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

Messages
581
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
I've already got two quite visible spots at the bottom of my images. They're showing with both lenses so definitely on the a6600 sensor. I could remove with lightroom but maybe I should buy some swabs and fluid and risk cleaning the sensor?
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
25,918
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I've already got two quite visible spots at the bottom of my images. They're showing with both lenses so definitely on the a6600 sensor. I could remove with lightroom but maybe I should buy some swabs and fluid and risk cleaning the sensor?
I don't know how many cleans I've done over the years but I've done a lot and never damaged anything so I'd say give it a go.

I use a pec pad wrapped around a slice cut from an old credit card, and a drop of eclipse fluid.
 
Messages
581
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't know how many cleans I've done over the years but I've done a lot and never damaged anything so I'd say give it a go.

I use a pec pad wrapped around a slice cut from an old credit card, and a drop of eclipse fluid.
Ah yeah, I've heard of pec pads. I'll give it a go. Might just buy a set of pre-made aps-c swabs though and some eclipse fluid or whatever else is recommended. How much pressure did you put on your sensors, just lightly like say, using an electric shaver?
 
Messages
1,616
Edit My Images
No
I've lost interest in those Sigmas now, was hoping for the vintage look to the rendering not another ultra sharp lens. Oh well.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,031
Edit My Images
Yes
sharpness and good rendering aren't or do not need to be mutually exclusive.
lenses can be very sharp and also render very nicely. in fact both the sigma 85mm ART lenses are a good example of this.
you can always soften the images you can't really recover details that's not rendered.

edit:
looking at the samples from the review below the 65mm seems to render nicely enough.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,031
Edit My Images
Yes
looks like both both 35mm and 65mm f2 are rather sharp with fairly decent to good rendering.
If I am looking for a 35mm siggy seems to be the front runner with sharper optics and better rendering than other options.
 
Last edited:
Messages
581
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Spotted this guy muscle flexing so I call this Orange Monsters :p


Orange Monsters
by Merlin 5, on Flickr

And I think there's one or two here that are into bikes. I don't know much about them but I think this Yammy looks cool.


Motorbike
by Merlin 5, on Flickr
 
Messages
17,206
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
I managed to drop my Zeiss 55 a couple of weeks ago, bending the mount. :( Any reason I shouldn't use Fixation to repair it?
 
Messages
1,616
Edit My Images
No
Having not had the option on my previous camera is it best to shoot uncompressed RAW then convert to DNG at import?

On a negative, got to take my 3y old for a Covid test this morning, not allowed to the let the swap touch his teeth, gums or tongue when doing the back of his throat. These people didn't design this test for children did they.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,031
Edit My Images
Yes
i normally shoot compressed RAW and its not a problem or an issue to be honest. been doing so for ever.
I only shoot uncompressed RAW when i am in a high dynamic range situation and i feel i will pull/pushing the files like more than 4-5 stops which is rather rare.
 
Last edited:
OP
woof woof
Messages
25,918
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
looks like both both 35mm and 65mm f2 are rather sharp with fairly decent to good rendering.
If I am looking for a 35mm siggy seems to be the front runner with sharper optics and better rendering than other options.
Downsides of the 35mm seem to be epic breathing and onion rings.

I don't know if I'll bother yet. I'll wait for more reviews and I'd also like to see size comparisons with the Sony f1.8. Just checked and the 35mm is on the size comparison site...

Sony 35mm f2.8, Sigma f2, Sony f1.8.

Untitled-1.jpg

The Sigma looks to be just a touch shorter than the Sony f1.8. I have to say that's a major disappointment for me. I was hoping it'd be more compact. Damn. Oh well...
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,206
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Having not had the option on my previous camera is it best to shoot uncompressed RAW then convert to DNG at import?

On a negative, got to take my 3y old for a Covid test this morning, not allowed to the let the swap touch his teeth, gums or tongue when doing the back of his throat. These people didn't design this test for children did they.
I tried compressed initially, but had problems with skies and brighter areas. After changing to uncompressed the problems went away. I convert to dng before processing in LR.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,031
Edit My Images
Yes
I tried compressed initially, but had problems with skies and brighter areas. After changing to uncompressed the problems went away. I convert to dng before processing in LR.
Did you use it with lens corrections?
I have used is for a long time even before there was an option to use uncompressed and almost never had issues.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
25,918
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Ah yeah, I've heard of pec pads. I'll give it a go. Might just buy a set of pre-made aps-c swabs though and some eclipse fluid or whatever else is recommended. How much pressure did you put on your sensors, just lightly like say, using an electric shaver?
I've never used swabs, I've always just used the pec pad and credit card slice. I don't apply pressure and couldn't using the credit card slice as it'd just bend.

I'd suggest just using a feather light touch and if that doesn't clear everything run through the process again.

