- Messages
- 5,537
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the Lexar which is pretty fast, guess it depends how many shots you download. Free returns if too slow and its £36
Edit hmm the Pergear does seem to be pretty quick
Last edited:
The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!
- Thread starter woof woof
- Start date
Edit hmm the Pergear does seem to be pretty quick
- Messages
- 26,503
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
That's quite slow in comparison, the pergear is 40gbps which is 5000mb/sI have the Lexar which is pretty fast, guess it depends how many shots you download. Free returns if too slow and its £36
- Messages
- 5,537
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah just looked at the Pergear and edited my post.That's quite slow in comparison, the pergear is 40gbps which is 5000mb/s
Still pretty happy with the Lexar with A7R V raws though I don't often download hundreds of picsIt's the same with the A7iv/v - and since I use dual slots to provide redundancy (IE Writing the same to both in parallel) I just use 2xSD, which means I'm paying for a CfA slot I'm not using.
I'd much rather they made the camera a little extra, but gave matched CfA slots so everyone had the choice of how to use them - it's not like anyone is going to get an A1/A7R rather than an A7 becasue of it, so there's no benefit to Sony in not having matched slots.
- Messages
- 16,898
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can at least use two SD cards
For cameras that are similar type from competitors like z7ii or R6iii you'd need to use one SD card and one CFe type B card, you'd have no choice if you want redundancy.
So I still think sony option is better even in this case
Last edited:
Yes, Sony does give the dual SD option (which is what I use) - I didn't realise Canon/Nikon didn't give that option - which I agree is an advantage.
I still think not having 2x CfA/SD slots is a dumb choice by Sony (just not quite a dumb as having 2 different slot types).
- Messages
- 16,898
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Tbh i don't understand the rationale either. It can't be that much more expensive to add a second CFe A slot.
I also still can't get my head around having to use two completely different formats for redundancy.
canon/Nikon/Sony all did used to have uhs-ii and a second uhs-i card slot, but at least they were the same format and backwards compatible.
But apparently it doesn't bother many people, you and I are in the minority
- Messages
- 26,503
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I’ve never understood having 2 different types of card slots, but then I know some pros that only use one card so the other slot is redundant anyway. I don’t get just using one slot either if you have the choiceTbh i don't understand the rationale either. It can't be that much more expensive to add a second CFe A slot.
I also still can't get my head around having to use two completely different formats for redundancy.
canon/Nikon/Sony all did used to have uhs-ii and a second uhs-i card slot, but at least they were the same format and backwards compatible.
But apparently it doesn't bother many people, you and I are in the minority
- Messages
- 667
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I’ll know tomorrow when I’m at the Welsh Mountain Zoo.
There were only 4 sheep in the field to photograph and they were all up against the fence
- Messages
- 7,555
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I’ve not had an issue with autofocus
I can't recall ever having an issue with the X100f either for what I use it for.
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,612
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
As you have what used to be mine I'm glad you haven't but I had way too many and I don't think I tax AF... other than I now expect a lot from the eye detect of my Sony's. I'm sure I didn't imagine it or cause it as some reviewers have commented on it, Manny being one if anyone wants to go and see, The exposure seemed a bit iffy for me too and then there was the manual focus action. I do see the appeal and they should be right up my street but they didn't work for me.
As Mrs WW says, I notice things no one else in the world would and even if they did they wouldn't care. It's all part of my charm
- Messages
- 7,555
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As you have what used to be mine I'm glad you haven't but I had way too many and I don't think I tax AF... other than I now expect a lot from the eye detect of my Sony's. I'm sure I didn't imagine it or cause it as some reviewers have commented on it, Manny being one if anyone wants to go and see, The exposure seemed a bit iffy for me too and then there was the manual focus action. I do see the appeal and they should be right up my street but they didn't work for me.
