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

woof woof said:
From a review of the Fuji X100V on DPR...

"And in an age where smartphones are rapidly approaching a level of image quality that we can expect from cameras with Four Thirds or even APS-C sensors,"

Is this true? Really honestly truly true?

Some people here must have high end phones, so what do you say? Are they that good?

As I've said may times, I often see pictures that look stunning on a phone screen but when I look at them on my pc they usually fall apart. It may be that I haven't seen pictures from the latest and greatest phones yet but so far nothing I've seen from a phone comes close to MFT for image quality if looking closely on a pc.
Click to expand...

My phone is great in good light. Image quality falls apart in low light though. Pain in the arse changing settings too.
 
But being brutally honest is the phone as good as MFT or APS-C when looking at the pictures closely on your pc?

BTW one of Mrs WW friends in Thailand has just declared she wants a UK hubby :D She is very good looking and a very nice person and yet she's single and has never been married. Lots of Mrs WW's friends in Thailand are the same, very nice but have never married. I think me and Mrs WW should start an introduction agency :D
 
nandbytes said:
more light, also I said slightly better i.e. not day and night difference.


it is
Click to expand...

Ah, f1.4.

TBH f1.8 is good enough for anything I'll want to do. The main thing is to keep the noise down and keep the shutter speed within the range to stop stars stretching too much.
 
woof woof said:
WoW!

Looking at the size of those storm troopers that camera must be massive! Is it a sculpture somewhere or an obscure Olympus very large format camera?
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:
 
Ok note to self, don’t use those zoom type inversion crystal balls in blazing sunshine as they act like a really powerful magnifying glass. Saw some smoke coming off my camera and realised I was burning the HDMI port cover and C3 button, gutted :dummy::sulk: It’s not major by any stretch but I like my stuff pristine :oops: :$
 
Last edited:
TGphoto said:
It isn't.

I was basing my comment on 24mm vs 20mm as that was what was asked. Not f stops.

Regardless of 1.8 or 1.4 you're going to be able to use a longer SS on 20mm so the difference will be basically nothing.
Click to expand...


it is.

You need go back and read the thread, I said 24GM was slightly better for astro (didn't say anything about other aspects)

longer shutter speeds isn't without its compromise. I'd take slightly brighter lens over longer shutter speed. At longer shutter speeds you end up nearing doubling you exposure time or halving it.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Ah, f1.4.

TBH f1.8 is good enough for anything I'll want to do. The main thing is to keep the noise down and keep the shutter speed within the range to stop stars stretching too much.
Click to expand...

yep :)

yes, I have shot astro with f2.8 quite successfully and even with f4. As I said above the return are rather small but if we are being pedantic I'd say 24GM has a slight advantage (in this area).
 
twist said:
@woof woof and others, this is a 40MP RAW (DNG) from a P30 Pro, 76MB so theres a lot of data in the file. Id say its very impressive what phones can do these days.

https://we.tl/t-tZCPR7xTl7
Click to expand...

That's nice and almost certainly the best I've seen from a phone but IMO it can't match what I see from MFT. YMMV and it might be because I don't know what the point of focus is.

I know next to nothing about phones so I may be wrong but I think the comment on DPR is probably a bit too soon to be really truly honestly true. In a year/phone generation or two, who knows.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Ok note to self, don’t use those zoom type inversion crystal balls in blazing sunshine as the act like a really powerful magnifying glass. Saw some smoke coming off my camera and realised I was burning the HDMI port cover and C3 button, gutted :dummy::sulk: It’s not major by any stretch but I like my stuff pristine :oops: :$
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

I have one with bubbles in it that came with a lamp. I've fancied a crystal ball (without bubbles) and have even had one in my basket before.

Remember a while back there was a craze for shooting stuff while holding a lens from an old camera lens or binoculars?
 
I took my very first Milky Way image with the Voigtländer 21mm at f/3.5 or f/4 - I like it more only because it was my first, I think it's pretty good and the sunstar from Jupiter is lovely. Don't get that with the Samyang 24.

I wouldn't worry about f/1.4 vs f/1.8 too much imo It's just one click of shutter speed and ISO to balance it out.
 
nandbytes said:
yep :)

yes, I have shot astro with f2.8 quite successfully and even with f4. As I said above the return are rather small but if we are being pedantic I'd say 24GM has a slight advantage (in this area).
Click to expand...

One reason I went for the 20mm was that it gives a bit more option to play with perspective over a 24mm. Looking at the various blogs and write ups even dating back to the film days f2.8 was thought to be a good option but f1.8 gives me more option to help my creaking old A7 and still be able to look closely and marvel at the file quality :D
 
LeeRatters said:
I took my very first Milky Way image with the Voigtländer 21mm at f/3.5 or f/4 - I like it more only because it was my first, I think it's pretty good and the sunstar from Jupiter is lovely. Don't get that with the Samyang 24.

I wouldn't worry about f/1.4 vs f/1.8 too much imo It's just one click of shutter speed and ISO to balance it out.
Click to expand...

Nupe. Not for a second really.

