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

nandbytes said:
these RX bodies have become like smartphones with each iteration they get more expensive lol
Click to expand...

I'm trying to use my TZ100 more.

8ONRnmh.jpg


The TZ100 eye detect works ok and I much prefer using a camera to a phone and the picture quality is better than a phone too :D

These 1" cameras are IMO very good for places you don't want to take or use a bigger camera. The TZ100 is ok at ISO 12,800 for whole pictures viewed normally and I'm sure that this latest Sony will be as good and very possibly a bit better. The only thing that puts me off the Sony is the pop up evf as I prefer one that's in the body of the camera rather than stuck up like that. That could be just my foible though.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
My PC is 5 years old and going strong. Core i5 running at 4Ghz, 32GB Ram, 1TB of SSD space and 8TB of internal storage. Cost me slightly over a grand to build.

I am looking at upgrading, but it's a want rather than a need. Going to upgrade to a Core i7 Octacore, upgrade the RAM from DDR3 to DDR4. That'll cost me about £600.

Still less than the cost of an entry level iMac.
Click to expand...

It isn't about the cost at purchase, it is about value over time. So you need to work out how long you have had it until upgrade before saying it is cheaper.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It isn't about the cost at purchase, it is about value over time. So you need to work out how long you have had it until upgrade before saying it is cheaper.
Click to expand...

think it has been about 5-6 years for me regardless of the OS/brand

actually my most recent macbook is only couple years old and its already dying! (good thing i am not paying for it)
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
It isn't about the cost at purchase, it is about value over time. So you need to work out how long you have had it until upgrade before saying it is cheaper.
Click to expand...

Which I said in my post... £1100 for 5 years, £600 upgrade, will probably do me another 5 years..

And it's not slow as crap and doesn't overheat because it has a proper fan cooler in. There's a reason why most people complaining about LR being slow are Mac users ;)
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Which I said in my post... £1100 for 5 years, £600 upgrade, will probably do me another 5 years..

And it's not slow as crap and doesn't overheat because it has a proper fan cooler in. There's a reason why most people complaining about LR being slow are Mac users ;)
Click to expand...

I don't complain about my Mac being slow.

As I said before, if its purely about cost then I would probably choose windows but that is like 1 factor out of at least 10 others why I prefer Mac.

I personally would pay double or triple or even quadruple not having to deal with the hassle that i had when i used Windows for 10 years. It's not like I dislike it, I detest it. I felt like I spent 10% of my time in keeping it going. That is a big factor why I switched over from windows in the first place. I know people say things have changed a lot but it's hard to wipe that taste from my mouth.

I have contemplated getting a Windows machine but it would have to be secondary machine first to have my own experience before fulling jumping in.
 
Last edited:
simonbarker said:
What point is there discussing potential savings then, surely it's irrelevant if you detest it so?
Click to expand...

I guess there isn't...hence I keep steering it away from the cost factor and if anything it is value over time, not cost at purchase that one should consider.
 
jonneymendoza said:
It's not the capacity of the buffer, it's the slowness of clearing the buffer.

24mp is too low for sports and definitely for wildlife. Cropping is essential
Click to expand...
What are the slots on the A9, UHS-II? What write speeds are your cards? 24mp isn't necessarily too low at all, I'm now shooting sports and wildlife with a 20mp camera but I do have an 800mm equivalent lens. I can't really speak as I have a 45.7mp camera too, but for the vast majority of stuff the 24mp of my D750 was more than enough, I think we buy into this whole MP war and think we need to end up with at least 20mp after cropping, but we really don't. I currently sat in my office looking at a 29.5" x 20" canvas of my photo shot with a 16mp EM10 mark I and it looks spot on. Do we find these 'flaws' as an excuse to justify buying a new toy?

I'm guilty of it if I'm honest. I should just say "sod it, I fancy buying this shiny new toy so I'm going to" ;)
TGphoto said:
But that’s why the R line exists isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Very true.
SFTPhotography said:
I’ve never quite got the lossless compressed vs uncompressed - what’s the difference?
Click to expand...
The name kind of gives it away ;) Uncompressed is the original file format, with all the data, but lossless compressed is some kind of voodoo magic that packages all the original data into smaller packages making the final file smaller whilst keeping all the data. Compressed files 'throw away' data, like jpeg, but without processing it.
jonneymendoza said:
But the buffer rate is even worse and the fps is slow and also no blackout free shooting and sub par af compared to the A9
Click to expand...
But as mentioned they are different cameras for different needs. As you know there is no perfect camera, and even if there was something that ticked all the wish lists someone would find a flaw, probably saying it's too perfect ;)

To process 100-120mb files at 20fps would take some serious hardware and I'm not sure you can squeeze that into a camera just yet. Also, AF is in a way linked to pixels in terms of how much processing is involved I believe, hence why I don't think the higher MP cameras will have as good AF as the lower MP ones for the same age tech, although I could be wrong here. I think Panasonic's ToF tech could negate all of this though and be the next 'game changer'.
 
The thing is that we are constantly moving the line of what is a perfect camera, as long as technology keep pushing, we will never get there.

