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

Having added an A73 to my A6400 I'm bemused by the "Lock Operation Parts" function. Can anyone shed any light on this please?
 
woof woof said:
I really fancy a trip to see the Northern Lights one year so a question for those who've seen the lights...

Can you see much by eye or are they mostly a result of a long exposure and processing? If you can't see much by eye I don't think I'll bother.

We're just going on a weeks cruise starting at Mallorca and going to Italy, France and Spain. I think that's right. We booked an outer cabin with a window which cost more than the inner windowless cabin which the website initially assumed we'd want but Mrs WW wouldn't let me book one with a balcony as that cost even more. I'm not really bothered about the cost as who are we going to leave our money to? No disrespect to people struggling with money and I understand how that feels as I've been there but decades of hard work with next to no social life got me here.

It might be May until I get a camera out again. There seems no end to this weather and more importantly this light.

PS.
I've been to Mallorca twice with two different GF's. I'll have to be careful what I call The Boss.
Click to expand...

Depends on the intensity. Saw them in Tromso a few years ago and was unbelievably vivid with the bare eye. In more southern locations and/or weaker solar activity it’s more post processing.

I would consider it a bonus rather than the focus of the trip and then you can’t leave disappointed. The general landscapes in that area of the world are stunning.

Non-Sony pic:

Norway 2017 (41 of 64)
 
woof woof said:
I really fancy a trip to see the Northern Lights one year so a question for those who've seen the lights...

Can you see much by eye or are they mostly a result of a long exposure and processing? If you can't see much by eye I don't think I'll bother.
Click to expand...

A friend and I did a trip to Tromso in Norway for seeing the Northern lights in March 2024. So nearly 2 years ago now.
What is visible to the eye depends on the strength of the Aurora. At very low strengths its only visible via. the camera and will look like grey streaks in the sky (closer to clouds than the toxic green you see in pictures).

At a higher solar activity you can see the greens and other colours. In fact I could see the reds much better here in the UK than in Norway because you can only see Aurora down here when the solar activity is insanely high. In such cases I am sure it'll be even better in Norway too but the point of going to Norway is you can catch it with minimal activity unlike here.

I'd certainly suggest adjusting your expectations and not go purely by pictures you see online.
But at the same time if you get a half decent show, its quite magical and a worthy bucket list item.
I'd advice giving it at least a week. We were there 6 nights and saw it on 3 nights.
We only tried 4 nights in total and didn't bother with expensive excursions to see them on other 2 nights as we got lucky the first two nights we were there.

And as suggested above also focus on the general trip. Tromso for example has plenty of things to do in day time which are all pretty amazing and really worth it on their own.
We did things like snow mobile riding, husky sledding, day cruise, hiking over the mountain/hill in town etc.
 
Last edited:
Thanks you two.

Yup, I'll view it as an experience and holiday and any lights will be a bonus. Mrs WW is non committal at the moment as the only cold she's known has been whilst in the UK and she doesn't really like it, a few minutes out in the snow to take some pictures and then she wants to be back inside so although she might say Yes to a trip up North she might say it grudgingly and be a pain (lovely but a pain) when there. The coldest I've been in was Kazakhstan and that was no problem for me but Mrs WW... I don't know.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Thanks you two.

Yup, I'll view it as an experience and holiday and any lights will be a bonus. Mrs WW is non committal at the moment as the only cold she's known has been whilst in the UK and she doesn't really like it so although she might say Yes to a trip up North she might say it grudgingly and be a pain (lovely but a pain) when there. The coldest I've been in was Kazakhstan and that was no problem for me but Mrs WW... I don't know.
Click to expand...

unfortunately Nortern light season runs when its cold.
the main Aurora season end late March and starts late September. You could pick these ends for a slightly warmer time.
The aurora excursions do run to early-mid April and starts as early as late August of beginning of September in some places.
But I would avoid these as day light hours are still longer than night time hours, so you get less time aurora hunting while its still possible to see them during this time.

