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

LeeRatters said:
I don't think it notices too much Alan :)
Click to expand...

It's amazing what you can get away with if you look at a whole picture and resist pixel peeping.

I have an A4 print of something else which is OOF if you look very closely but as a framed A4 on the wall only people like us would ever notice. No normal person has spotted it.
 
woof woof said:
It's amazing what you can get away with if you look at a whole picture and resist pixel peeping.

I have an A4 print of something else which is OOF if you look very closely but as a framed A4 on the wall only people like us would ever notice. No normal person has spotted it.
Click to expand...

Exactly Alan. I try not to pixel peep at all to be honest anymore! But saying that, missed focus does annoy me sometimes :ROFLMAO: Especially when it is my fault :)
 
Redspider said:
Regarding the RAW files, I have tried the small lossless compression files, & they look OK once opened, but they won't open in some programmes. They are 4 times smaller. Example. Normal file around 125kb, Small Lossless 35kb. In fact they are a little smaller than the Jpegs. I have processed a couple and they look good to me.
If I go down the conversion route, what is the best programme to convert RAW files to smaller files, and what type of files do you recommend?
Click to expand...
Firstly I’m assuming you’re talking mb and not kb ;)

Which camera are we talking, the A7cR? Why are you using small lossless, there’s no point having a high res camera if you’re not going to use the full resolution? I use lossless but use large so that I have full resolution.

AFAIK you can’t get smaller file sizes than lossless compressed without sacrificing image quality/file data, that being said you might not see much difference in the IQ using compressed files barring the most demanding scenes.
 
snerkler said:
Firstly I’m assuming you’re talking mb and not kb ;)

Which camera are we talking, the A7cR? Why are you using small lossless, there’s no point having a high res camera if you’re not going to use the full resolution? I use lossless but use large so that I have full resolution.

AFAIK you can’t get smaller file sizes than lossless compressed without sacrificing image quality/file data, that being said you might not see much difference in the IQ using compressed files barring the most demanding scenes.
Click to expand...

When I got the A7Riii I shot in both compressed & uncompressed to compare. Even really pulling them about for highlights & shadows I couldn't get any differences. I've even shot my last few night skies compressed with no issues. That is still full resolution though.
 
Redspider said:
Regarding the RAW files, I have tried the small lossless compression files, & they look OK once opened, but they won't open in some programmes. They are 4 times smaller. Example. Normal file around 125kb, Small Lossless 35kb. In fact they are a little smaller than the Jpegs. I have processed a couple and they look good to me.
If I go down the conversion route, what is the best programme to convert RAW files to smaller files, and what type of files do you recommend?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what RAW files you're referring to, but on my A7III uncompressed files are 50MB and lossy compressed 25MB. Why do you want such tiny files?

My *personal* choice is to store full-size uncompressed raw files. Do you intended to do any post-processing, or just want to convert to the smallest file size possible?
 
LeeRatters said:
When I got the A7Riii I shot in both compressed & uncompressed to compare. Even really pulling them about for highlights & shadows I couldn't get any differences. I've even shot my last few night skies compressed with no issues. That is still full resolution though.
Click to expand...
People have been shooting compressed RAW on Sony for a long time with almost no issues. Your A7 for example only has compressed RAW option.
It's mostly an "internet issue".
And in all cases where I saw the compression artefacts my photos were long ruined by shooting incorrect exposures before compression artefacts could even become an issue.

Also while shooting anything more than 10fps I used to use compressed RAW especially on A1. It's really each to fill up even 256GB cards.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It's amazing what you can get away with if you look at a whole picture and resist pixel peeping.

I have an A4 print of something else which is OOF if you look very closely but as a framed A4 on the wall only people like us would ever notice. No normal person has spotted it.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more here and have been thinking with regret recently that I take a lot less photos these days as I'm concerned they're not going to be good enough whereas before I just took loads of photos and didn't care so much.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I couldn't agree with you more here and have been thinking with regret recently that I take a lot less photos these days as I'm concerned they're not going to be good enough whereas before I just took loads of photos and didn't care so much.
Click to expand...
I do this a lot. I'll take the camera out, go for a walk and come back to process the photos and there'll be one. Don't take the photo and it won't be bad in some way.

I made a big step a few months ago and that was to strap keeping all RAWs. I review them on import, delete ones I don't want, process the rest and export to jpeg on my server. Then delete the RAWs.
 
Last edited:
JohnMcL7 said:
I couldn't agree with you more here and have been thinking with regret recently that I take a lot less photos these days as I'm concerned they're not going to be good enough whereas before I just took loads of photos and didn't care so much.
Click to expand...

I do delete some pictures which just don't work but I hang on to more and look at them over a period of time as I think that I must have seen something there otherwise I wouldn't have taken the picture at all. If after some time I'm still not seeing anything there then only then do I delete it.

A lot of my pictures wouldn't really work as stand alone pictures that are going to make me very happy every time I look at them and are more likely to work in a slideshow of a day out.
 
