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

Faldrax said:
You are making an assumption here that the processing time to compress the RAW files will be less than the time saved by writing a smaller file.
If the additional data processing for lossless compression caused the camera to drop from 20fps to 19 or 18 fps (as if they added lossless, it would have to be included on the A9 / A9ii), Sony would be unlikely to do it - as 20fps is a headline figure, time to empty the buffer after a burst and card space usage are much less important, marketing wise.
Click to expand...

My assumption is less far farfetched than what you are suggesting could happen. They are already providing 20fps with compression. People have been asking lossless compression from before A9 was a thing. There are many things like using the wrong lens that will drop the frame rate from 20fps to 15 fps, so even if lossless compression were to drop it to 19 or 18 its no biggie.

All in all a poor excuse not to provide it when they already had it implemented in their older DSLRs like i mentioned above.
 
Bloody hard work again to get something I liked today, just not playing ball :rolleyes:

49311412723_d663e7d487_b.jpg
 
woof woof said:
Two things keep me with my A7, my old film era lenses and unfortunately not being able to stop myself liking the files and looking closely. For anyone sensible and not being amongst the very small number of people who need the very best to make a living APS-C and MFT are good options.
Click to expand...

For me, there's a 3D quality to FF images that I don't see with smaller sensors. A while back @snerkler posted a pair of images of the same scene taken with M43 & FF - the difference seemed obvious, even though to him they looked the same. I think that FF hits a sweet spot in terms of rendering vs practical size & depth of field issues. MF is capable of a more pleasing rendering still, but the cameras & especially lenses are bulky and have limitations for depth of field.

I'd certainly still use a smaller sensor form camera, but not as a first choice. Plainly not everyone sees things the same way, and for some images it makes no difference anyway.
 
ancient_mariner said:
For me, there's a 3D quality to FF images that I don't see with smaller sensors. A while back @snerkler posted a pair of images of the same scene taken with M43 & FF - the difference seemed obvious, even though to him they looked the same. I think that FF hits a sweet spot in terms of rendering vs practical size & depth of field issues. MF is capable of a more pleasing rendering still, but the cameras & especially lenses are bulky and have limitations for depth of field.

I'd certainly still use a smaller sensor form camera, but not as a first choice. Plainly not everyone sees things the same way, and for some images it makes no difference anyway.
Click to expand...
I remember it well, you were the only one that saw it. The only thing I could see different was that there was more silkiness to the water with the FF due to the FF being ISO 64 vs 200 of the m4/3 and therefore a different shutter speed.

I’ve never seen a difference in ‘3D’ when using small apertures, it’s when you get to f2.8 and wider that FF has more 3D and pop to my eyes.
 
snerkler said:
I remember it well, you were the only one that saw it. The only thing I could see different was that there was more silkiness to the water with the FF due to the FF being ISO 64 vs 200 of the m4/3 and therefore a different shutter speed.

I’ve never seen a difference in ‘3D’ when using small apertures, it’s when you get to f2.8 and wider that FF has more 3D and pop to my eyes.
Click to expand...

I think I guessed right at the time, but it was more a coin flip, the difference really wasn't too obvious to my eye. I know you can get better separation at wider apertures using FF, but for images such as landscape or street, the differences are much less obvious
 
Cagey75 said:
I think I guessed right at the time, but it was more a coin flip, the difference really wasn't too obvious to my eye. I know you can get better separation at wider apertures using FF, but for images such as landscape or street, the differences are much less obvious
Click to expand...
I’ve been trying to figure out why you would get more perceived depth/3D with larger sensors for scenes with max dof and I just for the life of me can’t figure it out. I can’t see how the extra enlargement of smaller sensors would alter the 3D appearance so the only other thing I can think of is micro contrast, but isn’t that more of a lens property than sensor property?

Either way I’ve taken numerous similar landscape shots with FF and m4/3 and don’t see any difference in 3D, only ultimate sharpness.
TGphoto said:
Edinburgh NYE - very difficult to shoot as within five seconds of the first firework, the sky was filled with smoke!

