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

Nice shot, I was there not long ago and was lucky enough to catch an awesome sunset.

Banding? Yes I do have noticed that on my a7iii too, lots of it, something I did not have problems with on my previous D750.
I have not updated my firmware yet but I believe that was one of the things they were fixing?

Thanks. In terms of the firmware update yes I noticed on the "fix list" that "banding was improved". I've performed an update so once I get back this weekend I will give it a try.
 
Thanks. In terms of the firmware update yes I noticed on the "fix list" that "banding was improved". I've performed an update so once I get back this weekend I will give it a try.

How are you guys getting banding? Is it using ES?
 
I knocked it off and it didn't make any difference. Next two steps is to try with the new firmware and if that doesn't work change from sRGB to Adobe RGB as apparently that can cause problems too.

Are you shooting 12 bit? I'm using srgb uncompressed, not seeing any banding... Unlike the 6d I had :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I'll note that too and add it to the "if that doesn't work move to the next step" list. ;)

I'd be surprised if you get it in 14 bit as I push the crap out of my files in post and a lot of them are in mixed artificial light where banding would usually show. Good luck with it.
 
Out of interest are any other a7 users seeing banding with mechanical shutter? I know you can get it with efcs off and flash using MS and using ES.
 
Last edited:
Cheers, I think I switched off all of the NR reductions, will check to see what else there is!

There are lens corrections, that's a sensor correction, look for distortion CA and shading / vignette correction. Turn them all off and make sure lightroom isn't applying corrections automatically on import.
 
There are lens corrections, that's a sensor correction, look for distortion CA and shading / vignette correction. Turn them all off and make sure lightroom isn't applying corrections automatically on import.

Ah ok, banding is also appearing in the JPGs that camera is producing but will take on your advice onboard to narrow it down. I'm hoping the firmware is going to fix it, just frustrating I dont have access to the camera until I get back.
 
Morning All,

I hate to ask since it looks like i;m indecisive but further to my earlier ruminations I’ve largely decided on an RX1Rii primarily done to size and function being my main criteria. However, looking on Camera size comparison the size difference between the RX1Rii and an A7Rii with 35/2.8 isn’t as large as you think. Having handled the A7 in Jessops the size was smaller than I thought and i’m Asking if anyone has any real world experience of handling the two together or using them both? (Small Jessops near me with limited stock and no other camera shops nearby).

The A7Rii would obviously give me much mor flexibility going forward but I’m not totally certain I want that in some ways, what I want is to pick the camera up and take it. Since I travel a lot on business I want to ensure I have something small enough, but giving quality enough images (low light especially).

Thanks for any feedback
Tim (not usually indecisive)
 
Just in case anyone is interested LCE have the following Canon FD lenses...

28mm f2.8 - £49.99.
35mm f2.8 - £59.99.
50mm f1.8 breech lock - £39.99.
50mm f3.5 macro - £79.99.
100mm f2.8 - £89.99.

They also have a 85mm f1.2 - £599.

That last one doesn't interest me but the others all look nice especially that 35mm f2.8 but I have one already.

I have a Novoflex adapter for my FD's and they all work nicely and in fact I was using a 24mm Miranda in FD and a 50mm f1.4 this morning. I wont say they're up to modern lens standards but they're nice lenses.


I tried selling the 50mm f/3.5 macro on here and elsewhere for less and nobody bit. Decided to keep it for now, it's a lovely little lens - for anyone interested, you should know it is only a 1:2 macro, it requires an add-on adapter to achieve full 1:1, LCE don't state whether they include the original adapter for it. You can find them on ebay for about £15 though. Or do what I do - use a Raynox 250 which sees it achieve just over 1:1. I have a couple of generic Chinese FD adapters and they work fine, think they were about £10 a piece. I was looking out for a minty 200 F4, but after some research I'm stuck on the Nikon 200mm F4 AI, looks to be a bit better ... but then I already have a spare FD adapter
 
Last edited:
Morning All,

I hate to ask since it looks like i;m indecisive but further to my earlier ruminations I’ve largely decided on an RX1Rii primarily done to size and function being my main criteria. However, looking on Camera size comparison the size difference between the RX1Rii and an A7Rii with 35/2.8 isn’t as large as you think. Having handled the A7 in Jessops the size was smaller than I thought and i’m Asking if anyone has any real world experience of handling the two together or using them both? (Small Jessops near me with limited stock and no other camera shops nearby).

