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

From the rumor site, direct link to the review...

sonyalpha.blog

Sony Alpha Blog : Viltrox 16mm F1.8

in Blue English / en noir en Français All photos , taken with Sony A7RIV and with minimal post processing are available in full size (61Mpix) in the following Flickr album : Viltrox 16mm F1.8 Toute…
sonyalpha.blog sonyalpha.blog

I think this lens looks a bit awkward with the big sticking up window on the top but I suppose that's a minor thing.

It gets a good review here though.
 
gman said:
Lovely tones as usual and very clean, yet plenty to look at. May I ask, is this a panoramic?
Click to expand...

Thank you :) No, not a panoramic shot, single 40mm frame. A lot of people shoot wide here and f/16 from what I gather for DOF but the bridge just ends up a bit smaller then. I think I prefer the tighter frame with the OOF foreground.
 
LeeRatters said:
Thank you :) No, not a panoramic shot, single 40mm frame. A lot of people shoot wide here and f/16 from what I gather for DOF but the bridge just ends up a bit smaller then. I think I prefer the tighter frame with the OOF foreground.
Click to expand...

I really thought it must have been at least a small stitch because there's so much in focus at f/2.8. I guess the dof is a lot bigger with 40mm than I realised!
 
gman said:
I really thought it must have been at least a small stitch because there's so much in focus at f/2.8. I guess the dof is a lot bigger with 40mm than I realised!
Click to expand...

It's not so much 40mm, that's not too long. You can get a lot of depth from a distance in front of the lens to the far distance or at least to a distance at which things are rendered too small or with not enough detail to be seen to be obviously out of the depth with a wider aperture than f2.8 and with longer lenses than 40mm, like 50mm. I can't speak for longer than 50mm as 50mm is already getting long for me :D What's important is where you set focus and the distance stuff is from the camera and its size in the frame. If there's nothing you want sharp in the foreground (or there could be nothing making it into the frame close enough to the camera to be out of the depth) mucho depth is still possible within the frame at wide apertures. I'm a fan of not using smaller apertures unless necessary as it can add little and take away shutter speed. Unless you're pixel peeping.

Soz if you knew this already.
 
Last edited:
Is it the Sony 24-105mm F4 people were recommending as a standard lens rather than the Tamron 28-200mm? I was shooting the Tamron in similar shooting conditions to the Sigma 100-400mm the other day whereas the Sigma was nailing just about every shot, the Tamron was hardly nailing any at all. I don't know if it's some problem with the lens I have (and I think it's long out of warranty anyway) or some issue with the A9 but its performance is so wildly inconsistent it just puts me off using it so I think I have to give up the idea of a superzoom on FE-mount and consider other options.
 
gman said:
I really thought it must have been at least a small stitch because there's so much in focus at f/2.8. I guess the dof is a lot bigger with 40mm than I realised!
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people over close the aperture down. Especially in landscape photography. Those houses and Bridge wouldn't have been any sharper at f/11 but my shutter speed might have been too low, or my ISO too high..... I've seen them shoot a lone tree, at a distance, and they only want the tree in focus, but they stop down to f/11 or even f/16..... I've got just a tree fully in focus before with the 70-180mm at f/2.8!
 
JohnMcL7 said:
Is it the Sony 24-105mm F4 people were recommending as a standard lens rather than the Tamron 28-200mm? I was shooting the Tamron in similar shooting conditions to the Sigma 100-400mm the other day whereas the Sigma was nailing just about every shot, the Tamron was hardly nailing any at all. I don't know if it's some problem with the lens I have (and I think it's long out of warranty anyway) or some issue with the A9 but its performance is so wildly inconsistent it just puts me off using it so I think I have to give up the idea of a superzoom on FE-mount and consider other options.
Click to expand...
Sounds like an issue with the lens to me. The 24-105mm is a great performer but I must admit it left me a bit cold and I didn't enjoy using it for some reason, not sure why.
 
gman said:
I really thought it must have been at least a small stitch because there's so much in focus at f/2.8. I guess the dof is a lot bigger with 40mm than I realised!
Click to expand...
It might be worth reading about the hyperfocal distance if you don't already know about it. For 40mm f2.8 on FF the hyperfocal distance is 18.9m, if you focus at this point everything from 9.5m to infinite will be in focus.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Depth of field and hyperfocal distance calculator
www.dofmaster.com


As Lee says it's not always necessary to stop a lens down for landscape, depending on what your requirements are of course. I do tend to stop mine down for a couple of reasons, my go to landscape lens is sharper across the frame stopped down, and I tend to want as much DOF as possible. However, there are times such as Lee's photo where having the foreground out of focus works really well.

