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

I never pre-order anything, prefer to wait and see what something is like first.
 
Willo said:
Primary reason I sold my D600.

Prices are up at WEX, £1300 for A7 body and £1700 for A7R. Not bad, going to wait for some reviews.
Click to expand...


I would NOT bother with either of those bodies- you could buy a mint condition A7Riii for £1700 :) and have a massive 42mp sensor
 
Lez325 said:
I would NOT bother with either of those bodies- you could buy a mint condition A7Riii for £1700 :) and have a massive 42mp sensor
Click to expand...
Even less new grey(y)
 
robj20 said:
I think your looking at it wrong, it doesn't ruin your photo from what I've read. It's a bit like saying a shot that was taken at ISO 200 is ruined Vs one taken at ISO 100. It's just a little bit worse and nothing you can do to get it back after the fact so where possible use ISO 100 (Uncompressed).

That's the way I see it anyway. You won't always notice it mostly because you won't have anything to directly compare it to unless you take the shot again with the other settings.
Click to expand...

Erm... That's exactly that I am saying, I don't really want to get back that extra 60MB of mostly useless data.
I am not a hoarder, if something has no practical purpose no point in keeping it :P
 
nandbytes said:
Erm... That's exactly that I am saying, I don't really want to get back that extra 60MB of mostly useless data.
I am not a hoarder, if something has no practical purpose no point in keeping it :p
Click to expand...
Why don’t you shoot uncompressed then convert to DNG, that way you have all the data and smaller files?

Obviously we all see things differently but why go to the trouble to shoot at specific ISO to maximise DR, even under exposing then bringing them back in post, won’t touch an A9 due to DR and resolution, have an A7RIV to get the best IQ and then ‘cripple’ the files? (Not literally cripple obviously ;))

Genuine question, just interested to understand your reasoning (y)
 
snerkler said:
Why don’t you shoot uncompressed then convert to DNG, that way you have all the data and smaller files?

Obviously we all see things differently but why go to the trouble to shoot at specific ISO to maximise DR, even under exposing then bringing them back in post, won’t touch an A9 due to DR and resolution, have an A7RIV to get the best IQ and then ‘cripple’ the files? (Not literally cripple obviously ;))

Genuine question, just interested to understand your reasoning (y)
Click to expand...

Because 120mb files takes longer write to cards or clear the buffer, I can only fit half as many images which isn't that many even on 128GB cards I mostly use. Then conversion is an extra step and slows down the workflow. Plus I prefer to keep the files in the "original" format rather than DNG.

When I need to maximize DR like shooting highly dynamic landscapes I do shoot uncompressed... But that's 10% of the time compared the other 90% I shoot compressed. But even the 10% I could get away with compressed for vast majority of them.

Compressed RAW from A7RIV gives more latitude than uncompressed A9. That's my whole point shooting compressed I am not losing anything for all practical intents and purposes.

Basically the whole compressed vs. uncompressed on Sony got out of hand thanks to the internet. As Sony gained popularity people found things to poke holes in, till such time people were happily shooting for a long time without issues.

My other favourite one is the light leak issue in the original A7. To replicate you had to shoot at highest ISO setting with 30s exposure and wide open. Seriously who does that! The picture is ruined long before the light leak ruins your shot.

Anyway the point is no one has been able to show me a credible photograph that was genuinely ruined by Sony's compression. There is no discernible loss in IQ or dynamic range from shooting it. So why is it a problem?
As far as I can see it's an internet hyperbole.

tbh even that 10% I shoot uncompressed I am not sure which one of those shots in any really benefitted from shooting uncompressed. Most of them in not all of them would probably be fine if I shot compressed.

As to shooting specific ISO to maximise the DR, there is no reason not to. I'd do the same regardless of the body I use.
 
Last edited:
Lez325 said:
I would NOT bother with either of those bodies- you could buy a mint condition A7Riii for £1700 :) and have a massive 42mp sensor
Click to expand...
This confused me as it’s a bit out of date talking about the A7R for £1700. The quoted post from Willo was posted in October 2013!

£1710 for a used excellent condition A7Riii from WEX. Strange how 7.5 years and 3 models later later the prices are similar even if we are talking about used.
 
nandbytes said:
Because 120mb files takes longer write to cards or clear the buffer, I can only fit half as many images which isn't that many even on 128GB cards I mostly use. Then conversion is an extra step and slows down the workflow. Plus I prefer to keep the files in the "original" format rather than DNG.

