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

Raymond Lin said:
I studied Architecture at university and I had AutoCAD and Maya...to get those it is the price of a small car.
Click to expand...

twist said:
Ha ha yeah, still expensive, these guys complain about a £99 PA sub, Maya is £1750 PA and Revit is £2600.

Photoshop is much better for retouching and masks etc etc than LR. Really need both.
Click to expand...

Nice to see some fellow Autodesk users here! Thankfully we get the creative suite with work which is nice, great for using on the iPad whilst out and about too!
 
nandbytes said:
It's not about the cost which as you say isn't that much, its more the principal of it. You wouldn't pay subscription to read the same magazine with small grammar check every iteration for 12 months in a year would?
Click to expand...

Well I pay the government more than that every year to be able to drive my car over the same roads, with only a small change in the number of potholes... :sulk:
 
Last edited:
Faldrax said:
Well I pay the government more than that every year to be able to drive my car over the same roads, with only a small change in the number of potholes... :sulk:
Click to expand...
You pay the government road tax based on the emissions from your car and not for them fix pot holes. Buy a car with low emissions and you won't have to pay the road tax (the name is misleading!)
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
Raymond knows my ways too well. Exposed for sky, recover the shadows. I rarely use OCF for weddings as speed is the key - especially when it's 4C and windy.
Click to expand...
Thanks, it’s an awesome shot as so is everything else of yours.

Have you simply raised the shadows or done more localised work around the couple as they pop really well, obviously not taking enough of an advantage of my on a7
 
nandbytes said:
You pay the government road tax based on the emissions from your car and not for them fix pot holes. Buy a car with low emissions and you won't have to pay the road tax (the name is misleading!)
Click to expand...

I would happily trade in my 4yr old car for a brand new one with lower emissions - however the cost of doing so is somewhat prohibitive, and certainly a lot more than the potential savings in VED and fuel.
Which is, of course, the big problem with trying to resolve the vehicle emissions problem though VED, 'Low Emission Zones', etc. It's the people who can't afford new cars that have the older, higher emissions vehicles, so all that happens is transport costs them more, so they have even less money to available to save for a newer vehicle...
Which has nothing to so with cars, so I better stop there.
(Unless you want to go down the Personal Contract Hire route to get your new car, which is, of course, just another subscription based method of getting a car {As they say in the small print - You will not own the vehicle}) :)
 
Sony 70-200mm F4 lens is available for £864.10 from Wex using Code SONYE10 including £80 Sony Cashback. This makes it cheaper than grey market.

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-...4c51be3b2eed116bf4dd7f71333ef04&utm_source=aw

1544418.jpg
 
woof woof said:
Yup. I don't know what possessed them. They've gone from a gorgeous looking design to a black anonymous and characterless lump. And they've done it with lens after lens so it wasn't just a moment of madness with one lens.

I received my 35mm f1.4 Nocton but the adapter I got wouldn't allow infinity or anything like it so it's going back which has allowed me to have a rethink and I think I fancy a helicoid adapter. Does anyone know of a decent one that doesn't cost as much as the Voigtlander one?

PS.
I was expecting the lens to be soft and to display serious barrel distortion and CA but I found it to be easily sharp enough in the central area and also across all parts of the frame I'd expect and want it to be at f1.4 and the CA shooting in lowlight indoors with windows in the frame wasn't too bad. There is barrel distortion but in many shots it wont be a problem and there is a lens profile for it which will help.
Click to expand...

I have a Tinray helicoid for M>FE No complaints really but it does light leak a little (as do almost all adapters) on daylight long exposures.

nandbytes said:
Still a happy LR6 user. I am going to resist subscribing for as long as possible.
Click to expand...

nandbytes said:
I paid £75 for LR6 about nearly 3 years ago. But even if I paid the standard £110 for it I am still better off with LR6 than I would have been with subscription.
Click to expand...

Same here!! I think I paid about £80-90 for LR & that was only because LR3 wouldn't read the A7 files when I bought that :LOL::LOL:
 
Diamonddec said:
That's an excellent price. Cheers. I need a 70-200 myself but am waiting for Tamron to bring their f2.8 out.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm in the same boat especially with the 28-75 being so well received.
 
RPhotos said:
Thanks, it’s an awesome shot as so is everything else of yours.

