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

robj20 said:
Must be where I'm going wrong got my camera set so it won't automatically go above ISO6400.
Click to expand...

6400iso is plenty to give horrible noise problems when cropping heavily for tiny birds.
 
NewBeetle said:
It's helped so much with fine detail on bird shots for me, I'm finding that even small amount of noise in feathers can almost make a photo look a bit soft, this witchcraft seems to be able recover loads of sharpness and not soften anything. I'm sold.
Click to expand...
Just given Topaz a quick whirl, not that I had any photos on my computer at anything above 400 ISO :LOL: I don't know if it's the A7RIV file size but it seems a bit slow, especially how it has to generate a preview each time, and then it took maybe a minute to save the image back to LR, is this normal? It's a shame it doesn't work with PSD files as the resulting tiff was 136mb, and that's having used a dng file. God knows what an uncompressed .arw file converted to tiff will be :eek:
 
Heres a good read about the A7RIV and Denoise scroll down for pics.



photopxl.com

Sony a7R IV Pushed To The Limits - PhotoPXL

The ship was moving and I was shooting with a long lens. I set my camera on manual and the shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second at f/8 and switched the ISO to auto mode . . .
photopxl.com photopxl.com
 
snerkler said:
Just given Topaz a quick whirl, not that I had any photos on my computer at anything above 400 ISO :LOL: I don't know if it's the A7RIV file size but it seems a bit slow, especially how it has to generate a preview each time, and then it took maybe a minute to save the image back to LR, is this normal? It's a shame it doesn't work with PSD files as the resulting tiff was 136mb, and that's having used a dng file. God knows what an uncompressed .arw file converted to tiff will be :eek:
Click to expand...

I complete my edit in LR, right click to open edit in Topaz Plugin and then it re-opens in LR when I'm finished and I save from there. It can be a little time intensive, but I don't find it too bad. In saying that I am dealing with 24mp files.
 
NewBeetle said:
I complete my edit in LR, right click to open edit in Topaz Plugin and then it re-opens in LR when I'm finished and I save from there. It can be a little time intensive, but I don't find it too bad. In saying that I am dealing with 24mp files.
Click to expand...
Yep that's what I did. Takes maybe 5s to generate a preview each time, then about a min to save back to LR. Not the end of the world as I won't use it for every image (y)
 
Just have it a try, nice and fast with my 24mp files, previews almost instant.
Not sure it's worth the money for me I don't have to deal with all that much noise.
 
snerkler said:
Yep that's what I did. Takes maybe 5s to generate a preview each time, then about a min to save back to LR. Not the end of the world as I won't use it for every image (y)
Click to expand...

Yes, I only plan to use on any keepers that would benefit(y)
 
Tamron making a 90mm macro and a 24-70 f4.
 
I'm pleased I bought Topaz DeNoiseAI, took some test shots in our gloomy garden this afternoon, most shots at ISO5000 or ISO8000. The Topaz shots were significantly cleaner than DXO PL3 HQ Fast NR and better than the Prime also. It's also more customisable than (and in my opinion just as good as ) the DXO4 Deep Prime NR which is supposed to be it's nearest competitor which is a saving of over £40 on the upgrade from DXO3 to DXO4 just to get Deep Prime NR..
Both of these slightly underexposed in lighting conditions that I wouldn't normally want to do any bird photography.
50898399702_ab7691182e_b.jpg

taken at ISO5000

50898795341_9d49abda66_b.jpg

taken at ISO8000
 
Last edited:
adz740 said:
Out of interest how far do you normally push the sliders within Denoise?
Click to expand...

I've only been using it for a few weeks on the trial and just bought today. In general I let it do 'Auto' and then I'll try and push the sharpness until I see anything negative creeping back in then back it off a touch.
 
This is one of mine with Topaz before any processing. Like Ant, I mostly leave it on auto. This one I didn't bother to tweak sharpness or anything else, just auto. I'm sure I could improve the detail on it but it's a fine balancing act because noise gets reintroduced if the sharpness or recover original detail is pushed too far. I used the Low Light button as I found that to give the cleanest noise reduction given that this image is a horrible 5000 ISO.

