What do you think of the Sony A7? For this room I would use this

I have an a7 mk ii and love it. got a 35mm 2.8 ziess and its great for any situation. ive had it since january and much prefer it over any dslr for the same price... Check my insta for shots- @amarbles. ill follow back if you drop a comment on my pic https://www.instagram.com/amarbles/

>>2916631
You need one hell of a room for a 120-400mm lens to be useful. Its minimum focus distance is probably like 10'.

>>2916673
I misspelled it, I wanted to write "For this mirrorless i would..." xD
I wanted to buy this lens for taking pictures to birds and wanted to know if it was a suitable lens for this mirrorless.

>mirrorless
>birds

You mean stuffed birds? Mirrorless AF is too slow for things that are alive

>>2916719
It is better to get a Canon FD 300/4 L and use the focus assist because manual focusing will be faster and more accurate on longer than 100mm lenses regarding the on-sensor PDAF performance.
If you use the LA-EA adapter with the translucent mirror and AF sensor (I'm confused with Sonys numbering on this adapter) then an A-mount AF lens will do nicely.

>>2916719
The lens is suitable, the camera not so much. If you want to capture birds in flight with a long tele lens, this is a daunting task even for a high-end DSLR, so A7's autofocus will shit itself 9 times out of 10.

>>2916767
A few mirrorless cameras (X-T1/T2, E-M1, A6300) focus roughly on the level of a midrange DSLR with appropriate lenses. But A7 is not one of them.

>>2916767
> Mirrorless AF is too slow for things that are alive
Sony's AF is easily fast enough now.

Though AFAIK that was not yet the case on the old A7.

>>2916961
>X-T1/T2, E-M1
About at the level of an A6000.

> A6300
>roughly on the level of a midrange DSLR with appropriate lenses
Better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j4SwEuBGLI

With appropriate lenses it rivals a higher-end DSLR. (Until you hit low light in the ~1-2EV range where a DSLR's PDAF still works and this AF fails. Once you're as low as to require CDAF, it's about the same again.)

>>2916962
Only A7II R and A6300 have AF suitable for tracking moving subjects. And even then, acquiring focus on a moving bird from a completely defocused state is the worst case scenario for a mirrorless camera even with on-sensor phase detection.

>>2916969
> Only A7II R and A6300 have AF suitable for tracking moving subjects.
I think they're the Sony cameras that can track birds *reliably*.

But most moving subjects are already workable on an A6000. Your hit rate is just gonna be marginally imperfect, but it's still comparable to a more plebiscite DSLR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGDZbSD-tLA

And yea, you could shoot flying birds too:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/jackez2010/tags/ilce6000

You will get a decent number of hits, just not constant hits all the time.

>>2916971
>>2916631

ok but why shoot mirrorless?

the only real advantage of mirrorless is the smaller size and weight so putting a huge 100-400 negates the only real advantage that the a7 gives you.

why not just get a proper dlsr with better af, better battery, better native lenses and better build quality if you're gonna shoot birds

.g

>>2917037
>the only real advantage of mirrorless is the smaller size and weight so putting a huge 100-400 negates the only real advantage that the a7 gives you.
For most people, that actually makes using a lens like that worse because there's no real balance provided by the body/the grip portion is too thin to comfortably hold under load.

>>2917037
> why not just get a proper dlsr with better af
Anything like "better AF" (or even equal AF) and comparable burst rates and sensor quality will be significantly more expensive on a DSLR than on a Sony MILC.

How much do you need to pay to get 11FPS burst rates with a bunch of seconds of buffer? How much do you need to pay for a comparable AF system?

> better battery
For most people, it won't be a huge issue.

You're still easily >10x better off than a film shooter was / is, and it's still just 1/3 batteries more (in terms of weight/size - numerically it's more batteries, but they're smaller batteries).

> better build quality
Full environmental sealing (and better heat dissipation for the video shooters) would be good. But just in terms of build quality there is nothing wrong.

