Sony A7 MII (Page 2): I know who is spreading the garbage, and it ain't CHOLLY. And why all the bile?

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

I know who is spreading the garbage, and it ain't CHOLLY.
And why all the bile?

picturesofdogs Loc: Dallas, Texas.

dsmeltz wrote:

Sorry. I misse dth eintroduction of the 70-200 f2... (show quote)

My favorite lens on my A7ii is a 30+ year old plus Minolta 70-210 f4. I find I can go up to 3200 and in some cases 6400 iso without noise becoming a factor for the type of shooting I do. As to weight, even with mild artritis i have no problem one handing the camera adapter and lens combination, or carrying it around.
And I only paid $100 dollars for the lens. The adapter was $300, but I can use any minolta or sony A-mount lens with full functionality.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Griff wrote:

I know who is spreading the garbage, and it ain't CHOLLY.
And why all the bile?

Find anything to disprove my comments? Put up or shut up.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Griff wrote:

I know who is spreading the garbage, and it ain't CHOLLY.
And why all the bile?

You would need to ask CHOLLY why he has so much bile.

I don't really know.

All I said was that mirrorless was not at a point to justify a switch for me. That seemed to upset him to a huge degree. But to each their own..

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

dsmeltz wrote:

As I have said elsewhere, if I were starting over, I would probably go mirroless. I think that the future is there.

Given the current state of mirrorless, I would need more in performance and lens availability to justify the pain of a switch. The A7 II is the closest so far. I just need a little more to do a switch. Maybe the A7 III or IV and a few more lenses in a good price range, possibly from Sigma.

But I think it is not too far off.

I have Nikon and the a7II. Sony left out GPS capability, either internal or external, and that is a major miss, in my opinion. I was thinking of the a7R II, but I will not make the move until:
1. GPS is available
2. A little better arrangement of the back/top of camera buttons.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I'm glad to hear the good stuff about the Sony, I have been dragging my feet getting into digital due to my very old Canon FD lenses not working on any digital. I'm getting one this weekend and can't wait. Also love that it opens up some nice glass. Looking at a Leica big telephoto plus getting the Zeiss 55 for my normal lens. The biggest plus I see is that there is all this nice glass out there in FD canon and R mount leica that is cheap. Will get stabilization, and I don't need auto focus.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

dsmeltz wrote:

You would need to ask CHOLLY why he has so much bile.

I don't really know.

All I said was that mirrorless was not at a point to justify a switch for me. That seemed to upset him to a huge degree. But to each their own..

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Mark7829 wrote:

Those adapters don't always work and don't work on... (show quote)

Mark, not sure where the anger is coming from. Do you think he is a Sony plant, advertising the camera? Do you have something against Sony? Just wondering.

teesquare Loc: USA

Mark7829 wrote:

Those adapters don't always work and don't work on... (show quote)

While the Sony bodies are indeed smaller - the lenses are NOT....so one winds up with a cartoonish - horrifically front-heavy assemblage of Frankenstein-ish proportion if you mount a zoom on - especially.

I trialed a Sony A7S - and rapidly understood the potential love/hate relationship that would follow for me:

Small body = great

Features = fantastic

Practical for carry = fail

As M4/3 continues to improve - it's lenses do not grow in a disproportionate size. When manufacturer's attempt to put FF or even APS-C sensors in "M4/3 size bodies...we don't really get anything more than tiny camera bodies - and big lenses.

So, it really comes down to what you do with your camera - and how you plan to carry your gear.

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

Mark 7829:
Bilious indeed!

teesquare Loc: USA

Griff wrote:

Mark 7829:
Bilious indeed!

Why be a smart -ass? I merely stated the facts. Not knocking the Sony's . It is purely un-avaoidable that the sensor size dictates the lens size.
We can make bodies that are no larger than the sensor itself - and the physics of lens will remain the same.....

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

dsmeltz wrote:

You would need to ask CHOLLY why he has so much bile.

I don't really know.

All I said was that mirrorless was not at a point to justify a switch for me. That seemed to upset him to a huge degree. But to each their own..

No bile here d.

But you REPEATEDLY say over and over that the lens selection for E mounts is small when in fact, E mount cameras are the ONLY class of camera that can use almost ANY lens mount made with the appropriate adaptors.

It is a MYTH that the lens selection for E mounts is limited. And saying that non-native lenses don't count is just plain disingenuous because non-native lenses is the reason Sony developed the A7 series in the first place.

So if you didn't realize what you are saying is untrue, no you know differently.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

teesquare wrote:

Why be a smart -ass? I merely stated the facts. Not knocking the Sony's . It is purely un-avaoidable that the sensor size dictates the lens size.
We can make bodies that are no larger than the sensor itself - and the physics of lens will remain the same.....

:?:

You are responding to a post that was NOT directed towards you....

teesquare Loc: USA

CHOLLY wrote:

No bile here d. br br But you REPEATEDLY say over... (show quote)

Dear Sony "God":

NO ONE buys a camera system in "hopes" that the lenses will not be HUGE....
NOR does anyone buy into a "system" - with the only hope of lens variety being those made by others, and ONLY with he use of adapters that NEVER improve the quality of the image.

Reach a bit lower...and get a better grip. Your brain has slipped into your pants again.....
:lol:

sidney Loc: London.Eng.

Snooty remarks.