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

LeeRatters said:
Nice. We didn't see any green, I don't think. Just importing the 824 A7Riii files at the moment. I think I'm nearly thawed out :)
Click to expand...
Proper cold last night. I was booked in to do an Ultra Night event tonight. The boss phoned up saying he was pondering pulling out due to teh weather. Fingers crossed that is what happened as it will be a very tough gig. Are you doing a timelapse or blending the images
 
wookie6262 said:
Proper cold last night. I was booked in to do an Ultra Night event tonight. The boss phoned up saying he was pondering pulling out due to teh weather. Fingers crossed that is what happened as it will be a very tough gig. Are you doing a timelapse or blending the images
Click to expand...

I had the A7Riii at 24mm shooting a timelapse across the pond with just a water foreground.

I shot 4 film frames at 10ish minutes exposure each.

I shot a stacked close foreground at 35mm on the A7.

See what comes out.... :ROFLMAO:
 
Hmmm.

I've been very happy with my (super cheap) Pergear 35mm f1.4 but I noticed something was a bit off so I checked it against my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and f1.4 lenses and... Something is definitely amiss as the Pergear gives both exposure values and depth of field more like f2.2 or something. It doesn't look like f1.4 when compared to the Voigtlanders but it's not f2.8, its something between f2 and f2.8 for both exposure and dof.

Looking into the lens it does seem to be wide open at "f1.4" but there's something wrong, it's either some sort of fault or manufacturing or assembly issue or they're telling massive porkies with the claim to be f1.4 and with the markings on the lens. Either that or Voigtlander lenses have wider apertures than you'd think but I think I trust Voigtlander more than Pergear.

I've written to Pergear so I'll wait and see if I get a reply.

PS.
I've watched a few reviews and no one seems to mention this so either something is off here with my copy or if they're all like this no one else has spotted the discrepancy.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
That's the first time I've seen rolling shutter with the A9, it can happen then :oops: :$ It would be interesting to see how the A1 fairs in the same scenario as that has a 50% faster readout.
Click to expand...
It can definitley happen but it is
LeeRatters said:
I had the A7Riii at 24mm shooting a timelapse across the pond with just a water foreground.

I shot 4 film frames at 10ish minutes exposure each.

I shot a stacked close foreground at 35mm on the A7.

See what comes out.... :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Multitasking, look forward to seeing results
 
woof woof said:
But that's you. What if someone isn't in a noisy environment or wants blackout free shooting? I'd also add to that overly tetchy people even in a noisy environment.

This camera just isn't for me and significant trickle down tech may be too late for me but I am sure some people will use this cameras abilities.
Click to expand...
My experience is that in quiet audio environments the lighting is usually simple and not an issue for a stacked senor and when it's tougher lighting, it's loud enough the shutter noise isn't an issue. It doesn't matter how tetchy you are because you're not going to hear the shutter in a noisy environment.

You're right though that is me and I was interested to hear what the benefits were for the author but he doesn't actually explain them, he briefly mentions near the start that he loses some features when he switches to the mechanical shutter but never mentions what those features are and how they're beneficial to him. Again, I can see some very specific circumstances the global shutter could be useful but after reading a good number of articles about the A9III I'm still struggling to see the general advantages that are being claimed particularly against the possibly weaker high iso.

In terms of trickle down, I'd expected to start seeing more general use stacked sensors in the main A7 series or the A7C series where the silent shooting could be really useful given it's smaller, less intrusive design but unfortunately despite it being four years since the A9 was introduced we've still not seen that. So with the global shutter technology being more expensive again I feel it will be a long time before it's in a wider range of cameras.
 
Last edited:
For a laugh I've been considering entering a pic or two into competitions, some state that copyright info should be in the metadata. I don't really understand metadata and even less so how to 'manipulate' it, however I do have copyright info on in the camera, does this mean that it's written into the metadata? Do programs such as lightroom, photoshop, and/or topaz strip any metadata? Lastly, how do I find what data, and specificially whether there's any copyright info, is written into it?
 
woof woof said:
Hmmm.

