The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!
- Thread starter woof woof
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,413
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A couple from a rainy Padley Gorge
A1_05616-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
A1_05630-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Absolutely stunning Toby!
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks very much.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,601
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH my images look the best on here *to me* when I use Flickr to embed at 1600px on the long side. Embedding at 1024 shows a smaller, less detailed image.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
its an amazing setup. I have really enjoyed using this setup on my recent trip to Scotland.
70-200mm is a wee bit short coming from 70-300mm but on the flip side 0.5x macro is super useful. Plus f4 at 200mm renders nice portraits too, not to mention more usable in winter/autumn evenings when light goes down quickly.
you win some you lose some.
The centre sharpness of the 70-200mm G2 is simply amazing! I don't think I have seen a zoom be this sharp (may the f2.8 GM2 is, I haven't used it). Its not as sharp outer frame, not that its bad by any means though. But that also gives a lot of room for cropping.
its certainly sharper than my 200-600mm at 200mm across the frame.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,072
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you tried it with the 1.4x ?
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Do I understand it correctly that they would give better price if contacted or is this for repeat high value customers only?
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh.... Is this really so? In that case saves me money in the long run
Would you say the same about 20-70 or is that better? I only have 50 prime between 35 and 70mm so at some point this may need to be addressed
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
70-200mm GII is better than 20-70mm. The 70-200mm is probably the best version of this lens you can buy possibly bar the GM2 f2.8 version. Its a really amazing lens.
But if you are expecting a zoom to perform like a prime you will be disappointed.
20-70mm is good lens and good for travelling with. I am more than happy with its performance not sure how you would feel though.
I think even you might be happy with 70-200GII though
yep, works very well. I don't notice much difference in performance if there is any.
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Using the digital picture test chart samples the G looks fractionally sharper in the centre at 70mm compared to the GM II both wide open, at 200mm the GM II looks better. Both at f4 the GM II wins across the board, however it’s far from a big difference, given the price point of the F4 macro that’s very impressive.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
At some point I will need to make some painful decisions. I have 3x Canon ones and really I could do with one, better one that does everything in one package with better results. 2.8GMII is not cheap by any means, let's make that very clear. The only good thing is that GMIII is nowhere near
If I had stayed with 6K sensor I wouldn't even know there were limits to my original 70-200.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com
Although it may be quite meaningless on non-closeup distances, and such lens performance can vary quite dramatically with changing focal distance. Would it improve or get worse? It depends how sony optimised them. I would guess somewhere in the middle for sports action, but that is just my guess.
Canon ones don't exactly follow these crops in my experience.
And oddly they are both just not as good at 70mm as the oldest canon f/4 IS. Nothing I looked at is. It looks as if the decision was made sacrifice wide end for longer end across all manufacturers.
Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yeah it seems GMII eats 4GII for breakfast.Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
Although it may be quite meaningless on non-closeup distances, and such lens performance can vary quite dramatically with changing focal distance. Would it improve or get worse? It depends how sony optimised them. I would guess somewhere in the middle for sports action, but that is just my guess.
Canon ones don't exactly follow these crops in my experience.
And oddly they are both just not as good at 70mm as the oldest canon f/4 IS. Nothing I looked at is. It looks as if the decision was made sacrifice wide end for longer end across all manufacturers.
You may not care about 70mm much but when shooting landscapes that 70-100mmm is super important.Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
tbh they are different lenses IMO, and they are intended for different audience.
The f4 macro is versatile i.e. provides a smaller package, macro feature and lot cheaper.
the f2.8GM is a bigger f2.8 zoom and everything that comes with it. Having said that its pretty light and only about 250g heavier than f4.
Like I said more than happy with f4Gii. The digital picture is a nice reference point but I wouldn't take it as the gospel. as you rightly identified the performance differs at various distances, plus there will be some amount of sample variation.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Is the macro anywhere near as well resolved as a real macro lens? I always found the extreme closeups from canon EF range to be quite soft focus in comparison. It's OK, you just need a macro lens in the bag if you anticipate needing one. Sure it is handy to have the feature than not to have it at all. Now the penalty of the EF100L macro lens is performance at infinity. You just don't really want to go there. So this is how your bag fills up.
Having three 70-200mm lenses, two f4 and one 2.8 I can say one thing other than weight difference. The f/4 and 2.8 versions are completely interchangeable, and can be used for most jobs. The advantage of f/2.8 is that you can open it up more instead of just relying on ISO but there is very little stopping you from taking a portrait, action shot or landscape with either one until the conditions become absolutely extreme. I don't think non-pros will even notice the difference in background blur past around 100mm. Now of course f/4 is lighter and fits in less space in a camera bag, and is less likely to crush other lenses once in there.
The big question is if you are happy to use them wide open, and if not how far do you need to go. Ideally this should be right from the start for a premium tele. There is no point having 2.8 lens that barely gets there past 5.6 or never at all.
absolutely. The only problem it usually gets worse in real life.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I previously had loawa 100mm macro and Sony 90G macro. The latter had the crown for "sharpest lens" for a little while if I'm not mistaken.