When I need to maximize DR like shooting highly dynamic landscapes I do shoot uncompressed... But that's 10% of the time compared the other 90% I shoot compressed. But even the 10% I could get away with compressed for vast majority of them.

Compressed RAW from A7RIV gives more latitude than uncompressed A9. That's my whole point shooting compressed I am not losing anything for all practical intents and purposes.

Basically the whole compressed vs. uncompressed on Sony got out of hand thanks to the internet. As Sony gained popularity people found things to poke holes in, till such time people were happily shooting for a long time without issues.

My other favourite one is the light leak issue in the original A7. To replicate you had to shoot at highest ISO setting with 30s exposure and wide open. Seriously who does that! The picture is ruined long before the light leak ruins your shot.

Anyway the point is no one has been able to show me a credible photograph that was genuinely ruined by Sony's compression. There is no discernible loss in IQ or dynamic range from shooting it. So why is it a problem?
As far as I can see it's an internet hyperbole.

tbh even that 10% I shoot uncompressed I am not sure which one of those shots in any really benefitted from shooting uncompressed. Most of them in not all of them would probably be fine if I shot compressed.

As to shooting specific ISO to maximise the DR, there is no reason not to. I'd do the same regardless of the body I use.
Click to expand...
Thanks, interesting take. It is difficult (for me at least) to find out how much (if any) DR is lost shooting compressed vs non-compressed.

However, I’ve just read something interesting that I’ve somehow missed, is that in continuous compressed shooting bit rage drops to 12 and noise profiles are altered resulting in higher noise and reduced DR. I’m not sure if this is all camera manufacturers or just Sony. That being said, it appears there’s little to know drop when using continuous compressed using the A9ii and in this type of shooting is surprisingly higher that the A7RIV :thinking:

Sony a9II EDR - the last word

This is the first in a series of posts about the Sony alpha 9 Mark II, aka the a9II. You can find other posts in this series by using the category list on the right, and selecting "a9II". The a9II arrived on Friday, earlier than I expected it. The packaging was the usual Sony box
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, interesting take. It is difficult (for me at least) to find out how much (if any) DR is lost shooting compressed vs non-compressed.

However, I’ve just read something interesting that I’ve somehow missed, is that in continuous compressed shooting bit rage drops to 12 and noise profiles are altered resulting in higher noise and reduced DR. I’m not sure if this is all camera manufacturers or just Sony. That being said, it appears there’s little to know drop when using continuous compressed using the A9ii and in this type of shooting is surprisingly higher that the A7RIV :thinking:

Sony a9II EDR - the last word

This is the first in a series of posts about the Sony alpha 9 Mark II, aka the a9II. You can find other posts in this series by using the category list on the right, and selecting "a9II". The a9II arrived on Friday, earlier than I expected it. The packaging was the usual Sony box
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
Click to expand...

It's pretty much most manufacturers last time I checked. Not sure about the likes of sport bodies line 1dx or d6.

Yeah A9II is pretty well designed for burst shooting. A7RIV not as much which I don't burst with it unless I am shooting action.
 
Just ordered the 35GM there Panamoz emailed me this morning to let me know it had come into stock so just ordered from there. Got a cheeky discount although I would imagine it will drop in price soon and I have probably over paid a little even with the discount.
 
Last edited:
I had a 'weird' thing happening yesterday where a number of my shots were markedly underexposed, such as the one below, you can see clearly by the histogram that it's not even close to hitting the highlights. My initial thought was that I must have accidentally knocked the exp comp but I've uploaded to Flickr and it's showing -0ev exposure bias. I used whole scene metering rather than the usual multimetering but why would this cause underexposure in a scene like this, I'd have thought whole scene metering would have been better for 'landscapes'?


Screenshot 2021-03-08 at 10.04.23 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
I get that quite a bit but I think you have to think about the lighting and how the camera and its metering sees it. If I don't think about it too much my first thought may be, Voila! It's "off" when we see the result on the screen but usually I can understand why if I look at and think about the scene and the light and try and understand the effect this will have on the metering system.
 
snerkler said:
I had a 'weird' thing happening yesterday where a number of my shots were markedly underexposed, such as the one below, you can see clearly by the histogram that it's not even close to hitting the highlights. My initial thought was that I must have accidentally knocked the exp comp but I've uploaded to Flickr and it's showing -0ev exposure bias. I used whole scene metering rather than the usual multimetering but why would this cause underexposure in a scene like this, I'd have thought whole scene metering would have been better for 'landscapes'?


