Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

mystik610 wrote in post #18385519
Lol good analogy. And that's why you need a 'party' with synergistic abilities.

But yes cameras are becoming increasingly specialized...and it isn't just Sony either. I prefer this approach...I'd rather have cameras that excel at their intended purpose than single 'jack of all trades, master of none' type bodies. i.e. the a99II shares the a7rII sensor, but it takes a similar DR penalty as the a9, so there's some upside to the a7rII seeming to prioritize IQ over speed. I'm happy with the a7II and a9 combo thus far.

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=183​85519&i=i179211745
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

I am a fan of specialized cameras as well. Canon did really well with a "jack of all trades" camera for two iterations with the 5DII and then the 5DIII, but quickly learned with the 5DIV you can't just keep getting by on good at everything, great at nothing. I do feel like Canon users were expecting far too much out of the 5D4 though, myself included. I personally wanted a 5D3 body with an EVF as good as the a7RII, an AF system of the 1DXII, and the IQ of the Nikon D810, and a flip out screen. It had two of those things (5D3 body and 1DXII focus system) .

The one thing is that the a9 being a completely new camera, introducing a new battery wasn't that big a deal. A7iii users might be a lot of a7ii users upgrading who would probably appreciate same battery compatiblity. I know a friend of mine who shoots with a7 series (RII and SII) and has no less than 16 batteries, mostly oem. If he finds out that he has to get new batteries, even though they last longer, means he'll have to get like 6-8 batteries. And being a new camera OEM will probably be the only ones available for quite some time.

Id like to run the A9 and 70-200 GM up against my 1dx2 and 70-200 and 200L and see how it compares.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18385525
it's suppose to be more possible to Cams with AA filter right?

AA filters exist primarily to eliminate moire, so the a7rII would be more susceptible to it than the a9.

I can see why they would keep the AA filter in a camera made for shooting people....this moire is proving to be a b!tch to clean-up lol

David83 wrote in post #18385544
Id like to run the A9 and 70-200 GM up against my 1dx2 and 70-200 and 200L and see how it compares.

I suggest you get something native a try, like the sony FE 85 f1.8, so you can appreciate the full sony experience. According to dxomark, the lens resolves just as well as the sigma, has similar T stop rating, and of course, has features you wont find with DSLR, like being very small, focus hold button, and special AF modes like eyefocus tracking.

Experiencing the full suite of features makes a big difference.

Adapting is just meant to get you by, IMO, you'll enjoy native much more (except for price)

TMaG82 wrote in post #18385534
The one thing is that the a9 being a completely new camera, introducing a new battery wasn't that big a deal. A7iii users might be a lot of a7ii users upgrading who would probably appreciate same battery compatiblity. I know a friend of mine who shoots with a7 series (RII and SII) and has no less than 16 batteries, mostly oem. If he finds out that he has to get new batteries, even though they last longer, means he'll have to get like 6-8 batteries. And being a new camera OEM will probably be the only ones available for quite some time.

I never minded the NPF-W50....changing batteries isn't a big deal at all. But given a choice, of course I'd pick the bigger battery.

But yes the downside is that I have a lot of third party NPF-W50's that don't work on the a9...and there are no cheap third party options for the a9 battery. The OEM a9 battery is $80

Yes welcome to the dark side, but you can easily take care of the dark with your LR sliders, ISOless/ISOinvariance
is a wonderful thing.

Jarvis you've really thought through the big picture quite well I think. I'm in the specialist
versus generalist camp for body preference.
My conundrum coming soon in 38 days will be how to rationalize the a99ii. I think in my
Sony kit it would be the generalist don't you think?
Oh, 38 days is when the FE100-400 should ship then I equal the FL I have in the 70-400Gii to
explain what I meant.

David83 what would you be comparing for between those two set ups? Curious because I
have a9 and 1DXii sitting a couple of feet from me. I think TMaG does too maybe.

Maybe I'm one of the few old enough to remember (Gene help me out here) changing out rolls of film. Changing
and carrying spares for the A7Rii was never an issue....the bigger plus was that I could carry a USB charging brick
like the Patriot Fuel+ and not only charge the A7Rii but run it as well! That is so huge a benefit to many Sonys...well
I know some Lumix can now as well, but where is Nikon and Canon on this golden feature. Maybe it's not slided bread
but I don't eat bread anyway

Back to the comparison matrix was there ever a Canon that could compete with the A7S high ISO wise? I can't
remember and I'm curious since I kinda got my A7S back in the a9.

And this has nothing to do with any of the above, but we finally finished the trim work on the bed window in the campervan
There is an optical shadow on the right side of the trim but it's flush I promise.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18385462
True I have high hopes for the 100-400 and even moreso with the 1.4TC.
If it works then lots of EOS kit will trickle out the door. In fact just put the 500ISii up
at FM. I'll hold onto the 400DOii until Sony gives up a 400 then it's over for the heavies (EOS kit).

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/VujA​4o Big Red incoming by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr

Love this Photo!

From the A9 Portrait test yesterday.

Image hosted by forum (861745) © vinmunoz THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Lake Grapevine from Katie's Woods.

