Versatility isn't the major selling point of primes I suppose but I am quite liking the challenge of moving into position and not having the easy option of zooming. The buttery bokeh helps too and on an A7R IV it is probably a decent substitute for a 70-200 if you tend to shoot at the longer focal lengths
My computer bogged down with the large files leading to a bit of frustration at times. I do prefer the flexibility of the extra MP though if I’ve got the rest of the gear to keep up with it. I’m hoping by the time I can afford the A1 I’ll have a new more powerful computer
I have a decent PC which can handle the files but they are still a bit slower to load. I'm not very fond of processing so the less time spent there the better. It is also easier to get sharp images on a 24mp sensor than a 60 odd megapixel one when you are handholding and just out to get some shots to record what happened on a walk. I am also very new to Sony so maybe my lack of knowledge and experience means I am gravitating to the quicker focussing and easier to get sharp files camera. I'll try the A7r IV tomorrow and shoot with a 35mm and see how I get on
I have a MBP and at the time 16gb RAM was the max you could get, and it’s just not enough. Even with all other programs closed the max free RAM I get is around 9gb. Just flicking through the images in LR causes the spinning beachball at times, and if you want to view 1:1 it gets tiresome very quickly. I’ve also noticed that opening a processed image using preview takes a couple of seconds to render.
Not sure what the issue is then, but I know I don’t get 16gb free RAM or even close. I know minimum spec is 8GB RAM now, but recommended 16GB. I’m getting around minimum spec free RAM and then trying to process mega files. Could be my GPU as well I guess.
ExcellentI did some more colour tests today
colourprofiles by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
Adobe Colour left vs Color Fidelity Standard V2 right
But everything was still a little tinted by yellow, so I cooled the image down a made some minor tweaks - and now I've got an image that, to me, looks far better than what the raw gave me
Final by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
I'm stepping towards enjoying the Sony just that bit more
I shoot uncompressed raw except for sports where I know I'm going to be firing off a lot of shots over the day. I tried converting to DNG to see if it made any difference as the file sizes come out smaller but it doesn't seem to make any difference so I assume it's the processing of that many pixels rather than the physical file size.You mostly shoot uncompressed RAW? And then you have a conversion step to DNG?
I mostly shoot compressed RAW with no conversations in my workflow.
My GPU was a 4GB one, can't remember the exact model now. My M1 Mac air only has 8GB RAM and no graphics memory. LR does constantly try to use 10-12GB on a 8GB machine and slows down a little with A7RIV files but works smoothly with A7C.
Have the latest LR
I shoot uncompressed raw except for sports where I know I'm going to be firing off a lot of shots over the day. I tried converting to DNG to see if it made any difference as the file sizes come out smaller but it doesn't seem to make any difference so I assume it's the processing of that many pixels rather than the physical file size.
I don't profess to know the reason though, all I know is that my system gets massively bogged down with the A7RIV files. I even tried shutting down background things like dropbox and Roland Cloud but it didn't help. What's surprising is that LR uses 6GB RAM just by being open
Not sure what the issue is with mine then, maybe I'm just impatient
As I've said before though just skipping through images seeing which I want to process can cause the spinning beachball, and when it's "on one" it can take several seconds to swap between full view and 1:1 which becomes a pain when applying sharpening or fine brush adjustments. Touch wood I've had no such issues with the A9ii files yet. 
I shoot uncompressed raw except for sports where I know I'm going to be firing off a lot of shots over the day. I tried converting to DNG to see if it made any difference as the file sizes come out smaller but it doesn't seem to make any difference so I assume it's the processing of that many pixels rather than the physical file size.
I don't profess to know the reason though, all I know is that my system gets massively bogged down with the A7RIV files. I even tried shutting down background things like dropbox and Roland Cloud but it didn't help. What's surprising is that LR uses 6GB RAM just by being open
The way I see it is that we pay a lot of money striving to get great IQ so I'd rather have the best the camera is capable of. I appreciate that it's all in my head though, I doubt many of use could tell the difference between compressed/uncompressed and 12 vs 14bitPersonally I see no point shooting uncompressed most of the time unless you are planning to push your shots 4stops+ most of the time. In fact Sony's compressed RAW can handle even 5 stops of push in most conditions but I like to be on the safe side in those high dynamic range situations. You actually have more data/range in Sony's compressed RAW than you'd get out of a canon sensor RAW for last decade
Umcompressed RAW does slow things down a bit more but since I don't shoot it most of the time I don't notice it.
The way I see it is that we pay a lot of money striving to get great IQ so I'd rather have the best the camera is capable of. I appreciate that it's all in my head though, I doubt many of use could tell the difference between compressed/uncompressed and 12 vs 14bit
Quack Quack, Quack Qhack by Simon Wootton, on Flickr
www.talkphotography.co.uk
Personally I see no point shooting uncompressed most of the time unless you are planning to push your shots 4stops+ most of the time. In fact Sony's compressed RAW can handle even 5 stops of push in most conditions but I like to be on the safe side in those high dynamic range situations. You actually have more data/range in Sony's compressed RAW than you'd get out of a canon sensor RAW for last decade
Umcompressed RAW does slow things down a bit more but since I don't shoot it most of the time I don't notice it.
Have you used the Samyang 35mm f1.2 MF lens? I'm tempted to give it a go as it's relatively cheap, and to push me to try MF more. I've found that peaking isn't that accurate and prefer jsut to use zoom focus. Do you have any tips on how to master MF, I've not done it since the days of split prisms?
The only f1.2 lenses I have are an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 and a Voigtlander 40mm f1.2.
Thanks for the infoI've not used that but I'll read up on it
For manual focus I normally use the magnified view but do pre focus / zone / hyperfocal for some and I do focus just by eye or use peaking for the odd picture too. I find focusing be eye and peaking to be acceptable or even quite accurate at wide apertures as very little is in focus or peaking and you can see the peaking homing in on the point where you want focus but at smaller apertures I find it next to useless as just about everything can be peaking and although the result might be fine for whole picture viewing who can resist pixel peeping and when you do that you can often see that the point of focus isn't where you thought.
If you have the time to call up the magnified view and deliberately focus I thing that MF can be arguably the most accurate way to focus.
Yes, I tried that but went back to auto magnify. It does have its drawbacks, but for me it’s an easier way of working. You do need to try both methods to see which is better for you . (And which level of peaking)
Tree on High Way by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
Moss on a drystone wall by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
Broken Tree by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
Fishing Boat Rope-03515 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr
for looking., 
Like that, bags of contrast and detailDuring the past time or two I've been trying to snap the same shots both with my APSC (not Sony) units and my RX10M4 or RX100M6 Sony units all at base ISO settings and as near as possible the same focal lengths as a comparison. And I hate to admit it but in more cases than not the RX shots are marginally sharper per equivalent focal length and aperture using zoom lenses, have more contrast straight out of the camera, they are faster focussing and to me generally more appealing. I very seldom shoot low light so I would expect the APSC snaps to be a bit better with the regards to noise in those circumstances. These are not in any way meant to be scientific assessments just my own personal findings under user conditions.
Just a simple tourist close up type Snapograph taken at Kent UK of some fishing boat Rope. I've deliberately gone for a semi graphic higher contrast gritty look to this snap to emphasise the texture.
RX10M4, 1/800th @ F5, ISO-100, Handheld.
George.
Chase by Simon Wootton, on Flickr
