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

woof woof said:
Maybe. After reading about XTrans I can't see a reason for it other than marketing. AFAIK Fuji claim it's a random pattern but it isn't, it's just a larger repeating pattern than bayer and the whole thing takes more processing power... Or so I've read.

I've no idea if this new Sony development is an improvement and even if it is we can't guess when it'll appear in a camera but Sony being what they are they could stick it in a new camera and announce it next week :D
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
I can’t find any benefits of X-Trans only flaws tbh.
Click to expand...
So after delving a little deeper the purpose of X-trans is to reduce moire therefore I can, in theory, see the benefit of the X-Trans. However, in the real world I've never experienced moire, at least not that I've seen, but I did sometimes see the X-Trans artefacts. Despite what the web has me believe, I've even seen the artefacts in jpegs so I don't believe it's truly an issue with which raw processor you use.

So I guess it's a trade off, some people may be more susceptible to seeing moire and therefore Fuji could make more sense, then there are the ones that aren't susceptible to moire but are susceptible to X-Trans artefacts and therefore choose bayer. I'm sure it'll be a debate that will rage on until sensor tech changes completely.
 
snerkler said:
I keep toying with swapping my m4/3 for an RX100, but I’m not sure I can take the IQ drop and fiddliness. It’s only for me to take out on dog walks though and would save me taking a bag.
Click to expand...
I still have my RX100 I, great little cameras. I don't really notice an image quality do from my A7C. Maybe if you pixel peep I guess.
 
snerkler said:
I keep toying with swapping my m4/3 for an RX100, but I’m not sure I can take the IQ drop and fiddliness. It’s only for me to take out on dog walks though and would save me taking a bag.
Click to expand...
Try something larger like LX100ii or X100v
 
nandbytes said:
Try something larger like LX100ii or X100v
Click to expand...
But then I move away form the pocketability. These, and my EM10 are fine in the winter when I've got a coat with big pockets but in the summer it would be nice if I could fit a camera in my shorts pocket rather than carrying a bag.
 
snerkler said:
But then I move away form the pocketability. These, and my EM10 are fine in the winter when I've got a coat with big pockets but in the summer it would be nice if I could fit a camera in my shorts pocket rather than carrying a bag.
Click to expand...
LX100ii was pocketable for me.
May be try the Ricoh griii then?
 
nandbytes said:
LX100ii was pocketable for me.
May be try the Ricoh griii then?
Click to expand...
Not flexible enough :facepalm: ;) I was looking at a couple of the Fuji single focal length compacts as they have digital teles that output at full res (obviously with some degradation) but I can't get past the X-Trans artefacts. I've just been looking at more Fuji raw and jpegs samples this morning and I just can't unsee it. Some SOOC jpegs I've seen from the HS2 are the worst yet :eek:
 
snerkler said:
So after delving a little deeper the purpose of X-trans is to reduce moire therefore I can, in theory, see the benefit of the X-Trans. However, in the real world I've never experienced moire, at least not that I've seen, but I did sometimes see the X-Trans artefacts. Despite what the web has me believe, I've even seen the artefacts in jpegs so I don't believe it's truly an issue with which raw processor you use.

So I guess it's a trade off, some people may be more susceptible to seeing moire and therefore Fuji could make more sense, then there are the ones that aren't susceptible to moire but are susceptible to X-Trans artefacts and therefore choose bayer. I'm sure it'll be a debate that will rage on until sensor tech changes completely.
Click to expand...

I read a long write up on this on Peta Pixel.

petapixel.com

X-Trans vs Bayer Sensors: Fantastic Claims and How to Test Them

Since the introduction of the Fujifilm X-Series line of cameras, reviewers and consumers have struggled to compare them directly to the competition.
petapixel.com petapixel.com
 
Just thought I'd share a picture of this mornings sunrise. It was stunning and made me wish I had a better vantage point than the bedroom window :D

A7 and 20mm f1.8.

5GPfz8h.jpg
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Not flexible enough :facepalm: ;) I was looking at a couple of the Fuji single focal length compacts as they have digital teles that output at full res (obviously with some degradation) but I can't get past the X-Trans artefacts. I've just been looking at more Fuji raw and jpegs samples this morning and I just can't unsee it. Some SOOC jpegs I've seen from the HS2 are the worst yet :eek:
Click to expand...
Ricoh GRiii doesn't have xtrans. comes in couple different focal lengths too now (28mm and 40mm) plus you can add some tele converters if you want a little flexibility.
doesn't have a view finder though, but you can add a OVF to the hotshoe if you want.
 
nandbytes said:
Ricoh GRiii doesn't have xtrans. comes in couple different focal lengths too now (28mm and 40mm) plus you can add some tele converters if you want a little flexibility.
doesn't have a view finder though, but you can add a OVF to the hotshoe if you want.
Click to expand...
Yeah I looked at the Ricoh a few days ago but I don’t want to be carrying converters and there may be times I could do with a viewfinder. I’m not looking too seriously, just playing with ideas (y)
 
Guys,

I still have a touch of gas.

How good or bad is the a7c EVF? I've read that it's not good, what d owners think of it in relation to other EVF's?
 
woof woof said:
Guys,

I still have a touch of gas.

How good or bad is the a7c EVF? I've read that it's not good, what d owners think of it in relation to other EVF's?
Click to expand...
It's fine. It's not as good as full sized ones like in A7RIV. It's borrowed from APS-C bodies.
 
nandbytes said:
It's fine. It's not as good as full sized ones like in A7RIV. It's borrowed from APS-C bodies.
Click to expand...

