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

Raymond Lin said:
I think I have been objective, if anyone taken that wrongly I apologise.

My "judgemental attitude" towards his images are one shared by many. We have commented on the past how they are off in colour, others have pointed it out also, Alan himself has corrected a few as a results of those. I am not sure why they were off, perhaps the A7 files are "off" SOCC, perhaps they do need more work in post. which all supports the point of Sony A7 files and its colour science are not that great in that era of Sony bodies.

As for sweeping generalisation of Alan being the only one using legacy lenses, it is just my observation of what I see in this thread of what is posted recently. Sorry you or anyone else were not included? But the point was Sony A7 colour science of that era needed work.

I don't think anyone is disputing that are we?

And we also agree that the AF is not really that great.

(again, I am not talking about they can't be made to look great, I am talking about what the camera actually produces, not what you do in the computer afterwards)
Click to expand...

My point was that other people who have commented on Alan’s images have been constructive/helpful in their criticism whereas your posts came across as uncalled for. Describing someone’s images (that they are happy with) as “unacceptable” is a little too far personally.

I’m not bothered about you not including me in your list of people who use manual/legacy glass, I use AF glass too. My issue was the generalised suggestion that Alan is the only one who does and his images don’t show a good reason to use them, just because you don’t like them.

As I’ve previously said, I agree that the AF performance and low light WB performance of the mk1 isn’t as good as later generation bodies. You didn’t say that at first though, you just ruled out MF lenses entirely.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone where I could get one of those cable clamps that come with the A7riii?
I'm after one for my A7iii.


a7RII-cablelock-web.jpg
 
Just to add my 2p. I moved from Fuji to a Sony A7ii with Voigtlander manual focus lenses and haven't looked back. I recently upgraded to the A7Riii for the megapixels to allow me more room to crop in post and also now use some AF lenses because I've started doing some model shoots, but the IQ of the A7ii is still exceptional and would highly recommend the older A7 models. The only thing I miss from my Fujifilm cameras is the menu/software.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I’m not sure it’s a witch hunt, Alan gave an option of shooting with legacy glass (as he likes them) without being judgemental against people that choose to only shoot AF or the images they share. In contrast, his images were criticised directly and in turn, all legacy/manual lenses were ruled out in a sweeping statement.

I’m only suggesting a little extra consideration of each others’ creative choices.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring that this started out because Alan said Fuji wasn't very good, yet others said they'd prefer Fuji over the Sony A7.

Manual glass may be a factor in how his images look, but we all know that old manual glass can still provide class images. So I don't think that approach is being knocked. Alan has certainly produced images with improved/different colour profiles, that was done quite recently in fact.

Raymond has stated why he wouldn't go with an A7 quite clearly I thought. Someone can not like the output they see from certain gear, that's fine. Raymond doesn't like the A7 output, Alan doesn't like the Fuji output. That's about the sum of it, quite how it descended into the depths it has I don't know but then this is the internet :D
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
My point was that other people who have commented on Alan’s images have been constructive/helpful in their criticism whereas your posts came across as uncalled for. Describing someone’s images (that they are happy with) as “unacceptable” is a little too far personally.

I’m not bothered about you not including me in your list of people who use manual/legacy glass, I use AF glass too. My issue was the generalised suggestion that Alan is the only one who does and his images don’t show a good reason to use them, just because you don’t like them.

As I’ve previously said, I agree that the AF performance and low light WB performance of the mk1 isn’t as good as later generation bodies. You didn’t say that at first though, you just ruled out MF lenses entirely.
Click to expand...

So this is all over the issue on how I see the files?

I actually pondered the choice of the word, I could have chosen many adjectives which would be worse, in the end I chose unacceptable, and added “for my work” to qualify it, giving it a perspective and a level that you can see where I am coming from, not from a snobbery point of view but from an objectivity point of view. Clearly some people took this the COMPLETE wrong way. I was hoping you would understand that is exactly what I mean by that, I think it adds a level of objectivity in a debate of the colours of those files as presented. I fully am aware that you or anyone else may find it acceptable or amazing and thought you would know that I am aware of that too. This word suggests there is a line in the sand, a cleaner cut, as opposed to an arbitrary “meh”? I would have thought you read that and thought at most “that’s your opinion but I like it.” and that’ll be that and given others have already mentioned this and have given constructive criticism in the past, including me, you would know that I wasn’t meant to offend.

