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

Raymond Lin said:
How do you get your Sony files to work?!
Click to expand...
Only the A7III RAWs doesn't work. The rest work.
I have an A7RIII which was the last Sony body to get added to the perpetual LR6 licence:)

Even then you can get A7III RAWs to work by converting them to DNG first and Adobe provides a free DNG converter.
 
rookies said:
Damn
Click to expand...

while i don't use the full value of the subscription services (LR 90% of the time and PS 10%) - at £10 a month its about the cost of 3 cups of coffee. Which is not terribly expensive when considering the costs of GAS related purchases.
 
addicknchips said:
while i don't use the full value of the subscription services (LR 90% of the time and PS 10%) - at £10 a month its about the cost of 3 cups of coffee. Which is not terribly expensive when considering the costs of GAS related purchases.
Click to expand...
It's not about the cost which as you say isn't that much, its more the principal of it. You wouldn't pay subscription to read the same magazine with small grammar check every iteration for 12 months in a year would?
 
nandbytes said:
It's not about the cost which as you say isn't that much, its more the principal of it. You wouldn't pay subscription to read the same magazine with small grammar check every iteration for 12 months in a year would?
Click to expand...

I look at it at renting a prime real estate plot, sure you can get other plots of land far far away, but May Fair will always be May Fair.
 
nandbytes said:
It's not about the cost which as you say isn't that much, its more the principal of it. You wouldn't pay subscription to read the same magazine with small grammar check every iteration for 12 months in a year would?
Click to expand...

Do you like/remember the price of standalone photoshop before the sub model? As someone who uses most Adobe products I find the sub model pretty good value.

Cant please everyone, CC is actually affordable where most could never afford the standalone adobe products before.
 
twist said:
Do you like the price of standalone photoshop before the sub model? As someone who uses most Adobe products I find the sub model pretty good value.

Cant please everyone, CC is actually affordable where most could never afford the standalone adobe products before.
Click to expand...
I never bought Photoshop. I just want lightroom.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I look at it at renting a prime real estate plot, sure you can get other plots of land far far away, but May Fair will always be May Fair.
Click to expand...
Except you could lease that plot for a good few years for the same amount as you are paying now in rent. Good deal right?
 
twist said:
Do you like the price of standalone photoshop before the sub model? As someone who uses most Adobe products I find the sub model pretty good value.

Cant please everyone, CC is actually affordable where most could never afford the standalone adobe products before.
Click to expand...

I remember those were like £600, it was so expensive I didn't know a single person would buy it but everyone was using it, if you know what i mean.

Even if you were buying it, you would not be upgrading every year. You would wait a couple of years and skip a version or 2, missing out features for a while.

Now everyone subscribe and features are getting added when they pop up, updates whenever and you get it the same day, not when you decide to upgrade.
 
nandbytes said:
Except you could lease that plot for a good few years for the same amount as you are paying now in rent. Good deal right?
Click to expand...

I would have to rent for about 8 years to be equal to 1 purchase of Lightroom and Photoshop.

I used to buy LR every year, at £110 I recall, I think I did that for about 3 versions straight. Now I pay this much and I get PS with it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I remember those were like £600, it was so expensive I didn't know a single person would buy it but everyone was using it, if you know what i mean.

Even if you were buying it, you would not be upgrading every year. You would wait a couple of years and skip a version or 2, missing out features for a while.

Now everyone subscribe and features are getting added when they pop up, updates whenever and you get it the same day, not when you decide to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Yup, it was really expensive, mainly only companies that could afford it. I remember the price of Quark when that was the only industry standard software :eek:... now that was expensive.
 
twist said:
A lot of people do and considering the cost of PS as a standalone and LR then the package is a bargain. You keep doing what you are if you're unhappy.
Click to expand...

Well this model may work for them. As I said it's not about the money for me. They had the subscription model before but they also let you buy perpectual licences which worked for everyone. So yes they could please everyone but they just choose not to.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I would have to rent for about 8 years to be equal to 1 purchase of Lightroom and Photoshop.

I used to buy LR every year, at £110 I recall, I think I did that for about 3 versions straight. Now I pay this much and I get PS with it.
Click to expand...

But you never needed Photoshop did you till they forced it upon you?

So well done for buying something you didn't need. Abode marketing and business model is exactly for you :P
 
twist said:
Yup, it was really expensive, mainly only companies that could afford it. I remember the price of Quark when that was the only industry standard software :eek:... now that was expensive.
Click to expand...

I studied Architecture at university and I had AutoCAD and Maya...to get those it is the price of a small car.
 
nandbytes said:
But you never needed Photoshop did you till they forced it upon you?

So well done for buying something you didn't need. Abode marketing and business model is exactly for you :p
Click to expand...

Without Photoshop I am still quids in...not sure what your point is?

And I have used Photoshop for projects that LR would not have managed, so yes, as it turned out, it is needed.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I studied Architecture at university and I had AutoCAD and Maya...to get those it is the price of a small car.
Click to expand...

Ha ha yeah, still expensive, these guys complain about a £99 PA sub, Maya is £1750 PA and Revit is £2600.

Photoshop is much better for retouching and masks etc etc than LR. Really need both.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Without Photoshop I am still quids in...not sure what your point is?
Click to expand...

I paid £75 for LR6 about nearly 3 years ago. But even if I paid the standard £110 for it I am still better off with LR6 than I would have been with subscription.
 
Raymond Lin said:
LX Factory



okNsk4i.jpg
Click to expand...


SNAP! …

LX Factory, Lisbon by CFC Photo, on Flickr

o_O
 
Raymond Lin said:
I studied Architecture at university and I had AutoCAD and Maya...to get those it is the price of a small car.
Click to expand...

twist said:
Ha ha yeah, still expensive, these guys complain about a £99 PA sub, Maya is £1750 PA and Revit is £2600.

Photoshop is much better for retouching and masks etc etc than LR. Really need both.
Click to expand...

Nice to see some fellow Autodesk users here! Thankfully we get the creative suite with work which is nice, great for using on the iPad whilst out and about too!
 
nandbytes said:
It's not about the cost which as you say isn't that much, its more the principal of it. You wouldn't pay subscription to read the same magazine with small grammar check every iteration for 12 months in a year would?
Click to expand...

Well I pay the government more than that every year to be able to drive my car over the same roads, with only a small change in the number of potholes... :sulk:
 
Last edited:
Faldrax said:
Well I pay the government more than that every year to be able to drive my car over the same roads, with only a small change in the number of potholes... :sulk:
Click to expand...
You pay the government road tax based on the emissions from your car and not for them fix pot holes. Buy a car with low emissions and you won't have to pay the road tax (the name is misleading!)
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
Raymond knows my ways too well. Exposed for sky, recover the shadows. I rarely use OCF for weddings as speed is the key - especially when it's 4C and windy.
Click to expand...
Thanks, it’s an awesome shot as so is everything else of yours.

Have you simply raised the shadows or done more localised work around the couple as they pop really well, obviously not taking enough of an advantage of my on a7
 
nandbytes said:
You pay the government road tax based on the emissions from your car and not for them fix pot holes. Buy a car with low emissions and you won't have to pay the road tax (the name is misleading!)
Click to expand...

could be because it isn't called road tax, its correct name is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
You pay the government road tax based on the emissions from your car and not for them fix pot holes. Buy a car with low emissions and you won't have to pay the road tax (the name is misleading!)
Click to expand...

I would happily trade in my 4yr old car for a brand new one with lower emissions - however the cost of doing so is somewhat prohibitive, and certainly a lot more than the potential savings in VED and fuel.
Which is, of course, the big problem with trying to resolve the vehicle emissions problem though VED, 'Low Emission Zones', etc. It's the people who can't afford new cars that have the older, higher emissions vehicles, so all that happens is transport costs them more, so they have even less money to available to save for a newer vehicle...
Which has nothing to so with cars, so I better stop there.
(Unless you want to go down the Personal Contract Hire route to get your new car, which is, of course, just another subscription based method of getting a car {As they say in the small print - You will not own the vehicle}) :)
 
woof woof said:
Yup. I don't know what possessed them. They've gone from a gorgeous looking design to a black anonymous and characterless lump. And they've done it with lens after lens so it wasn't just a moment of madness with one lens.

I received my 35mm f1.4 Nocton but the adapter I got wouldn't allow infinity or anything like it so it's going back which has allowed me to have a rethink and I think I fancy a helicoid adapter. Does anyone know of a decent one that doesn't cost as much as the Voigtlander one?

