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

jonneymendoza said:
Then a a7r3 would be better as you can crop
Click to expand...
Well I chose the A7R IV ;)

The point I was trying to make though is that as soon as someone asks about wildlife it’s automatically assumed they need the best AF system, but unless you’re shooting something like erratic BIF then most modern AF systems are more than capable for wildlife (y)
 
snerkler said:
Well I chose the A7R IV ;)

The point I was trying to make though is that as soon as someone asks about wildlife it’s automatically assumed they need the best AF system, but unless you’re shooting something like erratic BIF then most modern AF systems are more than capable for wildlife (y)
Click to expand...
Very true and a lot of wildlife photographers go for Olympus because the reach is so good on M4/3. When I had the EM-1 mkII it was brilliant at tracking fast moving erratic subjects but I couldn't live with the low light performance.
 
imattersuk said:
Very true and a lot of wildlife photographers go for Olympus because the reach is so good on M4/3. When I had the EM-1 mkII it was brilliant at tracking fast moving erratic subjects but I couldn't live with the low light performance.
Click to expand...
Yep, my EM1-II and 100-400mm performed admirably (y)
 
jonneymendoza said:
Then a a7r3 would be better as you can crop
Click to expand...
I found the A9 to be much better than the A7R3 in obtaining both instant AF on a bird amongst foliage or in getting AF on a bird in flight and maintaining tracking even with busy and intrusive backgrounds.
Certainly the A7R3 would allow more pixels on the subject when close cropping but the A9 is no slouch in cropping when considering that most of viewing takes place on a computer monitor. 24 megapixels is very adequate in most wildlife situations.
The move from A7R3 to A9 has given me more keepers particularly in more demanding circumstances and less disappointment.
 
footman said:
I found the A9 to be much better than the A7R3 in obtaining both instant AF on a bird amongst foliage or in getting AF on a bird in flight and maintaining tracking even with busy and intrusive backgrounds.
Certainly the A7R3 would allow more pixels on the subject when close cropping but the A9 is no slouch in cropping when considering that most of viewing takes place on a computer monitor. 24 megapixels is very adequate in most wildlife situations.
The move from A7R3 to A9 has given me more keepers particularly in more demanding circumstances and less disappointment.
Click to expand...
I'm sure this is true, but I believe Jonney's statement was in reference to my comment saying that not all wildlife shooting needs the best AF system (y)
 
snerkler said:
There have been some reports of issues using the 200-600mm with the A7R IV but I'm not exactly sure what they are and how common. Other members on here will explain better I'm sure (y)
Click to expand...

Cheers for the heads up. Id read about that as well on here, not sure what the issue was or if its been solved yet, though 200-600mm is not a lens I would use myself, at least I don't anticipate the need for it at present.

Did you get the issue sorted with the laptop and image stacking?
 
Tkenny said:
Cheers for the heads up. Id read about that as well on here, not sure what the issue was or if its been solved yet, though 200-600mm is not a lens I would use myself, at least I don't anticipate the need for it at present.

Did you get the issue sorted with the laptop and image stacking?
Click to expand...
Ahh sorry I thought your post suggested you were going to use the 200-600mm.

I’ve not had another go at stitching yet, still trying to decide whether to get a scratch disk or not.
 
snerkler said:
Ahh sorry I thought your post suggested you were going to use the 200-600mm.

I’ve not had another go at stitching yet, still trying to decide whether to get a scratch disk or not.
Click to expand...

No sweat, don't get me wrong I would love a 200-600, just couldn't justify it. Plus with the weight of it, I think I would strap it to my husky to carry lol

Don't spend big money on a scratch disk, its not worth it. A 256GB SSD is more than enough. They only get used when a system runs out of ram, plenty of people think they are using a scratch disk and its not even in use! You are better spending the dosh on the extra Ram.

This article is about optimising Photoshop settings and the efficiency tool is a great way of know what is being used. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-photoshop-cc-performance.html

Basically if the Efficiency monitor says 100% you aren't using the scratch disk or have need of one, if its Lower than 100% then a scratch disk is being used and you need more Ram.
 
Tkenny said:
No sweat, don't get me wrong I would love a 200-600, just couldn't justify it. Plus with the weight of it, I think I would strap it to my husky to carry lol

Don't spend big money on a scratch disk, its not worth it. A 256GB SSD is more than enough. They only get used when a system runs out of ram, plenty of people think they are using a scratch disk and its not even in use! You are better spending the dosh on the extra Ram.