The A7Rii would obviously give me much mor flexibility going forward but I’m not totally certain I want that in some ways, what I want is to pick the camera up and take it. Since I travel a lot on business I want to ensure I have something small enough, but giving quality enough images (low light especially).

Thanks for any feedback
Tim (not usually indecisive)

Personally I would go the Sony A7R II route, the RX1 RII is just too expensive for what it is in my opinion and the battery life isn’t great.
The added flexibility of having a changeable mount could prove useful later down the line.... for a small setup I would go for the Sony A7R II, Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and Zeiss 55mm f1.8, both great lenses, with that massive 42.2mp resolution you could then use APS-C crop mode to give you a long length on the 55mm. :)
 
I tried selling the 50mm f/3.5 macro on here and elsewhere for less and nobody bit. Decided to keep it for now, it's a lovely little lens - for anyone interested, you should know it is only a 1:2 macro, it requires an add-on adapter to achieve full 1:1, LCE don't state whether they include the original adapter for it. You can find them on ebay for about £15 though. Or do what I do - use a Raynox 250 which sees it achieve just over 1:1. I have a couple of generic Chinese FD adapters and they work fine, think they were about £10 a piece. I was looking out for a minty 200 F4, but after some research I'm stuck on the Nikon 200mm F4 AI, looks to be a bit better ... but then I already have a spare FD adapter

I got the Sigma 50mm f2.8 as it's one of the few 1:1 macros from that time and it's f2.8 whereas some of the others aren't.

I don't use my FD's much as mostly I prefer the Rokkors but one thing in the FD's favor is that there seem to be a lot around in very good condition and unused ones sometimes crop up too whilst I don't remember ever seeing any "new" Minolta Rokkor or Olympus Zuiko's for sale anywhere.

I do wonder if there'll be a rush for Canon and Nikon manual lenses now that they have mirrorless bodies out and if there is prices may rise and good ones may get harder to find. A while ago I took a good look at the Nikon 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4 manual lenses that are still being made new but in the end I went for old used pre ai ones.

PS.
The Nikon 35mm f1.4 is available new for about £560

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-Ni...h=item3d6d66ccec:g:j9QAAOSwMSZbUuS6:rk:1:pf:0

and the 50mm f1.2 is new for under £400.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-Ni...h=item3fa5ea2009:g:eywAAOSwuMNbUuTE:rk:1:pf:0

Nice :D
 
Last edited:
Personally I would go the Sony A7R II route, the RX1 RII is just too expensive for what it is in my opinion and the battery life isn’t great.
The added flexibility of having a changeable mount could prove useful later down the line.... for a small setup I would go for the Sony A7R II, Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and Zeiss 55mm f1.8, both great lenses, with that massive 42.2mp resolution you could then use APS-C crop mode to give you a long length on the 55mm. :)

I keep looking at the RX1 cameras but looking at the size differences on the comparator site the A7's seem to be more or less just the evf hump bigger and have the advantages of being cheaper and allowing lens changes and IMO as none of these cameras are truly pocketable (for me) and need to be in a small bag I reasoned that if I was going to take a camera in a bag it may as well be an A7 for cost and flexibility reasons. The RX1 cameras do have that nice lens though.
 
I don't think anybody with a Canon would be in the slightest bit interested in a Nikon TBH? Where as Nikon shooters may well look at a Sony Mirrorless.

If I found a review saying the Canon was the best mirrorless then I would post here and the Canon forum.