Denoise.png
 
snerkler said:
Impressive. Probably a touch oversharpened for me but it's amazing how clean it is. I need to look into how to use it and what the two sets of sliders actually do.
Click to expand...

I found this tutorial very helpful, he talks about what range he keeps to for each slider.

 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Impressive. Probably a touch oversharpened for me but it's amazing how clean it is. I need to look into how to use it and what the two sets of sliders actually do.
Click to expand...

It was just a quick mess about edit for the purpose of this thread to try and show the kind of difference it can make. It's a bit of a life saver for someone who loves birding but can't afford a 600 prime and the light gathering they offer. Heavily cropping birds shots always shows up the noise obviously that you often don't notice on a non-cropped shot. I'm looking forward to spring even more now with this little bit of software :ROFLMAO:
 
NewBeetle said:
It was just a quick mess about edit for the purpose of this thread to try and show the kind of difference it can make. It's a bit of a life saver for someone who loves birding but can't afford a 600 prime and the light gathering they offer. Heavily cropping birds shots always shows up the noise obviously that you often don't notice on a non-cropped shot. I'm looking forward to spring even more now with this little bit of software :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
It is definitely a great bit of kit for stuff like that. I don't do much in the way of bird photography but when I do I'm often in the 1600-3200 iso range and cropping heavy on top of that and as you say it's a killer for noise.
 
I've just downloaded the trial Topaz Denoise but it's not showing up as a filter in CS5. Does anyone know is it just standalone or is there a way to get it to show as a CS5 filter?
 
woof woof said:
I've just downloaded the trial Topaz Denoise but it's not showing up as a filter in CS5. Does anyone know is it just standalone or is there a way to get it to show as a CS5 filter?
Click to expand...
Do you have to set it up in the CS5 preferences?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
With regards to processing I've just stumbled across this video this morning and given the idea a whirl.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnFQfyFSqRw&t=320s&ab_channel=AlexArmitage




I'm not sure how well it will work for everything but I tried it on a couple of the photos I took of Betty yesterday and this was the results against the one's I'd processed originally. I'll leave them unmarked for now to see which people prefer.

Screenshot 2021-02-01 at 12.48.51 by TDG-77, on Flickr

Screenshot 2021-02-01 at 12.51.27 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've noticed with LR and other software that sometimes doing something with a slider doesn't always have the effect that's expected - so watching him edit the second image & getting us to concentrate on a patch of land, when he slides the blue slider up instead of just increasing blue saturation, there's a big jump in contrast, and the shadows below the grassy patch get much deeper & darker. I suspect that he'd get a more controlled effect just by tweaking contrast and vibrance.

I also want to pull that thing out of his nose, but that's another issue entirely.
 
snerkler said:
I am seriously considering chopping in my A7RIV for an A9-II, but I'm pretty sure I'll miss the mp for cropping :banghead: I guess I could always buy the 1.4tc ;)
What stuff are you wanting to shoot and what's your budget?
Click to expand...

I think the 35mm prime could be idea, it's a classic FF focal length which I find suits the majority of my photography. For me anything wider makes me a bit lazy and anything longer can be unsuitable for indoors. I can look at a longer focal length for my panos later.

My thoughts and a bit of a ramble if you (and anyone else) can be bothered to read and help me out with my ever worsening indecisiveness. Most of my experience is with Nikon, so I don't know much about Sony...
  • Sigma 35mm f1.4: great for indoors and creativity, but will all that glass make focusing slow even with the HSM?
  • Sigma 35mm f2: better for video with the stepping motor but how does it compare to the HSM when it comes to stills focusing, if slower, will it frustrate me?

Are native Sony lenses going to work better with the AF system?
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.4: The DDSSM focus system appeals but the price not so much when compared to Sigma
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.8: I'm not sure on this one, I can't help but feel I may as well get the 2.8 instead and be far more compact
  • Sony FE 35mm f2.8: Not as fast and I'm not sure about the auto focus speed, but it's nice and compact.

I'm not ruling out:
  • Sony FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. More flexibility and more importantly OSS which would be great for video work. But the AF speed may not be great? Also, it's physically quite big.
  • Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. Even more flexibility, also has OSS and has the DDSSM focus system. It's physically quite big.

Once I get the A9 tomorrow and get a feel for its physical size I'll perhaps be better minded to know what lens or lenses to get.

