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

Taken from a bloke in Facebook testing the sigma 500 f4 canon mount prime on a9

Gentlemen, i'm more than happy to report that the Sigma 500mm f/4 canon mount (newest version) works excellent with MC11 when pair up with Sony A9.

* ALL NATIVES FEATURES are available. (Eye-AF, Zone, AF-C, etc..)
* AF speed is super fast and accurate for BIF.
* It has no problem tracking subject in an erratic movement.
* It has no issue to separate the busy background.
* Light weight. I was able to shot handheld the entire time. When i'm not shooting, i sling it on my sideway.

I also test with Sigma 1.4x TC (latest model - TC-1401) and it works as well. HOWEVER, you lost "zone" focus. If you tracking your bird from left to right, no problem. BUT if it is appear from no where, it is struggle to get it in focus.

As of right now, this IS the longest prime that available with Sony A9, A7rii, A7 iii.

———————
If you going to ask about canon 600is ii and 800is, the answer is : NO, I tried it and they can’t maintain tracking ability, hunting a lot. Useless for BIF.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Taken from a bloke in Facebook testing the sigma 500 f4 canon mount prime on a9

Gentlemen, i'm more than happy to report that the Sigma 500mm f/4 canon mount (newest version) works excellent with MC11 when pair up with Sony A9.

* ALL NATIVES FEATURES are available. (Eye-AF, Zone, AF-C, etc..)
* AF speed is super fast and accurate for BIF.
* It has no problem tracking subject in an erratic movement.
* It has no issue to separate the busy background.
* Light weight. I was able to shot handheld the entire time. When i'm not shooting, i sling it on my sideway.

I also test with Sigma 1.4x TC (latest model - TC-1401) and it works as well. HOWEVER, you lost "zone" focus. If you tracking your bird from left to right, no problem. BUT if it is appear from no where, it is struggle to get it in focus.

As of right now, this IS the longest prime that available with Sony A9, A7rii, A7 iii.

———————
If you going to ask about canon 600is ii and 800is, the answer is : NO, I tried it and they can’t maintain tracking ability, hunting a lot. Useless for BIF.
Click to expand...

Spending £5000 on a non native mount lens, that is also a sigma.. :D it doesn't feel good.

Unless it was a leica 50mm noctilux - then I could make an allowance
 
twist said:
Compressed 12, uncompressed 14, I think. no lossless which is crap.
Click to expand...

Does anyone here shoot uncompressed? I haven't and wonder if I should try it - last I read about it, it gives you a bit more leeway when pulling shadows considerably...

Does it do anything for colour?
 
dancook said:
I just read compressed is 14-bit, and quick glance at this link suggests same

I just found out

"anything above 5FPS will be lowered to 12 bit"
Click to expand...

Mustve changed FW when they released the uncompressed, pretty sure compressed to be 12 bit :thinking:
 
jonneymendoza said:
Nope 14bit up to 18fps from day 1
Click to expand...

No, they said they were 14 bit but they were actually like 11 bit. There were a lot of people Pd with Sony because of it before it was changed with FW in the A7ii. Im talking back in the day not A9.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
So if you shoot at High speed uncompressed you'll get 14-bit and 18 fps, is that what you're suggesting?

What about compressed and 20fps

What do you shoot Jonney?
Click to expand...
Yea you get around 18fps or 16fps. One of those at uncompressed raw 14bit
 
I shoot at uncompressed all the time. Sometimes compressed when I need full 20fps.

Compressed raw is good enough in all honestly unless you underexposed by 5 stops lol.
 
twist said:
No, they said they were 14 bit but they were actually like 11 bit. There were a lot of people Pd with Sony because of it before it was changed with FW in the A7ii. Im talking back in the day not A9.
Click to expand...
Not sure that's true. It's 14 bit from places I read and there was a big study on it on dp forums. Anyways I honestly don't care because for my shooting style I've pulled shadows and highlights for fun and had no artifacts or banding. If you want I can see if I can post a well underexposed image raw later for you to play
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not sure that's true. It's 14 bit from places I read and there was a big study on it on dp forums. Anyways I honestly don't care because for my shooting style I've pulled shadows and highlights for fun and had no artifacts or banding. If you want I can see if I can post a well underexposed image raw later for you to play
Click to expand...

It is true, it was well documented, hence the FW update to 14 bit RAW. Im not talking about the A9... but the early A7/ii cameras, Im assuming Snake isnt buying a newer gen.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
It is true, it was well documented, hence the FW update to 14 bit RAW. Im not talking about the A9... but the early A7/ii cameras, Im assuming Snake isnt buying a newer gen.
Click to expand...
Ahh ok cool yea your correct about earlier cameras
 
twist said:
No, they said they were 14 bit but they were actually like 11 bit. There were a lot of people Pd with Sony because of it before it was changed with FW in the A7ii. Im talking back in the day not A9.
Click to expand...
just found this on Thom Hogans review of A7 and A7r review here ====
http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a...ex-camera-reviews/sony-a7-and-a7r-review.html


Okay, we are now in one area where I know I’m going to get a lot of blowback: image quality. The number one thing I heard the fanboys all rejoicing about when the A7r was announced was this: “Yes! D800E quality in a smaller, lighter, less expensive body.” No, the A7r produces less than D800E quality in a less expensive body. If you want a free lunch, I suggest you try the local rescue mission.

