Was the shift to E-mount worth it?

QuietOC wrote: I use JPEG the majority of the time and haven't noticed issues with Sony cameras. Certainly nothing like what Apple does with their phones. Sony allows sharpening to be disabled, which is a huge image quality advantage. Sony does cook their raw files. It would be nice if they would stop doing that.

Really? You test and review a lot of lenses, I thought you would notice.

RAW
Sony ILCA-77M2
DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM
f/8.0 300.0 mm 1/800 400


Standard JPEG
Sony ILCA-77M2
DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM
f/8.0 300.0 mm 1/800 400


Has the Sony Processor improved?

Dopol wrote: I didn’t choose. I grew into the e-mount. It started with buying a small NEX-3 camera.

Good point. Fwiw I did get a Nex-5 but sold it soon after. It just didn't have the capabilities that matched my photography. For a while I was dual-system. Sort of. The a7R was essentially a digital back for my A-mount lenses with the LA-EA4. The big switch occurred only after I got the a7Riii. I confess that other than the cost, I have no regrets.

Wētāpunga wrote: Jonas A-R wrote: I migrated from a900 to e-mount. I started with a7r which I had as a parallel system for a while. I never really liked that camera. I found a very nice deal on a used like-new a9 and after that there is no looking back. The freedom offered by the AF system is mind blowing and while something similar could probably be achieved by the SLT concept, that mirror is in the way of designing compact high performing lenses. A necessary evil which is very nice to get rid of. Never ever will I have to focus and recompose again Absolutely worth it I used the a7R also. Always as a digital back (with LA-EA4) to my A mount lenses, always on a tripod (negating its lack of stablisation) and never at 1/30s (to escape the shutter vibration). It produced a lot of fine images under those restrictions but wow, it's AF system was dire. I think if I'd switched to E-mount then I'd have been disappointed. Agree, the AF-system and lenses are quite impressive. I've never been so relaxed shooting events now. Just let the eye-AF do its thing, get the shot, move on. The accuracy and hit-rate is so much improved.

Don't get me started on the LA-EA4

Jonas A-R wrote: ... Don't get me started on the LA-EA4

Ah, indeed I swapped it for an LA-EA3. It's the better option for my two remaining A-mount lenses. The LA-EA4 was somewhat clunky, the AF-module rather dated and AF-sensor points so restricted to the centre of the image.

Edited by Wētāpunga - 28 September 2021 at 05:50

I haven't yet totally shifted to E mount, but it is quite clear that most likely I will say goodbye to my A mount cameras in near future as these don't get that much use these days. Few A mount lenses I will certainly keep, but most likely all my future acquisions will be in E mount.

I think it was the smaller form factor and high megapixel sensor that lured me to get my first E mount camera, α7R. But at that point I wasn't yet that enthuastic about E mount cameras since that model didn't yet have the state-of-art AF or even sensor image stabilization. The subsequent models in α7R series then fixed these issues and I started to use E mount cameras more and more. The tipping point for me was probably roughly when the long telephoto lenses started to appear on E mount and eventually when I got FE 200-600G it was looking certain that I will eventually use only E mount cameras and the purchase of α7R IV reinforced that feeling further.

There might be few things I do miss from good old A mount camera models, most importantly the back screen swivel mechanism of α77/99 models, but then these newer E mount cameras do have some advantages too, especially I adore the improved AF features.

Despite that getting these new toys is pretty expensive, I think it has been worth it.

QuietOC wrote: ... I've used the Tamron 70-300 RXD gets a lot. I mainly wish it was longer. The Sony FE 200-600 covers the long range well especially with the 1.4X, but it is so big and heavy.

That size and weight is why I ended up getting the Tamron 150-500 instead. Which of course, can't use a TC.

QuietOC wrote: I currently have two Minolta 100-400's. I have both the Canon 200mm F2.8 L and the Minolta 200mm F2.8 right now and prefer the Canon, but it is not well enough corrected for me to want to use it with a teleconverter. A native 200mm F2.8 G OSS could be nice.

I would have liked a native 200/2.8 option as well.

QuietOC wrote: Also have a pair of Minolta 135mm F2.8's and a Canon 135mm F2.8 Soft Focus. I didn't like the 135mm STF. I've looked at getting the Canon 135L. It looks their values are down again. 135mm is pretty short, so the little Minolta is fine enough. The Batis 135 looks interesting if rather costly. The Samyang 135mm looks a great deal. Maybe they will make an AF version.

I've been trying out the Batis 135 and it is rather good. Focuses quickly, nice bokeh, good Zeiss pop and detail. I like that Zeiss kept the filter at 67mm and the overall weight is a respectable 660g. But I wouldn't pay full price for it. I got a nearly new one for less than half price here, so considered that a bargain.

I've bought and used various APS-C A-mount cameras over the years including the A58 which I loved then and still use. Like a few other posters here I have collected far too many A-mount lenses most of which aren't worth very much now but still give me pleasure to use occasionally.
My first E-mount camera was the Nex-6 which I bought for its compact size and EVF; it is now my most used camera by far, for all those days when I'm not doing photography as such but want a decent camera along just in case. It is really quite indispensable for this - no A-mount camera comes close in size and it is hugely better than all the compact pocket cameras I've tried. I first used it with the 16-50PZ but nowadays mostly with the little Meike and Samyang primes.

I now use an A7Rii for serious photography, because I wanted a decent FF camera and didn't like the big, heavy, clunky A-mount FF cameras. With a Samyang prime fitted I get something close in size and spirit to the all-mechanical Miranda SLRs I used in the photographic stone age. I don't have a huge collection of FF E-mount lenses but one of the reasons for getting the Rii was its resolution in crop mode.

It's one of the irritating facts of nature that APS-C zoom lenses work a lot better in close-up than FF zooms and as a lot of my photography is close-up, I'm a regular user of APS-C zooms on both the Nex-6 and A7Rii.

Second thoughts and irritations?
Dust and hairs on the E-mount sensors is a major problem for me after changing lenses, which it never was on the A-mount cameras, and I've lost count of the holiday images ruined by spots in the sky. This is a pity since I specifically bought the Rii to use with primes and not zooms, so I'm often tempted to stick either with the Nex-6 and a single zoom lens which doesn't come off outdoors, or the A58 which doesn't suffer the same problem.
As it is, the A58 is once again getting to be the first choice for a long day's photography with one or two of the excellent compact A-mount zooms on board (18-55, 55-200, or 18-250mm), and knowing that a single battery won't run out while I'm using the camera and won't already be down to half charge when I pick it up in the morning.
So if I want a quick grab-and-go camera it's quite likely to be the Nex-6 & 16-50mm or A58 & 18-250mm. It's just a pity neither have zebra.



Edited by Miranda F - 29 September 2021 at 12:36