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

Actually I think the best head I've had was a three way pan. It didn't weigh a lot more than a ball head and was much easier to position. I know ball heads are compact and light but they are IMO a right royal PITA when your trying to get the position you want.
 
woof woof said:
Actually I think the best head I've had was a three way pan. It didn't weigh a lot more than a ball head and was much easier to position. I know ball heads are compact and light but they are IMO a right royal PITA when your trying to get the position you want.
Click to expand...

With a good ball head like mine you tune the tension and set it to the biting point. So you can easily move the camera while on the ball head and when you let go it won't move.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Raw faster?
Click to expand...
Correct, according to that article, the Sony A9 is doing some kind of processing to the JPEG files which adds CPU overhead, thus causing slower write speeds.
I am guessing the RAW to JPEG conversion is what's making the JPEG write speed slower than just writing RAW to SD. :D

Continuous Hi
Compressed RAW

0.05 second
(20.00 fps);
240 frames total;
45 seconds to clear*
Time per shot, averaged over 240 frames, then slowed to an average of about 0.29s or 3.40 fps when buffer was full with a lot of variation.

Continuous Hi
Compressed RAW + L/F JPEG

0.05 second
(20.00 fps);
225 frames total;
87 seconds to clear*
Time per shot, averaged over 225 frames, then slowed to an average of about 0.40s or 2.50 fps when buffer was full with a lot of variation.

* Using Lexar 2000x SD Card
 
Last edited:
Apparently sony are onsite in the US Open. Pro support is showing up in big sports events it seems.

I think they will definitely be there for the Olympics which they actually said they plan to have a strong presents in the next olympics by having the gear and onsite support!

They need to hurry up with the 400 500 and 600mm G Master primes. get even 2/3 of those released before the olympics and we have a system ready for prime time in sports.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Correct, according to that article, the Sony A9 is doing some kind of processing to the JPEG files which adds CPU overhead, thus causing slower write speeds.
I am guessing the RAW to JPEG conversion is what's making the JPEG write speed slower than just writing RAW to SD. :D

Continuous Hi
Compressed RAW

0.05 second
(20.00 fps);
240 frames total;
45 seconds to clear*
Time per shot, averaged over 240 frames, then slowed to an average of about 0.29s or 3.40 fps when buffer was full with a lot of variation.

Continuous Hi
Compressed RAW + L/F JPEG

0.05 second
(20.00 fps);
225 frames total;
87 seconds to clear*
Time per shot, averaged over 225 frames, then slowed to an average of about 0.40s or 2.50 fps when buffer was full with a lot of variation.

* Using Lexar 2000x SD Card
Click to expand...


Why is there some surprise that the camera is performing processing when outputting JPG, that's exactly what they are so it's not really a shock? The camera applies any settings you've configured yourself as well as in camera noise reduction/perspective correction etc so it's obviously going to use up some processing time to do that.

I don't really see the point in shooting RAW+RAW except for a backup situation but you're not actually shooting anything life and death yet are you Riz so do you really need to have 2 copies of the RAW file?
 
From that very exciting article, I'd have thought this part would have worried you more @Riz_Guru

"Also note that the A9 cannot capture highest quality "Extra Fine" JPEGs together with RAW, dropping to "Fine" quality JPEGs when shooting RAW+JPEG.)"

All that quality that you're throwing away shooting RAW+JPEG because it only ouputs "Fine" quality JPEG rather than "Extra Fine". That's a game changer there ;0)
 
stevelmx5 said:
Why is there some surprise that the camera is performing processing when outputting JPG, that's exactly what they are so it's not really a shock? The camera applies any settings you've configured yourself as well as in camera noise reduction/perspective correction etc so it's obviously going to use up some processing time to do that.

I don't really see the point in shooting RAW+RAW except for a backup situation but you're not actually shooting anything life and death yet are you Riz so do you really need to have 2 copies of the RAW file?
Click to expand...
I think canikon has larger buffer when shooting jpg
 
stevelmx5 said:
From that very exciting article, I'd have thought this part would have worried you more @Riz_Guru

"Also note that the A9 cannot capture highest quality "Extra Fine" JPEGs together with RAW, dropping to "Fine" quality JPEGs when shooting RAW+JPEG.)"

All that quality that you're throwing away shooting RAW+JPEG because it only ouputs "Fine" quality JPEG rather than "Extra Fine". That's a game changer there ;0)
Click to expand...
I shoot raw so don't care about jpg hehe
 
stevelmx5 said:
Why is there some surprise that the camera is performing processing when outputting JPG, that's exactly what they are so it's not really a shock? The camera applies any settings you've configured yourself as well as in camera noise reduction/perspective correction etc so it's obviously going to use up some processing time to do that.

I don't really see the point in shooting RAW+RAW except for a backup situation but you're not actually shooting anything life and death yet are you Riz so do you really need to have 2 copies of the RAW file?
Click to expand...

