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

Diamonddec said:
Dun Briste, Co. Mayo, Ireland

Sony A73, Sony 16-35 f4, ISO 100, F13, 20 seconds

Dun Briste, Co. Mayo, Ireland by CFC Photo, on Flickr
Click to expand...

If you are going to crop it, I'd be very clinical about it. You don't want to lose any of that foam motion. I can see a nice crop but it's tight, that foaming just above the section you would be cropping out is just crossing over where I would crop, so there could be some cloning involved

I like it as is though. But I can see a nicer possible crop as I said
 
f/2.8 said:
Yep, it definitely does, I thought it did on all mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...
I’d have thought less as it’s powering a smaller screen tbh. Very odd.
 
Cagey75 said:
If you are going to crop it, I'd be very clinical about it. You don't want to lose any of that foam motion. I can see a nice crop but it's tight, that foaming just above the section you would be cropping out is just crossing over where I would crop, so there could be some cloning involved

I like it as is though. But I can see a nicer possible crop as I said
Click to expand...

I think trying to crop would spoil it. It is what it is and it'd be hard to crop or clone. I'd leave it as it is and I agree that the land in the corner adds something.
 
EVF's tend to kick out a lot of light so that could have something to do with it.
 
woof woof said:
I think trying to crop would spoil it. It is what it is and it'd be hard to crop or clone. I'd leave it as it is and I agree that the land in the corner adds something.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "if" - I'd leave it as is too tbh
 
Cagey75 said:
If you are going to crop it, I'd be very clinical about it. You don't want to lose any of that foam motion. I can see a nice crop but it's tight, that foaming just above the section you would be cropping out is just crossing over where I would crop, so there could be some cloning involved

I like it as is though. But I can see a nicer possible crop as I said
Click to expand...

I think they’d probably get away with a 5 x 7 and then either just clone the tiny but that’d be left or pull it in very slightly from the bottom.

would put the stack right on a third as well if done correctly.
 
snerkler said:
I’d have thought less as it’s powering a smaller screen tbh. Very odd.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it does. The EVF is a small OLED compared to the LCD on the back and if you're working outside in daylight the chances are you have it set quite bright to see it, I can't see any reason why the EVF would use more power unless it's a weird Sony thing.
 
Jase said:
I don't believe it does. The EVF is a small OLED compared to the LCD on the back and if you're working outside in daylight the chances are you have it set quite bright to see it, I can't see any reason why the EVF would use more power unless it's a weird Sony thing.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

It isn't a weird Sony thing the Nikon Z's are the same as is the Canon R & RP.

I haven't used all of the Fuji's and don't know that many people that that use Fuji but of the Fuji's I have used they are the same as well.

EVF is generally brighter, higher resolution with a quicker refresh rate so guessing that is the reason why.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
You are wrong.

It isn't a weird Sony thing the Nikon Z's are the same as is the Canon R & RP.

I haven't used all of the Fuji's and don't know that many people that that use Fuji but of the Fuji's I have used they are the same as well.

EVF is generally brighter, higher resolution with a quicker refresh rate so guessing that is the reason why.
Click to expand...
It is interesting as I’m sure I read on the Olympus ages ago that the EVF uses less power so people turn off the LCD to preserve battery and have EVF only, so assumed this was the same across the board. Or maybe it was duff info.
 
snerkler said:
It is interesting as I’m sure I read on the Olympus ages ago that the EVF uses less power so people turn off the LCD to preserve battery and have EVF only, so assumed this was the same across the board. Or maybe it was duff info.
Click to expand...


I knew I was correct but I just googled does an evf use more power than an lcd and the internet resoundingly says it does. This is the same for all manufacturers, for any camera that has an evf and an lcd, the evf draws more power.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=does+an+evf+use+more+power+than+an+lcd&s=g&t=w
 
f/2.8 said:
You are wrong.

It isn't a weird Sony thing the Nikon Z's are the same as is the Canon R & RP.

I haven't used all of the Fuji's and don't know that many people that that use Fuji but of the Fuji's I have used they are the same as well.

EVF is generally brighter, higher resolution with a quicker refresh rate so guessing that is the reason why.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Well actually there doesn't appear to be a constant answer. Having looked at a few different cameras the number of shots listed for EVF vs LCD varies and Sony and some others list less shots with EVF than they do LCD. So I guess it is down to the way the camera utilises that EVF is read/refresh etc as on paper an OLED would use less that an LCD if it was just a display.
 
