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

I've already said the same about Zebra and blinkies. Histogram is fine on my A7R though but remember it is for the JPEG image not the actual raw data so you will appear to lose highlights if you have a high contrast picture style on. I wouldn't call your result above good - the pulled back highlights are mostly lacking in colour data, tonal detail and are full of false colour which is exactly as I've found from mine when pushed beyond the histogram.
 
robj20 said:
Fair enough, it took me ages to decide on one, the shutter sound being one of the factors i looked at but honestly its not even louder its just longer. I was mostly concerned with the lack of phase detect but from 99% of the reviews they say its so close its not worth worrying about and in low light makes no difference.

Is there anyone wishing they bought the other one to what they have?
Click to expand...

I think the A7r shutter clunks twice, the A7 only once?

Reasons I went A7 are:
Quieter shutter
Faster Sync Speed
Smaller files (had a d800, even with a fast system the A7 files load faster etc and detail level is still impressive at 1:1)
PDAF

In my case it just made sense to get the cheaper version as the 7R doesnt really offer me anything for those extra quids and extra lenses make more sense.

Are you thinking you made the wrong choice?
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Turning down the contrast in picture styles effectively compresses the histogram, so blinkies flash later and therefore closer to the actual Raw. Might help a little. I find histograms and blinkies are usually very cautious, but a few experiments will establish how much headroom you've got. Bit of PITA though.

Edit: agree with Rob re zebras, as I understand them, but I'll not get my hands on the A7R till later this week.
Click to expand...

I think I'll give up with zebra as I'm not too worried about skin tones and for general use I find that they make the image too difficult to see. My main concern is the accuracy of the histogram and in camera review. Accuracy would be nice and I'll probably still continue to ETTR and at least now I know that if I see areas in the image flashing upon review it's not certain that they're actually blown, in fact they're probably not.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
I've already said the same about Zebra and blinkies. Histogram is fine on my A7R though but remember it is for the JPEG image not the actual raw data so you will appear to lose highlights if you have a high contrast picture style on. I wouldn't call your result above good - the pulled back highlights are mostly lacking in colour data, tonal detail and are full of false colour which is exactly as I've found from mine when pushed beyond the histogram.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think it's quite accurate in that it's captured what my eyes see. Remember that I live in northern England where the light isn't exactly great and that the area of sky being viewed is quite low in the sky where a lovely blue would be lovely but is often not to be had and what you'd expect to see is what the image has captured, basically an accurate capture of the blue/grey quite low down in the sky.

PS. Maybe if the scene was such that at +3 the histogram would go even further off the RHS it'd be worse but I do think the +3 isn't too bad at all and is very close to what I saw at the time.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I think the A7r shutter clunks twice, the A7 only once?
Click to expand...

AFAIK the difference is that the A7 has first curtain shutter which when enabled leads to the different noise. You can check this by enabling/disabling it in the menu.
 
woof woof said:
I don't think so. I think it's quite accurate in that it's captured what my eyes see. Remember that I live in northern England where the light isn't exactly great and that the area of sky being viewed is quite low in the sky where a lovely blue would be lovely but is often not to be had and what you'd expect to see is what the image has captured, basically an accurate capture of the blue/grey quite low down in the sky.
Click to expand...

Whilst it may look like what you saw, I'd bet if you compared the properly exposed shot to it you'd see that it's actually nowhere near as good as what it could have been.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Whilst it may look like what you saw, I'd bet if you compared the properly exposed shot to it you'd see that it's actually nowhere near as good as what it could have been.
Click to expand...

A job for another day as at this/that time of day the lighting and colour was changing by the second and looking at the scene now the grey band extends still further/higher into the sky.
 
woof woof said:
AFAIK the difference is that the A7 has first curtain shutter which when enabled leads to the different noise. You can check this by enabling/disabling it in the menu.
Click to expand...

For clarity:

The A7 has an electronic first curtain shutter. Second curtain on the A7 is performed by the mechanical shutter.

The A7r doesn't have an EFC shutter and uses its mechanical shutter for both first and second curtain.

The A7 can be configured to use the mechanical shutter for both first and second curtain operation.
 
Musicman said:
For clarity:

The A7 has an electronic first curtain shutter. Second curtain on the A7 is performed by the mechanical shutter.

The A7r doesn't have an EFC shutter and uses its mechanical shutter for both first and second curtain.

The A7 can be configured to use the mechanical shutter for both first and second curtain operation.
Click to expand...

Thats what I read. Hence the faster synch.
 
twist said:
I think the A7r shutter clunks twice, the A7 only once?

Reasons I went A7 are:
Quieter shutter
Faster Sync Speed
Smaller files (had a d800, even with a fast system the A7 files load faster etc and detail level is still impressive at 1:1)
PDAF

In my case it just made sense to get the cheaper version as the 7R doesnt really offer me anything for those extra quids and extra lenses make more sense.

Are you thinking you made the wrong choice?
Click to expand...

No im very happy with my choice suites me perfectly, 99% stationary subjects. The file size is not a problem only 35MB at most. The ability to crop so much is brilliant, extra detail is always a good thing. Focus makes no difference for what i use it for.
 
robj20 said:
No im very happy with my choice suites me perfectly, 99% stationary subjects. The file size is not a problem only 35MB at most. The ability to crop so much is brilliant, extra detail is always a good thing. Focus makes no difference for what i use it for.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you made the right choice. Ah, I see D800 files were uncompressed at 75mb+ each!
 
twist said:
Thats what I read. Hence the faster synch.
Click to expand...

Yes, though it doesn't explain the A7's faster x-sync. To get that, the shutter curtains (electronic or mechanical) have to travel faster down the sensor. I suspect the two cameras actually have different mechanical shutters, or the A7R is made to run deliberately more slowly to extend working life as it has to do twice as much work.