We visited Iceland in May-June last year. We saw the midnight sun. That was pretty cool too but it was still cold. So there is really no getting away from the cold.
We invested in some very nice set jackets (set up down around £300 between the pair of us) - https://haukland.de/en-eu/collections/all
Missus' sister lives in EU so it was easy for us to source it and its very warm and functional. They running offers again, worth the money.

you can watch a mini-review from Chris in this video as part of his OM shooting:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU-yTnBdrUs&t=10s
 
nandbytes said:
unfortunately Nortern light season runs when its cold...
Click to expand...

She's distracted by the cruise and trip to Thailand now so I'll talk to her about a trip to Norway when we're back from Thailand. I want to be sure she really understands that it'll be colder then the UK while we are not in a nice warm cabin. It's something I've always wanted to do but the thought that it might not nbe much to look at by eye and might be down to luck puts me off a bit.
 
It stopped raining and the sun came out so we walked to the shops but first she couldn't wait to open a prezzie. I'd taped it up thoroughly before finishing off with gift wrap paper, just to annoy her.

1-DSC01441.jpg

I thought I'd try one of gthose 2.32:1 crops. Just for fun.

1-DSC01449.jpg

Meh :D

Both A7cII and 40mm f2.5.
 
Last edited:
Tamron coming out with 35-100mm f2.8

Full leaked image of the new Tamron 35-100mm f/2.8 FE lens | sonyalpharumors

This is the first leaked image of the new Tamron 35-100mm F/2.8 Di III VXD lens. The E-mount version is 119.2 mm long and weighs 565 g. Price is around $900 and shipment start late March. - via Howtofly
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Could be a nice pair to with 16-35mm f2.8 i guess compared to the usual 24-70mm f2.8
 
nandbytes said:
Are you going to the north to the arctic regions?
It is pretty expensive and something we've always dreamed of doing ourselves. Hopefully once kids are out the house, though that's like 20 years away :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Well we're not going now because of the expense. We both have big birthdays next year so were wanting to do something special, number one is a Safari but that's twice as expensive as we were expecting, likewise the Norwegian Fjords are twice as much as I was expecting. We can't afford to do both so we're trying to find a safari within budget.
Ideally we wanted to do some of the more Southern FJords which are the most scenic, and some (especially Geirangerfjord) the stereotypical viking type fjords, and then go up north for the Nothern Lights. However, initially we couldn't find a cruise that went up to the arctic circle and did the picturesque Fjords as the ones that go up North just go on the coast of Norway. Of course, you can then take excursions into the scenic Fjords as @Mr Perceptive says. So, unless we wanted to do excursions it was either picturesque fjords or arctic circle.

However, after days of searching I found one cruise that did the more southern fjords (including Geirangerfjord) and went up to the arctic circle BUT it's silly money and only runs in the summer, which is obviously pointless if you want to see the northern lights.

We will revisit looking at doing the Fjords some other time, and we might do 2 separate trips, one for the southern fjords and one for the northern lights. Hurtigruten have some cruises that have a northern lights promise that if you don't see the northern lights on the cruise you get another cruise free. There are some disclaimers though so how good the promise is I don't know.

@woof woof I took this near me in 2024, the difference between what I could see with the naked eye and what the camera saw was night and day different. It's something to do with the human eye using rod cells rather than cone cells in low light, and rod cells don't detect colour. I do know some people have seen some that look vivid with the naked eye, however I would guess (although don't know) that some people will be more 'succeptible' to them than others :thinking:


A7R01482-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
@woof woof I took this near me in 2024, the difference between what I could see with the naked eye and what the camera saw was night and day different. It's something to do with the human eye using rod cells rather than cone cells in low light, and rod cells don't detect colour. I do know some people have seen some that look vivid with the naked eye, however I would guess (although don't know) that some people will be more 'succeptible' to them than others :thinking:
Click to expand...