But now I'm thinking the 24-105mm is very appealing, it's wide enough for those indoor group shots and also long enough to take care of the pano stuff and also ticks a lot of boxes apart from size and aperture. I could also get the Sony 35mm 2.8 for when going out to certain places and travelling and I need to be more compact (although I can't see any rush for that lol).
 
gman said:
I think the 35mm prime could be idea, it's a classic FF focal length which I find suits the majority of my photography. For me anything wider makes me a bit lazy and anything longer can be unsuitable for indoors. I can look at a longer focal length for my panos later.

My thoughts and a bit of a ramble if you (and anyone else) can be bothered to read and help me out with my ever worsening indecisiveness. Most of my experience is with Nikon, so I don't know much about Sony...
  • Sigma 35mm f1.4: great for indoors and creativity, but will all that glass make focusing slow even with the HSM?
  • Sigma 35mm f2: better for video with the stepping motor but how does it compare to the HSM when it comes to stills focusing, if slower, will it frustrate me?

Are native Sony lenses going to work better with the AF system?
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.4: The DDSSM focus system appeals but the price not so much when compared to Sigma
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.8: I'm not sure on this one, I can't help but feel I may as well get the 2.8 instead and be far more compact
  • Sony FE 35mm f2.8: Not as fast and I'm not sure about the auto focus speed, but it's nice and compact.

I'm not ruling out:
  • Sony FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. More flexibility and more importantly OSS which would be great for video work. But the AF speed may not be great? Also, it's physically quite big.
  • Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. Even more flexibility, also has OSS and has the DDSSM focus system. It's physically quite big.

Once I get the A9 tomorrow and get a feel for its physical size I'll perhaps be better minded to know what lens or lenses to get.

But now I'm thinking the 24-105mm is very appealing, it's wide enough for those indoor group shots and also long enough to take care of the pano stuff and also ticks a lot of boxes apart from size and aperture. I could also get the Sony 35mm 2.8 for when going out to certain places and travelling and I need to be more compact (although I can't see any rush for that lol).
Click to expand...
Get the Sony 35mm f1.8 or sigma 35mm f2 (AF will be better on both compared to all other options you listed above) apart from 35GM but it's costs nearly 3 times as much.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
I think the 35mm prime could be idea, it's a classic FF focal length which I find suits the majority of my photography. For me anything wider makes me a bit lazy and anything longer can be unsuitable for indoors. I can look at a longer focal length for my panos later.

My thoughts and a bit of a ramble if you (and anyone else) can be bothered to read and help me out with my ever worsening indecisiveness. Most of my experience is with Nikon, so I don't know much about Sony...
  • Sigma 35mm f1.4: great for indoors and creativity, but will all that glass make focusing slow even with the HSM?
  • Sigma 35mm f2: better for video with the stepping motor but how does it compare to the HSM when it comes to stills focusing, if slower, will it frustrate me?

Are native Sony lenses going to work better with the AF system?
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.4: The DDSSM focus system appeals but the price not so much when compared to Sigma
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.8: I'm not sure on this one, I can't help but feel I may as well get the 2.8 instead and be far more compact
  • Sony FE 35mm f2.8: Not as fast and I'm not sure about the auto focus speed, but it's nice and compact.

I'm not ruling out:
  • Sony FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. More flexibility and more importantly OSS which would be great for video work. But the AF speed may not be great? Also, it's physically quite big.
  • Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. Even more flexibility, also has OSS and has the DDSSM focus system. It's physically quite big.

Once I get the A9 tomorrow and get a feel for its physical size I'll perhaps be better minded to know what lens or lenses to get.

But now I'm thinking the 24-105mm is very appealing, it's wide enough for those indoor group shots and also long enough to take care of the pano stuff and also ticks a lot of boxes apart from size and aperture. I could also get the Sony 35mm 2.8 for when going out to certain places and travelling and I need to be more compact (although I can't see any rush for that lol).
Click to expand...

The new 35mm GM looks stunning and is small and light for a 35mm f/1.4.

