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

snerkler said:
I like the idea of it being pocketable but without the ability to bounce I'd very rarely use it, and I'd question if it's powerful enough to use with modifiers.
Click to expand...
Yup, in a similar boat but had a few occasions with the kids where even a pop up flash would have helped a little, bonus being it can trigger my bigger Godox flash.
 
Advice Required.

I’m thinking of trading my a7riva for either the Nikon z6iii or z8, am I mad? I’m thinking it’s time to trying something else.

I’ve tried both, both handle well. I like the bigger size of the z8, the fact that it has a waist high screen capability. I also like the fact that the z6iii has an ultra bright evf.

My only concern is the auto focus capabilities, are they both close to that of the Sony or does it still perform way better?
 
Gandalf said:
Advice Required.

I’m thinking of trading my a7riva for either the Nikon z6iii or z8, am I mad? I’m thinking it’s time to trying something else.

I’ve tried both, both handle well. I like the bigger size of the z8, the fact that it has a waist high screen capability. I also like the fact that the z6iii has an ultra bright evf.

My only concern is the auto focus capabilities, are they both close to that of the Sony or does it still perform way better?
Click to expand...
We all like to try new things, so if the NIkon floats your boat then go for it. I don't know much about the EVF on the Z6 but you can turn the brightness up in the EVF of Sonys, at least Ican on my A1 and on the A7RV.

I never found the AF on the A7RIV to be world class so I'd have thought the Z8 would be better, and the Z6 at least on par but without trying them then it's hard to say.
 
snerkler said:
We all like to try new things, so if the NIkon floats your boat then go for it. I don't know much about the EVF on the Z6 but you can turn the brightness up in the EVF of Sonys, at least Ican on my A1 and on the A7RV.

I never found the AF on the A7RIV to be world class so I'd have thought the Z8 would be better, and the Z6 at least on par but without trying them then it's hard to say.
Click to expand...
Shows I need to do some research first before posting :lol:

Just watched a few videos, unfortunately couldn't find a comparison between the Z8 and A7RIV but the Z8 seems to be behind the A7RV, being plagued by the same issues that have plagued Nikon for as long as I can remember in that it will sometimes focus on the foreground or background rather than the subject. Of course, we're nit picking here but this is how far we've come with AF systems now.

The Z6III video I watched was worrying. Admittedly it was by the Nrothrups but in a test of Chelsea running towards the camera the A7 IV got 92% in focus, but the Z6III a pretty poor 64%, also missing several shots in a row.

If it was me and I wanted to try something different and was worried about AF I'd go with Canon, they appear to have leap frogged Sony with a lot of their cameras barring maybe the A9 III and A1 II.
 
Canon have their free test drive, pay a refundable deposit and test for a few days, lens prices are higher though? Tried a Z8, bit of a lump and memory bank system was not for me, can’t remember how focus compared with Sony R5
 
Sigma 200mm f2 gets praise. Links to lots of Youtube vids are on the page.

Sigma’s New 200mm f/2.0 Wows in Tests – PCMag Calls It “Outstanding” | sonyalpharumors

Preorders: Sigma 200mm f/2.0 at BHphoto, Amazon, Adorama, FotoKoch, FotoErhardt, Calumet, WexUK. Sigma 12mm f/1.4 at BHphoto, Amazon, Adorama, FotoKoch, FotoErhardt, Calumet, WexUK. PCmag tested the lens and concluded: The Sigma 200mm F2 DG OS Sports is a stunner, both in terms of the images it...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
 
snerkler said:
Shows I need to do some research first before posting :LOL:

Just watched a few videos, unfortunately couldn't find a comparison between the Z8 and A7RIV but the Z8 seems to be behind the A7RV, being plagued by the same issues that have plagued Nikon for as long as I can remember in that it will sometimes focus on the foreground or background rather than the subject. Of course, we're nit picking here but this is how far we've come with AF systems now.

The Z6III video I watched was worrying. Admittedly it was by the Nrothrups but in a test of Chelsea running towards the camera the A7 IV got 92% in focus, but the Z6III a pretty poor 64%, also missing several shots in a row.

