Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

Justin, are those "Killer" bees? I know Florida is a home for them. If so.......I would have been freaked out!
 
It was certainly possible. Rumors I hear around here is some 40% of wild bee hives you run into south of Lake O are killers. I definitely don't want to get close enough to find out...they can be prone to attack moving animals coming within 50 feet of their hive, and they attack quite relentlessly, following for up to a mile. I was on a narrow trail through a heavily wooded area when I came around a corner and was staring right at this hive, about 25 feet away. I took a few very quick shots, then moved very quietly and quickly past and down the trail...making sure there were no bees flying through the trail ahead that might trigger on my movement and alert the hive. The hive itself was quite large - it looked like a child's one-person pup tent strung upside down by the branch...except it was all bees.

Funny side story - I once was walking out in the wetlands when I heard a distant droning buzz - before I could even react or figure out what it was, I noticed a huge dark cloud coming straight at me, less than 10 feet away with nothing I could do but stand there quite stunned. A swarm of bees flew right through me - hundreds of thousands of them, that took probably 5-6 seconds in total to pass by - they were in front, above, behind, and all around me, and I just tucked in my arms and lowered my neck, closed my eyes, and waited to start hurting really badly...then, they were past. I watched the swarm fly off east, and after a little tremor freak out through my body, realized I was never touched by a single one. When I started walking again, another photog who was walking towards me saw me disappear in the swarm and said even he was freaking out just watching...he said I was about as white as anyone he had seen - I probably stayed that way for about an hour!
 
Funny side story - I once was walking out in the wetlands when I heard a distant droning buzz - before I could even react or figure out what it was, I noticed a huge dark cloud coming straight at me, less than 10 feet away with nothing I could do but stand there quite stunned. A swarm of bees flew right through me - hundreds of thousands of them, that took probably 5-6 seconds in total to pass by - they were in front, above, behind, and all around me, and I just tucked in my arms and lowered my neck, closed my eyes, and waited to start hurting really badly...then, they were past. I watched the swarm fly off east, and after a little tremor freak out through my body, realized I was never touched by a single one. When I started walking again, another photog who was walking towards me saw me disappear in the swarm and said even he was freaking out just watching...he said I was about as white as anyone he had seen - I probably stayed that way for about an hour!

If that happened to me, I would have been white and my underwear would have been brown!
 
DSC05845-XL.jpg
 


It was certainly possible. Rumors I hear around here is some 40% of wild bee hives you run into south of Lake O are killers. I definitely don't want to get close enough to find out...they can be prone to attack moving animals coming within 50 feet of their hive, and they attack quite relentlessly, following for up to a mile. I was on a narrow trail through a heavily wooded area when I came around a corner and was staring right at this hive, about 25 feet away. I took a few very quick shots, then moved very quietly and quickly past and down the trail...making sure there were no bees flying through the trail ahead that might trigger on my movement and alert the hive. The hive itself was quite large - it looked like a child's one-person pup tent strung upside down by the branch...except it was all bees.

Funny side story - I once was walking out in the wetlands when I heard a distant droning buzz - before I could even react or figure out what it was, I noticed a huge dark cloud coming straight at me, less than 10 feet away with nothing I could do but stand there quite stunned. A swarm of bees flew right through me - hundreds of thousands of them, that took probably 5-6 seconds in total to pass by - they were in front, above, behind, and all around me, and I just tucked in my arms and lowered my neck, closed my eyes, and waited to start hurting really badly...then, they were past. I watched the swarm fly off east, and after a little tremor freak out through my body, realized I was never touched by a single one. When I started walking again, another photog who was walking towards me saw me disappear in the swarm and said even he was freaking out just watching...he said I was about as white as anyone he had seen - I probably stayed that way for about an hour!

And your post will now end my wildlife photography career lol
 


The new FE lenses Sony is rolling out look great. The first look at the 90mm macro is showing amazing sharpness and Steve Huff is going ga-ga over the 35mm 1.4.

"For me, it actually is meeting or beating the Leica 35 Summilux FLE for overall IQ and color performance (A $5500 Lens). Of course, the Leica is TINY in comparison, as is the new Zeiss Loxia 35 f/2 (that I also have on hand), but this lens offers Auto focus, click or clickless aperture and a way of producing images that will make you say “WOW”. For me, this is TRULY the 1st native “WOW” lens for the Sony full frame FE system. It easily surpasses the 55 1.8 for me as well as the 35 2.8 that I have been using since the launch of the A7 system, and those are both beautiful lenses when it comes to image quality. The 35 1.4 has such a beautiful character and rich rendering."

I'm getting closer to moving up to an A7ii.
 
