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

woof woof said:
Can't see it in the menu which was no real surprise as I'd have been surprised if it was there and I'd missed it. No biggie. Face detect seems good enough and any slight oof on the eye will only really be visible when looking very closely.
Click to expand...

Eye AF is there on the original A7 and definitely works it shows the face box rather than eye like the newer models and only in AFS. This will help.

1. MENU →

(Custom Settings) → [Custom Key Settings] → assign the [Eye AF] function to the desired key.

2. Press the key to which you have assigned the [Eye AF] function and focus on the eyes. 3. Press the shutter button while pressing the key.

Depending on the circumstances, the camera may not be able to focus on the eyes. In such cases, the camera detects a face and focuses on the face.
If the camera cannot detect a person’s face, you cannot use [Eye AF].
Depending on the circumstances, you cannot use [Eye AF], such as when [Focus Mode] is set to [Continuous AF] or [Manual Focus], etc.

[Eye AF] may not function in the following situations:

When the person is wearing sunglasses. When the front hair covers the person’s eyes. In low-light or back-lit conditions.
When the eyes are closed.
When the person is in the shade.
When the person is out of focus.

When the camera focuses on the eyes and [Smile/Face Detect.] is set to [On], a detection frame is displayed on the face after it is displayed on the eyes. When [Smile/Face Detect.] is set to [Off], a detection frame is displayed on the eyes for a certain time.
 
Barrysprout said:
Used it earlier to get the 35mm f1.8.
Worth noting that more than 1 item can be added to basket before using the discount.

The 35mm was priced at £489 which only activates £25 discount so I added a charger that I was needing anyway from another seller, took my total to £501 and got the £50 off. (y)
Click to expand...

Hope you like the 35mm f1.8.

It's taken a kicking here from some but I rather like it.
 
woof woof said:
I've just be wondering about those with A7x kit who are looking at the Canon and Nikon kit or have bought some? Why?

I can't see the point myself. The Sony system seems to have the edge except for the subjective stuff like handling and colour and of course the dreaded menus. The Sony system at least has a good body and lens choice now or is the attraction using Canikon legacy lenses?
Click to expand...

I think people will always look at new cameras, whether they are better or not, just something new that might reignite their photography even if only for a few weeks until they move back or jump to something else. The new Canikons have had serious discounts applied because they weren't selling well enough, they also worked some magic via FW making them more interesting options than they were originally. Showing their lens roadmaps also helps so people will be more likely to buy into the system if their are lenses coming out they want soon.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Eye AF is there on the original A7 and definitely works it shows the face box rather than eye like the newer models and only in AFS. This will help.
Click to expand...

I'll have another look later but the only options I saw seemed to be for face and smile. Could it be a firmware thing? I'll check later.
 
twist said:
I think people will always look at new cameras, whether they are better or not, just something new that might reignite their photography even if only for. a few weeks until they move back or jump to something else. The new Canikons have had serious discounts applied because they weren't selling well enough, they also worked some magic via FW making them more interesting options than they were originally. Showing their lens roadmaps also help so people will be more likely to buy into the system if their are lenses coming out they want soon.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I used a Nikon SLR for decades and if it had been a choice between a Sony and a Nikon FF mirrorless camera I would probably have stuck with Nikon through habit unless the reviews had slated it and praised the Sony but these days I see no reason to waste my time going to a shop to see one, maybe it's just the way my mind works but if I don't see a clear advantage I don't see why I should bother :D
 
rob-nikon said:
I mainly use a single AF point in AF-C. I also have the activation of eye AF set to the AF-On button. If an eye is picked up within the single AF point it will use eye AF. If I think an eye could be picked up in the whole AF area then I press the AF-On button to activate eye AF across all AF points. That set up works well for me as eye AF for animals is a little hit and miss. If I was photographing people where eye AF is much better than I would probably use eye AF most of the time and rarely using single point AF. One of the good things I’ve noticed with eye AF is you can effectively activate in a small area by using one of the smaller AF areas rather than the whole frame.
Click to expand...
Sounds well implemented. I hope Nikon can do something similar with a firmware update.
 
snerkler said:
Sounds well implemented. I hope Nikon can do something similar with a firmware update.
Click to expand...

One thing that I love about Nikon is the natural way it renders photos. I remember when I tried my D500 following having my A6300 and I just thought wow - it just seems more real. I still think photos from Sony cameras just don't have the realism and somehow still look like they have been taken on an alien world, where colours just don't quite look natural and things like distant tree foliage just look over sharp. Is it just me?

Reviewing some recent wedding photos taken with my D750 and 24-70mm combo - photos of a guest throwing her head back in laughter, out of 4 photos, 2 are critically sharp around the closest eye, the other 2 are noticeably soft (definitely not motion blur). Rather than basing what I deliver from a burst dependant on best content, I'm deciding what I deliver based on my assessment of critical sharpness - and I guess my interest in Sony is down to having more critically sharp photos to choose from. Whether I pursue that or stay with photos that I prefer the look of.