This is what worries me. I don't know if a Norwegian cruise appeals to me all that much without the lights and I don't think I'm really interested making an image which is pretty far removed from the scene I see by eye. I know it's not certain that the lights will be visible, it's just chance I suppose. I'll have a think.
 
snerkler said:
Well we're not going now because of the expense. We both have big birthdays next year so were wanting to do something special, number one is a Safari but that's twice as expensive as we were expecting, likewise the Norwegian Fjords are twice as much as I was expecting. We can't afford to do both so we're trying to find a safari within budget.
Ideally we wanted to do some of the more Southern FJords which are the most scenic, and some (especially Geirangerfjord) the stereotypical viking type fjords, and then go up north for the Nothern Lights. However, initially we couldn't find a cruise that went up to the arctic circle and did the picturesque Fjords as the ones that go up North just go on the coast of Norway. Of course, you can then take excursions into the scenic Fjords as @Mr Perceptive says. So, unless we wanted to do excursions it was either picturesque fjords or arctic circle.

However, after days of searching I found one cruise that did the more southern fjords (including Geirangerfjord) and went up to the arctic circle BUT it's silly money and only runs in the summer, which is obviously pointless if you want to see the northern lights.

We will revisit looking at doing the Fjords some other time, and we might do 2 separate trips, one for the southern fjords and one for the northern lights. Hurtigruten have some cruises that have a northern lights promise that if you don't see the northern lights on the cruise you get another cruise free. There are some disclaimers though so how good the promise is I don't know.

@woof woof I took this near me in 2024, the difference between what I could see with the naked eye and what the camera saw was night and day different. It's something to do with the human eye using rod cells rather than cone cells in low light, and rod cells don't detect colour. I do know some people have seen some that look vivid with the naked eye, however I would guess (although don't know) that some people will be more 'succeptible' to them than others :thinking:


A7R01482-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Well northern lights is one half of the story the other part is the midnight sun which you can only see in June and around arctic region.

Both require clear skies though
Midnight sunset from Iceland last year :D

55078656803_9efd1e20d3_b.jpg


55078456806_e95b3ec8a4_b.jpg
 
woof woof said:
This is what worries me. I don't know if a Norwegian cruise appeals to me all that much without the lights and I don't think I'm really interested making an image which is pretty far removed from the scene I see by eye. I know it's not certain that the lights will be visible, it's just chance I suppose. I'll have a think.
Click to expand...

A lot of photography is capturing things you can't see by eye - macros, long lenses, planets, stars and list goes on.
Even sunstar in my photo above isn't viable to eyes, just an artefact of optical design in conjunction with aperture.

at infinity eyes focal length is 17-20mm and at closer focus 40-50mm.
All other focal lengths aren't things your eyes can see, and definitely not the f1.2 bokeh of your Voigtlander lens;)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Well northern lights is one half of the story the other part is the midnight sun which you can only see in June and around arctic region.

Both require clear skies though
Midnight sunset from Iceland last year :D

55078656803_9efd1e20d3_b.jpg


55078456806_e95b3ec8a4_b.jpg
Click to expand...
Spectacular (y)
 
nandbytes said:
A lot of photography is capturing things you can't see by eye - macros, long lenses, planets, stars and list goes on.
Even sunstar in my photo above isn't viable to eyes, just an artefact of optical design in conjunction with aperture.

at infinity eyes focal length is 17-20mm and at closer focus 40-50mm.
All other focal lengths aren't things your eyes can see, and definitely not the f1.2 bokeh of your Voigtlander lens;)
Click to expand...

I suppose and I have taken some long exposure sea shots lately but the thought of not seeing the lights by eye but seeing them in the photo just doesn't appeal to me much. As you point out there'll be more to the trip than just the lights but just recently I have been going off the idea I've had for years of going on a cruise to see the lights because as I've read and watched recently they're not always there when you are and sometimes they're really not visible by eye. I'll have a think about it over the coming year and talk to Mrs when we get this years holidays and Christmas over with.

Just on eyes. Yes we have a wide FoV but much of it is pretty lacking in detail and is really just for detecting movement with only the central bit being sharp. A bit like some film era lenses.
 
woof woof said:
I suppose and I have taken some long exposure sea shots lately but the thought of not seeing the lights by eye but seeing them in the photo just doesn't appeal to me much. As you point out there'll be more to the trip than just the lights but just recently I have been going off the idea I've had for years of going on a cruise to see the lights because as I've read and watched recently they're not always there when you are and sometimes they're really not visible by eye. I'll have a think about it over the coming year and talk to Mrs when we get this years holidays and Christmas over with.