> better native lenses
> if you're gonna shoot birds
Adapters are doing really quite fine by now, but if you only shoot birds, you probably will stick with a DSLR for lens and convenience reasons.

For other kinds of lenses (normal and short telephoto primes - for portrait and products and macro and journalism and so on), the E-mount has essentially the best lineup of high-end glass right now, even native.

>>2917048
the a7 does 5 fps lol

as for a comparable af system a 5d mkii would do a better job

why are you comparing your meme camera to film, that's just embarrassing

the dials and switches on the a7 are terrible when compared to even a mkii

using adapters is embarrassing, you might as well accept defeat when you start mounting canon glass on your
"superior" camera

>>2917094
>you might as well accept defeat when you start mounting canon glass on your "superior" camera

>yfw canon glass works better on sony than on canon because of in-body IS and lack of back/front-focus issues

>>2917094
> the a7 does 5 fps lol
You were talking about mirrorless cameras in general, not just the A7

Includes the A6300 or A7 II or A7R II and all the other cameras.

> as for a comparable af system a 5d mkii would do a better job
Le epic joke.

> why are you comparing your meme camera to film, that's just embarrassing
I've compared it to both film and DSLR. Puts the oh so horrible battery life into context anyhow.

> using adapters is embarrassing
One should obviously make sure that the Canon logo on the lens matches another Canon logo on the body.

Using the best Sigma / Canon / Nikon / Tamron / Sony / Zeiss / Samyang / Laowa / Meyer Goerlitz / ... glass is just embarrasing.

File: tamron_90macro.jpg (162KB, 1000x624px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1000x624px

>>2917144
For make macro photos with Sony A7 what do you think about the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro?

>>2917670
It's hard do do wrong with a macro lens, 99% of them are good.

Do you have an appropriate adapter though?

>>2917672
There is for sale the model with attachments for sony cameras, not good for Sony A7? I have to use an adapter although the lens are for Sony rooms?

>>2917680
for Sony mirrorless?

>>2917120
you might want to check out the 35 1.4L II on a 5d iii or 6d, nothing sony will achieve for another 6-7 years. there are other 35mm lenses that are engineered just as good or better than the 1.4L II but will never look as good as they do on a 5d iii due to canons algorithms. Sony are just an overkil sensor with shitty lens compatibility, not even Zeiss are managing to build a lens that looks any more than average on a Sony body

>>2917670
Dunno, got the 90mm FE for that. Which is just about the best macro lens out right now anyhow.

But I think that Tamron should work fine too.

>>2917703
> canons algorithms

> 1.Make WB/tint more magenta. Oversaturate a bit and add "vibrance".
> 2.Retarded FF JPEG shooters will now happily pay extra cash for a worse camera, just to get their definitely not neutral colors. They'll even praise worse lenses because they attribute colors to them.

>>2917724
Or he could buy a Nikon and upload a Canon "algorithm" (=picture profile) to it.

>>2917680
Are you having a stroke m8

>>2917703
Why would I care about Canon or Sony's algorithms when I shoot raw and use Adobe ones with both?

>>2917724
I've posted unlabeled image samples for comparison a few times and /p/ could never tell Canon from Nikon or Sony by color.

File: lolwutHorizon.jpg (38KB, 580x379px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 580x379px

>>2917680
Are you using Google Translate or something?

Sony A7 series uses Sony FE mount.
That Tamron lens is made only for Sony A mount, Canon EF mount and Nikon F mount. So it won't fit on A7 without an adapter.

>>2916719
a6300 + mc11.
you don't need fool frame to shoot tele.

>>2917779
i think he's on google translate.

>>2917770
Might also work. IDK.

>>2917832
> /p/ could never tell Canon from Nikon or Sony by color
You mean with camera JPEGs on default settings? I'm surprised!

>>2917724
>>2917770
>>2917832
what the fuck