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

woof woof said:
There's the key. WE don't need all the abilities of our kit all the time, including DR and shadow recovery, only sometimes :D

If you're shooting backlit without flash or any kind of lit I suppose if there are areas that are that far behind the exposure, indoor shooting with windows in the frame or outdoor shooting when areas you want to see detail in are in deep shadow.

This of Mrs WW retains the flat winter half light through the window, as in it isn't blown...

View attachment 134671

But I think it needs 5 or maybe even 6 stops to bring the shadows up.
Click to expand...


Or simply move her to a position where she's facing the lovely natural lighting ;)

I'm certainly not anti-recovery, this was an example that impressed me with the old X-T1, I simply ballsed up with the flash here, had been shooting in a darker area and didn't adjust before I came across this guy [Manual only flash] A nothing shot, but I wanted to see what I could gain back, detail where there seemed to be none whatsoever. I didn't take note of how much I pulled back but the X-T1 certainly wouldn't be known for excellent DR capabilities - reckon I was about 2 stops over [1/4 instead of 1/16 or whatever] My current G80 is better again, I have been really surprised by that too. But seeing how much I recovered here, 5 stops would have been a complete white image

XT-1 Dynamic by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Or simply move her to a position where she's facing the lovely natural lighting ;)
Click to expand...

But then it's a different shot (the choice was hers, on the nice sofa, with the nice curtains and the nice window.) We could also have gone outside preferably on a day with nice light (we could have waited 6 months for some decent light in Yorkshire or flew to Thailand the next day) but again it'd be a different shot.

Things have improved a lot since I had my Canon 20D and 5D DSLR's and it's great to be able to boost the shadows with todays cameras and software. I/we may not need these abilities every time we pick up a camera and we may not need them 1 time in every 100 shots but every improvement in tech and abilities moves things on and lets us get shots we couldn't get before. It's hard to take a step back now and although my camera is only a lowly A7 I'd hate to take a step back to a 5D now and I'd imagine that a good few A7III series owners would see the Canon R as a step back in regards to shadow recovery for some shots or even a fair few shots if you've got used to having that ability.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun before I go out... my favorite version of that picture of Mrs WW on the nice sofa...

A7 and Voiftlander 35mm f1.4, f5, 1/200 and ISO 2,500.

1-DSC09708-N.jpg
 
JJ! said:
To be honest - the amount of softness and lack of detail his Sony shots showed made me question how genuine they were or what kind of settings he had.
Click to expand...
Maybe IBIS was off? :D
 
JJ! said:
To be honest - the amount of softness and lack of detail his Sony shots showed made me question how genuine they were or what kind of settings he had.
Click to expand...

The Sony is 24mp whereas the Canon is 30mp so there is that extra 20% extra resolution. He zoomed in both the same so they are 1:1. It seems more like he zoom passed their 1:1 pixel or zoomed to the Canon’s 1:1 so the Sony is now passed its pixels. Had he stopped at Sony’s so the Canon is displaying at 1:0.8 then the Sony will look sharp. The Canon will always be sharper but you won’t get the pixelation from zooming in too far.
 
Boooom!

Sigma are hitting big at Photokina....

28mm f1.4
40mm f1.4
56mm f1.4
70-200mm f2.8
60-600mm f4.5-6.3

:D
 
Riz_Guru said:
Boooom!

Sigma are hitting big at Photokina....

28mm f1.4
40mm f1.4
56mm f1.4
70-200mm f2.8
60-600mm f4.5-6.3

:D
Click to expand...

They are APSC though aren't they the 56mm is anyway?

The 60-600 won't be available for Sony
 
Last edited:
Strange choice of focal lengths by Sigma. 28mm & 40mm are very close to their existing 24mm and 35mm. Not sure why anyone would want those. Maybe they just feel the need to bring some new stuff out.
 
f/2.8 said:
Strange choice of focal lengths by Sigma. 28mm & 40mm are very close to their existing 24mm and 35mm. Not sure why anyone would want those. Maybe they just feel the need to bring some new stuff out.
Click to expand...

Could you not say that about every manufacturer?
 
twist said:
Could you not say that about every manufacturer?
Click to expand...