Have you simply raised the shadows or done more localised work around the couple as they pop really well, obviously not taking enough of an advantage of my on a7
Click to expand...

Localised brushwork. I use brushes a lot - it's all about trying to balance the image so the couple just pops out enough without it looking really fake. Basically, I'm trying to recreate the scene as I remember it rather than how the camera caught it. In that shot, raising the shadows would've brightened the grass and the sky would've lost a bit of definition.

I wrote this a few years ago and I've changed my techniques quite a bit since then, but it applies to the A7III and covers the basics: https://petapixel.com/2014/11/24/creative-underexposure-nikon-dslrs/
 
Raymond Lin said:
I remember those were like £600, it was so expensive I didn't know a single person would buy it but everyone was using it, if you know what i mean.

Even if you were buying it, you would not be upgrading every year. You would wait a couple of years and skip a version or 2, missing out features for a while.

Now everyone subscribe and features are getting added when they pop up, updates whenever and you get it the same day, not when you decide to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Creative Suite is great value, in fairness.

I remember paying £800 for Logic 6 when it came out and then the generational upgrades were about £300 a go. And that wasn't the most expensive DAW at the time.

My mate was whinging about Logic X being 'extortionate' (£199 one-off plus free updates). My last big music purchase was over £2k worth of orchestral samples. Apparently now you can get access to more or less the same library for £20 a month with free updates.

Part of me hates being forced into subscriptions, but for many people, it's way more cost effective.
 
decigallen said:
Creative Suite is great value, in fairness.

I remember paying £800 for Logic 6 when it came out and then the generational upgrades were about £300 a go. And that wasn't the most expensive DAW at the time.

My mate was whinging about Logic X being 'extortionate' (£199 one-off plus free updates). My last big music purchase was over £2k worth of orchestral samples. Apparently now you can get access to more or less the same library for £20 a month with free updates.

Part of me hates being forced into subscriptions, but for many people, it's way more cost effective.
Click to expand...

The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing is the idea that once you stop paying, you lose the software.

To be fair, after a number of years, old Lightroom or photoshop gets so outdated they might as well be useless,(I actually gave away my copy of LR5 a few years ago). They would be missing important features, like old PS lack content aware. I mean who uses Photoshop from 2005 for example? So the idea that once you stop subscribing you lose the software forever, same as paying that £600 fee for Photos in 2005, that disc might as well go in the bin.

The subscription model has far too many positives with only 1 negative, and this negative is only really valid for a while. If you can get over that mental block, and it really is a mental block, the whole subscription model is cheaper, provides better service, I can download it from everywhere and don't need to keep that disc safe.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing is the idea that once you stop paying, you lose the software.

To be fair, after a number of years, old Lightroom or photoshop gets so outdated they might as well be useless,(I actually gave away my copy of LR5 a few years ago). They would be missing important features, like old PS lack content aware. I mean who uses Photoshop from 2005 for example? So the idea that once you stop subscribing you lose the software forever, same as paying that £600 fee for Photos in 2005, that might as well go into the bin.

The subscription model has far too many positives with only 1 negative, and this negative is only really valid for a while. If you can get over that mental block, and it really is a mental block, the whole subscription model is cheaper, provides better service, I can download it from everywhere and don't need to keep that disc safe.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely a mental block. The idea that you don't really 'own' it.

And regarding the idea of once you stop paying you lose the software, even that can be construed as another benefit. If I hadn't bought those orchestral samples, I could essentially rent them for the 4-5 months in the year that I really need them. And re-registering is a matter of going online. £100 a year instead of well over £2k I spent to own it outright.
 
Just coming to the end of 6 days in Hong Kong with my a7RII. Covered over 50 miles hiking (on my own) with the a7RII and Sigma 35/85 Arts. Avoided the obvious tourist bits until yesterday when the sun finally came out, quite the culture shock given that I rarely saw anyone out hiking, I did the 15k Tung Chung to Tai O trail without seeing a single person!

Victoria Peak was particularly spectacular this morning...

Hong Kong by Chris Harrison, on Flickr
 
Raymond Lin said:
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing is the idea that once you stop paying, you lose the software.