I've been very happy with my (super cheap) Pergear 35mm f1.4 but I noticed something was a bit off so I checked it against my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and f1.4 lenses and... Something is definitely amiss as the Pergear gives both exposure values and depth of field more like f2.2 or something. It doesn't look like f1.4 when compared to the Voigtlanders but it's not f2.8, its something between f2 and f2.8 for both exposure and dof.

Looking into the lens it does seem to be wide open at "f1.4" but there's something wrong, it's either some sort of fault or manufacturing or assembly issue or they're telling massive porkies with the claim to be f1.4 and with the markings on the lens. Either that or Voigtlander lenses have wider apertures than you'd think but I think I trust Voigtlander more than Pergear.

I've written to Pergear so I'll wait and see if I get a reply.

PS.
I've watched a few reviews and no one seems to mention this so either something is off here with my copy or if they're all like this no one else has spotted the discrepancy.
Click to expand...

It's probably the difference between f-stop (aperture) and t-stop (transmission). The amount of light a lens passed through isn't just dependent on aperture.
 
snerkler said:
For a laugh I've been considering entering a pic or two into competitions, some state that copyright info should be in the metadata. I don't really understand metadata and even less so how to 'manipulate' it, however I do have copyright info on in the camera, does this mean that it's written into the metadata? Do programs such as lightroom, photoshop, and/or topaz strip any metadata? Lastly, how do I find what data, and specificially whether there's any copyright info, is written into it?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've not used copyright information myself but as you've described if you have it set up in the camera then that's so it can write it into the metadata. The programs you've mentioned should preserve the data although it's not always the case as I've seen sloppy conversion programs that strip it.

In Lightroom in the Library mode there should be a Metadata panel on the right hand with a little dropdown that will allow you to view the different sets of metadata associated with the photo. In Windows if you got the properties of a file and click details it will show some of the metadata so I assume OSX will have something similar, there's also a variety of tools which will show you the information. If you'd like to e-mail me a photo to check what I can see independent of your system, my address is my user name (that's the letter L then 7 not 17) at gmail.com
 
JohnMcL7 said:
Yes, I've not used copyright information myself but as you've described if you have it set up in the camera then that's so it can write it into the metadata. The programs you've mentioned should preserve the data although it's not always the case as I've seen sloppy conversion programs that strip it.

In Lightroom in the Library mode there should be a Metadata panel on the right hand with a little dropdown that will allow you to view the different sets of metadata associated with the photo. In Windows if you got the properties of a file and click details it will show some of the metadata so I assume OSX will have something similar, there's also a variety of tools which will show you the information. If you'd like to e-mail me a photo to check what I can see independent of your system, my address is my user name (that's the letter L then 7 not 17) at gmail.com
Click to expand...
Cool thanks very much. I've always known you can see EXIF data on Mac such as this
Screenshot 2023-12-02 at 15.26.48.jpg





However I've just seen that if I click IPTC and TIFF it shows the copyright details. I'm not sure what IPTC and TIFF are though, the only TIFF I know is the file type.
Screenshot 2023-12-02 at 15.27.13.jpg
Screenshot 2023-12-02 at 15.27.30.jpg
 
When I used to shoot equestrian. It was the IPTC data that publishers wanted.
 
IPTC is another metadata standard (technically one of many standards that come under IPTC but it's the most common one) aimed at storing data about who owns the photo as you've seen, I'm not sure about TIFF but that does have a metadata standard as well so it must be what you're seeing.

