The Amazing Sony A7 / A9 / Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,540
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Over at the rumor site there's a page with an A7RIII review and a link to a M mount Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 review...

A7RIII review...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-tidbits-927/#disqus_thread

I watched the A7RIII review and was a bit phased by her criticism of the number of menu options. This to me is a bit bizarre as surely it's good to have more menu options as that makes the kit more configurable and there is the option of spending an hour going through the menu and turning off or ignoring anything you don't like or wont use. There's also the quick menu thingy for the options you'll use the most... This is one area I would improve by allowing any menu item to be put in there.

I do think that criticising the kit for having too many menu items is a bit... strange.

M mount Voigtlander 50mm f1.2...

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-vm-50mm-1-2-nokton/

"So all in all it was a joy using and reviewing this lens and currently there are only 2 reasons I am not buying it:
1. It doesn’t really fit my kit at the moment (21/35/85 usually).
2. I would be tempted to wait for the E-mount version we already saw prototypes of.
But if you prefer using M-mount lenses anyway (I know some of you do), you are on a Kolari modded E-mount camera or you are not as patient as I am, I see no reason not to get it (if you are in the market for a lens like this).
Personally I prefer it over all the other small, fast and manual focus 50s currently available."

If looking at this I think I'd wait for the e mount version to avoid some of the possible issues with this M mount one like field curvature but I suppose the M mount one is better if you want to keep the option of using it on other non Sony cameras.

I'm pretty sure this will easily outperform my old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 but the Rokkor pictures could still have some retro charm :D
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,230
Edit My Images
Yes
Useful fact I learned today:

The a7III electronic shutter scan time is twice as fast when in 12 bit rather than 14 bit (1/30 instead of 1/15), ditto the a7RIII. That's a big difference and about as quick as it gets at the moment, a9 aside which is just in an entirely different league (1/160).
I thought the A7SII shutter also has a faster scan time.
 
Messages
3,350
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I thought the A7SII shutter also has a faster scan time.
May well be, the figures aren’t published and quite hard to get at, but I found a table where somebody had tested a whole load of cameras (the a7SII wasn’t on the list). Most are 1/15 (or less), I think only the Olympus E-M1 II and Sony a9 are quicker than 1/30 of those tested. I remember the Fuji X-T1 was shocking for distortion when the electronic shutter was first added as firmware as the scan time was so slow.
 
Messages
3,731
Name
Laurence
Edit My Images
Yes
The A7RIII shoots in 12 bit when in Continuous mode and compressed raw is selected.
RAW images recorded with this camera have a resolution of 14 bits per pixel. However, resolution is limited to 12 bits in the following shooting modes:
  • [
    Long Exposure NR]
  • [BULB]
  • [Cont. Shooting] when [
    RAW File Type] is set to [Compressed]
 
Messages
4,342
Name
Kris
Edit My Images
No
Useful fact I learned today:

The a7III electronic shutter scan time is twice as fast when in 12 bit rather than 14 bit (1/30 instead of 1/15), ditto the a7RIII. That's a big difference and about as quick as it gets at the moment, a9 aside which is just in an entirely different league (1/160).
I'll ask the dumb question then: what's the benefit?
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,230
Edit My Images
Yes
I'll ask the dumb question then: what's the benefit?
So 14-bit RAW enables you to capture more dynamic range which is rather useful while shooting at base ISO. But if you are shooting at a higher ISO (even 2-3 stops above base) which isn't uncommon for someone bursting with high shutter speeds, all you'll capture is more noise with 14-bits since your sensor does not really have the dynamic range at higher ISO to make use of the 14-bit depth. So it's not really useful.

So it depends on the situation which is useful or not.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,183
Edit My Images
No
So 14-bit RAW enables you to capture more dynamic range which is rather useful while shooting at base ISO. But if you are shooting at a higher ISO (even 2-3 stops above base) which isn't uncommon for someone bursting with high shutter speeds, all you'll capture is more noise with 14-bits since your sensor does not really have the dynamic range at higher ISO to make use of the 14-bit depth. So it's not really useful.

So it depends on the situation which is useful or not.
The OP wasn't talking about the difference between 12 and 14 bit image quality, he was talking about sensor scan speed 12v14 when using ES.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,230
Edit My Images
Yes
May well be, the figures aren’t published and quite hard to get at, but I found a table where somebody had tested a whole load of cameras (the a7SII wasn’t on the list). Most are 1/15 (or less), I think only the Olympus E-M1 II and Sony a9 are quicker than 1/30 of those tested. I remember the Fuji X-T1 was shocking for distortion when the electronic shutter was first added as firmware as the scan time was so slow.
Looks like A7S is no better - https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/how-fast-is-the-sony-a7s-silent-shutter/

So basically scan times generally sucks on most bodies. Sony has EFCS forever but they only introduced silent shutter with the A7S. I thought the main reason being the scan times would be low and people would complain. Looks like electronic shutter is still not good enough in these bodies.

