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

So Donington’s opened back up again meaning that I’m hoping to get to 2 or 3 events this year now, only trouble is I don’t have a 70-200mm/70-180mm yet, Now do I just go with the 85mm and 100-400mm, or risk a divorce and buy a 70-200mm type lens? :LOL:
 
I've just been called an idiot for getting too obsessed with noise at a pixel peeping level. (by a close friend and constructively :ROFLMAO: ). Do you feel the noise in my photo is at an acceptable level viewed normally, as in not zoomed in?

DSC03332-2 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
No one except photographers cares about noise. I’ve never heard a non photographer say, ‘that image would be nice if there wasn’t for all that noise’. Only photographer get hung up on noise and ISO. It reminds me of a guy I met on a hedgehog workshop. He was obsessed with noise, it got to a point where the guy running the workshop set up studio lights. That was sadly the end of the workshop for me as the light was harsh and awful. It made me chuckle a few months later looking through the chosen images for that years BWP, one of the chosen entries was a hedgehog taken at the same workshop by another photographer who hadn’t been as obsessed about noise!
 
viewing on here i'd say theres a little too much for my taste. viewing via flickr though it looks perfectly fine to my eyes.

Yeah, photos from flickr to this forum get blown up really big when in portrait
 
I doesn't look obviously noisy to me, in fact it looks quite good :D

Did you use any noise reduction?

Just a tiny bit in LR or PS, I don't have any specific noise removing software like Topaz etc.
 
Last edited:
Why wont the 100-400mm do?
If you have the 100-400 why do you need a 70-200?
Sometimes like wider shots but this makes it more difficult to ‘blur’ the fencing, so faster lenses help with this. Also, the 100-400mm is a bit heavier than I like for slow panning, the 70-180mm would be ideal for this (y)
 
It’s a lovely photo, but I’d still prefer it with less noise. I appreciate that everyone might not see it, and some see and don’t care, but you did ask for our opinion ;) :p

Yep me too, I want everything as clean as possible but still be uber detailed :ROFLMAO:

I love the image, and at social media size it does look much better. I suppose the old 'better to have a noisier image than no image at all' is kinda true. I'm making a photobook with Saal and it will be part of a collage page so I think it will be fine for that kind of print size.
 
Last edited:
At ISO 640 I wouldn't expect too much noise unless the picture has had a boost to the exposure. Have you boosted the exposure or added fill light or done anything else to increase noise?

It may be worth applying more NR to see if the detail remains.

Looking through my A7 pictures ISO 640 ones seem few and far between but I'm not seeing excessive noise in those I'm finding and I'd expect a newer camera to do better.
 
At ISO 640 I wouldn't expect too much noise unless the picture has had a boost to the exposure. Have you boosted the exposure or added fill light or done anything else to increase noise?

It may be worth applying more NR to see if the detail remains.

Looking through my A7 pictures ISO 640 ones seem few and far between but I'm not seeing excessive noise in those I'm finding and I'd expect a newer camera to do better.

It's a heavy crop of a tiny bird which is the main problem as the noise gets larger the more you crop.
 
ah. I see. That explains it.

You could selectively apply some more NR and see if you're happier and maybe even selectively drop the exposure of the background a bit as that might help too.
 
Yep me too, I want everything as clean as possible but still be uber detailed :ROFLMAO:

I love the image, and at social media size it does look much better. I suppose the old 'better to have a noisier image than no image at all' is kinda true. I'm making a photobook with Saal and it will be part of a collage page so I think it will be fine for that kind of print size.
I just brush in some NR to the background as I mentioned earlier, 10 second job (y)
 
So my new A6400 and replacement 10-18mm have arrived today. I am a very happy bunny!
The 10-18 is a little soft in the bottom left but it is so much better than the last one. :D

Just a couple of quick snaps. I know this isn't what the lens is suited to but I think the quality is great!

DSC00593 by Steve B, on Flickr

DSC00577 by Steve B, on Flickr
 
I have another question please...
I am about to pull the trigger on the Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS whilst the £50 cashback is on, making it £780.
However whilst watching YouTube reviews last night I noticed the forthcoming Sigma AF 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary for £900.

I want it for shooting wildlife including deer & birds and also the beach kitesurfers. On the face of it, it seems that the only benefit of the Sigma is 50mm longer range. Does anyone have a view on which they'd buy given the choice?
 
Last edited:
I have another question please...
I am about to pull the trigger on the Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS whilst the £50 cashback is on, making it £780.
However whilst watching YouTube reviews last night I noticed the forthcoming Sigma AF 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary for £900.

I want it for shooting wildlife including deer & birds and also the beach kitesurfers. On the face of it, it seems that the only benefit of the Sigma is 50mm longer range. Does anyone have a view on which they'd buy given the choice?

sigma will also work on FF cameras should you decide to upgrade.

the 70-350mm is more a travel friendly option than the sigma.

So it basically a trade off in weight and some reach (a noticeable amount none the less).
 