Everyone that has the 24-105 f/4 says they're happy with it pretty much, I went down the Tamron route with their 28-75 f/2.8 and have been very happy with it.
 
gman said:
But now I'm thinking the 24-105mm is very appealing, it's wide enough for those indoor group shots and also long enough to take care of the pano stuff and also ticks a lot of boxes apart from size and aperture. I could also get the Sony 35mm 2.8 for when going out to certain places and travelling and I need to be more compact (although I can't see any rush for that lol)
Click to expand...

The 24-105 is a great walk-about lens, though quite large, but when paired up with a tiny 35 f2.8 (I have the samyang version) then it's an ideal combo to travel. Tamron also ake a 24-200 superzoom that @nandbytes loves. I'd want to add a 50 or 85 with at least an f1.8, preferrably f1.4 aperture for shallow dof shots.
 
nandbytes said:
Get the Sony 35mm f1.8 or sigma 35mm f2 (AF will be better on both compared to all other options you listed above) apart from 35GM but it's costs nearly 3 times as much.
Click to expand...

Will their af be faster than the DDSSM of the 24-105?
 
gman said:
Will their af be faster than the DDSSM of the 24-105?
Click to expand...

The Sony 35mm/1.8 yes. That thing is blazing fast.

Sigma may be not but I imagine it won't be noticeably worst either. I haven't owned the sigma so going by what I have seen online.
But I have owned both FE35/1.8 and 24-105G. In fact also had the old ART 35, Zeiss 35/1.4, Zeiss 35/2.8 (my first e-mount lens), samyang 35mm/2.8 and Samyang 35mm/1.4 :ROFLMAO:
 
gman said:
But now I'm thinking the 24-105mm is very appealing, it's wide enough for those indoor group shots and also long enough to take care of the pano stuff and also ticks a lot of boxes apart from size and aperture
Click to expand...
I love my 24-105mm.
It's a fantastic lens.
It's on the large size, but small compared to my 200-600mm.
 
gman said:
I think the 35mm prime could be idea, it's a classic FF focal length which I find suits the majority of my photography. For me anything wider makes me a bit lazy and anything longer can be unsuitable for indoors. I can look at a longer focal length for my panos later.

My thoughts and a bit of a ramble if you (and anyone else) can be bothered to read and help me out with my ever worsening indecisiveness. Most of my experience is with Nikon, so I don't know much about Sony...
  • Sigma 35mm f1.4: great for indoors and creativity, but will all that glass make focusing slow even with the HSM?
  • Sigma 35mm f2: better for video with the stepping motor but how does it compare to the HSM when it comes to stills focusing, if slower, will it frustrate me?

Are native Sony lenses going to work better with the AF system?
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.4: The DDSSM focus system appeals but the price not so much when compared to Sigma
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.8: I'm not sure on this one, I can't help but feel I may as well get the 2.8 instead and be far more compact
  • Sony FE 35mm f2.8: Not as fast and I'm not sure about the auto focus speed, but it's nice and compact.

I'm not ruling out:
  • Sony FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. More flexibility and more importantly OSS which would be great for video work. But the AF speed may not be great? Also, it's physically quite big.
  • Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. Even more flexibility, also has OSS and has the DDSSM focus system. It's physically quite big.

Once I get the A9 tomorrow and get a feel for its physical size I'll perhaps be better minded to know what lens or lenses to get.

But now I'm thinking the 24-105mm is very appealing, it's wide enough for those indoor group shots and also long enough to take care of the pano stuff and also ticks a lot of boxes apart from size and aperture. I could also get the Sony 35mm 2.8 for when going out to certain places and travelling and I need to be more compact (although I can't see any rush for that lol).
Click to expand...

I've shoot primarily with 40mm for the past 5-6 years.

If I were going small, light, fast & reasonably cheap I'd be thinking 35/1.8 & 85/1.8 in all honesty.
 
I'm thinking the 24-105mm would be good for video work, and the size could actually be of a benefit here?

I'll need to hold the A9 to decide on the 35mm 1.8 or 2.8 to see how the size stacks up. I'm still finding something about the Sigma 1.4 alluring though. Maybe I need to do some extensive research and I think my quest for compact could be getting in the way.
 
gman said:
I'm thinking the 24-105mm would be good for video work, and the size could actually be of a benefit here?