PS.
I was expecting the lens to be soft and to display serious barrel distortion and CA but I found it to be easily sharp enough in the central area and also across all parts of the frame I'd expect and want it to be at f1.4 and the CA shooting in lowlight indoors with windows in the frame wasn't too bad. There is barrel distortion but in many shots it wont be a problem and there is a lens profile for it which will help.
Click to expand...

I have a Tinray helicoid for M>FE No complaints really but it does light leak a little (as do almost all adapters) on daylight long exposures.

nandbytes said:
Still a happy LR6 user. I am going to resist subscribing for as long as possible.
Click to expand...

nandbytes said:
I paid £75 for LR6 about nearly 3 years ago. But even if I paid the standard £110 for it I am still better off with LR6 than I would have been with subscription.
Click to expand...

Same here!! I think I paid about £80-90 for LR & that was only because LR3 wouldn't read the A7 files when I bought that :LOL::LOL:
 
Diamonddec said:
That's an excellent price. Cheers. I need a 70-200 myself but am waiting for Tamron to bring their f2.8 out.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm in the same boat especially with the 28-75 being so well received.
 
RPhotos said:
Thanks, it’s an awesome shot as so is everything else of yours.

Have you simply raised the shadows or done more localised work around the couple as they pop really well, obviously not taking enough of an advantage of my on a7
Click to expand...

Localised brushwork. I use brushes a lot - it's all about trying to balance the image so the couple just pops out enough without it looking really fake. Basically, I'm trying to recreate the scene as I remember it rather than how the camera caught it. In that shot, raising the shadows would've brightened the grass and the sky would've lost a bit of definition.

I wrote this a few years ago and I've changed my techniques quite a bit since then, but it applies to the A7III and covers the basics: https://petapixel.com/2014/11/24/creative-underexposure-nikon-dslrs/
 
Raymond Lin said:
I remember those were like £600, it was so expensive I didn't know a single person would buy it but everyone was using it, if you know what i mean.

Even if you were buying it, you would not be upgrading every year. You would wait a couple of years and skip a version or 2, missing out features for a while.

Now everyone subscribe and features are getting added when they pop up, updates whenever and you get it the same day, not when you decide to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Creative Suite is great value, in fairness.

I remember paying £800 for Logic 6 when it came out and then the generational upgrades were about £300 a go. And that wasn't the most expensive DAW at the time.

My mate was whinging about Logic X being 'extortionate' (£199 one-off plus free updates). My last big music purchase was over £2k worth of orchestral samples. Apparently now you can get access to more or less the same library for £20 a month with free updates.

Part of me hates being forced into subscriptions, but for many people, it's way more cost effective.
 
decigallen said:
Creative Suite is great value, in fairness.

I remember paying £800 for Logic 6 when it came out and then the generational upgrades were about £300 a go. And that wasn't the most expensive DAW at the time.

My mate was whinging about Logic X being 'extortionate' (£199 one-off plus free updates). My last big music purchase was over £2k worth of orchestral samples. Apparently now you can get access to more or less the same library for £20 a month with free updates.

Part of me hates being forced into subscriptions, but for many people, it's way more cost effective.
Click to expand...

The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing is the idea that once you stop paying, you lose the software.

To be fair, after a number of years, old Lightroom or photoshop gets so outdated they might as well be useless,(I actually gave away my copy of LR5 a few years ago). They would be missing important features, like old PS lack content aware. I mean who uses Photoshop from 2005 for example? So the idea that once you stop subscribing you lose the software forever, same as paying that £600 fee for Photos in 2005, that disc might as well go in the bin.

The subscription model has far too many positives with only 1 negative, and this negative is only really valid for a while. If you can get over that mental block, and it really is a mental block, the whole subscription model is cheaper, provides better service, I can download it from everywhere and don't need to keep that disc safe.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing is the idea that once you stop paying, you lose the software.

To be fair, after a number of years, old Lightroom or photoshop gets so outdated they might as well be useless,(I actually gave away my copy of LR5 a few years ago). They would be missing important features, like old PS lack content aware. I mean who uses Photoshop from 2005 for example? So the idea that once you stop subscribing you lose the software forever, same as paying that £600 fee for Photos in 2005, that might as well go into the bin.

