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

Just tried the voucher code with Jessops on the A7Rvi and it says not eligible, not sure whether because it’s on back order now or it’s expired.
 
Another!

1-DSC03237.jpg

It's a Seiko NH38 in a 36mm case.

It's not perfect as there are some issues on the dial which thankfully are only visible under high magnification. Maybe £21.28 isn't enough for the Chinese to provide a perfect dial. There was an issue with the stem too but luckily I had a spare. I like it though, I think I'll wear this a lot.

Taken with my Sony A7cII and 40mm, as usual :D
 
Last edited:
Here's a question for all you technical people out there.

On my Nikon Z8 & Z9, I can shoot 4K 120p in either full frame or ASP-C mode. However when in APS-C mode, the camera does a 1:1 pixel readout giving you an effective 2.3x crop from full frame. Whilst I know it's from a smaller part of the sensor and will therefore be noisier than from FF, the ability to pop on my super lightweight 400mm F.45 lens and get an effective Video field of view of a 920mm without having to employ teleconverters and thus retain the F4.5 maximum aperture is a feature I use regularly (in fact on my 180-600 at the long end it also nets me a FOV equivalent of a massive 1,380mm)

Step forward then the new Sony A7R VI, whilst can also shoot now 4K 120p in FF, however when shooting in APS-C mode, it's actually a 1.4x crop from FF (as it oversamples from a 4.6k area). So a 400mm lens would now only get you 560mm effective.

Whilst I'm fully aware that the oversampled 4.6k would no doubt have better noise control than the 2.3x 1:1 pixel readout mode from the Nikon's (due to the sampled sensor area being physically larger on the Sony), it got me wondering why Sony didn't add a 1:1 pixel read out option in APS-C mode as well ? I know that quality would take a slight hit, but with the Sony's massive 66.8mp sensor, a 1:1 readout of a 4k working area would give an approx 2.6x crop meaning that a 600mm lens would have the field of view equivalent of a massive 1,560mm (great for small birds). My thoughts are as it would be a direct 1:1 pixel readout there's no sampling that would need to be done by the camera processor, meaning (theoretically) less heat and better battery life ?

Like I say I know that the ultimate quality would suffer, but when shooting in decent light with the lower ISO's this could potentially be a big bonus when videoing small critters ? Anyone therefore know if there is a technical reason why Sony hasn't implemented this, or is it just based on it potentially having worse image quality than an oversampled 4.6k area ?
 
Lots of things manufacturers add that others don’t.
As you say it could easily be done but isn’t.
Having watching reviews of different Sony cameras it seem Sony ibis is crap in comparison to others and even more noticeable at longer ranges and video. There is a constant jiggle, not sure if these crop factors would negate that or not as it’s the centre of the image.
We also can’t do double exposures in camera like canon.
 
f/1.2 said:
Bro double exposure for most people died a death about 5 years ago.

It not 2021 any more.
Click to expand...
I've seen some great multiple exposures recently. I don't understand why manufacturers don't just offer all of these things, like panoramas too, and just let the user decide what they do or do not want t use :thinking: I'd be surprised if it uses too much processing power.
 
and why can Sony A7R V only focus stack 2 or 3 shots per second whilst Olympus can do 10 per second, Canon R5 II 30 per second(according to google)
 
snerkler said:
I've seen some great multiple exposures recently. I don't understand why manufacturers don't just offer all of these things, like panoramas too, and just let the user decide what they do or do not want t use :thinking: I'd be surprised if it uses too much processing power.
Click to expand...
They were a whole thing a few years ago but have been done to death and are now right up their with selective colour.
 
f/1.2 said:
They were a whole thing a few years ago but have been done to death and are now right up their with selective colour.
Click to expand...
I still think they could add everything and let users decide what they want to use.

It may come as a surprise but I don’t follow trends or fashions :ROFLMAO:
 
snerkler said:
I've seen some great multiple exposures recently. I don't understand why manufacturers don't just offer all of these things, like panoramas too, and just let the user decide what they do or do not want t use :thinking: I'd be surprised if it uses too much processing power.
Click to expand...

Sony A7 - July 2016 ;) :ROFLMAO:


*** by Lee, on Flickr
 
pmac said:
Lots of things manufacturers add that others don’t.
As you say it could easily be done but isn’t.
Having watching reviews of different Sony cameras it seem Sony ibis is crap in comparison to others and even more noticeable at longer ranges and video. There is a constant jiggle, not sure if these crop factors would negate that or not as it’s the centre of the image.
We also can’t do double exposures in camera like canon.
Click to expand...
It vexes me that we can't have the histogram and level on screen at the same time...
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
It vexes me that we can't have the histogram and level on screen at the same time...
Click to expand...
Yeah it's pretty basic to be able to choose what displays you want on the screen, I could do this with Olympus and I can do it with the Fuji X100VI.

I've always been baffled by manufacturers' decisions, for example Olympus have some great innovations such as live composite, live ND but then omit panoramas. Fujifilm have panoramas and multiple exposure but then don't have live ND or live composite. And then there's Sony who had some features and then took them away with later models :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
Yeah it's pretty basic to be able to choose what displays you want on the screen, I could do this with Olympus and I can do it with the Fuji X100VI.

I've always been baffled by manufacturers' decisions, for example Olympus have some great innovations such as live composite, live ND but then omit panoramas. Fujifilm have panoramas and multiple exposure but then don't have live ND or live composite. And then there's Sony who had some features and then took them away with later models :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think you can only do double exposure on the X100f if you shoot jpeg only mode.