Argh, I just love the photos my Nikon produces. I just hope I don't make any enemies by saying what I've said in the Sony thread :oops: :$
 
Last edited:
gilbouk said:
One thing that I love about Nikon is the natural way it renders photos. I remember when I tried my D500 following having my A6300 and I just thought wow - it just seems more real. I still think photos from Sony cameras just don't have the realism and somehow still look like they have been taken on an alien world, where colours just don't quite look natural and things like distant tree foliage just look over sharp. Is it just me?

Reviewing some recent wedding photos taken with my D750 and 24-70mm combo - photos of a guest throwing her head back in laughter, out of 4 photos, 2 are critically sharp around the closest eye, the other 2 are noticeably soft (definitely not motion blur). Rather than basing what I deliver from a burst dependant on best content, I'm deciding what I deliver based on my assessment of critical sharpness - and I guess my interest in Sony is down to having more critically sharp photos to choose from. Whether I pursue that or stay with photos that I prefer the look of.

Argh, I just love the photos my Nikon produces.
Click to expand...

Coming from Nikon, I didn't find much difference in how the A7III renders colour. There's more difference between a D700 and a D750 than a D750 and an A7III. I'd say you definitely could not spot the difference between Nikon and Sony shots in our portfolio.
 
I don't see the alien effect and to be honest on the hardware side I think the lens probably makes more of a difference than the body. For me anyway.

Anyway,

Just thought I'd mention there's a Canon fit Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 in the for sale section, it's advertised at £250. That could be something to think about for anyone who has an adapter.
 
Livin The Dream said:
They tend to drift over a period of time on all bodies is what I read somewhere. Had to change the time manually in LR slightly on the last wedding I did
Click to expand...
Raymond Lin said:
They drift...it happens in my all my Canon bodies too.

You'd THINK they would be the same, with today's Quartz technology....but noooooo, even if there is a tolerance and 1 sec out a day will get quite far apart even after a week, especially if one is 1s fast and one is 1s slow.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'll go check how far my camera has drifted!
 
nandbytes said:
Interesting. I'll go check how far my camera has drifted!
Click to expand...

It makes little difference if you only have one body but it's important they are in sync with 2, because certain sequence of the day they need to be accurate as i swap bodied and it sill look weird if the first kiss comes before exchange of rings.
 
decigallen said:
Coming from Nikon, I didn't find much difference in how the A7III renders colour. There's more difference between a D700 and a D750 than a D750 and an A7III. I'd say you definitely could not spot the difference between Nikon and Sony shots in our portfolio.
Click to expand...
I agree with this but I do notice a difference in WB settings in lightroom. With Sony the daylight, cloudy and shade settings feel a little warmer but I do agree once edited there isn’t much difference.

A few examples from Nikon and Sony cameras taken at the same place a few years apart:

447BFC9B-C473-41CF-9B3D-AF6F9793AF68.jpeg
B15EAFC6-D983-4963-B826-BB14F3868BEE.jpeg
DD6E6A15-3731-4862-BB37-AA81E077F70B.jpeg
 
gilbouk said:
One thing that I love about Nikon is the natural way it renders photos. I remember when I tried my D500 following having my A6300 and I just thought wow - it just seems more real. I still think photos from Sony cameras just don't have the realism and somehow still look like they have been taken on an alien world, where colours just don't quite look natural and things like distant tree foliage just look over sharp. Is it just me?

Reviewing some recent wedding photos taken with my D750 and 24-70mm combo - photos of a guest throwing her head back in laughter, out of 4 photos, 2 are critically sharp around the closest eye, the other 2 are noticeably soft (definitely not motion blur). Rather than basing what I deliver from a burst dependant on best content, I'm deciding what I deliver based on my assessment of critical sharpness - and I guess my interest in Sony is down to having more critically sharp photos to choose from. Whether I pursue that or stay with photos that I prefer the look of.

Argh, I just love the photos my Nikon produces. I just hope I don't make any enemies by saying what I've said in the Sony thread :oops: :$
Click to expand...

I've shot both Nikon and Sony (side by side at times). Generally the Sony requires less white balance correction than the Nikon, and there's something about Sony files in the past that tended to make me produce more saturated images, but not with the A7III (in lightroom) where I find I'm having to boost vibrance a little to make it look natural.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've shot both Nikon and Sony (side by side at times). Generally the Sony requires less white balance correction than the Nikon, and there's something about Sony files in the past that tended to make me produce more saturated images, but not with the A7III (in lightroom) where I find I'm having to boost vibrance a little to make it look natural.
Click to expand...
Bizarre, I’ve always found Nikon WB the best o_O
 
Just having a bit of down time at today’s wedding.

