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

Yup, 24mm usually costs more than 28mm but what I meant was I hope it's a relatively budget lens like the 28mm rather than a top of the line offering like the 35mm and maybe the choice of aperture hints at a cheaper lens? If it was f1.4 I'd expect a hefty price but it's f2. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Mucho Excitement!!!!! :D

Batis 25 and 85mm review over at Steve Huff...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/07/06/the-zeiss-batis-25-f2-and-85-f1-8-lens-review/

The short version is, he likes them! :D He says...

"As for these lenses, they deliver on the hype and promise, the really do. I have not used a finer 25mm lens and in the world of 75-85mm lenses, the choices are plentiful, no doubt. Even so, the Zeiss 85 f/1.8 Sonnar is up there with the finest I have used and my faves in life have been the Canon 85 1.2, Nikon 85 1.4, and Zeiss 85 f/2 for Leica Mount. This 85mm delivers the detail, creaminess, nice colors and perfect contrast for those portrait sessions where you want that Zeiss WOW."

:D
 
I had a thought earlier on people jumping in early for a A7rII... Will the processing software of your choice open the files?

When I got my A7 Photoshop wouldn't open the raws so I was stuck with JPEG's or using something other than PS to open the raws and they were so bad that I thought I'd made a horrible mistake buying the A7 but once I could convert the raws to DNG and open them in CS5 I was happy.

As far as I remember Silkipix is the spawn of Satan and the only other thing I had at the time that would open the raws was Rawtherapee which some people get very good results with but doesn't seem to want to run well on my pc.

If processing A7rII raws could be an issue it might be worth taking a chill pill, I very nearly got quite cross :D
 
Huh it looks like you're right. Prices over there are significantly lower across the board. Damn Aussies.
 
6 new lenses said to be announced soon.

Wouldnt mind a UWA prime.
 
robj20 said:
6 new lenses said to be announced soon.

Wouldnt mind a UWA prime.
Click to expand...

The rumour site is saying that a "fast" 85 will be amongst them. I'm surprised by that as it's so close to the release of the Batis. Might not be true though, time will tell.

still impressed with the 35mm f2.8 and a f1.8 of the same size and weight would be very nice... if such a thing was possible.
 
woof woof said:
Rumour site also has what they say is the first full size A7rII raw file...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/chec...rii-raw-file-for-pixel-peepers/#disqus_thread
Click to expand...

Hmm Sony Raw Viewer 2.2.2.03020 just bombs when starting on Win 7 64bit.
I also tried their Play Memories Home which was as turgid as molasses in winter in fact it's still sitting there with the mouse pointer busy.

What would you open this dsc09066.arw 41MB raw file with please.

Clearly I have to find something better than this rubbish whilst waiting for LR6 to support the A7RII raws!
 
shoshone said:
What would you open this dsc09066.arw 41MB raw file with please.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, until the software people catch up you may have to use something strange and unheard of or the dreadful Silkipix.

I've just tried DNG and it wont touch the file. It wont be too long until people catch up though. You could try Rawtherapee, it's fee and when nothing would open my A7 files it would.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Alan!

I installed Rawtherapee and at 1:1 this image looks awful it's full of noise - I'm sure it isn't my monitor BUT it is a Dev version of RTPee [4.2.231]
1/1250s ISO 6400 !
 
With such a fast shutter speed the light can't have been all that low and I'd be disappointed with a noisy ISO 6400 file shot in reasonable light as even my lowly G1 produces pretty good ISO 3200 files in reasonable light and I'd expect just about any modern camera to do better at 6400, in reasonable light.

Maybe it's best to ignore this file and wait for more examples to download and process with known quantity software?
 
Last edited:
Try remember it's 42mp. I saw a sample and iso12800 looks usable, not amazing but pretty good considering all the pixels.
 
For reference.... 12800, not bad considering the background is black. Colour held well imo. 35mm / f4 / 1/1250 / ISO12800, No flash according to exif

12800_notfull_A7rII_zpszaguzwnl.jpg
 
Last edited:
I never trust examples like these. I see the same thing in DPR reviews and I always wonder why anyone would be shooting at such high ISO's with such fast shutter speeds as the light must be adequate for lower ISO's and the subject certainly doesn't warrant such fast shutter speeds so all in all it just doesn't make sense to me and I'd much rather see a more real world example.

