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

woof woof said:
Just thought of something.

I haven't been turning IS off when using my A7III on a tripod. I think at one time it was thought that camera IS got confused on tripods and it was better to turn it off. Do you need to turn it off or can cameras cope better with tripods these days?
Click to expand...
‘They’ say it’s good practice to turn it off, but I’ve never bothered.
 
Thanks guys.

I've had no problems so far with the A7III IS so I'll just carry on as normal not turning it off until I see an issue.
 
mikeyb said:
I received £100 cashback on the Sony 70-350 lens after getting the code when I bought my a6700
Click to expand...

Well done, I sort of wish I wanted something so I could use the codes but there's nothing I need. I do keep thinking of the 50mm f2.5 G but I have the 40mm so buying a 50mm too seems a bit much and I have the 55mm f1.8 too.
 
Last edited:
Guys.

I noticed something with my A7cII focus. I had the Sony 35mm f2.8 mounted and I compared the focus speed to my A7III and Sony 40mm f2.5 and the A7III combination was definitely quicker to focus, both cameras in DMF. I swapped the lenses over and same again the A7III was faster. I thought that can't be right. I tried the A7cII in AFS and C and C looked to be the fastest but I like DMF so I switched back.

What happens is that I half press the shutter and the subject comes into focus... and then the box goes green. There's a definite pause between acquiring focus and the box turning green. If I don't wait for the box to go green and just mash the shutter as soon as the image comes into focus every shot is in focus even if the box never has time to go green.

Does this sound normal?
 
woof woof said:
Guys.

I noticed something with my A7cII focus. I had the Sony 35mm f2.8 mounted and I compared the focus speed to my A7III and Sony 40mm f2.5 and the A7III combination was definitely quicker to focus, both cameras in DMF. I swapped the lenses over and same again the A7III was faster. I thought that can't be right. I tried the A7cII in AFS and C and C looked to be the fastest but I like DMF so I switched back.

What happens is that I half press the shutter and the subject comes into focus... and then the box goes green. There's a definite pause between acquiring focus and the box turning green. If I don't wait for the box to go green and just mash the shutter as soon as the image comes into focus every shot is in focus even if the box never has time to go green.

Does this sound normal?
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound normal to me, when I tried the A7cR it was every bit as snappy as the A7RV so I'd expect the A7cII to be the same. I always set my cameras to focus priority with AF and even with this setting the focus is pretty instant, well except with the RX1R II ;)

AF-C is usually the fastest and most reliable with Sony cameras, it's one of the reasons I use BBF so that I'm in AF-C all the time.
 
Thanks.

I had a look last night and whatever I did change has either eliminated the pause or perhaps reduced it depending on what I point the camera at but I have to say that snappy it isn't or perhaps my expectations were just too high. The CII with Sony 40mm f2.5 used wide open might be about the same as the III with Sony 35mm f2.8 wide open now though.

My settings are...

Focus area limit - Everything ticked.
Switch V/H area - Off.
Focus colour - White.
AR area registration - Off.
AF area auto clear - Off.
Area display tracking - Off.
AFC area display - On.
Phase detect area - Off.
Circ of Focus point - Does not circulate.
AF frame move Amt - Standard.
Subject rec in AF - Off.
Recognition target - Auto.
Recognition tar select - Everything ticked.
Right/L eye select - Greyed out - Auto.
Sjt rec frm disp - Off.
Face mem - Not set up yet.
Reg. face priority - Greyed out - Off.
Auto mag MF - On.
Focus mag - No option.
Mag time - No limit.
Initial mag - x1.
AF in focus mag - On.

My battery, screen protector and card came today. I went for a SanDisk Extreme Pro 128 with 200mb/s read and 90mb/s write giving me 3037 shots which should just about be enough for a short walk. The most I've taken on holiday was something between 1k/2k.

Which brings me on to another question. What's the best balance of quality v file size and hassle for raws? At the mo I've set it to compressed but lossless compressed is tempting me.

Thanks if anyone can say if I've done something daft or not :D
 
Last edited:
I would try lossless compressed, after all, it's not the R version.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I would try lossless compressed, after all, it's not the R version.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I've just given that a try with two identical photos. There's minimal difference in raw file size and no difference in jpeg size. This might change depending on the shot but I might as well leave it on lossless compressed.

