The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread

Raymond Lin said:
No that’s the point, many is not all and I’ve done the research and last time I looked it isn’t even close so unless something changed in the past 3 months, something got announced? I’m happy to be corrected.

Off my head I don’t think there’s a 20/1.4, 24/1.4, 85/1.2, 100/2.8 macro IS?

It’s just full of holes currently.
Click to expand...
No other manufacturer has an 85mm f1.2 autofocus lens and you know that so why use a redundant example like this? Sony do also have a 100mm GM f2.8 macro which has won best product awards... as you would know with a cursory search.

The 20mm and 24mm f1.4 do not yet exist on the FE system, that is absolutely correct. Two lenses of the ten you listed have no equivalent, that is a fact. However these are not fast action lenses and the fact is that using a Metabones you could easily continue to use them with an acceptable, if not lightning fast, speed of autofocus. As many people are currently doing.

I don't think anyone here is trying to convince you it is the right system for you Raymond, or even cares if you switch or not, but don't resort to drama and hyperbole in order to get a point across that you could have made much more sensibly about why the system does not currently work for you.
 
Last edited:
Who is the bloke here who said Sony have been in the market for 12 years?

what a load of rubbish. the Emount has only been around for 5-6 years?

Prey and hope that Canikon's mirrorless offerings dont use a new mount because if they do, they are more behind then sony and other mirrorless offerings
 
I am asking for like for like because if I am compromising….then why switch? The entire point of switching a system is to improve, otherwise the whole exercise seems redundant. It seems silly to gain something and then lose something else. A work around good enough when I have a solution already my hand, an adaptor isn’t like for like. It is either a direct replacement or it isn’t. Am I too harsh? Well…like I said, if I am sacrificing something in order to gain something, one got to balance out what is more important and lenses are always more important to me.

At the moment I can live with what is missing from the Canon (that’s the thing, I have it and I can live with it, and happy with it); and at the same time, looking at the Sony line up and what they offer I got to ask myself can I live with these on offer and what is missing, that is the unknown, do I risk trading in £20k of gear for this risk? And I really won’t know until I use it in anger, something on paper vs real life is totally different. You probably think “you won’t miss the 85/1.2 and you can do fine with adaptor for lenses and you can use this lens instead”. That’s the point, I would be compromising and I ask myself why?.

I want to upgrade, not a side step.

I am happy to dib my toes in with a body for a few £k, but a full switch over…that is a hell of a gamble.

p.s. things like that Crane 2.0 Gimbal which only works with the follow focus with Canon DSLR don’t make the switch over easier, companies will support Canon first because they do have the major market share. Little things like that, compromise this, compromise that they add up. Whereas with a 5D4, I am only compromising in what is in the body, not really anything else.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am asking for like for like because if I am compromising….then why switch? The entire point of switching a system is to improve, otherwise the whole exercise seems redundant. It seems silly to gain something and then lose something else. A work around good enough when I have a solution already my hand, an adaptor isn’t like for like. It is either a direct replacement or it isn’t. Am I too harsh? Well…like I said, if I am sacrificing something in order to gain something, one got to balance out what is more important and lenses are always more important to me.

At the moment I can live with what is missing from the Canon (that’s the thing, I have it and I can live with it, and happy with it); and at the same time, looking at the Sony line up and what they offer I got to ask myself can I live with these on offer and what is missing, that is the unknown, do I risk trading in £20k of gear for this risk? And I really won’t know until I use it in anger, something on paper vs real life is totally different. You probably think “you won’t miss the 85/1.2 and you can do fine with adaptor for lenses and you can use this lens instead”. That’s the point, I would be compromising and I ask myself why?.

I want to upgrade, not a side step.

I am happy to dib my toes in with a body for a few £k, but a full switch over…that is a hell of a gamble.

p.s. things like that Crane 2.0 Gimbal which only works with the follow focus with Canon DSLR don’t make the switch over easier, companies will support Canon first because they do have the major market share. Little things like that, compromise this, compromise that they add up. Whereas with a 5D4, I am only compromising in what is in the body, not really anything else.
Click to expand...
the technology behind the camera bodies is a huge improvement over canon IMO.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am asking for like for like because if I am compromising….then why switch? The entire point of switching a system is to improve, otherwise the whole exercise seems redundant. It seems silly to gain something and then lose something else. A work around good enough when I have a solution already my hand, an adaptor isn’t like for like. It is either a direct replacement or it isn’t. Am I too harsh? Well…like I said, if I am sacrificing something in order to gain something, one got to balance out what is more important and lenses are always more important to me.

At the moment I can live with what is missing from the Canon (that’s the thing, I have it and I can live with it, and happy with it); and at the same time, looking at the Sony line up and what they offer I got to ask myself can I live with these on offer and what is missing, that is the unknown, do I risk trading in £20k of gear for this risk? And I really won’t know until I use it in anger, something on paper vs real life is totally different. You probably think “you won’t miss the 85/1.2 and you can do fine with adaptor for lenses and you can use this lens instead”. That’s the point, I would be compromising and I ask myself why?.

I want to upgrade, not a side step.

I am happy to dib my toes in with a body for a few £k, but a full switch over…that is a hell of a gamble.

p.s. things like that Crane 2.0 Gimbal which only works with the follow focus with Canon DSLR don’t make the switch over easier, companies will support Canon first because they do have the major market share. Little things like that, compromise this, compromise that they add up. Whereas with a 5D4, I am only compromising in what is in the body, not really anything else.
Click to expand...

