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

ancient_mariner said:
Perhaps.

I'm trying to put togther a zine of my canal shots. making the final selection is really hard because the lenses used (Sony G 24-105, Zeiss 55, Samyang 50 & 85 f1.4, Tamron 90 f2.8 macro, Sigma 12-24, minolta 70-210) all make very different pictures. They're great alone, but in the context of a set the differences are slightly jarring. If I do this again I'll just choose 1 or 2 lenses that render similarly like the Sammys.

FWIW The Sony and Sigma give a 'hard' rendering while the Sammys and Minolta give a soft rendering. The Tamron is in the middle.
Click to expand...

I'm doing the same with my "village" stuff. I've used the 35GM and CV40 and luckily there isn't too much of a difference between them. To my eyes at least!
 
snerkler said:
I'd actually not considered colour differences etc between lenses as I've never noticed anything jumping out at me, however out of curiosity I've just gone back and checked a couple of shoots where I did use difference brands and to my eyes the Samyang 50mm FE II and Sigma 85mm DG DN look pretty closely matched to me. Initially I thought the jacket looked different but if you check the right arm on both where the light is coming from it's the smae brighter yellow/orange compared to the darker orange in when shaded.


Screenshot 2023-03-01 at 11.29.12 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Toby, I'll agree that they are quite close (I'll forgive the blown highlights on the hat on the RH image :ROFLMAO: ) - but looking at your flickr shots, the Samyang is very soft in comparison with the Sigma (no real surprise here), but it does make me wonder what sort of rabbit holes you disappear down when getting into comparisons of lens sharpness. If you putting together a portfolio of shots as @ancient_mariner is (canal project) then you couldn't IMO have Sigma/Samyang shots side by side - if both shot wide open. Maybe the Samyang sharpens up when stopped down a little, but for me I want a prime lens on my main system to be sharp at all apertures. I know we are both not professionals, but that Samyang would wind the **** out of me, I'd rather have less glass (restricted focal range) but more consistency.

I make quite a few zines (little projects), and when selecting shots, differences often show, meaning that certain shots cannot be placed side by side. Usually I end up junking the offenders, sometimes I'll go and re-shoot them, but lately I've been using one body and a restricted group of lenses for each zine. It makes life a lot easier.
 
Consistency is not something I generally aim for. I like to get a set of pictures as my sort of definitive collection for a place and the set I like best does show colour consistency as I only used one lens. As that set is my favourite maybe it's something I should aim for.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Toby, I'll agree that they are quite close (I'll forgive the blown highlights on the hat on the RH image :ROFLMAO: ) - but looking at your flickr shots, the Samyang is very soft in comparison with the Sigma (no real surprise here), but it does make me wonder what sort of rabbit holes you disappear down when getting into comparisons of lens sharpness. If you putting together a portfolio of shots as @ancient_mariner is (canal project) then you couldn't IMO have Sigma/Samyang shots side by side - if both shot wide open. Maybe the Samyang sharpens up when stopped down a little, but for me I want a prime lens on my main system to be sharp at all apertures. I know we are both not professionals, but that Samyang would wind the **** out of me, I'd rather have less glass (restricted focal range) but more consistency.

I make quite a few zines (little projects), and when selecting shots, differences often show, meaning that certain shots cannot be placed side by side. Usually I end up junking the offenders, sometimes I'll go and re-shoot them, but lately I've been using one body and a restricted group of lenses for each zine. It makes life a lot easier.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing what you're seeing the Samyang looks sharp enough to me, I can see all the pores in the skin etc. Maybe it's the way it's uploaded, maybe it's because I downsample all my photos to 2000px on the long edge for flickr, or maybe my eyes just don't work like yours ;)

I'm not sure ho well these screen grabs will show (edit not very well as they look very soft :LOL:) but here's a couple of shots with the Samyang and then 100% crops, both at f1.4

Screenshot 2023-03-01 at 13.00.13 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Screenshot 2023-03-01 at 12.59.49 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
@snerkler - I do see a difference, and to me the skin looks a lot more 'waxy' on the Samyang (and the image looks softer)- but as you say these are viewed through my eyes. Its all subjective, if you like them then great. I'm sure you're not taking pictures to please me :ROFLMAO: You don't have to convince me, only yourself!!! Look at the two images from same shoot on flickr of the guy in the red coat, either the Samyang has missed focus or the face is whole lot softer.