If it was me and I wanted to try something different and was worried about AF I'd go with Canon, they appear to have leap frogged Sony with a lot of their cameras barring maybe the A9 III and A1 II.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem....again ;)

The ZF I had was spot on with AF performance, no back or front focussing........ the Northrup's please :ROFLMAO:
 
Have GAS for a 50mm 1.4 (most of my family photos are with my aps-c 30mm 1.4). The GM is out of my price range really (unless I do some man maths...), the Rokinon/Samyang 50 1.4 II looks pretty tempting - anyone with experience? The older Sigma brick and the Zeiss are similar prices but both have drawbacks.
 
imattersuk said:
Therein lies the problem....again ;)

The ZF I had was spot on with AF performance, no back or front focussing........ the Northrup's please :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I know I know :lol:

However, you can see tests in action on the videos so you're free to make your own mind up (y). Of course, it will all depend on your needs, how quick you need acquisition to be, whether focussing on the eyelashes rather than the eye is going to ruin a shot (I'm thinking shallow DOF here), whether you're shooting action or static.

Modern day AF's are so complex now that there's not much that can go wrong from a user error POV so differences do appear to be down to the camera rather than the tester these days.

Of course YMMV (y)
 
Gold said:
Have GAS for a 50mm 1.4 (most of my family photos are with my aps-c 30mm 1.4). The GM is out of my price range really (unless I do some man maths...), the Rokinon/Samyang 50 1.4 II looks pretty tempting - anyone with experience? The older Sigma brick and the Zeiss are similar prices but both have drawbacks.
Click to expand...
I have it, I thought it was a great lens. AF is 'good enough' and the rendering is superb, in some situations I prefer the rendering to the GM. YMMV
 
I have the Sony 55mm f1.8 and the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 in Sony mount.

When I first got the Sony 55mm f1.8 I was shocked at how good it was compared to the 50's I'd had in the past but of course it's 55mm not 50mm and f1,8 not f1.4. For me the extra 5mm in focal length are more significant than the differences between f1.4 and f1.8.
 
snerkler said:
I have it, I thought it was a great lens. AF is 'good enough' and the rendering is superb, in some situations I prefer the rendering to the GM. YMMV
Click to expand...
Sounds like it’s worth a punt from MPB.
 
The 55 f1.8 is a nice neutral lens that's sharp wide open, focuses decently, has a slightly busy bokh, renders a little cold and suffers CA a bit (not the worst though). It was my go-to lens when I wanted sharp and un-fussy pictures that I could show to other people without much processing, like taking pictures at village events. Biggest flaws are that it's sometimes slightly too long and that pictures are very neutral with a slightly crunchy endge if you over-use clarity.

I've had a couple of copies of the Samyang 50 f1.4 MkI. Focus is a little slow and not always as precise as it could be, detail isn't as refined as the best modern lenses, rendering is beautiful and subject separation superb. I bought a 50 GM f1.2 after, and it's a much better all-round lens except for the rendering, which still has that Sony crunch. I understand the Samyang 50 MkII f1.4 fixes many of the issues in the MkI.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The 55 f1.8 is a nice neutral lens that's sharp wide open, focuses decently, has a slightly busy bokh, renders a little cold and suffers CA a bit (not the worst though). It was my go-to lens when I wanted sharp and un-fussy pictures that I could show to other people without much processing, like taking pictures at village events. Biggest flaws are that it's sometimes slightly too long and that pictures are very neutral with a slightly crunchy endge if you over-use clarity.

I've had a couple of copies of the Samyang 50 f1.4 MkI. Focus is a little slow and not always as precise as it could be, detail isn't as refined as the best modern lenses, rendering is beautiful and subject separation superb. I bought a 50 GM f1.2 after, and it's a much better all-round lens except for the rendering, which still has that Sony crunch. I understand the Samyang 50 MkII f1.4 fixes many of the issues in the MkI.
Click to expand...
I’m interested to know what you mean by Sony “crunch”? I find it hard to criticise the f1.2 GM, I think the only thing I’d change from a rendering POV is the cat eye bokeh wide open.

I’ve always liked the 3D rendering of the Samyang lenses, after a lot of testing I think part of it is due to the vignette as I can obtain similar results in post with other lenses IF done correctly. Unfortunately lightroom’s vignette tool can’t replicate it, at least from my experience as no matter what you do it makes the edges too dark if you want “that look”.

The closest I’ve got is using a combo of the vignette in the lens profile section, the vignette tool and adding a radial filter, but it’s a lot of faff :LOL:
 
Gandalf said:
Advice Required.

