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

[f/1.2]

Fair enough - I find often 1/8000 isn't enough at f1.4/1.2

It’s less likely to need 1/8000 when you are using f/1.8 glass.

Not people will be using f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses on such a small body due to the size of the lenses and the tiny body it’s a very awkward set up.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Not people will be using f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses on such a small body due to the size of the lenses and the tiny body it’s a very awkward set up.

I knew there was another reason why I've kept my "ancient" A65s.

It takes one 'ell of a big lens to unbalance those old boogers...

 

[f/1.2]

I knew there was another reason why I've kept my "ancient" A65s.

It takes one 'ell of a big lens to unbalance those old boogers...

View attachment 442858

Yeah but you are literally carrying around a brick with very poor image quality and a.f performance compared to newer tech.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Yeah but you are literally carrying around a brick

No, it is made of metal, plastic and various other components, rather than clay.

with very poor image quality

No, it has very acceptable image quality, so far as I'm concerned.

and a.f performance

No, the autofocus works very well for my needs.

compared to newer tech.

Your opinion differs from mine on that front.

I think "Vous n'avez marqué aucun point" in Eurovision terms (according to Google translate).

 

[f/1.2]

No, it is made of metal, plastic and various other components, rather than clay.

No, it has very acceptable image quality, so far as I'm concerned.

No, the autofocus works very well for my needs.

Your opinion differs from mine on that front.

I think "Vous n'avez marqué aucun point" in Eurovision terms (according to Google translate).

You do you, but do you need a lend of my glasses?

Have a look at even the small sample size of images in this thread, do you really believe that the images you have posted using your "older gear" stand up to those posted by other people using newer equipment?

While some of that will be down to skill and style, there is a very obvious difference in my opinion.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

... there is a very obvious difference in my opinion.

If there is a difference, it's irrelevant to me.

I suspect it's also irrelevant to 99.9999% of people who record images, because they're happy with what they get. Still, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

[LeeRatters]

You do you, but do you need a lend of my glasses?

Have a look at even the small sample size of images in this thread, do you really believe that the images you have posted using your "older gear" stand up to those posted by other people using newer equipment?

While some of that will be down to skill and style, there is a very obvious difference in my opinion.

If there is a difference, it's irrelevant to me.

I suspect it's also irrelevant to 99.9999% of people who record images, because they're happy with what they get. Still, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

There is a difference. There's a difference between my A7Riii, the A7 and the X100f.

I guess it's whether that difference matters or bothers you or whether you work around it.

 

[woof woof]

For me (in the south of the UK) the 1/4000 hasn’t been an issue yet, shooting wide open in bright light is a bit of an edge case IMO and there’re always ND filters (or change to electronic shutter as you say).

Also if you’re shooting fast lenses wide open - they’re big lenses mostly so the compact body is less of a benefit.

That’s just me though, I find I’m rarely shooting over 1/1000

I've been through that with MFT and ND off for one shot and on for the next is just not for me, far too annoying and time consuming.

 

[woof woof]

If there is a difference, it's irrelevant to me.

I suspect it's also irrelevant to 99.9999% of people who record images, because they're happy with what they get. Still, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

No real offence meant Andrew but you've posted pictures on this site which prove that image quality means nothing to you and that's ok, for you, but other people do care about image quality and image quality differences between cameras.

 

[f/1.2]

If you want to make a nice Lasagne you go out and buy nice fresh ingredients. You don’t hoke out the aul stuff that’s been stuck at the back of the cupboard for years.

Yeah Lasagne for tea tonight.

 

[snerkler]

Trying to make a decision. Previously bought an fx30 thinking I’d be 90% video and 10% photo. Turns out filming south wales was pretty boring, and I take more photos. ..

So I’m looking to sell my x100v and replace it with either an a7iv or a7c ii. I don’t need two card slots, but have a 160gb type A, and rarely use a viewfinder. With video in mind though (vlog style fishing, foraging, cooking, camping) is the semi mechanical shutter on the c ii a big deal? I love the size but wondering if the I’ve might still be the better choice given they’d be the same price.

