Sony a1 50 MP???

[Marianne]

I bought my a7rii when the a7riii came out - got a great deal. 42MP is huge but you certainly can crop with impunity, though I don't crop very often. But it is certainly already overkill for stock.

Still, I love it, and love the large files though I had to upgrade to a new computer to handle them but I think that going from my 12 and 16MP Nikons to 24MP would have been a big enough step. For print though they are awesome. I had one of my panoramic images printed around 5 feet across and it is super sharp even if you look really close. It could be printed even bigger. 

I've been exploring more ways to sell my fine art and large prints are certainly in demand. Good time to get an a7riii? 

[Inchiquin]

On 28/01/2021 at 10:03, Michael Ventura said:

50 MP is overkill, in my opinion.  Not needed for most photo applications.  Image storage would be costly and you would need a powerful computer to just work on an photo.  One upside is that you could crop a fair amount and still have a workable image.

 

That's actually a double upside because if you can crop so much you wouldn't need an expensive zoom lens. That would pay for a couple of those extra hard drives.

 

Alan

[Cal]

This thread gives me serious GAS. I've told myself I'm not doing any major upgrades until the Alamy sales pay for a fair chunk of it, so that's either a decent wait or I need to retrain as Dr Doolittle to get close enough to the birds I want to shoot. 400mm most often doesn't cut it except for the biggies or the brave waterfowl and garden birds.

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, Cal said:

This thread gives me serious GAS. I've told myself I'm not doing any major upgrades until the Alamy sales pay for a fair chunk of it, so that's either a decent wait or I need to retrain as Dr Doolittle to get close enough to the birds I want to shoot. 400mm most often doesn't cut it except for the biggies or the brave waterfowl and garden birds.

Consider living like Jean-Luc and Mylene Mylayne.

 

wim

 

 

[MizBrown]

12 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

Consider living like Jean-Luc and Mylene Mylayne.

 

wim

 

 

 

Living that requires a trust fund. 

[Jose Decio Molaro]

On 28/01/2021 at 06:38, Ed Rooney said:

Yikes, I'm being swept away. Will my little Sony's 20 MP images begin to look like bottle-top images? 

Sony a1 Mirrorless 50.1Mpixels Camera Price in Brazil (body only)
R $ 66,980.00

[Allan Bell]

8 minutes ago, Jose Decio Molaro said:

Sony a1 Mirrorless 50.1Mpixels Camera Price in Brazil (body only)
R $ 66,980.00

 

Price in the UK.   Too much.

 

Allan

 

[Jose Decio Molaro]

28 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Price in the UK.   Too much.

 

Allan

 

In Brazil, to buy this camera earning a salary would take on average 5 years, if you don't spend anything!

[Marvin McAbee]

I was looking at the specs and liked it till I saw the price.

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

Just looked out of curiosity on Wex here in UK available for pre-order £6,499.00 - ouch, then another £400 if one wanted a battery grip.....

 

Carol

[geogphotos]

On 29/01/2021 at 16:30, MizBrown said:

 

Living that requires a trust fund. 

 

Yeah my photos often have the subject matter deliberately hard to find in the frame. 

 

Sorry but too much for me to read all that.🙃

Edited February 3, 2021 by geogphotos

[MizBrown]

5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yeah my photos often have the subject matter deliberately hard to find in the frame. 

 

Sorry but too much for me to read all that.🙃

 

Long practice living in NYC in poetry circles gave me a keen eye for spotting people who had no visible means of supporting their travels and stuff.

[geogphotos]

15 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Long practice living in NYC in poetry circles gave me a keen eye for spotting people who had no visible means of supporting their travels and stuff.

 

I also feel that I have a reasonably attuned bullshit detector somewhere up in my head.

 

Best of luck to them....

[Marianne]

That 199MP pixel shift that puts 16 images together is kind of amazing - but it will take a lot of space on your SD card and hard drive. 

 

The macro lenses for some of the Olympus cameras allow something similar though not quite as large. I've been tempted to get one for my Oly despite my uncertainty about Olympus' future - it seems amazing to be able to make such a large photo but I'd need to know I could sell them as the size of the images would cost a fortune simply to print - I was looking into the costs (including crating & shipping) of printing images 4' x 5' minimum for a juried photo show I'd considered trying for but once I located some printers the costs were prohibitive. A 5' long panoramic print is one thing but finding a printer who can print 48" minimum on the short side, coupled with shipping costs, is another. I ordered the large print I mentioned above during a free shipping day -otherwise some large prints cost more to ship than to print!

 

All this tech is great but you need an outlet for these large files that makes producing them worthwhile. 