I’m thinking of trading my a7riva for either the Nikon z6iii or z8, am I mad? I’m thinking it’s time to trying something else.

I’ve tried both, both handle well. I like the bigger size of the z8, the fact that it has a waist high screen capability. I also like the fact that the z6iii has an ultra bright evf.

My only concern is the auto focus capabilities, are they both close to that of the Sony or does it still perform way better?
Click to expand...
I swapped from a Sony a7iv to a nikon z8 as I wanted a big prime and the Sonys were just silly money. Best move I made .z8 is a hell of a lot of camera for the Money , stacked sensor faster Frame rate than the Sony, Pre capture is a game changer for Wildlife , the ergonomics suit me , I hated the ergonomics of the Sony didn't fit my hands never felt comfortable, But it is a Great camera for the money .
Af is better and worse in different ways than the sony , It is so fast to lock on to moving birds quicker than the Sony , Not quite as sticky as the Sony when the bird is below the Horizon but over all I am getting more shots in focus than the Sony , one down side is birds that are a long way of the nikon does struggle to lock on and can hunt a bit where as the Sony would stick to it, but as the bird comes closer it locks on no Problem .
I have a nikon 500pf which is sharper than than the sony 200-600 I had. It takes a1.4 tc without any visible degradation in Iq

Here's kingfisher Photograph I took using Pre Capture

Diving kingfisher by robb d, on Flickr
 
I haven't used my 55mm f1.8 much, I prefer 35/40 these days. I think these two are my favourites, taken on the same day.

1-DSC07299.jpg

1-DSC07316.jpg

These aren't wide aperture pictures as I wanted depth but I do find the bokeh ok and the ca rarely a problem.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I’m interested to know what you mean by Sony “crunch”? I find it hard to criticise the f1.2 GM, I think the only thing I’d change from a rendering POV is the cat eye bokeh wide open.
Click to expand...

I find with all my Sony lenses that there can be a hardness to the contrast that can make the image look 'crunchy'. The 50 f1.2 doesn't do it as much as the 55 and the 24-105 do, but it's still there. It's not unusual to apply negative clarity to my images in order to reduce the crunch a little, although with the more recent versions of lightroom where they separate texture and clarity that's been much less an issue.
 
It's the end of an era. I've just boxed up lots of film era lenses plus two modern ones (Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 for MFT and TTA 50mm f2 in Sony mount) and they're all off to a dealer. All I've kept is a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro in Minolta MD fit as it's in too poor a cosmetic condition to sell but it does still work perfectly and it's the only macro I have, a Novoflex Minolta to Sony adapter and a Minolta to MFT adapter.

I did enjoy my time with film era lenses, I enjoyed researching them, finding decent ones, testing and comparing and taking pictures with them but I hardly use them these days so they might as well go. I will miss some of them, the Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 color skopar (I can't believe I'm selling this but it isn't getting used) the Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and 28mm f2.8, the Minolta 35mm f2.8 MC MK1, 55mm f1.7 MK2, 28mm f2.8 MK3, 50mm f1.7 MK3 and 50mm f1.4 MD, the Nippon Kogaku 50mm f2 and f1.4 and Canon 50mm f1.8 FD breech lock were the pick of the bunch for me.

I'll doubtless regret this but I've promised myself that it's the thing to do and I do have my modern Voigtlanders if I want to use a MF lens.

The only lenses I'd buy at the moment are a better 28mm f1.8/2 to replace my existing Sony f2 and a compact 50mm f1.8/2 to replace my Sony 55mm f1.8 but sadly neither exist. Oh, actually there is the Sigma 50mm f2. I forgot about that.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I find with all my Sony lenses that there can be a hardness to the contrast that can make the image look 'crunchy'. The 50 f1.2 doesn't do it as much as the 55 and the 24-105 do, but it's still there. It's not unusual to apply negative clarity to my images in order to reduce the crunch a little, although with the more recent versions of lightroom where they separate texture and clarity that's been much less an issue.
Click to expand...
I think I know what you mean after mentioning the 24-105mm. I don’t really see it on the 50mm f1.2 and 35mm GM, and in side by side comparisons the 50mm f1.2 looked to have a softer bokeh than the Samyang, but of course we all see things differently (y)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Alan, I've done this, sold lots stuff I wasn't using (and bought something that I would use) and now have a much smaller set of gear that I do use, no regrets so far............
Click to expand...

