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

Messages
8,320
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Yes. I fully get and understand that Alan. Just didn't know if getting into lights, reflectors etc could give you something extra to delve into that's all....

I've started learning CAD and I'm starting to make metal/wood furniture...!!
I delved into a little bit of CAD not so long ago to design a large log storage unit. I suspect I literally skimmed the very top of the surface! It was FreeCAD and quite satisfying to learn, even more satisfying to reach the end design and awesome to see the end product come out just as designed with almost no wastage of materials.
 
Messages
2,634
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
I delved into a little bit of CAD not so long ago to design a large log storage unit. I suspect I literally skimmed the very top of the surface! It was FreeCAD and quite satisfying to learn, even more satisfying to reach the end design and awesome to see the end product come out just as designed with almost no wastage of materials.
I'm getting there. I've worked from CAD drawings for years for work really (well, it's a lot of Revit 3D now) but, I am more of an old school chalk it on the bench & design & build type of person in all honesty......!!
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
26,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Yes. I fully get and understand that Alan. Just didn't know if getting into lights, reflectors etc could give you something extra to delve into that's all....

I've started learning CAD and I'm starting to make metal/wood furniture...!!
Thanks.

It's something to think about but anything too technical or time consuming could be a problem due to the interruptions.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
26,366
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I don't think you'll be too disappointed.

I've had lots of kit on my radar but yesterday I decided to put all gas on hold. I couldn't even be bothered to lead the latest on the Sigma 35mm f2 and Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo this morning.
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
Just done a quick test to see how good the 1.4TC is, and here's the results. Took a photo of the embroidery on the front of a baseball cap as I thought the texture might be more akin to real life scenarios. All taken using BBF focussed on the Liver Bird's head and a 10s timer.

Full image
Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 12.30.57 by TDG-77, on Flickr image

100-400mm with TC more or less 1:1
1.100-400mm with 1.4TC by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm without TC cropped to same frame as above

2.100-400mm cropped
by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm moved closer to match framing with TC
3.100-400mm by TDG-77, on Flickr



As TP destroys sharpness here's a link to the original crops if you want to view properly

Obviously the 100-400mm without TC moved closer is the sharpest, but I'm surprised that the heavy crop of 100-400mm without TC is sharper (to my eyes) than the 100-400mm with TC. Now the question is do I keep the TC or just crop more heavily? :thinking:
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet, of Borg
Messages
16,739
Name
PRINCESS
Edit My Images
No
Just done a quick test to see how good the 1.4TC is, and here's the results. Took a photo of the embroidery on the front of a baseball cap as I thought the texture might be more akin to real life scenarios. All taken using BBF focussed on the Liver Bird's head and a 10s timer.

Full image
Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 12.30.57 by TDG-77, on Flickr image

100-400mm with TC more or less 1:1
1.100-400mm with 1.4TC by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm without TC cropped to same frame as above

2.100-400mm cropped
by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm moved closer to match framing with TC
3.100-400mm by TDG-77, on Flickr



As TP destroys sharpness here's a link to the original crops if you want to view properly

Obviously the 100-400mm without TC moved closer is the sharpest, but I'm surprised that the heavy crop of 100-400mm without TC is sharper (to my eyes) than the 100-400mm with TC. Now the question is do I keep the TC or just crop more heavily? :thinking:


I think it might of been sharper if it was a Man U badge..lol
 
Messages
15,294
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
Just done a quick test to see how good the 1.4TC is, and here's the results. Took a photo of the embroidery on the front of a baseball cap as I thought the texture might be more akin to real life scenarios. All taken using BBF focussed on the Liver Bird's head and a 10s timer.

Full image
Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 12.30.57 by TDG-77, on Flickr image

100-400mm with TC more or less 1:1
1.100-400mm with 1.4TC by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm without TC cropped to same frame as above

2.100-400mm cropped
by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm moved closer to match framing with TC
3.100-400mm by TDG-77, on Flickr



As TP destroys sharpness here's a link to the original crops if you want to view properly

Obviously the 100-400mm without TC moved closer is the sharpest, but I'm surprised that the heavy crop of 100-400mm without TC is sharper (to my eyes) than the 100-400mm with TC. Now the question is do I keep the TC or just crop more heavily? :thinking:
Are those with the A7RIV?
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
Are those with the A7RIV?
A9ii

Just done another test, using DMF and remote shutter this time. Results are slightly different but what I've realised is that even with such thin detail DOF is an issue, for example with TC looked sharper than without on the bird, but without looked sharper on the lettering. I think based on this bottom line is that there's not much to choose between any of them, and so having the extra reach is probably beneficial. I'm surprised how well the A9 crops though, almost 200% crop looks useable :eek:

With Manual focus there's little to no difference with and without TC so I'm keeping it (y)
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,960
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
Just done a quick test to see how good the 1.4TC is, and here's the results. Took a photo of the embroidery on the front of a baseball cap as I thought the texture might be more akin to real life scenarios. All taken using BBF focussed on the Liver Bird's head and a 10s timer.

