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

RPhotos said:
That’s a hard watch, feel he could of said must of that in 3 minutes and only made one video rather than several parts
Click to expand...

I watched that last night, he likes to break down his reviews in parts. If you like DXO then you will love his channel. He will also do 1 conclusion video too, just wait for that where he ranks them at the end.
 
Looking for recommendations:

Travel/day-to-day bag

for two Sony bodies, and three lenses, a mixture of 85, 16-35, 24-70 and 90 macro.

If I could get two of those and the 70-200 that would be a bonus.

I’m looking for a satchel style.

Shoot/weekend bag

For two Sony bodies and 7 lenses, 35 1.4, 85 1.4, 90 macro, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400.

Either backpack or trolley.
 
Last edited:
My first time out with my Nikon pre ai 50mm f1.4, just a walk to the shops...

Berries.

DSC00956.jpg

"Take my picture with the grass."

DSC00969.jpg

It's quite a nice lens, there's vignetting at wider apertures and f1.4 is frankly a mess but other than that :D

Back home and a bit tired after over 9k steps according to the smart watch thingy. Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 at f2.8.

DSC00987.jpg
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
white balance looks much better on these Alan
Click to expand...
There wasn't much wrong with the ones that caused all the debate either, the "corrected" one (which I did appreciate :D) had a more natural skin tone but a purple forest floor (I much preferred my own) and you have to take into account that those shots were under a canopy of leaves (green ones) with the sun shining through them.
 
Last edited:
I'll post this here... Why not...

Windows did an update today and started to display a little thumbnail picture for all of my raws. It's done this before and it's not what I want to see so I have a partial fix that worked last time it did this and sort of works this time too in a good enough sort of way. If anyone experiences the same and finds it annoying my fix is here...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/windows-displaying-raw-thumbnails.680811/

and if anyone has a better one please let me know :D
 
I'm assuming there is no way in camera to set a bigger Jpeg preview file in RAW? The A7III ones are annoyingly small when reviewing in Photomechanic. Apart from converting to DNG, I can't think of any way to rectify this.
 
decigallen said:
I'm assuming there is no way in camera to set a bigger Jpeg preview file in RAW? The A7III ones are annoyingly small when reviewing in Photomechanic. Apart from converting to DNG, I can't think of any way to rectify this.
Click to expand...
Agreed really annoying. Could shoot raw+jpg?
 
Doing my first bit of editing the A7iii. I'm working a little harder than I normally do, but I think its a case of getting used to the colours and contrast and having edited nothing really but Nikon before. I remember that it took me about 6 months to properly adapt to the D4 after using the D700/D3s for years. The Sony files are closer to the D750 than the D700 was.

wl8AiBK.jpg


70rpgZZ.jpg
 
decigallen said:
Doing my first bit of editing the A7iii. I'm working a little harder than I normally do, but I think its a case of getting used to the colours and contrast and having edited nothing really but Nikon before. I remember that it took me about 6 months to properly adapt to the D4 after using the D700/D3s for years. The Sony files are closer to the D750 than the D700 was.

wl8AiBK.jpg


70rpgZZ.jpg
Click to expand...


I want to like this twice.is the 2nd photo in F/8?
 
decigallen said:
Thanks, Raymond - appreciate it. It was maybe as narrow as f14 if memory serves. Sun was low but still really strong. Being able to use the evf really helped.
Click to expand...

I find this part of the photo hard to do not because of the photo but to actually “remove” the couple from their drinks, food and friends.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I find this part of the photo hard to do not because of the photo but to actually “remove” the couple from their drinks, food and friends.
Click to expand...

They gave us complete creative freedom. Said yes to everything. Technically speaking the first is a really simple shot, but practically speaking it's so difficult to do at a real wedding.
 
decigallen said:
They gave us complete creative freedom. Said yes to everything. Technically speaking the first is a really simple shot, but practically speaking it's so difficult to do at a real wedding.
Click to expand...

I know I shouldn't but I feel kind of guilty asking at times !

And to drag them away….and stopping at every guests in between and I am looking at the sun setting…..getting nervous of missing out because it is now just right etc….

It's my favourite time to shoot but also quite tricky, if i can get to where i want to be.
 
In the next couple of days I shall be making the (almost) complete switch from Olympus m4/3 to Sony EF.
To complete what I already have in lenses I'm going to look at the 16-35 f4 for wider stuff and the 24-70 F4 Zeiss for general travel. I know the 16-35 is poor at the long end but I intend to use it between 16 and 24ish. I also know that that 24-70 is poor at the edges at 24 and wide open but I will be using it stopped down more mostly I suppose between 35-70.

My main interests are wildlife so I have the 100-400GM with the 1.4TC and portraits for which I have the 85mm Batis 1.8. For general walking around in stealth mode I have the Zeiss 35mm 2.8. All of these I find excellent thus far.
I shall be looking to p/ex my Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro and my 300 F4 Pro.
I'd appreciate some comments on my choice of these last 2 lenses.
 
footman said:
In the next couple of days I shall be making the (almost) complete switch from Olympus m4/3 to Sony EF.
To complete what I already have in lenses I'm going to look at the 16-35 f4 for wider stuff and the 24-70 F4 Zeiss for general travel. I know the 16-35 is poor at the long end but I intend to use it between 16 and 24ish. I also know that that 24-70 is poor at the edges at 24 and wide open but I will be using it stopped down more mostly I suppose between 35-70.

My main interests are wildlife so I have the 100-400GM with the 1.4TC and portraits for which I have the 85mm Batis 1.8. For general walking around in stealth mode I have the Zeiss 35mm 2.8. All of these I find excellent thus far.
I shall be looking to p/ex my Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro and my 300 F4 Pro.
I'd appreciate some comments on my choice of these last 2 lenses.
Click to expand...