As Mrs WW says, I notice things no one else in the world would and even if they did they wouldn't care. It's all part of my charm
Even my missus managed to take in focus portraits with it
With back button focus because I had it in manual focus mode - that is a nice feature tbh For street I have it in manual focus on the switch as I generally tend to zone focus at about 2m, but a quick punch of the back button overides it and autofocus kicks in 
I do still wish there was a simple button to toggle the rear screen simply on and off though.....But anyway, a week in Cornwall and I used the most (in order) X100f > Yashica Mat 124G > Canonet QL17 > A7Riii/35GM
I didn't even take the 70-180mm out of the bag!It has started to make me think about a swap around.....
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 28,220
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I would probably slightly oversize them, so 1200 on the long edge of sharing from Flickr, since the forum and browser doesn't resize at that scale and you get a bit more detail.
Personally I've never noticed a loss of detail when posting to the forum, but others do - I wonder if it's a Mac issue?
Personally I've never noticed a loss of detail when posting to the forum, but others do - I wonder if it's a Mac issue?
- Messages
- 5,844
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I use a Mac and haven't noticed any difference.
OR, perhaps they weren't sharp to begin with
I'm not one for using GM lenses as apart from build quality and price, I couldn't see any difference.
I never shoot wide open either.
I had the 24GM but sold it soon after as I couldn't see any improvement in detail.
OR, perhaps they weren't sharp to begin with
I'm not one for using GM lenses as apart from build quality and price, I couldn't see any difference.
I never shoot wide open either.
I had the 24GM but sold it soon after as I couldn't see any improvement in detail.
- Messages
- 7,555
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not sure. Detail isn't something I overly worry about aside from night skies, and that seems to be once every few years lately
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 28,220
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I usually output as jpg, quality set to about 80, upper size limit of 500kb for a 1024px image. 16 bit Tiff is great in terms of quality if you have to transfer images between applications, but not suitable for web use.
- Messages
- 3,230
- Edit My Images
- No
Read a few reviews that say it's a very good lens. Now I have the 35 GM I wouldn't mind trying something new to replace my 35f2.8.
Though some say they prefer the contrasts and colours of the 35f2.8
Last edited:
- Messages
- 26,503
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I've really gone off Manny, it's all a bit OTT for me now.As you have what used to be mine I'm glad you haven't but I had way too many and I don't think I tax AF... other than I now expect a lot from the eye detect of my Sony's. I'm sure I didn't imagine it or cause it as some reviewers have commented on it, Manny being one if anyone wants to go and see, The exposure seemed a bit iffy for me too and then there was the manual focus action. I do see the appeal and they should be right up my street but they didn't work for me.
As Mrs WW says, I notice things no one else in the world would and even if they did they wouldn't care. It's all part of my charm
I guess it depends on what your demands of AF are, the X100VI can't keep up with my A1 that's for sure but for general shooting it's not missed a beat for me. In fact it's one of only two cameras (the other being the A7RV) that's ever been able to detect Betty's eyes when using animal eye AF.
It does underexpose a little, but no more than Sony from my experience, I think cameras are more concerned with protecting highlights these days. What I have noticed is that the WB of the LCD and EVF were off compared to my computer which is calibrated, so I've changed them.
I've battled with this for years and still not figured it out. Sometimes my images look sharp on here, other times really soft. I always export with the same settings so there's no rhyme or reason for it
- Messages
- 667
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I used the same settings in both sets of photos above, exported with the same settings etc yet the sheep look very very sharp and the others not so much, it’s strange.I've really gone off Manny, it's all a bit OTT for me now.
I guess it depends on what your demands of AF are, the X100VI can't keep up with my A1 that's for sure but for general shooting it's not missed a beat for me. In fact it's one of only two cameras (the other being the A7RV) that's ever been able to detect Betty's eyes when using animal eye AF.
It does underexpose a little, but no more than Sony from my experience, I think cameras are more concerned with protecting highlights these days. What I have noticed is that the WB of the LCD and EVF were off compared to my computer which is calibrated, so I've changed them.