Your right, only want dual SD cards for paid work which isn't much right now.
To be fair I'm not using the Sony A9 to its full potential yet but it's good knowing it's got the firepower, I guess I'm a techie by nature and love gadgets. :D
 
stevelmx5 said:
From that very exciting article, I'd have thought this part would have worried you more @Riz_Guru

"Also note that the A9 cannot capture highest quality "Extra Fine" JPEGs together with RAW, dropping to "Fine" quality JPEGs when shooting RAW+JPEG.)"

All that quality that you're throwing away shooting RAW+JPEG because it only ouputs "Fine" quality JPEG rather than "Extra Fine". That's a game changer there ;0)
Click to expand...

I'm still working with RAW files, I just assumed that with the JPEG files being smaller that they would write quicker to SD.
4-5x slower then RAW seems a lot. :D
 
jonneymendoza said:
No? As stated in that article. Converting a image to jpg requires processing before its written to the card.
Click to expand...

The camera does that in processor memory though doesn't it, rather than the write buffer? (I couldn't make my way through the whole article so obviously could be wrong)
 
Riz_Guru said:
I'm still working with RAW files, I just assumed that with the JPEG files being smaller that they would write quicker to SD.
4-5x slower then RAW seems a lot. :D
Click to expand...

I'd guess that the actual write process side by side is quicker with a jpeg because there's less data to transfer.

However, a RAW file is a direct dump from the sensor so it's going to get to the write process before the Jpeg engine has finished applying any processing and corrections. The headline "4-5 times faster" would, I assume, include the image processing time and not just the write time.
 
stevelmx5 said:
From that very exciting article, I'd have thought this part would have worried you more @Riz_Guru

"Also note that the A9 cannot capture highest quality "Extra Fine" JPEGs together with RAW, dropping to "Fine" quality JPEGs when shooting RAW+JPEG.)"

All that quality that you're throwing away shooting RAW+JPEG because it only ouputs "Fine" quality JPEG rather than "Extra Fine". That's a game changer there ;0)
Click to expand...

As has been the case AFAIK with every Sony Alpha camera for as long as young people can remember :-) Being of an inquisitive nature I decided to see what the differences in quality were between Fine and Extra Fine JPEG quality on my 24MP A77. I'm an expert pixel peeper of the worst kind, but I've not been able to find any differences. My guess is that there are differences, but only in the number of gradations in the colour space, and that won't be visible until you do some serious pushing in the post-processing. Which of course you wouldn't be doing in the first place to a JPEG if you happened to have a RAW version, as you would if you were shooting RAW + JPEG.
 
addicknchips said:
It's very hard to put down. Maybe it's the aperture ring that reminds me of shooting fuji lol
Click to expand...

:D yeah the Fuji lenses aren't bad at all .... GM has the edge though but I guess it should do given the cost!
 
A crop from my humble a77 and sigma 105 lens

36220486503_589dd17b04_c.jpg

DSC04680-2 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/150106760@N05/
 
addicknchips said:
to be fair I've gone from having a full bag of lenses to just 3 - and one of them may be going soon.
Click to expand...
You don't need to justify it to me. ;) :LOL:

As long as you are happy with the images you get you paid the right price for the right lens. :)

And I should add that was a very nice image taken with it. :)
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
You don't need to justify it to me. ;) :LOL:

As long as you are happy with the images you get you paid the right price for the right lens. :)

And I should add that was a very nice image taken with it. :)
Click to expand...

it just rolls off the tongue these days!

thanks (y)
 
mjmountain said:
For a minute I thought you were referring to the picture I posted... [emoji6]
Click to expand...

I missed your picture, I don't know how. Must be blind as a bat :D

Lovely picture too. I wish I could achieve macro pictures like that. Still under training myself ;)
Though the eyes in your picture is captivating for a different reason :LOL:

Also well focussed :)
 
Last edited:
chris malcolm said:
As has been the case AFAIK with every Sony Alpha camera for as long as young people can remember :-) Being of an inquisitive nature I decided to see what the differences in quality were between Fine and Extra Fine JPEG quality on my 24MP A77. I'm an expert pixel peeper of the worst kind, but I've not been able to find any differences. My guess is that there are differences, but only in the number of gradations in the colour space, and that won't be visible until you do some serious pushing in the post-processing. Which of course you wouldn't be doing in the first place to a JPEG if you happened to have a RAW version, as you would if you were shooting RAW + JPEG.
Click to expand...

I guess my intention didn't come across very well but I was being sarcastic :0)
 
addicknchips said:
to be fair I've gone from having a full bag of lenses to just 3 - and one of them may be going soon.
Click to expand...

So what are you selling? :o And what is staying?
I'm down to (upto) 4 lenses at present lol :D will I make it to the end of 2017 without an addition lol :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
So what are you selling? :eek: And what is staying?
I'm down to (upto) 4 lenses at present lol :D will I make it to the end of 2017 without an addition lol :D
Click to expand...

im not sure. probably let the little 28mm f2 go and get the 35mm f1.4. OR keep the 28mm and sell the 55mm and get the 35mm. OR i could just stick with what i have and get the 35mm next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top