Meh... Back to mechanical shutter....
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,230
Edit My Images
Yes
The OP wasn't talking about the difference between 12 and 14 bit image quality, he was talking about sensor scan speed 12v14 when using ES.
Looks like I misread the question...
The article I posted above shows the issue and explains it quite well :)
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,540
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I've never been bothered by rolling shutter but a faster scan time could help avoid banding under flickering artificial lighting. That's an issue I have run into with my Panasonic cameras.
 
Messages
15,183
Edit My Images
No
Looks like A7S is no better - https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/how-fast-is-the-sony-a7s-silent-shutter/

So basically scan times generally sucks on most bodies. Sony has EFCS forever but they only introduced silent shutter with the A7S. I thought the main reason being the scan times would be low and people would complain. Looks like electronic shutter is still not good enough in these bodies.

Meh... Back to mechanical shutter....
Not good enough for you. It may not be the best but it works fine for a lot of people.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,230
Edit My Images
Yes
Not good enough for you. It may not be the best but it works fine for a lot of people.
No it is in general it's rather slow compared to mechanical shutter for most bodies. That's basically the fact!
Nothing to do with me or my use cases. I use it from time to time where it's appropriate/needed. I am glad to have it but that doesn't change the fact that it sucks for scan times in comparison to mechanical shutter which was the point of the original discussion.
 
Messages
1,339
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
No it is in general it's rather slow compared to mechanical shutter for most bodies. That's basically the fact!
Nothing to do with me or my use cases. I use it from time to time where it's appropriate/needed. I am glad to have it but that doesn't change the fact that it sucks for scan times in comparison to mechanical shutter which was the point of the original discussion.
But the scan time may or may not matter depending on what you are shooting (given that it's still a relatively short period).
If you're shooting a static scene but where the shutter noise might be an issue, then electronic shutter might be the better choice.
If banding from artificial lights, or rolling shutter effects from subject motion are a concern, then mechanical may be better.
You just have to select the right option for the circumstances.
 
Messages
15,183
Edit My Images
No
No it is in general it's rather slow compared to mechanical shutter for most bodies. That's basically the fact!
Nothing to do with me or my use cases. I use it from time to time where it's appropriate/needed. I am glad to have it but that doesn't change the fact that it sucks for scan times in comparison to mechanical shutter which was the point of the original discussion.
The fact is it doesnt work for you and you generalise.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,230
Edit My Images
Yes
But the scan time may or may not matter depending on what you are shooting (given that it's still a relatively short period).
If you're shooting a static scene but where the shutter noise might be an issue, then electronic shutter might be the better choice.
If banding from artificial lights, or rolling shutter effects from subject motion are a concern, then mechanical may be better.
You just have to select the right option for the circumstances.
I never said otherwise. But the fact still remains scan speed is slow compared to mechanical shutter on most bodies. There is still a long way to go before mechanical shutter can be fully replaced.
Nothing to do with what I shoot or my use case.
 
Messages
15,183
Edit My Images
No
I never said otherwise. But the fact still remains scan speed is slow compared to mechanical shutter on most bodies. There is still a long way to go before mechanical shutter can be fully replaced.
Nothing to do with what I shoot or my use case.
Bloody hell, its still ages before cars fly! Doesnt mean that ES in its current form is useless.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,230
Edit My Images
Yes
Bloody hell, its still ages before cars fly! Doesnt mean that ES in its current form is useless.
Don't think I ever said it was useless. I said the scan speed sucks which it does, doesn't make it useless.

Everything Sony is useless. Useless weather sealing useless es. Maybe tomorrow it will be useless small emount compared to canikon
Yet another person that doesn't read.
Nothing to do with Sony. I said it sucked on most bodies or do you fail to recognise bodies that are made by other non-Sony manufacturers?

Why are you guys so defensive, it's almost as if you guys are anti-improvement.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,153
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
I’ve had thoughts of going 24/50
I found using the 20 / 35 together it made the 35 feel quite tight lol

Think it could work well with a 50mm too tbh. It's a really lovely lens the 20mm, very happy I swapped my 16-35 out for it. Can't wait to try it in some good light though as the light at yesterday's wedding was pants
 
Messages
6,480
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I found using the 20 / 35 together it made the 35 feel quite tight lol

Think it could work well with a 50mm too tbh. It's a really lovely lens the 20mm, very happy I swapped my 16-35 out for it. Can't wait to try it in some good light though as the light at yesterday's wedding was pants
I have the 20mm for my Nikon and agree it is absolutely fantastic. Superb for astro stuff too. I was tempted to replace my 24-70 with Art prime but always Flt that 24 was too close to 20mm and 35mm was too far away. Now that there is a 28mm, I could be tempted by a 20, 28, 50mm line up... The 40mm looks a bit special too.
 
Messages
806
Name
Maarten
Edit My Images
Yes
Top