[Panthera tigris]

It may be overkill for some types of photography but the sensor, AF and especially the speed will be tempting for sports and wildlife. Anyone in these groups with a Canon 1dx family or Nikon D"x" (rather than Dxxx) family has probably forked out the same amount on their camera as this new Sony already (and more on a big f4 prime). They may buy into this or, more likely, wait for the others to catch up. I wonder what the ISO performance is like.

This camera would have had an amazing platform at the olympics in Japan (whenever that ever takes place now) but now the other have time to catch up.

 

Not that I can afford to change over brand from my current one but Sony has been quite bold with this move, it will ultimately make some pictures possible that were technically not feasible before. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Panthera tigris

[Cal]

2 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

For professionals that need one camera that can do it all, it is just the best on the market today.

Sports and wildlife that require very fast AF and a bit of cropping, landscape and commercial work (advertising, fashion…) that require high resolution, studio work that requires high speed sync, weddings and events that require a bit of each, video work… unlike most cameras which are great in some areas but lack in some others, this one has the best specs in every area I can think of… except form factor/handling…

Alongside the A99ii, I have an A7Riii which is a pretty nice camera inside (sensor, viewfinder, shutter, etc.) working great in the studio but I really hate its ergonomics and handling.

I have adult hands, use quite fast lenses which are a bit large and heavy, and to me that smallish toy's form factor is just a pain in the ***.

 

That last part is a concern of mine with the probable move to E mount in future. At the moment I am mostly content with A mount gear, which still handles like a "proper" SLR camera despite being different internally. However I feel like I am coming to the end of the road with A mount but the form factor of the E mount cameras does not look like it is comfortable to hold. I might be completely wrong but I suspect not given how many comments like this I have seen.

[Cal]

1 hour ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I know people who really like it, and for good reasons. Most of them have quite small hands and use 1 or 2 small lenses, mainly primes. I have large hands and use a lot of large lenses, so I really prefer my A99ii.

 

Out of interest which large lenses? My 70-400 while a great lens is nowhere near long enough for birding especially now I've started using it mostly on my A99. I did use it on an A77ii but to be honest I think my A77ii is faulty as the results I get from it are so inconsistent and usually terrible, I thought it was me until I tried the lens on my A99 and was amazed at the fact that it actually focussed on what I pointed it at and took sharp photos. 

 

I can't see what other longer options for A mount there really are though that don't cost the earth unless I move to E mount and get a 200-600. The third party 150-600s are a consideration but not a particularly significant one. I might be looking in the wrong places but it seems that sticking with A mount the only realistic options for good lenses upwards of 400mm (and that can take a TC) are old designs that still cost 3-4K, which can easily cover the cost of an A7ii or iii, a 200-600 and a 1.4x. If I can help it I'd love to keep using my A99, it's a great camera with an amazing sensor despite getting long in the tooth now, but I feel like for my needs I will sooner or later need to introduce an E mount system.

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

17 hours ago, Cal said:

 

Out of interest which large lenses? My 70-400 while a great lens is nowhere near long enough for birding especially now I've started using it mostly on my A99. I did use it on an A77ii but to be honest I think my A77ii is faulty as the results I get from it are so inconsistent and usually terrible, I thought it was me until I tried the lens on my A99 and was amazed at the fact that it actually focussed on what I pointed it at and took sharp photos. 

 

I can't see what other longer options for A mount there really are though that don't cost the earth unless I move to E mount and get a 200-600. The third party 150-600s are a consideration but not a particularly significant one. I might be looking in the wrong places but it seems that sticking with A mount the only realistic options for good lenses upwards of 400mm (and that can take a TC) are old designs that still cost 3-4K, which can easily cover the cost of an A7ii or iii, a 200-600 and a 1.4x. If I can help it I'd love to keep using my A99, it's a great camera with an amazing sensor despite getting long in the tooth now, but I feel like for my needs I will sooner or later need to introduce an E mount system.

I've done a fair bit of wildlife/photography over the years using a Nikon FX camera coupled with a 200-400mm F4 VR II lens which was absolutely brilliant.   I sold the lens a few years ago only because it was a heavy beast to lug around and also Nikon came up with the very popular 200-500mm 5.6 - still a consideration.  What I've found is when doing wildlife the majority of photographers always want the extra 100/200mm no matter what kit they use😁   I think sometimes people get impatient with wildlife but I find sometimes if you wait long enough the subject will maybe get a little closer.   Do I miss my 200-400mm ? Yes and no, yes because it was a fab lens but no I don't miss lugging it around.  Also there were times when I found myself zooming out as the subject was a little too close, not so quick to do with a huge lens.  So although I still do some wildlife photography I make do with either my 70-200mm 2.8 or even my not so fast 28/300mm which although not a fast lens does produce some excellent results.  