Last edited:
I think the only thing which makes OLED more efficient is when the pixels are off/dimmer (blacks). Which is why everyone wants dark modes on OLED phones as each pixel is outputting less/no brightness.
 
f/2.8 said:
You are wrong.

It isn't a weird Sony thing the Nikon Z's are the same as is the Canon R & RP.

I haven't used all of the Fuji's and don't know that many people that that use Fuji but of the Fuji's I have used they are the same as well.

EVF is generally brighter, higher resolution with a quicker refresh rate so guessing that is the reason why.
Click to expand...
Don't half of them i.e. Nikon and Panasonic buy their EVF from Sony?

Sure they can customize it and control the optics that goes in front but they can't really make it consumes less power than what it's already designed to consume to operate by Sony.
 
f/2.8 said:
I knew I was correct but I just googled does an evf use more power than an lcd and the internet resoundingly says it does. This is the same for all manufacturers, for any camera that has an evf and an lcd, the evf draws more power.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=does+an+evf+use+more+power+than+an+lcd&s=g&t=w
Click to expand...
That didn’t clarify anything tbh, plenty of responses saying EVF uses less power, especially with the OLED
f/2.8 said:
The lcd is off when you use the evf
Click to expand...
According to that search you posted the LCD isn’t off, it just displays black (what the difference is I don’t know ;))
 
Z7 manual states viewfinder battery life is less, 330 shots with EVF only, 400 shots LCD only. Interesting (y)
 
snerkler said:
Z7 manual states viewfinder battery life is less, 330 shots with EVF only, 400 shots LCD only. Interesting (y)
Click to expand...
Don’t think we should mention z in the a thread ha ha
 
As far as I’m aware the EVF uses more power than the rear LCD. I guess part of the reason why we all think it’s the opposite way around is due to the eye sensor that turns off the EVF when your eye isn’t to the EVF. It’s easier to leave the rear LCD wasting power.

snerkler said:
Z7 manual states viewfinder battery life is less, 330 shots with EVF only, 400 shots LCD only. Interesting (y)
Click to expand...

Same with the A7r3:

Battery life is 530 shots with EVF or up to 650 shots with the LCD monitor.
 
Jase said:
You are wrong.

Well actually there doesn't appear to be a constant answer. Having looked at a few different cameras the number of shots listed for EVF vs LCD varies and Sony and some others list less shots with EVF than they do LCD. So I guess it is down to the way the camera utilises that EVF is read/refresh etc as on paper an OLED would use less that an LCD if it was just a display.
Click to expand...

No I am not, you are though again.

I use my camera's regularly for up to 13-14 hours a day. I know what effects battery usage.

Have a look at any of the mirrorless camera's released in the last 2 years that use an evf most manufacturers state battery usage for using the evf and the lcd. I haven't found any where it says that the evf uses less power most state that uing the evf means quite a big drop in the amount of shots you can take as an example......

snerkler said:
Z7 manual states viewfinder battery life is less, 330 shots with EVF only, 400 shots LCD only. Interesting (y)
Click to expand...

rob-nikon said:
Same with the A7r3:

Battery life is 530 shots with EVF or up to 650 shots with the LCD monitor.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Don't half of them i.e. Nikon and Panasonic buy their EVF from Sony?

Sure they can customize it and control the optics that goes in front but they can't really make it consumes less power than what it's already designed to consume to operate by Sony.
Click to expand...

I am not sure to be honest, I think I remember reading somewhere that the Panasonic full frame cameras use Sony EVF's though.
 
f/2.8 said:
No I am not, you are though again.

I use my camera's regularly for up to 13-14 hours a day. I know what effects battery usage.

Have a look at any of the mirrorless camera's released in the last 2 years that use an evf most manufacturers state battery usage for using the evf and the lcd. I haven't found any where it says that the evf uses less power most state that uing the evf means quite a big drop in the amount of shots you can take as an example......
Click to expand...

Sensitive lot in the Sony section lol

I'll be honest I haven't really noticed with the Sony what uses more/less battery life and tbh I don't really care, that's what spare batteries are for. You're not the only person that uses a camera for 13-14 hrs a day, what I can say is with my Fuji gear I can be out doing street etc all day and the battery would last, give it an evening of landscape where the LCD is used a lot and the battery dies much quicker, that is something that stood out enough for me to notice.