Another thing to consider is IS, one of my Panasonic cameras has that and if you apply too much pressure you'll move the sensor about. I don't know about Sony's with IS but maybe it's the same, light pressure is possibly the best approach.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
25,918
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Did you use it with lens corrections?
I have used is for a long time even before there was an option to use uncompressed and almost never had issues.
The only times I've seen problems in skies is when going way too far with the processing and also when posting here sometimes there's banding in the sky which isn't visible in the original picture on my pc.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,031
Edit My Images
Yes
Downsides of the 35mm seem to be epic breathing and onion rings.

I don't know if I'll bother yet. I'll wait for more reviews and I'd also like to see size comparisons with the Sony f1.8. Just checked and the 35mm is on the size comparison site...

35mm f2.8, Sigma f2, Sony f1.8.

View attachment 300605

The Sigma looks to be just a touch shorter than the Sony f1.8. I have to say that's a major disappointment for me. I was hoping it'd be more compact. Damn. Oh well...
The onion rings never bothered is so much as busy bokeh. Though in most cases I don't actually find FE35/1.8 to be bad.
I like the aperture ring.
Regardless I am not really in market for a 35mm lens. Wish it was 40mm f2. Oh well...
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,031
Edit My Images
Yes
The only times I've seen problems in skies is when going way too far with the processing and also when posting here sometimes there's banding in the sky which isn't visible in the original picture on my pc.
Yeah that happens because of conversion to jpg and compression between hosting sites and posting here.
You can get around it by dropping your jpg quality at export. A crap workaround I agree but JPGs are crap in general :p
 
Messages
8,909
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
Downsides of the 35mm seem to be epic breathing and onion rings.

I don't know if I'll bother yet. I'll wait for more reviews and I'd also like to see size comparisons with the Sony f1.8. Just checked and the 35mm is on the size comparison site...

Sony 35mm f2.8, Sigma f2, Sony f1.8.

View attachment 300605

The Sigma looks to be just a touch shorter than the Sony f1.8. I have to say that's a major disappointment for me. I was hoping it'd be more compact. Damn. Oh well...

its annoying this comparison site continues to show images with some lenses with the hood on and some without.
from what ive seen they are build really well and weather sealed. looks like a decent option and i think they will sell well as have been reasonably priced too.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
25,918
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Yeah that happens because of conversion to jpg and compression between hosting sites and posting here.
You can get around it by dropping your jpg quality at export. A crap workaround I agree but JPGs are crap in general :p
I briefly thought about saving Tiffs but they're massive and JPEGs are good enough for me, unless I want to push things a lot in processing and see an issue and then a Tiff may well be better but I can't think of one picture I've taken which just has to be a Tiff.
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
25,918
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
its annoying this comparison site continues to show images with some lenses with the hood on and some without.
from what ive seen they are build really well and weather sealed. looks like a decent option and i think they will sell well as have been reasonably priced too.
I'm still tempted, you know what I'm like with 35 and 50mm lenses :D

I'll keep following the reviews and maybe look more closely at focus performance. Another thing for me to think about is that it doesn't focus as closely as the Sony f1.8 but I suppose that's not too bad as I can use a close up filter.
 
Messages
8,909
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
I'm still tempted, you know what I'm like with 35 and 50mm lenses :D

I'll keep following the reviews and maybe look more closely at focus performance. Another thing for me to think about is that it doesn't focus as closely as the Sony f1.8 but I suppose that's not too bad as I can use a close up filter.

im not in the market for any glass but they do look nice.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k_ubbIZ41U
 
OP
woof woof
Messages
25,918
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Good review that and the model ain't bad either :D

I think he makes a good comment about 85mm, IMO sometimes it's just too long for anything other than a tight shot.
 
Messages
17,206
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Did you use it with lens corrections?
I have used is for a long time even before there was an option to use uncompressed and almost never had issues.
Only lens corrections in LR. It's only been a problem in areas like skies that are normally difficult and show compression issues anyway. If you don't shoot high contrast sunrise shots it may not show up.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,031
Edit My Images
Yes
i am really tempted to get the 65mm f2 just because its odd lol
Though i can put my 45mm in apc-c crop mode for a similar field of view to try it i guess.

all in all sigma are doing really great lenses. can't wait to see what they will come out with next.
 
Messages
581
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
I've never used swabs, I've always just used the pec pad and credit card slice. I don't apply pressure and couldn't using the credit card slice as it'd just bend.

I'd suggest just using a feather light touch and if that doesn't clear everything run through the process again.

Another thing to consider is IS, one of my Panasonic cameras has that and if you apply too much pressure you'll move the sensor about. I don't know about Sony's with IS but maybe it's the same, light pressure is possibly the best approach.
Thanks Alan for your help.

Can you run one side of a pec pad or swab a couple of times over the sensor to make sure it picks up as much dust as possible before turning it over to the other clean side of the pad, or only once? And when the job is done is it a rush to get a lens or cap back onto the camera to prevent more dust getting back on it?

I tried my a6600 built in sensor clean a couple of times. It vibrates for a second and that's it. Totally useless, didn't remove the spots.

I don't know what you mean by IS, are you talking about the image stabilisation mechanism?
 
Top