Firstly no such thing as sony EF :D

16-35mm f4 is not poor at 35mm. It's perfectly good and usable wide open and gets sharper stopped down to f5.6 and then f8. People complain because they compare it to the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 which is a prime lens. Zoom is always a compromise.
The Sony 24-70mm/4 also isn't poor at 24mm. It suffers from a fair bit of field of curvature. So if brick walls aren't your main subject matter you won't notice much poor corners. It is also a compromise zoom, sure the canon EF24-70/4 is sharper but it's also a fair bit larger. You won't find another FF zoom with constant f4 size of 24-70 which is smaller and better.

You can't win at everything because physics is a b***h :p
 
Last edited:
footman said:
That comes from a zillion years using Canon:D
Thanks for the other stuff, I’ve probably being reading too many reviews.
Click to expand...
Raymond Lin said:
Sony is FE, Canon is EF.

And Canon lenses on Sony works PRETTY well…..it's like Sony is trying to do something to Canon users…..

/looks at my ever increasing Sony gear collection.
Click to expand...

Actually still not technically true.

For canon, EF is the actual mount.
For Sony, it's e-mount and FE is a lens designation to denote a FF lens apart from APS-C lens. Just like how Nikon have FX and DX designations (but no such thing as FX or DX mount).
 
nandbytes said:
Actually still not technically true.

For canon, EF is the actual mount.
For Sony, it's e-mount and FE is a lens designation to denote a FF lens apart from APS-C lens. Just like how Nikon have FX and DX designations (but no such thing as FX or DX mount).
Click to expand...

You forgot EF-S which is APSC.

So in that FE is for Full frame lenses and EF is for Full frame lenses.

And when someone says FE lenses, you know exactly what they are talking about.

When someone says E-mount lenses, it's a bit vague.

When I said that's a EF lens, I mean that is a full frame Canon lens, I don't mean the 17-50/2.8 EF-S.
 
Last edited:
I guess Sony moved from APSC into FF where as Canon moved from FF into APSC.

EOS EF mount came in the 80's so when APSC came along, they had to add the letter, EF-S

Sony started with E-mount APSC and when FF came along, they added the F.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You forgot EF-S which is APSC.

So it is correct in that FE is for Full frame lenses and EF is for Full frame lenses.
Click to expand...

EF-S is basically a different mount. EF-S lenses don't fit on EF mount.

All e-mount lenses including APS-C lens fit on all e-mount bodies regardless of the format. Just like it does for Nikon F-mount. Nikon uses DX and FX to denote APS-C & FF respectively. Sony uses FE to denote their FF e-mount lens and absence of FE designation means it's an APS-C lens. Canon in their infinite wisdom made a new mount for APS-C lenses :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
I guess Sony moved from APSC into FF where as Canon moved from FF into APSC.

EOS EF mount came in the 80's so when APSC came along, they had to add the letter, EF-S

Sony started with E-mount APSC and when FF came along, they added the F.
Click to expand...
Raymond Lin said:
I think you can fit the EF-S lens into EF…you just will break the mirror if you take a photo.
Click to expand...

True.

But other of manufacturers also moved from FF to APS-C. Nikons F-mount and sony/Minolta a-mount are both older than EF. For some reason they didn't feel the need to make a new mount ;)

Ok ok may be saying it's a different mount is wrong but I still can't understand why they decided to make it so that you can't use EF-S lenses on EF.
Having said that canon (non-sigma) EF-S lenses don't work with MC-11 adapter. Techically shows sigma APS-C lenses are EF lenses with a smaller image circle rather than EF-S lenses. So they are somewhat different.

I suppose canon users don't have much point in using EF-S lenses on their FF bodies. On Sony is quite useful for video purposes and video centric lenses for shooting in super35 format.
 
nandbytes said:
True.

But other of manufacturers also moved from FF to APS-C. Nikons F-mount and sony/Minolta a-mount are both older than EF. For some reason they didn't feel the need to make a new mount ;)

Ok ok may be saying it's a different mount is wrong but I still can't understand why they decided to make it so that you can't use EF-S lenses on EF.
Having said that canon (non-sigma) EF-S lenses don't work with MC-11 adapter. Techically shows sigma APS-C lenses are EF lenses with a smaller image circle rather than EF-S lenses. So they are somewhat different.

I suppose canon users don't have much point in using EF-S lenses on their FF bodies. On Sony is quite useful for video purposes and video centric lenses for shooting in super35 format.
Click to expand...

One is a mirrorless, one is DSLR. I guess if you put the mirror up first then put the lens on…..it might work :p

I am saying if the mirror isn't there, a EF-S lens will work on say the 5D4. There is no reason why it won't and then get the same functions as a APSC lens on a A7III.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
One is a mirrorless, one is DSLR. I guess if you put the mirror up first then put the lens on…..it might work :p

I am saying if the mirror isn't there, a EF-S lens will work on say the 5D4. There is no reason why it won't and then get the same functions as a APSC lens on a A7III.
Click to expand...

A-Mount was DSLR as well (and was originally a film mount), and is now DSLT - which still uses a mirror, but a fixed one.

My first DSLR was the A200, APS-C A mount, no issues with using FF lenses - since the APS-C mirror is smaller than the FF mirror there's no risk using them that way round.
Going the other way, and putting APS-C lenses on FF - well, that will only be an issue if your lens designers have made the assumption that they can use the extra space back from the mount towards the mirror that the smaller APS-C mirror gives - which the Sony lens designers (including those that moved from Minolta to Sony) were smart enough not to do, so you can mount any APS-C A-Mount lens on a FF A-Mount camera (and the camera will detect it as such via the lens ID, and automatically switch the sensor to a crop mode, unless you disable that feature).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top