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

dancook said:
isn't that "old age"!? :D They are wholesome hobbies for preserving my mental health :)

Been busy in the garden lately! built a greenhouse and growing lots of veg.

(@gardenmayhem) • Instagram photos and videos

www.instagram.com www.instagram.com

Just got a loafnest, and made my sourdough starter! will make no knead loaves, first test in the oven - along with a banana bread... although we still have significant carrot cake left.
Click to expand...

One of my neighbours is doing the same thing for the same reasons but he is growing cannabis instead of veg.
 
Sony a9 Help

I cannot seem to find how to re-centre the focus point once I move it with the Toggle on the back of the camera. I know I can move it to centre using the toggle

Do I need to customise a button for this ?

Any advice is welcomed

Les :)
 
Lez325 said:
Sony a9 Help

I cannot seem to find how to re-centre the focus point once I move it with the Toggle on the back of the camera. I know I can move it to centre using the toggle

Do I need to customise a button for this ?

Any advice is welcomed

Les :)
Click to expand...
Double click the toggle "stick"?

EDIT - May just be a single click in the central position. Can't remember.
 
Last edited:
Lez325 said:
Sony a9 Help

I cannot seem to find how to re-centre the focus point once I move it with the Toggle on the back of the camera. I know I can move it to centre using the toggle

Do I need to customise a button for this ?

Any advice is welcomed

Les :)
Click to expand...

GeordieStew said:
Double click the toggle "stick"?

EDIT - May just be a single click in the central position. Can't remember.
Click to expand...
Single click of the joystick thingy, I can't remember if you have to set it up for this or whether it's set like that as default :thinking:
 
GeordieStew said:
Anyone know how to get zebras on playback other than the histogram screen? I don't want them on when I'm shooting, too distracting/triggering. But want to review a shot afterwards. The display is teeny tiny on the "histogram" screen. (A1 here but may be same on other cameras)

Cheers
Click to expand...
Just tried on my A9ii, couldn't find a way to get it to shows Zebras on playback I'm afraid.
 
Lez325 said:
Sony a9 Help

I cannot seem to find how to re-centre the focus point once I move it with the Toggle on the back of the camera. I know I can move it to centre using the toggle

Do I need to customise a button for this ?

Any advice is welcomed

Les :)
Click to expand...
Single click on joystick, same as all of the other Sony cameras with a stick.
 
Barrysprout said:
Could anyone confirm for me that this lens mount is "Minolta A"
....
Click to expand...
If you have any more info on the lens (brand, focal length, etc) then try looking it up on the Dyxum lens database - there are usually images of the lens there, which you can compare with yours to help verify it is what you think.
 
snerkler said:
Ok, so you don't need Popeye arms t handhold it then :LOL:
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's a lovely lens but with that sort of portrait you're removing most context until the picture could have been taken anywhere. It's a look though and I can see how some people like it.
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure it's a lovely lens but with that sort of portrait you're removing most context until the picture could have been taken anywhere. It's a look though and I can see how some people like it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's intended for portraiture, although the images were nice imo. Any head and shoulder portraits taken with 85mm and above removed most context I feel, I guess it depends what you're going for (y)
 
snerkler said:
I don't think it's intended for portraiture, although the images were nice imo. Any head and shoulder portraits taken with 85mm and above removed most context I feel, I guess it depends what you're going for (y)
Click to expand...

The tight head and shoulders with no context look is something I can see the appeal of but it's something I don't really want a lot of. I suppose we maybe all do it now and again but I don't think I want multiple shots like that of the same person.
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure it's a lovely lens but with that sort of portrait you're removing most context until the picture could have been taken anywhere. It's a look though and I can see how some people like it.
Click to expand...
snerkler said:
I don't think it's intended for portraiture, although the images were nice imo. Any head and shoulder portraits taken with 85mm and above removed most context I feel, I guess it depends what you're going for (y)
Click to expand...


:oops: :$


Nah, not having that.

They say the best portrait lens ever made is the 200mm f/2 and I have seen some outstanding portraits taken with that. Just because you have a longer focal length doesn't mean that everything has to be shot tight. Just take a few steps back, maybe more than a few at longer lengths.

For me 135mm is the best focal length for portraits, you need a bit of space to use it but its no so long that that is difficult.