The only thing I wish my bodies/cameras had is a full range of different aspect ratios.
 
Kieran_89 said:
I wish you could get a shutter speed longer than 30” without going into bulb mode like the Nikon cameras do, should really be a standard feature.
Click to expand...
You kind of can, as established on your other comparison thread

Yes involves a few more menu hops, but if you are setting up for like multiple minutes of exposures, spending few extra seconds on menu hops isn't really an issue
 
nandbytes said:
You kind of can, as established on your other comparison thread

Yes involves a few more menu hops, but if you are setting up for like multiple minutes of exposures, spending few extra seconds on menu hops isn't really an issue
Click to expand...
True but I’d like it without the extra menu hops :p
 
LeeRatters said:
I think you can only do double exposure on the X100f if you shoot jpeg only mode.

The only thing I wish my bodies/cameras had is a full range of different aspect ratios.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of the in camera effects/processing are jpeg only, I know panoramas are. Olympus live composite and live ND work with raw though I think.
 
nandbytes said:
First world problems :ROFLMAO:

Compared to few weeks ago when I thought it was impossible, I'll take this over not having it at all :P
Click to expand...
I know we’re very privileged :p

I’m thinking about A7Cr + Nikon Z8.

I get all the features and AF from Sony and its much nicer to carry and hike with and then when I’m doing landscape and long exposure I’ll take the Z8 out with me.
 
Kieran_89 said:
I know we’re very privileged :p

I’m thinking about A7Cr + Nikon Z8.

I get all the features and AF from Sony and its much nicer to carry and hike with and then when I’m doing landscape and long exposure I’ll take the Z8 out with me.
Click to expand...

Long exposures and landscapes is where I'd personally avoid Z8/9. Lower dynamic and ISO performance. It's like 1.5 stop behind something like A7rvi
Plus you don't need the (operational) speed for such scenarios.

They make more sense for action where you need operational speed and since people are using larger lenses anyway you'd notice the size of the body less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
nandbytes said:
Long exposures and landscapes is where I'd personally avoid Z8/9. Lower dynamic and ISO performance. It's like 1.5 stop behind something like A7rvi
Plus you don't need the (operational) speed for such scenarios.

They make more sense for action where you need operational speed and since people are using larger lenses anyway you'd notice the size of the body less.
Click to expand...
I’ve been using the Z8 for long exposures for ages now and it’s excellent, it’s the only Nikon Z body I like and it does produce lovely images.

I also use it for wildlife when I have the time, either 400 4.5 or 180-600.

But it is too heavy to carry all day, especially if I’m heading into Warsaw for the day, which is why I’m looking for a Sony body to use for street.

I’ve ordered the A7Rvi from Cotswold, I’ll try some long exposure when it arrives and I’ll compare it with the Z8.
 
Kieran_89 said:
I’ve been using the Z8 for long exposures for ages now and it’s excellent, it’s the only Nikon Z body I like and it does produce lovely images.

I also use it for wildlife when I have the time, either 400 4.5 or 180-600.

But it is too heavy to carry all day, especially if I’m heading into Warsaw for the day, which is why I’m looking for a Sony body to use for street.

I’ve ordered the A7Rvi from Cotswold, I’ll try some long exposure when it arrives and I’ll compare it with the Z8.
Click to expand...
Check the camera’s new when you get it, I recently ordered an X100VI from them and it was clearly used. It had small damage to the body, the split rings had been put on, shutter count was 300, and parts of the box inserts were missing. Needless to say I sent it straight back.
 
snerkler said:
Check the camera’s new when you get it, I recently ordered an X100VI from them and it was clearly used. It had small damage to the body, the split rings had been put on, shutter count was 300, and parts of the box inserts were missing. Needless to say I sent it straight back.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, that’s a strange one, especially from Cotswold, haven’t heard about them sending out used items before.

Will keep an eye out though, cheers. :)
 
I took the A7r6 out birding yesterday and it performed about the same as the A1 i only got ducks and pigeons and all were flying across the frame but most were in focus i used the 600 f4 + 1.4 tc and the 400/800 need something flying towards me to test it properly but can't fault it so far.
 
GyRob said:
I took the A7r6 out birding yesterday and it performed about the same as the A1 i only got ducks and pigeons and all were flying across the frame but most were in focus i used the 600 f4 + 1.4 tc and the 400/800 need something flying towards me to test it properly but can't fault it so far.
Click to expand...
Try using the electronic shutter in artificial light. You will see one hell of a difference then. :D

Try using it at a quicker than 1/8000 shutter speed. Oops you can’t.
 
Last edited:
f/1.2 said:
Try using the electronic shutter in artificial light. You will see one hell of a difference then. :D

Try using it at a quicker than 1/8000 shutter speed. Oops you can’t.
Click to expand...
i never shoot in artificial light and i don't think i'v ever needed 1/8000 sec if you need that then it's not the camera for you :)
 
GyRob said:
i never shoot in artificial light and i don't think i'v ever needed 1/8000 sec if you need that then it's not the camera for you :)
Click to expand...
I shoot a lot at f1.2 and f1.4 and do often go above 1/8000, however I appreciate that a lot of people won't. Also, you do have the option of using ISO 50 if needs be.
 
snerkler said:
I shoot a lot at f1.2 and f1.4 and do often go above 1/8000, however I appreciate that a lot of people won't. Also, you do have the option of using ISO 50 if needs be.
Click to expand...

I do the same, and often wish a couple of stops less exposure were possible without fitting an ND filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top