ones with the big wheel arches, but decided I'd rather have a MK1 or 2. I do wish I'd never sold the new red MK2 I had but I'd bought it just to use for a year while waiting for my Boxster to arrive but honestly I'd rather have an MX5 than a Boxster. Even on the day it went I knew it was a mistake. Silly me.

The MX5 isn't going anywhere for now. The car I'll change is the Evoque. I love it to bits but it's getting old now so I fancy a newer one. Just trying to thnk how long I've had the MX5, I was still working so I've had it over 15 years. Ah. I've had it 19 years.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It's a red 2001 1600.

This is my 3rd. 1st was a new black MK1 then a new red MK2. I got the current one used as I'd had a 4ltr Jag S for a few years and wanted to get back into a small 2 seat convertible. I looked at the new ones at the time, the ones with the big wheel arches, but decided I'd rather have a MK1 or 2. I do wish I'd never sold the new red MK2 I had but I'd bought it just to use for a year while waiting for my Boxster to arrive but honestly I'd rather have an MX5 than a Boxster. Even on the day it went I knew it was a mistake. Silly me.

The MX5 isn't going anywhere for now. The car I'll change is the Evoque. I love it to bits but it's getting old now so I fancy a newer one. Just trying to thnk how long I've had the MX5, I was still working so I've had it over 15 years. Ah. I've had it 19 years.
Click to expand...

19 years is a fair time these days Alan!

My boy is already going on about a new car. It won't be this year, but I think it's imminent..... There's a few things to fall into place yet and a bit of waiting for timings etc It started with the quirky Nissan Cube, then a Mk4 Golf, MX5, SEAT Leon, amongst several others... He's just coming back around to an MX5 but it needs to be a Mk3 because of the Bristol CAZ - which is unfortunate as he prefers the earlier ones.

I guess it's subject to change again if the wind changes direction :ROFLMAO:
 
Over the years the MK3 has grown on me and now I would have one but only if I couldn't find a MK1 or 2 in good condition.

The Evoque is 10 years old with 78k on the clock. I got it because I wasn't sure if I'd like it or not so I didn't want to spend too much but after three years I love it and might go for a newer one, maybe 3 years old with a lot fewer miles. Maybe petrol next time too rather than diesel. I'll have to find one with the same options as the one I have now though.

Shame about that CAZ ruling some cars out.
 
woof woof said:
Over the years the MK3 has grown on me and now I would have one but only if I couldn't find a MK1 or 2 in good condition.

The Evoque is 10 years old with 78k on the clock. I got it because I wasn't sure if I'd like it or not so I didn't want to spend too much but after three years I love it and might go for a newer one, maybe 3 years old with a lot fewer miles. Maybe petrol next time too rather than diesel. I'll have to find one with the same options as the one I have now though.

Shame about that CAZ ruling some cars out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a lot of cars he likes. Late 90's and early 00's which he can't have :(
 
If anyone is thinking about buying an Urth filter then don’t bother. Based on great amazon reviews I gave a 2 stop ND a punt but it has strong colour cast and noticeably softens the image, hands down the worst filter I’ve ever used. I wouldn’t expect this kind of colour cast from a 10 stop filter let alone a 2 stop filter.
 
snerkler said:
If anyone is thinking about buying an Urth filter then don’t bother. Based on great amazon reviews I gave a 2 stop ND a punt but it has strong colour cast and noticeably softens the image, hands down the worst filter I’ve ever used. I wouldn’t expect this kind of colour cast from a 10 stop filter let alone a 2 stop filter.
Click to expand...

Cheap (fake) copy?
 
Hi all, apologies for not posting for a long while, lots of things have been getting in the way but I’m looking forward to reading the last couple of pages and catching up.
Here’s a couple of shots from Brighton yesterday.
 
The TTA 40mm f2 seems to be getting good reviews.

I don't regret getting the f2.5 Sony but the TTA wasn't out then but f2 would be nice and the TTA is at a very good price.
 
trevorbray said:
I can vouch for KF ND filters. I use the Variable.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I have the KF mist filters which I'm happy with but I can't find KF ND's that aren't variable, at least not on amazon.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@snerkler B+W Master Nano in the strength you require would be my choice
Click to expand...
Yeah I tend to like B&W, although my B+W is noticeably heavier than other filters I've got. I actually like Hoya ProND filters too but they only do 3 stop and stronger in 49mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top