 

I don't know much about Sony but I hope you find what works best for you if you haven't already.  I have seen excellent results with the Nikon 200-500mm so still a consideration for me - it would be lightweight especially after lugging the 200-400mm around😁

 

Carol

[Cal]

17 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

...

 

Thanks for the post. I hadn't realised quite how deep the A series cameras are in comparison to the E mount bodies. The A99 original is not much different to the mark 2 and I find the form factor great and I don't have particularly big hands. Looking at your photo the shallow size of the E mount body might be an issue, though probably not as much as I don't think my hands are as big as yours.

 

That said there were a few key points I'd forgotten that you reminded me - it would be a joy to not have to micro adjust a lens ever again and the A7 200-600 combo looks very attractive for me as the next upgrade, though my A mount kit would also remain as it suits my needs for everything else fine.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

I've done a fair bit of wildlife/photography over the years using a Nikon FX camera coupled with a 200-400mm F4 VR II lens which was absolutely brilliant.   I sold the lens a few years ago only because it was a heavy beast to lug around and also Nikon came up with the very popular 200-500mm 5.6 - still a consideration.  What I've found is when doing wildlife the majority of photographers always want the extra 100/200mm no matter what kit they use😁   I think sometimes people get impatient with wildlife but I find sometimes if you wait long enough the subject will maybe get a little closer.   Do I miss my 200-400mm ? Yes and no, yes because it was a fab lens but no I don't miss lugging it around.  Also there were times when I found myself zooming out as the subject was a little too close, not so quick to do with a huge lens.  So although I still do some wildlife photography I make do with either my 70-200mm 2.8 or even my not so fast 28/300mm which although not a fast lens does produce some excellent results.  

 

I don't know much about Sony but I hope you find what works best for you if you haven't already.  I have seen excellent results with the Nikon 200-500mm so still a consideration for me - it would be lightweight especially after lugging the 200-400mm around😁

 

Carol

 

Thanks Carol, I'd be interested to know what kind of wildlife photography it is you do. For small birds and skittish seasonal migrants anything shorter than 300-400 is usually no bueno. The opposite is true as well with UWA lenses. I can get down to 12mm on FF with a rectilinear lens which is crazy wide but there are situations I've been in now where I still wanted wider.

 

For me the main problem is time. Working through the week, the short winter nights, and at this time of year holding a particular interest in the shy wintering birds all works against me. I have no problem with being patient - late last year a friend and I lay on the ground for nigh on 6 hours scouting out shoveler. It wasn't much of a success mind you. The 70-400 is an excellent lens for bigger birds and a lot of other subjects but given my constraints and limitations outwith my control I think a longer FL would be nice to skew my advantages slightly. I very much enjoy wildlife photography but I think most serious birders would agree with me that 400mm on FF is just too short. Otherwise, the prevalence of the fast long primes permanently mounted onto a 1.4x wouldn't really be a thing!

 

EDIT: I should add that I do occasionally "luck out" but I don't like the feeling of being lucky. 2E543T3 is a pretty heavy crop but a photo I rather like and 2E3C66J is the closest I've ever got to a shoveler. 2E3C5PK was done on the A77ii on one of its rare "good days". My aforementioned mate uses a 200-500 on a Nikon DX so has almost double the effective FL that I do. This weekend we're hoping the Kingfisher shows up so I'm going to see how that does at 400mm on FF.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Cal
added info

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

5 hours ago, Cal said:

 

Thanks for the post. I hadn't realised quite how deep the A series cameras are in comparison to the E mount bodies. The A99 original is not much different to the mark 2 and I find the form factor great and I don't have particularly big hands. Looking at your photo the shallow size of the E mount body might be an issue, though probably not as much as I don't think my hands are as big as yours.

 

That said there were a few key points I'd forgotten that you reminded me - it would be a joy to not have to micro adjust a lens ever again and the A7 200-600 combo looks very attractive for me as the next upgrade, though my A mount kit would also remain as it suits my needs for everything else fine.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Carol, I'd be interested to know what kind of wildlife photography it is you do. For small birds and skittish seasonal migrants anything shorter than 300-400 is usually no bueno. The opposite is true as well with UWA lenses. I can get down to 12mm on FF with a rectilinear lens which is crazy wide but there are situations I've been in now where I still wanted wider.