Last edited:
Redspider said:
This is the information. The top three are uncompressed. The bottom three are Lossless Comp (S). I tried three photo's and didn't notice any difference. I will try again, hopefully tomorrow, with full and compressed RAW files.

Uncompressed and compressed Raw files. by Andy Williams, on Flickr
Click to expand...

37,282KB is 37.3MB. That makes more sense, and is the kind of file size I would expect.
 
robj20 said:
I made a big step a few months ago and that was to strap keeping all RAWs. I review them on import, delete ones I don't want, process the rest and export to jpeg on my server. Then delete the RAWs.
Click to expand...

I did that right at the beginning, but when I wanted to reprocess some early images there was no recovery and I couldn't use the pictures in the way I wanted.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I did that right at the beginning, but when I wanted to reprocess some early images there was no recovery and I couldn't use the pictures in the way I wanted.
Click to expand...

Yup.

When I get new and better software I often reprocess pictures which I took even back to the beginning of my raw shooting.
 
Redspider said:
This is the information. The top three are uncompressed. The bottom three are Lossless Comp (S). I tried three photo's and didn't notice any difference. I will try again, hopefully tomorrow, with full and compressed RAW files.

Uncompressed and compressed Raw files. by Andy Williams, on Flickr
Click to expand...
As above 125,000 kb is 125mb.

As I said already I wouldn't shoot in lossless (s) as it's only 15mp, in fact I wouldn't shoot in lossless (m) either as it's only 26mp, if you're going to use those you may as well send it back and get a 24mp camera (y)
 
ancient_mariner said:
I did that right at the beginning, but when I wanted to reprocess some early images there was no recovery and I couldn't use the pictures in the way I wanted.
Click to expand...
I don't need to use mine. Just look at them from time to time.
90% of the time I'd probably be happy with jpeg SOC.
 
f/2.8 said:
...... The owners should be responsible not the dogs.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Two of the dogs I regularly meet while walking our Cockerpoo are an Alsation and a Rotweiler - both are really nice, friendly sociable dogs - because their owners have taken the time to properly train and socialise them.
I also often meet and chat to the assistant / receptionist from our vets while she's walking her dog - and we had a chat about the ban - there was a questionnaire sent round to the many small independent vets regarding willingness to euthanise a bully XL if required - and almost all said no, they would decline to euthanise a healthy animal.
It's very much knee-jerk legislation pandering to 'public opinion' - and completely failing to address the real problem of bad owners.
 
Faldrax said:
Exactly.
Two of the dogs I regularly meet while walking our Cockerpoo are an Alsation and a Rotweiler - both are really nice, friendly sociable dogs - because their owners have taken the time to properly train and socialise them.
Click to expand...
Finally, I have come across someone else that calls them Alsatians :banana:
My Dad & Grandad bred them for show and agility/obedience but my Mum wasn't keen on having a dog so, sadly, I grew up without ever owning a dog.

When I left home, I worked for a wee local newspaper and spotted an advert for Dalmatian puppies.
The local vet was a friend of one of my workmates so I asked his opinion.
He told me that Dalmatians were good dogs but not that particular litter.
He went on to say that there were 2 litters just born - Cocker Spaniels but advised against the Golden Cocker because Rage Syndrome was still a thing then.
The other litter was Staffies and he suggested that if we were to think of starting a family, the the Staffie was the dog to go for.
In the end we opted for a Black & White Cocker.
 
snerkler said:
As above 125,000 kb is 125mb.

As I said already I wouldn't shoot in lossless (s) as it's only 15mp, in fact I wouldn't shoot in lossless (m) either as it's only 26mp, if you're going to use those you may as well send it back and get a 24mp camera (y)
Click to expand...
My reason for the 61MP was to take a smaller lens (Sony 70-350) on planes, so the camera/lenses are lighter to carry abroad, and from photo's I've posted, it is perfect for my needs. When I take landscape, Steam trains, and RIAT etc I will use the 61MP. But most of the rest of the time 24MP, or thereabouts, will do me fine, otherwise the RAW files will fill up a HD in no time.
 
Redspider said:
My reason for the 61MP was to take a smaller lens (Sony 70-350) on planes, so the camera/lenses are lighter to carry abroad, and from photo's I've posted, it is perfect for my needs. When I take landscape, Steam trains, and RIAT etc I will use the 61MP. But most of the rest of the time 24MP, or thereabouts, will do me fine, otherwise the RAW files will fill up a HD in no time.
Click to expand...
Cool (y)
 
woof woof said:
I don't know if I'd buy one of these although I did try the Fuji X100s/f and there's no doubt that these retro style cameras do seem to have their fans and a niche market...

It’s time for Sony to make Minolta SR-T inspired E-mount vintage cameras! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

I hope Sony do make one.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,

That said I don't really get the buzz around the Nikon Zf as it's a lot bigger than I initially thought and I find the lack of grip on the RX1 and RX100 cameras a bit of an annoyance so I really can't imagine using a camera the size of a Zf without one.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Tower Bridge sunrise from the weekend.

A1_08413-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
very nice.