Despite initially being quite negative about this camera I now quite like it and think I can live with the annoyances. I'll have to think what to do with the creaking old A7 and the III I've hardly had two minutes. Sell the A7 and III? Maybe. I'll have to think about MFT too as although the CII is significantly bigger it does close the gap a bit. Maybe sell either the GX9 or GX80 and think about the TZ100.

I do think that MFT is faster to focus than everything else I have as it's instantaneous really but the difference might not matter so I'm left with deciding if I need the even smaller size and even faster focus of MFT and if I need the TZ100. MFT and TZ do have a flash though and with the GX cameras you can point it up and bounce it and that does come in useful. Maybe having just the CII and GX80 makes the most sense.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Thanks.

I had a look last night and whatever I did change has either eliminated the pause or perhaps reduced it depending on what I point the camera at but I have to say that snappy it isn't or perhaps my expectations were just too high. The CII with Sony 40mm f2.5 used wide open might be about the same as the III with Sony 35mm f2.8 wide open now though.

My settings are...

Focus area limit - Everything ticked.
Switch V/H area - Off.
Focus colour - White.
AR area registration - Off.
AF area auto clear - Off.
Area display tracking - Off.
AFC area display - On.
Phase detect area - Off.
Circ of Focus point - Does not circulate.
AF frame move Amt - Standard.
Subject rec in AF - Off.
Recognition target - Auto.
Recognition tar select - Everything ticked.
Right/L eye select - Greyed out - Auto.
Sjt rec frm disp - Off.
Face mem - Not set up yet.
Reg. face priority - Greyed out - Off.
Auto mag MF - On.
Focus mag - No option.
Mag time - No limit.
Initial mag - x1.
AF in focus mag - On.

My battery, screen protector and card came today. I went for a SanDisk Extreme Pro 128 with 200mb/s read and 90mb/s write giving me 3037 shots which should just about be enough for a short walk. The most I've taken on holiday was something between 1k/2k.

Which brings me on to another question. What's the best balance of quality v file size and hassle for raws? At the mo I've set it to compressed but lossless compressed is tempting me.

Thanks if anyone can say if I've done something daft or not :D
Click to expand...
Can’t see anything there that would affect AF speed.

Lossless compressed is what I’d use.
woof woof said:
Thanks.

I've just given that a try with two identical photos. There's minimal difference in raw file size and no difference in jpeg size. This might change depending on the shot but I might as well leave it on lossless compressed.

Despite initially being quite negative about this camera I now quite like it and think I can live with the annoyances. I'll have to think what to do with the creaking old A7 and the III I've hardly had two minutes. Sell the A7 and III? Maybe. I'll have to think about MFT too as although the CII is significantly bigger it does close the gap a bit. Maybe sell either the GX9 or GX80 and think about the TZ100.

I do think that MFT is faster to focus than everything else I have as it's instantaneous really but the difference might not matter so I'm left with deciding if I need the even smaller size and even faster focus of MFT and if I need the TZ100. MFT and TZ do have a flash though and with the GX cameras you can point it up and bounce it and that does come in useful. Maybe having just the CII and GX80 makes the most sense.
Click to expand...
AFAIK compressed vs lossless only affect raw so I would expect jpeg to remain the same size regardless. I always set jpeg to fine if I’m using it.

It’s a while since I used M4/3 but the Sony ILCE bodies I’ve used have had faster AF than the m4/3 bodies I’ve used and have near instantaneous AF, obviously this will depend on how much the focus distance is changing.

I’m wondering if it’s the lenses, but IIRC the 40mm is pretty new so would expect it to be snappy.
 
snerkler said:
Can’t see anything there that would affect AF speed.

Lossless compressed is what I’d use.

AFAIK compressed vs lossless only affect raw so I would expect jpeg to remain the same size regardless. I always set jpeg to fine if I’m using it.

It’s a while since I used M4/3 but the Sony ILCE bodies I’ve used have had faster AF than the m4/3 bodies I’ve used and have near instantaneous AF, obviously this will depend on how much the focus distance is changing.

I’m wondering if it’s the lenses, but IIRC the 40mm is pretty new so would expect it to be snappy.
Click to expand...

I compared my CII with both 35mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.5 to the III with both and to my A7 with Sony 28mm f2 and MFT GX80 with 14mm f2.5. I might have expected too much but the CII seems if anything at best only on a par with the III and no snappier, amazingly both seem slower than the A7 with 28mm f2 but maybe that lens is a speed monster, I don't know and with other lenses the A7 is a slug. The GX80 + 14mm f2.5 is the fastest of the lot.

