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

woof woof said:
Steve Huff says more on the A7RIV...

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019...on-first-look-can-it-challenge-medium-format/
Click to expand...

I honed in on this, based on the article title -

With this quick simple image side by side (which is not scientific) shows the X1DII medium format sensor is more refined and just looks more pleasing. With that said the Sony is $3500 and the X1DII is $5750.

The Sony feels nowhere near as good as the Hasselblad in the hand. The build of the Hasselblad is exquisite. The Sony menus are more like a computer program than a menu, Hasselblad is touch and simple, the basics. The Sony does have more image noise at higher ISO due to having so many MP crammed on to the sensor. The X1DII is beautiful at higher ISO in my experience. The Sony does not quite achieve the same fall off or IQ of the X1DII but as you can see above it is close.

For me the thing that comes to mind when I compare the images, are the Sony images feel more 'plastic' too much contrast and gloss
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I honed in on this, based on the article title -

With this quick simple image side by side (which is not scientific) shows the X1DII medium format sensor is more refined and just looks more pleasing. With that said the Sony is $3500 and the X1DII is $5750.

The Sony feels nowhere near as good as the Hasselblad in the hand. The build of the Hasselblad is exquisite. The Sony menus are more like a computer program than a menu, Hasselblad is touch and simple, the basics. The Sony does have more image noise at higher ISO due to having so many MP crammed on to the sensor. The X1DII is beautiful at higher ISO in my experience. The Sony does not quite achieve the same fall off or IQ of the X1DII but as you can see above it is close.

For me the thing that comes to mind when I compare the images, are the Sony images feel more 'plastic' too much contrast and gloss
Click to expand...
That's in jpg though. Let's see what the raws are saying.

The raws on the a7r3 are great!
 
The problem with the Hasselblad is that the market for them is much smaller (making resale harder), the entry price is also like 4x (?) higher with a lens, it would almost like saying a £800 Sony RX100mk6 can compete with a FF mirrorless. For them to be in the same conversation itself I think is an achievement.
 
Mm did anyone see the video by the Northrups about the autofocus issues with the A7R4?

They had issues with eye a.f. Sony told them that the cameras they where using where built by hand and may have been faulty. The Northrups said they weren't the only one's who eye a.f issues. To be fair in a later video they said they had used another photographers A7R4 which was better,
 
jonneymendoza said:
That's in jpg though. Let's see what the raws are saying.

The raws on the a7r3 are great!
Click to expand...

I did a test between my Sony and Leica, the 1.4 might have isolated the bird feeder, but I still much prefer the output from the Leica.
It might seem hyperbole, and probably based on my current mood - but here the Sony bokeh and colours are just nauseating..

I will give it further testing on Saturday though on the streets of London.

Sony A9 with 24mm 1.4 GM vs Leica Q2 28mm 1.7

24mm 1.4GM by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Leica Q2 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
 
The GM is nicer IMO, look at the fall off in the top right corner bushes, the GM is smoother.

The contrast is also nicer on the GM, colours have more snap. The GM have better isolation and better 3D pop.

The difference is not subtle, it is quite obvious.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The GM is nicer IMO, look at the fall off in the top right corner bushes, the GM is smoother.

The contrast is also nicer on the GM, colours have more snap. The GM have better isolation and better 3D pop.

The difference is not subtle, it is quite obvious.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Maybe it's the way it pops the subject, maybe it's this particular image - i don't like the way the GM sets the bird feeder apart from the background, I feel like the the Q2 provides a more complete image and feel for the scene.
 
dancook said:
Maybe it's the way it pops the subject, maybe it's this particular image - i don't like the way the GM sets the bird feeder apart from the background, I feel like the the Q2 provides a more complete image and feel for the scene.
Click to expand...

That's the intention of a shallow DoF, if you want the GM to "blend" more, just step down a stop or 2, whereas the Leica is maxed out the other way.
 
Although not a Sony user yet I really like the way there going, the new camera and 200 / 600 should be a great setup for birding without having to spend a fortune ,my Canon kit cost 3 times as much for camera and lens .
I know it will be a while but look forward to some birding reviews .
Rob.
 
Raymond Lin said:
That's the intention of a shallow DoF, if you want the GM to "blend" more, just step down a stop or 2, whereas the Leica is maxed out the other way.
Click to expand...

