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

New firmware prob the last ever for theA7IV with the A7V launch on Tuesday.

 
Just updated my A7RV to Firmware version 4.0 (must have missed it the other day), and at last we have the display information in the viewfinder and rear screen changing orientation as you change from landscape to portrait shooting - at last.
 
Just updated my A7RV to Firmware version 4.0 (must have missed it the other day), and at last we have the display information in the viewfinder and rear screen changing orientation as you change from landscape to portrait shooting - at last.
Nice feature, I'm not sure why this has never been added to the A1 and other cameras :thinking:
 
I think it was recently added to a number of cameras via a firmware update (A9 III, A7RV and A7IV). I think the A1 II had this from launch but not sure about the MK1 ?
 
A9III has it. :cool:
Yeah I know ;)
I think it was recently added to a number of cameras via a firmware update (A9 III, A7RV and A7IV). I think the A1 II had this from launch but not sure about the MK1 ?
I haven't noticed it in the menus of the A1 and I've not heard of it mentioned in any of the updates either. I thought it might be something to do with the new processor but if the A7IV has it I can't see why it couldn't be implemented on the A1. All this being said it's not something that's ever bothered me or even thought about so I'm not fussed either way.
 
I have about 60 odd NP-FZ100 Sony batteries so no offence but your talking nonsense. What I suggested doing is exactly what Sony told me to do when I queried why newish batteries weren't charging to 100% and has been working for me for years.

You do you though.

Charger used makes no difference by the way as have seen people mention that. A good quality third party charger will do just as good a job as the oem Sony chargers, the cheap tat might be different but I don't have any of those. The 4 Sony chargers I have work exactly the same as the 3 third party chargers I have and that includes the newer BC-ZD1 and the pro Sony NPA-MQZ1K.

This is one of those cases where you're both right, but in different contexts. There two different things going on here.

Over time, the amount of total charge that Lithium batteries will hold will fall off slowly. It's built into their chemistry, every charge cycle reduces that total a little, as will simply sitting on the shelf.

An NP50 lithium battery leaves the factory with a nominal total capacity of 1020 milliamp hours (for each individual battery it possibly won't be exactly that, but that's the spec). The battery has circuitry to keep track of how much total charge the battery can hold, so on day 1 it knows that 100% is 1020 mAh.

Six months later, that battery may only be able to hold 1000 mAh of charge, so when you charge the battery, it will only get to 98% before stopping.

Sony's advice to run it down to 0% and then charge up to 100% triggers the built in monitoring circuit to recalibrate what 100% is from 1020 mAh down to 1000 mAh, and the battery then again reports it's charging to 100% capacity to any device that asks it, such as your camera.

This recalibration mechanism (run to zero and charge back to full) is pretty common for a multitude of devices that use lithium batteries, such as Apple laptops that I have been using and supporting for over 30 years.

Several years down the line, and several recalibrations later, your battery may be reporting it gets to 100% charge, but 100% for that battery is now only 816 mAh. If you'd never recalibrated, then it would max out at 80%. You may notice that you are getting fewer shots out of it and that the % indicator drops faster than it does with another battery you bought more recently, which can hold more total charge.

The other advice against running down to 0% is also true, though that does not apply in these circumstances.

There's another feature of batteries known as self-discharge, where they (very slowly) lose some of the charge that they have, which is why if you charge a battery to 90% and leave it on the shelf at 90% for several months, you may find it is down to 85% the next time you pick it up.

If you run a lithium cell down to 0% charge, it can pretty much kill it by permanently altering the internal chemistry; the total charge it can carry may be severely reduced as a result, even to the point that it won't charge at all. Manufacturers know this and when the battery's circuit reports 0% charge, it keeps a tiny bit of charge in reserve so that the cells don't actually get to zero. However, if you let it get to 0% and then leave the battery uncharged for a long period, that reserve will be exhausted through self-discharge, and when you go to charge it up, it won't take any charge and you have to send it for recycling.

Suffice to say that it's fine to let a battery get to 0% occasionally so that it can recalibrate, but if you do, certainly don't then leave a battery lying around at 0% charge for a long time.

For various other reasons, leaving a battery charged to 100% for a long period also has negative impact on long-term charge capacity, which is why they usually ship from the factory charged to about 75%.

However, the optimum range for maintaining longevity of lithium cells is between 20% and 80%. In an ideal world, you'd use the battery down 20% and then recharge it only up to 80%.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I know ;)

I haven't noticed it in the menus of the A1 and I've not heard of it mentioned in any of the updates either. I thought it might be something to do with the new processor but if the A7IV has it I can't see why it couldn't be implemented on the A1. All this being said it's not something that's ever bothered me or even thought about so I'm not fussed either way.
It is not in the menu its in the view options. Up on the scroll.
 