I don't tend take action pictures and if I do the chances are I'll either pre focus or go zone or hyperfocal so I don't really need lightening fast AF. One plus for me is that the eye detect seems to have improved even further so that's nice and more important than lightening fast AF.

I think I will keep at least one MFT body as they are small and have a flash and will allow me to keep my 45-150mm and 100-400mm which I don't use a lot but I know I'm never going to buy equivalent lenses for Sony FF.

Thanks for the pointers and help Toby, Toni and Jon and all. It's appreciated.

Screen protector fitted, new card installed and new battery on charge! :D
 
Last edited:
Further thoughts on the A7cII.

The focus is really fast but there's a small pause between focus being acquired and the box going green. I can't see a way around this in the settings but you can mash the button before the square goes green if you need the speed and have the confidence. One least whinge. I do wish this camera had the do it all articulating and tilting screen or if that's just too much at least a tilting option. I assume these things are made in some sort of batch kanban system so physically producing two options could maybe not be too much hassle.

One good thing. I see that you can save effects to a custom memory, such as square format B&W, but only in jpeg. My Panny's can save them in raw. I can't see myself channelling Vivian Maier but it might come in useful.
 
I had an hour or so today so I went to the seaside to try my A7cII and Sony 40mm f2.5.

Two single shots and a panorama.

Shell.

1-DSC00364.jpg

Beach scene. The foreground is deliberately drifting out of the dof here.

1-DSC00372.jpg

Saltburn panorama. Raining a bit.

1-Untitled_Panorama-4.jpg

All seems ok. It's hard to be sure but I think the IQ is a move forward from the A7III. I wouldn't have thought that the extra mp's would make much difference but I think they do. I've tried looking at A7cII and A7III pictures at 100% and also equalising the sizes and the cII seems to show more detail and be sharper than the A7III.
 
Last edited:
I've had a less than great experience with WEX recently. They gave over £100 less for me A7RV because it was an import which I'll take on the chin, however they sent a lens back saying it had mould. This lens was under a year old and had only been used twice, and a few days earlier I'd had it assessed at another shop (didn't sell it to them as Wex offered more).

I checked the lens again when I got it back and couldn't see anthing so I sent it to another shop who offered just £5 less than Wex and have agreed it's in mint condition as I'd stated :thinking:
 
woof woof said:
I had an hour or so today so I went to the seaside to try my A7cII and Sony 40mm f2.5.

Two single shots and a panorama.

Shell.

View attachment 462589

Beach scene. The foreground is deliberately drifting out of the dof here.

View attachment 462590

Saltburn panorama. Raining a bit.

View attachment 462591

All seems ok. It's hard to be sure but I think the IQ is a move forward from the A7III. I wouldn't have thought that the extra mp's would make much difference but I think they do. I've tried looking at A7cII and A7III pictures at 100% and also equalising the sizes and the cII seems to show more detail and be sharper than the A7III.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder this about extra detail but then I think I'm hallucinating as it doesn't make sense if you're viewing on something or at a size that has no more pixels :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
I sometimes wonder this about extra detail but then I think I'm hallucinating as it doesn't make sense if you're viewing on something or at a size that has no more pixels :thinking:
Click to expand...

I didn't really expect any IQ or sharpness improvement but when I took my first few test shots at home I noticed that when zooming in and looking around the picture in PS I could read the writing on a little weather stations buttons. I thought everything looked detailed and sharp so I took the same picture with the A7III and the writing wasn't legible. I may be imagining it or it may be down to the light at the time but I think the colours are improved over the III too.

I'll have to decide what to do. I think I've made my mind up to sell all my Sony mount Voigtlanders, one of my MFT cameras and either the A7 or III should go too. I might even sell a Sony lens or two. Really what I want to get back to is one main camera and lens with a lens or two available for the once in a blue moon things and a MFT camera so that I can use the 100-400mm now and again or the 14mm f2.5 when I want small and light and flash.
 
snerkler said:
I've had a less than great experience with WEX recently. They gave over £100 less for me A7RV because it was an import which I'll take on the chin, however they sent a lens back saying it had mould. This lens was under a year old and had only been used twice, and a few days earlier I'd had it assessed at another shop (didn't sell it to them as Wex offered more).