There's been quite a lot of talk recently about properly protecting data on photos which is long overdue:

www.theverge.com

Leica’s latest camera encrypts verification info into every photo

Maybe this should be in all cameras one day?
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com
 
Do Sony cameras record the focus distance in the EXIF and if so where can I find it as it’s not showing in the info on Mac? I took a shot the other day that was well past the hyperfocal distance so infinity should have been sharp but it wasn’t and I want to investigate why.
 
snerkler said:
Do Sony cameras record the focus distance in the EXIF and if so where can I find it as it’s not showing in the info on Mac? I took a shot the other day that was well past the hyperfocal distance so infinity should have been sharp but it wasn’t and I want to investigate why.
Click to expand...
After having a look through all of the EXIF data on an A9 image and then looking through the Sony specific EXIF tags, I can't find it:


For the generic EXIF fields there is a SubjectDistance tag although it doesn't have an explanation and it's not present on my images. I was wondering if it's possible for the camera to know the focus distance as ultimately when it's locked in focus, it's using CDAF to get the maximum sharpness however it surely must know the exact position of the lens so it knows the minimum and maximum positions. I'm just having a quick look at my own files so I may be wrong about the data not being present.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
After having a look through all of the EXIF data on an A9 image and then looking through the Sony specific EXIF tags, I can't find it:


For the generic EXIF fields there is a SubjectDistance tag although it doesn't have an explanation and it's not present on my images. I was wondering if it's possible for the camera to know the focus distance as ultimately when it's locked in focus, it's using CDAF to get the maximum sharpness however it surely must know the exact position of the lens so it knows the minimum and maximum positions. I'm just having a quick look at my own files so I may be wrong about the data not being present.
Click to expand...
Thanks
wookie6262 said:
I'm sure there are two fields you can fill in your name on Sony cameras. Only one is Copyright the other is owner or creator
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's one for each I just wasn't sure if they'd appear in the metadata (y)
 
Ok so since returning the Tamron 17-50. I am now happy with my zoom selection, Tamron 28-75 & 70-180 f2.8’s

I just want 1 prime for now around 35mm. I have considered some of the manual focus ones, but with my eyesight I will probably leave them for now.

My current front runner is the Sony 35mm f1.8 FE

Just wondering what peoples thoughts and experiences were with it.
 
leaky5 said:
Ok so since returning the Tamron 17-50. I am now happy with my zoom selection, Tamron 28-75 & 70-180 f2.8’s

I just want 1 prime for now around 35mm. I have considered some of the manual focus ones, but with my eyesight I will probably leave them for now.

My current front runner is the Sony 35mm f1.8 FE

Just wondering what peoples thoughts and experiences were with it.
Click to expand...

I have one. I think it's a good lens. Bokeh will often if not always divide people but it is dependant on a lot of things including distance, spatial relationships and how complex the scene is, I think this lens gives par for the course bokeh for a sharp 35mm f1.8, in other words ok bokeh by modern standards but not outstanding and not terrible either but better than many legacy lenses which people will praise. It is IMO sharp and fast to focus even on my creaking old geriatric A7. Other than all that vignetting is ok as are resistance to flare and all the rest and the only real gripes could be behaviour in some backlit situations and some ca in specific instances but the nit picking minus points are perhaps things which will only affect a percentage of real world shots and even then likely only small areas of an image and these effects may very likely not be things that your average human will notice, unlike us nit picking geeks.

I suppose performance at wider aperture is what matters as these days almost anything will probably be good to very good when stopped down so here's two pictures I like of Mrs WW at f1.8.

DSC06751-R1.jpgDSC03026.jpg
 
A Pergear 35mm f1.4 update...

It's not just out for exposure and dof at f1.4. It's out at f1.4, ok at f2.8, out at f4, ok at f5.6 and out at f8.

I first thought something was off when we were camping and I took some night time shots. I thought "I shouldn't be at ISO 25,600 and have that shutter speed at f1.4" and I think I was right. In isolation this issue may be difficult to spot but when comparing the Pergear to two Voigtlanders it's easy to see that something is way off here.

I've never seen a lens this far out of whack before, small differences in exposure, yes, but I've not seen this before. I'll give Pergear a few days to answer and if not I may see about returning this under warranty and see if another copy is any better.
 