Full image
Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 12.30.57 by TDG-77, on Flickr image

100-400mm with TC more or less 1:1
1.100-400mm with 1.4TC by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm without TC cropped to same frame as above

2.100-400mm cropped
by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm moved closer to match framing with TC
3.100-400mm by TDG-77, on Flickr



As TP destroys sharpness here's a link to the original crops if you want to view properly

Obviously the 100-400mm without TC moved closer is the sharpest, but I'm surprised that the heavy crop of 100-400mm without TC is sharper (to my eyes) than the 100-400mm with TC. Now the question is do I keep the TC or just crop more heavily? :thinking:
:mad::mad::mad:

Just because of the Liverpool badge
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
Well more tests with the TC in the 'real' world (outdoor handheld) show that I'm really splitting hairs between shots with and without so I've got to say I'm might impressed. One thing I've noticed though is that the TC alters WB, even if WB is set to something like cloudy rather than Auto. Any ideas why, is it simply the difference in light entering that's changing the WB? I can't see why that would be though as it's doesn't if you change aperture.
 
Messages
15,294
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
Well more tests with the TC in the 'real' world (outdoor handheld) show that I'm really splitting hairs between shots with and without so I've got to say I'm might impressed. One thing I've noticed though is that the TC alters WB, even if WB is set to something like cloudy rather than Auto. Any ideas why, is it simply the difference in light entering that's changing the WB? I can't see why that would be though as it's doesn't if you change aperture.
If there's no difference why use it?
I was considering one to use with my A9 and 200-600mm but maybe I'll not bother....
 
Last edited:
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
If there's no difference why use it?
I was considering one to use with my A9 and 200-600mm but maybe I'll not bother....
I mean I can't determine a difference in sharpness using with and without if I frame the same, meaning it's near as damn it as sharp with the TC as without (y)
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,648
Edit My Images
Yes
Just done a quick test to see how good the 1.4TC is, and here's the results. Took a photo of the embroidery on the front of a baseball cap as I thought the texture might be more akin to real life scenarios. All taken using BBF focussed on the Liver Bird's head and a 10s timer.

Full image
Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 12.30.57 by TDG-77, on Flickr image

100-400mm with TC more or less 1:1
1.100-400mm with 1.4TC by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm without TC cropped to same frame as above

2.100-400mm cropped
by TDG-77, on Flickr

100-400mm moved closer to match framing with TC
3.100-400mm by TDG-77, on Flickr



As TP destroys sharpness here's a link to the original crops if you want to view properly

Obviously the 100-400mm without TC moved closer is the sharpest, but I'm surprised that the heavy crop of 100-400mm without TC is sharper (to my eyes) than the 100-400mm with TC. Now the question is do I keep the TC or just crop more heavily? :thinking:
I'd test slightly differently. shoot with 100-400mm and with 1.4x on 100-400mm from the same position i.e. without moving (because moving closer isn't really an option if it was why bother with TCs in the first place).
Crop the 100-400mm without TC to match the framing with TC. then downsize the result with TC to a similar resolution as your cropped without TC file.
Now take 1:1 crops and compare.
 
Last edited:
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
I'd test slightly differently. shoot with 100-400mm and with 1.4x on 100-400mm from the same position i.e. without moving (because moving closer isn't really an option if it was why bother with TCs in the first place).
Crop the 100-400mm without TC to match the framing with TC. then downsize the result with TC to a similar resolution as your cropped without TC file.
Now take 1:1 crops and compare.
I did that. I shot with the TC, then without the TC from the same position, and then without but framing the same as the first shot. The reason for the last bit was just out of curiosity to see whether I could determine a difference in outright sharpness with and without (y)
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
I Just put a couple of my 200/600 and 200/600 + 1,4 on flickr shows how good it is with or without .
Rob.

https://flic.kr/p/2kEBZ3E View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/188213210@N04/50976518806/in/photostream/
Looks good, what's your opinion, I'm impressed with the sharpness? One thing that did surprise me though is that I only have to move forward about 5ft without the TC to get the same framing, but I guess that 5ft could make the difference between the wildlife flitting off or staying put (y)
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
I'd test slightly differently. shoot with 100-400mm and with 1.4x on 100-400mm from the same position i.e. without moving (because moving closer isn't really an option if it was why bother with TCs in the first place).
Crop the 100-400mm without TC to match the framing with TC. then downsize the result with TC to a similar resolution as your cropped without TC file.
Now take 1:1 crops and compare.
I did that. I shot with the TC, then without the TC from the same position, and then without but framing the same as the first shot. The reason for the last bit was just out of curiosity to see whether I could determine a difference in outright sharpness with and without (y)
Actually on re-reading I didn't quite do what you said, however I've just done that and if I crop the shot without (from the same position) to the same size with, export that at full res it's 4378 on the long edge. If I export the shot with TC with the res as 4378 on the long edge and then view both those at 1:1 the shot with TC is noticeably sharper imo (y) These are the resulting images