Yes I have just been pondering this, certainly cannot draw all conclusions from a single test image - I'm interested to see how I feel about the 24GM further on Saturday using it for street photography
 
dancook said:
I honed in on this, based on the article title -
Click to expand...

As I'll almost certainly never buy either I feel I should comment :D

As a happy amateur I can see how nice the Hasselblad is. It's doubtless a lovely thing and the files are doubtless gorgeous. So there's that and for us photography geeks that'll be enough and we'd then have to look at the piggy bank and see how healthy it is. For someone shooting for a living with maybe less emphasis on the pure joy of it all I suppose the question of if the difference in output will be visible to the client or not comes into play and if all that's required is a picture in a wedding album or a full page in a magazine will it matter? I don't know. You guys will.

My wants have changed over the years and a new requirement for me is eye or at least face detect as after initially ignoring it I've now found that I really like it so any new camera will have to be at least as good at this as the cameras I have now. Other than that although I accept that my pictures are never going to be printed 3m wide and viewed closely in a gallery I do print and very occasionally to A3 but even my Canon 300D was ok for me at A3 so output isn't an issue but I do pixel peep and enjoy the files so I could no doubt grow to love a Hasselblad. I don't like big obtrusive kit but the Hasselblad also looks very compact and I can imagine taking it out with me whereas some of the other MF options would very probably put me off. To me the Hasselblad looks all good...

The killer for me though is the cost. I'm not exactly Richard Branson by any means but I can afford any thing that I want but it just so happens that I can't bring myself to spend beyond a certain amount on myself. The most expensive car I've bought was my Boxster or possibly my SLK, I can't remember, I had promised myself something really special when I left paid employment 12 years ago but I just couldn't do it and I feel the same with camera gear but with a much lower ceiling and I truly doubt I'll ever be able to spend more than £2k at the most on a camera as it just wouldn't seem right to me. For those who can afford a Hasselblad or a £2.5-3k mirrorless 35mm camera and are willing to buy all I can say is a very genuine good on you :D

PS.
Mrs WW saw me reading an article about the A7RIV and she asked if I wanted one :D Bless :D I had to say "No thank you dear" but I did get a warm glow just from being asked :D

Maybe I should have said "No thank you dear but you can buy me this Hasselblad." :D
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
Yes I have just been pondering this, certainly cannot draw all conclusions from a single test image - I'm interested to see how I feel about the 24GM further on Saturday using it for street photography
Click to expand...

It might be that you enjoy using the Leica more than the Sony and therefore prefer the Leica images too. I certainly prefer using the SL compared to the A9 but love the images from both and struggle to pick a favourite.

An interesting test would be comparing the 24mm Summilux against the 24GM.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
Yes I have just been pondering this, certainly cannot draw all conclusions from a single test image - I'm interested to see how I feel about the 24GM further on Saturday using it for street photography
Click to expand...

Well, preference is just an opinion, but objectively between the photos the GM does have more contrast, it does have smoother and more blurred backgrounds, and hence more 3D effect.

Those are what it is, objectively true, what you prefer however is a different matter.
 
dancook said:
I did a test between my Sony and Leica, the 1.4 might have isolated the bird feeder, but I still much prefer the output from the Leica.
It might seem hyperbole, and probably based on my current mood - but here the Sony bokeh and colours are just nauseating..

I will give it further testing on Saturday though on the streets of London.

Sony A9 with 24mm 1.4 GM vs Leica Q2 28mm 1.7

24mm 1.4GM by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Leica Q2 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That's fascinating. Based on your description I thought the second image must be the Sony - the bokeh is harsh and crunchy, without finesse, while the feeder isn't effectively isolated. Goes to show we all see things differently.
 
woof woof said:
As a happy amateur I can see how nice the Hasselblad is. It's doubtless a lovely thing and the files are doubtless gorgeous. So there's that and for us photography geeks that'll be enough and we'd then have to look at the piggy bank and see how healthy it is. For someone shooting for a living with maybe less emphasis on the pure joy of it all I suppose the question of if the difference in output will be visible to the client or not comes into play and if all that's required is a picture in a wedding album or a full page in a magazine will it matter? I don't know. You guys will.
Click to expand...

I actually only plan to use these types of cameras for the pure joy of it, for the most part I wouldn't want to compromise on being able to get the shot just for the increased image quality. It adds needless pressure.