I was looking at the A7cII and A7cR last year however I really didn't get on with it. For a left eye shooter the EVF is awkward to use, and it's not the best EVF. Also, when handled side by side I couldn't feel a weight difference between this and an A7 body. I know on scales there is, but I couldn't tell. I ended up buying the A7RV instead.

If there is a difference, it's irrelevant to me.

I suspect it's also irrelevant to 99.9999% of people who record images, because they're happy with what they get. Still, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I disagree with that, I would argue that the percentage is much lower. I think 99.9% of people would see the difference, what percentage of people would care I don't know but I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than 0.0001%

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

No real offence meant Andrew but you've posted pictures on this site which prove that image quality means nothing to you and that's ok, for you,

Good of you to say so.

... but other people do care about image quality and image quality differences between cameras.

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with that but we shouldn't pretend that "image quality" is the end all and be all of photography; what someone called the "RPS fallacy", in a magazine article that I read decades ago.

I think 99.9% of people would see the difference, what percentage of people would care I don't know but I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than 0.0001%

I think you'd have to ask 80,000,000 people to get a reasonable sample from the 8,000,000,000 population of the world.

If it was a truly representative sample, I imagine that 79,000,000 of your respondents would ask "what's this image quality you're asking about?"

 

[f/1.2]

Good of you to say so.

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with that but we shouldn't pretend that "image quality" is the end all and be all of photography; what someone called the "RPS fallacy", in a magazine article that I read decades ago.

I think you'd have to ask 80,000,000 people to get a reasonable sample from the 8,000,000,000 population of the world.

If it was a truly representative sample, I imagine that 79,000,000 of your respondents would ask "what's this image quality you're asking about?"

You didn’t say people though you said people who record images .

No way of knowing but in my experience most people who enjoy photography and take a lot of photos prefer better image quality.

 

[snerkler]

Good of you to say so.

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with that but we shouldn't pretend that "image quality" is the end all and be all of photography; what someone called the "RPS fallacy", in a magazine article that I read decades ago.

I think you'd have to ask 80,000,000 people to get a reasonable sample from the 8,000,000,000 population of the world.

If it was a truly representative sample, I imagine that 79,000,000 of your respondents would ask "what's this image quality you're asking about?"

I don't think so. I do speak to a lot of people/day and I'd imagine at some point I've spoken about photography to most of them (yes I'm that boring ) and I'm pretty sure every one of them is aware of image quality. I even get people showing me their photos and most of them all start off by saying something like " obviously these don't have the quality of yours but....."

 

[f/1.2]

I don't think so. I do speak to a lot of people/day and I'd imagine at some point I've spoken about photography to most of them (yes I'm that boring ) and I'm pretty sure every one of them is aware of image quality. I even get people showing me their photos and most of them all start off by saying something like " obviously these don't have the quality of yours but....."

For sure even my kids care about the quality of the photos they take on their phones.

It’s prob fair to say that most people do care about image quality.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

No way of knowing...

Exactly.

Let's get on with the good stuff: how many angels did you count on the head of your pin today?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I don't think so. I do speak to a lot of people/day...

Could you give a numeric value to "lot", in this context, please?

...at some point I've spoken about photography to most of them

Odd really. I doubt that I discussed photography, as a subject, with one person a month, even when I was working in the newspaper industry. "That won't fit a 3 by 6" was as close as we got to the subject.

I even get people showing me their photos and most of them all start off by saying something like " obviously these don't have the quality of yours but....."

That's something I've never experienced.

Then again, I never ran a photography course for others, even when the F.E.College I was employed by tried to persuade me that they could assign me to it, under the terms of my contract!

 

[snerkler]

Could you give a numeric value to "lot", in this context, please?

Odd really. I doubt that I discussed photography, as a subject, with one person a month, even when I was working in the newspaper industry. "That won't fit a 3 by 6" was as close as we got to the subject.

That's something I've never experienced.

Then again, I never ran a photography course for others, even when the F.E.College I was employed by tried to persuade me that they could assign me to it, under the terms of my contract!

30+ on a good day.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

30+ on a good day.

Were these customers, students or just interested passersby?

 

[snerkler]

Were these customers, students or just interested passersby?

Customers, although we don’t call them that

 

[woof woof]

Good of you to say so.

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with that but we shouldn't pretend that "image quality" is the end all and be all of photography; what someone called the "RPS fallacy", in a magazine article that I read decades ago.

I believe you've said so yourself Andrew on several occasions hence no offence meant and I hope non taken. I too have taken some technically awful pictures and I still look at them to this day because for me they mean something and are worth keeping and looking at despite the technical difficulties.

All that being said I don't know but I'd imagine that the vast majority of people on this photography forum care about image quality to some extent and even some smartphone users do too as I have a nephew who insisted that his smartphone was better than my camera...cos...mp count... and he did indeed relate that to image quality. So no, IQ is not the be all and end all for example I like relatively light and compact kit and than in itself imposes some limitations on IQ as I "limit" myself to MFT and FF.

I do think that there are IQ differences between my MFT kit, my FF kit and the Fuji kit I used to have and these differences influenced how I used the kit and there's no doubt that IQ does influence people on this forum... and not just as this relates to cameras, just look at the debates on lenses.

 

[woof woof]

I had to go to Redcar today so I took my A7III and 40mm f2.5.

Looking down the ramp to the sea.



Looking towards Marske at the incoming tide. Unfortunately the posting process has introduced lines in the sky not visible in the full sized file on my screen.



A bit further towards Marske and looking towards Saltburn.



Being careful not to get my feet wet.



I have to go back on Monday so I hope I get a nice day

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'd say that for many of us, despite the thread being about a particular brand of camera, for most of us it's about the image and not the gear - that's only there to help us create the images that we want (or in Tommy's case, the images his customers pay him to shoot).

 

[woof woof]

I'd say that for many of us, despite the thread being about a particular brand of camera, for most of us it's about the image and not the gear - that's only there to help us create the images that we want (or in Tommy's case, the images his customers pay him to shoot).

For me it is definitely also about the gear. I'm a gear fondler. Not so much with cameras but I like lenses. I don't like being limited by gear but I think this only started when I got got my first SLR. I think before that I was happy enough apart from hating blown white skies. At the time I had the SLR I took a lot of pictures at gigs and was limited to 1/xx with ISO 1,600 film if I was lucky and of course there was grain and motion blur but to be honest no one ever pointed this out to me. My main complaint with my Canon DSLR's even though for a time I really did like the IQ especially from the 5D was lack of DR and noise when boosting the shadows and I wouldn't like to go back to that. These days I'm mostly happy with my Sony FF cameras and my MFT cameras too but with a few more caveats due to the limitations of the smaller sensor.

 

[woof woof]

Does anyone know why...

Sometimes when I post a picture I get lines in the sky but I can't really work out why. For posting here I use 1,000 pixel wide and keep the file size below 500kb but I can't see any reason why some pictures show lines and some don't and also just sometimes I'm sure that if I delete the picture and post it again its ok... I think that has happened. Today I've posted pictures with what look to be very similar skies, one shows banding and another doesn't. It's difficult to know what's going on.

BTW, the original pictures are ok on my pc. Since photobucket got awkward I post direct from my pc.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Sometimes when I post a picture I get lines in the sky but I can't really work out why.

Almost certainly jpg compression, possibly made worse by browser compression processes. None of your pictures have banding for me.

For me it is definitely also about the gear. I'm a gear fondler.

I know, but I think you're relatively unusual here (in so many ways ). I've had the present camera body (A7III) since mid 2018, and although I've added the odd lens over the last couple of years, it's not been exactly 'new-shiny!'.

 

[woof woof]

Almost certainly jpg compression, possibly made worse by browser compression processes. None of your pictures have banding for me.



I know, but I think you're relatively unusual here (in so many ways ). I've had the present camera body (A7III) since mid 2018, and although I've added the odd lens over the last couple of years, it's not been exactly 'new-shiny!'.

I see it, I'm glad others don't.

I like some MF lenses and I think they're lovely to use but other than that one fondling area of interest camera and AF lenses are all pretty much the same to me. I don't really care other than size and weight but the closer they get to MF lenses the more I start to care. The 24 and 40mm mini G's are my favourite AF lenses.

