Sony full frame camera and lens discussion (a9, a7, a7ii and a7iii)

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by chriswill, Apr 20, 2017.

  1. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

  2. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    USD4500??!!
     
  3. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    Nikon's flagship is $499 more!
     
  4. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    I like the silent shutter feature, and the weatherproofing. I already have a Sony camera, so I very much like the tilt screen.

    But no way could I justify spending that much money on a camera.
     
  5. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    I can't justify the price. If I were earning a living from my photos though, then I'd have to at least give it some consideration.

    20fps with no blackout (assuming that is the case) is off the chart.
     
  6. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    That sounds pretty impressive; personally, I don't do any sort of shooting that requires it, but I can see how people photographing sports etc, would like it a lot.
     
  7. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    Sports and wildlife is my thing, which is why this peaked my interest.

    If the A9 works as they say it does then Canon and Nikon in particular will have to up thier game significantly.
     
  8. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    I've never owned a Nikon; but I'm very happy with my Sony camera.
     
  9. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Sony full frame cameras are now outselling Nikon!
     
  10. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    I've got one of each. A Sony A6300 and a Nikon D500

    They both do different things well
     
  11. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    Curious: which camera is better at which things?
     
  12. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    One of the things I like about my Sony full-frame, is that it isn't too big. The Nikon and Canon full-frame DSLRs are big things - heavy and obtrusive.
     
  13. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    The D500 is my sports shooter. It's astonishingly quick to focus and I can genuinely say that if I take 8-900 shots during a game then less than 10 are out of focus. It's that good. It goes from off to on in a fraction of a second (the A6300 seems to take an age in comparison) and the 100 viewfinder coverage is bright and clear. Same applies to wildlife.

    The Sony handles landscapes better, although this may be because I have more suitable E mount lenses. I also prefer the portraits that the sony gives you with things like eye focus and the like.
    Plus the video quality is much better Imo and is much easier to handle when it comes to moving pictures (ie its not like holding a small child while trying to shoot)

    D500
    Tyldesley U8s at Sale Sharks

    A6300
    AJ
     
  14. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    I mostly shoot landscape, and some street - and I use manual lenses; so the Sony works quite well for my purposes.

    I'm thinking about breaking down and buying a decent AF lens for the street photography, though. [the kit lens the camera came with is a piece of crap, imo]
     
  15. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    The picture of Alex above was taken with the Ziess 35mm full frame lens on the APSC A6300.

    I can wholly recommend it.
     
  16. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    Is that the Sonnar lens?

    The ones I've been considering are in the Touit series.
     
  17. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    I used to have a Sony A6000, the precursor to your A6300.

    It was a good camera, but I sprung for a used A7S - it gives great results. I swear by full frame, now.
     
    dweller likes this.
  18. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    That's the one, F2.8

    Ive not used a touit but they do look nice
     
  19. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    I wish this hobby wasn't so damned expensive, though.
     
    chriswill likes this.
  20. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    Due to the lack of affordable long glass for E mount I need the extra mm that crop sensors give me. Plus the reduced cost of lenses helps a lof

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love an A7Rii in all its megapixel glory but mirrorless is ultimately a second system for me (unless the A9 changes that)

    I did have an RX1R for a while which has the 24mp full frame sony sensor and I must admit image quality was out of this world.
     
  21. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I wish I could afford the RX1R ii. It's a beaut.
     
  22. chriswill

    chriswill Misbehaving!

    I ordered one and then cancelled as they pushed the price up when sensors were scarce. Maybe when I win the lottery!
     
    editor likes this.
  23. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I have to say that I get a bit confused about what third party leness will fit the Sony a7ii full frame camera.

    I'm looking for something around a 70mm-200mm lens. The Sony f2.8 is too expensive for me, the f4 version is possibly - at a stretch - affordable second hand - but what other third party alternatives should I be looking at?

    All ideas appreciated.
     
  24. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Must be someone using Sony full frame gear here, no?

    Johnny Canuck3
     
  25. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    Sony and Zeiss both make E Mount lenses for the full frame 7 series. I believe Rokinon/Samyang has them as well.

    Because the Sonys are mirrorless, any lens can be used with an adaptor.

    I use a Sony lens for autofocus street shots; for anything else where the scene is stationary, I use second-hand Nikon and Canon manual focus lenses with cheap adaptors. I think it's possible to get expensive adaptors that will allow the use of third party autofocus lenses; but I haven't really looked into that.
     
  26. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Trouble is that the adapters make an already big zoom lens even more mahoosive.
     
  27. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    That's true - it is a drawback. It's not a big issue for me, though: I prefer prime lenses, which tend to be smaller; and the older third party manual lenses tend to be a lot smaller than more recent products.
     
  28. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I've decided to pick up an old manual focus Olympus Zuiko OM AUTO-Zoom 65-200mm f/4.0 and see how I get on with it. It only cost £48 and has great reviews - and if I can focus quick enough for my sports needs, I woul dhave saved around £900!

    I picked up a £12 adaptor so OM lens will fit my Sony and here's a bloody great tip: Sony A7 II – using MF assist with the lens adapters
     
  29. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    So I tried out the Olympus 60mm-200mm zoom lens at a football game. The optics are pretty good but bloody hell it's hard to manually focus quick enough at a sports event. Makes me realise how good the old sports photographers must have been back in film days.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I got some decent results, but trying to shoot at f4 proved a real challenge, so I stopped down. At some point, I'm going to have to flog off a load of gear and shell out for the Sony f4 70mm-200mm...
     
  30. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    [​IMG]
    No prices yet but they're going to be a lot cheaper than Sony's:

     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice