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

[snerkler]

Thinking about buying a SonyA7V. Not shure yet. Now a Fuji user but missing speed and AF. Fuji event is coming so maybe ??

But if not Sony is a contender for me (even though I never liked my RX10 ). But after using the A7 from a friend I’m surprised how i liked this new camera. So different then my old RX10

Anyway .. reading about grey import. Wondering .. can you set the menu in the desired language ? I remember from that some cameras bought in Japan did not have all the options language wise.

All of the cameras I've bought from Panamoz have had English menus. The only thing I had with one of them was a warning it was set to NTSC instead of PAL (or the other way around) but it went off as soon as I changed the video format in the menus.

I know the X-T6 is aroung the corner but I'd be very surprised if the AF matched Sony, it's not Fujis strong point.

 

[MittyKitty]

Great Thanks. Surfing on the well known websites and thinking about which lenses Hearing my bank account crying already

 

[MittyKitty]

All of the cameras I've bought from Panamoz have had English menus. The only thing I had with one of them was a warning it was set to NTSC instead of PAL (or the other way around) but it went off as soon as I changed the video format in the menus.

I know the X-T6 is aroung the corner but I'd be very surprised if the AF matched Sony, it's not Fujis strong point.

Yeah. Not expecting a miracle from Fuji. But a girl can dream … I love the colors and feel of the camera. But switching is around the corner …

 

[Iiyama]

Yeah, from Panamoz - menus English.

 

[jimmyjamjojo]

A7Cii from Norwich Cameras was English.

 

[snerkler]

Yeah. Not expecting a miracle from Fuji. But a girl can dream … I love the colors and feel of the camera. But switching is around the corner …

I've pretty much been able to match my Sony to the Fuji colours, I'd say 98%

 

[woof woof]

I've pretty much been able to match my Sony to the Fuji colours, I'd say 98%

Is that a good thing?

 

[snerkler]

Is that a good thing?

For some things I like the Fuji colours and film look, but it was more of a learning experiment and to prove to myself that choosing a camera purely because of the colours is not necessary

 

[snerkler]

Classic Negative certainly doesn't work for wildlife parks imo (my usual Sony processing left, classic negative right)





However I think classic chrome works better, if not a bit muted





Boost the saturation on the classic chrome and I actually think it works well.

 

[woof woof]

I think these film simulations are ok now and again and I've done it myself but looking back to my film days the sometimes unreal colours used to annoy me. These days mostly I like pictures closer to reality. Also IMO, some of these film sim pictures don't even look like the results I got and are still in my albums.

Each to their own though and good luck to those who like the film sims

 

[Stephen L]

This time of year brings the Settle Flowerpot Festival, an event known worldwide (well, Yorkshire), where by the town is populated by literally hundreds of creations using, you've guessed it, flower pots. These are just a few taken within a 5 minute walk of my house. All with Sony A7Cii, Sony 20-70 f4, and totally out of camera except they all had the Adobe Vivid profile applied.

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

A7C00017.jpg by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

I think these film simulations are ok now and again and I've done it myself but looking back to my film days the sometimes unreal colours used to annoy me. These days mostly I like pictures closer to reality. Also IMO, some of these film sim pictures don't even look like the results I got and are still in my albums.

Each to their own though and good luck to those who like the film sims

I generally very much like the film look as I find it far less clinical, however as you allude to some of the cross processing leads to some marmite colours. I don't believe most of the Fuji film sims are direct replicas of film stock, they are just "inspired" by them.

I developed a preset that I simply call "Cross Process" and it reminds my of some of the photos from my childhood, however I don't know what film was used for those. I think it works best for day to day shot and urban but I've just applied it to Monday's landscapes out of curiosity and I think it looks OK (Cross process left, normal Sony processing right.)

 

[snerkler]

This time of year brings the Settle Flowerpot Festival, an event known worldwide (well, Yorkshire), where by the town is populated by literally hundreds of creations using, you've guessed it, flower pots. These are just a few taken within a 5 minute walk of my house. All with Sony A7Cii, Sony 20-70 f4, and totally out of camera except they all had the Adobe Vivid profile applied.

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

A7C00017.jpg by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Settle Flowerpot Festival by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Thay're fantastic, I particularly like Windy Miller and Dennis the Mennis.

It's scarecrow season around us at the moment, some people have great imagination.

 

[woof woof]

Long zoom reviews on the rumor site.

New Sony 100-400mm f/4.5 GM and f/5.6-8 OSS reviews | sonyalpharumors

Preorders: Sony 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0 at BHphoto, Adorama, Amazon, Fotokoch, Fotoerhardt, Calumet, WexUK. Sony 100-400mm f/4.5 GM at BHphoto, Amazon, Adorama, Fotokoch, FotoErhardt, Calumet, Clifton, WexUK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADuJB6Nvpsk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYEgcP0qHq0...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

f5.6-f8 seems a bit restrictive but my current long zoom, Panasonic 100-400mm, is (I think...) f5.6-f6.3. I don't take many zoom shots but one thing in my mind is that if I get a FF zoom I can sell all my remaining MFT kit.

 

[LeeRatters]

I think these film simulations are ok now and again and I've done it myself but looking back to my film days the sometimes unreal colours used to annoy me. These days mostly I like pictures closer to reality. Also IMO, some of these film sim pictures don't even look like the results I got and are still in my albums.

Each to their own though and good luck to those who like the film sims

One of the rage bait statements I've seen before is.....

"Film simulations are for people who don't know how to edit"

 

[robj20]

All of the cameras I've bought from Panamoz have had English menus. The only thing I had with one of them was a warning it was set to NTSC instead of PAL (or the other way around) but it went off as soon as I changed the video format in the menus.

I know the X-T6 is aroung the corner but I'd be very surprised if the AF matched Sony, it's not Fujis strong point.

I prefer to leave mine as NTSC 30 and 60fps is just better options. Weirdly most other cameras just let you choose any FPS 24, 25, 30, 50, 60 and so on.

 

[woof woof]

One of the rage bait statements I've seen before is.....

"Film simulations are for people who don't know how to edit"

I don't think that. It's just something I'm not into at the moment and when I see the funny colours I don't see anything I can see myself doing too often. I do see the appeal. I never say never though and a couple of years ago I would never have taken a long exposure with water in it but recently I have done just to do something different.

Never say never.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Classic Negative certainly doesn't work for wildlife parks imo (my usual Sony processing left, classic negative right)

TBH I do significantly prefer your standard setting.

 

[LeeRatters]

I don't think that. It's just something I'm not into at the moment and when I see the funny colours I don't see anything I can see myself doing too often. I do see the appeal. I never say never though and a couple of years ago I would never have taken a long exposure with water in it but recently I have done just to do something different.

Never say never.

It's a bit weird, because I've tried the Fuji recipe thing (shooting RAW and jpeg) and I find what might work for the sunny Pride event, doesn't seem to work for a village, which doesn't work for the seaside, etc

With my LR editing (which is basically the same anyway) it seems to work for all types of scenes - general walks, seaside, countryside, the balloons, etc

Maybe it is just me....

I only shoot RAW now with a mono camera profile.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

It's a bit weird, because I've tried the Fuji recipe thing (shooting RAW and jpeg) and I find what might work for the sunny Pride event, doesn't seem to work for a village, which doesn't work for the seaside, etc

This ^ - I think this because in digital you are always protecting the highlights, which underexposes the scene in many situations (bright sky), but as soon as the scene changes so you have more flexibility with the shadows, the resultant baked in film sim just doesn't cope well. If all scenes are similar then you can modify a film sim to do what you wnat to achieve, but its the scene changing that causes it issues.

LR seems to be able to cope better than the baked in camera simulations.

No doubt this applies to other camera manufacturer 'looks' as well.

Shooting RAW with a monochrome profile is great as it allows you to see the light without being influenced by colour, this is a technique I often apply.