Leica and Hasselblad for me is just about the personal enjoyment of photography, and I prefer the image quality for 'fine art photography' which I guess I probably aspire to.
 
ancient_mariner said:
That's fascinating. Based on your description I thought the second image must be the Sony - the bokeh is harsh and crunchy, without finesse, while the feeder isn't effectively isolated. Goes to show we all see things differently.
Click to expand...

Is that the stereotypical of what people perceive Sony lenses gives?

just interesting how you see that and then thinks its the Sony that is worse as your first impression.
 
Sony 24GM is definitely a lot better. As I always say, so far its probably the best lens I have used on any system!
 
f/2.8 said:
Mm did anyone see the video by the Northrups about the autofocus issues with the A7R4?

They had issues with eye a.f. Sony told them that the cameras they where using where built by hand and may have been faulty. The Northrups said they weren't the only one's who eye a.f issues. To be fair in a later video they said they had used another photographers A7R4 which was better,
Click to expand...
That's not great if there are QC issues amongst bodies ;(
Raymond Lin said:
The GM is nicer IMO, look at the fall off in the top right corner bushes, the GM is smoother.

The contrast is also nicer on the GM, colours have more snap. The GM have better isolation and better 3D pop.

The difference is not subtle, it is quite obvious.
Click to expand...
dancook said:
Maybe it's the way it pops the subject, maybe it's this particular image - i don't like the way the GM sets the bird feeder apart from the background, I feel like the the Q2 provides a more complete image and feel for the scene.
Click to expand...
I prefer the overall look of the Sony too, but also do agree with Dan that the feeder pops more with the Leica. However, there are a few main 'issues' that will effect both these qualities, and so it is difficult to judge from these photos which are better. These 'issues' are that they're not framed the same (bird feeder is larger in the Sony frame) and so DOF and drop off will be different (I appreciate that focal length will affect this too), the apertures are different, and the WB is different.

Based on this I'd buy the Sony, but I'd have to see closer examples to say for sure (y)
 
ancient_mariner said:
That's fascinating. Based on your description I thought the second image must be the Sony - the bokeh is harsh and crunchy, without finesse, while the feeder isn't effectively isolated. Goes to show we all see things differently.
Click to expand...

it's not always so crunchy :D

Q2 - Bombay Sapphire Distillery by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

I suppose it all makes sense, I have the creamy bokeh lenses for delivering to other people who oo and ahh.. and then when it comes to my personal stuff it's not what I want.

and what I really want is this
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/hasselblad-907x-special-edition-medium-format-camera-1709795/

:D
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I did a test between my Sony and Leica, the 1.4 might have isolated the bird feeder, but I still much prefer the output from the Leica.
It might seem hyperbole, and probably based on my current mood - but here the Sony bokeh and colours are just nauseating..

I will give it further testing on Saturday though on the streets of London.

Sony A9 with 24mm 1.4 GM vs Leica Q2 28mm 1.7
24mm 1.4GM by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Much prefer the Sony, the colours look a little warmer on the Sony but the the background is much better creating a smoother look and better isolation.
 
dancook said:
I did a test between my Sony and Leica, the 1.4 might have isolated the bird feeder, but I still much prefer the output from the Leica.
It might seem hyperbole, and probably based on my current mood - but here the Sony bokeh and colours are just nauseating..

I will give it further testing on Saturday though on the streets of London.

Sony A9 with 24mm 1.4 GM vs Leica Q2 28mm 1.7

24mm 1.4GM by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Leica Q2 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Prefer the GM one - just looks nicer to me.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Is that the stereotypical of what people perceive Sony lenses gives?

just interesting how you see that and then thinks its the Sony that is worse as your first impression.
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood me. After reading about high contrast and nauseating bokeh and colours, that fitted the second image much more closely than the smoother, better balanced and slightly underexposed first (Sony) image. I'm sure the Leica image could be made much more presentable, and the Sony image brightened to match the contrast & colours if that were required.

I don't see Sony lenses having a particular look: some, especially those with large apertures, give excellent subject separation and smooth bokeh, while others give crunchy OOF areas and reduced separation. You can't expect an f4 zoom to render like an f1.4 prime (though you might hope a prestigious f1.7 prime would do a more pleasing job in the example given).
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I think you've misunderstood me. After reading about high contrast and nauseating bokeh and colours, that fitted the second image much more closely than the smoother, better balanced and slightly underexposed first (Sony) image. I'm sure the Leica image could be made much more presentable, and the Sony image brightened to match the contrast & colours if that were required.