Have given the A7RIV a good work out today. Looking forward to getting some images back on the computer as I am expecting I.Q to be outstanding.

The real time a.f on this isn’t as good as the A9 which I sort of expected.

Have also filled a 256gb card, I won’t be bringing it to another wedding. :LOL:
 
f/2.8 said:
Just having a bit of down time at today’s wedding.

Have given the A7RIV a good work out today. Looking forward to getting some images back on the computer as I am expecting I.Q to be outstanding.

The real time a.f on this isn’t as good as the A9 which I sort of expected.

Have also filled a 256gb card, I won’t be bringing it to another wedding. :LOL:
Click to expand...

How much worst than A9 is it?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Since you have all 3, if A9 is 100/100 in terms of AF, where does A7III and A74 comes in?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that while the A7III doesn’t have the real time a.f that it it will be more accurate than the A7RIV for eye a.f but won’t know for sure until I get the files on the p.c. Still waiting for the first dance here. :LOL:

The A9 I am mainly using for getting ready and the ceremony plus a few portraits. The A7III’s I am using for everything.

The A7RIV won’t be coming along to another wedding. I just brought it today as I wanted to play with it.
 
saul01 said:
Shots like these is why I want to improve my portrait shoots. Lovely set of pics, truly inspiring.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much, I really appreciate the kind words. This set have received so much praise from various places online and it really spurs me on, and makes me think I'm doing something right when complete strangers are complimentary about photos I've taken (family and friends always say nice things haha).
 
Is there anyone who has used the A6400 and is able to compare it against the A9 and maybe A7Riii? I’m thinking of an A6400 for a second body and interested in it’s real time AF and eye AF ability compared to the A9. I’ve currently got an A7Riii as my main camera and as I mainly do wildlife the A9 would probably be the better option as the main body. A6400 and A7Riii is probably a good mix for what I do (mainly wildlife and a little landscape). My idea for two camera is to let me have a wide angle on one and use it with eye AF to get some remote wild angle stuff. The A6400 is definitely more within budget as a second body. The A9 would probably be too much of a push financially especially if keeping the A7Riii too. The A6400 seems a good price, it’s a shame it doesn’t have same battery as the A7Riii.
 
rob-nikon said:
Is there anyone who has used the A6400 and is able to compare it against the A9 and maybe A7Riii? I’m thinking of an A6400 for a second body and interested in it’s real time AF and eye AF ability compared to the A9. I’ve currently got an A7Riii as my main camera and as I mainly do wildlife the A9 would probably be the better option as the main body. A6400 and A7Riii is probably a good mix for what I do (mainly wildlife and a little landscape). My idea for two camera is to let me have a wide angle on one and use it with eye AF to get some remote wild angle stuff. The A6400 is definitely more within budget as a second body. The A9 would probably be too much of a push financially especially if keeping the A7Riii too. The A6400 seems a good price, it’s a shame it doesn’t have same battery as the A7Riii.
Click to expand...

I had an A6400 an a.f performance is very good, real time a.f isn't as good as the A9 but it is very good.
 
The Sony A9 was game changer when it first hit the streets, and we are still waiting for something from other manufacturers to knock it off the top spot. Sony gave us the Sony A9 II recently with what seems like more like a evolution than another game changer.
I think that Sony will push the A9 II’s abilities further when the Canon 1Dx III and Nikon D6 bodies are released.
Sony have come a long way since the original A7, I remember all the negative comments against Sony back then... today is a different story and things are flipped right around.
Come’ on Nikon & Canon..... hurry up. :D
 
So with the A9 real time tracking can you turn off eye/face detect? If I was tracking a horse and rider I wouldn’t necessarily want it to focus on the riders eyes.
 
JJ! said:
So with the A9 real time tracking can you turn off eye/face detect? If I was tracking a horse and rider I wouldn’t necessarily want it to focus on the riders eyes.
Click to expand...
Yes I think you can mate.real time tracking will track whatever you started to lock on to
 
rob-nikon said:
I agree with this but I do notice a difference in WB settings in lightroom. With Sony the daylight, cloudy and shade settings feel a little warmer but I do agree once edited there isn’t much difference.

A few examples from Nikon and Sony cameras taken at the same place a few years apart:

View attachment 258653
View attachment 258654
View attachment 258657
Click to expand...
Great example, when shooting RAW you can make any manufacturer look pretty much like any other and vice versa. The only reason I prefer Nikon to Sony when either using my own images, or with the likes of the A7R3 when I was looking, sample raws is that I had to work hard to get a preset to get the Sonys how I liked, whereas the Nikons were to my taste SOOC. Obviously personal and YMMV (y)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top