I tend to stop my lens down to f8 or f11 as diffraction starts to creep in at smaller apertures, I then use the hyperfocal distance to get as much DOF as possible. A more oldschool way, which many still use today, is to stop down to f22 and focus on the main subject (the bridge in the example above), f22 should still give a large DOF despite focussing quite a way into the frame. The problem with this, and why I don't do it, is diffraction is quite noticeable at f22. The only time I shoot smaller than f11 is if I want the starburst/sunburst effect from lights/the sun.
 
snerkler said:
It might be worth reading about the hyperfocal distance if you don't already know about it. For 40mm f2.8 on FF the hyperfocal distance is 18.9m, if you focus at this point everything from 9.5m to infinite will be in focus.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Depth of field and hyperfocal distance calculator
www.dofmaster.com


As Lee says it's not always necessary to stop a lens down for landscape, depending on what your requirements are of course. I do tend to stop mine down for a couple of reasons, my go to landscape lens is sharper across the frame stopped down, and I tend to want as much DOF as possible. However, there are times such as Lee's photo where having the foreground out of focus works really well.

I tend to stop my lens down to f8 or f11 as diffraction starts to creep in at smaller apertures, I then use the hyperfocal distance to get as much DOF as possible. A more oldschool way, which many still use today, is to stop down to f22 and focus on the main subject (the bridge in the example above), f22 should still give a large DOF despite focussing quite a way into the frame. The problem with this, and why I don't do it, is diffraction is quite noticeable at f22. The only time I shoot smaller than f11 is if I want the starburst/sunburst effect from lights/the sun.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I forgot all about the hyperfocal distance technique and was thinking only about the traditional subject focus point and dof. I've really let myself get out of touch! lol
 
One thing worth remembering when going for depth is the framing and the distance things are from the camera. For example if you're stood up shooting how near to you is the foreground that makes make it into the frame? Things may be closer and in the frame if you're kneeling. Distance and size in the frame are worth thinking about as there's no point in aiming to get everything from 2ft in front of the lens to infinity in the depth if there's nothing in the frame for 10 or 20m in front of you.
 
woof woof said:
One thing worth remembering when going for depth is the framing and the distance things are from the camera. For example if you're stood up shooting how near to you is the foreground that makes make it into the frame? Things may be closer and in the frame if you're kneeling. Distance and size in the frame are worth thinking about as there's no point in aiming to get everything from 2ft in front of the lens to infinity in the depth if there's nothing in the frame for 10 or 20m in front of you.
Click to expand...

Cheers, my new challenge is focus stacking for panoramic. Sod it, deep end here we come!
 
This has a good comparison of the 50mm f1.2 GM vs f1.4 GM towards the bottom as you can use the slider to directly compare the same shot. Side by side the f1.2 certainly renders nicer to my eyes but I wonder if you'd ever notice this if you didn't directly compare one to the other. They also compare the f1.4 GM against the f1.4 Zeiss and the GM is clearly sharper and with better contrast, but this leads to less creamy bokeh.

education.magicweddingphotographer.com

Sony 50mm f/1.4 GM review - wedding photography test - Education by Magic

Sony has just come out with a new 50mm GM lens, and this time we get a baby brother of the existing 50GM f/1.2 lens – the 50mm f/1.4 GM. First of all, regarding its build, we have yet another GM refreshment of the existing Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4, making it noticeably smaller and lighter […]
education.magicweddingphotographer.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
snerkler said:
This has a good comparison of the 50mm f1.2 GM vs f1.4 GM towards the bottom as you can use the slider to directly compare the same shot. Side by side the f1.2 certainly renders nicer to my eyes but I wonder if you'd ever notice this if you didn't directly compare one to the other. They also compare the f1.4 GM against the f1.4 Zeiss and the GM is clearly sharper and with better contrast, but this leads to less creamy bokeh.