There are so many factors to consider that effect the battery life, AF, IS etc etc so what you may find may be different to someone else. Just like the MPG that are claimed on cars, never have I got close to that.
 
I don't know what camera uses what EVF and what EVF is the SOTA today but not so long ago I'm sure there was an Epson EVF that was the best on sale.
 
Jase said:
Sensitive lot in the Sony section lol

I'll be honest I haven't really noticed with the Sony what uses more/less battery life and tbh I don't really care, that's what spare batteries are for. You're not the only person that uses a camera for 13-14 hrs a day, what I can say is with my Fuji gear I can be out doing street etc all day and the battery would last, give it an evening of landscape where the LCD is used a lot and the battery dies much quicker, that is something that stood out enough for me to notice.

There are so many factors to consider that effect the battery life, AF, IS etc etc so what you may find may be different to someone else. Just like the MPG that are claimed on cars, never have I got close to that.
Click to expand...

What absolute nonsense, why can you not just admit that you where wrong? You where quick enough to say that I was wrong when I wasn't.

The manufacturers clearly state that you get less shots using the evf than using the lcd. None of the other factors matter at all, it is a very simple fact.
 
Jase said:
There are so many factors to consider that effect the battery life, AF, IS etc etc so what you may find may be different to someone else. Just like the MPG that are claimed on cars, never have I got close to that.
Click to expand...
Like cars mpg efficiency testing battery life tests will be a standard test procedure that will provide results that can be compared against another model. Those type of tests aren’t supposed to give an actual real world figure but a figure where models can be compared (ie if car 1 has a result of 70mpg and car 2 50mpg then you could make a buying decision knowing car 1 would be more fuel efficient than car 2). You won’t expect those figures to be real world expectations as everyone drives differently but (a little off subject) the new WLTP standard is making them much more like real world figures

I’ve recently changed to a Prius, over 1976 miles I’ve used 29 gallons (fuel pump values) which is 68.1mpg. That’s slightly better than the stated WLTP mpg value of 59-67mpg. Of course I’m not flying everywhere like i may have done previously but I’m not slow either (I keep up with traffic at 65-70mph) so it’s not that I’m slow driving eco friendly (weirdly I’ve found trying to drive eco means less mpg!). The car computer says 76mpg but they are usually a little higher than actual values. My previous diesel insignia gave 50mpg so I’m pretty happy getting the WLTP value and a 35% fuel saving too.:)
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
What absolute nonsense, why can you not just admit that you where wrong? You where quick enough to say that I was wrong when I wasn't.

The manufacturers clearly state that you get less shots using the evf than using the lcd. None of the other factors matter at all, it is a very simple fact.
Click to expand...

Because I said you were wrong in jest. I never said I was right even in the original message that you quote, I said I don’t believe it is and went on to explain why, which if you think about it my reasoning was quite valid.

You just replied, you are wrong! You seem to get very defensive about any negative Sony comment and maybe my comment about a weird Sony thing probably tipped you over the edge.

Anyway, back on point I said I didn’t believe an EVF used more power based on MY experience and the general Oled vs LCD comparison. There are obviously other factors and it’s not a simple oled vs lcd thing. I’m happy to be given evidence to support the difference.
 
Jase said:
Because I said you were wrong in jest. I never said I was right even in the original message that you quote, I said I don’t believe it is and went on to explain why, which if you think about it my reasoning was quite valid.

You just replied, you are wrong! You seem to get very defensive about any negative Sony comment and maybe my comment about a weird Sony thing probably tipped you over the edge.

Anyway, back on point I said I didn’t believe an EVF used more power based on MY experience and the general Oled vs LCD comparison. There are obviously other factors and it’s not a simple oled vs lcd thing. I’m happy to be given evidence to support the difference.
Click to expand...

Your experience :LOL:
 
nandbytes said:
You can mention it as long you don't try telling us it's better ;)
Click to expand...

Well your losing out then lol

Joking. Sony are still good. But for me I prefer the z but each to there owns
 
f/2.8 said:
I agree.

I am still very much a Nikon fan boy when they have a camera that suits me I will jump ship.
Click to expand...
Will take a while to get a decent lens lineup, unless you’re happy to adapt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top