Screenshot 2021-03-08 at 10.04.23 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...
If you look at the scene it seems like it’s been exposed for the sky. Proportionally most of the scene is sky. For landscapes I generally use multi-metering or, in certain circumstances, spot.
 
woof woof said:
I get that quite a bit but I think you have to think about the lighting and how the camera and its metering sees it. If I don't think about it too much my first thought may be, Voila! It's "off" when we see the result on the screen but usually I can understand why if I look at and think about the scene and the light and try and understand the effect this will have on the metering system.
Click to expand...
Stephen L said:
If you look at the scene it seems like it’s been exposed for the sky. Proportionally most of the scene is sky. For landscapes I generally use multi-metering or, in certain circumstances, spot.
Click to expand...
Thanks guys, I understand that it will have metered for the sky but what I don't understand is why it's not using the whole DR, I guess it's trying to make the sky neutral grey? You live and learn, I thought that this metering would have been better for landscapes but I think I will go back to multimetering. If I'd had more time I would have reviewed the images and adjusted accordingly, but when we're out on a dog walk I have an impatient wife waiting to carry on the walk ;)

Does multimetering have a focus point bias like Nikon?
 
In this scene, I would either use a mask on the “ground”, or a grad up from the bottom and increase the exposure. This way the sky is preserved. That is, unless the intention were to create a silhouette of the trees. I am not usually unduly worried about the state of the histogram on initial import, but work towards it being more like I want in processing. I think we/I sometimes get hung up on technicalities and less on what we want the image to convey.
 
f/2.8 said:
Just ordered the 35GM there Panamoz emailed me this morning to let me know it had come into stock so just ordered from there. Got a cheeky discount although I would imagine it will drop in price soon and I have probably over paid a little even with the discount.
Click to expand...

oh wow! its actually in stock. I'll be a little disappointed if you got yours way before my UK copy.
I did get my A7C nearly month and half before people in UK got theirs... certainly hopes its not that long for this lens.

if you don't mind me asking how much did you get yours for?
you always end up paying a tad bit more for being an early adopter but you do enjoy using it from "day 1".
 
Stephen L said:
In this scene, I would either use a mask on the “ground”, or a grad up from the bottom and increase the exposure. This way the sky is preserved. That is, unless the intention were to create a silhouette of the trees. I am not usually unduly worried about the state of the histogram on initial import, but work towards it being more like I want in processing. I think we/I sometimes get hung up on technicalities and less on what we want the image to convey.
Click to expand...
I'm not 'worried' about it and it can easily be rescued, I just wondered why it had metered like this as I wasn't expecting it. I've never used whole scene metering before though, I just need to learn how it sees things (y)
Mr Perceptive said:
@snerkler - did you shoot a JPG as well, whats the histogram like on that?
Click to expand...
No, raw only (y)
 
snerkler said:
I had a 'weird' thing happening yesterday where a number of my shots were markedly underexposed, such as the one below, you can see clearly by the histogram that it's not even close to hitting the highlights. My initial thought was that I must have accidentally knocked the exp comp but I've uploaded to Flickr and it's showing -0ev exposure bias. I used whole scene metering rather than the usual multimetering but why would this cause underexposure in a scene like this, I'd have thought whole scene metering would have been better for 'landscapes'?


Screenshot 2021-03-08 at 10.04.23 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I'm wondering why you did not notice it in the VF as you should see more or less what it will record
Rob.
 
nandbytes said:
oh wow! its actually in stock. I'll be a little disappointed if you got yours way before my UK copy.
I did get my A7C nearly month and half before people in UK got theirs... certainly hopes its not that long for this lens.

if you don't mind me asking how much did you get yours for?
you always end up paying a tad bit more for being an early adopter but you do enjoy using it from "day 1".
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s in stock with them but would imagine delivery will take a while because of how things are at the moment. Will just have to wait and see. I would have probably bought from WEX but as it’s still pre order they couldn’t say what the invoice date would be.

I promised I wouldn’t mention how much discount I got so that they didn’t get hassle from others. It wasn’t an awful lot and I only got it as they had promised they would do something for me because of some delivery issues the last time I ordered from them.
 
snerkler said:
I had a 'weird' thing happening yesterday where a number of my shots were markedly underexposed, such as the one below, you can see clearly by the histogram that it's not even close to hitting the highlights. My initial thought was that I must have accidentally knocked the exp comp but I've uploaded to Flickr and it's showing -0ev exposure bias. I used whole scene metering rather than the usual multimetering but why would this cause underexposure in a scene like this, I'd have thought whole scene metering would have been better for 'landscapes'?