 

[snerkler]

I'd say that for many of us, despite the thread being about a particular brand of camera, for most of us it's about the image and not the gear - that's only there to help us create the images that we want (or in Tommy's case, the images his customers pay him to shoot).

I think it's a combination of both. Sure what we're all striving for is a brilliant image, but I would hazard a guess that most people enjoy the process of getting there, which of course includes using the gear. That's why you hear so many Fuji users say they've swapped because they prefer the manual controls etc etc. I personally don't get this 'arguement' as I have an aperture ring on the lens, and I control shutter speed and ISO via dials on my Sony, it's just they're not on the top

 

[snerkler]

Does anyone know why...

Sometimes when I post a picture I get lines in the sky but I can't really work out why. For posting here I use 1,000 pixel wide and keep the file size below 500kb but I can't see any reason why some pictures show lines and some don't and also just sometimes I'm sure that if I delete the picture and post it again its ok... I think that has happened. Today I've posted pictures with what look to be very similar skies, one shows banding and another doesn't. It's difficult to know what's going on.

BTW, the original pictures are ok on my pc. Since photobucket got awkward I post direct from my pc.

I do sometimes see the banding but i know it's just the compression applied by posting online. It's a bit like how a number of my photos are soft as hell on here compared to on my computer and flickr.

 

[f/1.2]

I'd say that for many of us, despite the thread being about a particular brand of camera, for most of us it's about the image and not the gear - that's only there to help us create the images that we want (or in Tommy's case, the images his customers pay him to shoot).

I think it's a combination of both. Sure what we're all striving for is a brilliant image, but I would hazard a guess that most people enjoy the process of getting there, which of course includes using the gear. That's why you hear so many Fuji users say they've swapped because they prefer the manual controls etc etc. I personally don't get this 'arguement' as I have an aperture ring on the lens, and I control shutter speed and ISO via dials on my Sony, it's just they're not on the top

I only care about the image.

The gear is just required to get it. The better the gear is it is the easier it is to get what I want.

 

[snerkler]

I only care about the image.

The gear is just required to get it. The better the gear is it is the easier it is to get what I want.

Yeah, I think this will depend on whether you're doing it for work or as a hobby

 

[woof woof]

I've always cared about my tools, chisels, screwdrivers, oscilloscopes, soldering irons... cameras. The end result matters but that's only a part of it for me and the getting there has to matter too or there'd be less joy in the process of getting to the end result and that's not enough for me. For me there is joy to be had in the process and in the tools, in selecting and owning good ones and in using them well. I'd hate to not care. It would feel soulless and joyless and if that's the state I was in for either work or hobby I'd give up and try something else. That's what I've always done, when I didn't enjoy whatever it was any more I've moved on.

 

[hughlle]

I think it's a combination of both. Sure what we're all striving for is a brilliant image, but I would hazard a guess that most people enjoy the process of getting there, which of course includes using the gear. That's why you hear so many Fuji users say they've swapped because they prefer the manual controls etc etc. I personally don't get this 'arguement' as I have an aperture ring on the lens, and I control shutter speed and ISO via dials on my Sony, it's just they're not on the top

I’d say in the case of Fuji it is because the dials on the top are quite definitive. You know exactly what you’re changing. They’re nothing more than what they state they are. I’ve not used my Sony recently enough to remember what unlabelled wheel or custom button does what. That is my issue with Sony. Yes, if you use things enough, it is muscle memory, but what about those who don’t, or switch between multiple brands etc. I love my Fuji for that reason, yet it still has too many custom buttons I forget, and for that I love my Leica even more. Customization has its pros and also its cons.

 

[snerkler]

I’d say in the case of Fuji it is because the dials on the top are quite definitive. You know exactly what you’re changing. They’re nothing more than what they state they are. I’ve not used my Sony recently enough to remember what unlabelled wheel or custom button does what. That is my issue with Sony. Yes, if you use things enough, it is muscle memory, but what about those who don’t, or switch between multiple brands etc. I love my Fuji for that reason, yet it still has too many custom buttons I forget, and for that I love my Leica even more. Customization has its pros and also its cons.