I checked the lens again when I got it back and couldn't see anthing so I sent it to another shop who offered just £5 less than Wex and have agreed it's in mint condition as I'd stated :thinking:
Click to expand...

I've bought quite a bit from Wex over the years but selling my Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 to them left a very bad taste as the lens and its box were unmarked and yet they found some reason to whittle away at their original quote. Reading on here tells us they've got form for this but they're not the only ones. A company in Yorkshire claimed some of my film era lenses were faulty or had mould but another rated them as excellent or excellent +. I've promised myself I'll only buy from Wex again if they're by far the best choice.
 
snerkler said:
I've had a less than great experience with WEX recently. They gave over £100 less for me A7RV because it was an import which I'll take on the chin, however they sent a lens back saying it had mould. This lens was under a year old and had only been used twice, and a few days earlier I'd had it assessed at another shop (didn't sell it to them as Wex offered more).

I checked the lens again when I got it back and couldn't see anthing so I sent it to another shop who offered just £5 less than Wex and have agreed it's in mint condition as I'd stated :thinking:
Click to expand...

I had the same with Wex and grey imports. I didn't even know my camera was a grey import (bought used).
At the time I knew the branch manager and he decided to waive off the "grey import reduction".

Since then Wex have grown massively, they don't negotiate. They have a "take it or leave it" style of doing business and I chose to leave them.
LCE have been great for me. I know a number of branches and they treat me well.
 
Been on holiday, the sigma 500mm f5.6 fits my PD sling 10L unlike the 200-600mm I had before it.
Meant I could travel with a nice telephoto lens for a change and glad I did :D
Plenty left to process but a few I have got through.
Also on A7RV the 500DN is definitely sharper than the 200-600mm, can easily tell with small birds and cropping

54773523852_106624e2de_b.jpg


54774374076_dfb2038eed_b.jpg


54774609593_3b364f222d_b.jpg
 
I'll be interested to see how this compares to the Sony 20-70mm, I can only assume sacrifices have been made but at 550g it's certainly a compelling travel lens.

www.sigma-global.com

20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG | LENSES | Sigma

This page is about Sigma's 20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG.
www.sigma-global.com www.sigma-global.com
 
Yes. My first lens for a digital camera was a Sigma 28-300mm and although it was optically quite poor and had a slow aperture range it made a great day out and holiday lens. I'm sure this Sigma will be even better. It might not be up to the best for nit picking viewing but see it as a day out and holiday lens and I'm pretty sure it'll make a lot of people happy.

How much?
 
woof woof said:
Yes. My first lens for a digital camera was a Sigma 28-300mm and although it was optically quite poor and had a slow aperture range it made a great day out and holiday lens. I'm sure this Sigma will be even better. It might not be up to the best for nit picking viewing but see it as a day out and holiday lens and I'm pretty sure it'll make a lot of people happy.

How much?
Click to expand...
28mm’s not wide enough for me so I’ve never been tempted.

Launch price of the 20-200mm is £799 so I don’t think it’ll be too long before it’ll be around £500 grey.

I’m certainly not looking at it any time soon, I’ve barely used my 20-70mm and I don’t have any major trips planned, but I turn 50 in a couple of years and we’re wanting to have at least one special holiday so it could be a good lens for then.
 
And now there is also a tamron 25-200mm f2.8-5.6

Interesting times...

Surprise: Tamron announced the development of a new 25-200mm f/2.8-5.6 lens! | sonyalpharumors

I am a current happy owner of the Tamron 28-200mm lens. And topay Tamron made me even happier as they announced the will soon launch a new version with a wider focal length: The 25-200mm f/2.8-5.6. I will buy it for sure! Press text: TAMRON announces development of the evolved G2 All-in-One 8x...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
 
I guess the 28-200 has been getting cheaper with less attention, and they need something else to grab interest.
 
I enjoyed and having thought about repurchasing the 28-200. Tempted by one of these or just a cheaper Tamron G1.

It’s a shame neither the G2 nor the Sigma look to have stabilisation which would help at the longer lengths.
 
Gold said:
I enjoyed and having thought about repurchasing the 28-200. Tempted by one of these or just a cheaper Tamron G1.

It’s a shame neither the G2 nor the Sigma look to have stabilisation which would help at the longer lengths.
Click to expand...
A 25-200 or 28-200 is really targeting FF users - and all bar the early A7 have sensor based stabilisation, which should be 'good enough' for those happy with a one-lens type solution.
 
snerkler said:
28mm’s not wide enough for me so I’ve never been tempted.

