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

Messages
7,511
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Tech said it the same but the z6 was much clearer better quality like a better screen
Their will always be positives and negatives to different systems, just because you found the Brickon Z6 EVF better than your A9's doesnt make it a better camera.
You bought the A9 for its better AF abilities, Eye-AF, silent shooting, blackout-free EVF and 20fps innit ;) time to post photos dude! Chop chop :p lol
 
Messages
16,340
Edit My Images
No
Tech said it the same but the z6 was much clearer better quality like a better screen
The Z7 is better than the A7RIV, both in EVF and LCD, but now I've turned the anti flicker off there's not much difference tbh, not enough for me to worry about. I did expect the A7RIV to be better though due to the extra resolution.
 
Messages
8,265
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
The Z7 is better than the A7RIV, both in EVF and LCD, but now I've turned the anti flicker off there's not much difference tbh, not enough for me to worry about. I did expect the A7RIV to be better though due to the extra resolution.
Just my though doesn’t bother me but what confuse me a9 and z6 got same res why they not appearing same
 
Messages
7,511
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Just my though doesn’t bother me but what confuse me a9 and z6 got same res why they not appearing same
Different manufacturers or configurations perhaps?
Check the settings on your Sony A9 as I think you can configure the EVF to offer smoother lower resolution playback or slower higher resolution.... can't remember what it called of it I am right.
Stop going of the technicalities and start shooting... this is where I used to get stuck too ;)
 
Messages
8,265
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Some say you can turn anti flicker on or off in the A9 since firmware 3.0 but can’t in a life find it
 
Messages
7,511
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Some say you can turn anti flicker on or off in the A9 since firmware 3.0 but can’t in a life find it
A far as I am aware, the Sony A9 doesn't have a Anti-flicker mode like the newer bodies, unless I am mistaken.
Just use mechanical 5fps shutter if you are having banding issues under certain LED lighting conditions. :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,924
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
Some say you can turn anti flicker on or off in the A9 since firmware 3.0 but can’t in a life find it
The A9 doesn't have anti flicker although the A9II does but it only works in mechanical, it isn't a problem in terms of the real reason for having anti flicker as you can just shoot at high speed and shoot through the issues with led lights.

I guess you want to turn it off as it was mentioned above that doing this on the A7RIV can make the lcd look a bit nicer and you aren't happy with the lcd on the A9.

Honestly it is something that you shouldn't worry about it and even though you have one of the best cameras around it seems you are always looking to poke holes in stuff to feed a need to buy something else.

I guess that stems from being more of a lover of gadgets than photography. Your not on your own on here there are plenty of others on here that just like gadgets, each to their own and all that.

A camera is just a tool for me, yeah I want the best tech to help me get the result I want, but I couldn't care less about stuff like the lcd etc.
 
Messages
3,924
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I found banding on the LCD doesnt mean banding in the photo.
Yes that is correct you can only tell if banding will show after the image has been taken. It is rarely an issue with the A9 and the very odd time it does crop up, if you drop the shutter speed to below 1/100, 99 times in 100 it goes away. It's not like the A7III etc. were it almost seems you are always going to get banding when using the silent shutter indoors.
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,831
Edit My Images
No
Yes that is correct you can only tell if banding will show after the image has been taken. It is rarely an issue with the A9 and the very odd time it does crop up, if you drop the shutter speed to below 1/100, 99 times in 100 it goes away. It's not like the A7III etc. were it almost seems you are always going to get banding when using the silent shutter indoors.
yeah, i never saw it in any pics in some really dodgy mixed light.
 
Messages
7,511
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
The A9 doesn't have anti flicker although the A9II does but it only works in mechanical, it isn't a problem in terms of the real reason for having anti flicker as you can just shoot at high speed and shoot through the issues with led lights.

I guess you want to turn it off as it was mentioned above that doing this on the A7RIV can make the lcd look a bit nicer and you aren't happy with the lcd on the A9.

Honestly it is something that you shouldn't worry about it and even though you have one of the best cameras around it seems you are always looking to poke holes in stuff to feed a need to buy something else.

I guess that stems from being more of a lover of gadgets than photography. Your not on your own on here there are plenty of others on here that just like gadgets, each to their own and all that.

A camera is just a tool for me, yeah I want the best tech to help me get the result I want, but I couldn't care less about stuff like the lcd etc.
I agree with you totally, if I was shooting professionally for a living, I would have kept my Sony A9 and GM lenses etc, they are the best tools for getting the shots required for clients etc.
I didn't sell up because it was rubbish or anything, far from it etc :)
@rookies f/2.8 is right, you need to stop picking holes and start enjoying your system..... as discussed previously, for me... the thousands of pounds worth of value in my gear didn't sit well with the photos I take privately... hence why I sold up.
You have to ask yourself, once you have bought your future lenses, are you happy with £6000-7000 sat in gear when factoring the actual output / end results?
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,265
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Was only just asking that’s all to make sure I am not missing anything as there still a lot to learn on this camera.

Am not going anywhere only going to add a lens or 2 to my current kit
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
22,734
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I've just read a thread on Luminous Landscape in which Sony colours and also the cameras are taking a bashing.

I keep thinking back to that gear blind test in which if people knew what the gear was they had their preferences but some changed when they didn't know what the gear was.

There are some knowledgeable people on LL but I've also read a lot over there that is IMO complete tosh. Overall though I do wonder how much of this is fanboyism, kidology and marketing rather than an actual personal preference based only on what the viewer is looking at and nothing more.
 
