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

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm sure I can't be the only person around here using the older Sony cameras. Any other "A" users around?

The wire frame "Huey" outside the Helicopter Museum at Weston Super Mare....

 

[Faldrax]

I'm sure I can't be the only person around here using the older Sony cameras. Any other "A" users around?

...

I have only very recently upgraded one of my A900's to an A7iv + LA-EA5 - still using mostly A-Mount lenses, and have my second A900 for native A-Mount.

The plan is to gradually migrate to native E-Mount lenses, but with a 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.4 in my collection , it will take a while, unless I get luck with the lottery! (I traded in the Tamron 150-600 for a Sony 200-600 when I got the A7iv, on the basis that it was with the long lens I most needed the best / fastest AF).

What has surprised me is just how much better the A7iv is in low light - I was expecting an improvement, but when I went to a family birthday celebration a few weeks back I found with the A7iv I could get good results using just the room light, compared to using the A900 at the same venue a couple of years earlier I had had to use a couple of off-camera flash bounced off the ceiling to get decent exposures.
The eye / face detect AF was also great - made candids much simpler, as I could just compose and shoot, without having to shift focus points, lock focus and recompose, etc.

 

[woof woof]

DPR have a couple of pieces on their most significant cameras... Part 1 and 2...

Most significant cameras of the DPReview era: Part 1

This is the first of a two-part series, looking back at the cameras that got us to where we are today (and a few that we just thought were interesting). This first installment covers the years 1998-2006 and takes us from DPReview's first review to the beginnings of live view.

www.dpreview.com

 

[Toggerman]

Hi all,

Does anyone have any experiences of either the Tamron 50-400mm or the Sigma 60-600mm for field sports?

One of the companies I work for does kids sports photos to print and sell on the day. Lately it's been mostly rugby and football with a lot more expected over the summer. It usually consists of kids aged from 7+ and on multiple small pitches at a time. We are tasked with getting team shots, headshots and action photos of each team/player. So far I've been using my 200-600 but been finding this a bit too long at times as often we stand right on the edge of the pitch, plus it is impractical for team photos on small pitches. I've been carrying a second body for the team shots with a 28-75mm Tammy on, this has not always been the best solution and doesn't help when the action comes near (ideally they want us to use 1 memory card at a time).

I love my 200-600, a lot. It was bought as a stop gap until my 400mm arrived but when it did I couldn't part with the 200-600. I begrudge the idea of changing it for something else but I'm also feeling that swapping to something with more range would make things a lot easier for me.

Any and all thoughts are welcome.

 

[Mike.P]

Any and all thoughts are welcome.

Sony 100-400mm is superb if 100mm is wide enough, works very well with the 1.4x as well so you could move the 200-600mm on if you felt the need (I couldn't and have ended up with both).

 

[nandbytes]

I have ended up with a slightly different setup - 70-300mm and 200-600mm. But my use cases as different too.

Ideally what I want (if Sony ever decides to catchup on APS-C bodies) is the new APS-C body+70-350mm and 200-600mm on FF.

 

[T_J_G]

New camera incoming - been a long time coming. Can finally lay one of the A7iii's to rest.

 

[snerkler]

New camera incoming - been a long time coming. Can finally lay one of the A7iii's to rest.

A7IV?

 

[T_J_G]

A7IV?

I spent 2 days researching after coming to the conclusion I can't risk the old A7iii's for much longer. The A7IV fitted the bill, perfectly. Had one in the basket in various shops, researched the cash back etc. It has perfect resolution, great AF and at a reasonable price.

So I bought an A9II

 

[mav]

Vixen. A7iv. 200-600

vixen by robb d, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

I ought to test the 85mm f1.4 Art DG DN to see what those Bokeh balls are like, I've got nothing to directly compare it too but I'm interested now

Well that was a mistake, the Sigma 85mm DG DN has cat eye bokeh at the edges too

 

[T_J_G]

Well that was a mistake, the Sigma 85mm DG DN has cat eye bokeh at the edges too

I wouldn’t worry too much, how often are your shooting in such a fashion where it becomes obvious. I’ve probably shot 20k images in the last 18 months on that lens and never worried about the cat eye bokeh.