With TC top, without TC bottom. (Edit: Not so obvious on here :facepalm:

Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 16.07.16
by TDG-77, on Flickr

Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 16.07.37
by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,909
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Looks good, what's your opinion, I'm impressed with the sharpness? One thing that did surprise me though is that I only have to move forward about 5ft without the TC to get the same framing, but I guess that 5ft could make the difference between the wildlife flitting off or staying put (y)
I find it very good and a little more reach is always welcome and if your on the edge of a cliff you really don't want to move forward 5 ft :)
Rob.
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
I’ve been thinking of that lens as I think I’d like something wider than the 24-105. I’m considering the 12-24 f4. What made you go with the 20mm f2.8?
Have you considered the Samyang 18mm f2.8, the copy I had was very sharp and it’s relatively cheap and lightweight?
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,648
Edit My Images
Yes
Actually on re-reading I didn't quite do what you said, however I've just done that and if I crop the shot without (from the same position) to the same size with, export that at full res it's 4378 on the long edge. If I export the shot with TC with the res as 4378 on the long edge and then view both those at 1:1 the shot with TC is noticeably sharper imo (y) These are the resulting images

With TC top, without TC bottom. (Edit: Not so obvious on here :facepalm:

Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 16.07.16
by TDG-77, on Flickr

Screenshot 2021-02-24 at 16.07.37
by TDG-77, on Flickr
And there you go that is why you'd use a TC :D

You need to test at the same focal distance. Most telephotos are sharper at closer focus distances. If you physically move to maintain the same frame you are also increasing the focus distance with the TC which will inevitably end with less sharp results.

More over as I mentioned moving physically to maintain the same frame kinda ruins the point of using a TC in real life. The reason you are using a TC is because you can't physically get closer to your subject. If you can then why bother using a TC in the first place. So testing by physically moving doesn't do the test any justice.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,274
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Have you considered the Samyang 18mm f2.8, the copy I had was very sharp and it’s relatively cheap and lightweight?
I haven’t. I don’t know much about Samyang.

Part of me thinks staying with a Sony lens as it would make it easier to sell on if I didn’t want it later on. I’ve had UWA lens in the past but I’ve not really utilised them enough (I want to change that as 24mm seems a bit long for some scenes). They are more of a nice to have rather than necessity. That’s part of the reason why I now only have the 24-105 and 100-400 as they cover the majority of use.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,648
Edit My Images
Yes
I haven’t. I don’t know much about Samyang.

Part of me thinks staying with a Sony lens as it would make it easier to sell on if I didn’t want it later on. I’ve had UWA lens in the past but I’ve not really utilised them enough (I want to change that as 24mm seems a bit long for some scenes). They are more of a nice to have rather than necessity. That’s part of the reason why I now only have the 24-105 and 100-400 as they cover the majority of use.
Samyang lenses are very easy to sell. Their IQ hits way above their price range or even size.
In case of some more recent lenses like the 45/1.8 even the AF is fairly reliable.
So all in all they sell like hot cakes in the used market, at least on eBay anyway.
 
Messages
15,294
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
Samyang lenses are very easy to sell. Their IQ hits way above their price range or even size.
In case of some more recent lenses like the 45/1.8 even the AF is fairly reliable.
So all in all they sell like hot cakes in the used market, at least on eBay anyway.
I've thought about samyang too, but have heard a few stories about de-centering....
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,648
Edit My Images
Yes
No doubt it’ll be big, heavy and waaaay out of my budget ;)

I’d prefer a new smaller and lighter f1.4 (y)
I like how f1.4 primes are being looked at as the lighter smaller option these days :ROFLMAO:
By this bar f1.8 and f2 primes are tiny and feather light :p
 
Messages
4,960
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
No doubt it’ll be big, heavy and waaaay out of my budget ;)

I’d prefer a new smaller and lighter f1.4 (y)
I don’t even care if it weighs a metric ton.:cool:

This is an absolute must have for me, I am even gonna put the 35GM on the back burner and save my penny’s for this.

Will switch the missus over to a 35/85 and I can go 24/50.
 
Messages
18,305
Edit My Images
No
I like how f1.4 primes are being looked at as the lighter smaller option these days :ROFLMAO:
By this bar f1.8 and f2 primes are tiny and feather light :p
Lol, I meant smaller and lighter than the current one, a bit like they’ve done with the 35mm GM (y)
 
Top