The difference isn’t actually easy to describe because it involves what’s going on behind the covers. But let me lay out the basics: the D800E will shoot 14-bit raw files with no underlying artifacts and fully recoverable data. The A7r will shoot 11-bit raw files with potential posterization issues in the data. The same is true of the A7 versus a D610, too.

Let’s start with the 11-bit thing. Sony always uses compression in storing raw files. The way they do that is quite clever. They slice each pixel row into 32 pixel blocks. In a Bayer sensor, that means two colors, each with 16 data points). For each 16 pixels of a color, Sony looks at the minimum and maximum pixel values for each and stores that. For the other 14 pixels they store a 7-bit value that is offset from the minimum value. In essence, they get 32 pixel values stored in 32 bytes, when normally 11-bit storage for that data should take 44 bytes.

This is not lossless compression. It is highly lossy. Nor is it visually lossless. That’s because when you have an extreme set of values in the 32-pixel block (e.g. sun peaking out from behind tree edge), you get posterization of data. Don’t believe me? See this article, which describes it better than I can in the limited space of a review. Indeed, every A7/A7r owner should probably have a copy of RawDigger so that they can understand exactly where the issues in their raw files lay. Even Nikon’s optional visually lossless compression scheme does a better job at this, as it hides its posterization only in very bright values that our eyes just don’t resolve.

now as Twist says an option for 14bit uncompressed which wasn't available when this was posted
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Talking about A7's...

Over on DPR there's a thread about MFT v A7III and I can't believe what people are saying about image quality. I've had MFT since day 1 and I like the system but if keeping one foot in the real world I have to say that compared to even my 1st generation A7 the differences are there to be seen if I go looking. Yes, when working on a MFT file in isolation it can look very nice and MFT pictures can get lost amongst A7 pictures but stop.... and look... even if you have to look carefully... and the differences are there.
Click to expand...
I'm a big advocate of m4/3 too but as good as FF it is not. It's not a million miles away at base but the differences are there.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I've been thinking that a 16-35 2.8 on one camera and 50 1.4 on the other - would be a pretty good team of lenses for a lot of wedding scenarios.

and other stuff
Click to expand...

I find that most people start out weddings with zooms, the reason is simple, they want something to cover every scenarios as possible so a zooms is best for that. Whilst that is true, they don't give the best image quality and don't have that bokeh sub 2.0. I started with a 24-70 and but eventually a lot of wedding photographers end up with Primes. The reason being when you know the beats of a wedding, you can sense what shots you need at certain times of the day and the lens that you need it in. having 2 bodies and 2 lenses, perhaps a 3rd with quick access, you can do it all with primes.

Watch this video, she basically do the same thing I do, with some exceptions like I prefer 35/85 and a standard combo.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUsCaJopSSs


The caveat is that at all times, the lenses you have on reflects to the room and situations.

In the morning, I tend to use 24mm or wider for 1 shot, the room shot usually, I have a 20/1.4, 16-35/2.8 and a 24/1.4 for this. Depends on the room, I use either one of them. I also use it to photograph the dress in the room.

Tx4lwWN.jpg


1NdR9eP.jpg


oAS8pt3.jpg


Or its good for the room shots.

UV6XUNE.jpg


zqzt4I3.jpg


Apart from that, I don't need the wider end much, so being restricted to 2.8…I rather use that when I need it and the photos that needs doing, are planned, and not much movement.

But the Hero shots are mostly from my 35 or 85 Primes.

kywhP72.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is my view at the moment (from the hotel balcony in Fuerteventura) :0)

IMG_1523202137.964973.jpg

I don’t have my laptop with me so this is a Snapseed edit on the iPhone.

A7 with OM Zuiko 35/2.8 handheld.
 
Raymond Lin said:
That said, I have taken some nice stuff with a 50….it depends really ! They all work but most of them are between 35-85.
Click to expand...

I started off with 35/85 a few years ago, then went to 28/50 when I used the Leica

Got a wedding on Thursday, first one with the A9 pair - if panamoz don't deliver, it will be 35/85 for certain
 
dancook said:
I started off with 35/85 a few years ago, then went to 28/50 when I used the Leica

Got a wedding on Thursday, first one with the A9 pair - if panamoz don't deliver, it will be 35/85 for certain
Click to expand...

I don't have any 28mm lenses, I find 24 too wide, that only comes out on the Dance floor. 35/50 could work most of the day but I would miss the 85 in ceremony and speeches.

iQ6JxM6.jpg
 
Raymond Lin said:
I don't have any 28mm lenses, I find 24 too wide, that only comes out on the Dance floor. 35/50 could work most of the day but I would miss the 85 in ceremony and speeches.

iQ6JxM6.jpg
Click to expand...

Have you setup off camera flash around the room? any on camera here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top