I don't want to take anything away from the 24mm and it may well be the better lens and could be a more sensible FoV for many but me the FoV, bulk and weight and cost wise too the 20mm f1.8 was the thing to go for and may be worth a look especially for someone who's more.... careful... with money :D
 
woof woof said:
"And in an age where smartphones are rapidly approaching a level of image quality that we can expect from cameras with Four Thirds or even APS-C sensors,"
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
I know next to nothing about phones so I may be wrong but I think the comment on DPR is probably a bit too soon to be really truly honestly true. In a year/phone generation or two, who knows.
Click to expand...

Not everything in an "Up to 50% off sale" is half price. ;)
 
woof woof said:
Nupe. Not for a second really.

I don't want to take anything away from the 24mm and it may well be the better lens and could be a more sensible FoV for many but me the FoV, bulk and weight and cost wise too the 20mm f1.8 was the thing to go for and may be worth a look especially for someone who's more.... careful... with money :D
Click to expand...


:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

The 24mm GM is tiny and weighs 445g the 20mm is 373g, the weight and size difference between the two that isn't even worth talking about as they are both small and light weight. The 24mm f/1.4 is the smallest 24mm f/1.4 autofous lens ever produced from any manufacturer.

The price difference between the two isn't huge either now with the 24GM now being £999 grey import Vs £759 for the 20mm.

DSC9139.jpg

As you can see from this photo they are very similar size bearing in mind the 24GM has a larger hood.

The difference between the 2 comes down to which focal length you prefer. Personally I like 20mm, I loved the 20mm f/1.4 Sigma art I used to have for Nikon but it was just too big and cumbersome. When I first got the 24mm G.M it took me some time to get used to it but it's now my absolute favourite lens. I think this was because I was so used to the 20mm field of view.

I always wanted a 24 f/1.4 when I shot Nikon as it's an excellent lens for weddings.

Both are good lenses and hard to compare as 4mm at the wide end is quite a difference.

I probably won't be getting the 20mm at any point though just because I now use the 24mm for everything I would have used the 20mm for and I have other wider lenses if needed.

While you say the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 isn't an awful lot there is something very different looking when using a 24mm at f/.14 and f/1.8, wide open the 24mm GM just has a different quality to it when used wide open that is hard to explain.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
it is.

You need go back and read the thread, I said 24GM was slightly better for astro (didn't say anything about other aspects)

longer shutter speeds isn't without its compromise. I'd take slightly brighter lens over longer shutter speed. At longer shutter speeds you end up nearing doubling you exposure time or halving it.
Click to expand...

Ok I read back, you win. In reality I think the difference on a screen would be minimal but you did say slightly so yeah, my bad.
 
For the first time in many years I find myself with one camera body, in this case the A9. I like to do a whole range of stuff mostly birds/insects using the 200-600 or 100-400 I still have and macro using the Sony 90mm macro lens and also fiddling around with my FD lenses and adapters.

I'm really not that happy with changing lenses several times each day, I feel that I'm causing unnecessary wear to the body mount and increasing the risk of dirt on the sensor (I'm very good at this!).

Do some/most people here have 2 or more bodies they use for specific purposes like this? Maybe I'm just suffering from lockdown/boredom induced GAS!
I have been considering getting the "basic" A7 for this purpose.
 
Having spent some of today going through my Lightroom image archive I think I need to look at my workflow, especially as I now have an A9 (that’s going to make it even worst). My culling is nearly non existent as lightroom is far too slow to load previews. I think I need to cull prior to uploading to lightroom as otherwise Im going to end up filling hard drives with files I’m never going to process.

what does everyone else do? do you use other software to initially cull images prior to processing. I’ve heard of photomechanics but is there anything else worth looking at?
 
footman said:
For the first time in many years I find myself with one camera body, in this case the A9. I like to do a whole range of stuff mostly birds/insects using the 200-600 or 100-400 I still have and macro using the Sony 90mm macro lens and also fiddling around with my FD lenses and adapters.

I'm really not that happy with changing lenses several times each day, I feel that I'm causing unnecessary wear to the body mount and increasing the risk of dirt on the sensor (I'm very good at this!).

Do some/most people here have 2 or more bodies they use for specific purposes like this? Maybe I'm just suffering from lockdown/boredom induced GAS!
I have been considering getting the "basic" A7 for this purpose.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t worry about interchangeable lens cameras are more than capable of coping with you changing lenses. Even if you did wear out the mount it would only be a couple of hundred quid to be replaced much less than what an additional body would be. It would be very frustrating going from an A9 to an A7.

In saying that I have an A9II, 2 x A9’s and 3 x A7III’s so I don’t need to change lenses. That is more a time thing though for work.
 
footman said:
For the first time in many years I find myself with one camera body, in this case the A9. I like to do a whole range of stuff mostly birds/insects using the 200-600 or 100-400 I still have and macro using the Sony 90mm macro lens and also fiddling around with my FD lenses and adapters.

I'm really not that happy with changing lenses several times each day, I feel that I'm causing unnecessary wear to the body mount and increasing the risk of dirt on the sensor (I'm very good at this!).

