Sony Mvs 8000 Manual

[Carin Mita]

FindingA TFM-8000W: I began my search in the usual way, on eBay. Because these are larger radios they are easier to find in good cosmetic condition than smaller portables which probably lived harder lives. But I also found a few with some meter problems and a few with burned out lamps and these seemed like relative bargains so I opted for one of those. When it arrived I was gratified that its cosmetics were quite pristine and it did seem to operate quite well with reasonable reception and only slightly erratic controls. The only real problem was that the tuning meter seemed to read lower than normal, not quite reaching even half scale on strong local signals even though reception seemed normal. I had already obtained the service manual before the radio arrived so I was ready to get into it.

For more years I had and still have A3000 with it's kit lens. With exactly the same settings mentioned above when the A7 ii is being used, seems that the A3000 creates better photos, sharpness related.

Again, talking about the kit lenses only (I got another lens with A7 ii, when I bought it, now I am just trying to simplify this, I am not including that other lens to this; also I have and use more different Manual vintage lenses with adapters for A3000).

I did not expect miracles from the full frame, I expected at least some improvement, anyway, I manage to create hundreds of photos with both cameras during previous weekend and must say, there are no improvements, even, seems that A3000 is making very, very good, sharp photos, sometimes even with better sharpness than A7 ii with it's kit lens.

Difference in MPixels is not huge, there are differences in sensor ISO sensitivity, which cannot be crucial in this case. For similar scenes I am using similar or same Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO for both cameras.

Must say, even when using Manual focus with magnifying (first and second magnifying included), getting the best possible sharpness at the screen / viewfinder; the photos are still not as expected, cannot say those are blurred, but definitely not better than at A3000.

I have just googled a bit and found some good reviews of the E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. One says that it delivers excellent sharpness at the centre of images, and good sharpness at the edges, particularly from a focal-length of 35mm and upwards and from f/5.6 up to f/11.

On the other hand, except for the sharpness measurements at DxO Marks, all the reviews I have read about the Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 are not very favourable.

Perhaps you ought to try your Sony a7ii using a better regarded lens.

Or maybe, this has nothing to do with what you are saying. Anyway, sharpness is crucial and important, but not absolutely all there is to it.

As it's sensor is bigger and has better sensitivity, that may be the main reason why the auto Handheld Twilight mode is making 4 sequential photos rather than 6 being created by the same feature at the A3000.

Still, checking (JPEG) images (A7 ii), directly from camera, not being processed further, there are artifacts, not noise, not blur, not foggy, at those places which must have best sharpness as I used focus magnifying on both cameras during weekend.

When shooting in broad daylight at ISO 100, there won't be a discernible difference between APS-C and FF-sensors (except some extra headroom in FF when lifting shadows in post). The only discernible difference is in the lens used and the megapixels. It may well be that a good copy of the 18-55 gives better results than a bad copy of the 28-70.

@Pieter; understand your point, but that should be done in low light conditions and it's probably some way to find the excuse for not so good camera - lens pair. There should not be so bad copy of lens being bundled with this camera. I used many old, classic lenses with adapters on A3000, including Canon, Olympus, Tokina, Pentacon, Nikon and - yes, there were sometimes those not so good results (manual focusing - of course, all of those are with adapters), most of the time results are really good, but this one (28-70) is being produced by Sony, for Sony. No adapter. Not vintage.

The flaw here is in your presumption that a FF camera with kit lens should produce better (sharper) images than an APS-C camera with kit lens. This is not the case by default. FF has some distinct benefits over APS-C, but sharper images with kit lenses in good lighting conditions is not among them.

@Pieter, thanks for reply, yes, that may be related to logic that investment in camera and lens should result in better image quality. I have to admit that my expectations related to A7 ii were high. I completely agree when you mentioned FF benefits, only have to add, I am considering the image quality single most important benefit.

Today, late afternoon and evening I made some photos with A7 ii and 28 - 70, some of them in low light, in forest and city. I did not use any filter today (GND or CPL), no tripod, Soon, I'll try kit lens from A3000, 18 - 55, at Sony A7 ii. I would not be surprised if results will be great.