@leaky5 There is a good selection of reviews about Sony lenses and specifically 35mm here.
phillipreeve.net

Guide to best Sony E-Mount 35mm Lenses for A7/A9/A1 series - phillipreeve.net

Our independent guide to the best 35mm Sony E-mount lenses covers all available 35mm lenses and a few adapted ones to help you find the right lens.
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

I went for the Sigma 35mm F2 for the better bokeh than the Sony 35mm F1.8, the Sigma is lovely and sharp, made of metal so its lovely to hold and use so no complaints from me at all
 
leaky5 said:
Ok so since returning the Tamron 17-50. I am now happy with my zoom selection, Tamron 28-75 & 70-180 f2.8’s

I just want 1 prime for now around 35mm. I have considered some of the manual focus ones, but with my eyesight I will probably leave them for now.

My current front runner is the Sony 35mm f1.8 FE

Just wondering what peoples thoughts and experiences were with it.
Click to expand...
I'm still undecided on what to do for a wide zoom. I've ruled out the 17-50mm so it's between a 16-35mm and 20-70mm, going through my images for walkabout and landscapes a lot are taken at 16mm. I didn't count, but I reckon 50% were at 16mm and the other 50% divided up from 18-35mm.

More on a 35mm below
woof woof said:
I have one. I think it's a good lens. Bokeh will often if not always divide people but it is dependant on a lot of things including distance, spatial relationships and how complex the scene is, I think this lens gives par for the course bokeh for a sharp 35mm f1.8, in other words ok bokeh by modern standards but not outstanding and not terrible either but better than many legacy lenses which people will praise. It is IMO sharp and fast to focus even on my creaking old geriatric A7. Other than all that vignetting is ok as are resistance to flare and all the rest and the only real gripes could be behaviour in some backlit situations and some ca in specific instances but the nit picking minus points are perhaps things which will only affect a percentage of real world shots and even then likely only small areas of an image and these effects may very likely not be things that your average human will notice, unlike us nit picking geeks.

I suppose performance at wider aperture is what matters as these days almost anything will probably be good to very good when stopped down so here's two pictures I like of Mrs WW at f1.8.

View attachment 408216View attachment 408217
Click to expand...
I'm so glad I bought the 35mm f1.4 GM, I was happy with the 35mm f1.8 but the GM is on a different level and it's arguably my favourite lens now. I used to prefer 50mm over 35mm but I'm definitely swaying more to 35mm these days.
 
snerkler said:
I'm still undecided on what to do for a wide zoom. I've ruled out the 17-50mm so it's between a 16-35mm and 20-70mm, going through my images for walkabout and landscapes a lot are taken at 16mm. I didn't count, but I reckon 50% were at 16mm and the other 50% divided up from 18-35mm.

More on a 35mm below

I'm so glad I bought the 35mm f1.4 GM, I was happy with the 35mm f1.8 but the GM is on a different level and it's arguably my favourite lens now. I used to prefer 50mm over 35mm but I'm definitely swaying more to 35mm these days.
Click to expand...

For me bulk and weight and how attention grabbing the kit is are probably the major considerations and TBH more important to me than optical performance or even price. This is why I'm drawn to things like the Pergear 35mm f1.4, TTArtisan 50mm f2, Syoptic 50mm f1.1 and the various Voigtlanders I have as performance stopped down will be at least adequate with the only question marks being things which only affect certain pictures, like wild bokeh wide open, flare, ghosting and ca.

Pergear, wide open at "f1.4" it stands up well to pixel peeping in the central area at least.

DSC02684.jpg

Stopped down I have no real issues with it unless flare is an issue.