However if you have been in a coma for 15 years and wakes up today and someone gives you a A7R4 and tell you it can shoot 10fps at 61mp and have this AF system, 2 cards writing the same speed...vs at the time, the Canon 10D. Then the A7R4 would be the perfect camera.

I think at the moment these cameras are performing much more than most of us are capable of utilising its full potential. Most of the cases of a missed shot is down to technique or user error than the short fall of the camera.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The thing is that we are constantly moving the line of what is a perfect camera, as long as technology keep pushing, we will never get there.

However if you have been in a coma for 15 years and wakes up today and someone gives you a A7R4 and tell you it can shoot 10fps at 61mp and have this AF system, 2 cards writing the same speed...vs at the time, the Canon 10D. Then the A7R4 would be the perfect camera.

I think at the moment these cameras are performing much more than most of us are capable of utilising its full potential. Most of the cases of a missed shot is down to technique or user error than the short fall of the camera.
Click to expand...

You’re right. We will never get the perfect camera because we live in a world where nothing is ever enough.

No matter what we get, people always want for more.

Plus they would never give us the perfect camera for that exact reason.
 
snerkler said:
The name kind of gives it away ;) Uncompressed is the original file format, with all the data, but lossless compressed is some kind of voodoo magic that packages all the original data into smaller packages making the final file smaller whilst keeping all the data. Compressed files 'throw away' data, like jpeg, but without processing it.
Click to expand...

Not to be that guy but lossy and lossless are still both compressed, they just describe different methods of compression. In the simplest terms, lossy compression degrades the image to achieve smaller file sizes while lossless removes unnecessary data while still preserving the image.

Going back to the original question, as it's been explained to me Sony's compressed raw is lossy but it's only really an issue if you're pushing several stops etc.
 
TGphoto said:
You’re right. We will never get the perfect camera because we live in a world where nothing is ever enough.

No matter what we get, people always want for more.

Plus they would never give us the perfect camera for that exact reason.
Click to expand...

People should look at what is the perfect camera for them, not the perfect camera for everything.
 
snerkler said:
What are the slots on the A9, UHS-II? What write speeds are your cards? 24mp isn't necessarily too low at all, I'm now shooting sports and wildlife with a 20mp camera but I do have an 800mm equivalent lens. I can't really speak as I have a 45.7mp camera too, but for the vast majority of stuff the 24mp of my D750 was more than enough, I think we buy into this whole MP war and think we need to end up with at least 20mp after cropping, but we really don't. I currently sat in my office looking at a 29.5" x 20" canvas of my photo shot with a 16mp EM10 mark I and it looks spot on. Do we find these 'flaws' as an excuse to justify buying a new toy?

I'm guilty of it if I'm honest. I should just say "sod it, I fancy buying this shiny new toy so I'm going to" ;)
Very true.
The name kind of gives it away ;) Uncompressed is the original file format, with all the data, but lossless compressed is some kind of voodoo magic that packages all the original data into smaller packages making the final file smaller whilst keeping all the data. Compressed files 'throw away' data, like jpeg, but without processing it.
But as mentioned they are different cameras for different needs. As you know there is no perfect camera, and even if there was something that ticked all the wish lists someone would find a flaw, probably saying it's too perfect ;)

To process 100-120mb files at 20fps would take some serious hardware and I'm not sure you can squeeze that into a camera just yet. Also, AF is in a way linked to pixels in terms of how much processing is involved I believe, hence why I don't think the higher MP cameras will have as good AF as the lower MP ones for the same age tech, although I could be wrong here. I think Panasonic's ToF tech could negate all of this though and be the next 'game changer'.
Click to expand...
No it's one uhs 2 card slot and the other is uhs 1 lol,

Mate your shooting at 800mm lol.

Cropping is very common in this type of photography!
 
Does everyone know that Sony have fixed price repairs for cameras? And that it's very cheap?

Lenses aren't included but that's pretty great service. No wonder so many people prefer to buy grey.fixed.jpg
 
snerkler said:
What are the slots on the A9, UHS-II? What write speeds are your cards? 24mp isn't necessarily too low at all, I'm now shooting sports and wildlife with a 20mp camera but I do have an 800mm equivalent lens. I can't really speak as I have a 45.7mp camera too, but for the vast majority of stuff the 24mp of my D750 was more than enough, I think we buy into this whole MP war and think we need to end up with at least 20mp after cropping, but we really don't. I currently sat in my office looking at a 29.5" x 20" canvas of my photo shot with a 16mp EM10 mark I and it looks spot on. Do we find these 'flaws' as an excuse to justify buying a new toy?
Click to expand...

A9 has one UHS-II slot. I'm happy with 24mp currently and if the A9II has 30mp would be better but I am not all fussed about this MP on A9. Having higher MP is nice for portrait shots however so I have a second high MP body just for that reason. As for 20FPS, 24mp RAW files is plenty to process!

It all depends on what wildlife you shoot, distance to the subject... it's all depend on situation and what sort of frame you want, full portrait or including it's environment. I am happy using my 24-70mm II and sometimes 16-35mm as well if I can get really close to them or setting up camera trap.
 
jonneymendoza said:
No it's one uhs 2 card slot and the other is uhs 1 lol,

Mate your shooting at 800mm lol.

