The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

LongLensPhotography said:
to be honest both sample are pretty shocking in their own ways. It is ISO ridiculous aimed at black wall. Expect mess if you do that. You would think decent ISO1600-3200 would be plenty good on either and that is the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Those pictures tell me absolutely nothing :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
Those pictures tell me absolutely nothing :oops: :$
Click to expand...
you can maybe see these ISOs are pretty capable of noise but not much more than that....

The job as a photographer is pretty much to make sure it doesn't go to that, and this will still be far better than say original 1dx or d4 for noise, and people did OK back then. I appreciate you can receive a very bad hand in a certain venue, then you just let them know upfront what to expect and why.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
you can maybe see these ISOs are pretty capable of noise but not much more than that....

The job as a photographer is pretty much to make sure it doesn't go to that, and this will still be far better than say original 1dx or d4 for noise, and people did OK back then. I appreciate you can receive a very bad hand in a certain venue, then you just let them know upfront what to expect and why.
Click to expand...
I will face that scenario tomorrow shooting at my local rugby ground. If the lights are the same as last time I will be iso 25600 f2.8 and 1/800 if I am lucky. The client has been made aware. However if the action fills the frame and I get my exposure correct the images will be fine. Totally agree with you and @snerkler that the images we saw depicting iso are completely meaningless.
 
I took some hight ISO shots yesterday.

Peekaboo. A7 and Pergear 35mm f1.4, f1.4, 1/60 and ISO 12,800.

DSC03567.jpg

I fully expect the new A9III to be better :D
 
LongLensPhotography said:
you can maybe see these ISOs are pretty capable of noise but not much more than that....

The job as a photographer is pretty much to make sure it doesn't go to that, and this will still be far better than say original 1dx or d4 for noise, and people did OK back then. I appreciate you can receive a very bad hand in a certain venue, then you just let them know upfront what to expect and why.
Click to expand...
You can make pretty much any ISO show noise depending on light and magnification though. All that shows us is a very poorly exposed brick wall, not idea if that's a cropped image or the full frame, and then two other what I presume are crops again not saying how much they're magnified.

Those ISOs aren't unchartered numbers for me, but no way do they show that level at noise at standard viewing size (again that will be light dependant)
 
snerkler said:
You can make pretty much any ISO show noise depending on light and magnification though. All that shows us is a very poorly exposed brick wall, not idea if that's a cropped image or the full frame, and then two other what I presume are crops again not saying how much they're magnified.

Those ISOs aren't unchartered numbers for me, but no way do they show that level at noise at standard viewing size (again that will be light dependant)
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I think the write up says they're crops but I don't think it says how big.

This reminds me of the panic over focus pixels showing up in pictures at 200%. I think we just need to be patient and see the usual reputable people post their reviews and of course download our own raws to process.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I may be wrong but I think the write up says they're crops but I don't think it says how big.

This reminds me of the panic over focus pixels showing up in pictures at 200%. I think we just need to be patient and see the usual reputable people post their reviews and of course download our own raws to process.
Click to expand...
You're right he does, but then he links to where he got the samples from but I've not seen any with brickwork on them :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
You're right he does, but then he links to where he got the samples from but I've not seen any with brickwork on them

:thinking:
Click to expand...

An auditor once told me an analogy he liked, he likened what he was auditing to a blanket. The blanket may have the odd hole in it but does it still work as a blanket? Simple but a nice way of looking at things. My own analogy was ice cream related :D

I think with this new camera there will be plusses for some and some negatives for others. There'll be holes in the performance and image quality blankets or some may not like the flavour but I'd be amazed if as a new product it turns out to be a total dud. I expect for some it'll be a real step forward but maybe with a few things to watch out for.

Other than that it is a niche product isn't it? If it is I expect it to be of little interest to a lot of people but those who see the benefits will have their credit cards out.
 
woof woof said:
An auditor once told me an analogy he liked, he likened what he was auditing to a blanket. The blanket may have the odd hole in it but does it still work as a blanket? Simple but a nice way of looking at things. My own analogy was ice cream related :D

I think with this new camera there will be plusses for some and some negatives for others. There'll be holes in the performance and image quality blankets or some may not like the flavour but I'd be amazed if as a new product it turns out to be a total dud. I expect for some it'll be a real step forward but maybe with a few things to watch out for.

Other than that it is a niche product isn't it? If it is I expect it to be of little interest to a lot of people but those who see the benefits will have their credit cards out.
Click to expand...
I think it will be a superb camera. Of course there will be naysayers because we’re spoilt and every time something comes out the bar moves higher, I doubt we’ll ever see something that doesn’t draw criticism from somewhere.
 