 

[snerkler]

It's a bit weird, because I've tried the Fuji recipe thing (shooting RAW and jpeg) and I find what might work for the sunny Pride event, doesn't seem to work for a village, which doesn't work for the seaside, etc

With my LR editing (which is basically the same anyway) it seems to work for all types of scenes - general walks, seaside, countryside, the balloons, etc

Maybe it is just me....

I only shoot RAW now with a mono camera profile.

Fuji film sims and recipes are definitely very scene dependant, I think Cuban negative looks great when you see these sunny pics in Spain or Italy, but try it on a typical dull UK day and it looks awful

The only preset I’ve found that works with everything is one that looks true to life, I have different presets for landscape, sport, wildlife etc etc.

I faff around WAY too much

 

[woof woof]

This ^ - I think this because in digital you are always protecting the highlights, which underexposes the scene in many situations (bright sky), but as soon as the scene changes so you have more flexibility with the shadows, the resultant baked in film sim just doesn't cope well. If all scenes are similar then you can modify a film sim to do what you wnat to achieve, but its the scene changing that causes it issues.

LR seems to be able to cope better than the baked in camera simulations.

No doubt this applies to other camera manufacturer 'looks' as well.

Shooting RAW with a monochrome profile is great as it allows you to see the light without being influenced by colour, this is a technique I often apply.

Digital highlights get talked about a lot but the biggest gripe I had with film (apart from the other worldly colours) was white skies. OK, that could have been due to the crappy compact cameras I mostly had and I never developed my own film but digital and being able to process my pictures whilst sat at home is just fantastic.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Digital highlights get talked about a lot but the biggest gripe I had with film (apart from the other worldly colours) was white skies. OK, that could have been due to the crappy compact cameras I mostly had and I never developed my own film but digital and being able to process my pictures whilst sat at home is just fantastic.

Yes I get that, exposing fully for the shadows (rather than a gentle lift) would result in white skies, but they were not full peak white like blown digital. Digital has massive convenience, no on going running costs, and generates images which can happily be tweaked at home on a computer. Correctly exposed film can produce images which have an unquantifiable 'magic' to them, but these magical images are very few and far between which makes shooting film these days an expensive hobby.

I enjoy shooting film, but I also enjoy shooting digital

 

[ancient_mariner]

Digital highlights get talked about a lot but the biggest gripe I had with film (apart from the other worldly colours) was white skies. OK, that could have been due to the crappy compact cameras I mostly had and I never developed my own film but digital and being able to process my pictures whilst sat at home is just fantastic.

Film images need developing every bit as much as digital, and a bit of careful masking and occasional use of gradient and polarising filters can make all the difference.

 

[woof woof]

Yes I get that, exposing fully for the shadows (rather than a gentle lift) would result in white skies, but they were not full peak white like blown digital. Digital has massive convenience, no on going running costs, and generates images which can happily be tweaked at home on a computer. Correctly exposed film can produce images which have an unquantifiable 'magic' to them, but these magical images are very few and far between which makes shooting film these days an expensive hobby.

I enjoy shooting film, but I also enjoy shooting digital

Film images need developing every bit as much as digital, and a bit of careful masking and occasional use of gradient and polarising filters can make all the difference.

I don't think my local chemist or Jessops took the time to make sure my skies were there and it may not be possible to correctly expose film, Yes there's latitude but given a choice between trying to protect the highlights when using film and handing it over to the chemist and ending up with too dark a subject or an A7cII and me I'll choose me and the A7cII every time and I know which option will get me the best result and the closest match to reality rather than a blown sky or too dark everything else. For people who have a good relationship with a lab or who do their own processing film might be better than an A7cii but these days and for most people who have half an understanding about exposure and can cope with a processing package I think a modern camera will get the more consistent and accurate results.

 

[snerkler]

Digital highlights get talked about a lot but the biggest gripe I had with film (apart from the other worldly colours) was white skies. OK, that could have been due to the crappy compact cameras I mostly had and I never developed my own film but digital and being able to process my pictures whilst sat at home is just fantastic.