Yeah I can understand why people like them, and yes it is nice to have them labelled, but ISO and shutter speed are used all the time so surely you remember where these are

I get that having multiple custom buttons can be confusing but you can choose to use these or not

 

[woof woof]

I’d say in the case of Fuji it is because the dials on the top are quite definitive. You know exactly what you’re changing. They’re nothing more than what they state they are. I’ve not used my Sony recently enough to remember what unlabelled wheel or custom button does what. That is my issue with Sony. Yes, if you use things enough, it is muscle memory, but what about those who don’t, or switch between multiple brands etc. I love my Fuji for that reason, yet it still has too many custom buttons I forget, and for that I love my Leica even more. Customization has its pros and also its cons.

One thing about the Fuji's I liked is there's no modes on a top dial. You do effectively have modes but not on a PASM dial on top of the camera. I did like that it's just the niggles that got to me. Sony have niggles too of course.

 

[hughlle]

Yeah I can understand why people like them, and yes it is nice to have them labelled, but ISO and shutter speed are used all the time so surely you remember where these are

I get that having multiple custom buttons can be confusing but you can choose to use these or not

I rarely use them. So when I do, I forget. And I imagine I am the norm, not the minority. Aperature priority, and if it isn’t right, then adjust manually. I’d put money down and say that the vast majority do not shoot manual. Cameras are good enough that 99% of the time there is no need

 

[ancient_mariner]

For me there is joy to be had in the process and in the tools, in selecting and owning good ones and in using them well.

I don't disagree, and I feel that a good effective tool is pleasing to use, whether that's a sharp chisel for cutting a hinge groove in a door frame or a brushless cordless drill that I can carry outside and just use freely. But to a large degree the camera just fades into the background for me, possibly because I use it more often than tools these days, and I just expect it to work.

 

[LeeRatters]

I think this subject is very much a 50/50.

In the same way that the 'camera vs photographer' thing goes - gear does matter * well. about 50% of the time

But for me, the final result and IQ are pretty important generally. Yes, I know when I use the X100f I'm not going to get the performance of the A7riii. But, for me, I also think the gear needs to be enjoyable to use. Luckily, I enjoy using all the gear I have - I wouldn't own it otherwise - but I do use them for different situations most of the time

 

[woof woof]

I don't disagree, and I feel that a good effective tool is pleasing to use, whether that's a sharp chisel for cutting a hinge groove in a door frame or a brushless cordless drill that I can carry outside and just use freely. But to a large degree the camera just fades into the background for me, possibly because I use it more often than tools these days, and I just expect it to work.

All good tools should get out of the way to some degree and so should camera kit and I do think that my Sony kits gets out of the way more than any other digital camera I've had but that doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed the selection process and it doesn't mean that I shouldn't think "this is nice" and enjoy the experience of using it, because now and again I do.

These days computers and phones are just things to me and I derive no enjoyment from them at all, TV's too and white goods I suppose but everything else from pens to watches and cars and on to tripods and lenses and even cameras have to provide some enjoyment and even... pride in ownership.

 

[Tricky01]

Wow, what happened this afternoon - slow Friday for everyone?!

In all seriousness, I found the debate on gear and image quality a bit odd given it stemmed from a post on an older camera. I get both sides of the argument - I believe we are all striving to take photos we love and I do believe image quality is component of that. I also know that I have to work less hard to get keepers with my A1 than I would with my A100.

But all the Sony cameras I've owned have had good image quality. A100, A700, a900, A77, A99, A7iii, A7Riii, A9 and now A1

So, a little challenge

Some images below from my archives, each from a different Sony camera, but all images I like. So how do you rank the image quality? Let's say 1 is the best and 5 is the worst, what's your 1-5 of A,B,C,D,E?

A


B


C


D


E


edit at 23:25 on 10/01 :1) initial screenshot approach didn't really work, so found out how to strip metadata and hopefully this works. 2) replaced E with some more foreground detail and rotated B so it would share at same dimensions.

edit at 23:57 on 10/01 : if you click on the image it'll take you through to the image on my website, where I've enabled downloading upto 2048 pixels on the long edge - I know there's pixel peepers among us

Answers tomorrow night!