Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I currently own an A99. I have some investment in o A mount lenses, but not too much to the point where it'd be hard to justify a switch to the E mount. I like my A99. However, I am interested in taking advantage of some potential savings while I can still get some money for my A99. I am a scuba diver and one thing I have been frustrated with is the ability to get an underwater housing for my A99. It seems that most of the underwater housing companies have moved on to the E mount cameras. I am currently a hobbyist whose done some professional work. I am planning to take on more professional work. My focus is will be on architectural, commercial, and product primarily. I may also do some portrait photography. I will also use my gear in underwater situations. That will be more of a hobby (vacations, etc.). I love the idea of going all-in and switching to the A9, however, I can't justify the spend for that. I do like the idea of taking advantage of some savings on the Sony A7R II that are going on now. However, I understand there are several limitations with that camera. So, then I come to the A7RIII versus just upgrading to the A99II (I fear the lack of an underwater housing here). Given the choice between the A7RII and the A7RIII, which would you choose? Or would you bite the bullet and just go for the A9? I am thinking about the long term. I'd like to invest in a system that I'll use for the next 15 - 25 years.

 

Your feedback is appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

.......... I'd like to invest in a system that I'll use

for the next 15 - 25 years.

 

Your feedback is appreciated!

    

"The next 15 - 25 years"  ? ?  I'm laffing so

hard I think you just added 10 healthy years

to my life. Sincerest gratitude :-) 

   

Consider the 15 to 25 yrs looking back from 

right now, especially the most recent 10 yrs, 

and MOST especially the most recent 5 yrs.

That word "invest" does NOT apply. Just get 

a new phone every 3 yrs and leave it at that.  

   

"Investment advice" aside, just between the 

mk-II and mk-III, if your dive housing allows 

for an auxiliary battery pack inside it, then 

the mk-II is a good choice. But otherwise I'd 

go for the mk-III for its larger battery. Every 

battery change means drying and unsealing

the dive housing. E-series cameras are very 

battery hungry, and the pre-mk-III batteries 

are quite small, requiring frequent changing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

Since diving is an occasional hobby, it shouldn't determine your entire system.

 

Just get a smaller zoom camera with underwater housing for diving and use your actual system for other things.

 

If you already have f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes for A-mount, keep that system. Those lenses will cost you an arm and a leg to replace for FE-mount.

 

The A99II is amazing and while it won't last 25 years, it will be a great camera for at least 5 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The next 15 - 25 years"  ? ?  I'm laffing so

hard I think you just added 10 healthy years

to my life. Sincerest gratitude :-) 

   

Consider the 15 to 25 yrs looking back from 

right now, especially the most recent 10 yrs, 

and MOST especially the most recent 5 yrs.

That word "invest" does NOT apply. Just get 

a new phone every 3 yrs and leave it at that.  

   

"Investment advice" aside, just between the 

mk-II and mk-III, if your dive housing allows 

for an auxiliary battery pack inside it, then 

the mk-II is a good choice. But otherwise I'd 

go for the mk-III for its larger battery. Every 

battery change means drying and unsealing

the dive housing. E-series cameras are very 

battery hungry, and the pre-mk-III batteries 

are quite small, requiring frequent changing.  

 

I realize the humor in that statement.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since diving is an occasional hobby, it shouldn't determine your entire system.

 

Just get a smaller zoom camera with underwater housing for diving and use your actual system for other things.

 

If you already have f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes for A-mount, keep that system. Those lenses will cost you an arm and a leg to replace for FE-mount.

 

The A99II is amazing and while it won't last 25 years, it will be a great camera for at least 5 years.

 

Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. While I have an A99 with a few A mount lenses, I am not heavily invested in the A mount. So, I guess the basic question should I take the step to more heavily invest in the A mount or is it a good time to switch to the E mount given that I am not super heavily invested either way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

Technically, A-mount is still on par with E-mount. The slurry of new FE gear will likely slow down. Sony has mostly plugged the gaps in the FE system compared to other professional systems. The busy release schedule means there is more used FE gear for sale, as people are upgrading. For A-mount we can probably expect an A77III body and a few upgraded lenses with SSM in the near future.

 

The reason why I continued to invest in A-mount was that I preferred the ergonomics of A-mount bodies and the image style of the Zeiss and G lenses for A-mount. I was also disappointed with the first two generations of A7 cameras, although that is being fixed with the third generation.

 

So, I think it all comes down to a personal choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, A-mount is still on par with E-mount. The slurry of new FE gear will likely slow down. Sony has mostly plugged the gaps in the FE system compared to other professional systems. The busy release schedule means there is more used FE gear for sale, as people are upgrading. For A-mount we can probably expect an A77III body and a few upgraded lenses with SSM in the near future.

 

The reason why I continued to invest in A-mount was that I preferred the ergonomics of A-mount bodies and the image style of the Zeiss and G lenses for A-mount. I was also disappointed with the first two generations of A7 cameras, although that is being fixed with the third generation.

 

So, I think it all comes down to a personal choice.

 

Well said. I really appreciate your point of view. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Make sure camera and lens is updated to latest firmware. 
    • ISO 320 is the A7R5's second base ISO setting. You will find at ISO 320 you will get better results than even ISO 200. I normally take a set of shots at 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO. I am taking 60 light frames and 10 dark frames. I don't do any adjustments to the files before stacking. I really need to get organised and do some bias frames now. Here is pretty much my first successful Milky Way shot from a few months ago. I was combatting a bit of ambient light and quite a lot of cloud but I'm pretty happy with this. It was shot using my Sigma 16-28 f2.8 which is better at astro than I had anticipated, at ISO 1600.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • Thanks for the information. Since my original post, I did some "experiments" at different iso settings. Best results were obtained at iso 320, and then increasing the exposure by four stops in Lightroom. The biggest difference compared to using a higher iso was that there was detail in dark foreground areas, while at high iso the dark areas were blocked. This is consistent with articles I've read about ISO invariance.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...