I'm not surprised at the sharpness differences, we are comparing some 'premium' third party glass with some 'mid-range' third party glass - of course there will be differences, in IQ, build quality, coatings, colour rendering, etc.

snerkler said:
No Blown Highlights
Click to expand...

Well getting the RGB values off the hat says different - it may only be a few individual pixels, which might not show up in the LR histogram (also might be caused after the JPG compression, and not visible in the RAW in LR)


@woof woof - experimenting with a lot of legacy and new glass is a significant part of your photographic hobby, not surprised that consistency between lens doesn't matter in this
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@snerkler - I do see a difference, and to me the skin looks a lot more 'waxy' on the Samyang (and the image looks softer)- but as you say these are viewed through my eyes. Its all subjective, if you like them then great. I'm sure you're not taking pictures to please me :ROFLMAO: You don't have to convince me, only yourself!!! Look at the two images from same shoot on flickr of the guy in the red coat, either the Samyang has missed focus or the face is whole lot softer.

I'm not surprised at the sharpness differences, we are comparing some 'premium' third party glass with some 'mid-range' third party glass - of course there will be differences, in IQ, build quality, coatings, colour rendering, etc.



Well getting the RGB values off the hat says different - it may only be a few individual pixels, which might not show up in the LR histogram (also might be caused after the JPG compression, and not visible in the RAW in LR)


@woof woof - experimenting with a lot of legacy and new glass is a significant part of your photographic hobby, not surprised that consistency between lens doesn't matter in this
Click to expand...
Oh, my sole intention of my photos i to make you happy :LOL:

Just zoomed in to 400% and still not seeing blown areas, maybe flickr or TP doing some weird stuff? How are you measuring it?

With regards to the guy in the red coat with the grey beard the only one I took with the Sigma is the close up so you'd expect more detail, plus his face is in the light as opposed to shadows on the ones taken with the Samyang. However, having just looked in LR the sharpening on the Sigma image (5222) had been bumped up to 96 for some reason :eek: I must have caught it by accident and not noticed :headbang: :LOL:
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@woof woof - experimenting with a lot of legacy and new glass is a significant part of your photographic hobby, not surprised that consistency between lens doesn't matter in this
Click to expand...

I like day out and holiday sets but what I also like is a set which documents a place and of course I visit places multiple times with multiple lenses so a consistent set for a place including pictures from different visits including different conditions could be something to think about. It's something that has not been too important to me but that one favourite set does show that it could be something to think about.
 
snerkler said:
Just zoomed in to 400% and still not seeing blown areas,
Click to expand...

If some areas are blown so what? :D

This is one thing I don't obsess over as by eye some areas can look effectively "blown." When looking at the histogram and the coloured bits indicating blown areas post capture sometime it's only tiny things in the background which are blow and I do think that sometimes having "blown" areas can make a picture look better.
 
woof woof said:
If some areas are blown so what? :D

This is one thing I don't obsess over as by eye some areas can look effectively "blown." When looking at the histogram and the coloured bits indicating blown areas post capture sometime it's only tiny things in the background which are blow and I do think that sometimes having "blown" areas can make a picture look better.
Click to expand...

I agree, in the context of a photograph blown areas may be appropriate, but in the context of a technical anaylsis they are probably not! Which is why I don't get the obsession with sharpness everywhere - there are far more important things to think/worry about when making a photograph than every technicality. IMHO of course :)
 