education.magicweddingphotographer.com

Sony 50mm f/1.4 GM review - wedding photography test - Education by Magic

Sony has just come out with a new 50mm GM lens, and this time we get a baby brother of the existing 50GM f/1.2 lens – the 50mm f/1.4 GM. First of all, regarding its build, we have yet another GM refreshment of the existing Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4, making it noticeably smaller and lighter […]
education.magicweddingphotographer.com
Click to expand...
It does definitely show off how beautifully the background is blurred with the f/1.2 - I guess for the ultimate photos you would go for the f/1.2 if weight and money were not an issue
 
gilbouk said:
It does definitely show off how beautifully the background is blurred with the f/1.2 - I guess for the ultimate photos you would go for the f/1.2 if weight and money were not an issue
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is one of those 'special' lenses that has that je ne sais quoi. I wonder if they'll ever make a mark ii that's lighter.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, it is one of those 'special' lenses that has that je ne sais quoi. I wonder if they'll ever make a mark ii that's lighter.
Click to expand...
Its already pretty light for what it is.

Z version - 1090g, 82mm, 90mmx150mm
RF version - 950g, 77mm, 90mmx108mm
E-mount - 778g, 72mm, 87mmx108mm

Not to mention Sony focuses much better and silently compared to RF version which is relatively noisey and slow (feels like an old screw driven lens by current standards!)
Don't know much about the Z version but given how massive it is I am least bit interested tbh.
 
nandbytes said:
Its already pretty light for what it is.

Z version - 1090g, 82mm, 90mmx150mm
RF version - 950g, 77mm, 90mmx108mm
E-mount - 778g, 72mm, 87mmx108mm

Not to mention Sony focuses much better and silently compared to RF version which is relatively noisey and slow (feels like an old screw driven lens by current standards!)
Don't know much about the Z version but given how massive it is I am least bit interested tbh.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, just wishful thinking ;) I think the fact it feels a bit front heavy doesn’t help.
Icee said:
Well the A1 has arrived late yesterday so spent last night setting it up. Out today to play.
Click to expand...
Cool, enjoy (y)
 
Comparing the EVF frame rate / ability to keep up with erratic movement, I'm wondering if an OVF outperforms an EVF? I could be wrong but I still feel there is a lag which makes it difficult to follow erratic movement with the A7IV. I'm wondering if the A9 / A9II is greatly improved in this respect. Shortly I'll be pulling the trigger on a second body.
 
gilbouk said:
Comparing the EVF frame rate / ability to keep up with erratic movement, I'm wondering if an OVF outperforms an EVF? I could be wrong but I still feel there is a lag which makes it difficult to follow erratic movement with the A7IV. I'm wondering if the A9 / A9II is greatly improved in this respect. Shortly I'll be pulling the trigger on a second body.
Click to expand...
I believe the A7 IV has the same 120fps evf as the A9 II so I doubt you're going to see any difference. I can't say I noticed a real lag on the A9 II (except slow shutter pans) and I'm certainly not seeing a lag on the A1, at least nothing perceivable.

Have you made sure you've set the EVF to the higher refresh rate?
 
Looking forward to a Sony A9 type mirrorless camera with the features discussed in this latest T&C N video

 
SDK^ said:
Looking forward to a Sony A9 type mirrorless camera with the features discussed in this latest T&C N video

Click to expand...
I can't put myself through watching the Northrups for 24 minutes, what features are you hoping for?
 
snerkler said:
I can't put myself through watching the Northrups for 24 minutes, what features are you hoping for?
Click to expand...