I hope I'll be the same but I have my favourites and I remember pictures I've taken with them. One thing that does bother me is that once you fit the adapter the film era lenses are the same size as the modern Voigtlanders but maybe lighter and the Voigtlanders are technically better. One lens I have agonised over is the old Voigtlander color skopar but TBH... whisper this... it isn't actually all that good. It was ok on a film camera but the prints were small and that hid a lot but on digital the pictures are bigger on my screen and can pixel peep. I will probably still miss it though.

I have thought of selling the Sony mount Voigtlanders but for now I've kept them.
 
woof woof said:
I hope I'll be the same but I have my favourites and I remember pictures I've taken with them. One thing that does bother me is that once you fit the adapter the film era lenses are the same size as the modern Voigtlanders but maybe lighter and the Voigtlanders are technically better. One lens I have agonised over is the old Voigtlander color skopar but TBH... whisper this... it isn't actually all that good. It was ok on a film camera but the prints were small and that hid a lot but on digital the pictures are bigger on my screen and can pixel peep. I will probably still miss it though.

I have thought of selling the Sony mount Voigtlanders but for now I've kept them.
Click to expand...

In the digital world (once a body has been sold), I'll be down to 4 cameras each with one lens, given that 3 of the cameras are fixed lens cameras that doesn't offer much flexibility!!!

I also nearly sold all my 35mm film stuff, just keeping Medium Format (most of my film era 35mm lenses have been stolen by my son!!)
 
I have too many cameras too.

A7 and A7III. Panasonic GX80 and GX9. TZ100.

The TZ100 hardly gets used but I like the idea of it. It should / might go.

One of the Panasonic MFT cameras should go but they don't make RF style cameras any more so I hang onto them both just in case one dies. The GX80 gets the most use. I've slimmed the MFT lenses down and now have Panasonic 14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7, 45-150mm and 100-400mm.

I prefer the handling and controls of the A7 to the III but the III has better focusing and better IQ. I mostly use MF lenses on the A7 and AF on the III.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Alan, I've done this, sold lots stuff I wasn't using (and bought something that I would use) and now have a much smaller set of gear that I do use, no regrets so far............
Click to expand...

I very much like this idea :)

Minimal usually works for me and I will crop if I want a bit tighter or I'll shoot a panorama if i want wider. If that won't work, I just don't worry about the shots I really can't get!
 
I think being able to crop or do a panorama really helps and cuts down on the lens changes.

At the mo my most used lenses are the Sony 40mm f2.5 and 28mm f2 although I keep meaning to use the Sony 35mm f1.8 more.
 
LeeRatters said:
Minimal usually works for me and I will crop if I want a bit tighter. If that won't work, I just don't worry about the shots I really can't get!
Click to expand...
I'm very much shifting towards this, and so far am much preferring it. However, as I do shoot a variety of things I can't/don't want to minimise too much. 35mm doesn't really cut it for motorsport and wildlife, and I do like the perspective of UWA when it comes to landscapes. That being said, I can't remember the last time I went and took a proper landscape photo, the only landscapes I've done in the past few years have been holiday and dog walk 'snaps'.
 
Minimal might reasonably be considered to be the kit that lets you take the pictures you want to take. If you shoot night skies then a fast wide angle. If motorsports then the appropriate zoom, if birds then a 600mm tele. There's no virtue in deciding minimal stops one taking the kind of pictures that you want, but there *might* be a benefit in not walking out with a completely different lens and camera outfit every time you exit the front door.
 
snerkler said:
I'm very much shifting towards this, and so far am much preferring it. However, as I do shoot a variety of things I can't/don't want to minimise too much. 35mm doesn't really cut it for motorsport and wildlife, and I do like the perspective of UWA when it comes to landscapes. That being said, I can't remember the last time I went and took a proper landscape photo, the only landscapes I've done in the past few years have been holiday and dog walk 'snaps'.
Click to expand...

See, I'm not too keen on ultra wides for anything really.

I had a Canon 17-40L for a while many, many years ago - that was landscapes or mainly urban exploring interiors! But that eventually went for a 28/1.8USM when I drifted away from the UE scene and had arrests etc :p:ROFLMAO: That was back in my 28mm, 50mm, 135mm days!