TBH they should be concentrating on getting a nice clear image first without artefacts appearing before upping the resolution, although if they've done both it cold be a winner.

yeah I agree and like nikon have managed (albeit at much slower fps) they should solve the issue of dropping the res while bursting.
 
I think more travel friendly may swing it.
 
If you have a sec please click on link and view on flickr (edit, posting the normal flickr link seems to show it at a much better size v resolution)

View: https://flic.kr/p/2jhjSeF

Because of the scale of the crop, I'd say the noise is degrading detail, even at the size presented here, and more so on Flickr. Did you adjust radius and masking when you sharpened the image? That can really help pull out a little more detail while dealing with background noise.
 
Because of the scale of the crop, I'd say the noise is degrading detail, even at the size presented here, and more so on Flickr. Did you adjust radius and masking when you sharpened the image? That can really help pull out a little more detail while dealing with background noise.

I'm not sure what I did any more I've played with the file quite a few times. I'm gonna have another go from scratch with the RAW file to see what I can come up with.
 
Oh arse. Not used my camera for ages and in that time the screen protector has decided it doesn’t like one corner and refuses to stay down!! What ones are people using? I don’t trust amazon reviews since half of them are false.
 
Oh arse. Not used my camera for ages and in that time the screen protector has decided it doesn’t like one corner and refuses to stay down!! What ones are people using? I don’t trust amazon reviews since half of them are false.
I used these for several screens, they seem to be good:

I think they're in the non-false half of reviews:D
 
I used these for several screens, they seem to be good:

I think they're in the non-false half of reviews:D

the last one I bought had 5 star reviews but when you opened it they offered a voucher if you gave a 5 star review!!
 
Oh arse. Not used my camera for ages and in that time the screen protector has decided it doesn’t like one corner and refuses to stay down!! What ones are people using? I don’t trust amazon reviews since half of them are false.
I use this one. Been on 6 months with no issues.
 
Oh arse. Not used my camera for ages and in that time the screen protector has decided it doesn’t like one corner and refuses to stay down!! What ones are people using? I don’t trust amazon reviews since half of them are false.
I use Atfolix, cheap but do the job. They're not glass though, but I prefer the 3 layer 'plastic' ones.
 
Oh arse. Not used my camera for ages and in that time the screen protector has decided it doesn’t like one corner and refuses to stay down!! What ones are people using? I don’t trust amazon reviews since half of them are false.

Been using these since I switched over to Sony so about 18 months 2 years or so ago and not had any issues.

 
Been using these since I switched over to Sony so about 18 months 2 years or so ago and not had any issues.



Same here- never had any issues and I have these on 3 camera bodies :)
 
Guys,

Steve Huff is using a wide angle adapter on his ZV-1.


This reminded me that I used to have a couple of these that I used with MFT. One was awful but the other was ok, not as good as a wide angle lens but ok for looking at whole pictures on screen and not being too critical. I sold them years ago though.

There are loads of these about, here's one on Amazon...


I was thinking of buying another probably mostly for use with 35 and 50mm lenses on my A7 but I don't know if they'll vignette too badly to really use and googling for reviews on FF cameras doesn't bring up much so if anyone has one of these in a cupboard somewhere could they comment on how they work on FF?

I've liked using my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 as a general purpose lens and with a No.4 close up filter I can take close up pictures too so I was thinking that adding a 0.43x adapter would give another option and perhaps replace the No.4 filter as these wide adapters have a macro lens at the back which you can use for close up shots when the wide adapter part is removed. If anyone has one could you please let me know how bad vignetting is on FF?
 
Don't know if anyone uses zebras for exposure on the sony bodies but after getting annoyed with some of my images being dark when using the histogram and then importing RAWs to LR, that's the approach I am moving towards. Seemingly you can adjust them to being much more accurate for blown highlights (actual blown highlights) on a raw file, which will provide more wiggle room in the field and a better exposure once back in LR hopefully.

These links seem good:


 
The rumour site has a picture of the 12-24mm f2.8...


I had the Sigma 12-24mm variable aperture lens for Canon DSLR's and for a while it was my most used lens. This new Sony will possibly be better although one thing that impressed about the old Sigma was the lack of distortion. If Sony can beat that this will be a very nice lens.
 
The rumour site has a picture of the 12-24mm f2.8...


I had the Sigma 12-24mm variable aperture lens for Canon DSLR's and for a while it was my most used lens. This new Sony will possibly be better although one thing that impressed about the old Sigma was the lack of distortion. If Sony can beat that this will be a very nice lens.

They will easily beat the old Sigma to death by a large amount. The problem is that the Sony is expected to be around £3000-£4000.
 
Don't know if anyone uses zebras for exposure on the sony bodies but after getting annoyed with some of my images being dark when using the histogram and then importing RAWs to LR, that's the approach I am moving towards. Seemingly you can adjust them to being much more accurate for blown highlights (actual blown highlights) on a raw file, which will provide more wiggle room in the field and a better exposure once back in LR hopefully.

These links seem good:



I use it from time to time for landscapes and natural light environmental portraits. I don't have it permanently turned on but it's my fn menu for quick access should I need it.
 
Back
Top