To be fair, after a number of years, old Lightroom or photoshop gets so outdated they might as well be useless,(I actually gave away my copy of LR5 a few years ago). They would be missing important features, like old PS lack content aware. I mean who uses Photoshop from 2005 for example? So the idea that once you stop subscribing you lose the software forever, same as paying that £600 fee for Photos in 2005, that disc might as well go in the bin.

The subscription model has far too many positives with only 1 negative, and this negative is only really valid for a while. If you can get over that mental block, and it really is a mental block, the whole subscription model is cheaper, provides better service, I can download it from everywhere and don't need to keep that disc safe.
Click to expand...

It's not a mental block. It's the point of not paying for something I don't need. If they offered a subscription for LR only at say £6 I'd be more for it. I don't want/need their storage or PS. Why should I be paying for all that, basically they are trying to force it down your throat so that suddenly you start feeling you need these things when you actually didn't. Same as Amazon prime.

But you are right in that things get outdated. I normally updated my lightroom when my current version no longer supported my new new cameras RAW files. Last time I updated to LR6 from LR5 when I upgraded to A7RII. I upgraded to A7RIII recently but didn't feel the need to upgrade LR because the current version supported it. When I upgrade to A7RIV or equivalent from other brands say 2 years later, I would have probably upgraded my LR then. So with the subscription model I am still paying more than I would have otherwise with perpectual licence model.

p.s. I subscribe to Amazon prime and other services. Because I use what I pay for unlike in this case where I just want LR and it's not an option.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
could be because it isn't called road tax, its correct name is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)
Click to expand...
Yes but people refer it to as the road tax (rightly or wrongly). I haven't come across any one that calls it VED in regular conversation. The only place I see it called that is on the online payment page.
 
nandbytes said:
It's not about the cost which as you say isn't that much, its more the principal of it. You wouldn't pay subscription to read the same magazine with small grammar check every iteration for 12 months in a year would?
Click to expand...

Earlier yesterday you say the price is fine, but what is stopping you is the principle...aka, mentality.

nandbytes said:
It's not a mental block. It's the point of not paying for something I don't need. If they offered a subscription for LR only at say £6 I'd be more for it. I don't want/need their storage or PS. Why should I be paying for all that, basically they are trying to force it down your throat so that suddenly you start feeling you need these things when you actually didn't. Same as Amazon prime.

But you are right in that things get outdated. I normally updated my lightroom when my current version no longer supported my new new cameras RAW files. Last time I updated to LR6 from LR5 when I upgraded to A7RII. I upgraded to A7RIII recently but didn't feel the need to upgrade LR because the current version supported it. When I upgrade to A7RIV or equivalent from other brands say 2 years later, I would have probably upgraded my LR then. So with the subscription model I am still paying more than I would have otherwise with perpectual licence model.

p.s. I subscribe to Amazon prime and other services. Because I use what I pay for unlike in this case where I just want LR and it's not an option.
Click to expand...

Today it is too expensive by a mere £3 (difference of your £6) and it is not a mental block.

You sure do change your tune daily :p
 
I have CS5 and use DNG to convert raw files. I'd like the moire tool that later versions have but other than that and being able to convert raws without DNG I don't know what I'm missing.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Earlier yesterday you say the price is fine, but what is stopping you is the principle...aka, mentality.



Today it is too expensive by a mere £3 (difference of your £6) and it is not a mental block.

You sure do change your tune daily :p
Click to expand...
I can read no need to increase the font, then bolden it and then underline it lol.

I also know what I said.

My point is still the same. It's not expensive, as you say £3 is barely anything. I spend that much on coffee everyday. It's the principal that I have to pay that much extra from stuff I don't need.

I also said of it was £6 for just LR I'd more for it. That is not same as saying "I'd sign up immediately". Just that I'd have less objection. The point that I am happy with using the same version of LR with perpectual licence for 3-4 years with no issues still stands.
 
twist said:
Or renew every black Friday or Xmas and it's 6 a month :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well if they had a LR only model it'd have been £4 a month:rolleyes:
But they don't have that do they because they want me to pay for stuff I don't want so that they can coerce me into thinking I need those
 
Last edited:
I don't even know which way you are leaning from one moment to the next, it is impossible to debate with someone who moves the goal posts constantly but it is your money and your photos so you'd do what you want. My post was more a generic observation on various forums on why people won't subscribe, not just you.

p.s. I just paid £74.99 for 12 months, ooooh, extra £2.99 more for the 12 months for PS...HUGE price to pay for something you don't need if you can get the other thing for cheap! lol
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I don't even know which way you are leaning from one moment to the next, it is impossible to debate with someone who moves the goal posts constantly but it is your money and your photos so you'd do what you want. My post was more a generic observation on various forums on why people won't subscribe, not just you.
Click to expand...