Cropping is very common in this type of photography!
Click to expand...

Yeah cropping is pretty common, I usually do this to exclude some distracting objects otherwise I try to stick to what I've got :)
 
simonbarker said:
Not to be that guy but lossy and lossless are still both compressed, they just describe different methods of compression.
Click to expand...
Very true, I don't think I suggested otherwise did I? (y)
In the simplest terms, lossy compression degrades the image to achieve smaller file sizes while lossless removes unnecessary data while still preserving the image.

.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that no data is thrown away with lossless, it is simply repackaged kind of like a zip file isn't it?
jonneymendoza said:
No it's one uhs 2 card slot and the other is uhs 1 lol,

Mate your shooting at 800mm lol.

Cropping is very common in this type of photography!
Click to expand...
It is common, but you can still crop the hell out of 24mp and end up with a file suitable for most applications (y)
 
snerkler said:
Very true, I don't think I suggested otherwise did I? (y)
Click to expand...

You said "Compressed files 'throw away' data, like jpeg" which is incorrect but based on what you'd written I thought you understood just the wording wasn't quite there.

snerkler said:
My understanding is that no data is thrown away with lossless, it is simply repackaged kind of like a zip file isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes but I only understand it from a superficial level as I've never written a compression algorithm.

A neat little example of this are GIF images, not much use for photos but the format removes horizontal redundancy, you can see this happening by making two images of a gradient with one rotated 90 degrees, because of the compression technique one file will be 1/5 of the file size despite effectively containing the same picture as far as our eyes are concerned. Now imagine lots of different techniques along those lines, you're removing data so the file size shrinks yet the original image is preserved.
 
Hi all.
I have been looking at the Laow 15mm f2 lens I have no problem with manual focus but only if it has connectivity to the camera so that I can use peaking and focus magnification but I can't seem to see any reference to this in any of the revues I have read, can anyone tell me please, I am referring to the Sony E mount of course.
 
old bloke said:
Hi all.
I have been looking at the Laow 15mm f2 lens I have no problem with manual focus but only if it has connectivity to the camera so that I can use peaking and focus magnification but I can't seem to see any reference to this in any of the revues I have read, can anyone tell me please, I am referring to the Sony E mount of course.
Click to expand...

You can use focus peaking and focus magnification with any manual lens as far as I am aware. It has worked fine with every one I have tried anyway. I have found focus magnification to be more accurate.

Pretty sure there is at least a couple of people in this thread that have had the Laowa 15mm though if you do a search on the thread should find them.
 
Last edited:
old bloke said:
Hi all.
I have been looking at the Laow 15mm f2 lens I have no problem with manual focus but only if it has connectivity to the camera so that I can use peaking and focus magnification but I can't seem to see any reference to this in any of the revues I have read, can anyone tell me please, I am referring to the Sony E mount of course.
Click to expand...

I have the laowa 15mm f2. You can have the peaking turned on by default for all lenses in MF. The only downside to laowa 15mm f2 is that you don't get automatic focus magnification since there is no electronic comms with the body. But you can assign it to a button and press the button for focus magnifying.
 
simonbarker said:
You said "Compressed files 'throw away' data, like jpeg" which is incorrect but based on what you'd written I thought you understood just the wording wasn't quite there.
Click to expand...
TBH I did think that lossy compressed files discarded data, is this not correct then?
 
Thanks Tommy and nanbytes I was under the impression that an electronic connection was needed to get those features, I'll have to give it a bit more thought, things were so much simpler when I had my Zenith E and manual preset lenses.
 
snerkler said:
TBH I did think that lossy compressed files discarded data, is this not correct then?
Click to expand...

The mistake was calling lossy compression 'compressed files' because lossy or lossless are both compressed, it's just one method degrades the image (to some degree) and the other does not.
 
snerkler said:
Very true, I don't think I suggested otherwise did I? (y)
My understanding is that no data is thrown away with lossless, it is simply repackaged kind of like a zip file isn't it?
It is common, but you can still crop the hell out of 24mp and end up with a file suitable for most applications (y)
Click to expand...
Not so much really. A 1.4x Crop is what? 11mp? I sometimes crop more than that 42mp a9mk2 will be perfect.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not so much really. A 1.4x Crop is what? 11mp? I sometimes crop more than that 42mp a9mk2 will be perfect.
Click to expand...
Get a longer lens ;) :p

Each to their own tbh. Sports you tend to be shooting in large bursts, I wouldn't want to be sifting thought and processing thousands of 42mp uncompressed files. I'm find gin 20mp works for me for these things (y)
 
Raymond Lin said:
Holy crap....that was the 1 main thing that lets it down, besides i will drop it like a bar of soap.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll get a wrist strap or something with it. If not I bought some cheapo ones off evil bay and I'm sure you could too :D

I'd be more tempted to one with a built in (non pop up) flash. My TZ100 is perfectly fine but the lens is unfortunately incredibly soft at some lengths. Normal people would never see this but we would.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top