I'll need to hold the A9 to decide on the 35mm 1.8 or 2.8 to see how the size stacks up. I'm still finding something about the Sigma 1.4 alluring though. Maybe I need to do some extensive research and I think my quest for compact could be getting in the way.
Click to expand...
I've got an 85mm f1.8 too.
Great lens for the money, but the 24-105mm is my most used lens as it covers so many options.
 
I've removed and reinstalled Topaz and it's just the same. It doesn't show up in CS5 and clicking on the shortcut or exe file just calls up the Topaz box which stays on the screen for maybe 2 seconds and then it's gone.

Oh well... that's saved me $50.
 
gman said:
My thoughts and a bit of a ramble if you (and anyone else) can be bothered to read and help me out with my ever worsening indecisiveness. Most of my experience is with Nikon, so I don't know much about Sony...
  • Sigma 35mm f1.4: great for indoors and creativity, but will all that glass make focusing slow even with the HSM?
  • Sigma 35mm f2: better for video with the stepping motor but how does it compare to the HSM when it comes to stills focusing, if slower, will it frustrate me?

Are native Sony lenses going to work better with the AF system?
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.4: The DDSSM focus system appeals but the price not so much when compared to Sigma
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.8: I'm not sure on this one, I can't help but feel I may as well get the 2.8 instead and be far more compact
  • Sony FE 35mm f2.8: Not as fast and I'm not sure about the auto focus speed, but it's nice and compact.
Click to expand...

There's a thread on the Sigma 35mm f2 and the other lenses (24, 45 and 65mm) here...


I have the Sony 35mm f1.8 and f2.8. Oh, and the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 :D
 
Last edited:
gman said:
I think the 35mm prime could be idea, it's a classic FF focal length which I find suits the majority of my photography. For me anything wider makes me a bit lazy and anything longer can be unsuitable for indoors. I can look at a longer focal length for my panos later.

My thoughts and a bit of a ramble if you (and anyone else) can be bothered to read and help me out with my ever worsening indecisiveness. Most of my experience is with Nikon, so I don't know much about Sony...
  • Sigma 35mm f1.4: great for indoors and creativity, but will all that glass make focusing slow even with the HSM?
  • Sigma 35mm f2: better for video with the stepping motor but how does it compare to the HSM when it comes to stills focusing, if slower, will it frustrate me?

Are native Sony lenses going to work better with the AF system?
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.4: The DDSSM focus system appeals but the price not so much when compared to Sigma
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.8: I'm not sure on this one, I can't help but feel I may as well get the 2.8 instead and be far more compact
  • Sony FE 35mm f2.8: Not as fast and I'm not sure about the auto focus speed, but it's nice and compact.

I'm not ruling out:
  • Sony FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. More flexibility and more importantly OSS which would be great for video work. But the AF speed may not be great? Also, it's physically quite big.
  • Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G OSS: Losing 3 stops over the 1.4. Even more flexibility, also has OSS and has the DDSSM focus system. It's physically quite big.

Once I get the A9 tomorrow and get a feel for its physical size I'll perhaps be better minded to know what lens or lenses to get.

But now I'm thinking the 24-105mm is very appealing, it's wide enough for those indoor group shots and also long enough to take care of the pano stuff and also ticks a lot of boxes apart from size and aperture. I could also get the Sony 35mm 2.8 for when going out to certain places and travelling and I need to be more compact (although I can't see any rush for that lol).
Click to expand...
gman said:
I'm thinking the 24-105mm would be good for video work, and the size could actually be of a benefit here?

I'll need to hold the A9 to decide on the 35mm 1.8 or 2.8 to see how the size stacks up. I'm still finding something about the Sigma 1.4 alluring though. Maybe I need to do some extensive research and I think my quest for compact could be getting in the way.
Click to expand...
The lenses you mention are quite different so obviously it’ll be up to you which focal length you prefer. Most of the lenses you’ve mentioned are all good in their own way.

I think you’ll find both the f1.8 and f2.8 lenses are fine on the A9. I’ve had the Sony 35mm f2.8 and thought it was great, the only downside is lack of subject isolation with it being relatively slow aperture for a prime.

The new 35mm GM looks great but is pricey. All GM’s are expensive though. I’d like the 16-35mm f2.8 GM but it’s so expensive, especially when there’s a very good 16-35mm f4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top