Screenshot 2021-03-08 at 10.04.23 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I can't see it on Flickr, as it's marked as a private page, and I can't tell from this image, but does it have a thin line of white on the histogram going up to the right?
I'm just wondering if it's trying to avoid blowing a small number of white(ish) pixels in the clouds, and deliberately underexposing to do so?
 
snerkler said:
I had a 'weird' thing happening yesterday where a number of my shots were markedly underexposed, such as the one below, you can see clearly by the histogram that it's not even close to hitting the highlights. My initial thought was that I must have accidentally knocked the exp comp but I've uploaded to Flickr and it's showing -0ev exposure bias. I used whole scene metering rather than the usual multimetering but why would this cause underexposure in a scene like this, I'd have thought whole scene metering would have been better for 'landscapes'?


Screenshot 2021-03-08 at 10.04.23 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That looks correct for whole seen metering. Remember what the metering is trying to achieve.
 
GyRob said:
I'm wondering why you did not notice it in the VF as you should see more or less what it will record
Rob.
Click to expand...
As I said above, on dog walks my photos are literally grab shots and I don't take too much notice. I can normally rely on the metering though, but it will teach me not to learn about a different metering mode before trying it ;) As for shooting with the EVF, sometimes (especially when the light's behind you) there's some light leak from the eyecup meaning you don't always see the 'true' picture, which is why (when I'm shooting properly) I tend to rely on the histogram rather than the EVF (y)
Faldrax said:
I can't see it on Flickr, as it's marked as a private page, and I can't tell from this image, but does it have a thin line of white on the histogram going up to the right?
I'm just wondering if it's trying to avoid blowing a small number of white(ish) pixels in the clouds, and deliberately underexposing to do so?
Click to expand...
No the right side is completely empty.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I only asked as on for instance a Fuji camera the Histogram in camera is based on film simulation set in the JPG settings, this may be the same on other camera brands, though obviously they often don't have film simulations, just stuff like Natural, Vivid, Mono, etc
Click to expand...
I think that’s also true on Sony. Not film sims, obviously, but on Sony Vivid, etc.
 
robj20 said:
That looks correct for whole seen metering. Remember what the metering is trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I often get a histogram like the one above but usually it isn't a problem as it's likely to be at lower ISO's and the difference between what the camera sees and what I want is usually only a stop or so so pushing the histogram to the right post capture is unlikely to have a big effect on image quality, for me.
 
I noticed yesterday how much tighter my Nipon Kogaku 50mm f1.4 seems compared to by Voigtlander 50mm f2. I know lenses vary from type to type but in this instance it's quite noticeable. I think I might compare the FoV all my 50's, just for fun.

I've no idea if it's possible to accurately check what a lens actually is at home. Anyone know?
 
woof woof said:
I noticed yesterday how much tighter my Nipon Kogaku 50mm f1.4 seems compared to by Voigtlander 50mm f2. I know lenses vary from type to type but in this instance it's quite noticeable. I think I might compare the FoV all my 50's, just for fun.

I've no idea if it's possible to accurately check what a lens actually is at home. Anyone know?
Click to expand...

You could use a tool like the Cambridge in Colour Focal Length calculator.
If you had an object of known size, put it at the distance for the stated focal length, take a shot - adjust position so that it fills the frame, measure actual distance, and feed that back into the formula to give actual focal length.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm#calculator
 
Having looked at that and other similar links I'm certain I can't do this with enough accuracy to tell if one 50mm lens is really 48mm and another is really 56.

I think I'll just compare some for fun and leave it at that :D
 
Popped out this morning to give an outing to my new A9ii

A9ii with FE 200-600mm (@600mm)
1/2500th @ f6.3, ISO 8000 (quick trip thro' Topaz Denoise AI)

Female Mallard in flight, 15 shot burst, all in focus. I think I'm going to like it.
Hope this doesn't lose too much definition.

Mallard (f) if-2.jpg
 
I don't suppose for a minute that anyone is interested in this, but just in case you are then read on.