I wonder how the base ISO of 250 affects the use of wide apertures in good light? Will it be possible to run out of shutter speed at f1.2? f1.4? f1.8? I suppose this wont be too much of an issue for the target market though.
 
woof woof said:
I wonder how the base ISO of 250 affects the use of wide apertures in good light? Will it be possible to run out of shutter speed at f1.2? f1.4? f1.8? I suppose this wont be too much of an issue for the target market though.
Click to expand...
Fastest shutter speed 1/80,000, so should be ok
 
nog said:
Fastest shutter speed 1/80,000, so should be ok
Click to expand...

I haven't done the sums but I do have a hatred for putting an ND on for one shot to get the shutter speed down and taking it off for the next shot to get the ISO down, and then doing it all over again all day. This is one thing that annoys me with cameras limited to relatively low shutter speeds or lower shutter speeds coupled with higher base ISO's.
 
Only 15fps with third party lenses is a bit of a let down on the A9III. Yeah I know that has always been the case but you would have thought they would have removed that restriction for a body like this.
 
snerkler said:
I don’t know why but I find the phrase “game changer” a bit irritating :thinking: :LOL:
Click to expand...

Me too, not just in cameras but every time a new product is launched.

the last "game changer" feature for me personally was when I got the A73 and how well Eye-AF was implemented in that.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Me too, not just in cameras but every time a new product is launched.

the last "game changer" feature for me personally was when I got the A73 and how well Eye-AF was implemented in that.
Click to expand...

every other camera is a game changer these days.
eyeAF was certainly a "game changer" for a lot of people. I think A73 was probably their best selling camera. A7IV is a quite nice upgrade though because you get full realtime tracking and wee bump in resolution.

IQ hasn't changed at all since A7RII days tbh
 
nandbytes said:
every other camera is a game changer these days.
eyeAF was certainly a "game changer" for a lot of people. I think A73 was probably their best selling camera. A7IV is a quite nice upgrade though because you get full realtime tracking and wee bump in resolution.

IQ hasn't changed at all since A7RII days tbh
Click to expand...

A7III was decent spec at the right price point with no real competition from Canon/Nikon when launched
 
Mirrorless was "GC" (sorry Raymond :D) for me for bulk and weight reasons but I later came to see all the stuff that came with it as really GC. Being able to focus anywhere in the frame, the consistency and accuracy, seeing the exposure and DoF, face/eye detect etc and of course the manual focus aids.

I think for some the global shutter will be GC but the applications may well be limited to niche uses, until we all see something in it for us. Silent shooting without banding, no rolling shutter and no shutter failure anyone?
 
Eye-AF was GC because before that, even with the 5D4, that can only do Face Detect, Eye-AF is something that I have always wanted and to be able to find a person anywhere on the frame and keep track of them by just holding down the focus button means composition now can be done without moving the focus point. It changed the way I took pictures. That is a game changer as it literally changed the way I play the game.

Mirrorless body being smaller, hmmmm, the lenses I use on mine didn't get smaller so not really a game changer, I still put it in the same pelican case using the same bag etc and it's still heavy lol

Going down to APSC Fuji with primes, that's can be considered a game changer because that is smaller and noticeably so by noticing the weight of my Ryker with them in on my last trip.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Mirrorless body being smaller, hmmmm, the lenses I use on mine didn't get smaller so not really a game changer, I still put it in the same pelican case using the same bag etc and it's still heavy lol
Click to expand...
you are you a 35/85 shooter no?
35GM is definitely smaller than the L35/1.4ii
85DN is smaller than L85/1.4ii, though if you are shooting with the GM its no smaller.
I swapped to a sayang 85mm f1.4ii which is even smaller and lighter. just 500g! (though I would not suggest this lens to a professional like yourself)

The new 50GM is smaller than Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 (assuming people used this instead of the canon version as it was not optically the best)

I think Sony have made a conscious effort to release smaller lighter lenses than competition also a GC for me :LOL:
In the past I used to shoot f1.8 primes for the size. thanks to Sony I am now comfortably shooting f1.4 primes.
 
Last edited:
I had a 35 Zeiss Planar for a while, and that is not smaller.

24, 35, 50 and 85.

5ZKTbRh.jpg


I still have the Zeiss 50/1.4 today.

0k0tMXo.jpg


hOc43OV.jpg


The only smaller lens really is the 35GM....1 out of 4...not a game changer. I don't have the 100mm vs 90mm Macro to compare but it's almost the same. I never got the Sony 135/1.8 so can't compare it to the Canon 135/2.0, I doubt the Sony 1.8 is smaller. The 70-200 GM mk1 I got is not really smaller than then Canon 70-200 L mk1/2/3.