Looks like a much improved camera over the a7. And finally getting enough lenses to really build a system.

On the downside... Physics is starting to catch up to Sony -- the great lenses are getting bigger, the a7ii is bigger.

The size advantage is being exposed for what it really is -- the removal of the mirror box, which saves you a tiny bit. But not a game changing size advantage once you start using great glass. And while the a7 cameras are competitively priced, the native lenses are $$$

The new FE lenses Sony is rolling out look great. The first look at the 90mm macro is showing amazing sharpness and Steve Huff is going ga-ga over the 35mm 1.4.

"For me, it actually is meeting or beating the Leica 35 Summilux FLE for overall IQ and color performance (A $5500 Lens). Of course, the Leica is TINY in comparison, as is the new Zeiss Loxia 35 f/2 (that I also have on hand), but this lens offers Auto focus, click or clickless aperture and a way of producing images that will make you say “WOW”. For me, this is TRULY the 1st native “WOW” lens for the Sony full frame FE system. It easily surpasses the 55 1.8 for me as well as the 35 2.8 that I have been using since the launch of the A7 system, and those are both beautiful lenses when it comes to image quality. The 35 1.4 has such a beautiful character and rich rendering."

I'm getting closer to moving up to an A7ii.
 
Looks like a much improved camera over the a7. And finally getting enough lenses to really build a system.

On the downside... Physics is starting to catch up to Sony -- the great lenses are getting bigger, the a7ii is bigger.

The size advantage is being exposed for what it really is -- the removal of the mirror box, which saves you a tiny bit. But not a game changing size advantage once you start using great glass. And while the a7 cameras are competitively priced, the native lenses are $$$

The A7ii is bigger because of the added IBIS. The only other FF with IBIS is the A99 which is 50% bigger than the A7ii.

Yes, the modern AF lenses are big, due to the mechanics and physics. But again, you can go smaller with the 35mm 2.8 and the Loxia line of lenses. I have that option which I wouldn't have with a DSLR.
 
The price of native glass and lack of third party lenses is pushing me away from the A7II. The last few weeks I have actually been eyeballing the Nikon D810 and the images I see coming out of that camera is just blowing away anything I am seeing out of any of the Sony cameras IMO
 
The A7ii is bigger because of the added IBIS. The only other FF with IBIS is the A99 which is 50% bigger than the A7ii.

Yes, the modern AF lenses are big, due to the mechanics and physics. But again, you can go smaller with the 35mm 2.8 and the Loxia line of lenses. I have that option which I wouldn't have with a DSLR.

All partially true. It's not just IBIS that increased the size of the A7ii -- bigger grip and better ergonomics contributed also. And part of what makes the the A99 bigger is a much bigger battery, giving better battery life.

So you are absolutely correct -- The A7ii does give you an option of going much smaller and lighter than a dSLR. Though it's only about a 30% difference between the A99 and the A7ii.

Smallest possible A7 combination:
A7 (599 grams) + 35/2.8 (120 grams) = Smallest possible is 719 grams.
A99 (812 grams) + 85/2.8 (smallest current lens at 175 gram, though a few others are similar) = 987 grams.

So in terms of smallest possible system, the A7ii is about 25% smaller.

Now, use something like the 35/1.4 instead:
A7ii (599) + 35/1.4 (630 grams) = 1229 grams
A99 (812) + 35/1.4g (510 grams) = 1322 grams. Only saving 0.07%

So yes, the A7ii gives you the option of going about 25% smaller.

The real difficult issue for Sony, is how much to focus on premium lenses, which erase most of the size advantage (as with the 35/1.4), and how much to focus on lower weight lenses. In their A-mount full frame system, they primarily stuck to premium lenses (they never got around to F4 zooms, for example). It's a difficult balance. Canon and Nikon, with huge lens lines ups build over decades, are a bit better at giving varied choices.

For example,
One could shoot a Canon 6d (755 grams) and 70-200/4 (760 grams) for a total of 1515 grams.
The A7ii (599) with Sony 70-200/4 (840), would be a total of 1439. Only a 5% difference in weight.

Or a Nikon Df (765 grams) with the Nikon 18-35 (385 grams -- this is an example of a fairly low cost, low weight, optically stellar lens) = 1150 grams.

As of now, the only ultrawide Sony choice is the 16-35. After years with the A-mount, they never introduced a cheaper ultrawide -- they only had a Zeiss 16-35.
So A7ii (599) + 16-35/4 (518) = 1117. So the A7ii package now saves a mere 33 grams. A mere 03%.