Launch price of the 20-200mm is £799 so I don’t think it’ll be too long before it’ll be around £500 grey.

I’m certainly not looking at it any time soon, I’ve barely used my 20-70mm and I don’t have any major trips planned, but I turn 50 in a couple of years and we’re wanting to have at least one special holiday so it could be a good lens for then.
Click to expand...

I think at that price people with £500+ to spend could be interested. Some could be put off by any IQ issues and there's the aperture range but for anyone who sees the advantages this could make a lot of sense :D
 
Oh while I'm here.

I need a new lap top, 15", as the case is cracking but I think I'll need a better spec. as this one is struggling and slowing down when I load a days raws for processing. I have my A7CII and I'm using Photoshop 25-12-4. Can anyone guess at the spec I should be going for because I have no idea :D
 
woof woof said:
Oh while I'm here.

I need a new lap top, 15", as the case is cracking but I think I'll need a better spec. as this one is struggling and slowing down when I load a days raws for processing. I have my A7CII and I'm using Photoshop 25-12-4. Can anyone guess at the spec I should be going for because I have no idea :D
Click to expand...

Lightweight or 'home-use' only?

I'd say minimum i5 spec, 16gb ram, 256gb HDD. A graphics card may add performance if you're using a recent Adobe product.

TBH if I were buying a travel laptop now I'd probably buy a MacBook for battery life and performance, also with a big external drive.
 
I had the 24-105, moved to 28-200mm and now using 20-70mm.

The reviews of sigma 20-200mm isn't inspiring me to change.

Will wait for tamron 25-200mm

I think overall I'm still happy with 20-70+50-300mm combination.
But if I'm travelling on my own i.e. without family, I don't even bother with the zooms. So there is that part of me thinking may be 20-200mm is good enough....
 
ancient_mariner said:
Lightweight or 'home-use' only?

I'd say minimum i5 spec, 16gb ram, 256gb HDD. A graphics card may add performance if you're using a recent Adobe product.

TBH if I were buying a travel laptop now I'd probably buy a MacBook for battery life and performance, also with a big external drive.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest 512Gb or 1Tb for the SSD - and look for an NVME drive - both in terms of speed of access, but also if they skimp on the SSD, chances are the rest of the laptop has been built with the cheapest options as well.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Lightweight or 'home-use' only?

I'd say minimum i5 spec, 16gb ram, 256gb HDD. A graphics card may add performance if you're using a recent Adobe product.

TBH if I were buying a travel laptop now I'd probably buy a MacBook for battery life and performance, also with a big external drive.
Click to expand...

It'll only leave the house once in a blue moon so weight doesn't really matter.

Faldrax said:
I'd suggest 512Gb or 1Tb for the SSD - and look for an NVME drive - both in terms of speed of access, but also if they skimp on the SSD, chances are the rest of the laptop has been built with the cheapest options as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys.

This is what I have.

Untitled-1.jpg

How's that look? Maybe need faster chip and graphics card?
 
woof woof said:
It'll only leave the house once in a blue moon so weight doesn't really matter.



Thanks guys.

This is what I have.

View attachment 462685

How's that look? Maybe need faster chip and graphics card?
Click to expand...
Intel cps's have 2 main parts to their numbering system - the 'headline' i3/i5/i7/i9 - and the specific model '10500'.
In many ways it's the specific model that's more important in knowing how fast a cpu will be, 10500 means it's a 10th generation i5 - the current cpu's are the 14the generation devices (14500 would be a 14th gen i5), and their successor the Intel Core processors (which keep the i5 designation, but have a different numbering system).
Note that laptop processors are general less powerful than desktop processors, as they are optimised for low power and heat (while desktop models have mains power and can use modern water based cooler.
I'd be looking for a laptop with a 12th gen processor or newer (IE I5-12xxx, i5-13xxx) 16 Gb RAM, 512 or 1Tb NVME SSD.
Other things to look out for are the screen specs in terms of colour range (100%sRGB) and range of ports - if you want to use a generic USB doc to connect to an external monitor, for example, you need a USB 3.2 Gen 2 port (usually this will be Type C, but not all Type C ports are gen 2!)

Not a recommendation (as I've not looked at it in detail), but this is the sort of thing I mean (though it only has Gen 1 USB ports):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-Inspiron-Notebook-Generation-English-UK/dp/B0D2JL29HN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top