It is not in the menu its in the view options. Up on the scroll.
Apparently the A1 has the display orientation change with firmware 3.0 and newer, I didn't even know mine wasn't on the latest firmware :facepalm: I'll update it later.
 
Hi Guys,

Tried updating a7iv firmware, from 3.02 to version 6.0.

I am downloading a file, but the camera is telling me no card in slot @ and no file on card… it’s got be baffled.
 
Hi Guys,

Tried updating a7iv firmware, from 3.02 to version 6.0.

I am downloading a file, but the camera is telling me no card in slot @ and no file on card… it’s got be baffled.
The BODYDATA.DAT file needs to not be in a folder have you made sure it is in the main directory of the card?

I upgraded 4 x A7IV the other day with no issue.

Edit - Have you got the card in Slot 1? Or have you formatted the card on your computer? If so you will need to format the card in camera, then put the file on. Either that or faulty card or your camera has a faulty card reader.
 
Last edited:
I have
 
When I downloaded the file on my IMac it worked correctly, for some reason my MacBook was adding a (1) at the end and the camera didn’t recognise it. Any hoo, all updated now.
 
When I downloaded the file on my IMac it worked correctly, for some reason my MacBook was adding a (1) at the end and the camera didn’t recognise it. Any hoo, all updated now.

That suggests you already downloaded the file before (with the original and correct name to be recognised), then you downloaded it again

The Mac added the (1) so that the original version wasn't overwritten, but a new version of the file was saved instead.

Edit: Here's an example from my own Downloads folder, where i downloaded the same PDF twice in quick succession.

1764350224214.png
 
Last edited:
My battery which charged to 98% now only goes to 89%. I'll see if I can (oh err) get it up.
 
That suggests you already downloaded the file before (with the original and correct name to be recognised), then you downloaded it again

The Mac added the (1) so that the original version wasn't overwritten, but a new version of the file was saved instead.

Edit: Here's an example from my own Downloads folder, where i downloaded the same PDF twice in quick succession.

View attachment 468913
I was just about to say this.
 
My battery which charged to 98% now only goes to 89%. I'll see if I can (oh err) get it up.
I'd send it to Sony to have it checked (y)
 
Apparently the A1 has the display orientation change with firmware 3.0 and newer, I didn't even know mine wasn't on the latest firmware :facepalm: I'll update it later.
So it appears information online is incorrect, I've done the update and there's still no option. Google AI now says it's not possible whereas it said it could earlier today, I did chack that it wasn't referring to the A1 II.
 
I was talking to someone today about the Canon R5 Mark II and it’s made me realise once again how overinflated the price of Sony bodies are. I remember when the Z8 dropped it highlighted this, but I’d never looked at the R5 mark ii before.

Doing some research this afternoon shows that spec wise the R5 Mark II sits somewhere between the A1 and A1 II, except for the lower res EVF. According to online reviews the R5 Mark II and R1 have better AF than the A1 II and A9 III, and you can pick the R5 Mark II up for £2600, which is £500 cheaper than the A1, and £2000 less than the A1 II.

Clearly Sony are ‘getting away with it’ but is there a reason Sony bodies are so expensive that I’m missing?
 
I was talking to someone today about the Canon R5 Mark II and it’s made me realise once again how overinflated the price of Sony bodies are. I remember when the Z8 dropped it highlighted this, but I’d never looked at the R5 mark ii before.

Doing some research this afternoon shows that spec wise the R5 Mark II sits somewhere between the A1 and A1 II, except for the lower res EVF. According to online reviews the R5 Mark II and R1 have better AF than the A1 II and A9 III, and you can pick the R5 Mark II up for £2600, which is £500 cheaper than the A1, and £2000 less than the A1 II.

Clearly Sony are ‘getting away with it’ but is there a reason Sony bodies are so expensive that I’m missing?
been saying this on here for a while and no one cared :ROFLMAO:
Though I don't think Z8 is all that great overall. R5ii is probably the best body overall.

A1ii has its positives like two matched card slots, R5ii has one CFe type B and one SD card slot (which means you are limited to SD card speeds if you want redundancy).
As you mentioned better EVF, has better implementation of pre-buffer, slightly better dynamic range, very slightly higher res.
But its not £2K better.

And A9iii of course has global shutter and the benefits that comes with it, there is really no competition to it. It seems to sell very heavily discounted too from its original launch price.
R1.... not sure why anyone would buy one, also I don't think its all that great overall.

AF wise i think they both have their positives and negatives. I have only used R5 (and A1) not the latest bodies. But even going by reviews the subject tracking is still better on Sony but the Canon wins on subject recognition. the way I see it is its bit of a wash, they are both on par and better than Nikon Z8/9.
 
