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

twist said:
Evf better 5.6m dots, LCD same. I think a9 evf has the same px as z6/7 3.7m.
Click to expand...

Tech said it the same but the z6 was much clearer better quality like a better screen
 
rookies said:
Tech said it the same but the z6 was much clearer better quality like a better screen
Click to expand...
Their will always be positives and negatives to different systems, just because you found the Brickon Z6 EVF better than your A9's doesnt make it a better camera.
You bought the A9 for its better AF abilities, Eye-AF, silent shooting, blackout-free EVF and 20fps innit ;) time to post photos dude! Chop chop :p lol
 
rookies said:
Tech said it the same but the z6 was much clearer better quality like a better screen
Click to expand...
The Z7 is better than the A7RIV, both in EVF and LCD, but now I've turned the anti flicker off there's not much difference tbh, not enough for me to worry about. I did expect the A7RIV to be better though due to the extra resolution.
 
snerkler said:
The Z7 is better than the A7RIV, both in EVF and LCD, but now I've turned the anti flicker off there's not much difference tbh, not enough for me to worry about. I did expect the A7RIV to be better though due to the extra resolution.
Click to expand...

Just my though doesn’t bother me but what confuse me a9 and z6 got same res why they not appearing same
 
rookies said:
Just my though doesn’t bother me but what confuse me a9 and z6 got same res why they not appearing same
Click to expand...
Different manufacturers or configurations perhaps?
Check the settings on your Sony A9 as I think you can configure the EVF to offer smoother lower resolution playback or slower higher resolution.... can't remember what it called of it I am right.
Stop going of the technicalities and start shooting... this is where I used to get stuck too ;)
 
9cH6c7G.jpg
 
Some say you can turn anti flicker on or off in the A9 since firmware 3.0 but can’t in a life find it
 
rookies said:
Some say you can turn anti flicker on or off in the A9 since firmware 3.0 but can’t in a life find it
Click to expand...
A far as I am aware, the Sony A9 doesn't have a Anti-flicker mode like the newer bodies, unless I am mistaken.
Just use mechanical 5fps shutter if you are having banding issues under certain LED lighting conditions. :)
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Some say you can turn anti flicker on or off in the A9 since firmware 3.0 but can’t in a life find it
Click to expand...

The A9 doesn't have anti flicker although the A9II does but it only works in mechanical, it isn't a problem in terms of the real reason for having anti flicker as you can just shoot at high speed and shoot through the issues with led lights.

I guess you want to turn it off as it was mentioned above that doing this on the A7RIV can make the lcd look a bit nicer and you aren't happy with the lcd on the A9.

Honestly it is something that you shouldn't worry about it and even though you have one of the best cameras around it seems you are always looking to poke holes in stuff to feed a need to buy something else.

I guess that stems from being more of a lover of gadgets than photography. Your not on your own on here there are plenty of others on here that just like gadgets, each to their own and all that.

A camera is just a tool for me, yeah I want the best tech to help me get the result I want, but I couldn't care less about stuff like the lcd etc.
 
twist said:
I found banding on the LCD doesnt mean banding in the photo.
Click to expand...

Yes that is correct you can only tell if banding will show after the image has been taken. It is rarely an issue with the A9 and the very odd time it does crop up, if you drop the shutter speed to below 1/100, 99 times in 100 it goes away. It's not like the A7III etc. were it almost seems you are always going to get banding when using the silent shutter indoors.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Yes that is correct you can only tell if banding will show after the image has been taken. It is rarely an issue with the A9 and the very odd time it does crop up, if you drop the shutter speed to below 1/100, 99 times in 100 it goes away. It's not like the A7III etc. were it almost seems you are always going to get banding when using the silent shutter indoors.
Click to expand...

yeah, i never saw it in any pics in some really dodgy mixed light.
 
f/2.8 said:
The A9 doesn't have anti flicker although the A9II does but it only works in mechanical, it isn't a problem in terms of the real reason for having anti flicker as you can just shoot at high speed and shoot through the issues with led lights.