Just on eyes. Yes we have a wide FoV but much of it is pretty lacking in detail and is really just for detecting movement with only the central bit being sharp. A bit like some film era lenses.
Click to expand...

Normally speaking when you can't see by the eye the photos don't come out great either and when you can see something by eye photos are much better.

And in the cases where you haven't seen much by eyes a lot of the local aurora hunters will give you a second night at a discounted price to try again with them.

You can basically assume your eyes is about one level behind what your camera can capture.

It's a bit like sex, what you may have seen online isn't realistic but doesn't mean you should avoid it all together, it's still great :ROFLMAO:
 
nandbytes said:
Normally speaking when you can't see by the eye the photos don't come out great either and when you can see something by eye photos are much better.

And in the cases where you haven't seen much by eyes a lot of the local aurora hunters will give you a second night at a discounted price to try again with them.

You can basically assume your eyes is about one level behind what your camera can capture.

It's a bit like sex, what you may have seen online isn't realistic but doesn't mean you should avoid it all together, it's still great :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

It might be just the mood I'm in, I'm maybe just disappointed by some of the stuff I've read and watched recently about the lights when you're there not looking like the vivid end result. I have a year to think about it.
 
woof woof said:
It might be just the mood I'm in, I'm maybe just disappointed by some of the stuff I've read and watched recently about the lights when you're there not looking like the vivid end result. I have a year to think about it.
Click to expand...
It's still magical, and I would have thought those in the arctic and darker skies would be more vivid than I saw. You just have to accept they're not as vivid as what you see on photos (y)
 
I've bought something :D It arrived yesterday :D There was no note through the door though and they just left the parcel in a plant pot round the back, luckily Mrs WW spotted it when she went out to put something in the bin.

Hopefully I'll get to use it soon :D but we're back to normal with the poor weather and light now after a few hours of sunshine yesterday.
 
Last edited:
A new AF 50mm f1.2.

phillipreeve.net

Review: Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit - phillipreeve.net

The Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit is an interesting first entry by a new lens manufacturer from China, is it too ambitious or actually a viable
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

"I saved the most important aspect for last: I think this lens creates great bokeh with smoother transitions and backgrounds than the Sony FE 50mm 1.2 GM (and probably also the Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN Art I still have to review)."
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
A new AF 50mm f1.2.

phillipreeve.net

Review: Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit - phillipreeve.net

The Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit is an interesting first entry by a new lens manufacturer from China, is it too ambitious or actually a viable
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

"I saved the most important aspect for last: I think this lens creates great bokeh with smoother transitions and backgrounds than the Sony FE 50mm 1.2 GM (and probably also the Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN Art I still have to review)."
Click to expand...
Looks a very nice lens, if you don't need the best AF.
 
woof woof said:
A new AF 50mm f1.2.

phillipreeve.net

Review: Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit - phillipreeve.net

The Songraw 50mm 1.2 Moonlit is an interesting first entry by a new lens manufacturer from China, is it too ambitious or actually a viable
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

"I saved the most important aspect for last: I think this lens creates great bokeh with smoother transitions and backgrounds than the Sony FE 50mm 1.2 GM (and probably also the Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN Art I still have to review)."
Click to expand...

The bokeh and rendering from my Samyang lenses is nicer than the Sony f1.2, but the AF is extraordinarily good and sharpness/detail across the frame excellent.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The bokeh and rendering from my Samyang lenses is nicer than the Sony f1.2, but the AF is extraordinarily good and sharpness/detail across the frame excellent.
Click to expand...
I prefer the less cat eye edge bokeh of the Samyang 50mm FE II but I think the GM is softer and creamier, even at f1.4. I used to think the Samyang had more pop/3D but I think it's to do with the vignette, if I add a similar vignette to the GM they're very close in this regard. For the price though you can't beat the Sammy, I still sometimes wonder if the upgrade to the GM f1.2 was worth it for my uses, but I have to remind myself how reliable the AF is on the GM.
 
snerkler said:
I prefer the less cat eye edge bokeh of the Samyang 50mm FE II but I think the GM is softer and creamier, even at f1.4. I used to think the Samyang had more pop/3D but I think it's to do with the vignette, if I add a similar vignette to the GM they're very close in this regard. For the price though you can't beat the Sammy, I still sometimes wonder if the upgrade to the GM f1.2 was worth it for my uses, but I have to remind myself how reliable the AF is on the GM.
Click to expand...