Apples for apples (or as close as you can get), the size and weight are not noticeable, not at all, not even a little bit. To me at least, with these lenses.

And yeah, I ran BOTH for a couple of months side by side....it was a lot of gear and money to take on location lol

s86n4D4.jpg
 
Last edited:
I kept with my old A-Mount A900 for a long time because the cost of upgrading was just too great or the benefit too small, until the A7iv and LA-EA5 became available and let me just upgrade the body as an initial step.

That upgrade could be regarded as a GC because of the scope and scale of the accumulated updates was so large - suddenly I could shoot in much lower light levels, focus anywhere across the frame, etc. but all the changes had come in a series of incremental updates across a range of models - it's only by looking at the whole set of changes the scope of what has changed becomes apparent.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Eye-AF was GC because before that, even with the 5D4, that can only do Face Detect, Eye-AF is something that I have always wanted and to be able to find a person anywhere on the frame and keep track of them by just holding down the focus button means composition now can be done without moving the focus point. It changed the way I took pictures. That is a game changer as it literally changed the way I play the game.

Mirrorless body being smaller, hmmmm, the lenses I use on mine didn't get smaller so not really a game changer, I still put it in the same pelican case using the same bag etc and it's still heavy lol

Going down to APSC Fuji with primes, that's can be considered a game changer because that is smaller and noticeably so by noticing the weight of my Ryker with them in on my last trip.
Click to expand...

Back when I had the Canon 5D and before that I was never really happy with the bulk and weight. I briefly had the Panasonic GF1 but I wanted a VF so changed to the G1 and that was it for me, I saw my future.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I had a 35 Zeiss Planar for a while, and that is not smaller.

24, 35, 50 and 85.

5ZKTbRh.jpg


I still have the Zeiss 50/1.4 today.

0k0tMXo.jpg


hOc43OV.jpg


The only smaller lens really is the 35GM....1 out of 4...not a game changer. I don't have the 100mm vs 90mm Macro to compare but it's almost the same. I never got the Sony 135/1.8 so can't compare it to the Canon 135/2.0, I doubt the Sony 1.8 is smaller. The 70-200 GM mk1 I got is not really smaller than then Canon 70-200 L mk1/2/3.

Apples for apples (or as close as you can get), the size and weight are not noticeable, not at all, not even a little bit. To me at least, with these lenses.
Click to expand...
I'd still say that 2 out 4 because the 24GM is 50% lighter with smaller diameter than L24/1.4 and not mention optically much better.

with your set of lenses I guess it does not make a huge lot of difference. But it is now possible to get smaller/lighter with Sony with the latest lenses.
Though I appreciate you may not want to keep upgrading all the time.
 
nandbytes said:
I'd still say that 2 out 4 because the 24GM is 50% lighter with smaller diameter than L24/1.4 and not mention optically much better.

with your set of lenses I guess it does not make a huge lot of difference. But it is now possible to get smaller/lighter with Sony with the latest lenses.
Though I appreciate you may not want to keep upgrading all the time.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, not only it does not make a huge lot of difference, it makes near zero amount of difference in the hand. Looking at weight on paper is 1 thing, using it in the moment, carrying it to and from home, in and out of the car, no difference in real world use.

I have 3 out of 4 in the 24/35/50/85 that Sony makes, only the 50mm is the only one really not the latest and greatest, so not really possible to get much lighter and smaller anymore than what I have here in my bag at the moment without reducing the aperture.
 
Raymond Lin said:
In my opinion, not only it does not make a huge lot of difference, it makes near zero amount of difference in the hand. Looking at weight on paper is 1 thing, using it in the moment, carrying it to and from home, in and out of the car, no difference in real world use.

I have 3 out of 4 in the 24/35/50/85 that Sony makes, only the 50mm is the only one really not the latest and greatest, so not really possible to get much lighter and smaller anymore than what I have here in my bag at the moment without reducing the aperture.
Click to expand...

24mm - 445g vs. 650g
35mm - 524g vs. 760g
50mm - 516g vs. 880g (sigma ART)
85mm - 625g (sigma) vs. 950g (85f1.4L)

in total - 2110g vs. 3240g

Canon is 50% heavier overall. I personally would notice such a difference and I imagine a lot of people would.

The newest Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM2 is also only just above 1kg which also makes it just under 50% lighter.