Yeah sometimes but not always. When Sigma first introduced the Art range they where pretty ground breaking. Adding these nondescript focal lengths is a little boring. To be fair there isn't a huge amount they can improve the format I guess, without adding massive extra cost.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not even the 70-200? That would potentially sell like hot [emoji91] cakes in Sony as an alternative to the gm
Click to expand...

It's just the 56mm that is APSC apparently. The 70-200 should be F.E. Not sure I would buy a Sigma 70-200 the old versions where very poor, but never say never.
 
f/2.8 said:
Strange choice of focal lengths by Sigma. 28mm & 40mm are very close to their existing 24mm and 35mm. Not sure why anyone would want those. Maybe they just feel the need to bring some new stuff out.
Click to expand...

28mm is a traditional focal length and was AFAIK considered to be the widest before you got to the perspective challenging 24mm :D 40mm used to be quite popular in some circles too and there were AFAI remember a couple/few rangefinder 40mm lenses and even today some think it's a good compromise do it all between the slightly wider 35 and slightly longer 50mm.

For me they can make as many lenses at as many focal lenses as they want :D as it gives me more choice :D

I have the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 and also a Rokkor 45mm f2 and I would think about getting a modern AF 40mm but it would need to be compact and nice :D but I'll be surprised if these aren't the usual big fat modern lumps.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
28mm is a traditional focal length and was AFAIK considered to be the widest before you got to the perspective challenging 24mm :D 40mm used to be quite popular in some circles too and there were AFAI remember a couple/few rangefinder 40mm lenses and even today some think it's a good compromise do it all between the slightly wider 35 and slightly longer 50mm.

For me they can make as many lenses at as many focal lenses as they want :D as it gives me more choice :D

I have the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 and also a Rokkor 45mm f2 and I would think about getting a modern AF 40mm but it would need to be compact and nice :D but I'll be surprised if these aren't the usual big fat modern lumps.
Click to expand...

That’s a lot of smiley faces.
 
f/2.8 said:
Yeah sometimes but not always. When Sigma first introduced the Art range they where pretty ground breaking. Adding these nondescript focal lengths is a little boring. To be fair there isn't a huge amount they can improve the format I guess, without adding massive extra cost.
Click to expand...

28-30mm is pretty much the equivalent to most mobile phones so I wouldn't say it's an odd focal length.
 
woof woof said:
28mm is a traditional focal length and was AFAIK considered to be the widest before you got to the perspective challenging 24mm :D 40mm used to be quite popular in some circles too and there were AFAI remember a couple/few rangefinder 40mm lenses and even today some think it's a good compromise do it all between the slightly wider 35 and slightly longer 50mm.

For me they can make as many lenses at as many focal lenses as they want :D as it gives me more choice :D

I have the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 and also a Rokkor 45mm f2 and I would think about getting a modern AF 40mm but it would need to be compact and nice :D but I'll be surprised if these aren't the usual big fat modern lumps.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they be, they are fast, sharp modern, AF lenses, high end optics.... I doubt many would buy an art lens if it was an uncorrected old manual design that is MF.... Plenty of those around on the used market.
 
And now there are 2.

8bQSXoZ.jpg
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Why wouldn't they be, they are fast, sharp modern, AF lenses, high end optics.... I doubt many would buy an art lens if it was an uncorrected old manual design that is MF.... Plenty of those around on the used market.
Click to expand...
That's why I said I'd be surprised if they aren't and why I probably will not be buying. If they're the size of the excellent modern corrected AF 55mm then they'd be a possible maybe. But I doubt they will be.

It'll be interesting to see if these are slr lenses with a built in spacer or designed for e mount.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Sony apsc may be worth buying into, now that sigma is doing Sony's job and creating some superb apsc glass.

16 1.4
30 1.4
56 1.4
Click to expand...


The 56 1.4 will also be converted by Sigma for MFT, an interesting lens for sure. I wonder what the price on it will be? the 16mm and 30 were very good value.
 
woof woof said:
That's why I said I'd be surprised if they aren't and why I probably will not be buying. If they're the size of the excellent modern corrected AF 55mm then they'd be a possible maybe. But I doubt they will be.

It'll be interesting to see if these are slr lenses with a built in spacer or designed for e mount.
Click to expand...

They are made for as many cams as possible so I'd imagine more of the same except the 56.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top