DSC03524.JPG

I know not many people would consider lenses of this quality but they're so small and light. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 I've just bought is possibly the best 35mm I've ever used but even it is borderline too heavy for me whilst the Pergear is much smaller and lighter and gives reasonable performance even if its stated aperture values are way off.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
For me bulk and weight and how attention grabbing the kit is are probably the major considerations and TBH more important to me than optical performance or even price. This is why I'm drawn to things like the Pergear 35mm f1.4, TTArtisan 50mm f2, Syoptic 50mm f1.1 and the various Voigtlanders I have as performance stopped down will be at least adequate with the only question marks being things which only affect certain pictures, like wild bokeh wide open, flare, ghosting and ca.

Pergear, wide open at "f1.4" it stands up well to pixel peeping in the central area at least.

View attachment 408230

Stopped down I have no real issues with it unless flare is an issue.

View attachment 408231

I know not many people would consider lenses of this quality but they're so small and light. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 I've just bought is possibly the best 35mm I've ever used but even it is borderline too heavy for me whilst the Pergear is much smaller and lighter and gives reasonable performance even if its stated aperture values are way off.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how small those lenses are but the GM is pretty small (y)
 
The Pergear is tiny, more like the size of Sony 35mm f2.8 than the Sony 35mm f1.8 and the GM is indeed in a different league. The Pergear is more the size of a film era 35mm f2.8 from the likes of Minolta Rokkor or Canon (FD) but of course you don't need an adapter to use it on a Sony.

Ah, I forgot I did this... Pergear v Sony 35mm f2.8 v Sony 35mm f1.8.

P1003613.jpg

And for comparison here's the 35mm GM v the Sony f2.8.

Untitled-2.jpg

This bulk and weight wont matter to everyone but for me and my uses as small light and as discrete as possible as you can get with a Mirrorless/DSLR type camera is best and I'm willing to give up a lot of ultimate IQ for that :D
 
woof woof said:
The Pergear is tiny, more like the size of Sony 35mm f2.8 than the Sony 35mm f1.8 and the GM is indeed in a different league. The Pergear is more the size of a film era 35mm f2.8 from the likes of Minolta Rokkor or Canon (FD) but of course you don't need an adapter to use it on a Sony.

Ah, I forgot I did this... Pergear v Sony 35mm f2.8 v Sony 35mm f1.8.

View attachment 408233

And for comparison here's the 35mm GM v the Sony f2.8.

View attachment 408234

This bulk and weight wont matter to everyone but for me and my uses as small light and as discrete as possible as you can get with a Mirrorless/DSLR type camera is best and I'm willing to give up a lot of ultimate IQ for that :D
Click to expand...
Is that the Zeiss 35 f2.8 in the picture ? That might be a good option, I want something for the times I don’t want a bulky lens on the camera
 
leaky5 said:
Is that the Zeiss 35 f2.8 in the picture ? That might be a good option, I want something for the times I don’t want a bulky lens on the camera
Click to expand...

Yes it is and I think it's a very good lens, the only limitation being that it's only f2.8. I've taken some of my favourite picture with that lens. Apart from it being "only" f2.8 I really can't fault it.

There's also the Samyang 35mm f2.8 which looks similar.
 
I found this interesting...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH9VBrx3rnY


I really don't like his style as I thought he deliberately pushed all the exposure sliders to the right to create what looked to me to be over exposed in large areas pictures with maybe too much saturation at times too, but what do I know? He's the pro and I'm just a happy snapper.

Anyway. In this vid he explains that he does this to highlight the subject rather than have distracting things like detail in the sky take attention away from the subject. It's a view and I can see his point and I can see the appeal but detail rich skies area relative rarity for me so it's hard for me to deliberately remove detail from them.

Any views on this style?
 
woof woof said:
The Pergear is tiny, more like the size of Sony 35mm f2.8 than the Sony 35mm f1.8 and the GM is indeed in a different league. The Pergear is more the size of a film era 35mm f2.8 from the likes of Minolta Rokkor or Canon (FD) but of course you don't need an adapter to use it on a Sony.

Ah, I forgot I did this... Pergear v Sony 35mm f2.8 v Sony 35mm f1.8.