Personally I think that anyone heavily invested in a either Canon or Nikon it's a no brainier to be get the relevant mirror less offering if they are after a mirrorless camera, let's face they any camera produced in the last 10 years is capable of producing stunning work.
It's people who have a few lenses who in my opinion who are more likely to switch systems so why wouldn't a Canon shooter who fits in to this criteria look at the Nikon and vice versa. I know if that was me I would be looking at all the options.
I'm all in favour of different systems getting talked about in camera threads I know if I was in the market I would be reading theses threads and the more info the better.
 
Personally I think that anyone heavily invested in a either Canon or Nikon it's a no brainier to be get the relevant mirror less offering if they are after a mirrorless camera, let's face they any camera produced in the last 10 years is capable of producing stunning work.
It's people who have a few lenses who in my opinion who are more likely to switch systems so why wouldn't a Canon shooter who fits in to this criteria look at the Nikon and vice versa. I know if that was me I would be looking at all the options.
I'm all in favour of different systems getting talked about in camera threads I know if I was in the market I would be reading theses threads and the more info the better.

I think that the view that any camera is good enough is maybe true for many of us but some people do use the more advanced features to good effect and for these people some kit clearly has an advantage... for example the Sony eye AF may be very useful for wedding guys and the super duper AF performance, frame rate and silent shooting of the A9 must be advantages for others. If there's something you need to get a particular result then there is surely a difference in the kit and an advantage in changing systems sometimes for some people who want the abilities the kit brings and are able to use it.
 
Personally I think that anyone heavily invested in a either Canon or Nikon it's a no brainier to be get the relevant mirror less offering if they are after a mirrorless camera, let's face they any camera produced in the last 10 years is capable of producing stunning work.
It's people who have a few lenses who in my opinion who are more likely to switch systems so why wouldn't a Canon shooter who fits in to this criteria look at the Nikon and vice versa. I know if that was me I would be looking at all the options.
I'm all in favour of different systems getting talked about in camera threads I know if I was in the market I would be reading theses threads and the more info the better.

Is it though or is it better to ditch the dying mount before prices plummet?
Whichever way you look at it, both the traditional Nikon and Canon mounts will eventually become like the Sony A-Mount.
I don’t buy the “use your old lenses on the new body” approach as that’s just a short-term approach to saving some costs. Native lenses will always have advantages on many different fronts..... :)
 
Personally I think that anyone heavily invested in a either Canon or Nikon it's a no brainier to be get the relevant mirror less offering if they are after a mirrorless camera, let's face they any camera produced in the last 10 years is capable of producing stunning work.
It's people who have a few lenses who in my opinion who are more likely to switch systems so why wouldn't a Canon shooter who fits in to this criteria look at the Nikon and vice versa. I know if that was me I would be looking at all the options.
I'm all in favour of different systems getting talked about in camera threads I know if I was in the market I would be reading theses threads and the more info the better.

People take photographs, not cameras. Absolutely agree that any camera from any manufacturer in the right hands is capable of taking great photographs.

Choosing a camera or system isn't just about image quality any more though and hasn't been for a long time. It's about finding something that best suits what your needs/wants are and there is no such thing as the perfect camera.

For me personally I wanted a mirrorless system as I liked the evf and the ability to see the exposure and depth of field before taking hitting the shutter button.

It then came down to a choice of the current options that are available. I held of deciding until Nikon & Canon's specs for their new mirror less options where released before making a decision on what suited me best.

It took some persuading for me to ditch Nikon after the best part of 20 years but there mirrorless option just didn't suit my requirements.

It would have been easier and much cheaper to stay with Nikon and keep the lenses etc. that I already had but the one card slot thing killed any chance of staying with Nikon stone dead straight away so it absolutely isn't a no brainer for everyone to just stick with Nikon or Canon.

I could have made the decision just to stick with what I had which worked well until Nikon eventually offered the same advantages as the current Sony options, but that would have mean't waiting possibly another 1-2 years and that wasn't something I wanted to do.