Messages
7,511
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
I've just read a thread on Luminous Landscape in which Sony colours and also the cameras are taking a bashing.

I keep thinking back to that gear blind test in which if people knew what the gear was they had their preferences but some changed when they didn't know what the gear was.

There are some knowledgeable people on LL but I've also read a lot over there that is IMO complete tosh. Overall though I do wonder how much of this is fanboyism, kidology and marketing rather than an actual personal preference based only on what the viewer is looking at and nothing more.
It seems a pointless thread, if you shoot RAW on the newer Sony bodies it shouldn't matter much .... Sony colour science has improved vastly.
For OOC JPEG's Sony's are rubbish..... Fuji are better in this regard.
In the past I never had issues with Nikon's colour output either.
 
Messages
3,924
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
It seems a pointless thread, if you shoot RAW on the newer Sony bodies it shouldn't matter much .... Sony colour science has improved vastly.
For OOC JPEG's Sony's are rubbish..... Fuji are better in this regard.
In the past I never had issues with Nikon's colour output either.
Depends what you are shooting I have used all the major brands and for Fuji skin tones are horrible, Nikon has always had issues with oversaturated green and reds that don't look red. Canon generally has nicer skin tones but they are not realistic. Panasonic can seem a little washed out, Sony is probably more realistic than the others but because of that they can seem a bit flat, apart from orange which often needs dialed down a little.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,511
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Depends what you are shooting I have used all the major brands and for Fuji skin tones are horrible, Nikon has always had issues with oversaturated green and reds that don't look red. Canon generally has nicer skin tones but they are not realistic. Panasonic can seem a little washed out, Sony is probably more realistic than the others but because of that they can seem a bit flat.
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :eek:
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
 
Messages
3,924
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :eek:
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
I hate those.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
22,734
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
It seems a pointless thread, if you shoot RAW on the newer Sony bodies it shouldn't matter much .... Sony colour science has improved vastly.
For OOC JPEG's Sony's are rubbish..... Fuji are better in this regard.
In the past I never had issues with Nikon's colour output either.
It does seem strange that over at LL they're talking about issues with WB.

Depends what you are shooting I have used all the major brands and for Fuji skin tones are horrible, Nikon has always had issues with oversaturated green and reds that don't look red. Canon generally has nicer skin tones but they are not realistic. Panasonic can seem a little washed out, Sony is probably more realistic than the others but because of that they can seem a bit flat, apart from orange which often needs dialed down a little.
Yet some on line reviewers/bloggers claim that Fuji are the bees knees for people shots.

I do also think that the processing package you're using or at least how you've set it up may be a factor, perhaps more so than some criticising brands may realise.
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,127
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :eek:
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
yeah - fairly subjective. i prefer sony over fuji for some things. fuji skin tones wins for me though.
 
Messages
3,924
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
It does seem strange that over at LL they're talking about issues with WB.



Yet some on line reviewers/bloggers claim that Fuji are the bees knees for people shots.

I do also think that the processing package you're using or at least how you've set it up may be a factor, perhaps more so than some criticising brands may realise.
For me Fuji does a good job with darker skin tones, but I live in Northern Ireland and most people are very fair skinned and Fuji really sucks there.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
22,734
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :eek:
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
I used to give all new employees going into certain departments an Ishihara colour test. It's an interesting test and throws up some interesting results but it isn't a catch all and real world colours and lighting and who perceives what are also things to consider.

I had a book rather than an online test and it had some plates in which the numbers shouldn't be visible to a normally sighted person. There's on online test you can do here...

https://www.colour-blindness.com/colour-blindness-tests/ishihara-colour-test-plates/

In industry if you're relying on a human some women seem to have a much superior ability to see differences in certain shades. Some theorise that this goes back to the hunter gatherer days when men really didn't need an advanced colour perception ability (it really doesn't matter too much if a man can't perceive subtle differences in wildebeest or boar colouration, they all taste the same) but women tended to be picking berries and roots and things and colour perception maybe mattered more to them.

PS.
That online test looks the same as the book I had. If that's the case from my notes the numbers in plates 14 and 15 and the wavy line in plate 19 shouldn't be visible to a normally sighted person. As far as I remember I could see the numbers in 14 and 15 if I looked for them (but I can't see them in this online test) but not the line in 19.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,511
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
I used to give all new employees going into certain departments an Ishihara colour test. It's an interesting test and throws up some interesting results but it isn't a catch all and real world colours and lighting and who perceives what are also things to consider.

I had a book rather than an online test and it had some plates in which the numbers shouldn't be visible to a normally sighted person. There's on online test you can do here...

https://www.colour-blindness.com/colour-blindness-tests/ishihara-colour-test-plates/

In industry if you're relying on a human some women seem to have a much superior ability to see differences in certain shades. Some theorise that this goes back to the hunter gatherer days when men really didn't need an advanced colour perception ability (it really doesn't matter too much if a man can't perceive subtle differences in wildebeest or boar colouration, they all taste the same) but women tended to be picking berries and roots and things and colour perception maybe mattered more to them.
FAILED :D lol
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
22,734
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I can't remember exactly how to grade the test but I do remember that you can get quite a few wrong and still be regarded as having colour vision within the normal range so it is entirely possible that you are still in spec :D

Unless you're not :D

I do remember telling those who did the interviewing that for some positions this should be a part of the process and not something we do once we've given people the job. They never listened.
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,340
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
Top