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

Riz_Guru said:
I know what your saying, before I bought the Sony A9 I did some research, looking through my old original A7 photos, I came to the conclusion that the IQ/ISO/DR on the A9 was good enough.
I ended up going for the Sony A9 over the better ISO/DR abilities found on the A7R III (at the time).
Click to expand...
The A9 is more then good enough. Its sensational. I've pushed shadows like no man's business especially when I shoot at high iso. That camera you can boost the shadows not just at base iso but higher iso. It's a sports camera designed to be shot at iso 3200 or higher [emoji115]
 
jonneymendoza said:
How do you achieve that in a very high contrast scene?
Click to expand...

Are you saying you push and pull -5/+5 in post often? or even very occasionally? Again, looking at the results from these cameras I don't see any of them being usable in those extremes
 
twist said:
So I can darken the foreground and subject even more and need even more DR to recover? No thanks, if I did landscape then maybe.
Click to expand...

You're getting a noisey mess the other way, unless this comparison was complete BS.
 
jonneymendoza said:
The A9 is more then good enough. Its sensational. I've pushed shadows like no man's business especially when I shoot at high iso. That camera you can boost the shadows not just at base iso but higher iso. It's a sports camera designed to be shot at iso 3200 or higher [emoji115]
Click to expand...
Good for weddings too :D
 
Cagey75 said:
Are you saying you push and pull -5/+5 in post often? or even very occasionally? Again, looking at the results from these cameras I don't see any of them being usable in those extremes
Click to expand...
I do a fair bit of landscapes and for me the 5 stops recovery is great it's not a case of using all the 5 stops avaible because I'm with you the results in most cases are unnatural but having 5 stops means I can use 3 to 4 stops and get decent results.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I do a fair bit of landscapes and for me the 5 stops recovery is great it's not a case of using all the 5 stops avaible because I'm with you the results in most cases are unnatural but having 5 stops means I can use 3 to 4 stops and get decent results.
Click to expand...

Exactly and if it had 10 stops you could use 8 if practical.

The more the better imo. I shoot a lot of backlit portraits wide open, DR is a big thing for me.
 
Last edited:
Heres an example, everything in this image is black (the original), except the window as I used highlight metering for the window, I pushed specific areas in post to achieve what I wanted, various light sources (NO FLASH or torch), only 1 exposure, with less DR I could never have done this. 4 stop push, maybe a little more in certain areas.

This is why I like pushing in post, same applies to the natural light portraits I shoot.

 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
I do a fair bit of landscapes and for me the 5 stops recovery is great it's not a case of using all the 5 stops avaible because I'm with you the results in most cases are unnatural but having 5 stops means I can use 3 to 4 stops and get decent results.
Click to expand...

I guess cameras with that 5 stop ability perform better at more realistic levels. I know I have pulled great detail back many times in post, but it'll be more like 1 - 2 stops max outside of very specific images. Better have it than not I guess. But my question originally was who the hell uses 5 stops recovery? I kinda meant regularly, because it's definitely not something you want to be doing a lot.
 
Cagey75 said:
Bracketing?
Click to expand...

Would love to ask them to stop a race so i could bracket a few exposures ;)

Most of the time at British Superbikes i still expose to retain the highlights and pull back as much shadow detail as possible in post so the more and cleaner i can recover the better.
 
Gadget-Guy said:
Would love to ask them to stop a race so i could bracket a few exposures ;)

Most of the time at British Superbikes i still expose to retain the highlights and pull back as much shadow detail as possible in post so the more and cleaner i can recover the better.
Click to expand...


And I doubt you are ever going anywhere near 5 stops in post at that, because you know what you're doing. You're ETTL knowing that you will be pulling back, and it's probably more like a stop, 2 max
 
Cagey75 said:
I guess cameras with that 5 stop ability perform better at more realistic levels. I know I have pulled great detail back many times in post, but it'll be more like 1 - 2 stops max outside of very specific images. Better have it than not I guess. But my question originally was who the hell uses 5 stops recovery? I kinda meant regularly, because it's definitely not something you want to be doing a lot.
Click to expand...

There's the key. We don't need all the abilities of our kit all the time, including DR and shadow recovery, only sometimes :D

If you're shooting backlit without flash or any kind of lit I suppose if there are areas that are that far behind the exposure, indoor shooting with windows in the frame or outdoor shooting when areas you want to see detail in are in deep shadow.

This of Mrs WW retains the flat winter half light through the window, as in it isn't blown...