Edinburgh Hogmanay by Thomas Green, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Cracking shot that.
 
snerkler said:
I’ve been trying to figure out why you would get more perceived depth/3D with larger sensors for scenes with max dof and I just for the life of me can’t figure it out. I can’t see how the extra enlargement of smaller sensors would alter the 3D appearance so the only other thing I can think of is micro contrast, but isn’t that more of a lens property than sensor property?

Either way I’ve taken numerous similar landscape shots with FF and m4/3 and don’t see any difference in 3D, only ultimate sharpness.
Click to expand...

It's simply the shallower DOF at same aperture that seems to give an image more depth, we could argue it's just more blur surrounding a subject that makes it appear to 'pop' that bit more. As I said, when stopped down, say beyond f/2.8, it's hard to choose one over the other if the images are exposed correctly. That and FF does have better high ISO capabilities

I still want to give FF a try again, it definitely has it's advantages. But if I'm honest, and I am ... APSC or M43 are more than enough for my needs. General use, not a bother, there's just those odd few times I wish I could be more confident pushing ISO, or I want that extra depth for a certain image, but it's not a big deal - always work arounds
 
Last edited:
I've tried taking pictures with My A7 and 35mm f2.8 and Panasonic MFT with 17mm at equivalent apertures but even when shooting the same shot the lighting changed from minute to minute so it wasn't easy.

I've posted these before. The MFT picture has been cropped to more or less match the A7 picture. As the light changed as I swapped cameras I also had to lift the shadows in the MFT picture and drop the exposure a bit in part of the sky. More time would get better results but I can't be bothered and each pictured only had about 2 minutes spent on it :D

uEb3BNc.jpg


kxsHufp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
It's simply the shallower DOF at same aperture that seems to give an image more depth, we could argue it's just more blur surrounding a subject that makes it appear to 'pop' that bit more. As I said, when stopped down, say beyond f/2.8, it's hard to choose one over the other if the images are exposed correctly. That and FF does have better high ISO capabilities

I still want to give FF a try again, it definitely has it's advantages. But if I'm honest, and I am ... APSC or M43 are more than enough for my needs. General use, not a bother, there's just those odd few times I wish I could be more confident pushing ISO, or I want that extra depth for a certain image, but it's not a big deal - always work arounds
Click to expand...

I do notice the drop in DR with MFT in use and before I get to the pc.
 
woof woof said:
I've tried taking pictures with My A7 and 35mm f2.8 and Panasonic MFT with 17mm at equivalent apertures but even when shooting the same shot the lighting changed from minute to minute so it wasn't easy.

I've posted these before. The MFT picture has been cropped to more or less match the A7 picture. As the light changed as I swapped cameras I also had to lift the shadows in the MFT picture and drop the exposure a bit in part of the sky. More time would get better results but I can't be bothered and each pictured only had about 2 minutes spent on it :D

uEb3BNc.jpg


kxsHufp.jpg
Click to expand...

Bottom is M43? seems a tad 'harsher' in some areas, but it's hard to decide as you say, the light changes a little.

On DR, I've found Fuji APSC to stand up very well against what I remember from Nikon FF, it's certainly better than M43 when I need to really push shadows at higher ISO but for well exposed general shots, there's nothing between it and M43 really
 
Yes. I think most of the difference was down to the light changing so rapidly and making the A7 picture better from the outset. I might do this again one day.
 
Cagey75 said:
It's simply the shallower DOF at same aperture that seems to give an image more depth, we could argue it's just more blur surrounding a subject that makes it appear to 'pop' that bit more. As I said, when stopped down, say beyond f/2.8, it's hard to choose one over the other if the images are exposed correctly. That and FF does have better high ISO capabilities
Click to expand...
That's what I said, at wide apertures you have the more shallow DOF but at full DOF I can't see, nor can I figure out why you'd have more 3D?
woof woof said:
I've tried taking pictures with My A7 and 35mm f2.8 and Panasonic MFT with 17mm at equivalent apertures but even when shooting the same shot the lighting changed from minute to minute so it wasn't easy.