'm no expert, but is there an element of thruth in this: when talking about sharpness in photos, how much can we detect if we use only a display and not a high quality paper print, where we can print each dot? When using a normal display with ie. 1920x1080 pixels, we convert a higher number of pixels down to something that can be showen on a display, and what does that conversion make of compromises? If we zoom-in in order to evaluate sharpness, then we get closer to real or better judgement, but that is not how we look at a picture.

I see this as the central criticism and it is valid. The tests you performed are pretty good, I would offer using the exact same lens and crop factor mode in the A7 for a comparison would be better (similar to suggestions above). Bottom line, that kit lens has never been very good, but the goal of a kit lens is to get someone shooting without obliging them to purchase a $1,000 lens on top of $1,000 body. We do not have to buy the kit lens with the body, we can buy anything.

I bought my A7ii in late 2013 with the kit lens, but...in (2013), there was very little alternative in the Sony FE ecosystem. Since the A7ii had IBIS, I figured I would start using my old manual glass and see what I thought. I was not satisfied with the kit lens or the 24-240 in terms of sharpness or FStop, but they were relatively inexpensive and light. I was delighted with the results I got from my early 80s vintage manual Canon 50mm1.4. Beautiful and sharp. I also bought the Zeiss 33mm2.8 pancake. Horrible CA. I sold all three over time and have moved to much better glass.

Since the first photograph was taken, most shutterbugs think that the camera determines the quality of the pictures. The camera is just a light tight box to hold the film or sensor. It's the lens that forms the image.

Eons ago, I would go out and take pictures with my brother-in-law. He had a very expensive Nikon but could only afford "Soligor" lenses. I had a Minolta SRT with Rokkor lenses. He could not figure out why my photos were so much better than his.

Also, worth saying, both cameras have JPEG and RAW capabilities, of course, here I am talking about JPEGs. Specifications are saying that A7 ii has better processor. The A3000 is having better inside conversion from RAW to JPEG? So the JPEG being created (inside camera itself) is more sharp?

Aldowski- Have you verified the JPEG quality setting is the same in both cameras? I believe the default is "Fine" rather than "Extra Fine," so if you have previously set the A3000 to Extra Fine but left the A7ii at the default Fine then you will presumably see a difference in the JPEGs.

I must be one of the very few owners of both a 3000 and a 7ii! Aside from the deliberate cheapness of the 3000 I understand that the noise-reduction, etc. in the software is taken from the A99ii. The IQ is noticeably better than my Nex 6 and A35. When I got the A7ii I was disappointed with the results with the kit lens. But I usually use Minolta lenses (why I bought the A7 in the first place) and when I got a Minolta 24-85 on it I was astounded how much better it was than the Sony kit lens. VERY noticeable improvements in contrast and sharpness. So I'd use the same lens to test, but look around for Minolta lenses (you will need an adapter). I paid under $100 for my 24-85.

I usually use Minolta lenses (why I bought the A7 in the first place) and when I got a Minolta 24-85 on it I was astounded how much better it was than the Sony kit lens. VERY noticeable improvements in contrast and sharpness. So I'd use the same lens to test, but look around for Minolta lenses (you will need an adapter). I paid under $100 for my 24-85.

When Minolta created the MAXXUM line of cameras, they basically just added auto-focusing to their highly-regarded, manual-focusing lenses. The optics are usually the same, although newer lenses might have some newer features. And depending on your camera, you may or may not need an adapter, but you can find some great glass -- even with the manual-focusing lenses -- at bargain prices! But you already known that Autocord.

I spent some time previous days having more tests wit the A7 ii and A3000. I tried Sony A3000 kit lens 18-55 on A7 ii; of course, as camera APS-C was on Auto mode, it changed 24M to 10M, when trying Manual settings (disabling Auto mode, forcing 24M) it looks like tunnel, so - unusable. Image sharpness is good for 10MP, but, again, not as good as on the A3000 (there is still 20MP and seems not only because of that pixels difference), somehow that 18-55 is having really great communication with the A3000 body. I tried FE1.8 50mm (the noisy one) which I bought together with the basic bundle, not very impressed with the sharpness as well. It can make good photos with lots of details, but still not better than A3000 with it's 18-55. Photos were created at sunny day, forests, more or less shadows.

3a8082e126