 

For me the main problem is time. Working through the week, the short winter nights, and at this time of year holding a particular interest in the shy wintering birds all works against me. I have no problem with being patient - late last year a friend and I lay on the ground for nigh on 6 hours scouting out shoveler. It wasn't much of a success mind you. The 70-400 is an excellent lens for bigger birds and a lot of other subjects but given my constraints and limitations outwith my control I think a longer FL would be nice to skew my advantages slightly. I very much enjoy wildlife photography but I think most serious birders would agree with me that 400mm on FF is just too short. Otherwise, the prevalence of the fast long primes permanently mounted onto a 1.4x wouldn't really be a thing!

 

EDIT: I should add that I do occasionally "luck out" but I don't like the feeling of being lucky. 2E543T3 is a pretty heavy crop but a photo I rather like and 2E3C66J is the closest I've ever got to a shoveler. 2E3C5PK was done on the A77ii on one of its rare "good days". My aforementioned mate uses a 200-500 on a Nikon DX so has almost double the effective FL that I do. This weekend we're hoping the Kingfisher shows up so I'm going to see how that does at 400mm on FF.

Cal, I love all types of wildlife photography and used to do a lot more than I've done recently.  Also I've been fortunate enough to have visited Africa.  So a few of mine....

 

RF78B6 - Robin lens 28/300mm

PDE2BB - Red Deer lens 200-400mm

PJ8KYT - Woodmouse in my garden 200-400mm I had a lot of fun shooting this little guy when I had a large log pile in the garden

PPKGTX - Gannet & Gull - lens 24/70mm 

PPJY50 - Kingfisher lens 200-400mm

RJ77DR - Grey Squirrel lens 70/200 2.8  lucky grab shot 1 of 3

 

I completely understand you lying on the ground for hours, have done that myself ha ha.  

 

Good luck with your Kingfisher, they are beautiful and so tiny.  We have one or maybe two at my local park, they started showing there a few years ago now, so very lucky and always good to see them and think there is at least one there now.  Seem to be quite people tolerant also.  

 

Wonder if you've considered the Sigma 150/600mm although I am not sure if there is one for a Sony mount.

 

Carol

 

 

 

 

 

[Cal]

23 minutes ago, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

 

 

Wonder if you've considered the Sigma 150/600mm although I am not sure if there is one for a Sony mount.

 

 

 

 

 

I have, the Tamron too. However I quite often read that in terms of sharpness they aren't much different to a crop from the Sony 70-400. I can say that the 70-400 is very sharp indeed, 2D51K3H is a significant crop and still maintained sharpness, and that was on APS-C. I just wish my A77ii gave much more consistent results but after spending months blaming myself I tried the 70-400 on my A99 and suddenly found my keeper rate shot up, despite a much more primitive AF system. That has unfortunately left me craving the superior FF sensor quality for long lens work and as such has landed me in this predicament. Preliminary thoughts are that I'll end up with an A7iii, a 200-600 and a 1.4x but that's a long way off yet finances wise... meanwhile I will hone my skills. 

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

16 hours ago, Cal said:

 

I have, the Tamron too. However I quite often read that in terms of sharpness they aren't much different to a crop from the Sony 70-400. I can say that the 70-400 is very sharp indeed, 2D51K3H is a significant crop and still maintained sharpness, and that was on APS-C. I just wish my A77ii gave much more consistent results but after spending months blaming myself I tried the 70-400 on my A99 and suddenly found my keeper rate shot up, despite a much more primitive AF system. That has unfortunately left me craving the superior FF sensor quality for long lens work and as such has landed me in this predicament. Preliminary thoughts are that I'll end up with an A7iii, a 200-600 and a 1.4x but that's a long way off yet finances wise... meanwhile I will hone my skills. 

Wondering whether it would be worth hiring one just to see how you like it......

 

Carol

[Cal]

6 hours ago, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

Wondering whether it would be worth hiring one just to see how you like it......

 

Carol

 

Never thought of that but would be a good idea, assuming that still goes on with Covid floating about.

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

22 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

Never thought of that but would be a good idea, assuming that still goes on with Covid floating about.

This company are very reputable and looks like they have the 200-600mm😉

 

https://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/search?lens_type=Super-telephoto

 

Even pre Covid it was all done via post.....

 

Carol

Edited February 6, 2021 by CAROL SAUNDERS
change of wording

[Cal]

1 hour ago, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

This company are very reputable and looks like they have the 200-600mm😉

 

https://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/search?lens_type=Super-telephoto

 

Even pre Covid it was all done via post.....

 

Carol

thanks, yes LFH have been around for yonks.