Do some/most people here have 2 or more bodies they use for specific purposes like this? Maybe I'm just suffering from lockdown/boredom induced GAS!
I have been considering getting the "basic" A7 for this purpose.
Click to expand...

Wearing out a mount isn't something I ever think about in all honesty. Two bodies for ease of shooting or working I can understand.
 
rob-nikon said:
Having spent some of today going through my Lightroom image archive I think I need to look at my workflow, especially as I now have an A9 (that’s going to make it even worst). My culling is nearly non existent as lightroom is far too slow to load previews. I think I need to cull prior to uploading to lightroom as otherwise Im going to end up filling hard drives with files I’m never going to process.

what does everyone else do? do you use other software to initially cull images prior to processing. I’ve heard of photomechanics but is there anything else worth looking at?
Click to expand...

I delete/cull from within Lightroom. But then I don't shoot hundreds of images per day out/holiday/etc
 
footman said:
For the first time in many years I find myself with one camera body, in this case the A9. I like to do a whole range of stuff mostly birds/insects using the 200-600 or 100-400 I still have and macro using the Sony 90mm macro lens and also fiddling around with my FD lenses and adapters.

I'm really not that happy with changing lenses several times each day, I feel that I'm causing unnecessary wear to the body mount and increasing the risk of dirt on the sensor (I'm very good at this!).

Do some/most people here have 2 or more bodies they use for specific purposes like this? Maybe I'm just suffering from lockdown/boredom induced GAS!
I have been considering getting the "basic" A7 for this purpose.
Click to expand...
Ive previously had more than one body (actually I’ve still got a Nikon D700 in the cupboard that I should really get rid of). When I had two bodies they weren’t ever the same model which posed an issue. What I found was because one was better than the other I was still changing lenses or favouring using the better camera because it just felt the right camera to use. I initially considered keeping the A7R3 I had prior to getting the A9 but I couldn’t really justify the extra cost for the use it would get which would mainly be landscapes or remote wildlife wide angles. If I was ever to do it a gain it would have to be on par with my current camera or be for a specific use that I could justify the extra cost.
 
LeeRatters said:
I delete/cull from within Lightroom. But then I don't shoot hundreds of images per day out/holiday/etc
Click to expand...
With the A9 at 20FPS and on silent shooting its easy to rack up a huge number when taking wildlife images without really noticing. I’ve found I’m only processing a small number of photos I’m taking and that’s just wasting space in Lightroom. Culling prior to uploading to lightroom may help me reduce the number of files in Lightroom and mean I actually process the images I’ve taken.
 
Anicom Park
DSC00210 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

'uh oh, the commies are here'
DSC00069 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

New Central Harbourfront
DSC00035 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

Tamar Central Government Building (I need to remove the visible strip lights on the right when I get time)
DSC09942 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

New Central Harbourfront looking towards Convention Centre/Wan Chai
DSC00025 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

Nan Lian Garden, Diamond Hill (no tripods allowed, yes I got told off the moment I got my tripod out)
DSC09886 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

One of the 6 Divas surrounding the Tian Tan Buddha
DSC09413 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

Po Lin Monastery, Lantau Island
DSC09211 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
 
rob-nikon said:
Having spent some of today going through my Lightroom image archive I think I need to look at my workflow, especially as I now have an A9 (that’s going to make it even worst). My culling is nearly non existent as lightroom is far too slow to load previews. I think I need to cull prior to uploading to lightroom as otherwise Im going to end up filling hard drives with files I’m never going to process.

what does everyone else do? do you use other software to initially cull images prior to processing. I’ve heard of photomechanics but is there anything else worth looking at?
Click to expand...

I recently bought FastRawViewer, and it lives up to the name in a way that Lightroom, On1 etc can only dream of. If you need to view and cull a lot of images then it's idea - almost instant image opening from an SSD, ability to brighten so you can view shadow detail etc. It's a bit old-skool in terms of appearance, but the speed is hard to beat.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I recently bought FastRawViewer, and it lives up to the name in a way that Lightroom, On1 etc can only dream of. If you need to view and cull a lot of images then it's idea - almost instant image opening from an SSD, ability to brighten so you can view shadow detail etc. It's a bit old-skool in terms of appearance, but the speed is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
I will have a look into it. The price looks much better than photo mechanic which is s plus.
 
LeeRatters said:
I delete/cull from within Lightroom. But then I don't shoot hundreds of images per day out/holiday/etc
Click to expand...
I cull within LR too, dead easy. Just go through, press x to mark the images for deletion then batch delete marked images at the end (y)
 
snerkler said:
I cull within LR too, dead easy. Just go through, press x to mark the images for deletion then batch delete marked images at the end (y)
Click to expand...
The process of marking rejects and batch deleting is what I (sometimes) do but it’s the time it take to render the images on the screen that slows the culling process down. I also think if I culled them before uploading to lightroom I’d end up with much less in lightroom to think about processing. I also need to work out a workflow for culling and processing images as I seem to get bored when editing and it just ends up in a mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top