I don't see Sony lenses having a particular look: some, especially those with large apertures, give excellent subject separation and smooth bokeh, while others give crunchy OOF areas and reduced separation. You can't expect an f4 zoom to render like an f1.4 prime (though you might hope a prestigious f1.7 prime would do a more pleasing job in the example given).
Click to expand...

I see the opposite, everything about the high contrast and bokeh and colours applies to the 1st image, not the 2nd.

What the 2nd one has going for it is that it seem to have less vignetting perhaps due to smaller aperture, it also seems to be like 1/4 stop brighter. but it does not have better contrast (just look at the bird feed how the colour changes as the curvature of the feed goes round), it is 100% better bokeh if you look at the plants behind, they are just more blur, objectively.
 
dancook said:
'higher contrast' :D better is subjective, I don't like the more contrasty sony files so much. Microcontrast I like, but not this (so much). Just not my personal preference,
Click to expand...

Another thing is the Sony system gives a warmer photo.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Another thing is the Sony system gives a warmer photo.
Click to expand...

Yea, not so much a fan of that either for the most part - and even if i cool it down, there's a pinkish tint to it, and I can't get the bird feeder to match the Leica just right.

I mean having spent only a short time trying.
 
As far as I know loooong time back it was the lesser contrast look that people thought the better. Back when Japanese lenses first began to make real inroads some gave a higher contrast look than their much more expensive and less contrasty German rivals. Unless I've got that wrong... but I think that's how it was.
 
woof woof said:
As far as I know loooong time back it was the lesser contrast look that people thought the better. Back when Japanese lenses first began to make real inroads some gave a higher contrast look than their much more expensive and less contrasty German rivals. Unless I've got that wrong... but I think that's how it was.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's on the other end of the scale :) maybe more like this - doubt much PP was done to either of these images, WB as shot

it's probably all in my mind, they just feel cleaner on the palette.

b1510618.jpg


and

b1512199.jpg
 
I was just on our local radio there being interviewed about guests taking photos at weddings and unplugged weddings.

After listening to it myself I learned that I repeat myself a lot when I am nervous and overuse the word "obviously" a lot. :ROFLMAO:
 
Raymond Lin said:
I see the opposite, everything about the high contrast and bokeh and colours applies to the 1st image, not the 2nd.
Click to expand...

You find the smooth bokeh & colours nauseating?

The first image looks very saturated and a little warm to me, but - said without importing both into something with a histogram to check - the blacks look similar but highlights lighter in the second on the couple of screens I've used for viewing, which I'd use to indicate that contrast is greater in the Leica image. OTOH I wonder if you're judging contrast on the difference in colour saturation, rather than light & dark? If the Sony image were lightened and cooled to match then I suspect contrast and possibly saturation would appear quite similar.
 
Could the Bristol air balloon veterans here perhaps suggest some good spots to photograph from?
 
ancient_mariner said:
You find the smooth bokeh & colours nauseating?

The first image looks very saturated and a little warm to me, but - said without importing both into something with a histogram to check - the blacks look similar but highlights lighter in the second on the couple of screens I've used for viewing, which I'd use to indicate that contrast is greater in the Leica image. OTOH I wonder if you're judging contrast on the difference in colour saturation, rather than light & dark? If the Sony image were lightened and cooled to match then I suspect contrast and possibly saturation would appear quite similar.
Click to expand...

I find smooth bokeh pleasing which the 2nd photo isn't, well, not as smooth.
 
ancient_mariner said:
You find the smooth bokeh & colours nauseating?

The first image looks very saturated and a little warm to me, but - said without importing both into something with a histogram to check - the blacks look similar but highlights lighter in the second on the couple of screens I've used for viewing, which I'd use to indicate that contrast is greater in the Leica image. OTOH I wonder if you're judging contrast on the difference in colour saturation, rather than light & dark? If the Sony image were lightened and cooled to match then I suspect contrast and possibly saturation would appear quite similar.
Click to expand...

I've been feeling hungry today, that could have been the real source for the nausea :D but the warm colour with the tint did remind me of vomit.

but yes you might be right about saturation vs contrast.. hmm it's hard to describe sometimes.. nevermind :) I think i'll just put a lid on it for now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top