woof woof said:
If some areas are blown so what? :D

This is one thing I don't obsess over as by eye some areas can look effectively "blown." When looking at the histogram and the coloured bits indicating blown areas post capture sometime it's only tiny things in the background which are blow and I do think that sometimes having "blown" areas can make a picture look better.
Click to expand...
I like to get a true to life exposure, sometimes that means some areas are overexposed or even blown, depending on the scene I think if we try to rescue too much then it starts to look a bit HDR and unnatural. YMMV
Mr Perceptive said:
I agree, in the context of a photograph blown areas may be appropriate, but in the context of a technical anaylsis they are probably not! Which is why I don't get the obsession with sharpness everywhere - there are far more important things to think/worry about when making a photograph than every technicality. IMHO of course :)
Click to expand...
As I've said I'm not obsessed with sharpness with images on the whole (unless obviously soft) but I do like looking into equipment and seeing what the performance is like, and therefore you tend to look at their technical capabilities. After all, this is the "Talk Equipment" section of the forum :p
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I agree, in the context of a photograph blown areas may be appropriate, but in the context of a technical anaylsis they are probably not! Which is why I don't get the obsession with sharpness everywhere - there are far more important things to think/worry about when making a photograph than every technicality. IMHO of course :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure blown areas should be a part of a technical analysis unless we're talking about the DR of the camera. Blown areas can ultimately be down to DR but beyond that and assuming the photographer knows what they're doing and is making deliberate choices we may be looking at the decisions the photographer makes and this can be personal preference and opinion and for me those things don't come under technical analysis because they're personal preference and opinion.

I'm not obsessed with sharpness either. Some lenses have quite rapid fall off away from the centre of the frame and whilst across the frame sharpness has its place so does a fall off in sharpness if it gets you a look you like. The in frame characteristics of a lens at different apertures and how it renders at different apertures and distances is something I do look at.
 
snerkler said:
As I've said I'm not obsessed with sharpness with images on the whole (unless obviously soft) but I do like looking into equipment and seeing what the performance is like, and therefore you tend to look at their technical capabilities. After all, this is the "Talk Equipment" section of the forum :p
Click to expand...

Yup. One thing I do like is assessing the kit myself and watching and reading reviews of the kit I don't have. Sharpness is just another technical thing to look at, assess and talk about and these days bokeh is too, and other things too like CA and flare and all the rest :D
 
A lot depends on what you need from a lens. It's getting easier to 'add sharpness' to a picture, but we're not there completely. However if rendering of an image is important to you then giving up a little sharpness for an image that's pleasing to the eye is a small price to pay.
 
I'm currently wading though folders deleting and I'm finding some I'd forgotten about but quite like.

Taken six years ago, A7 and Sony 35mm f2.8.

tLL1h1Q.jpg


It was mainly to capture the rigs on the horizon making their way into the port possibly for dismantling.
 
ancient_mariner said:
A lot depends on what you need from a lens. It's getting easier to 'add sharpness' to a picture, but we're not there completely. However if rendering of an image is important to you then giving up a little sharpness for an image that's pleasing to the eye is a small price to pay.
Click to expand...
Very true, with Topaz Sharpen you can make pretty much any lens look sharper than a sharp thing. Over the years I've actually dialed back the amount of sharpening I use (except that mistake I mentioned earlier ;))
 
woof woof said:
Yup. One thing I do like is assessing the kit myself and watching and reading reviews of the kit I don't have. Sharpness is just another technical thing to look at, assess and talk about and these days bokeh is too, and other things too like CA and flare and all the rest :D
Click to expand...
I don't look at CA and flare too much as CA's easily corrected, and it's very rare that I shoot into harsh sunlight. That being said the other week I was out in the morning golden hour shooting towards the sun and the flare off my reversed grad made the image unusable. I think a large part of that was due to the filter being dirty and having marks on it, but I didn't take out any cloths to clean it :facepalm:
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Toby, I'll agree that they are quite close i'll forgive the blown highlights on the hat on the RH image (I :ROFLMAO: ) - but looking at your flickr shots, the Samyang is very soft in comparison with the Sigma (no real surprise here), but it does make me wonder what sort of rabbit holes you disappear down when getting into comparisons of lens sharpness. If you putting together a portfolio of shots as @ancient_mariner is (canal project) then you couldn't IMO have Sigma/Samyang shots side by side - if both shot wide open. Maybe the Samyang sharpens up when stopped down a little, but for me I want a prime lens on my main system to be sharp at all apertures. I know we are both not professionals, but that Samyang would wind the **** out of me, I'd rather have less glass (restricted focal range) but more consistency.

