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

Mrs WW passed her UK test last year but after that she showed no interest in driving until the other day when she said she'd like a car. I had hoped she'd drive the Evoque as it must be similar to the Xtrail she left in but she says she wants a small hatch back which will mean me selling one of my cars as we really don't have room for a fourth. I'm hoping she'll change her mind and drive the Evoque.
 
Thanks guys. Yes, it's pretty tidy really, needs a few bits doing but nothing major from what I can tell/see. Wasn't too cheap though!! It's a CVT auto & for some reason they are pretty desirable & cost quite a bit more than a manual box!
 
snerkler said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people outside of stills photography and more into video and vlogging and the like are very aware of Sony, a lot of people on youtube seem to use Sony. I think a retro Sony could potentially attract some of the same sort of people attracted to the retro cameras from Nikon and Fuji.
 
woof woof said:
a small hatch back which will mean me selling one of my cars as we really don't have room for a fourth. I'm hoping she'll change her mind and drive the Evoque.
Click to expand...
to be fair you could definitely describe it as such, it really is not that much of a stretch
 
LeeRatters said:
Thanks guys. Yes, it's pretty tidy really, needs a few bits doing but nothing major from what I can tell/see. Wasn't too cheap though!! It's a CVT auto & for some reason they are pretty desirable & cost quite a bit more than a manual box!
Click to expand...
No cars are cheap these days. I was having a nosey last week or so for something cheap and nasty for transporting the dogs about. Everything has 150k - 200k miles and is not cheap money. Unless you want a pug or a Citroen.

My missus had a Jazz for a while a few years back it was as old as the hills when she got it and it’s still going strong seen it in Belfast the other day. Very reliable wee motor.
 
f/2.8 said:
No cars are cheap these days. I was having a nosey last week or so for something cheap and nasty for transporting the dogs about. Everything has 150k - 200k miles and is not cheap money. Unless you want a pug or a Citroen.

My missus had a Jazz for a while a few years back it was as old as the hills when she got it and it’s still going strong seen it in Belfast the other day. Very reliable wee motor.
Click to expand...

I don't know what made her want for a Jazz. She was on about them and looking at them before she even took her test - actually, we bought this one before she took her test! :ROFLMAO:
 
A little advice needed please,took my inherited A7C out on Saturday whilst walking the dog,took some photos as to what I thought were well exposed ( off histogram) transferred RAW files to LR on phone but they are under exposed quite a bit so had a look on laptop and same again underexposed,now I've not been through all the settings my Dad had on it but I know he only shot jpegs.Is this normal ,can't remember previous Sony cameras I've had doing this
 
Artoist said:
A little advice needed please,took my inherited A7C out on Saturday whilst walking the dog,took some photos as to what I thought were well exposed ( off histogram) transferred RAW files to LR on phone but they are under exposed quite a bit so had a look on laptop and same again underexposed,now I've not been through all the settings my Dad had on it but I know he only shot jpegs.Is this normal ,can't remember previous Sony cameras I've had doing this
Click to expand...
Have you made any attempt to calibrate your monitor? Mine especially has some crazy presents that really mess with the image quality.
I always search online for some calibration settings and put these into a Custom preset.

Regards settings on the camera. Start by doing a full reset.
On my A7C I more often than not shoot -0.3ev by default anyway.
 
robj20 said:
Have you made any attempt to calibrate your monitor? Mine especially has some crazy presents that really mess with the image quality.
I always search online for some calibration settings and put these into a Custom preset.

Regards settings on the camera. Start by doing a full reset.
On my A7C I more often than not shoot -0.3ev by default anyway.
Click to expand...

^^ That would be my first thing to do.

I'm guessing the histogram is looking pretty much the same on camera & in LR? What's the 'jpeg/picture profile' setting in camera?
 