This article is about optimising Photoshop settings and the efficiency tool is a great way of know what is being used. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-photoshop-cc-performance.html

Basically if the Efficiency monitor says 100% you aren't using the scratch disk or have need of one, if its Lower than 100% then a scratch disk is being used and you need more Ram.
Click to expand...
Thanks I look at that article later. Tbh I’m more interested in getting LR to run faster, especially when moving from photo to photo. I do think heat plays a big part.

I can’t increase the RAM on my MBP, and it’s ‘only’ 16GB. I’d love to buy the latest and greatest MBP but to get the one I want it would be £4K which is just obscene.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks I look at that article later. Tbh I’m more interested in getting LR to run faster, especially when moving from photo to photo. I do think heat plays a big part.

I can’t increase the RAM on my MBP, and it’s ‘only’ 16GB. I’d love to buy the latest and greatest MBP but to get the one I want it would be £4K which is just obscene.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of throttling.
 
Mike.P said:
And how much was just the A7RIV? ;)
Click to expand...
:LOL:

It wasn’t £4K but was still obscene:eek:

My issue is when things go up by a disproportionate amount, which I believe MBPs have. You always paid over the odds compared to PC’s but the difference now is extremely hard to justify.
 
twist said:
Welcome to the world of throttling.
Click to expand...
Is there any way to stop/minimise that? I have a fan cooling pad but it seems to do bugger all.
 
Fuji Dave said:
As it will be only for the A6400.
Plus what Terry said below
Click to expand...

Fair enough but for 3mm it seems rather... geekish. I just don't see the point myself unless you want an A7 and an A6xxx in your bag both with 3xmm lenses on them.

I just thought I was missing something but maybe not :D
 
woof woof said:
Fair enough but for 3mm it seems rather... geekish. I just don't see the point myself unless you want an A7 and an A6xxx in your bag both with 3xmm lenses on them.

I just thought I was missing something but maybe not :D
Click to expand...

How many 50mm and 35mm lenses do you have again?
 
twist said:
How many 50mm and 35mm lenses do you have again?
Click to expand...

But they're all slightly different and that would be a very valid answer to the question of "Why a 35 and a 32mm."

I suppose I could read 3mm less as being slightly different. I just thought the Zeiss may be more compact or has different rendering or maybe it makes the tea or does the ironing or something.
 
twist said:
Nope, slim design, relatively fast chip = heat with nowhere to go.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, would a faster processor with more cores and having more RAM actually make this worse as it’d heat up quicker?
 
snerkler said:
Out of curiosity, would a faster processor with more cores and having more RAM actually make this worse as it’d heat up quicker?
Click to expand...

More than likely, depends on nm/tdp. More watts in same design and case, more heat.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
More than likely, depends on nm/tdp. More watts in same design and case, more heat.
Click to expand...
Hmmm I wonder if that’s why I find LR slower than it used to be then? I remember on my old MBP when I swapped out the 8GB RAM for 16GB RAM it got hot much quicker. I’d never heard the fans go supersonic prior to this but they did it every time I used LR (or logic etc) after this.
 
snerkler said:
Hmmm I wonder if that’s why I find LR slower than it used to be then? I remember on my old MBP when I swapped out the 8GB RAM for 16GB RAM it got hot much quicker. I’d never heard the fans go supersonic prior to this but they did it every time I used LR (or logic etc) after this.
Click to expand...

Extra ram shouldn't cause premature ramping, LR loves to use a ton of cpu though so I'm not surprised your laptop was under strain, isn't it more a case of larger raws, they use much more processing power.
 
Tkenny said:
Don't spend big money on a scratch disk, its not worth it. A 256GB SSD is more than enough. They only get used when a system runs out of ram, plenty of people think they are using a scratch disk and its not even in use! You are better spending the dosh on the extra Ram.
Click to expand...

I have just started processing a Brenzier from todays wedding. It's about 3 quarters through rendering and my scratch disk is showing the temporary file at 640gb. So no 256gb isn't anywhere near big enough for me. The scratch disk is were the temporary file is generated it has nothing to do with ram at all. Allowing lightroom to use the normal hard drive for this would take forever and a day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top