I've posted these before. The MFT picture has been cropped to more or less match the A7 picture. As the light changed as I swapped cameras I also had to lift the shadows in the MFT picture and drop the exposure a bit in part of the sky. More time would get better results but I can't be bothered and each pictured only had about 2 minutes spent on it :D

uEb3BNc.jpg


kxsHufp.jpg
Click to expand...
Not much between them, and one doesn't look to have more 3D to me except the wall and flowers on the right foreground, but I can see that there’s far less contrast there. I’d imagine with some local contrast boost they’d look very similar.
woof woof said:
I do notice the drop in DR with MFT in use and before I get to the pc.
Click to expand...
There's a difference in DR if using Sony or Nikon FF (camera dependant) but m4/3 has more DR than a number of Canon.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
That's what I said, at wide apertures you have the more shallow DOF but at full DOF I can't see, nor can I figure out why you'd have more 3D?
Not much between them, and one doesn't look to have more 3D to me except the wall and flowers on the right foreground, but I can see that there’s far less contrast there. I’d imagine with some local contrast boost they’d look very similar.
There's a difference in DR if using Sony or Nikon FF (camera dependant) but m4/3 has more DR than a number of Canon.
Click to expand...

Yes. More work on the MFT shot would claw some ground back but the main thing is that in those few seconds the light changed. I'll try again another day. When I compared my G1 to my 5D I found that in some cases I could get the shot I wanted more easily with the G1 by exposing more for the highlights and boosting the shadows and that was always a problem with the Canon's I had. Things have moved on since the 5D and the G1 and these days with my A7, GX80 and GX9 I do notice that the histogram disappears off the right hand side more easily with MFT and the files aren't quite as lovely. In northern UK the sun is often low in the sky and the difference in light between the foreground and background can be very unforgiving if you want to keep the highlights.

There are still things that MFT gives me, it's more compact, the kit focuses at lightening speed and there's the electronic shutter too which my A7 doesn't have and of course the 9-18mm, 45-150mm and even the 100-400mm I've just got are relatively cheap and compact which are qualities I like :D so I'll be keeping MFT.
 
Tom, you did press the button and take the picture didn't you? :D
 
woof woof said:
Yes. More work on the MFT shot would claw some ground back but the main thing is that in those few seconds the light changed. I'll try again another day. When I compared my G1 to my 5D I found that in some cases I could get the shot I wanted more easily with the G1 by exposing more for the highlights and boosting the shadows and that was always a problem with the Canon's I had. Things have moved on since the 5D and the G1 and these days with my A7, GX80 and GX9 I do notice that the histogram disappears off the right hand side more easily with MFT and the files aren't quite as lovely. In northern UK the sun is often low in the sky and the difference in light between the foreground and background can be very unforgiving if you want to keep the highlights.

There are still things that MFT gives me, it's more compact, the kit focuses at lightening speed and there's the electronic shutter too which my A7 doesn't have and of course the 9-18mm, 45-150mm and even the 100-400mm I've just got are relatively cheap and compact which are qualities I like :D so I'll be keeping MFT.
Click to expand...
I shoot Nikon as well as Olympus so the Olympus does lack DR comparatively speaking (14.6 vs 12.8) and Nikon do tend to underexpose so there is a difference straight out of the box so to speak. I find that the Olly raw files do lack in contrast compared to the Nikon and need more contrast boost in post, but when I've done this I'm hard pressed to tell tbh.
 
There's a nice A7 v GX80 comparison which includes tables including other cameras here...

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/panasonic-gx80-vs-sony-a7

Some say that the 20mp GX9 is better than the 16mp cameras but I just don't see a big difference. I do see a difference between my A7 and the MFT cameras I have and I'm sure that later A7x cameras offer more but I do think that MFT is still a good system and well worth a look and I'll be keeping mine for the foreseeable.
 
Anyone have any idea what would yield better results, the 100-400mm on an A7 or A9 with 1.4tc or the 100-400mm on an A7r cropped to give the same frame?