Either way no it's no where near as sharp as dedicated macro primes from the last decade. It's a zoom lens to start with.
But it has certain features like a flat field which makes it a good macro candidate.
basically it's sharp enough. I don't take pictures of butterflies and then crop the wing tip corner at 200% magnification and then print at A1 to view it with my nose up against it.
For all practical intents and purposes it's sharp enough IMO.
I don't fill up my bag, in fact I look for ways reduced the amount I need to carry. I know my limitations. I would never carry a separate macro lens. So this lens unlocks new potential that I would otherwise not have.
if you are after the sharpest macro lens that's the sigma 105mm f2.8 DN version. Go for it if you are happy to carry the extra lens.
In fact if you buy it in L-mount you can use it with TCs. You may not even need a 70-200mm at that point.
I don't buy lenses I can't shoot wide open.
Having said that I wouldn't shoot the f4Gii wide open at f4 at it's closest focus distance. Really helps stoping down to f5.6 at MFD.
Then again I'd barely have anything in focus at f4 anyway. It's not an issue I'd notice often but still an issue.
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
It needs to be investigated if it has much over Canon 100L, at mid to tight close up distances like product shots and portraits. I rarely get to proper 1:1 macro level. Last time it was a tick and not because I wanted a print of it on the wall.
Who knows maybe Sigma is even good at infinity, but not quite a replacement for 200mm and a zoom.
I nearly bought Sigma 70mm but backed off because of that nasty AF motor. STM or equivalent is a horror show.
I don't like TCs; usually no better than cropping. Maybe OK with big super tele primes...
extension tubes on the other hand... but not for my needs. My 400mm would be a better recipient for it. MFD is PITA on it.
To be honest, DOF doesn't even expand that much even at f/11 at 200mm. If focus stacking a 200mm landscapes maybe that's the best option to avoid poor overlaps, but otherwise I just leave it close to open and enjoy better background rendering. A dog can be a nasty case, where you need nose and eyes in focus, and the thing is moving fast. Actually they are more easily dealt with using something like 400mm or 300mm.
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
That Canon does look extremely impressive, however as nanbytes says that site's not to be taken as gospel. Also sharpness is only telling us one aspect of the lens, there's the rendering, bokeh, micro contrast, CA's etc etc.yeah it seems GMII eats 4GII for breakfast.Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
Although it may be quite meaningless on non-closeup distances, and such lens performance can vary quite dramatically with changing focal distance. Would it improve or get worse? It depends how sony optimised them. I would guess somewhere in the middle for sports action, but that is just my guess.
Canon ones don't exactly follow these crops in my experience.
And oddly they are both just not as good at 70mm as the oldest canon f/4 IS. Nothing I looked at is. It looks as if the decision was made sacrifice wide end for longer end across all manufacturers.
You may not care about 70mm much but when shooting landscapes that 70-100mmm is super important.Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Does anyone here have the latest version (v2+) of topaz photoAI? How does it compare to the individual versions i.e. sharpen, Denoise and gigapixel?
I haven't purchased topaz upgrades in a fair while mostly because I have the latest versions of the 3 individual apps. But I am a whole major version behind on photo AI. The recent black Friday discount is making me consider upgrading the photoAI.
I haven't purchased topaz upgrades in a fair while mostly because I have the latest versions of the 3 individual apps. But I am a whole major version behind on photo AI. The recent black Friday discount is making me consider upgrading the photoAI.
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm just updating now and when I get chance to have a play with it I'll report back.
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I've only tried the sharpening on Photo AI vs Topaz sharpen and in terms of the final product they're the same assuming you've matched the settings. This was exporting via TIFF in both. Using Plug-In Extras > Process with opaz Photo AI uses the original raw file which according to the pop up is favourable, however it's not for me as I want to send across with the lightroom adjustments which is doens't when you use the raw.
I find both Photo AI and Sharpen AI clunky to use when it comes to masking, both are slow and a bit glitchy (probably because it's working on large TIFF files) I do prefer masking in Sharpen AI as the mask has some transparency so you can see the image and therefore what you're masking, the mask in Photo AI has no transparency making it more difficult imo.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is the auto-subject detection any better on the photo AI?
I found that it was hit and miss on V1. It worked about 50% of the time and it was nice when it did. Otherwise like you say it is a faff to refine it.
at least its promising that the end results are now the same.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
2.07 here and while better than v1 no it's not as good as individual apps, essentially it just wastes drive space. Save your £££ until next year perhaps.
Raw module is frankly an abomination.
I prefer to do my masking in Photoshop if I need to run 2 or 3 different scenarios, usually one without AI at all. My aim is not to require sharpen AI for most images so this is not something I do very often but this way you have proper control
This thing can sometimes rescue crappy corners and for that you need motion blur module. It just works better, don't ask me why
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
It's in my bag and wide end is every bit as good as the chart
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS | S - SIGMA UK
sigmauk.com
The new Sigma 70-200mm seems like a decent performer. MTF shows 70mm is a little stronger than 200mm
Sony GMII probably is a little better at the long end but it is not so clear cut without seeing real life tests https://www.sony.co.uk/lenses/products/sel70200gm2/feature2
£1500 UK is not that cheap but a lot better £3K if performance is that close.