1-DSC09708.jpg

But I think it needs 5 or maybe even 6 stops to bring the shadows up.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
There's the key. WE don't need all the abilities of our kit all the time, including DR and shadow recovery, only sometimes :D

If you're shooting backlit without flash or any kind of lit I suppose if there are areas that are that far behind the exposure, indoor shooting with windows in the frame or outdoor shooting when areas you want to see detail in are in deep shadow.

This of Mrs WW retains the flat winter half light through the window, as in it isn't blown...

View attachment 134671

But I think it needs 5 or maybe even 6 stops to bring the shadows up.
Click to expand...


Or simply move her to a position where she's facing the lovely natural lighting ;)

I'm certainly not anti-recovery, this was an example that impressed me with the old X-T1, I simply ballsed up with the flash here, had been shooting in a darker area and didn't adjust before I came across this guy [Manual only flash] A nothing shot, but I wanted to see what I could gain back, detail where there seemed to be none whatsoever. I didn't take note of how much I pulled back but the X-T1 certainly wouldn't be known for excellent DR capabilities - reckon I was about 2 stops over [1/4 instead of 1/16 or whatever] My current G80 is better again, I have been really surprised by that too. But seeing how much I recovered here, 5 stops would have been a complete white image

XT-1 Dynamic by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Or simply move her to a position where she's facing the lovely natural lighting ;)
Click to expand...

But then it's a different shot (the choice was hers, on the nice sofa, with the nice curtains and the nice window.) We could also have gone outside preferably on a day with nice light (we could have waited 6 months for some decent light in Yorkshire or flew to Thailand the next day) but again it'd be a different shot.

Things have improved a lot since I had my Canon 20D and 5D DSLR's and it's great to be able to boost the shadows with todays cameras and software. I/we may not need these abilities every time we pick up a camera and we may not need them 1 time in every 100 shots but every improvement in tech and abilities moves things on and lets us get shots we couldn't get before. It's hard to take a step back now and although my camera is only a lowly A7 I'd hate to take a step back to a 5D now and I'd imagine that a good few A7III series owners would see the Canon R as a step back in regards to shadow recovery for some shots or even a fair few shots if you've got used to having that ability.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun before I go out... my favorite version of that picture of Mrs WW on the nice sofa...

A7 and Voiftlander 35mm f1.4, f5, 1/200 and ISO 2,500.

1-DSC09708-N.jpg
 
JJ! said:
To be honest - the amount of softness and lack of detail his Sony shots showed made me question how genuine they were or what kind of settings he had.
Click to expand...

The Sony is 24mp whereas the Canon is 30mp so there is that extra 20% extra resolution. He zoomed in both the same so they are 1:1. It seems more like he zoom passed their 1:1 pixel or zoomed to the Canon’s 1:1 so the Sony is now passed its pixels. Had he stopped at Sony’s so the Canon is displaying at 1:0.8 then the Sony will look sharp. The Canon will always be sharper but you won’t get the pixelation from zooming in too far.
 
Boooom!

Sigma are hitting big at Photokina....

28mm f1.4
40mm f1.4
56mm f1.4
70-200mm f2.8
60-600mm f4.5-6.3

:D
 
Riz_Guru said:
Boooom!

Sigma are hitting big at Photokina....

28mm f1.4
40mm f1.4
56mm f1.4
70-200mm f2.8
60-600mm f4.5-6.3

:D
Click to expand...

They are APSC though aren't they the 56mm is anyway?

The 60-600 won't be available for Sony
 
Last edited:
According to the rumour sites, it's only the 56mm that's definitely E mount. Everything else is 'possibly' FE.
 
Strange choice of focal lengths by Sigma. 28mm & 40mm are very close to their existing 24mm and 35mm. Not sure why anyone would want those. Maybe they just feel the need to bring some new stuff out.
 
f/2.8 said:
Strange choice of focal lengths by Sigma. 28mm & 40mm are very close to their existing 24mm and 35mm. Not sure why anyone would want those. Maybe they just feel the need to bring some new stuff out.
Click to expand...

Could you not say that about every manufacturer?
 
twist said:
Could you not say that about every manufacturer?
Click to expand...


Yeah sometimes but not always. When Sigma first introduced the Art range they where pretty ground breaking. Adding these nondescript focal lengths is a little boring. To be fair there isn't a huge amount they can improve the format I guess, without adding massive extra cost.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not even the 70-200? That would potentially sell like hot [emoji91] cakes in Sony as an alternative to the gm
Click to expand...

It's just the 56mm that is APSC apparently. The 70-200 should be F.E. Not sure I would buy a Sigma 70-200 the old versions where very poor, but never say never.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top