I have a buddy back home in the States that used to be a lens designer for a very prominent company and now he produces specialist bespoke lenses to order. Needless to say they are expensive if you don't know him.:) Anyway a time or two back I approached him on knocking up a couple of auxiliary lenses for my RX10M4 which he did. One being a Macro attachment that can get me as close as 2-1 (twice life size) with the basic lens set at approximately 90mm, It will go closer than that but the working distance then becomes unacceptably close. With the basic lens set to at approximately 200mm it produces an image of 1-1 (life size) with no vignetting at either of those magnifications.

The other lens that I asked him to knock up for me is a Wide Angle attachment which can get me an equivalent angle of view down to approximately 15mm in FF terms with the basic lens set to approximately 50mm. It will go wider than that but distortions start to set in at about the 40mm setting which to me is unacceptable.

In both cases these screw on adapter lenses are extremely good optically and its very difficult to see any drop in sharpness quality from the basic lens. I had to make & machine the mounts for these lenses to screw them onto my camera but as there is no mechanical parts to worry about the task was pretty easy.

So what we have here is a Macro attachment that can be worked comfortably down to twice life size and a Wide Angle Attachment that can give me comfortably from 15mm FF equivalent right up to 600mm FF equivalent with one Bridge Camera and a couple of screw on attachments.

Results will eventually find their way on to this thread in the near future.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I don't suppose for a minute that anyone is interested in this, but just in case you are then read on.

I have a buddy back home in the States that used to be a lens designer for a very prominent company and now he produces specialist bespoke lenses to order. Needless to say they are expensive if you don't know him.:) Anyway a time or two back I approached him on knocking up a couple of auxiliary lenses for my RX10M4 which he did. One being a Macro attachment that can get me as close as 2-1 (twice life size) with the basic lens set at approximately 90mm, It will go closer than that but the working distance then becomes unacceptably close. With the basic lens set to at approximately 200mm it produces an image of 1-1 (life size) with no vignetting at either of those magnifications.

The other lens that I asked him to knock up for me is a Wide Angle attachment which can get me an equivalent angle of view down to approximately 15mm in FF terms with the basic lens set to approximately 50mm. It will go wider than that but distortions start to set in at about the 40mm setting which to me is unacceptable.

In both cases these screw on adapter lenses are extremely good optically and its very difficult to see any drop in sharpness quality from the basic lens. I had to make & machine the mounts for these lenses to screw them onto my camera but as there is no mechanical parts to worry about the task was pretty easy.

So what we have here is a Macro attachment that can be worked comfortably down to twice life size and a Wide Angle Attachment that can give me comfortably from 15mm FF equivalent right up to 600mm FF equivalent with one Bridge Camera and a couple of screw on attachments.

Results will eventually find their way on to this thread in the near future.
Click to expand...

very interesting and would be interested in hearing some more details about the attachments like how much you paid for each and pictures of it on the camera if you don't mind sharing those.
 
nandbytes said:
very interesting and would be interested in hearing some more details about the attachments like how much you paid for each and pictures of it on the camera if you don't mind sharing those.
Click to expand...


Thank you fellow snapper, appreciate your reply.

"The price to me was "Silly Cheap" purely because we've been buddy’s since our school days, I don't at this moment in time have any snaps etc of the attachments on my camera but if I do get some done at some time I'll certainly post them on this thread. However I will be posting a few snaps on this thread in the future that I have shot using these attachments and will of course mention what I used to take the snaps which is something I always do anyway"
 
A Fred Miranda thread on the Sony 28-60mm f4-5.6...


That looks quite good to me.

He says...

"Since I received the FE 28-60mm, I've been impressed by its resolution and contrast, especially when we factor size and price.

I will be testing it against some of my lenses and today I will start comparing it to a lens I've been using for landscapes for a long time, the Voigtlander 40/1.2.

It's incredible that the Sony 28-60mm @42mm not only comes close to the prime, it actually does better in the corners."

No surprise there. The 40mm f1.2 is a nice lens but the corners are mushy, not as mushy as the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but not up to something like the Sony 35mm f2.8 which I compared mine to. It's impressive that this zoom does so well though.

And...

"The FE 28-60mm @40mm is already optimal at f/5.6 which is wide open starting at 40mm."

More...

"The optimal apertures for my copy which is surprisingly well centered at 28/40/60:

28mm (f/4.5)
40mm (f/5.6)
60mm (f/7.1)

At these apertures, the 28-60mm maintains similar IQ throughout the range. I would not hesitate using it for serious landscape photography. So far I have not seen issues with flare resistance and I do not know how its sunstar looks like. CA is well controlled."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top