We just had a run of communion sessions there and I only used a 135mm. It the lens I automatically reach for when doing family portrait sessions etc.

I have stopped bringing it to weddings now though as I just use the 35/50 for portraits there. I would like to bring the 135 as well but its just too much hassle to carry 3 bodies around for that.
 
I know this lens has been talked about a fair bit on here, but I only just had a chance to use mine yesterday for the first time.

The Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, been a long time since I used a lens like this one. My youngest had her first match yesterday morning for our local football team, so I went along as all proud dad's do and used the Tamron along with a 200-600 quite a lot. The last similar focal length I had was the Sony 70-200 f/4, before that I had the Tamron 70-200 VC for Nikon and the Nikon VR2. Way back when I had a Sigma 70-200 for Nikon as well.

The Tamron was surprisingly rather good, quite impressed with it. Seem to have found a use for it now too as will likely be using it for her match next Sunday as well. Hopefully I haven't got roped into shooting too much though,, the teams manager asked me for me to send the photos across which I did and a few are going in the local paper. He also asked about me doing some other stuff for them so will have to start thinking of excuses why I can't. :D
 
Faldrax said:
If you have any more info on the lens (brand, focal length, etc) then try looking it up on the Dyxum lens database - there are usually images of the lens there, which you can compare with yours to help verify it is what you think.
Click to expand...
Thanks, it's a centon 500mm mirror lens, I've ordered an adapter to have a play with it. I'm confisent it wasn't worth teh expense of teh adapter to use it but what the heck.

@woof woof I also picked up a lens yesterday which you may appreciate as a fan of rokkor manual lenses (although maybe not this focal length)
It's a TC 100mm f4
Tiny little thing and in really quite nice condition.

DSC00128.JPG

DSC00129.JPG

35mm f1.8 for scale

DSC00127.JPG
 
f/2.8 said:
:oops: :$


Nah, not having that.

They say the best portrait lens ever made is the 200mm f/2 and I have seen some outstanding portraits taken with that. Just because you have a longer focal length doesn't mean that everything has to be shot tight. Just take a few steps back, maybe more than a few at longer lengths.

For me 135mm is the best focal length for portraits, you need a bit of space to use it but its no so long that that is difficult.

We just had a run of communion sessions there and I only used a 135mm. It the lens I automatically reach for when doing family portrait sessions etc.

I have stopped bringing it to weddings now though as I just use the 35/50 for portraits there. I would like to bring the 135 as well but its just too much hassle to carry 3 bodies around for that.
Click to expand...

This started off by talking about a 400mm lens, not a 200 or a 135.

One issue with these lenses for me at least is that a tight shot may be doable but for whole body pictures you don't always have the option of stepping back without your room to back up running out or the surrounding or other people getting in the way plus you've possibly then got communication problems because of the distance between you and the subject.

As above. I can see the appeal but zero context tight pictures with bokeh ball surround are not something I want a lot of. I suppose we all like a nice portrait of our loved ones but assuming they haven't changed a lot I wont be taking a lot of tight head and shoulder pictures with little context of the same person with nothing but bokeh balls for company. Each to their own of course and if people do that for a living or because they like it then fair enough, there's room for all.
 
Last edited:
Barrysprout said:
Thanks, it's a centon 500mm mirror lens, I've ordered an adapter to have a play with it. I'm confisent it wasn't worth teh expense of teh adapter to use it but what the heck.

@woof woof I also picked up a lens yesterday which you may appreciate as a fan of rokkor manual lenses (although maybe not this focal length)
It's a TC 100mm f4
Tiny little thing and in really quite nice condition.
Click to expand...

Nice.

I have Rokkor 85mm f2 and 135mm f2.8 lenses so although I've looked at 100mm lenses getting one would really just be collecting. I'll look forward to seeing your pictures taken with it :D
 
f/2.8 said:
a longer focal length doesn't mean that everything has to be shot tight. Just take a few steps back, maybe more than a few at longer lengths.
Click to expand...
That was kind of my point, although not elaborated enough. I was just saying that any head and shoulders shot with a long(ish) focal length removes context, but it doesn't have to just be like this, as you say you can get full body shots with 85mm, 135mm etc. 400mm would require you to be quite some distance from the subject though, maybe need a megaphone to communicate with them :lol:
 
snerkler said:
That was kind of my point, although not elaborated enough. I was just saying that any head and shoulders shot with a long(ish) focal length removes context, but it doesn't have to just be like this, as you say you can get full body shots with 85mm, 135mm etc. 400mm would require you to be quite some distance from the subject though, maybe need a megaphone to communicate with them :LOL:
Click to expand...