I guess you want to turn it off as it was mentioned above that doing this on the A7RIV can make the lcd look a bit nicer and you aren't happy with the lcd on the A9.

Honestly it is something that you shouldn't worry about it and even though you have one of the best cameras around it seems you are always looking to poke holes in stuff to feed a need to buy something else.

I guess that stems from being more of a lover of gadgets than photography. Your not on your own on here there are plenty of others on here that just like gadgets, each to their own and all that.

A camera is just a tool for me, yeah I want the best tech to help me get the result I want, but I couldn't care less about stuff like the lcd etc.
Click to expand...
I agree with you totally, if I was shooting professionally for a living, I would have kept my Sony A9 and GM lenses etc, they are the best tools for getting the shots required for clients etc.
I didn't sell up because it was rubbish or anything, far from it etc :)
@rookies f/2.8 is right, you need to stop picking holes and start enjoying your system..... as discussed previously, for me... the thousands of pounds worth of value in my gear didn't sit well with the photos I take privately... hence why I sold up.
You have to ask yourself, once you have bought your future lenses, are you happy with £6000-7000 sat in gear when factoring the actual output / end results?
 
Last edited:
Was only just asking that’s all to make sure I am not missing anything as there still a lot to learn on this camera.

Am not going anywhere only going to add a lens or 2 to my current kit
 
I've just read a thread on Luminous Landscape in which Sony colours and also the cameras are taking a bashing.

I keep thinking back to that gear blind test in which if people knew what the gear was they had their preferences but some changed when they didn't know what the gear was.

There are some knowledgeable people on LL but I've also read a lot over there that is IMO complete tosh. Overall though I do wonder how much of this is fanboyism, kidology and marketing rather than an actual personal preference based only on what the viewer is looking at and nothing more.
 
woof woof said:
I've just read a thread on Luminous Landscape in which Sony colours and also the cameras are taking a bashing.

I keep thinking back to that gear blind test in which if people knew what the gear was they had their preferences but some changed when they didn't know what the gear was.

There are some knowledgeable people on LL but I've also read a lot over there that is IMO complete tosh. Overall though I do wonder how much of this is fanboyism, kidology and marketing rather than an actual personal preference based only on what the viewer is looking at and nothing more.
Click to expand...
It seems a pointless thread, if you shoot RAW on the newer Sony bodies it shouldn't matter much .... Sony colour science has improved vastly.
For OOC JPEG's Sony's are rubbish..... Fuji are better in this regard.
In the past I never had issues with Nikon's colour output either.
 
Riz_Guru said:
It seems a pointless thread, if you shoot RAW on the newer Sony bodies it shouldn't matter much .... Sony colour science has improved vastly.
For OOC JPEG's Sony's are rubbish..... Fuji are better in this regard.
In the past I never had issues with Nikon's colour output either.
Click to expand...

Depends what you are shooting I have used all the major brands and for Fuji skin tones are horrible, Nikon has always had issues with oversaturated green and reds that don't look red. Canon generally has nicer skin tones but they are not realistic. Panasonic can seem a little washed out, Sony is probably more realistic than the others but because of that they can seem a bit flat, apart from orange which often needs dialed down a little.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Depends what you are shooting I have used all the major brands and for Fuji skin tones are horrible, Nikon has always had issues with oversaturated green and reds that don't look red. Canon generally has nicer skin tones but they are not realistic. Panasonic can seem a little washed out, Sony is probably more realistic than the others but because of that they can seem a bit flat.
Click to expand...
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :o
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :eek:
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
Click to expand...

I hate those.
 
Riz_Guru said:
It seems a pointless thread, if you shoot RAW on the newer Sony bodies it shouldn't matter much .... Sony colour science has improved vastly.
For OOC JPEG's Sony's are rubbish..... Fuji are better in this regard.
In the past I never had issues with Nikon's colour output either.
Click to expand...