Is the 100-400mm good enough to be cropped to an 800mm frame on the A7R4?
 
snerkler said:
Anyone have any idea what would yield better results, the 100-400mm on an A7 or A9 with 1.4tc or the 100-400mm on an A7r cropped to give the same frame?

Is the 100-400mm good enough to be cropped to an 800mm frame on the A7R4?
Click to expand...

100-400mm+1.4x would be better in good light.

You are basically trying to crop 2x like m43. It was plenty sharp on A7RIII and while I haven't used it on A7RIV I imagine it'll be just as good.
@800mm FoV equivalent would give you 15mp final image from A7RIV.

I have cropped down to this resolution with my 200-600mm to give 1200mm FoV and the results have been rather excellent.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
100-400mm+1.4x would be better in good light.

You are basically trying to crop 2x like m43. It was plenty sharp on A7RIII and while I haven't used it on A7RIV I imagine it'll be just as good.
@800mm FoV equivalent would give you 15mp final image from A7RIV.

I have cropped down to this resolution with my 200-600mm to give 1200mm FoV and the results have been rather excellent.
Click to expand...
That's my thinking. I'm only toying with ideas tbh, but I was wondering if I could get away with the A7R4 as my only camera rather than having two systems. Whilst the A7R4 and 100-400mm would be heavier than the EM1-II and 100-400mm it's not as bad as the D850 and 150-600mm I had previously.

It's a shame Sony don't do a free test like Olympus as I'd like to see how the AF compares to the Z7 and EM1-II.
 
snerkler said:
That's my thinking. I'm only toying with ideas tbh, but I was wondering if I could get away with the A7R4 as my only camera rather than having two systems. Whilst the A7R4 and 100-400mm would be heavier than the EM1-II and 100-400mm it's not as bad as the D850 and 150-600mm I had previously.

It's a shame Sony don't do a free test like Olympus as I'd like to see how the AF compares to the Z7 and EM1-II.
Click to expand...

if you are ever down my way you are welcome to try it out.

I found A7RIII better at focussing than e-m1ii and also Z7. But Olys with the latest firmware update has some new tricks up its sleeve like the pre-shutter shoot it does.

Sony 100-400mm is a better lens than the panasonic overall in terms of light, sharpness and also AF speed. If I were to go with Olympus I'd actually use olympus 300mm f4+1.4 instead of the 100-400mm.

just buy the sony you know you want it.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
if you are ever down my way you are welcome to try it out.

I found A7RIII better at focussing than e-m1ii and also Z7. But Olys with the latest firmware update has some new tricks up its sleeve like the pre-shutter shoot it does.

Sony 100-400mm is a better lens than the panasonic overall in terms of light, sharpness and also AF speed. If I were to go with Olympus I'd actually use olympus 300mm f4+1.4 instead of the 100-400mm.

just buy the sony you know you want it.
Click to expand...
Thanks, very kind.

That's the thing, I don't know I want to, there's things about all the systems that I like ;)
 
snerkler said:
Anyone have any idea what would yield better results, the 100-400mm on an A7 or A9 with 1.4tc or the 100-400mm on an A7r cropped to give the same frame?

Is the 100-400mm good enough to be cropped to an 800mm frame on the A7R4?
Click to expand...

All are good, if going 24mp then get the 200_600 instead?
 
snerkler said:
That's my thinking. I'm only toying with ideas tbh, but I was wondering if I could get away with the A7R4 as my only camera rather than having two systems. Whilst the A7R4 and 100-400mm would be heavier than the EM1-II and 100-400mm it's not as bad as the D850 and 150-600mm I had previously.

It's a shame Sony don't do a free test like Olympus as I'd like to see how the AF compares to the Z7 and EM1-II.
Click to expand...
You can test cameras in places like wex or Park cameras.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, very kind.