W6FPcgz.png


mU6mwSu.png


5Jp5PAU.png


You can say the same thing to me, and I wouldn’t get offended, or may be I should because he said there are "more weird colours than he produces in a lifetime", is that something okay to say compare to what I have said? It’s just an opinion at the end of the day. So, sorry Alan if you are offended. It’s just an opinion, may be it was too blunt but I am not going to lie, I would give you all the tips how I think the files would look better (IMO) but if that isn’t the look of what you are going for, it would be pointless (which btw, I have said that before too to Alan), but for me, for my work, those files, as presented, are unacceptable. I am not sure whether I should lie and be fake and say “that looks fab, I would put my name on that!” that is as much as an insult because you know it’s not true.

You can be insulted by the choice of a single word, I can’t help it if you feel that way, I can’t take it back now but the truth is the truth. You can go on and say “oh, that wasn’t what you said previously blah blah blah.” and want to argue more, but take this post as my last word on the matter and I consider it closed.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
So this is all over the issue on how I see the files?

I actually pondered the choice of the word, I could have chosen many adjectives which would be worse, in the end I chose unacceptable, and added “for my work” to qualify it, giving it a perspective and a level that you can see where I am coming from, not from a snobbery point of view but from an objectivity point of view. Clearly some people took this the COMPLETE wrong way. I was hoping you would understand that is exactly what I mean by that, I think it adds a level of objectivity in a debate of the colours of those files as presented. I fully am aware that you or anyone else may find it acceptable or amazing and thought you would know that I am aware of that too. This word suggests there is a line in the sand, a cleaner cut, as opposed to an arbitrary “meh”? I would have thought you read that and thought at most “that’s your opinion but I like it.” and that’ll be that and given others have already mentioned this and have given constructive criticism in the past, including me, you would know that I wasn’t meant to offend.

W6FPcgz.png


mU6mwSu.png


5Jp5PAU.png


You can say the same thing to me, and I wouldn’t get offended, or may be I should because he said there are "more weird colours than he produces in a lifetime", is that something okay to say compare to what I have said? It’s just an opinion at the end of the day. So, sorry Alan if you are offended. It’s just an opinion, may be it was too blunt but I am not going to lie, I would give you all the tips how I think the files would look better (IMO) but if that isn’t the look of what you are going for, it would be pointless (which btw, I have said that before too to Alan), but for me, for my work, those files, as presented, are unacceptable. I am not sure whether I should lie and be fake and say “that looks fab, I would put my name on that!” that is as much as an insult because you know it’s not true.

You can be insulted by the choice of a single word, I can’t help it if you feel that way, I can’t take it back now but the truth is the truth. You can go on and say “oh, that wasn’t what you said previously blah blah blah.” and want to argue more, but take this post as my last word on the matter and I consider it closed.
Click to expand...

I’ve already suggested that we should agree to disagree. I wouldn’t expect anyone to lie and give false praise, that’s what Flickr is for. I’ve just suggested that the criticism of Alan’s work and the use of lenses that you choose not to use was unacceptable to me and I wasn’t the only one that thought it.

Anyway, virtual hug and move on with our lives. I’ve got 150 cameras to build so need all the spare time I can get!
 
Last edited:
Simes123 said:
Cracking shot - what AF mode were you using?
Click to expand...

AF-C and just the M sized AF box. The a7RII and 55mm 1.8 is staggeringly fast, I'd love to try an a7III at some point because that's apparently quicker.
 
ukaskew said:
AF-C and just the M sized AF box. The a7RII and 55mm 1.8 is staggeringly fast, I'd love to try an a7III at some point because that's apparently quicker.
Click to expand...

It is VERY fast on the a7iii.... Possibly fastest combo I've used on any system but need to test a little more.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
Outdoor shots have never been an issue for the mk1 A7 but indoor, under different lighting, causes colour correction differences.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/josh1408/43168335021/
Click to expand...
Yea true.

Looking at that shot and it is indeed warmer and diddnt even edit it

2018-07-04_10-57-27 by Jon Richy, on Flickr

I need to sort out my monitor on the right. its calibrated wrong and that same pic is cooler!

Luckily i do my edits on the monitor u see on the left.

If i remember correctly i tweaked the AWB for use with my flash

This is with flash

Easter-Maxi-151.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Yea true.

Looking at that shot and it is indeed warmer and diddnt even edit it

2018-07-04_10-57-27 by Jon Richy, on Flickr

I need to sort out my monitor on the right. its calibrated wrong and that same pic is cooler!

Luckily i do my edits on the monitor u see on the left.

If i remember correctly i tweaked the AWB for use with my flash
Click to expand...

Good point. Not a criticism, just an observation really. Nice to see natural shots too.
 
stevelmx5 said:
How do DPR take all these comparison images with multiple cameras and have the models faces exactly the same in each? Even down to the creases/laughter lines on their face.
Click to expand...

It's a studio test scene not real life people ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top