However, the fact it looks knackered and the focus ring has jammed is another matter!

 

[nandbytes]

Well that was a mistake, the Sigma 85mm DG DN has cat eye bokeh at the edges too

I think samyang in this case is equally bad.
there is no getting away from most fast lenses.

if you after perfectly round smooth bokeh try the 100mm STF lens.

 

[Toggerman]

Sony 100-400mm is superb if 100mm is wide enough.

I do like the look of the 100-400, but I’m not sure if it would be enough.

With most of the team photos I’m at 50-70mm, sometimes wider if I’m really tight for space and have to get closer but I try to avoid doing that as much as possible.

 

[snerkler]

I wouldn’t worry too much, how often are your shooting in such a fashion where it becomes obvious. I’ve probably shot 20k images in the last 18 months on that lens and never worried about the cat eye bokeh.

However, the fact it looks knackered and the focus ring has jammed is another matter!

It was a bit in jest, it’s never bothered me before and I’ve always liked the Sigma rendering. It’s just I’ve never really noticed the cat eye bokeh before, or probably more that I’ve not understood bokeh ball properties and optical vignetting before and now that I have it’s jumping out at me

I think samyang in this case is equally bad.
there is no getting away from most fast lenses.

if you after perfectly round smooth bokeh try the 100mm STF lens.

The Samyang 50mm FE II doesn’t have it, and the 85mm GM doesn’t look too bad either, but these seem to be exceptions.

 

[nandbytes]

It was a bit in jest, it’s never bothered me before and I’ve always liked the Sigma rendering. It’s just I’ve never really noticed the cat eye bokeh before, or probably more that I’ve not understood bokeh ball properties and optical vignetting before and now that I have it’s jumping out at me

The Samyang 50mm FE II doesn’t have it, and the 85mm GM doesn’t look too bad either, but these seem to be exceptions.

85GM definitely has it
example (screenshot of top part of the picture shot in portrait orientation)

 

[snerkler]

85GM definitely has it
example (screenshot of top part of the picture shot in portrait orientation)

View attachment 389549

Yeah it has optical vignetting but it's more of an oval than cat eye with sharp points, however I wouldn't consider the GM as it's too heavy.

I just need to get over it, I've always really like the rendering of the Sigma DG DN. Obviously this is a new discovery for me so I'm kind of fixated on it, but I'll move on and forget about it hopefully

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Obviously this is a new discovery for me so I'm kind of fixated on it, but I'll move on and forget about it hopefully

Not a chance

 

[snerkler]

The Sigma background is generally buttery smooth


A1_02769-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02783-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr




But then so's the Samyang 50mm FE II


A1_02703 copy-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02712 copy-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

The Sigma background is generally buttery smooth..

Have you thought of looking at lenses with straight rather that rounded aperture blades? One obvious impact is sunstars which you'll struggle to get from lenses with rounded aperture blades and you can also get shaped specular highlights. It makes for a different look and there are some lenses with rounded aperture blades at some apertures and straight ones at others. Voiglander do lenses like this and I think it is a good idea as it gives more choices.

 

[nandbytes]

Yeah it has optical vignetting but it's more of an oval than cat eye with sharp points, however I wouldn't consider the GM as it's too heavy.

I just need to get over it, I've always really like the rendering of the Sigma DG DN. Obviously this is a new discovery for me so I'm kind of fixated on it, but I'll move on and forget about it hopefully

In a more controlled lab test, I'm sure I can get it to be more pointy. But I guess that's the point, in real life you hardly notice.
Sigma 85DN is my most used prime. I have no problems with it.

 

[snerkler]

Have you thought of looking at lenses with straight rather that rounded aperture blades? One obvious impact is sunstars which you'll struggle to get from lenses with rounded aperture blades and you can also get shaped specular highlights. It makes for a different look and there are some lenses with rounded aperture blades at some apertures and straight ones at others. Voiglander do lenses like this and I think it is a good idea as it gives more choices.