I did prefer the bokeh and general rendering of the Sammy 50 f1.4, but it lacks in every other way over the GM 1.2, which in sony style, renders a little hard for me.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I did prefer the bokeh and general rendering of the Sammy 50 f1.4, but it lacks in every other way over the GM 1.2, which in sony style, renders a little hard for me.
Click to expand...
Probably not as easy to tell with the viewing sizes on here, but the GM f1.2 definitely looks to have creamier bokeh to me, definitely at f1.2 but even at f1.4 the GM OOF areas look softer.


A1_02407-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02411 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02412 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
TomB said:
So took my new (to me) A7RIII out on a whim for it's first spin after dark this evening. I'd had two glasses of wine but was itching to use it, so walked a mile or so down to some rocks overlooking Falmouth Bay. Turns out trying to learn a new camera in the pitch black while mildly sozzled isn't entirely straightforward. Plus I was getting frustrated with the light polution from Falmouth. Really red light polution... and what's that weird green cloud? Oh heck! Cue collapsing tripods, a desperate desire for a remote shutter release and some impromptu light painting. First photos for 10 years, haha!

View attachment 472894

View attachment 472895

View attachment 472896
Click to expand...
Like that a lot gives me hope for my a7v when it arrives
 
snerkler said:
Probably not as easy to tell with the viewing sizes on here, but the GM f1.2 definitely looks to have creamier bokeh to me, definitely at f1.2 but even at f1.4 the GM OOF areas look softer.


A1_02407-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02411 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_02412 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

can't pick one tbh from these pictures. the differences aren't great enough for me to say I really prefer one or the other I'd be happy with either bokeh wise

snerkler said:
This is what really swayed it for me, granted this is compared to the 35mm GM but the 50mm GM is just as sharp


Screenshot 2023-06-03 at 20.26.52 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Sharpness wise no contest with the GM. The 35GM is also sharper than my siggy 35/1.2ii. they are certainly very sharp lenses.
 
ancient_mariner said:
On the phone, I do prefer the Sammy, though can't say why exactly. At f1.4 the Sony looks crisper.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What's odd is the grass looks cooler on the Sammy but the shoe warmer, particularly if you look at the white of the laces :thinking:
 
nandbytes said:
can't pick one tbh from these pictures. the differences aren't great enough for me to say I really prefer one or the other I'd be happy with either bokeh wise



Sharpness wise no contest with the GM. The 35GM is also sharper than my siggy 35/1.2ii. they are certainly very sharp lenses.
Click to expand...
I can't decide between the two in terms of rendering either, which shows just how good the Sammy is. When the Samyang nails the AF the sharpness is also comparible imo.


Screenshot 2026-02-18 at 12.41.25 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I can't decide between the two in terms of rendering either, which shows just how good the Sammy is. When the Samyang nails the AF the sharpness is also comparible imo.
Click to expand...

Yours is the MkII ian't it? IIRC a bit sharper & better focusing than the MkI.
 
I've been watching the 24-70mm GM II prices on Cotswolds and Panamoz for some time, however I've just gone onto Cotswolds and it's no longer showing, and Panamoz price have gone up £200. In fact Cotswolds no longer have any Sony lenses, just third party ones for FE. Also out of curiosity I've checked e-infinity and they don't have it listed either. Have Sony clamped down on grey market and we can no longer buy gear that way? :(

That really affects future purchases for me if that's the case :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
I've been watching the 24-70mm GM II prices on Cotswolds and Panamoz for some time, however I've just gone onto Cotswolds and it's no longer showing, and Panamoz price have gone up £200. In fact Cotswolds no longer have any Sony lenses, just third party ones for FE. Also out of curiosity I've checked e-infinity and they don't have it listed either. Have Sony clamped down on grey market and we can no longer buy gear that way? :(

That really affects future purchases for me if that's the case :oops: :$
Click to expand...
I received a Sony 70-200 MKII from Cotswold yesterday. As you say, no longer listed. Phew. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top