View attachment 408233

And for comparison here's the 35mm GM v the Sony f2.8.

View attachment 408234

This bulk and weight wont matter to everyone but for me and my uses as small light and as discrete as possible as you can get with a Mirrorless/DSLR type camera is best and I'm willing to give up a lot of ultimate IQ for that :D
Click to expand...
Wow that's tiny, and it's f1.4?
 
leaky5 said:
Ok so since returning the Tamron 17-50. I am now happy with my zoom selection, Tamron 28-75 & 70-180 f2.8’s

I just want 1 prime for now around 35mm. I have considered some of the manual focus ones, but with my eyesight I will probably leave them for now.

My current front runner is the Sony 35mm f1.8 FE

Just wondering what peoples thoughts and experiences were with it.
Click to expand...

sjh2008 said:
@leaky5 There is a good selection of reviews about Sony lenses and specifically 35mm here.
phillipreeve.net

Guide to best Sony E-Mount 35mm Lenses for A7/A9/A1 series - phillipreeve.net

Our independent guide to the best 35mm Sony E-mount lenses covers all available 35mm lenses and a few adapted ones to help you find the right lens.
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

I went for the Sigma 35mm F2 for the better bokeh than the Sony 35mm F1.8, the Sigma is lovely and sharp, made of metal so its lovely to hold and use so no complaints from me at all
Click to expand...

I don't think you can really go wrong with the FE35/1.8 from what I've seen and read..... I've not used it but I'd imagine it's a nice balance of cost, performance, size, etc etc If it's on par with the FE85/1.8, I'm more than happy with that lens.

I did consider the Sigma f/2 at one point simply for the aperture ring!
 
woof woof said:
I found this interesting...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH9VBrx3rnY


I really don't like his style as I thought he deliberately pushed all the exposure sliders to the right to create what looked to me to be over exposed in large areas pictures with maybe too much saturation at times too, but what do I know? He's the pro and I'm just a happy snapper.

Anyway. In this vid he explains that he does this to highlight the subject rather than have distracting things like detail in the sky take attention away from the subject. It's a view and I can see his point and I can see the appeal but detail rich skies area relative rarity for me so it's hard for me to deliberately remove detail from them.

Any views on this style?
Click to expand...

I've had a few comments in the past along the lines of "got a very James Popsys feel to these" Lee......

I quite like the style personally.
 
snerkler said:
Wow that's tiny, and it's f1.4?
Click to expand...

It's supposed to be f1.4 but I've now come to believe it's f2.2 or something like that. I'm waiting for a reply from Pergear.

I also have the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and it too is tiny and it is AFAIK f1.4. I've posted about a million pictures taken with the Voigtlander and I think its main issue is that at wide apertures the bokeh can be wild but this depends on the scene. Some f1.4 shots can look funky whilst others do not.
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
I've had a few comments in the past along the lines of "got a very James Popsys feel to these" Lee......

I quite like the style personally.
Click to expand...

I can see the appeal but I tend not to want to move too far from reality as a big part of it for me is capturing a memory and then there's the whole living in the NE thing... where skies are very often just a grey/white featureless nothingness and to push things that way and lose whatever colour and detail are there just feels... wrong to me.

I'd watched a few of his vids before and not noticed what he's doing until on one of his walkabout vids I saw the end result next to what was seen at the moment of taking and in its reality.
 
Last edited:
Bungieben said:
Popped along to Donnington park to get out for a couple of hours for more practice this morning thick fog and rain when i got there :headbang:
Turned out better than i expected even shooting through thick wire fencing.
Donnington park rally 03-12-23-27 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
Donnington park rally 03-12-23-28 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
Donnington park rally 03-12-23-30 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Cool, I didnt realise theyd still got events goimng on this late in the year.
 
Bungieben said:
Only clocked it yesterday, viewing areas were very limited though. Plum pudding at Mallory will be my next.
Click to expand...
Whick neck of the woods are you from then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top