Now the main thing is to somehow get Sony to remove the cripple hammer from their bodies.
The limit is only on the high FPS on the top end bodies - unlike other Camera manufacturers who limit what lenses 3rd party manufacturers can make.
15 FPS on Sony vs No lens on other bodies, I know which sounds more like 'crippling 3rd party lenses'!
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I get this is much much better situation, but by no means ideal when this is just essentially a software ban. You can shoot 8K 60fps or something like that with full AF video on A1, so why the hell can you not record them as stills?
This is essentially why I am slowly divesting from Canon to more open platform(s). Ideally you want the most open one then.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't mind the 15fps limitation as much as the lack of TC support limitation which annoys the hell out me
Although it is a limit imposed via software, it's not clear if it's an arbitrary limit to help sales of top end Sony lenses, or something they have put in place after performing testing themselves and finding issues with 3rd party lenses at higher FPS - Sony also limit the FPS on some of their own lenses on some bodies.
If Sony did test a range of 3rd party lenses, and found that there were a significant proportion that couldn't maintain AF at the higher rates, then a simple blanket limit would make sense (Sony would be unlikely to want to try and maintain a list of 3rd party lenses with max suggested FPS).
It's the sort of thing that Sony are unlikely to give us the full facts on, so we are left with guesses as to the reason (which might be a combination of both - a bit of testing showing a few issues, giving an excuse for a blanket ban which helps make Sony lenses more attractive).
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I am probably the opposite. I would only want up to 20-30fps in some very rare scenarios, and 15 is not exactly bad but you feel short changed.
There is a similar thing canon does, maybe it will be short lived, with even their own lenses that are ever so slightly older in efcs or fully mechanical but then you can go full mental in full electronic with full af and aperture control and everything is fine. Talking about cripple hammer... They just want you to buy up all of their £3k zooms and then all new super teles.
The thing is those who need and planned yo get them already pretty much got them and the rest of us are looking to jump ship entirely so maybe time to think differently before say L mount pulls ahead. They are essentially a good pro body behind in the game
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,667
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
That's essentially a marketing talk. They can have a list of approved / recommended lenses and leave us the choice. Again they would fail in 8k 60p video and yet they don't. The difference is only how the camera writes the data.
It sounds like your car would not start or run in limp mode if you got budget tyre from indy garage. That's the sort of level of enraging insanity we are taking about
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Normally I find sharpen AI selects subjects really well but when I've just used this photo to compare to Photo AI the Photo AI did a much better job. I'm not sure why sharpen AI made such a bad job on this as it's usually excellent. I tried it several times and it always did this.
You can also see the difference in masking opacity.
Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 18.45.09 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
15fps is plenty, the limit on TC's is odd.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you very much for reporting back with examples.Normally I find sharpen AI selects subjects really well but when I've just used this photo to compare to Photo AI the Photo AI did a much better job. I'm not sure why sharpen AI made such a bad job on this as it's usually excellent. I tried it several times and it always did this.
You can also see the difference in masking opacity.
Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 18.45.09 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
I guess photoAI has probably had a few more improvements in subject detection. The updates to sharpen AI has basically stopped in over a year.
The opacity is certainly an odd one and I know what you mean. Not sure why they've made it like that just on photoAI.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Normally I find sharpen AI selects subjects really well but when I've just used this photo to compare to Photo AI the Photo AI did a much better job. I'm not sure why sharpen AI made such a bad job on this as it's usually excellent. I tried it several times and it always did this.
You can also see the difference in masking opacity.
Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 18.45.09 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
15fps is plenty, the limit on TC's is odd.
Ok I had a look at my version of PhotoAI you can set the masking opacity. I'd be surprised if they removed it.
you can even choose the colour.
I haven't used photoAI much (mostly use individual components) so didn't know if this was possible on top of my head
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Definitely no opacity adjustment as far as I can see
Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 20.33.24 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 20.34.09 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So they actually removed a feature!?Definitely no opacity adjustment as far as I can see
Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 20.33.24 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Screenshot 2023-11-16 at 20.34.09 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
- Messages
- 23,734
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Looks that way, unless it's a bug.
- Messages
- 15,963
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll download a trial version later and check it
Will need to mess about with using new temporary emails to get a new trial
I'm sure Ferrari would limit the cars speed if you put a set of cheap remoulds on it if they had a way of doing so, as it won't handle properly at speed (actually modern high end cars probably will reduce power to the wheels if they detect loss of grip).
I don't tend to shoot video, so not really paid any attention to it, but a quick check of specs suggested that none of the Sony cameras do actually shoot 8k 60p,
The A1 does 8k 30p, and the A7Rv does 8k 25p.
Just wondering which Sony E-Mount camera has these 3rd party lenses working perfectly in 8k 60p?