Charlie wrote in post #18385570
I suggest you get something native a try, like the sony FE 85 f1.8, so you can appreciate the full sony experience. According to dxomark, the lens resolves just as well as the sigma, has similar T stop rating, and of course, has features you wont find with DSLR, like being very small, focus hold button, and special AF modes like eyefocus tracking.

Experiencing the full suite of features makes a big difference.

Adapting is just meant to get you by, IMO, you'll enjoy native much more (except for price)

Didn't he say he was going to run the a9 with the 70-200 GM up against the 1dx2 and 70-200? The GM is a native Sony E mount lens. Stands for G-Master. So I think those two would be a more than appropriate test.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18385594
Jarvis you've really thought through the big picture quite well I think. I'm in the specialist
versus generalist camp for body preference.
My conundrum coming soon in 38 days will be how to rationalize the a99ii. I think in my
Sony kit it would be the generalist don't you think?
Oh, 38 days is when the FE100-400 should ship then I equal the FL I have in the 70-400Gii to
explain what I meant.

David83 what would you be comparing for between those two set ups? Curious because I
have a9 and 1DXii sitting a couple of feet from me. I think TMaG does too maybe.

Maybe I'm one of the few old enough to remember (Gene help me out here) changing out rolls of film. Changing
and carrying spares for the A7Rii was never an issue....the bigger plus was that I could carry a USB charging brick
like the Patriot Fuel+ and not only charge the A7Rii but run it as well! That is so huge a benefit to many Sonys...well
I know some Lumix can now as well, but where is Nikon and Canon on this golden feature. Maybe it's not slided bread
but I don't eat bread anyway

Back to the comparison matrix was there ever a Canon that could compete with the A7S high ISO wise? I can't
remember and I'm curious since I kinda got my A7S back in the a9.

And this has nothing to do with any of the above, but we finally finished the trim work on the bed window in the campervan
There is an optical shadow on the right side of the trim but it's flush I promise.

Hosted photo: posted by MedicineMan4040 in
./showthread.php?p=183​85594&i=i105815269
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

If you have an a7RII and an a9 and you're happy with the 100-400 FE lens, I don't know how you would justify the a9. Unless you need long primes of course.

But bringing up your high A7S high ISO v. Canon, how do you think the a9 performs in high ISO vs. the a7S? I know it's far superior to any Canon I ever used when I shot Canon. On my 5D3 I would try my hardest to stay under 3200. 6400 was my absolute top of the spectrum, "I need the shot and don't care about grain" ceiling. This is the a9 on 20,000 ISO just for fun. No noise reduction, it's SOOC. It's got noise sure, but I could clean up a 20,000 ISO exposure to be usable. I think I've decided that 12,800 will be my ceiling, but if SHTF, I could do 20K. Second image is 100% crop

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18385659
If you have an a7RII and an a9 and you're happy with the 100-400 FE lens, I don't know how you would justify the a9. Unless you need long primes of course.

But bringing up your high A7S high ISO v. Canon, how do you think the a9 performs in high ISO vs. the a7S? I know it's far superior to any Canon I ever used when I shot Canon. On my 5D3 I would try my hardest to stay under 3200. 6400 was my absolute top of the spectrum, "I need the shot and don't care about grain" ceiling. This is the a9 on 20,000 ISO just for fun. No noise reduction, it's SOOC. It's got noise sure, but I could clean up a 20,000 ISO exposure to be usable. I think I've decided that 12,800 will be my ceiling, but if SHTF, I could do 20K. Second image is 100% crop

Hosted photo: posted by Jarvis Creative Studios in
./showthread.php?p=183​85659&i=i181349226
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by Jarvis Creative Studios in
./showthread.php?p=183​85659&i=i103954441
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Jarvis I can't say a9 vs a7s, it's been too long since I've had an a7s. I was just looking at the comparison at DXO, a7s wins but not by a whole lot. Like you I'm already seeing wonderful things above ISO 20K, really important for wildlife.
Another thing important to me is 'cropability', can never get close enough even with the longest lenses.
Here a test this afternoon. The original and the crop.
Those 6mpx difference is already showing yet another win over the 1DXii, it's not huge but not a small difference either.
Also have to agree with David Arbogast, the 70-300 really is a nice lens. Weight wise for sure but IQ/sharpness really not bad.
Now I've shot a Bluebird a time or two and they are a devil for feather detail, their feathers as just so fine.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18385665
Jarvis I can't say a9 vs a7s, it's been too long since I've had an a7s. I was just looking at the comparison at DXO, a7s wins but not by a whole lot. Like you I'm already seeing wonderful things above ISO 20K, really important for wildlife.
Another thing important to me is 'cropability', can never get close enough even with the longest lenses.
Here a test this afternoon. The original and the crop.
Those 6mpx difference is already showing yet another win over the 1DXii, it's not huge but not a small difference either.
Also have to agree with David Arbogast, the 70-300 really is a nice lens. Weight wise for sure but IQ/sharpness really not bad.
Now I've shot a Bluebird a time or two and they are a devil for feather detail, their feathers as just so fine.

Hosted photo: posted by MedicineMan4040 in
./showthread.php?p=183​85665&i=i212753315
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by MedicineMan4040 in
./showthread.php?p=183​85665&i=i74743747
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

I think it still looks very good cropped.