I don't mind a bit of recovery but often 'white' skies look more natural to me (despite our eyes probably seeing more), and too much recovery starts looking too HDR for me.

Yes I get that, exposing fully for the shadows (rather than a gentle lift) would result in white skies, but they were not full peak white like blown digital. Digital has massive convenience, no on going running costs, and generates images which can happily be tweaked at home on a computer. Correctly exposed film can produce images which have an unquantifiable 'magic' to them, but these magical images are very few and far between which makes shooting film these days an expensive hobby.

I enjoy shooting film, but I also enjoy shooting digital

Film is VERY expensive these days, £25 a roll for anything decent is quite prohibitive. I did manage to get a box of 3 basic Kodak for £35, but by the time you factor in processing and converting to jpeg charges it still works out at around £22 for a 36 exposure.

Considering I took just over 2500 images at the CRMC event that would have cost over £1500 Of course, in film days you didn't shoot 2500 shots at an event, I probably only took 24 or 36 shots depending on the film I had, but I wouldn't want those limitations now

 

[snerkler]

I don't think my local chemist or Jessops took the time to make sure my skies were there and it may not be possible to correctly expose film, Yes there's latitude but given a choice between trying to protect the highlights when using film and handing it over to the chemist and ending up with too dark a subject or an A7cII and me I'll choose me and the A7cII every time and I know which option will get me the best result and the closest match to reality rather than a blown sky or too dark everything else. For people who have a good relationship with a lab or who do their own processing film might be better than an A7cii but these days and for most people who have half an understanding about exposure and can cope with a processing package I think a modern camera will get the more consistent and accurate results.

Have you ever considered using Sony's DRO function and then using Sony's imaging software to use this feature on RAW? DRO can give good results with scenes with a large dynamic range, however Sony's software is pretty rubbish, and lightroom can't read/apply the DRO processing.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Film is VERY expensive these days, £25 a roll for anything decent is quite prohibitive. I did manage to get a box of 3 basic Kodak for £35, but by the time you factor in processing and converting to jpeg charges it still works out at around £22 for a 36 exposure.

Considering I took just over 2500 images at the CRMC event that would have cost over £1500 Of course, in film days you didn't shoot 2500 shots at an event, I probably only took 24 or 36 shots depending on the film I had, but I wouldn't want those limitations now

It might be expensive but carefully chosen film cameras are going up in value. As I've 'upgraded (as you do), I've always sold the current camera for at least what I've paid for it (in many cases several hundred punds more), this certainly helps offset the cost, but as you know I shoot MF, and get between 9-12 shots per roll depending on camera. Rolls cost between £8 and £16 depending on film stock, but I usually stock up when there are deals to be had. In the paddock at Prescott or at the Oulton Park Gold Cup, I can easily chew through 4-5 rolls!!!

I've recetly 'upgraded' my main film camera, I've managed to snag one about £1K off its general market value, it was a good (usable) condition but not perfect, so I've treated it to a service (£300 + shipping two ways). I've now got something much more portable than my previous 6x7 that I know I can sell for £700-£1,000 more than it currently stands me, so I don't really have any hesitation putting dozens of rolls through it.

I get my films processed outside, but I scan them myself (the scanner cost has more than paid for it). Its just a different strand to this photography hobby of ours.

 

[woof woof]

I don't mind a bit of recovery but often 'white' skies look more natural to me (despite our eyes probably seeing more), and too much recovery starts looking too HDR for me.

I suppose with digital we can go too far but I don't think I do.

Have you ever considered using Sony's DRO function and then using Sony's imaging software to use this feature on RAW? DRO can give good results with scenes with a large dynamic range, however Sony's software is pretty rubbish, and lightroom can't read/apply the DRO processing.

TBH I've never heard of it. I just shoot raw and process in CS2026. I mostly make changes in the raw processor, I only use the jpeg processor for resizing and panoramas.