That's the thing, I don't know I want to, there's things about all the systems that I like ;)
Click to expand...

you do know you want to, you are just postponing the inevitable ;)

robinsslee said:
I don't seem to remember A7RIII depleted that quick? :sneaky:
Click to expand...

it did :)

Sony bodies aren't the best at holding value but then again neither are other brand ones these days. The body that's best held its value has been the A7III.
 
nandbytes said:
you do know you want to, you are just postponing the inevitable ;)
.
Click to expand...
I genuinely don't. I prefer most things about the Nikon, just the AF system isn't quite up to par and you can't get a proper grip. The Sonys are better performers (although I still can't gauge how good the A7RIV is and I'd want it to be significantly better than the Z7) but I'm not a fan of the ergonomics, button placement or menus. They do have more native lenses, and the 61mp sensor could potentially mean I could use the 100-400mm as a wildlife/motorsport lens without too much weight penalty (current wildlife setup is EM1-II and 100-400mm weight a total of 1559g vs 2060g for the A7RIV and 100-400mm)

As always it's a compromise and I'm probably falling foul of searching for the holy grail ;) Looking at the A7RIV specs fps is 10fps in Hi+ and 8fps in Hi, I'm guessing this means 10fps with slideshow view and 8fps with real time view? I see that the EVF has either 50hz or 100hz refresh rate, is that selectable or does it alter depending on shooting mode? I seem to recall that some of the EVF's reduce resolution or refresh rate if using burst mode or something?

What's the scan time of the sensor, is it prone to rolling shutter or is it like the A9?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I genuinely don't. I prefer most things about the Nikon, just the AF system isn't quite up to par and you can't get a proper grip. The Sonys are better performers (although I still can't gauge how good the A7RIV is and I'd want it to be significantly better than the Z7) but I'm not a fan of the ergonomics, button placement or menus. They do have more native lenses, and the 61mp sensor could potentially mean I could use the 100-400mm as a wildlife/motorsport lens without too much weight penalty (current wildlife setup is EM1-II and 100-400mm weight a total of 1559g vs 2060g for the A7RIV and 100-400mm)

As always it's a compromise and I'm probably falling foul of searching for the holy grail ;) Looking at the A7RIV specs fps is 10fps in Hi+ and 8fps in Hi, I'm guessing this means 10fps with slideshow view and 8fps with real time view? I see that the EVF has either 50hz or 100hz refresh rate, is that selectable or does it alter depending on shooting mode? I seem to recall that some of the EVF's reduce resolution or refresh rate if using burst mode or something?

What's the scan time of the sensor, is it prone to rolling shutter or is it like the A9?
Click to expand...

Would you get rid of both your systems? IMO this makes most sense. My friend has the 100-400 and 1/4x tc, couldnt believe how small and light it was as a long zoom setup. Quality is fantastic with A7iii.

All A7 are prone to rolling shutter. A7riv worse because of resolution 1/10 second vs about 1/15 Rii/iii. The A9 is 1/160.
 
twist said:
Would you get rid of both your systems? IMO this makes most sense. My friend has the 100-400 and 1/4x tc, couldnt believe how small and light it was as a long zoom setup. Quality is fantastic with A7iii.
Click to expand...
They were the thoughts yeah. As you will see from above though the weight would increase by about 500g from what I have currently for my long lens setup.

All A7 are prone to rolling shutter. A7riv worse because of resolution 1/10 second vs about 1/15 Rii/iii. The A9 is 1/160.
Click to expand...
So electronic shutters out then, that's a shame. I can use the electronic shutter on the EM1-II for most things. I've not found a conclusive answer to the sensor scan time, but it must be pretty fast.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Test it out in the store or rent it out for the weekend
Click to expand...
Tried it out in store already, as I said difficult to assess it really as all modern cameras have blazingly fast AF when shooting pretty static things. Testing AF acquisition and accuracy on fast moving subjects is far more difficult to assess in store. I'm not prepared to pay £100 or so just to try a camera out at this stage.
 
snerkler said:
They were the thoughts yeah. As you will see from above though the weight would increase by about 500g from what I have currently for my long lens setup.

So electronic shutters out then, that's a shame. I can use the electronic shutter on the EM1-II for most things. I've not found a conclusive answer to the sensor scan time, but it must be pretty fast.
Click to expand...

Have you priced up rough costs to switch, what all your gear is worth vs just the Sony setup and a prime with a couple zooms and cropping?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top