I've battled with this for years and still not figured it out. Sometimes my images look sharp on here, other times really soft. I always export with the same settings so there's no rhyme or reason for it
I wonder if it’s something to do with the MacOS export style, the 3 sheep were sent from the camera direct to my iPad and onto Flickr so I wonder if iPad iOS processes the images differently.
- Messages
- 26,503
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd imagine iPad and Mac process very differently. It's more confusing for me when my exports are all the same settings.
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,612
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This could be worth a look...
www.sonyalpharumors.com
Viltrox 26mm f/2.8 pancake FE lens is coming soon for $299 | sonyalpharumors
Viltrox is teasing the launch of a new EVO lens. A trusted source (Thanks again!!!) already told us we will get the Viltrox 26mm f/2.8 EVO pancake lens for Sony E and Nikon Z. Release this month with a price tag of $299. We already saw an image and a video of this lens...
www.sonyalpharumors.com
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 28,220
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I've just dug out a couple of older AF cameras yesterday and tried the AF. Nikon D70 and Minolta 7000 both fine for static objects, but yes, so very much less precise feeling than even my old A7III.
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,612
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've really gone off Manny, it's all a bit OTT for me now.
I guess it depends on what your demands of AF are, the X100VI can't keep up with my A1 that's for sure but for general shooting it's not missed a beat for me. In fact it's one of only two cameras (the other being the A7RV) that's ever been able to detect Betty's eyes when using animal eye AF.
It does underexpose a little, but no more than Sony from my experience, I think cameras are more concerned with protecting highlights these days. What I have noticed is that the WB of the LCD and EVF were off compared to my computer which is calibrated, so I've changed them.
I've battled with this for years and still not figured it out. Sometimes my images look sharp on here, other times really soft. I always export with the same settings so there's no rhyme or reason for it
I don't think my demands are that demanding but the A7cII has upped my expectations especially the eye AF and its ability to lock on when the face and eye are very small in the frame.
I can't explain why I (and some reviewers too) had AF issues and you and Lee don't. All I can say is the X100s/f's I had gave me too many oof shots I couldn't explain and really spoilt the experience for me. It wasn't a vast percentage, just noticeable and more than I'd expect and was used to from anything half decent I've had since the S602 pro zoom. The exposure issues I had were that it occasionally blew areas that even my MFT cameras didn't. AFAIR when Fuji first brought these cameras out they had built in under exposure and the ISO's were more than a bit suspect all done to claim that Fuji APS-C performance was equal to FF. Allegedly. I don't know how this could cause blown bits if it lived on in the s and f I had though, just that it was suspected that Fuji fiddled with things affecting exposure a bit more than others did. I think it was these two things and the soulless manual focus action that lead to me choosing anything else over the X100's.
Anyway. I've forgotten how we got into this.
OP
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,612
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I remember when I had Canon DSLR's reading on the Canon website that if you took three pictures of the same thing you could expect to see focus differences between them and this was normal. As other DSLR's worked the same way I expect these "differences" were normal to them too.
I think we are a bit spoilt these days and in the future we may look back and think how poor things like the A1 were never mind the A7III. That's something to look forward to
Check the setting as when you transfer via app to a phone anyway it’s not a full resolution image as standard unless you change the settings
- Messages
- 26,503
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I have the VI which is a couple of generations newer than the F
- Messages
- 7,555
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Honestly. I don't notice any metering issues with the X100f. And I find the auto WB to be better than Sony tbh.
Yes, the Sony AF is quicker and probably much more accurate with tracking etc, but I've just done a week in Cornwall with the X100f (me and the missus) taking over 100 photos and nothing is out of focus.
- Messages
- 667
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hmm I’m not so sure, the 3 sheep I posted were sent from the camera direct to the iPad and uploaded via Flickr.
The other images were transferred from the memory card, onto my Mac and then uploaded to Flickr also.
The 3 sheep images are definitely sharper than the other animals but they had different routes from the camera to Flickr.
I’ll try sending them through my iPad and uploading them again, see what happens then.