 

[snerkler]

It might be expensive but carefully chosen film cameras are going up in value. As I've 'upgraded (as you do), I've always sold the current camera for at least what I've paid for it (in many cases several hundred punds more), this certainly helps offset the cost, but as you know I shoot MF, and get between 9-12 shots per roll depending on camera. Rolls cost between £8 and £16 depending on film stock, but I usually stock up when there are deals to be had. In the paddock at Prescott or at the Oulton Park Gold Cup, I can easily chew through 4-5 rolls!!!

I've recetly 'upgraded' my main film camera, I've managed to snag one about £1K off its general market value, it was a good (usable) condition but not perfect, so I've treated it to a service (£300 + shipping two ways). I've now got something much more portable than my previous 6x7 that I know I can sell for £700-£1,000 more than it currently stands me, so I don't really have any hesitation putting dozens of rolls through it.

I get my films processed outside, but I scan them myself (the scanner cost has more than paid for it). Its just a different strand to this photography hobby of ours.

I've still not got around to buying a scanner, and I still can't decide whether to get a proper scanner or get a macro lens and do it that way. My mine reason is to scan all of my old family photos, I don't think I'll do enough new film photography to justify the cost..

I only have a couple of 35mm SLR's, and I realised when I went out with one earlier this year how much low level shooting I do (the joys of being tall) and how inconvenient it is not to have a tilt screen I'll have to get one of those cameras with the viewfinder on the top

 

[snerkler]

I suppose with digital we can go too far but I don't think I do.



TBH I've never heard of it. I just shoot raw and process in CS2026. I mostly make changes in the raw processor, I only use the jpeg processor for resizing and panoramas.

Help Guide | D-Range Opt. (DRO)

By dividing the image into small areas, the product analyzes the contrast of light and shadow between the subject and the background, and creates an image with the optimal brightness and gradation.

helpguide.sony.net

Now I would assume that you can get the same effect in lightroom if you know the 'recipe' as I would assume the DRO function in the Sony software can only use the same raw file, however like trying to 100% replicate jpegs it's often voodoo magic. Even Adobe can't 100% replicate the camera profiles, if you shoot jpeg and raw and apply the camera profile in lightroom there are subtle differences, not just in dynamic range but in colours and contrast etc.

 

[LeeRatters]

I don't mind a bit of recovery but often 'white' skies look more natural to me (despite our eyes probably seeing more), and too much recovery starts looking too HDR for me.

Film is VERY expensive these days, £25 a roll for anything decent is quite prohibitive. I did manage to get a box of 3 basic Kodak for £35, but by the time you factor in processing and converting to jpeg charges it still works out at around £22 for a 36 exposure.

Considering I took just over 2500 images at the CRMC event that would have cost over £1500 Of course, in film days you didn't shoot 2500 shots at an event, I probably only took 24 or 36 shots depending on the film I had, but I wouldn't want those limitations now

It might be expensive but carefully chosen film cameras are going up in value. As I've 'upgraded (as you do), I've always sold the current camera for at least what I've paid for it (in many cases several hundred punds more), this certainly helps offset the cost, but as you know I shoot MF, and get between 9-12 shots per roll depending on camera. Rolls cost between £8 and £16 depending on film stock, but I usually stock up when there are deals to be had. In the paddock at Prescott or at the Oulton Park Gold Cup, I can easily chew through 4-5 rolls!!!

I've recetly 'upgraded' my main film camera, I've managed to snag one about £1K off its general market value, it was a good (usable) condition but not perfect, so I've treated it to a service (£300 + shipping two ways). I've now got something much more portable than my previous 6x7 that I know I can sell for £700-£1,000 more than it currently stands me, so I don't really have any hesitation putting dozens of rolls through it.

I get my films processed outside, but I scan them myself (the scanner cost has more than paid for it). Its just a different strand to this photography hobby of ours.

I tend to use film (or I enjoy to use film should I say) for a set event, day out or weekend away.

I have done that several times with the 124g at some of these vintage shows or whatever. I went to Castle Combe a month or so ago because some friends were doing a track day - I didn't want to come home with lots of images as I still have a nice backlog, so I took one roll of 35mm film with me too limit myself to 36 max.