It does seem strange that over at LL they're talking about issues with WB.

f/2.8 said:
Depends what you are shooting I have used all the major brands and for Fuji skin tones are horrible, Nikon has always had issues with oversaturated green and reds that don't look red. Canon generally has nicer skin tones but they are not realistic. Panasonic can seem a little washed out, Sony is probably more realistic than the others but because of that they can seem a bit flat, apart from orange which often needs dialed down a little.
Click to expand...

Yet some on line reviewers/bloggers claim that Fuji are the bees knees for people shots.

I do also think that the processing package you're using or at least how you've set it up may be a factor, perhaps more so than some criticising brands may realise.
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :eek:
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
Click to expand...

yeah - fairly subjective. i prefer sony over fuji for some things. fuji skin tones wins for me though.
 
woof woof said:
It does seem strange that over at LL they're talking about issues with WB.



Yet some on line reviewers/bloggers claim that Fuji are the bees knees for people shots.

I do also think that the processing package you're using or at least how you've set it up may be a factor, perhaps more so than some criticising brands may realise.
Click to expand...

For me Fuji does a good job with darker skin tones, but I live in Northern Ireland and most people are very fair skinned and Fuji really sucks there.
 
Riz_Guru said:
And here is exactly one of the main reason why people create long pointless threads about colour science etc...... each person see's colours differently or has different tastes etc..... for example I find it very hard to distinguish greens & brown colours which are close together..... the reason being I am partially colourblind :eek:
I love the Fujifilm OOC JPEG Film Simulations..... :D
Click to expand...

I used to give all new employees going into certain departments an Ishihara colour test. It's an interesting test and throws up some interesting results but it isn't a catch all and real world colours and lighting and who perceives what are also things to consider.

I had a book rather than an online test and it had some plates in which the numbers shouldn't be visible to a normally sighted person. There's on online test you can do here...

https://www.colour-blindness.com/colour-blindness-tests/ishihara-colour-test-plates/

In industry if you're relying on a human some women seem to have a much superior ability to see differences in certain shades. Some theorise that this goes back to the hunter gatherer days when men really didn't need an advanced colour perception ability (it really doesn't matter too much if a man can't perceive subtle differences in wildebeest or boar colouration, they all taste the same) but women tended to be picking berries and roots and things and colour perception maybe mattered more to them.

PS.
That online test looks the same as the book I had. If that's the case from my notes the numbers in plates 14 and 15 and the wavy line in plate 19 shouldn't be visible to a normally sighted person. As far as I remember I could see the numbers in 14 and 15 if I looked for them (but I can't see them in this online test) but not the line in 19.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I used to give all new employees going into certain departments an Ishihara colour test. It's an interesting test and throws up some interesting results but it isn't a catch all and real world colours and lighting and who perceives what are also things to consider.

I had a book rather than an online test and it had some plates in which the numbers shouldn't be visible to a normally sighted person. There's on online test you can do here...

https://www.colour-blindness.com/colour-blindness-tests/ishihara-colour-test-plates/

In industry if you're relying on a human some women seem to have a much superior ability to see differences in certain shades. Some theorise that this goes back to the hunter gatherer days when men really didn't need an advanced colour perception ability (it really doesn't matter too much if a man can't perceive subtle differences in wildebeest or boar colouration, they all taste the same) but women tended to be picking berries and roots and things and colour perception maybe mattered more to them.
Click to expand...
FAILED :D lol
 
Riz_Guru said:
FAILED :D lol
Click to expand...

I can't remember exactly how to grade the test but I do remember that you can get quite a few wrong and still be regarded as having colour vision within the normal range so it is entirely possible that you are still in spec :D

Unless you're not :D

I do remember telling those who did the interviewing that for some positions this should be a part of the process and not something we do once we've given people the job. They never listened.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top