Or the Df (765) + the Nikon nifty fifty -- a very very good low weight lens. Not superb by any stretch, but a good low weight, low cost option. A lot of bang for the buck. (185 grams) = A mere 950 grams total package.
A7ii (599) + 55/1.8 (the 55/1.8 is likely a much better overall lens... but will Sony ever bother with a cheaper lighter acceptable 50/1.8, or tell buyers to get the 55/1.8?)(281 grams) = 880 grams.
Difference: 70 grams. 7%.

Not trying to talk you out of the A7ii. I think it is likely a spectacular camera. And Sony is making some very good FE lenses now. I just find it interesting that the original compelling argument for mirrorless -- weight and size savings -- is really going out the window.

At most, you are saving about 25%. In many many cases, the savings are under 10%.
 
The issue for me is that I won't go back to an OVF. I also don't want to go to m4/3. Additionally, I enjoy manual focusing and using Legacy lenses. This narrows my options to Sony or Fuji and if I want to go FF then Sony is my only option. Having IBIS is also very appealing especially with using older lenses. I enjoy shooting entirely manual with focus peaking. Not to say I don't use and appreciate AF from time to time.

If I get the A7ii I can use all my legacy lenses, the Minolta 200mm and my Aps-c emount lenses ( in crop mode ) and keep my Nex-7 as a smaller option.

Amazingly, there is only one camera in the world that gives me a FF sensor, EVF,
IBIS and the ability to adapt almost every lens ever made and that is the A7ii.
 
The issue for me is that I won't go back to an OVF. I also don't want to go to m4/3. Additionally, I enjoy manual focusing and using Legacy lenses. This narrows my options to Sony or Fuji and if I want to go FF then Sony is my only option. Having IBIS is also very appealing especially with using older lenses. I enjoy shooting entirely manual with focus peaking. Not to say I don't use and appreciate AF from time to time.

If I get the A7ii I can use all my legacy lenses, the Minolta 200mm and my Aps-c emount lenses ( in crop mode ) and keep my Nex-7 as a smaller option.

Amazingly, there is only one camera in the world that gives me a FF sensor, EVF,
IBIS and the ability to adapt almost every lens ever made and that is the A7ii.

Agreed!! All those are great selling points, and would make the A7ii a great option for you!

I'm just amused that the compact size was such a big selling point for early mirrorless.... and there is still the perception that mirrorless is smaller. And it IS smaller. But as you get into full frame, as you get premium lenses, the size difference become much less significant.

For full frame with EVF, your only options are the A7 series, and the Sony A99. I loved the A99, great camera -- But I would not seriously be looking at buying a nearly 3-year-old camera now.. particularly into a system that *might* be dying out. So that leaves the A7 series as the only current FF EVF camera.
If I were personally in the market right now, I'd probably still pick my current camera, but the A7ii would be a fairly close second choice. I generally prefer EVF over OVF... But I realized I probably have 4 priorities: AF capability (I do not like MF, I like a fast accurate AF system with great tracking), low light capability/image quality, lens selection (including access to relatively good value lenses that are still AF, etc), and EVF/live view. I ended up going with a camera that nailed the first 3 priorities very well, while having to sacrifice the fourth priority totally. The A7ii has definitely made strides over the A7, and the lens selection is gradually improving.
 
I'm just amused that the compact size was such a big selling point for early mirrorless.... and there is still the perception that mirrorless is smaller. And it IS smaller. But as you get into full frame, as you get premium lenses, the size difference become much less significant.

While obviously each person needs to decide their own 'goldilocks' size, the fact is that there are more than just 'large' and 'small' cameras, and the gamut runs from fixed-lens systems to mirrorless to larger mirrorless to mini-DSLR-like mirrorless to compact DSLR to regular DSLR to large full-body full-frame DSLR. What each person needs to do is pick out the one that fits them just right. Too often, the arguments on the forums come down to some measurement - camera x is only 3% lighter than camera y...but that doesn't take into consideration what that specific buyer was looking for - maybe camera y was just about 3% too large for that person, and camera x fits right in to their comfort level. I for one am glad to have so many variable sizes and shapes of camera to choose from - even when mirrorless hadn't debuted yet, I struggled to get comfortable with some DSLRs, and found others quite comfortable...grip sizes, weights, balance, control placement, and so on can make a huge difference to one's happiness ergonomically, and one person may love one model's design and weight while another hates the very same.