Last edited:
I was talking to someone today about the Canon R5 Mark II and it’s made me realise once again how overinflated the price of Sony bodies are. I remember when the Z8 dropped it highlighted this, but I’d never looked at the R5 mark ii before.

Doing some research this afternoon shows that spec wise the R5 Mark II sits somewhere between the A1 and A1 II, except for the lower res EVF. According to online reviews the R5 Mark II and R1 have better AF than the A1 II and A9 III, and you can pick the R5 Mark II up for £2600, which is £500 cheaper than the A1, and £2000 less than the A1 II.

Clearly Sony are ‘getting away with it’ but is there a reason Sony bodies are so expensive that I’m missing?

been saying this on here for a while and no one cared :ROFLMAO:
Though I don't think Z8 is all that great overall. R5ii is probably the best body overall.

A1ii has its positives like two matched card slots, R5ii has one CFe type B and one SD card slot (which means you are limited to SD card speeds if you want redundancy).
As you mentioned better EVF, has better implementation of pre-buffer, slightly better dynamic range, very slightly higher res.
But its not £2K better.

And A9iii of course has global shutter and the benefits that comes with it, there is really no competition to it. It seems to sell very heavily discounted too from its original launch price.
R1.... not sure why anyone would buy one, also I don't think its all that great overall.

AF wise i think they both have their positives and negatives. I have only used R5 (and A1) not the latest bodies. But even going by reviews the subject tracking is still better on Sony but the Canon wins on subject recognition. the way I see it is its bit of a wash, they are both on par and better than Nikon Z8/9.
And the a7v is going to be 3k
I’m not sure how much Sony is leading now.
I was reading through the wildlife photographer of the year book in the book shop and 75% of all the images were canon.. mainly r5 quite a a few on the z9/8 and very few were Sony.
 
And the a7v is going to be 3k
I’m not sure how much Sony is leading now.
I was reading through the wildlife photographer of the year book in the book shop and 75% of all the images were canon.. mainly r5 quite a a few on the z9/8 and very few were Sony.
I don't think the winners of WPotY is necessarily a good representation of the sales or the camera market.

And people on this forum are also not the best representation of the general public. You'll see plenty here who like the size of Z8/9. I don't think many people actually do to be honest.

From memory Canon though is still the highest selling brand over 40%, Sony is close to 30% or high-20%, nikon close to 10% and fuji closer to 10% but still in single digits.
 
I don't think the winners of WPotY is necessarily a good representation of the sales or the camera market

Agreed, but they might indicate which brand is perceived to be leading technical development.
 
Agreed, but they might indicate which brand is perceived to be leading technical development.
I'd say it's the opposite.

A lot of folks who compete in such places are still using DSLRs for example. Naturally that'll be canon first and Nikon 2nd.
A lot of people who will have migrated to canon mirrorless will be the ones who've always used canon lenses. They probably own expensive setups and those lenses work as well as native lens on RF bodies (unlike in the case of Sony or Nikon)

So it's not necessarily because a body or brand is technically the best. It's probably in my opinion more the case that people are using whatever they are used to or have access to. If everyone was using the technically best bodies we would be seeing pictures mostly from R1/5ii, Z8/9, A1/9 series which is not the case.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's the opposite.

A lot of folks who compete in such places are still using DSLRs for example. Naturally that'll be canon first and Nikon 2nd.
A lot of people who will have migrated to canon mirrorless will be the ones who've always used canon lenses. They probably own expensive setups and those lenses work as well as native lens on RF bodies (unlike in the case of Sony or Nikon)

So it's not necessarily because a body or brand is technically the best. It's probably in my opinion more the case that people are using whatever they are used to or have access to. If everyone was using the technically best bodies we would be seeing pictures mostly from R1/5ii, Z8/9, A1/9 series which is not the case.

I would have assumed that wildlife being a more demanding discipline than most other photography would demand the best kit, but it's quite possible you're correct and they just use what they always used.
 
Wilkinson are doing the Sammy 35 f1.4 MK2 for £349 right now - if I didn't have the sigma art I'd be interested in this.

 
I'd say it's the opposite.

A lot of folks who compete in such places are still using DSLRs for example. Naturally that'll be canon first and Nikon 2nd.
A lot of people who will have migrated to canon mirrorless will be the ones who've always used canon lenses. They probably own expensive setups and those lenses work as well as native lens on RF bodies (unlike in the case of Sony or Nikon)

So it's not necessarily because a body or brand is technically the best. It's probably in my opinion more the case that people are using whatever they are used to or have access to. If everyone was using the technically best bodies we would be seeing pictures mostly from R1/5ii, Z8/9, A1/9 series which is not the case.
Surprisingly nearly every camera was a mirrorless. The only one I actually noticed was one imaging on a 1dxiii.
I get that it won’t be a true indicator but was very surprised by the hype online that Sony is the leader while they had very few of the 100 images.
Also to be fair out of the few photographers I know I am the only Sony shooter, they are all still canon or Fuji.
 
