. . . in no particular order . . .
Ok, so I get why the sensor in the a7rV is popular enough to be used by at least two other camera makers. It is fantastic, as long as you don’t pixel-peep. But if you do, there’s no such thing as a totally clean image, not at any ISO.
And shooting that sensor in APS-C mode, the minute ISO hits four digits, post-processing—not my favorite pastime—becomes a challenge. So, giving up a substantial amount of relative reach, I headed into the field this afternoon to see how the a7cII would do in light similar to what I shot in yesterday.
It was a bit better, but not enough to be worth sacrificing the relative reach of the a7rV. Better just to shoot birds in really good light, right?
It’s a good thing there are lots of third-party lens manufacturers who cater to Sony users. Although Sony’s quality-price ratio isn’t as dreadful as Canon RF, even their mid-tier offerings can leave a former Leica user bewildered.
Take the 24mm f2.8 G, for instance. In spite of being sharp all over the frame, barrel distortion is so pronounced that some is present even after in-camera corrections. Tonal gradience is non-existent; in dim light it produces a high contrast, near-monochrome look.
What to do? Well, not another knee-jerk reaction, for sure. But at some point there’ll be a Leica body back in the arsenal. Dunno when, dunno which one, but after leaving all my R glass behind for this last travel episode, I really miss the natural look I get from those lenses.
Maybe they’ll work well on the a7rV once I get a chance to try them. I mean, the M11 and SL3 both use the same sensor, so maybe it can’t help but be similar?
I keep looking at listings for R9 bodies, knowing damn well how lazy I was with the last film bodies I owned. But today it dawned on me that an older L body would be a more useful option and that their current market is way down.
Can’t chase birds with one, but, hey, from the look of things at present, I can’t do much of that with Sony either . . .
a7cII/70-200mm f2.8 GM II/2X . . .