 

[MittyKitty]

It's a bit weird, because I've tried the Fuji recipe thing (shooting RAW and jpeg) and I find what might work for the sunny Pride event, doesn't seem to work for a village, which doesn't work for the seaside, etc

With my LR editing (which is basically the same anyway) it seems to work for all types of scenes - general walks, seaside, countryside, the balloons, etc

Maybe it is just me....

I only shoot RAW now with a mono camera profile.

Not all film simulations are useable. I pick depending on what I shoot. So sometimes none. Sometimes .. you name it.

I’m still in a learning process editing wise. So if I want a Fuji look with a Sony I will have to learn to edit my pictures better

 

[snerkler]

Not all film simulations are useable. I pick depending on what I shoot. So sometimes none. Sometimes .. you name it.

I’m still in a learning process editing wise. So if I want a Fuji look with a Sony I will have to learn to edit my pictures better

This might give you a start to look at what they do in lightroom and then apply similar techniques (download at your own risk ). I downloaded some a while back, they gave me a good insight how to do my own but I can't for the life of me find the site anymore

Fuji Film Emulations for Sony Cameras — Sam Mallory

I’ve built a new suite of film simulations to emulate Fujifilm colors on your Sony cameras!

www.samuelmallory.com

 

[LeeRatters]

I've still not got around to buying a scanner, and I still can't decide whether to get a proper scanner or get a macro lens and do it that way. My mine reason is to scan all of my old family photos, I don't think I'll do enough new film photography to justify the cost..

I only have a couple of 35mm SLR's, and I realised when I went out with one earlier this year how much low level shooting I do (the joys of being tall) and how inconvenient it is not to have a tilt screen I'll have to get one of those cameras with the viewfinder on the top

@Mr Perceptive I think he might need persuading into one of those TLR cameras......

 

[LeeRatters]

Not all film simulations are useable. I pick depending on what I shoot. So sometimes none. Sometimes .. you name it.

I’m still in a learning process editing wise. So if I want a Fuji look with a Sony I will have to learn to edit my pictures better

Yeah... See, I can't be bothered with swapping film simulations around and seeing what works whilst out & about. I pretty much use one LR preset 80% of the time [and another for about 19% of the time - dull, overcast days] so I know where I stand and 'how' to shoot (regarding +ve compensaion etc) knowing how I'm going to edit them.

I did these when I first got the X100f..... Now, I'm not saying they are perfectly matched, but.....

Sony LR edit


SonyLR by Lee, on Flickr

X100f Classic Chrome SOOC


X100f-SOOCCC by Lee, on Flickr

 

[Bletch]

Thinking about buying a SonyA7V. Not shure yet.

This is the camera I'm probably going to go with (coming from an aging D5300). I'd like the a7rVI but it's a little out of reach. It'll be a grey import too.

 

[MittyKitty]

This is the camera I'm probably going to go with (coming from an aging D5300). I'd like the a7rVI but it's a little out of reach. It'll be a grey import too.

Yeah. I’m researching the various grey import sites and try to pick the most reliable one. I saw a topic about it so will read that first.

In the old days I ordered from a shop in Hongkong (forget the name ) and that went well.

So I guess if and when I buy something new I will buy it grey. Saves a lot and as it seems that I will start over again with all my stuff, the more I save the more I buy extra . I saved up already . In the market for a new body and at least 2 lenses if Fuji doesn’t have an amazing xt-6.

This weekend I have a canon lended to me so I will check that out too.

I’m curious about that one too. According to reviews they are close (D6M3)

I feel like a child making a list for Santa. Al those dreams and wishes

But seriously. It’s a big decision. Lots of money so I want to take a well informed decision. So I’m taking my time.

 

[woof woof]

I went to Whitby this evening. I was about an hour and a half later than I wanted to be and light was already fading but I enjoyed being out.

A7III and 24mm f2.8.

I was going for a picture similar to one I took last time I was here but wider, panorama.



Boats and view.



Fancy an ice cream?