It's interesting how the A7 and A7R sensors affect things, with the A7R needing to purge the sensor before making an exposure, while the A7 doesn't need that and can go electronically straight from live view to exposure. To take a shot, the A7R first has to close the second curtain after viewing, then let the first curtain go, then the second, and then reopen the first curtain again for viewing. That's four separate shutter actions, compared to the A7's two.
 
Last edited:
paulcamcas said:
First on my list is an m-mount 90mm for portraits. Any recommendations? The M-Rokkor f4 looks favourite at the mo.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of choice at reasonable prices. I have a Konica M-Hexanon 90 2/8 which I've just picked up second hand. Very nice indeed, beautifully made. You might as well go for 2.8 rather than f4 I reckon. Trawl some of the second hand dealers - Aperture, Red Dot, Classic Camera, Camera World, LCE etc. and you should find something very nice indeed for decent money.
 
Thanks Andy. Agree, 2.8 would be preferable to 4. Reddot have some interesting options at not-outrageous prices. I'll start trawling the others. Good suggestions, thanks again.
 
Need a fast 50 in M or LTM, any suggestions? Around £400 would be nice.
 
How fast? How good? Jupiter 8 and 3 are options. I've got an 8 and will be on the lookout for a 3. You've probably seen this interesting read.
 
F2 and faster. They are possibilities but seems sample variations are the issue there.
 
Yes, seems to be pot luck as to whether you get a good one. Zeiss Planar and Sonnar are both good in different ways but you'll be lucky to find one within budget. Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton could be an option.

If you could live with bigger, the world's your lobster. Canon, Minolta, Contax, Nikon, Olympus, Leica-R all have great 50s. I tried most of them with M4/3 and all were good not sure if that would be the case on FF.
 
Theres also the SLR magic hyperprime 50 .95. That lens looks exactly the same. Its APSH though and the LTM version for FF is £2200.

I have the 55mm zeiss on order so dont want to spend a fortune on a MF lens. Wish theyd start shipping the damn thing already instead of all these delays!! I only have the 35mm zeiss and that doesnt go with what I shoot.
 
Last edited:
That lens alone would do me. But I need something this Christmas not Christmas 2016 and that is where the A7 struggles. No lenses.
 
Personally I like the Minolta and Olympus 50mm's. My Minolta 55mm f1.7, 50mm f1.7 and f1.4 have all been good as is my Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and in real world images they all look good at 100% and I think you'll have to look very closely indeed to nit pick any differences between them and more expensive lenses. These + adapter will be bigger on camera but not too big IMVHO.

If you just want sometine to use now, a 50mm f1.8+adapter could be yours for under £30.
 
I am using a Minolta MC 50mm 1.4 PG X and its very good, but the adapter is very big. As a last resort I suppose its okay I just hate the fact such a nice lens becomes 'ugly' with a giant adapter.
 
Come on... it's not exactly giant is it?

A "MD" or Zuiko adapter + any prime lens up to about 85mm is only the size of my G1's kit lens.
 
Ermmm yes it is, its not the smallest lens and the adapter doubles the size. Its the same size as an 18-55mm lens now. Small camera, big lens :|

6426107991_b2de8018d4_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Errrr... you're using a very small camera as an example!

I give up... It's a giant combination and is simply too giant to use... :D
 
So? It shows how massive the adapter is compared to the lens. Thanks for confirming :)
 
You're barking mad...

There's a picture of mine +Zuiko+adapter a few pages back.
 
Perhaps. Possibly not easily pleased.

How about a top view shot instead of front on that doesnt show how big the adapter is?
 
Good point below twist. Images banished.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, thats very useful, so of the 'bigger adapters' the Konica looks a good option. I think the smallest are Pen F, Contax G, LM and LTM.
 
Last edited:
Some more from me. Nice misty day and I've been out for a wander. I also have some new lenses - Leica Summarit-M 50mm 2.5, Voigtlander 21 f/4 and a Konica Hexanon-M 90mm f/2.8. I've done a writeup of them and the Lightroom Flat Field correction plugin for wide angle lenses here.

These two with the 50mm Summarit, which is tiny and oh so sharp. First at f/2.5 and the second at f/8.





The little M-mount lenses are tiny compared to the Leica R-mount ones that I have been using. Makes the camera a much more compact package.
 
twist said:
Thanks, thats very useful, so of the 'bigger adapters' the Konica looks a good option. I think the smallest are Pen F, Contax G, LM and LTM.
Click to expand...
Yeah. If memory serves me right the Konicas have the shortest flange-to-film distance (of the SLR brigade) and so their adapters can be shorter than all the other SLR lenses.
The rangefinder lenses seem to be either variable in quality (Soviets) or really rare or expensive : M-mount/Pen-F or those very cool Canon & Nikon & Voigtlander rangefinder lenses.
Luckily I already have a Konica and a couple of Jupiter 8.
 
Personally I find the adapter + Zuiko 50mm f1.8 / 28mm f2.8 pretty much perfect for physical length as when I hold the camera my left thumb and index finger fall naturally on the focus and aperture ring.
 
woof woof said:
Personally I find the adapter + Zuiko 50mm f1.8 / 28mm f2.8 pretty much perfect for physical length as when I hold the camera my left thumb and index finger fall naturally on the focus and aperture ring.
Click to expand...

I agree, Zuiko, Pentax and Minolta all fall nicely to hand, so does the little Konica though I do keep mistaking the flutes on the adapter for the aperture ring. I love that Zuikos have it at the front of the lens, always seems to make most sense to me there.

Canon FD is not much longer than the Konica adapter, though the lenses aren't especially compact. An old Nikon 50mm is pretty small, somewhere between the Konica 40mm and the Zuiko 50mm (1.8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top