I just skimmed it... it seems to be all connectivity and smartphone like stuff and if that's it it's of zero interest to me and in fact could stop my buying future cameras if this extends to back screen phone like control instead of buttons and dials.
 
snerkler said:
I can't put myself through watching the Northrups for 24 minutes, what features are you hoping for?
Click to expand...
I tried to watch it, but after skipping though it a bit I gave up after they started explaining why Sony was very cleaver having strategically kept back their best AF technology to fool Canon and Nikon into not thinking mirrorless was any good!
 
I gave up on the Northrups a few years ago. I used to subscribe to them, I remember finding their video tutorial of going through the settings on the 5D4 useful (saved me reading the manual). But where it all went south was when she swapped from Canon something to Nikon D850 then Sony A7R4 within the space of a year and called herself a photographer.

She might be a photographer, but not a photographer first, no photographer in business would swap system twice in the space of a year just because of a body change. That would take a huge, minimum 4 figure hit on the bottom line each time, not to mention unknown reliability issues which is paramount.

Then the penny was really dropped (which should have clicked earlier), channels like hers (and Fro) are YouTubers first, and more like 99%, photographers 2nd. Changing system is content, content makes money.

So....I paid no attention to them in the end after that, their reasoning for any system change isn't whether this body is better, it's just content.

I also get really turned off when a channel makes a big deal out of "Why I left X brand", who the hell cares, go take some pictures!
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
...

I also get really turned off when a channel makes a big deal out of "Why I left X brand", who the hell cares, go take some pictures!
Click to expand...
I can see the point in a "Why I switched to xxx" when it's because of some new feature, that makes a real difference to a particular style of photography - so, for switching to a given Sony camera it might be the first camera with good Eye AF, blackout free high FPS shooting, etc - and when it arrives (with whichever brand), FF Global shutter, but if the same channel then has a "Why I switched to yyy" 6 months later then you know the real reason is being gifted with a big box of gear (or cash!)
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I gave up on the Northrups a few years ago. I used to subscribe to them, I remember finding their video tutorial of going through the settings on the 5D4 useful (saved me reading the manual). But where it all went south was when she swapped from Canon something to Nikon D850 then Sony A7R4 within the space of a year and called herself a photographer.

She might be a photographer, but not a photographer first, no photographer in business would swap system twice in the space of a year just because of a body change. That would take a huge, minimum 4 figure hit on the bottom line each time, not to mention unknown reliability issues which is paramount.

Then the penny was really dropped (which should have clicked earlier), channels like hers (and Fro) are YouTubers first, and more like 99%, photographers 2nd. Changing system is content, content makes money.

So....I paid no attention to them in the end after that, their reasoning for any system change isn't whether this body is better, it's just content.

I also get really turned off when a channel makes a big deal out of "Why I left X brand", who the hell cares, go take some pictures!
Click to expand...
I’ve got no issue with people swapping brands, but I couldn’t care less as to why and certainly don’t want to watch a video about it. Likewise it’s the same as “what lenses I have in my camera bag” etc ;)

I’m not sure why people can’t be togs as well as youtubers, if they make money off both then good on them (y)
 
snerkler said:
I’ve got no issue with people swapping brands, but I couldn’t care less as to why and certainly don’t want to watch a video about it. Likewise it’s the same as “what lenses I have in my camera bag” etc ;)

I’m not sure why people can’t be togs as well as youtubers, if they make money off both then good on them (y)
Click to expand...

I have no problem so them making content, it’s just not content for me.
 
Icee said:
They’re having a laugh I just can’t see where the price comes from.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it's for people shooting high framerate high Res videos. Most likely large companies or filming organisations.
It's a low number of sales high price kinda item I guess

Though I do wonder how many people actually buy CFe type A card since Sony is the only one using it. Other brands use type B.
Having said that I find one type B slot with a second SD card slot to be almost pointless. So I prefer Sony's dual card slots.
 
Last edited:
I wonder in the real world how much of a difference there is in speed from type A to fast SD cards
 
snerkler said:
How much :eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...
Remember that's for a 2Tb card - to get the same capacity from CF Express 160Gb cards (about £280 on average, from a quick Google) would be £3.5k, so at $1.4k it's actually quite 'cheap' - particularly as these are the top end cards.
That said, I won't be rushing to buy one :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top