Yeah, I don't like hexagonal etc shaped bokeh as much.

I just need to get over it, after all photography should be about the subject and/or the moment, not about what shape the bokeh is

 

[snerkler]

In a more controlled lab test, I'm sure I can get it to be more pointy. But I guess that's the point, in real life you hardly notice.
Sigma 85DN is my most used prime. I have no problems with it.

I'd say in terms of primes 50mm is my most used these days. I'd love to do more portraiture though, and if I do then the 85mm may get more use.

 

[addicknchips]

It was a bit in jest, it’s never bothered me before and I’ve always liked the Sigma rendering. It’s just I’ve never really noticed the cat eye bokeh before, or probably more that I’ve not understood bokeh ball properties and optical vignetting before and now that I have it’s jumping out at me

The Samyang 50mm FE II doesn’t have it, and the 85mm GM doesn’t look too bad either, but these seem to be exceptions.

I think every fast aperture lens will have cats eye bokeh at the edges. Certainly every f1.2, f1.4 etc lens I’ve used wide open will display this in the corners.

 

[LeeRatters]

I must say, I very rarely look at or notice anything in the bokeh as such. As long as it's nice and OFF and the subject is sharp that's about as far as I go with it.

 

[Faldrax]

I must say, I very rarely look at or notice anything in the bokeh as such. As long as it's nice and OFF and the subject is sharp that's about as far as I go with it.

That, to my mind, is how it should be - 'good' bokeh should be unobtrusive - so your eyes are drawn to the subject, rather than the background.
Part of that is the rendering by the lens, part is the composition.

 

[woof woof]

There have been a few articles about this on The Online Photographer. I can see the view some take that we should be looking at the subject not the oof background but there's no denying that a distracting background can be... er... distracting and the quality of the less sharp areas can be pleasing in themselves.

I do think its important to think about these things in context and look at our/your photography as a whole. I'm not a big user of f1.x apertures so the percentage of my shots which are affected by bokeh quality is relatively small but for other people this can be a big thing and I can see why some may choose a lens because of the way it renders.

In Defense of Depth

From Russian Noir by Jason Eskenazi By John Kennerdell If there's a single received idea that fires up the imagination of my young photographer friends these days, it's that for "professional looking" photographs they should buy fast lenses and then...

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

 

[snerkler]

I think every fast aperture lens will have cats eye bokeh at the edges. Certainly every f1.2, f1.4 etc lens I’ve used wide open will display this in the corners.

Nope, Samyang 50mm FE II doesn't (although they're not perfectly round) Conversely the Samyang 85mm FE II suffers really badly from the images I've seen.

 

[woof woof]

When comparing lenses surely it's best to look at ultimate performance and also performance at the same aperture?

I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong but it looks like the LHS picture is at f1.4 and the RHS picture is f1.2. I suspect that the swirliness will still be there at f1.4 with the Sony but lessened a bit. In this instance, comparing bokeh balls and round v cats eye, one test should be f1.4 v f1.4.

Oh, just thought on something wide aperture related.

Are people these days drawn to wide apertures more because many of us only look at relatively small pictures these days? On social media or on a phone a wide aperture shot can look sharp and even make us want less depth and more blur but when we see a larger picture in print or on a larger screen the lack of depth and sharpness may be more obvious.

 

[Faldrax]

When comparing lenses surely it's best to look at ultimate performance and also performance at the same aperture?

I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong but it looks like the LHS picture is at f1.4 and the RHS picture is f1.2. I suspect that the swirliness will still be there at f1.4 with the Sony but lessened a bit. In this instance, comparing bokeh balls and round v cats eye, one test should be f1.4 v f1.4.

Agree, ideally you have the Sigma vs Sony both at f/1.4, plus Sony f/1.4 vs Sony f/1.2.

 

[nandbytes]

Nope, Samyang 50mm FE II doesn't (although they're not perfectly round) Conversely the Samyang 85mm FE II suffers really badly from the images I've seen.

View attachment 389582

Yeah, I don't like hexagonal etc shaped bokeh as much.