Well yes a lot of people don't like subscriptions whom I believe are the people you referred to as having mental block.
I am not one of those especially since I subscribe to other things I use.

I will probably end up getting a subscription when I next upgrade my body and if I can't a find a good alternative for LR (which I haven't yet).

But again that is not to say I'd be happy with it or that I'd agree with the principal.
 
nandbytes said:
Well yes a lot of people don't like subscriptions whom I believe are the people you referred to as having mental block.
I am not one of those especially since I subscribe to other things I use.

I will probably end up getting a subscription when I next upgrade my body and if I can't a find a good alternative for LR (which I haven't yet).

But again that is not to say I'd be happy with it or that I'd agree with the principal.
Click to expand...

But you're paying for features in lots of software you will probably never use either and can say that you use every function of everything you own.
 
Sony manager Kenji Tanaka has been interviewed by Amateur Photographer. He shared some interesting thoughts and info:

About the mount diameter discussion: “The diameter of lens doesn’t matter. Honestly speaking it is very difficult to create a small size mount. But the quality of our new 400mm f/2.8 is better than the competitors. That means the diameter of the mount is not critical for our foremost lenses.”

About doing faster primes: “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”

About the new comptition: “Of course we are planning new models but honestly speaking, I don’t care about competitors. We care about our customer’s voice. A lot of our customers have given us feedback and we will create new products based on that.”

About new telephoto lenses: “We recently launched the 400mm f/2.8 for sports shooters and we are planning to develop another lens for this segment.”

About the size of the A7-A9 camera: “bigger cameras, that is not the Sony philosophy, and maybe another product might be better for them.”
 
I'd love a 1.0 lens...for bragging rights, I'd probably would use it and would probably will buy it if it exists but do I need it? Probably not.
 
twist said:
But you're paying for features in lots of software you will probably never use either and can say that you use every function of everything you own.
Click to expand...

No I don't. But we are not talking features of a software or product. I have no need for half the products offered as part of the subscription i.e. I am not using the whole PS software though I can find plenty uses for PS and gimp is not so nice to use. But the this is exactly the point, I don't need PS but when I have it I'll start using it thus making me want it in future. It's exactly what Adobe is banking on :p
 
Raymond Lin said:
I'd love a 1.0 lens...for bragging rights, I'd probably would use it and would probably will buy it if it exists but do I need it? Probably not.
Click to expand...

There are a few 0.95 lenses for E mount, also a 0.85. I owned the Mitakon dark knight.
 
woof woof said:
I would, maybe.

I keep looking at the Voigtlander 50mm f1.1 and if it comes out in e mount I think a few people will have a look.
Click to expand...

I think if there was a lot of interest then people would have just adapted via LM mount by now. I used CVand LM lenses with my previous A7 cameras and the adapter is ridiculously small.
 
woof woof said:
Yup. A fact that some Canokon fanboys seem to have airbrushed from history.
Click to expand...

What you mean there were things like EVF, magnified focus, fast live view and no requirement for MA with 1st party lenses before the Canikon mirrorless cameras :eek:
 
twist said:
I think if there was a lot of interest then people would have just adapted via LM mount by now. I used CVand LM lenses with my previous A7 cameras and the adapter is ridiculously small.
Click to expand...

There are problems with adapting them... as I've just found out the adapters are a lottery and another potential issue is the close focus distance is often less than inspiring. I don't expect these lenses to be macros but a MFD of 1m is a bit restrictive if you want to odd close up. Voigtlanders Sony mount lenses tend to have a closer MFD than Leica mount ones. You can get helicoid adapters but again it seems to be a complete lottery, worse than my MD, OM and FD experience.
 
twist said:
What you mean there were things like EVF, magnified focus, fast live view and no requirement for MA with 1st party lenses before the Canikon mirrorless cameras :eek:
Click to expand...

Do people get that far? I thought most were put off by the impenetrable Sony menus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top