The other factor that I can't stress enough when it comes to judging sizes and weights and overall compactness of a system is 'bulk' - the oft-ignored statistic. While weights may be very close when a lens is added to a system, and while body weights might only be different by 10-20%, I have yet to see a full frame DSLR that comes anywhere near the slim body design of the full frame mirrorless - and ditto the slim designs of many APS-C mirrorless cams vs DSLRs with the same sensor size. And when it comes to packing the camera for a trip, you can really notice how much 'smaller' the mirrorless system can feel with 3-5 lenses packed in a bag, compared to a DSLR with the same number of lenses. That super-slim body design, without the bulk of the mirrorbox and usually slimmer upper body hump due to not requiring pentaprism, makes the mirrorless bodies like the A7, or the APS-C equivalents, simply pack into a bag with barely more space needed than the lenses themselves require...the DSLR body alone, with its fat bulk, requires as much or more space than one of the lenses...the mirrorless slim body can squeeze in on top or alongside lenses in much less space.

That specific factor - bulk - is what has made my A6000 so much nicer to travel with than my DSLR, even when considering that some of the lenses I have for it are no smaller than their DSLR equivalents. I can bring my 35mm F1.8, my 10-18mm, my 18-55mm kit, and even my FE70-200mm F4, in a small to medium shoulder bag, with chargers, extra batteries, filters, cleaning gear, etc - that very same bag can only accommodate my DSLR body and two lenses - 18-50mm kit and either 18-250mm, 30mm F1.4, or 10-24mm. Despite the lenses being close in size and weight, the A6000 kit remains eminently more packable due to the compact and non-bulky body size.

Just something to consider. Small differences in weights or a few specific body dimensions can sometimes make for bigger differences than you would think, and sometimes just enough to be worth it for someone.
 
Great point @zackiedawg . Just look at my avatar. That camera has EVF and the same sensor as a Nikon D7000. I have the 35mm 1.8 on it. Sometimes I look at my NEX-7 and can't believe how small it is.


d7000_nex-7_comparison.jpg
 
While obviously each person needs to decide their own 'goldilocks' size, the fact is that there are more than just 'large' and 'small' cameras, and the gamut runs from fixed-lens systems to mirrorless to larger mirrorless to mini-DSLR-like mirrorless to compact DSLR to regular DSLR to large full-body full-frame DSLR. What each person needs to do is pick out the one that fits them just right. Too often, the arguments on the forums come down to some measurement - camera x is only 3% lighter than camera y...but that doesn't take into consideration what that specific buyer was looking for - maybe camera y was just about 3% too large for that person, and camera x fits right in to their comfort level. I for one am glad to have so many variable sizes and shapes of camera to choose from - even when mirrorless hadn't debuted yet, I struggled to get comfortable with some DSLRs, and found others quite comfortable...grip sizes, weights, balance, control placement, and so on can make a huge difference to one's happiness ergonomically, and one person may love one model's design and weight while another hates the very same.

The other factor that I can't stress enough when it comes to judging sizes and weights and overall compactness of a system is 'bulk' - the oft-ignored statistic. While weights may be very close when a lens is added to a system, and while body weights might only be different by 10-20%, I have yet to see a full frame DSLR that comes anywhere near the slim body design of the full frame mirrorless - and ditto the slim designs of many APS-C mirrorless cams vs DSLRs with the same sensor size. And when it comes to packing the camera for a trip, you can really notice how much 'smaller' the mirrorless system can feel with 3-5 lenses packed in a bag, compared to a DSLR with the same number of lenses. That super-slim body design, without the bulk of the mirrorbox and usually slimmer upper body hump due to not requiring pentaprism, makes the mirrorless bodies like the A7, or the APS-C equivalents, simply pack into a bag with barely more space needed than the lenses themselves require...the DSLR body alone, with its fat bulk, requires as much or more space than one of the lenses...the mirrorless slim body can squeeze in on top or alongside lenses in much less space.

That specific factor - bulk - is what has made my A6000 so much nicer to travel with than my DSLR, even when considering that some of the lenses I have for it are no smaller than their DSLR equivalents. I can bring my 35mm F1.8, my 10-18mm, my 18-55mm kit, and even my FE70-200mm F4, in a small to medium shoulder bag, with chargers, extra batteries, filters, cleaning gear, etc - that very same bag can only accommodate my DSLR body and two lenses - 18-50mm kit and either 18-250mm, 30mm F1.4, or 10-24mm. Despite the lenses being close in size and weight, the A6000 kit remains eminently more packable due to the compact and non-bulky body size.

Just something to consider. Small differences in weights or a few specific body dimensions can sometimes make for bigger differences than you would think, and sometimes just enough to be worth it for someone.

Bulk differences will always be more significant than weight differences. As it is the mirror placement and mirror box effectively adding necessary "bulk" to a dSLR. Removing the mirrorbox might really only save 200 grams or less (with additional savings just by using a smaller battery, etc). But it absolutely does cut down on the bulk.

For those who want to slip a camera into their pocket, they will never be able to do it with a dSLR.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!










Top