But yeah, wide landscapes to wildlife/motorsport is a bit different but I guess 3 lenses could easily be enough.... And I guess it's unlikely you'll be doing landscape & motorsport on the same trip....
 
Mr Perceptive said:
This ^, no FOMO here :)
Click to expand...

I find the Yashica Mat good in this regard. Because I am a bit more selective & obviously there's the focal length restriction, I'll pop the hood open, see how the scene looks on the ground glass & it's literally a 2 second decision to work it & shoot or just close and walk away - I walk away more times than I shoot :) And I've never ever turned around and took it 'just in case' it might look okay.

It's gone and forgotten.
 
LeeRatters said:
See, I'm not too keen on ultra wides for anything really.

I had a Canon 17-40L for a while many, many years ago - that was landscapes or mainly urban exploring interiors! But that eventually went for a 28/1.8USM when I drifted away from the UE scene and had arrests etc :p:ROFLMAO: That was back in my 28mm, 50mm, 135mm days!

But yeah, wide landscapes to wildlife/motorsport is a bit different but I guess 3 lenses could easily be enough.... And I guess it's unlikely you'll be doing landscape & motorsport on the same trip....
Click to expand...
I do only take minimal out at a time, often only one lens although motorsport is often 3 lenses, it would be less if it wasn’t for that infernal catch fencing ;)
 
To be honest I do miss having a wide lens. They give possibilities that other lenses just don't and can't. They are difficult to use but sometimes they can work really well and give a look which is difficult and maybe impossible to get any other way without causing a lot of grief and hassle.
 
I just ordered a A7R II and just wondering what suggestions people might have for a good SD card. I want to be able to burst fire RAWs but don't want to order a card with a faster write speed than the camera can take advantage of. I suspect with a 42Mp sensor the RAW file bursts will need a fairly fast write speed but how fast is fast enough? Is there any card types I should avoid?
 
RyanB said:
I just ordered a A7R II and just wondering what suggestions people might have for a good SD card. I want to be able to burst fire RAWs but don't want to order a card with a faster write speed than the camera can take advantage of. I suspect with a 42Mp sensor the RAW file bursts will need a fairly fast write speed but how fast is fast enough? Is there any card types I should avoid?
Click to expand...
Go for a fast UHS-II card, it's not just for the writing to the card it's for transfer to your computer.

I've used both these in my A1 and A7RV without issue of clearing the buffer. I use CFExpress cards now though as the transfer speed to the computer is MUCH faster.


 
My new toy has arrived :D

So that's my gas over for now.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Go for a fast UHS-II card, it's not just for the writing to the card it's for transfer to your computer.

I've used both these in my A1 and A7RV without issue of clearing the buffer. I use CFExpress cards now though as the transfer speed to the computer is MUCH faster.


Click to expand...
Now I'm more confused...
I read somewhere that the A7R II used a UHS-I interface and didn't play well with UHS-II which has a different number of connections to the UHS-I. There are so many different versions/ designations/ classes of SD cards now it is boggling my mind.:confused:
 
RyanB said:
Now I'm more confused...
I read somewhere that the A7R II used a UHS-I interface and didn't play well with UHS-II which has a different number of connections to the UHS-I. There are so many different versions/ designations/ classes of SD cards now it is boggling my mind.:confused:
Click to expand...
SD cards are backwards compatible. Just get a decent UHS-II for transfer speeds and future compatibility. Also recommend getting them from somewhere with a decent returns policy in case they play up with compatibility.
 
RyanB said:
I just ordered a A7R II and just wondering what suggestions people might have for a good SD card. I want to be able to burst fire RAWs but don't want to order a card with a faster write speed than the camera can take advantage of. I suspect with a 42Mp sensor the RAW file bursts will need a fairly fast write speed but how fast is fast enough? Is there any card types I should avoid?
Click to expand...
If you had waited you could have had my a7riv, just getting ready to sell it.
 
RyanB said:
Now I'm more confused...
I read somewhere that the A7R II used a UHS-I interface and didn't play well with UHS-II which has a different number of connections to the UHS-I. There are so many different versions/ designations/ classes of SD cards now it is boggling my mind.:confused:
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't realise the R2 wasn't UHS-II compatible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top