I suppose the best thing it to try one if I get the chance to visit a shop.

I'd like it to be better than the ones fitted to my MFT RF style cameras. I'd describe those as useable but they're not exactly lovely. I don't suppose anyone knows how it is compared to my original A7?
 
woof woof said:
I suppose the best thing it to try one if I get the chance to visit a shop.

I'd like it to be better than the ones fitted to my MFT RF style cameras. I'd describe those as useable but they're not exactly lovely. I don't suppose anyone knows how it is compared to my original A7?
Click to expand...
It's better in one way and worst in another.
The resolution is about the same.
A7 has a higher magnification of 0.7x Vs 0.6x of A7C. So it's a bigger viewfinder.
A7C has higher refresh rate so will seem smoother in operation.
A7C also probably has newer optics in front of the EVF panel that'll also make it wee bit nicer.
 
Last edited:
Lee... I've had a year from hell, well actually it's been hell since January last year and if a new camera will bring a little joy then why not? I suppose hell is relative and I do have Mrs WW and my mam :D
 
mav said:
have you tried any of the big tele Primes 500 f4 or 400f2.8. I quite fancy one but was wondering what the af would be like , I have a 400 f5.6 and it not very good on a Sony.
Click to expand...
No I haven't but there is plenty of reports online inc. Fred Miranda and such forums.

I have adapted fair bunch of other canon lenses especially primes in the 35-200mm range inc. all the 50mm options, 85mm options, 100mm f2, 135mm f2 and 200mm f2.8. They were already not as good as native lenses and telephotos normally behave worst than shorter lenses.
So I didn't really feel the need to try them to prove that AF wouldn't match native performance. It would end up being bit of an expensive experiment to prove what I feel I already know
 
woof woof said:
Lee... I've had a year from hell, well actually it's been hell since January last year and if a new camera will bring a little joy then why not? I suppose hell is relative and I do have Mrs WW and my mam :D
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear you've had a bad year. Life's too short to miss out, what's the worst that can happen? You buy it, don't like it and return it (y)
 
I've been looking at the new 16-35mm f4 (not looking at buying it) and I'm not convinced it's a great deal better than the ZA. It looks a little bit sharper in the centre (although the examples were shot on difference cameras (A1 vs A7RII) but it seems to have bad distortion in the periphery. Admittedly it has less CA's but they're much easier to correct that the distortion I'd have thought. The new one seems to have more vignetting as well.


Screenshot 2022-07-10 at 07.42.12 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I've been looking at the new 16-35mm f4 (not looking at buying it) and I'm not convinced it's a great deal better than the ZA. It looks a little bit sharper in the centre (although the examples were shot on difference cameras (A1 vs A7RII) but it seems to have bad distortion in the periphery. Admittedly it has less CA's but they're much easier to correct that the distortion I'd have thought. The new one seems to have more vignetting as well.


Screenshot 2022-07-10 at 07.42.12 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I'd check and see if the lightroom profile is able to correct it without issues.
I tried the lens out last weekend and it's really light and small. It's also weathersealed and doesn't extend out.
It also has the customisable button and aperture ring
So there's benefits to "upgrading".

I think the biggest difference in image quality you'll see is at the 35mm end.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I suppose the best thing it to try one if I get the chance to visit a shop.

I'd like it to be better than the ones fitted to my MFT RF style cameras. I'd describe those as useable but they're not exactly lovely. I don't suppose anyone knows how it is compared to my original A7?
Click to expand...
As you know I went from the gen 1 A7R to the C and find the viewfinder good enough.
It's better in terms of quality but just smaller.
If you use the viewfinder the majority of the time of say it would disappoint though you'd probably get used to it. Personally I use the screen the majority of the time so it's a non issue for me.
 
I think I might have Sony GAS as I've just bought a A7r mkiii and a 70-350mm lens. I know the lens will be a crop on the 7r but that's fine as I got the lens to use as a light weight set up for when the wife and I got for a walk in case there is any wildlife about.
 
Icee said:
I think I might have Sony GAS as I've just bought a A7r mkiii and a 70-350mm lens. I know the lens will be a crop on the 7r but that's fine as I got the lens to use as a light weight set up for when the wife and I got for a walk in case there is any wildlife about.
Click to expand...
The image circle actually covers FF at wider ends with that lens :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mav
nandbytes said:
I'd check and see if the lightroom profile is able to correct it without issues.
I tried the lens out last weekend and it's really light and small. It's also weathersealed and doesn't extend out.
It also has the customisable button and aperture ring
So there's benefits to "upgrading".

I think the biggest difference in image quality you'll see is at the 35mm end.
Click to expand...
35mm definitely is better on the new one. The site doesn't allow you to download the test images to see if corrections are applied, I might see if I can download other raws at some point.
 
robj20 said:
As you know I went from the gen 1 A7R to the C and find the viewfinder good enough.
It's better in terms of quality but just smaller.
If you use the viewfinder the majority of the time of say it would disappoint though you'd probably get used to it. Personally I use the screen the majority of the time so it's a non issue for me.
Click to expand...

ta :D
 
Cupotea said:
Had some fun with a new 50mm 2.5 G on an impromptu couple of days in the Lake District. I normally use 35mm but enjoyed it. Especially how light it is.

DSC00211 by Peter Law, on Flickr

DSC00275 by Peter Law, on Flickr

DSC00232 by Peter Law, on Flickr

(edited to add Flickr links)
Click to expand...

Nice shot, I was booked into that Hotel last week/weekend but had to cancel as I had a nasty fall on the Monday and ended up in hospital. Gutted :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top