Personally I have the 35GM and samyang 85mm f1.4ii which together is only 1033g. Not to mention smaller in bag to pack and carry around.
If it weren't for these lenses I'd be shooting Sony 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8. So its really nice that these options are available on Sony unlike on other brands.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
24mm - 445g vs. 650g
35mm - 524g vs. 760g
50mm - 516g vs. 880g (sigma ART)
85mm - 625g (sigma) vs. 950g (85f1.4L)

in total - 2110g vs. 3240g

Canon is 50% heavier overall. I personally would notice such a difference and I imagine a lot of people would.

The newest Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM2 is also only just above 1kg which also makes it just under 50% lighter.

Personally I have the 35GM and samyang 85mm f1.4ii which together is only 1033g. Not to mention smaller in bag to pack and carry around.
If it weren't for these lenses I'd be shooting Sony 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8. So its really nice that these options are available on Sony unlike on other brands.
Click to expand...

I don't carry all of those lenses at the same time, it is almost always just 2 at the most, one over each shoulder. The only time they are all together is when they are in the pelican, on wheels. They are only picked up when lifting in and out of the car or up and down stairs in hotels.

That is real world use. Real World use isn't 1kg, it is a few hundred grams and I can only put 1 camera up to my eye at any one time. I don't feel any less tired at the end of the day with the Sony as I did with the Canon.

And the size of it....the picture speaks for itself, the minor point is that your original post was "smaller", my photos shows that is simply isn't true. So size is simply not smaller, except the 35 GM. You can measure it to the mm and debate the fractional differences but they take up just as much space in my Pelican really. I haven't been able to fit more lenses into it since moving to Sony.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I don't carry all of those lenses at the same time, it is almost always just 2 at the most, one over each shoulder. The only time they are all together is when they are in the pelican, on wheels. They are only picked up when lifting in and out of the car or up and down stairs in hotels.

That is real world use. Real World use isn't 1kg, it is a few hundred grams and I can only put 1 camera up to my eye at any one time. I don't feel any less tired at the end of the day with the Sony as I did with the Canon.

And the size of it....the picture speaks for itself, the minor point is that your original post was "smaller", my photos shows that is simply isn't true. So size is simply not smaller, except the 35 GM. You can measure it to the mm and debate the fractional differences but they take up just as much space in my Pelican really. I haven't been able to fit more lenses into it since moving to Sony.
Click to expand...
It will all depend on what lenses and cameras you have been using. In some situations my Sony setup is much lighter, for example A1 + 70-200mm f2.8 GM II = 1782g vs Nikon D850 + 70-200mm f2.8 VR II = 2545g. Hand holding that all day the weight saving is most certainly significant. Even the A1 +24-105mm f4 = 1600g vs D850 + 24-120mm f4 = 1715 can make a difference in use (YMMV).
 
snerkler said:
It will all depend on what lenses and cameras you have been using. In some situations my Sony setup is much lighter, for example A1 + 70-200mm f2.8 GM II = 1782g vs Nikon D850 + 70-200mm f2.8 VR II = 2545g. Hand holding that all day the weight saving is most certainly significant. Even the A1 +24-105mm f4 = 1600g vs D850 + 24-120mm f4 = 1715 can make a difference in use (YMMV).
Click to expand...

Yes, hence i said "I, me, personally" and "To me at least, with these lens."
 
Trying to find a photo on how the cases look before and after, but it seems I used do it backwards and put the flashes with the Canon, but with the Sony I split it up.

Canon

bfL0xCn.jpg


Sony

3PuJcpd.jpg
 
nandbytes said:
yes, you get 1/16000 above f1.8


you don't get AF-C was my understanding, you still have AF-S/DMF
with AF-C 1/16000 seems to be max
Click to expand...

That's what i meant to say.

Which is kinda "useless" in terms of there is no way you can time a single shot to what you want to 1/16000th to a second, but in a way also irrelevant because you can't time it to that kind of shutter speed anyway. I would just use AF-C and cap it at 1/16,000th and leave it at that.
 
nandbytes said:
yes, you get 1/16000 above f1.8


you don't get AF-C was my understanding, you still have AF-S/DMF
with AF-C 1/16000 seems to be max
Click to expand...

I hit 1/16K with MFT with a base ISO of 200 and a f1.8 lens.

I know this camera has a different target market and users will have other cameras too.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
That's what i meant to say.

Which is kinda "useless" in terms of there is no way you can time a single shot to what you want to 1/16000th to a second, but in a way also irrelevant because you can't time it to that kind of shutter speed anyway. I would just use AF-C and cap it at 1/16,000th and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
I think it's useful for some creative flash users when you can sync at 1/80000.
Can't really comment much tbh, because I rarely use flash and I certainly don't have any uses in mind for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top