I've done similar tests with my gear in the past and good light high ISO shots always look a lot better than poor light ISO shots.

Just my VHO but I think these tests are almost worthless.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've done similar tests with my gear in the past and good light high ISO shots always look a lot better than poor light ISO shots.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, that's the point, it gives you an idea of what the sensor performs like in low light and that's exactly where ff will spank the smaller sensors and why a lot of people buy into full frame. Not everyone shoots static subjects in low light.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Of course they do, that's the point, it gives you an idea of what the sensor performs like in low light and that's exactly where ff will spank the smaller sensors and why a lot of people buy into full frame. Not everyone shoots static subjects in low light.
Click to expand...

So what's the point of the above relatively good light, high ISO, fast shutter speed shots?

Unless I'm missing something obvious... they're worthless. Well, maybe not actually worthless but getting there.
 
woof woof said:
So what's the point of the above relatively good light, high ISO, fast shutter speed shots?

Unless I'm missing something obvious... they're worthless. Well, maybe not actually worthless but getting there.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Its an ISO test as he ramps the ISO the shutter increases, its not as if he set out to use iso12800 because he thought it would give the best results, its just a test to see what the sensor is capable of.
 
Do we have any clues as to whether it matches the A7s for high iso? Be something else if it does.
 
rodd1000 said:
Do we have any clues as to whether it matches the A7s for high iso? Be something else if it does.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. As can be seen. It's 42mp, things haven't come along that much. I'd be interested in seeing a 12mp downsample though. From what I can tell it can't even match the 24mp d750 but that's very good in low light and its not 42mp.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
You are missing the point. Its an ISO test as he ramps the ISO the shutter increases, its not as if he set out to use iso12800 because he thought it would give the best results, its just a test to see what the sensor is capable of.
Click to expand...

But to me it isn't a good enough test and it doesn't show what the sensor is capable of.

You've accepted that relatively good light high ISO shots look better than relatively poor light high ISO shots and this should be true. To me a much better test to see what the sensor is capable of would be ISO 6400 at 1/100. 6400 at 1/1000+ is IMVHO childs play and no real guide to the performance we'd see in a genuine low light high ISO image.

I could be a little less dismissive if the numbers in any way added up but IMO they don't. 1/500 would probably be enough to stop a ball in flight or freeze a person diving into water so I could understand ISO 6400 and higher to capture action like that as it would be a real world use and we could look at the noise but ISO 6400 at 1/1000+ should always look better than 6400 at 1/500. Just my VHO but I place practically no value on these examples.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
But to me it isn't a good enough test and it doesn't show what the sensor is capable of.

You've accepted that relatively good light high ISO shots look better than relatively poor light high ISO shots and this should be true. To me a much better test to see what the sensor is capable of would be ISO 6400 at 1/100. 6400 at 1/1000+ is IMVHO childs play and no real guide to the performance we'd see in a genuine low light high ISO image.

Just my VHO but I place practically no value on these examples.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you mean. I can see it being useful to a higher speed shooter because its a decent indicator but I get what you mean by it wouldve been a better test if they also did it at lower shutter in darker area to really push the sensor in the black's.
 
twist said:
Ah, I see what you mean. I can see it being useful to a higher speed shooter because its a decent indicator but I get what you mean by it wouldve been a better test if they also did it at lower shutter in darker area to really push the sensor in the black's.
Click to expand...

Yup and I just can't understand why people like DPR post high ISO shots with fast shutter speeds, it just doesn't IMVHO give a good enough indication of what the sensor will produce in instances when a user would use these high ISO's.
 
woof woof said:
Yup and I just can't understand why people like DPR post high ISO shots with fast shutter speeds, it just doesn't IMVHO give a good enough indication of what the sensor will produce in instances when a user would use these high ISO's.
Click to expand...

I've used 1/500 at 6400 in crappy light to freeze motion and that samples 1/1000 at 12800 but yeah let's see some pitch black stuff :cool:

I'd love to get my paws on one of these for a day!
 
Last edited:
I'd like one too.

Someone here is bound to be an early adopter so we should at least get some good feedback... if the processing issue can be overcome.
 
woof woof said:
I'd like one too.

Someone here is bound to be an early adopter so we should at least get some good feedback... if the processing issue can be overcome.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I had that issue with my A7 and D750, was a little annoying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top