I was especially disappointed in the Nikon offering as it really brought nothing new to the table at all. At least Canon to be fair to them, have some exciting lenses and added a few new features like the shutter closing when changing lenses. Neither of the Canon or Nikon offerings offered anything like what I wanted from a new camera body. The Sony options came closest for what I wanted so I jumped ship to them.

I can't see any advantage for anyone that choose Nikon or Canon mirrorless over Sony other than ergonomics are better and it may be cheaper in terms of being able to use there current lenses via an adaptor.
 
Is it though or is it better to ditch the dying mount before prices plummet?
Whichever way you look at it, both the traditional Nikon and Canon mounts will eventually become like the Sony A-Mount.
I don’t buy the “use your old lenses on the new body” approach as that’s just a short-term approach to saving some costs. Native lenses will always have advantages on many different fronts..... :)

But reports from using EF lenses on the R is that there isn’t a trade off in performance and canon have stated that the MkIII lenses will have a performance advantage even using the adaptor.

I’ve briefly used an A9 and thought it was pretty good. I’d buy one but the prices of their long lenses make it just financially not viable to change for a small improvement in performance. Perhaps eventually they will bring out the same focal lengths f4/f5.6 and then I might be interested. But by the time that happens Canon will probably have something competitive out and the whole shall I shan’t I process starts again.
 
Personally I would go the Sony A7R II route, the RX1 RII is just too expensive for what it is in my opinion and the battery life isn’t great.
The added flexibility of having a changeable mount could prove useful later down the line.... for a small setup I would go for the Sony A7R II, Zeiss 35mm f2.8 and Zeiss 55mm f1.8, both great lenses, with that massive 42.2mp resolution you could then use APS-C crop mode to give you a long length on the 55mm. :)

I keep looking at the RX1 cameras but looking at the size differences on the comparator site the A7's seem to be more or less just the evf hump bigger and have the advantages of being cheaper and allowing lens changes and IMO as none of these cameras are truly pocketable (for me) and need to be in a small bag I reasoned that if I was going to take a camera in a bag it may as well be an A7 for cost and flexibility reasons. The RX1 cameras do have that nice lens though.

The camera size comparison site is what I use and it seems like it's really only the EVF hump thats the major difference (and depth of lens by a small margin on the 35/2.8). There's also the IBIS in the A7Rii to consider as a plus. Honestly it's stupid, I just keep turning myself round in circles trying to figure out which camera it is that's gonna work best for me and what I want (50D is sitting gather dust as it's always "just too big" to take out, hence the quest for something smaller...). Thanks for the responses so far.
 
Last edited:
The camera size comparison site is what I use and it seems like it's really only the EVF hump thats the major difference (and depth of lens by a small margin on the 35/2.8). There's also the IBIS in the A7Rii to consider as a plus. Honestly it's stupid, I just keep turning myself round in circles trying to figure out which camera it is that's gonna work best for me and what I want (50D is sitting gather dust as it's always "just too big" to take out, hence the quest for something smaller...). Thanks for the responses so far.

One thing that swung it for me was that I wanted to use old film era lenses and of course that's a doddle on the A7 but slightly more difficult on the RX1 :D
 
But reports from using EF lenses on the R is that there isn’t a trade off in performance and canon have stated that the MkIII lenses will have a performance advantage even using the adaptor.

I’ve briefly used an A9 and thought it was pretty good. I’d buy one but the prices of their long lenses make it just financially not viable to change for a small improvement in performance. Perhaps eventually they will bring out the same focal lengths f4/f5.6 and then I might be interested. But by the time that happens Canon will probably have something competitive out and the whole shall I shan’t I process starts again.

This where a lot of people are going wrong especially in the Canon thread, yes there might be no performance disadvantages (trade offs) of EF lenses when compared to how they perform on their existing DSLR bodies, however compare them with native RF lenses and It’ll be a different story.
If EF lenses were that good and couldn’t be improved on, Canon wouldn’t have invented a new RF mount.
The RF mount brings new advantages which can only be taken advantage of with newly designed native RF lenses.