The subscription model has far too many positives with only 1 negative, and this negative is only really valid for a while. If you can get over that mental block, and it really is a mental block, the whole subscription model is cheaper, provides better service, I can download it from everywhere and don't need to keep that disc safe.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely a mental block. The idea that you don't really 'own' it.

And regarding the idea of once you stop paying you lose the software, even that can be construed as another benefit. If I hadn't bought those orchestral samples, I could essentially rent them for the 4-5 months in the year that I really need them. And re-registering is a matter of going online. £100 a year instead of well over £2k I spent to own it outright.
 
Just coming to the end of 6 days in Hong Kong with my a7RII. Covered over 50 miles hiking (on my own) with the a7RII and Sigma 35/85 Arts. Avoided the obvious tourist bits until yesterday when the sun finally came out, quite the culture shock given that I rarely saw anyone out hiking, I did the 15k Tung Chung to Tai O trail without seeing a single person!

Victoria Peak was particularly spectacular this morning...

Hong Kong by Chris Harrison, on Flickr
 
Raymond Lin said:
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing is the idea that once you stop paying, you lose the software.

To be fair, after a number of years, old Lightroom or photoshop gets so outdated they might as well be useless,(I actually gave away my copy of LR5 a few years ago). They would be missing important features, like old PS lack content aware. I mean who uses Photoshop from 2005 for example? So the idea that once you stop subscribing you lose the software forever, same as paying that £600 fee for Photos in 2005, that disc might as well go in the bin.

The subscription model has far too many positives with only 1 negative, and this negative is only really valid for a while. If you can get over that mental block, and it really is a mental block, the whole subscription model is cheaper, provides better service, I can download it from everywhere and don't need to keep that disc safe.
Click to expand...

It's not a mental block. It's the point of not paying for something I don't need. If they offered a subscription for LR only at say £6 I'd be more for it. I don't want/need their storage or PS. Why should I be paying for all that, basically they are trying to force it down your throat so that suddenly you start feeling you need these things when you actually didn't. Same as Amazon prime.

But you are right in that things get outdated. I normally updated my lightroom when my current version no longer supported my new new cameras RAW files. Last time I updated to LR6 from LR5 when I upgraded to A7RII. I upgraded to A7RIII recently but didn't feel the need to upgrade LR because the current version supported it. When I upgrade to A7RIV or equivalent from other brands say 2 years later, I would have probably upgraded my LR then. So with the subscription model I am still paying more than I would have otherwise with perpectual licence model.

p.s. I subscribe to Amazon prime and other services. Because I use what I pay for unlike in this case where I just want LR and it's not an option.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
could be because it isn't called road tax, its correct name is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)
Click to expand...
Yes but people refer it to as the road tax (rightly or wrongly). I haven't come across any one that calls it VED in regular conversation. The only place I see it called that is on the online payment page.
 
nandbytes said:
It's not about the cost which as you say isn't that much, its more the principal of it. You wouldn't pay subscription to read the same magazine with small grammar check every iteration for 12 months in a year would?
Click to expand...

Earlier yesterday you say the price is fine, but what is stopping you is the principle...aka, mentality.

nandbytes said:
It's not a mental block. It's the point of not paying for something I don't need. If they offered a subscription for LR only at say £6 I'd be more for it. I don't want/need their storage or PS. Why should I be paying for all that, basically they are trying to force it down your throat so that suddenly you start feeling you need these things when you actually didn't. Same as Amazon prime.

But you are right in that things get outdated. I normally updated my lightroom when my current version no longer supported my new new cameras RAW files. Last time I updated to LR6 from LR5 when I upgraded to A7RII. I upgraded to A7RIII recently but didn't feel the need to upgrade LR because the current version supported it. When I upgrade to A7RIV or equivalent from other brands say 2 years later, I would have probably upgraded my LR then. So with the subscription model I am still paying more than I would have otherwise with perpectual licence model.

p.s. I subscribe to Amazon prime and other services. Because I use what I pay for unlike in this case where I just want LR and it's not an option.
Click to expand...

Today it is too expensive by a mere £3 (difference of your £6) and it is not a mental block.

You sure do change your tune daily :p
 
I have CS5 and use DNG to convert raw files. I'd like the moire tool that later versions have but other than that and being able to convert raws without DNG I don't know what I'm missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top