Not sure what jpeg/picture profile setting in camera is,as robj20 says probably easier to do full reset and start again.I just thought RAW files wouldn't be affected by jpeg settings
Thanks
 
Artoist said:
A little advice needed please,took my inherited A7C out on Saturday whilst walking the dog,took some photos as to what I thought were well exposed ( off histogram) transferred RAW files to LR on phone but they are under exposed quite a bit so had a look on laptop and same again underexposed,now I've not been through all the settings my Dad had on it but I know he only shot jpegs.Is this normal ,can't remember previous Sony cameras I've had doing this
Click to expand...
It's strange that they're so off, however the histogram only shows jpeg preview (normal for every/most cameras) and so if you have some extreme jpeg setting it will look different to the raw files. Likewise if you choose B&W the raw file will still be colour.

As above I'd just do a full reset and start over, failing that I'd start by looking at settings such as DRO. I'm not sure whether it has HDR settings but if so check these too.
 
Artoist said:
Not sure what jpeg/picture profile setting in camera is,as robj20 says probably easier to do full reset and start again.I just thought RAW files wouldn't be affected by jpeg settings
Thanks
Click to expand...
They aren't other than the profile will be stored in the exif.
But some other settings on the camera can effect the exposure in a big way that aren't immediately obvious.
I don't really use the histogram ever like above it's based on jpeg preview.
I prefer the zebras (I forget the exact setting) avoid clipping the highlights and the shadows are mostly recovered in post anyway.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
They aren't other than the profile will be stored in the exif.
But some other settings on the camera can effect the exposure in a big way that aren't immediately obvious.
I don't really use the histogram ever like above it's based on jpeg preview.
I prefer the zebras (I forget the exact setting) avoid clipping the highlights and the shadows are mostly recovered in post anyway.
Click to expand...
Aren't zebras based on jpegs too though so can have the same issue as the histogram?

I use the histogram all the time, but I also know I don't have any jpegs settings that alter the exposure. You also know that you have a bit more leeway with raw meaning if the histogram is just clipping it's likely to be OK in the raw file. I also use zebras.
 
snerkler said:
Aren't zebras based on jpegs too though so can have the same issue as the histogram?

I use the histogram all the time, but I also know I don't have any jpegs settings that alter the exposure. You also know that you have a bit more leeway with raw meaning if the histogram is just clipping it's likely to be OK in the raw file. I also use zebras.
Click to expand...
Yes but through experience you can set zebras to a higher than 100% setting.
It's a shame you can adjust the histogram in a similar way.
 
robj20 said:
They aren't other than the profile will be stored in the exif.
But some other settings on the camera can effect the exposure in a big way that aren't immediately obvious.
I don't really use the histogram ever like above it's based on jpeg preview.
I prefer the zebras (I forget the exact setting) avoid clipping the highlights and the shadows are mostly recovered in post anyway.
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
Aren't zebras based on jpegs too though so can have the same issue as the histogram?

I use the histogram all the time, but I also know I don't have any jpegs settings that alter the exposure. You also know that you have a bit more leeway with raw meaning if the histogram is just clipping it's likely to be OK in the raw file. I also use zebras.
Click to expand...

Maximum zebra settings A7Riii & flat jpeg setting for the (p)review image for me. I know I can push right up to (and very slightly over) the zebra's & still retain RAW highlight details. On the A7 with the lower level maximum zebra's I can go up to 2 stops over the zebras.

And now I have Alan's X100f which just uses a histogram :facepalm: :facepalm: :ROFLMAO:
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Which is a reflection of the JPG profile selected - so depending on the profile selected you may be able to recover more from the highlights in the RAW - just to really play with your mind o_O
Click to expand...
That’s the same as any camera though isn’t it?
 
Mr Perceptive said:
If you don't have a natural view setting then yes, but it can make a significant difference on teh Fuji system, monochrome, ACROS and ACROS+R for instance all have quite different highlight recovery once you are in post.
Click to expand...
I think that's the same with any picture profile though, for example Landscape on Sony is going to look significantly different to the raw and I believe the histograms likewise when loaded into software, whereas standard will look very similar. I'll have to get my lab coat out ;)
 
Can anyone recommend a good cheap gloss paper?

I'm currently using Epson Premium Glossy but just fancied giving something else a go.

There was a thread some time back and someone recommended a brand I'd never heard of which got good reviews and I put it in my basket on Amazon but I must have deleted it as it's not there now.

So, starting again :D
 
woof woof said:
Can anyone recommend a good cheap gloss paper?

I'm currently using Epson Premium Glossy but just fancied giving something else a go.

There was a thread some time back and someone recommended a brand I'd never heard of which got good reviews and I put it in my basket on Amazon but I must have deleted it as it's not there now.

So, starting again :D
Click to expand...
Olmec 260gsm. Cheap and decent. I use loads to keep printer juices flowing without any clotting.
This is not my first choice for customers prints but can be used if they want some cost saving
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Which is a reflection of the JPG profile selected - so depending on the profile selected you may be able to recover more from the highlights in the RAW - just to really play with your mind o_O
Click to expand...
I am really struggling to understand why none of the manufacturers are willing to offer a RAW based histogram or at least a LOG style JPEG profile that uses all of the DR?!!!

I never ever ever shoot JPEG, so the whole idea of some restricted baked in profile is wholly inadequate for my needs. I am surely not alone in only shooting RAW. You can presume shadow detail will be recoverable up to some point, but you probably no longer see through the EVF and LCD just what is in those shadows - maybe a pile of garbage (it happened to me). Whereas on the highlights side you think you may be clipping much sooner than you really are. So you get underexposure. This makes EVF spit out very contrasty and clipped view by default.
I found you can sort of mitigate this by adjusting the neutral or faithful or whatever JPEG profile to zero contrast, low saturation, max recovery etc - until it looks absolutely awful and terrible but at least you have a slightly better idea where your limits are. I can appreciate you had to this to 2015 5Ds while you still had true VF, but same today this really sucks.

I appreciate some people like to preview a shot with a certain style already applied to help better visualise the concept. I am not saying remove this option but really we need the option NOT to use it and make it easy to find.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I am really struggling to understand why none of the manufacturers are willing to offer a RAW based histogram or at least a LOG style JPEG profile that uses all of the DR?!!!

I never ever ever shoot JPEG, so the whole idea of some restricted baked in profile is wholly inadequate for my needs. I am surely not alone in only shooting RAW. You can presume shadow detail will be recoverable up to some point, but you probably no longer see through the EVF and LCD just what is in those shadows - maybe a pile of garbage (it happened to me). Whereas on the highlights side you think you may be clipping much sooner than you really are. So you get underexposure. This makes EVF spit out very contrasty and clipped view by default.
I found you can sort of mitigate this by adjusting the neutral or faithful or whatever JPEG profile to zero contrast, low saturation, max recovery etc - until it looks absolutely awful and terrible but at least you have a slightly better idea where your limits are. I can appreciate you had to this to 2015 5Ds while you still had true VF, but same today this really sucks.

I appreciate some people like to preview a shot with a certain style already applied to help better visualise the concept. I am not saying remove this option but really we need the option NOT to use it and make it easy to find.
Click to expand...
I suspect it's simply a case of "it's always been done that way" - the camera must go through the process of converting the raw to a jpeg so that it can display an image in the evf / on the rear screen, and having done that using that image as a source for the histogram is an easy option - and is considered "good enough" for most people.
 
Faldrax said:
I suspect it's simply a case of "it's always been done that way" - the camera must go through the process of converting the raw to a jpeg so that it can display an image in the evf / on the rear screen, and having done that using that image as a source for the histogram is an easy option - and is considered "good enough" for most people.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that but why not just let use xLOG3 outside of video mode as a quick band aid for the starters?
 
Faldrax said:
I suspect it's simply a case of "it's always been done that way" - the camera must go through the process of converting the raw to a jpeg so that it can display an image in the evf / on the rear screen, and having done that using that image as a source for the histogram is an easy option - and is considered "good enough" for most people.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine it's processing power needed to display raw images and data, but I wish that they could do it.
 
LeeRatters said:
I don't know what made her want for a Jazz. She was on about them and looking at them before she even took her test - actually, we bought this one before she took her test! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
You're gonna be sitting beside her shouting go on hit veeeeeeeeeeteccccccccccccccc :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top