150mm on APS-C was pretty much unusable for whole body pictures for me and I remember being frustrated. I'm sure that on a quiet day on Saltburn beach or a deserted airfield somewhere these sort of lengths will be lovely though.
 
snerkler said:
That was kind of my point, although not elaborated enough. I was just saying that any head and shoulders shot with a long(ish) focal length removes context, but it doesn't have to just be like this, as you say you can get full body shots with 85mm, 135mm etc. 400mm would require you to be quite some distance from the subject though, maybe need a megaphone to communicate with them :LOL:
Click to expand...
Maybe not a megaphone. :ROFLMAO:


There is a portrait photographer in the states, very high end who only uses a 200 f/2. I can't remember her name off hand, Megan something or other, she spoke at a conference I went to one time.

She uses walkie talkies to communicate with her subjects, to be fair she has a big team of people on each shoot usually at least 3 assistants, stylists etc. the whole shabang.

200 f/2 seems to work for her at $15,000 per printed image (they don't offer digital images) it would need too.

She only shoots families and pets, each session averages $110,000.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
200 f/2 seems to work for her at $15,000 per printed image (they don't offer digital images) it would need too.

She only shoots families and pets, each session averages $110,000.
Click to expand...
:eek::eek::eek:
 
trevorbray said:
Not shot with any kind of zoom for a while.
Not used this particular lens since purchase July 2021
Tamron 17-28
This at 28mm f2.8
Thinking I'd like a 28mm GM
Click to expand...

The 28mm f2 is good enough for me but it does seem a bit of a mystery why Sony haven't done a top end 28mm yet. I suppose they've had other priorites but looking at the various forums and blogs there do seem to be people wanting one.
 
f/2.8 said:
Maybe not a megaphone. :ROFLMAO:


There is a portrait photographer in the states, very high end who only uses a 200 f/2. I can't remember her name off hand, Megan something or other, she spoke at a conference I went to one time.

She uses walkie talkies to communicate with her subjects, to be fair she has a big team of people on each shoot usually at least 3 assistants, stylists etc. the whole shabang.

200 f/2 seems to work for her at $15,000 per printed image (they don't offer digital images) it would need too.

She only shoots families and pets, each session averages $110,000.
Click to expand...

I know who you mean. Lots of desert and canyon location images. She used to be pretty active on Flickr a few years ago!

And I love the 70-180mm I must say, more than happy with that and the 35/40 for landscape woodland shooting.

I actually dragged the Escort out of the lock up yesterday for the first time in 7 months! Didn't drive far, everything seemed okay though, but actually used the FE85 for a few photos for a change.
 
LeeRatters said:
I know who you mean. Lots of desert and canyon location images. She used to be pretty active on Flickr a few years ago!

And I love the 70-180mm I must say, more than happy with that and the 35/40 for landscape woodland shooting.

I actually dragged the Escort out of the lock up yesterday for the first time in 7 months! Didn't drive far, everything seemed okay though, but actually used the FE85 for a few photos for a change.
Click to expand...

Yeah that sounds like her.
 
I've been dabbling more recently so I'm taking an interest, At the mo I'm all over the place from more of less straight conversions with modern sharpness and lack of vignetting etc at one end of the scale to going for a more older or characterful interpretation with some depending on what I think best suits at the other.
 
trevorbray said:
Don’t think it hasn’t crossed my mind.
Click to expand...
Me too quite a bit but I think i've seen enough reviews and photos on flickr to conclude that it doesn't come close to the Sony's in pretty much every department regarding IQ and features. If there's someone taking decent stuff with one please point me in that direction because most of what i've seen is people with plenty of cash but no clue how to get the best out of it.
 
imattersuk said:
Shhhhh he'll be parachuting into Manchester from a helipcopter with card in hand, couple of stun grenades lobbed into the entrance for fun "we've been expecting you Mr Bray" :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Sounds like me for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top