I did notice a very small overall tilt left and probably another 1-2 degrees further perspective correction needed. I am very particular about my geometry.
While I am at it I would throw the kitchen sink and AI at removing the construction on the left
 
Artoist said:
Your new version of 20-70
Click to expand...
Sure is
LongLensPhotography said:
very nice.

I did notice a very small overall tilt left and probably another 1-2 degrees further perspective correction needed. I am very particular about my geometry.
While I am at it I would throw the kitchen sink and AI at removing the construction on the left
Click to expand...
Thanks, I thought there was a tilt but LR says not :thinking: Which perspective correction are you referring to?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
very nice.

I did notice a very small overall tilt left and probably another 1-2 degrees further perspective correction needed. I am very particular about my geometry.
While I am at it I would throw the kitchen sink and AI at removing the construction on the left
Click to expand...
Rotated and crane removed ;)

Looks particularly soft on here :rolleyes:
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,

That said I don't really get the buzz around the Nikon Zf as it's a lot bigger than I initially thought and I find the lack of grip on the RX1 and RX100 cameras a bit of an annoyance so I really can't imagine using a camera the size of a Zf without one.
Click to expand...

I think you could have a point about snobbery but younger people may not have the same anti Sony prejudices as people invested in the more legacy camera marques having possibly had Sony tech in other forms. I actually hope they do make one, more choice and all that, and especially as it may take minimal effort.
 
snerkler said:
Sure is

Thanks, I thought there was a tilt but LR says not :thinking: Which perspective correction are you referring to?
Click to expand...
LR auto correct usually makes things much worse. I never ever use it.

It is best to start with correcting the central lines (ie. tilt) and then move on to perspective, i.e. both sides perfectly vertical. Use gridlines to help you see

There is a reason I never leave house without 410 head
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,

That said I don't really get the buzz around the Nikon Zf as it's a lot bigger than I initially thought and I find the lack of grip on the RX1 and RX100 cameras a bit of an annoyance so I really can't imagine using a camera the size of a Zf without one.
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
I think you could have a point about snobbery but younger people may not have the same anti Sony prejudices as people invested in the more legacy camera marques having possibly had Sony tech in other forms. I actually hope they do make one, more choice and all that, and especially as it may take minimal effort.
Click to expand...

I think the lack of an dercent inbuilt EVF didn't help the first generation, and lots of people (including me) don't like pop-up EVFs on teh later generations, but the package size and quality ofo theh glass was spot on
 
LongLensPhotography said:
LR auto correct usually makes things much worse. I never ever use it.

It is best to start with correcting the central lines (ie. tilt) and then move on to perspective, i.e. both sides perfectly vertical. Use gridlines to help you see

There is a reason I never leave house without 410 head
Click to expand...
Thanks. I couldn’t use a tripod as this was taken through the window of our hotels room and I had all on trying not to get reflections, much easier said than done.
 
woof woof said:
I think you could have a point about snobbery but younger people may not have the same anti Sony prejudices as people invested in the more legacy camera marques having possibly had Sony tech in other forms. I actually hope they do make one, more choice and all that, and especially as it may take minimal effort.
Click to expand...
Things change. Some companies improve and can really rebuild reputation in just a decade or less. I can't think of a better example than Sigma. It was like the worst of the worst, and then the more recent ARTs are probably better than Zeiss particularly when you account for autofocus vs lack of it.

Companies can also damage reputation and alienate customers even quicker than that. I think Canon and Apple doing a great job now.
 
nandbytes said:
Then no one will believe its London :p
too unnatural for London :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I would at least make it dark grey then. Bright areas tend to really distract.

I haven't been to London for years and years now and most won't go again
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,

That said I don't really get the buzz around the Nikon Zf as it's a lot bigger than I initially thought and I find the lack of grip on the RX1 and RX100 cameras a bit of an annoyance so I really can't imagine using a camera the size of a Zf without one.
Click to expand...
The Nikon Zf looks very similar to my OM1 which is one of my favourite looking cameras, however it's not nice to handle due to the lack of grip.
woof woof said:
I think you could have a point about snobbery but younger people may not have the same anti Sony prejudices as people invested in the more legacy camera marques having possibly had Sony tech in other forms. I actually hope they do make one, more choice and all that, and especially as it may take minimal effort.
Click to expand...
I often get asked what camera I use, Canon or Nikon, I don't think a lot of the general public realise that Sony are a serious camera brand.
Mr Perceptive said:
I think the lack of an dercent inbuilt EVF didn't help the first generation, and lots of people (including me) don't like pop-up EVFs on teh later generations, but the package size and quality ofo theh glass was spot on
Click to expand...
I don't mind the pop up EVF on the compact cameras. Most of the time I think you'd tend to use the LCD with these cameras but the EVF is a nice addition for the times the LCD isn't suitable.
Artoist said:
Ordered!
Can't fight the appeal any longer
Click to expand...
I can't fault mine, it's very sharp edge to edge. Obviously there's not a great deal of 'character' but for this type of lens it's a great performer IMO and I think it's going to make a great travel lens. There was only a couple of occasions I missed not having 16mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top