People forget that they also need to add the adaptor which makes the lens longer in length too.

If you want the best possible setup, buy native RF mount.
 
The camera size comparison site is what I use and it seems like it's really only the EVF hump thats the major difference (and depth of lens by a small margin on the 35/2.8). There's also the IBIS in the A7Rii to consider as a plus. Honestly it's stupid, I just keep turning myself round in circles trying to figure out which camera it is that's gonna work best for me and what I want (50D is sitting gather dust as it's always "just too big" to take out, hence the quest for something smaller...). Thanks for the responses so far.

Actually I've just remembered something else.

One thing that makes me nervous about spending a lot on a fixed lens camera is the possibility of getting dust bunnies. I know that with a fixed lens camera dust bunnies should be unlikely but it could happen or at least it could in my mind and if it does happen it's going to be an expensive fix not an easy clean as it is with a removeable lens camera. Dust bunnies may be unlikely and even very unlikely with a fixed lens camera and especially with one with a prime rather than a dust pumping zoom but once the thought enters my mind it's difficult to ignore.

Sorry if that puts you off :D
 
This where a lot of people are going wrong especially in the Canon thread, yes there might be no performance disadvantages (trade offs) of EF lenses when compared to how they perform on their existing DSLR bodies, however compare them with native RF lenses and It’ll be a different story.
If EF lenses were that good and couldn’t be improved on, Canon wouldn’t have invented a new RF mount.
The RF mount brings new advantages which can only be taken advantage of with newly designed native RF lenses.

People forget that they also need to add the adaptor which makes the lens longer in length too.

If you want the best possible setup, buy native RF mount.

And of course as time moves on there'll very probably be more new mirrorless lenses released and over time fewer new or updated DSLR lenses.
 
This where a lot of people are going wrong especially in the Canon thread, yes there might be no performance disadvantages (trade offs) of EF lenses when compared to how they perform on their existing DSLR bodies, however compare them with native RF lenses and It’ll be a different story.
If EF lenses were that good and couldn’t be improved on, Canon wouldn’t have invented a new RF mount.
The RF mount brings new advantages which can only be taken advantage of with newly designed native RF lenses.

People forget that they also need to add the adaptor which makes the lens longer in length too.

If you want the best possible setup, buy native RF mount.

I disagree. The priority for Canon was to give EF users equal performance to that they experience on a DSLR. They want to keep their customer base. Any other performance advantage for R lenses such as in lens IS which now appears to be as good as if not better than IBIS is always going to be welcome. Everything can be improved.
 
I disagree. The priority for Canon was to give EF users equal performance to that they experience on a DSLR. They want to keep their customer base. Any other performance advantage for R lenses such as in lens IS which now appears to be as good as if not better than IBIS is always going to be welcome. Everything can be improved.

Nobody is arguing that performance isn’t as good as if they were mounted on DSLR bodies, what I was trying to convey is that if you want the best out of the RF system, buy RF lenses, after all the bigger mount is touted as given Canon better options to design better / faster lenses etc. Something which can’t be done on the old EF mount. [emoji4]

Regarding IS or IBIS, having both is better.... Only having IS doesn’t give you every axis of stability so not quite sure how it can be better than IBIS.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is arguing that performance isn’t as good as if they were mounted on DSLR bodies, what I was trying to convey is that if you want the best out of the RF system, buy RF lenses, after all the bigger mount is touted as given Canon better options to design better / faster lenses etc. Something which can’t be done on the old EF mount. :)

I have my doubts that Canon will be producing long focal length lenses in RF mount very soon.

Anyway, the Sony A9 was impressive but just too much cash to spend for the gain. If I didn’t use a 500 than maybe.
 
I’ll take Robins assessment in the real world rather than some blogger who can’t be bothered to leave the house.

You should keep an open view when it comes to camera reviews, it’s best to test it for yourself and ultimately you should decided based on your own results. :)
 
Back
Top