You are asking a lot of pointedly rhetorical questions there, but as you say if your lens lineup is complete and so heavily invested in then that is the most important thing and no way would I risk switching if I was a professional unless I was 100% sure it was going to do the job in every scenario I needed it in.

Either I am sure that you aware that you would be absolutely bonkers to consider switching systems until Canon release their high-end mirrorless this year and you see how it performs. I think many Canon owners are waiting on that to make their decisions on how/where to migrate to mirrorless.
 
Richdog said:
You are asking a lot of pointedly rhetorical questions there, but as you say if your lens lineup is complete and so heavily invested in then that is the most important thing and no way would I risk switching if I was a professional unless I was 100% sure it was going to do the job in every scenario I needed it in.

Either I am sure that you aware that you would be absolutely bonkers to consider switching systems until Canon release their high-end mirrorless this year and you see how it performs. I think many Canon owners are waiting on that to make their decisions on how/where to migrate to mirrorless.
Click to expand...
And if they use a new mount. they will have less and less lenses that @Raymond Lin uses...
 
jonneymendoza said:
And if they use a new mount. they will have less and less lenses that @Raymond Lin uses...
Click to expand...
Canikon ideally need to make new mounts to make the future lenses as small as possible. I see their options as:

  1. Release two versions of their new mirroless cameras, one with new mount one with old mount. Do this for a few years until whatever pre-defined transition grace period is complete before switching only to new mount with an adapter.
  2. Release a new mirrorless with only a new mount and also an accompanying adapter for 'old' glass. Will more than likely bring performance loss with AF while adding bulk for older lenses.
  3. Release a new mirrorless with only the old mount. Will mean little gain in size efficiency for mirrorless lenses.
Will be interesting to see which way they go.
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
the technology behind the camera bodies is a huge improvement over canon IMO.
Click to expand...

Sony (Minalta) always have made the best bodies, it’s their lenses that are always behind. It’s true 20 years ago, it’s true today.

I don’t look at bodies, I look at everything, always have and always will.

All Canon need is 1 body and the pendulum will swing the other way, in theory but I’ve been saying that for years too.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Sony (Minalta) always have made the best bodies, it’s their lenses that are always behind. It’s true 20 years ago, it’s true today.

I don’t look at bodies, I look at everything, always have and always will.

All Canon need is 1 body and the pendulum will swing the other way, in theory but I’ve been saying that for years too.
Click to expand...
i Disagree. the Sony A mount had awsome lens lineup covering practically everything!

Sony has never been in this position before.

Canon need a body and a whole new set of (insert new mount name) lenses.
 
The new Sony 16-35 GM lens, looks to me to be the best wide angle lens you can buy for an SLR, by a significant margin. I'm hoping to pick one up very soon, along with a mk3 body, (purely for landscape work) it does look very very good.
 
jonneymendoza said:
12-24 is even better!
Click to expand...

I'd need to compare both, from looking at the reviews the 16-35 looks like the sharpest (by quite a margin) I am attracted by the 12-24, but 12 is seriously wide, most lenses that go that wide tend to be pretty rubbish optically (sharpness/distortion/fall off), however if Sony can pull it off - I might be tempted,
 
Screeeech said:
The new Sony 16-35 GM lens, looks to me to be the best wide angle lens you can buy for an SLR, by a significant margin. I'm hoping to pick one up very soon, along with a mk3 body, (purely for landscape work) it does look very very good.
Click to expand...

I am also very tempted by the 16-35mm GM, and the size is very reasonable for an f2.8, it's not much bigger or heavier than the f4 version! It also takes 82mm filters which is a definite bonus. The price is pretty eye-watering though.

The 12-24mm doesn't interest me as much as I don't need one so wide and it can't take screw filters. Plus, f2.8 is very useful indoors.

Screeeech said:
I am attracted by the 12-24, but 12 is seriously wide, most lenses that go that wide tend to be pretty rubbish optically (sharpness/distortion/fall off)
Click to expand...

There are many reviews for the 12-24mm online. It is very sharp and very well regarded.
 
Richdog said:
There are many reviews for the 12-24mm online. It is very sharp and very well regarded.
Click to expand...

Yeah honestly, I am tempted by it, I'll most likely be doing some astro photography work in the Bisti Badlands in New Mexico towards the end of the month, and the idea of shooting at 12mm really close to all the formations and hoodoos is really making me salivate lol, I'm planning on picking mine up on LA hopefully, so I'll see if I can get some side-by-side comparisons before I make my choice.
 
Screeeech said:
Yeah honestly, I am tempted by it, I'll most likely be doing some astro photography work in the Bisti Badlands in New Mexico towards the end of the month, and the idea of shooting at 12mm really close to all the formations and hoodoos is really making me salivate lol, I'm planning on picking mine up on LA hopefully, so I'll see if I can get some side-by-side comparisons before I make my choice.
Click to expand...

Nice review here... amazing optics and miles cheper than the Canon version. Same price as the Sigma version while performing significantly better, apparently. http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/02/07/sony-12-24mm-f4-g-lens-review/
 
Sat in McDonald’s in culver city LA throwing ice over my wallet

Just picked up an a7riii and the 16-35GM, gonna go back to my apartment and have a good ole unboxing session!
 
jonneymendoza said:
12-24 is even better!
Click to expand...
I agree the 12-24 is excellent................... if you're viewing your photos at Fit to Screen sizes.
If you zoom in to 100% and 200%, then it's excrement, not excellent.
There's soft corners, right through to the tele end being totally soft.
Mine's currently at Sony being "looked at", being "fixed" would be too optimistic a word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom