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

depends on the format - if they’re FAT/exFAT yes read and write.

NTFS a bit trickier. Various paid/free options to enable it with varying degrees of difficulty*.

If you don’t value the screen quality the Airs are fine machines. IMO other than at the very high end of performance needs the main reason to get a pro is the screen (colour, HDR, contrast and refresh rates). The pro is actually amazingly good value for a miniLED screen. Speakers and mics are quite a step up again on the pro vs air too. But the air’s still good (I’ve work and personal MBP of varying generations and my wife has an Air so I have good experience of both.)



*in case anyone is wondering, I use Anylinuxfs installed with Homebrew. OK command line to mount a drive but then appears in Finder like a network share (and unmounted from there) and it supports a very wide range of filesystems read/write (e.g. ntfs, btrfs, xfs - the latter two handy if you've ever mounting drives from a NAS).
 
Last edited:
I've had my new A7C II now for about a month, and to be honest, I'm not really feeling it. Sure it smaller and lighter than my A7R V, but I don't know, I just prefer using that body over the smaller A7C II ? Do I need to give it some more time ?

I can't argue with the image quality, and I don't really know what it is about the camera that I'm not enjoying, (especially as I also have an A6700 which is almost identical in size / weigh and body design), but it's the last body I tend to pick up ?
 
If you like the A6700 but not the A7cII then I really have no idea. I think you need to compare your cameras and try to be more specific.

I think my biggest gripe with the A7cII is the rear screen being articulated without the ability to tilt in line wirh the body. It feels so awkward to me compared to my A7III.
 
Last edited:
This vid popped up and I watched it. I thought someone might be interested in his Sony to Leica profiles which are I think free and listed in the description. There's also a link to other templates and free stuff. I don't know how how useful they are but as they seem to be free I thought someone might be interested.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_gdeRaCWGo
 
I've just watched a vid in which the guy enthused about 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I might give it a try one day, maybe for single shots, maybe for the final ratio for a panorama. Does anyone use 2.35:1?

PS.
2.35:1 is available in camera with my A7cII.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've just watched a vid in which the guy enthused about 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I might give it a try one day, maybe for single shots, maybe for the final ratio for a panorama. Does anyone use 2.35:1?

PS.
2.35:1 is available in camera with my A7cII.
Click to expand...

I might crop to it for one or two shots, but not often at all. Generally the widest I go is 2:1.
 
woof woof said:
I've just watched a vid in which the guy enthused about 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I might give it a try one day, maybe for single shots, maybe for the final ratio for a panorama. Does anyone use 2.35:1?

PS.
2.35:1 is available in camera with my A7cII.
Click to expand...

I do love a wide aspect ratio. I have the aspect marker mapped to a custom button. Raws are obviously still the full image, but it helps with composition.
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
I do love a wide aspect ratio. I have the aspect marker mapped to a custom button. Raws are obviously still the full image, but it helps with composition.
Click to expand...

I used to have a Panasonic LXx and it had different aspect ratios on a switch and one of them was 16:9 and I have cropped panoramas to 16:9 but I've never used or cropped to 2.35:1.

I've used all my 3 custom modes but not the Mx modes but they're saved to the card and disappear when it's formatted so I haven't bothered saving 2.35:1 but it isn't too difficult to set manually if needed. I have saved it in Camera Raw and also in the JPEG processor too, just in case :D
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
I've had my new A7C II now for about a month, and to be honest, I'm not really feeling it. Sure it smaller and lighter than my A7R V, but I don't know, I just prefer using that body over the smaller A7C II ? Do I need to give it some more time ?

I can't argue with the image quality, and I don't really know what it is about the camera that I'm not enjoying, (especially as I also have an A6700 which is almost identical in size / weigh and body design), but it's the last body I tend to pick up ?
Click to expand...
Seems odd given that (I assume) you like the a6700, but gelling with gear can be a very personal thing. I prefer the other styl bodies too.
 
I think it might be the lenses. On my A6700 my most used lenses are tiny and very light and suit the size and style of the body. Whereas on my A7C II my fav lenses (the 20-70 F4 and 16-35 PZ) just seem a little too big but perfect on the A7RV ??

I need to use it more to see if I get used to it, as otherwise it’s a very nice camera.
 
Sootchucker said:
I think it might be the lenses. On my A6700 my most used lenses are tiny and very light and suit the size and style of the body. Whereas on my A7C II my fav lenses (the 20-70 F4 and 16-35 PZ) just seem a little too big but perfect on the A7RV ??

I need to use it more to see if I get used to it, as otherwise it’s a very nice camera.
Click to expand...
To be fair the 20-70mm and 16-35mm PZ are some of the smaller, lighter FE lenses, unless you're just going to use the small primes.
 
woof woof said:
New Sigma lenses on the Rumor site.

New Sigma 35mm f/1.4II FE and 15mm f/1.4 E will be announced on February 26 | sonyalpharumors

This lens will soon get a replacement One trusted source told me on February 26 we are getting these lenses: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 II FE (more compact than current 35mm f/1.4 FE) Sigma 15mm f/1.4 APS-C E-mount lens (successor of the current 16mm f/1.4 E) He confirms he heard "whispers" about a new...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
The 35mm will have to go some to beat the GM (imo).
 
nandbytes said:
Just going by the trend, it's probably a downsized version
Click to expand...
It says it's going to be smaller than their gen 1, but I can't see as the whole package it being better than the GM. Of course, it probably won't be as much as the GM either ;)
 
snerkler said:
It says it's going to be smaller than their gen 1, but I can't see as the whole package it being better than the GM. Of course, it probably won't be as much as the GM either ;)
Click to expand...

The GM is quite old by tech standards
It's still a terrific lens no doubt but I'd hope a company like sigma can catch up at least optically after 5 years.
 
nandbytes said:
The GM is quite old by tech standards
It's still a terrific lens no doubt but I'd hope a company like sigma can catch up at least optically after 5 years.
Click to expand...
I know it's personal preference but I love the rendering of the GM, AF is top notch too.
 
nandbytes said:
Not saying it's not, and AF is likely going to be better on Sony.
Optically (inc. rendering) sigma could be better (or worst), just saying it's a possibility
Click to expand...
I’m sure it’ll be a superb lens regardless, the art line has a proven track record (y)
 
snerkler said:
I’m sure it’ll be a superb lens regardless, the art line has a proven track record (y)
Click to expand...
I wasn't too impressed with the current sigma 35mm f1.4 but that's because I'm comparing it to Sony 35GM.

It's probably the 2nd best option but IMO GM is a lot better that it's bit of a distant 2nd best.

The new 35mm/1.2ii is pretty nice. But the GM still has its benefits like closer focussing and it's still a wee bit sharper at f1.4.
 
Just one thing on MFD as it came up when we were talking about 85's too. MFD is one thing but we should also think about how big the subject is in the frame especially when looking at different focal lengths. For example an 85mm might have a MFD which is longer than another lens with a different focal length but how big the subject is in the frame might be what matters. A longer working distance might be an advantage and there's perspective to think about.

Sorry to interrupt :D

Oh, and on 85's. I thought I'd sold all my film era ones but I still have my Zuiko 85mm f2 :D
 
woof woof said:
Just one thing on MFD as it came up when we were talking about 85's too. MFD is one thing but we should also think about how big the subject is in the frame especially when looking at different focal lengths. For example an 85mm might have a MFD which is longer than another lens with a different focal length but how big the subject is in the frame might be what matters. A longer working distance might be an advantage and there's perspective to think about.

Sorry to interrupt :D

Oh, and on 85's. I thought I'd sold all my film era ones but I still have my Zuiko 85mm f2 :D
Click to expand...

Not to mention differences in performance at MFD. No point having a close MFD if the image is soft and you need to stop down to f11 to make it usable.
 
woof woof said:
Just one thing on MFD as it came up when we were talking about 85's too. MFD is one thing but we should also think about how big the subject is in the frame especially when looking at different focal lengths. For example an 85mm might have a MFD which is longer than another lens with a different focal length but how big the subject is in the frame might be what matters. A longer working distance might be an advantage and there's perspective to think about.

Sorry to interrupt :D

Oh, and on 85's. I thought I'd sold all my film era ones but I still have my Zuiko 85mm f2 :D
Click to expand...
That does matter with certain things yeah. Obviously for things like portraiture it's not going to matter as you'll not be close enough to worry about MFD, but certainly other types of close up photogrpahy it can have a bearing. Talking of which, one thing I like on the RX1R II is that there's a lens ring to change it from 'normal' to close focus. It's far from macro but it helps get closer (y)
 
snerkler said:
That does matter with certain things yeah. Obviously for things like portraiture it's not going to matter as you'll not be close enough to worry about MFD, but certainly other types of close up photogrpahy it can have a bearing. Talking of which, one thing I like on the RX1R II is that there's a lens ring to change it from 'normal' to close focus. It's far from macro but it helps get closer (y)
Click to expand...

One thing I do like is having a decent amount of magnification for shots of flowers, leaves or other interesting things when I'm out with a non macro. Some 35 and 50mm lenses have decent close focusing and some don't. My Sony 85mm f1.8 (so Google tells me) has quite a long MFD at 0.8m but still manages 0.13x and gets the subject bigger in the frame than some 35 or 50's I've had.

I just thought it was worth mentioning, me being a pedantic geek and all :D

What I sometimes do is carry a No.4 close up filter for the occasional detail picture. It's ok in the central area but less good towards the edges but it's good enough for me.
 
Last edited:
Oooh. Look...

Just announced: New Voigtländer SEPTON 40mm f/2.0 FE lens | sonyalpharumors

The suggested retail price is 85,000 yen plus tax. The E-mount version is scheduled for release in March 2026, followed by the Z-mount version in April.
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

I have the 35mm f1.2 and f1.4 and 50mm f1.2 and f2 apo and haven't used them for a while so I shouldn't really be interested in this. The 35mm f1.4 can be a bit funky at wide apertures with messy scenes but it calms down a bit by f2 but still has rubbish corners but even so it's possibly still a good option compared to a 40mm f2.
 
YaY! Just booked a cruise, my first ever and Mrs WW's first ever too. In May :D So that's a cruise and a trip to Thailand booked for this year as the main holidays and we may have a few days away before the cruise. Also just been invited to a "buying event" at JLR which is nice as The Boss has given me permission to change the Evoque. I'll be taking pictures on the holidays but probably not at JLR, probably with my A7cII and 40mm. What else? :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
YaY! Just booked a cruise, my first ever and Mrs WW's first ever too. In May :D So that's a cruise and a trip to Thailand booked for this year as the main holidays and we may have a few days away before the cruise. Also just been invited to a "buying event" at JLR which is nice as The Boss has given me permission to change the Evoque. I'll be taking pictures on the holidays but probably not at JLR, probably with my A7cII and 40mm. What else? :D
Click to expand...
We've been looking at doing a cruise next year (our first ever) but it's uber expensive. We were wanting to do a 7 day Norwegian Fjord cruise and for an outside cabin you're looking at £4k-4.5k not including drinks :eek:
 
The killer costs on cruises are the off-boat excursions, after being stung on the first cruise I went on, on the second, we arranged some of our own trips, sometimes its cheaper to use local transport (taxi/bus) and more flexible. For Rome, Sorrento and Pisa/Florence, it was cheaper for us to hire a limo for day (with driver!!) than to take 4 x Norwegian Cruise Line trips into Rome, and we could get to go exactly where we wanted! In Palma, it was cheaper to walk off the boat and get a cab, than use the cruise trip coach!!!!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The killer costs on cruises are the off-boat excursions, after being stung on the first cruise I went on, on the second, we arranged some of our own trips, sometimes its cheaper to use local transport (taxi/bus) and more flexible. For Rome, Sorrento and Pisa/Florence, it was cheaper for us to hire a limo for day (with driver!!) than to take 4 x Norwegian Cruise Line trips into Rome, and we could get to go exactly where we wanted! In Palma, it was cheaper to walk off the boat and get a cab, than use the cruise trip coach!!!!
Click to expand...
I don't use organised excursions, we prefer to do things on our own.
 
snerkler said:
We've been looking at doing a cruise next year (our first ever) but it's uber expensive. We were wanting to do a 7 day Norwegian Fjord cruise and for an outside cabin you're looking at £4k-4.5k not including drinks :eek:
Click to expand...
Are you going to the north to the arctic regions?
It is pretty expensive and something we've always dreamed of doing ourselves. Hopefully once kids are out the house, though that's like 20 years away :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
We've wondered a little about a Rhine or Danube cruise through Europe.
 
I really fancy a trip to see the Northern Lights one year so a question for those who've seen the lights...

Can you see much by eye or are they mostly a result of a long exposure and processing? If you can't see much by eye I don't think I'll bother.

We're just going on a weeks cruise starting at Mallorca and going to Italy, France and Spain. I think that's right. We booked an outer cabin with a window which cost more than the inner windowless cabin which the website initially assumed we'd want but Mrs WW wouldn't let me book one with a balcony as that cost even more. I'm not really bothered about the cost as who are we going to leave our money to? No disrespect to people struggling with money and I understand how that feels as I've been there but decades of hard work with next to no social life got me here.

It might be May until I get a camera out again. There seems no end to this weather and more importantly this light.

PS.
I've been to Mallorca twice with two different GF's. I'll have to be careful what I call The Boss.
 
Last edited:
Having added an A73 to my A6400 I'm bemused by the "Lock Operation Parts" function. Can anyone shed any light on this please?
 
woof woof said:
I really fancy a trip to see the Northern Lights one year so a question for those who've seen the lights...

Can you see much by eye or are they mostly a result of a long exposure and processing? If you can't see much by eye I don't think I'll bother.

We're just going on a weeks cruise starting at Mallorca and going to Italy, France and Spain. I think that's right. We booked an outer cabin with a window which cost more than the inner windowless cabin which the website initially assumed we'd want but Mrs WW wouldn't let me book one with a balcony as that cost even more. I'm not really bothered about the cost as who are we going to leave our money to? No disrespect to people struggling with money and I understand how that feels as I've been there but decades of hard work with next to no social life got me here.

It might be May until I get a camera out again. There seems no end to this weather and more importantly this light.

PS.
I've been to Mallorca twice with two different GF's. I'll have to be careful what I call The Boss.
Click to expand...

Depends on the intensity. Saw them in Tromso a few years ago and was unbelievably vivid with the bare eye. In more southern locations and/or weaker solar activity it’s more post processing.

I would consider it a bonus rather than the focus of the trip and then you can’t leave disappointed. The general landscapes in that area of the world are stunning.

Non-Sony pic:

Norway 2017 (41 of 64)
 
woof woof said:
I really fancy a trip to see the Northern Lights one year so a question for those who've seen the lights...

Can you see much by eye or are they mostly a result of a long exposure and processing? If you can't see much by eye I don't think I'll bother.
Click to expand...

A friend and I did a trip to Tromso in Norway for seeing the Northern lights in March 2024. So nearly 2 years ago now.
What is visible to the eye depends on the strength of the Aurora. At very low strengths its only visible via. the camera and will look like grey streaks in the sky (closer to clouds than the toxic green you see in pictures).

At a higher solar activity you can see the greens and other colours. In fact I could see the reds much better here in the UK than in Norway because you can only see Aurora down here when the solar activity is insanely high. In such cases I am sure it'll be even better in Norway too but the point of going to Norway is you can catch it with minimal activity unlike here.

I'd certainly suggest adjusting your expectations and not go purely by pictures you see online.
But at the same time if you get a half decent show, its quite magical and a worthy bucket list item.
I'd advice giving it at least a week. We were there 6 nights and saw it on 3 nights.
We only tried 4 nights in total and didn't bother with expensive excursions to see them on other 2 nights as we got lucky the first two nights we were there.

And as suggested above also focus on the general trip. Tromso for example has plenty of things to do in day time which are all pretty amazing and really worth it on their own.
We did things like snow mobile riding, husky sledding, day cruise, hiking over the mountain/hill in town etc.
 
Last edited:
Thanks you two.

Yup, I'll view it as an experience and holiday and any lights will be a bonus. Mrs WW is non committal at the moment as the only cold she's known has been whilst in the UK and she doesn't really like it, a few minutes out in the snow to take some pictures and then she wants to be back inside so although she might say Yes to a trip up North she might say it grudgingly and be a pain (lovely but a pain) when there. The coldest I've been in was Kazakhstan and that was no problem for me but Mrs WW... I don't know.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top