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

Anyone got any ideas or I may just be well out I have two Lastolite F400s could only send the signal at 1/200 to them but I am sure they do higher than that. Is it the a7r2 the issue or the lights?
 
Nuzik said:
Anyone got any ideas or I may just be well out I have two Lastolite F400s could only send the signal at 1/200 to them but I am sure they do higher than that. Is it the a7r2 the issue or the lights?
Click to expand...

Do you mean that the lights won't fire or that you've got a black band on the image? Most studio lights will simply fire whenever the camera triggers them but if you're shooting higher than your sync speed you'll get black bands.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Do you mean that the lights won't fire or that you've got a black band on the image? Most studio lights will simply fire whenever the camera triggers them but if you're shooting higher than your sync speed you'll get black bands.
Click to expand...
Yes I figured they may go higher than 1/200 but they don't. Wonder if it was the camera or lights.
 
Steve Huff raves about the hassleblad X1D.

This is part 3 of his review but if you're interested it links back to the others...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/09/17/__trashed-2/

The Sony A9 takes a bit of a bashing here and comes in behind the X1D and an Oly MFT in terms of colour. I can't really comment on that beyond thinking that something could probably be done to make all three cameras look equally good if the user was willing to put in the time and effort.

I get his point about most people not needing this sort of quality and social media usage etc but I do think that I can usually see an advantage for my A7 at least on screen when I process the shots and the advantages include dynamic range and overall file quality. So FF is worth it for me even if there's no printing involved. Plus there's the fact that I can use old lenses on my A7 at their original FoV. That's a massive plus for me and as big a draw as the image quality gain over smaller formats.

I'm not sure that I fully understand the comment that the Sony is the most digital. This is a comment I've seen levelled at this or that camera before and I do wish people would be a bit more precise. As a one line throw away insult I suppose it works for some but not for me and I'd like clarification. If "digital" means clean files with smooth or good transitions of colour and contrast etc then why not just say it. If filmic means characterful things like grain and faults all over the place then just say that's what you want :D

Anyway, all food for thought :D

Is FF worth it? Yup. I think so but I don't think MF would be worth it for me.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Steve Huff raves about the hassleblad X1D.

This is part 3 of his review but if you're interested it links back to the others...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/09/17/__trashed-2/

The Sony A9 takes a bit of a bashing here and comes in behind the X1D and an Oly MFT in terms of colour. I can't really comment on that beyond thinking that something could probably be done to make all three cameras look equally good if the user was willing to put in the time and effort.

I get his point about most people not needing this sort of quality and social media usage etc but I do think that I can usually see an advantage for my A7 at least on screen when I process the shots and the advantages include dynamic range and overall file quality. So FF is worth it for me even if there's no printing involved. Plus there's the fact that I can use old lenses on my A7 at their original FoV. That's a massive plus for me and as big a draw as the image quality gain over smaller formats.

I'm not sure that I fully understand the comment that the Sony is the most digital. This is a comment I've seen levelled at this or that camera before and I do wish people would be a bit more precise. As a one line throw away insult I suppose it works for some but not for me and I'd like clarification. If "digital" means clean files with smooth or good transitions of colour and contrast etc then why not just say it. If filmic means characterful things like grain and faults all over the place then just say that's what you want :D

Anyway, all food for thought :D

Is FF worth it? Yup. I think so but I don't think MF would be worth it for me.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to the individuals tastes rather than actual technical/scientific data on RAW colour outputs,
I have seen various published tests and the Sony A9 wasn't as bad as Mr Huff makes out, some blind photo tests between it and rivals from Nikon and Canon even put the A9 ahead.

For me the Sony A9 gives me output comparable to my Fuji XT-2 in terms of colour and I have to do very little post-processing to get it where I want it.
 
Last edited:
I've never had a problem with the colours from any digital camera I've owned except my Medion compact... and the files from that camera can be a real challenge especially as they're JPEG only. That camera isn't the worst camera I've ever had but it's down there with them :D Anything else I've had including Canon, Fuji, Panasonic and Sony are all ok by me. Reds are often a challenge but that goes for every digital camera I've had and I think that my A7 is probably the best for reds maybe because of greater DR, I don't know what the technicalities are but if taking a picture of my Mrs in a red dress (haha... she almost never wears a dress...) wearing a red hat and carrying a red rose I'll reach for my A7.

I sometimes wonder what's going on when looking at the various Fuji threads as the colours in some of the shots posted in those threads don't look like they were taken on Earth to me but that could be down to some camera setting or processing the user likes... all part of the Fuji magic I suppose.
 
Kit changes again.

Bought the 16-35mm (about 90% of my shots are in this range) and have just sold my kit lens (28-70mm) as I use the 'standard' range very rarely and someone offered £205 for it.

Trying to decide what prime to get. Was looking at the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 - but not sure if there is much point now with having the 16-35.

Has anyone got or used the SEL50F18F - FE 50MM F1.8 - is it any good?
 
One point of the 35mm f2.8 is that it makes a very compact camera and lens package.

My A7 with 35mm f2.8 fits in the same small Lowepro bag that my MFT Panasonic GX80 and prime fit in and makes a great travel camera.
 
woof woof said:
One point of the 35mm f2.8 is that it makes a very compact camera and lens package.

My A7 with 35mm f2.8 fits in the same small Lowepro bag that my MFT Panasonic GX80 and prime fit in and makes a great travel camera.
Click to expand...

True, still considering it for that reason only.

However - the 50mm would provide me with a nice low light option, smaller than the 28-70mm but give me some additional reach.

Edit: Might consider the 35mm 2.8 + Oly 50mm 1.8 - best of both then!
 
Last edited:
Tom Green said:
True, still considering it for that reason only.

However - the 50mm would provide me with a nice low light option, smaller than the 28-70mm but give me some additional reach.

Edit: Might consider the 35mm 2.8 + Oly 50mm 1.8 - best of both then!
Click to expand...

Do you need all these Fls? Next you'll want a 70-200 because you're covering most bases. What do you shoot 90% of the time?
 
Last edited:
I've been using the 16-35 most of the time lately. Be interested to know your thoughts on the 50mm, as I am thinking of adding one to sit between the 16-35 and the 85mm. Sometimes it would be good to have something for when the kids are playing. Have you tried the 55mm?
 
Tom Green said:
Kit changes again.

Bought the 16-35mm (about 90% of my shots are in this range) and have just sold my kit lens (28-70mm) as I use the 'standard' range very rarely and someone offered £205 for it.

Trying to decide what prime to get. Was looking at the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 - but not sure if there is much point now with having the 16-35.

Has anyone got or used the SEL50F18F - FE 50MM F1.8 - is it any good?
Click to expand...

I use a Sel5018F for the majority of my shots and find it an excellent lens. It focuses quickly, is quiet and is good wide open. There's an album of shots here;

https://flickr.com/photos/8476499@N02/sets/72157683225918122
 
Hi everyone, can someone in laymans terms explain how to shoot in HSS and control flash power in camera to a Godox AD360 via Pixel King transceivers on my A7R II. I used to understand flash but a few years out and it's all a distant memory.
 
Riz_Guru said:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/full-biotar-58mm-f2-0-e-mount-lens-specs-17-aperture-blades/

:eek:
Click to expand...

It takes a special kind of idiot to pay $2000 for a lens that produces images this;

pji01yxrbf4mmapcszn1.jpg
 
A7 and Minolta 55mm f1.7 MC.

1-DSC08048.jpg

1-DSC08074.jpg

1-DSC08075.jpg

1-DSC08063.jpg

Heavy crop...

1-DSC08069-C.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top