Surprisingly nearly every camera was a mirrorless. The only one I actually noticed was one imaging on a 1dxiii.
I get that it won’t be a true indicator but was very surprised by the hype online that Sony is the leader while they had very few of the 100 images.
Also to be fair out of the few photographers I know I am the only Sony shooter, they are all still canon or Fuji.

Sony is no leader, thats definitely Canon by a fair margin.
But going by all sales figures (which you can google up or use your fav AI chatbot), Sony is also comfortably #2 also by a fair margin.
Not that it matters (to me anyway), I bought into Sony when they were in single digit percentage on the market share fighting with Pentax for #3 spot :D
 
Last edited:
AF wise i think they both have their positives and negatives. I have only used R5 (and A1) not the latest bodies. But even going by reviews the subject tracking is still better on Sony but the Canon wins on subject recognition. the way I see it is its bit of a wash, they are both on par and better than Nikon Z8/9.
From what I've seen the R5 II and R1 AF is now the best in the business, tracking better than the A1 II and A9 III. Of course we'll be splitting hairs here, but Sony no longer appear to hold the trump card, at least in terms of bodies.

I did look yesterday at what the Canon RF system had to match my Sony glass and there's no way I'd consider changing. Canon do trump my wide angle with the 14-35mm vs my 16-35mm but with everything else Sony wins imo.

20-70mm, nothing like it in the Canon range.
35mm f1.4 Sony slightly lighter but the Canon has the VCM motor which is better for video rather than stills
50mm f1.2 the Sony is considerably smaller and lighter
85mm Canon doesn't allow 3rd party
70-200mm f2.8 the GM II is better than both Canon versions
100-400mm the Canon is F8 at the long end, and the 100-500mm is heavier

Surprisingly nearly every camera was a mirrorless. The only one I actually noticed was one imaging on a 1dxiii.
I get that it won’t be a true indicator but was very surprised by the hype online that Sony is the leader while they had very few of the 100 images.
Also to be fair out of the few photographers I know I am the only Sony shooter, they are all still canon or Fuji.
Has Sony ever had the market lead? I know they did in the mirrorless market initially but even then I think overall when including DSLR Canon still had the lion's share?
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen the R5 II and R1 AF is now the best in the business, tracking better than the A1 II and A9 III. Of course we'll be splitting hairs here, but Sony no longer appear to hold the trump card, at least in terms of bodies.

Here's an example i watching recently
View: https://youtu.be/ZaKFDA3zFgw?si=pcqj0eVS0sLEt4Mh

He is a staunch canon user but he concludes for fast action Sony might still have an edge.

But I agree we are splitting hairs and definitely agree that Sony no longer has the AF trump card.

They still have technically better sensors but even then the difference is small, only about half-stop

I did look yesterday at what the Canon RF system had to match my Sony glass and there's no way I'd consider changing. Canon do trump my wide angle with the 14-35mm vs my 16-35mm but with everything else Sony wins imo.

20-70mm, nothing like it in the Canon range.
35mm f1.4 Sony slightly lighter but the Canon has the VCM motor which is better for video rather than stills
50mm f1.2 the Sony is considerably smaller and lighter
85mm Canon doesn't allow 3rd party
70-200mm f2.8 the GM II is better than both Canon versions
100-400mm the Canon is F8 at the long end, and the 100-500mm is heavier

Lens line up is the main reason for me to stick with Sony too. Otherwise would have swapped to R5ii long back. I still think it's the best overall body on the market. Canon lens line is not great IMO.

And more recently majority of my lenses are 3rd party. I have massively simplified my line up now:
16G, 20-200mm, 35GM, Sammy 85/1.4ii, 500DN.
I can fit the 500DN in PD sling 10L, it now travels with me on holidays.

Basically the only lens I can get sensible replacement for is 35GM.

Has Sony ever had the market lead? I know they did in the mirrorless market initially but even then I think overall when including DSLR Canon still had the lion's share?

I don't think so. They #2 now as I was saying above.
But I'm glad it's no longer a canon-nikon duopoly.
 
We had a couple of days/nights in Whitby with dreadful weather and came home to some sunshine.

A7cII and 40mm.

Saltburn paths. This one goes somewhere.

DSC01152.jpg

This one does not.

DSC01154.jpg

Me, her and Swifty.

DSC01157.jpg

A panorama.

Untitled_Panorama-5.jpg

If you look closely you can see water falling from the cliffs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top