I make quite a few zines (little projects), and when selecting shots, differences often show, meaning that certain shots cannot be placed side by side. Usually I end up junking the offenders, sometimes I'll go and re-shoot them, but lately I've been using one body and a restricted group of lenses for each zine. It makes life a lot easier.
Click to expand...
Such a medium format biatch :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Sony 20-70mm f4 is now on e-infinity for £989, quite surprised it’s that price straight off the bat. Makes me wonder what it’ll drop to over the next few months.
 
snerkler said:
Sony 20-70mm f4 is now on e-infinity for £989, quite surprised it’s that price straight off the bat. Makes me wonder what it’ll drop to over the next few months.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously tempted?

I have two things on order :D
 
woof woof said:
Are you seriously tempted?

I have two things on order :D
Click to expand...
Three lenses are on my radar, unfortunately I don’t have the cash to buy any at the moment. I was just surprised that the 20-70mm is so much cheaper already, IIRC they’re usually much closer to uk prices at launch.
 
What are the others?

I don't have anything on my radar apart from the two things I have on order but I'm sure something else will crop up out of the blue.

I have sold some manual lenses and might try to sell some more as I'm just not using the film era ones these days but I really don't want to use ebay so if they don't sell here I'll have to try a buyer like Ffordes.

Apart from lenses I'm dreading the day my A7 conks. It'll be 10 years old this year.
 
woof woof said:
What are the others?

I don't have anything on my radar apart from the two things I have on order but I'm sure something else will crop up out of the blue.

I have sold some manual lenses and might try to sell some more as I'm just not using the film era ones these days but I really don't want to use ebay so if they don't sell here I'll have to try a buyer like Ffordes.

Apart from lenses I'm dreading the day my A7 conks. It'll be 10 years old this year.
Click to expand...
The 16-35mm PZ and 35mm GM. I’d also be interested in what the 50mm f1.4 GM renders like but I’m happy with the Samyang and I don’t think I could justify the price over the Sammy so it’s not really in my radar.
 
snerkler said:
The 16-35mm PZ and 35mm GM. I’d also be interested in what the 50mm f1.4 GM renders like but I’m happy with the Samyang and I don’t think I could justify the price over the Sammy so it’s not really in my radar.
Click to expand...

All nice lenses :D

I have a 35 and a 50 on order.
 
snerkler said:
Which ones, legacy ones?
Click to expand...

New E mount ones. A fast 35mm and a very fast 50mm, but these are possibly lenses which aren't on anyone elses radar :D

All will be revealed when they arrive :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Apart from lenses I'm dreading the day my A7 conks. It'll be 10 years old this year.
Click to expand...

You know I'm like you in this regard Alan. I love the simplicity and basic'ness (?) of the A7 especially with manual focus lenses. It just feels more mechanical to me. But since getting the newer body, there are some very nice little features and extras of it aside from the obvious. I did shoot a 300 shot timelapse the other night though but on the A7 as I thought 24mp would be plenty to throw at the computer! :ROFLMAO:
 
Mike.P said:
Its why I'm not buying any lenses, hoping for something interesting between an A1 & my A9
Click to expand...
The ZV is pretty much nailed on I think, I just wonder if one's the A9iii.
 
Went out shooting with our new a7RV, yesterday. It's incredible. We bought it for landscape/fine-art, but it would make one hell of a wedding camera if I could only afford 3 more of them - having the ability to switch between S,M,L lossless RAW is very useful.
 
decigallen said:
Went out shooting with our new a7RV, yesterday. It's incredible. We bought it for landscape/fine-art, but it would make one hell of a wedding camera if I could only afford 3 more of them - having the ability to switch between S,M,L lossless RAW is very useful.
Click to expand...
I didn’t actually think anyone used the S,M and large file settings ;)
 
decigallen said:
Went out shooting with our new a7RV, yesterday. It's incredible. We bought it for landscape/fine-art, but it would make one hell of a wedding camera if I could only afford 3 more of them - having the ability to switch between S,M,L lossless RAW is very useful.
Click to expand...

I thought that feature was great on a 10 year old 5D2 lol

It's amazing how some tech takes so long for others to adopt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top