I just need to get over it, after all photography should be about the subject and/or the moment, not about what shape the bokeh is

I guess your options are to either buy slower lenses, stop down the lenses and if they have more aperture blades then bokeh remains circular....

or if you want the shallower DoF you can try medium formal like GFX, lenses are slower but have shallower DoF from larger sensor.

or you can buy specialist lenses like STF.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Are people these days drawn to wide apertures more because many of us only look at relatively small pictures these days? On social media or on a phone a wide aperture shot can look sharp and even make us want less depth and more blur but when we see a larger picture in print or on a larger screen the lack of depth and sharpness may be more obvious.

That's probably true for non-toggers, but I don't really try to analyse a picture until it's on a screen at least 15" and preferably >24".

 

[woof woof]

That's probably true for non-toggers, but I don't really try to analyse a picture until it's on a screen at least 15" and preferably >24".

I try to start at the end product and work back from that to decide the kit settings but of course all this can go wrong as I can't stop myself pixel peeping but I try to be sensible.

For me the end product is the picture on my lap top screen. I haven't done an A3 print for years but occasionally do A4 and smaller. I'm very happy with the last three A4 prints I did.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I did that A4 zine recently and was very pleased with how the pictures transferred from screen to paper.

 

[woof woof]

I've watched a few of this guys vids since I watched one of him wandering around an Italian city with a Sony 50mm f2.5 on his camera but watching his latest ones I'm just annoyed that his vlogging camera and his stills camera are giving very different colours. I assume this is deliberate but why he'd want to water down the lovely blue sky and general colours with this slightly over exposed or maybe just over bright look for the end picture I just don't know.

I think I'll avoid his vids for a while and see if his style changes.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bWaPINUZo

 

[Jase]

I've watched a few of this guys vids since I watched one of him wandering around an Italian city with a Sony 50mm f2.5 on his camera but watching his latest ones I'm just annoyed that his vlogging camera and his stills camera are giving very different colours. I assume this is deliberate but why he'd want to water down the lovely blue sky and general colours with this slightly over exposed or maybe just over bright look for the end picture I just don't know.

I think I'll avoid his vids for a while and see if his style changes.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bWaPINUZo

That’s been his style for a long time so doubt it will change soon.

 

[woof woof]

That’s been his style for a long time so doubt it will change soon.

Ah. I'll give him a miss unless there's some special interest then.

Blue skies are a rarity for me so I want to keep them. People are gushing in the comments though but it's generally not a look that appeals to me after seeing what I think is the more accurate or maybe just more pleasing to me look his vlogging camera is giving, Looking at them in isolation and forgetting what he could have done I do think his pictures look nice.

 

[snerkler]

I guess your options are to either buy slower lenses, stop down the lenses and if they have more aperture blades then bokeh remains circular....

or if you want the shallower DoF you can try medium formal like GFX, lenses are slower but have shallower DoF from larger sensor.

or you can buy specialist lenses like STF.

Or stop being a muppet and forget about it Circular blades don't stop optical vignetting though

I did that A4 zine recently and was very pleased with how the pictures transferred from screen to paper.

I did that whole photobook I posted a while back on A4 and was pretty happy with it, although the colours are quite muted in comparison. The company said they shouldn't be that way and sent some reprints but they were exactly the same as the previous book. I did a couple of prints and they were much more like what I see on my screen.

 

[snerkler]

More Sigma butteriness


A1_02851 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02866-Edit-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[LeeRatters]

I've watched a few of this guys vids since I watched one of him wandering around an Italian city with a Sony 50mm f2.5 on his camera but watching his latest ones I'm just annoyed that his vlogging camera and his stills camera are giving very different colours. I assume this is deliberate but why he'd want to water down the lovely blue sky and general colours with this slightly over exposed or maybe just over bright look for the end picture I just don't know.

I think I'll avoid his vids for a while and see if his style changes.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bWaPINUZo

He's pretty much always shot in that soft, airy style.

I actually had an Instagram comment the other day saying my stuff had a similar feel to his work.