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

Tatts said:
The above is the camera on a tripod, same lens, same settings, same distance, same crop size. The size is 6.37mb vs 19mb and 3721x3310 vs 5952x5412 but can you see that much difference? While we're on the subject of MP being an advantage, you'll lose what you gained by fitting the TC. You'll actually have sharper images just cropping to the equivalent focal length but that's a whole other subject.
Click to expand...

You’re viewing it on the internet, of course you won’t see a difference.
 
Tatts said:
One of the Sony facebook groups, they all had a poll for r4 & 200-600 owners. It was close to three quarters that voted yes to focus issues.That video on youtube I've previously posted is getting more comments of more people with the same issues, again on there the people with issues far outweigh the ones without.
Click to expand...

Realistically, most without the issue probably wouldn’t bother voting. I would certainly take a poll like that with a pinch of salt.
 
Tatts said:
The above is the camera on a tripod, same lens, same settings, same distance, same crop size. The size is 6.37mb vs 19mb and 3721x3310 vs 5952x5412 but can you see that much difference?
Click to expand...
I can see a difference yes, and that's just viewing a small image posted on the forum. Viewing full screen on my laptop and I'm sure I'll notice it even more. But you've missed my point tbh. I'm used to an 800mm eq lens (100-400 on m4/3) but with the A7RIV I can use the 100-400mm and perform a 2x crop (so the same as with the m4/3) and retain a 15mp image. Often with wildlife I need to crop even more than that. 800mm FOV on the A9 would give me 6mp and much less 'room' to crop.
nandbytes said:
How many people in the polls have issue, how many people in YouTube comments have issues?
And how many copies of this lens has sold in total?

I don't see any factual information yet to say it's a majority. A random poll and a bunch of comments on YouTube doesn't really prove that. Until such time I'll continue to believe it's a minority.
Besides I am an optimist :D
Click to expand...
That's exactly my thoughts. You only tend to hear negative things on the internet, very very few people come on the internet and go "wow my camera and lens is amazing". Now obviously it's not great that there are any issues, but if it was a major problem it would be all over blogs, magazines etc etc like the D750 shutter issues.
nandbytes said:
downsized to the same small res no you cannot tell a difference and that's not the point at all.
Click to expand...
(y)
TGphoto said:
You’re viewing it on the internet, of course you won’t see a difference.
Click to expand...
(y)
 
rob-nikon said:
I can see the benefit of the A7iv regarding cropping. I personnally moved from the A7Riii to the A9 due to the better AF and no blackout. I did think about the A7iv as it was a similar price as a used A9 but the no blackout was my main draw. I don’t think either camera is bad for wildlife, it’s just certain situations will suit one camera and a photographers personal preference more than the other.
Click to expand...
If I didn't need the extra 'reach' the A9 (well A9-II for the grip) would have been my choice for the AF and blackout free EVF (y)
 
snerkler said:
A lot of advice already but here's my twopenneth worth. There's two bodies I would consider, the A9 for outright performance and incredible AF, and the A7RIV to give you the ultimate cropability. Lenses wise you could adapt your Canon gear, or you there's the choice of the 200-600mm and 100-400mm. I have the latter as I have the A7RIV and I can get the equivalent of 800mm reach and still have a 15mp image. At 600mm equivalent it's a 26.8mp image. Whilst AF is very good it can't match the A9. Might be worth watching this to see if the A7RIV is 'good enough'

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hQJh-LX3M&t=294s
Click to expand...
Hi, Thankyou. Have done a little more research and one thing that seems maybe to be a problem with the A9 is small static subjects, of course I cannot say there is or not but if there is a problem in that vein is it such a big problem? Thankyou, Russ.
 
nandbytes said:
downsized to the same small res no you cannot tell a difference and that's not the point at all.
Click to expand...
They’re not the same res, I’ve put what res they are in the post you quoted.
TGphoto said:
You’re viewing it on the internet, of course you won’t see a difference.
Click to expand...
I’m not viewing on the internet, I have a 34” monitor and the files on my pc. The full size files are on Flickr, they’ve not been down scaled etc like most on the internet.
 
snerkler said:
I can see a difference yes, and that's just viewing a small image posted on the forum. Viewing full screen on my laptop and I'm sure I'll notice it even more. But you've missed my point tbh. I'm used to an 800mm eq lens (100-400 on m4/3) but with the A7RIV I can use the 100-400mm and perform a 2x crop (so the same as with the m4/3) and retain a 15mp image. Often with wildlife I need to crop even more than that. 800mm FOV on the A9 would give me 6mp and much less 'room' to crop.
Click to expand...
How large are you printing? If using a screen only, the majority won’t be able to tell the difference, it’s why I uploaded them two to show 24mp vs 60mp isn’t a massive difference. If making large prints then fair enough but on forums, social media, Flickr etc not really.
 
nandbytes said:
I don't see any factual information yet to say it's a majority. A random poll and a bunch of comments on YouTube doesn't really prove that. Until such time I'll continue to believe it's a minority.
Besides I am an optimist :D
Click to expand...
There’s plenty of threads on forums like that Miranda where it’s well in to double pages long with a lot of people having the same issues. I’m interested to see what results you’re getting for small wildlife or bif with your combo?
 
Tatts said:
There’s plenty of threads on forums like that Miranda where it’s well in to double pages long with a lot of people having the same issues. I’m interested to see what results you’re getting for small wildlife or bif with your combo?
Click to expand...
I guess lets agree to disagree, otherwise we are just going in circles.
haven't shot BiF in a while but posted results from my last outing a few pages back.
As for small wildlife, also posted them a few times but one from my garden yesterday

49962321033_08c7ee7e9e_h.jpg
 
Last edited:
I stepped out the back door yesterday looked up and saw this Sparrow hawk, Its not very often you get a bif shot withing 3 seconds of going out the door :) a9mkII 200/600 at 600mm 1/2000 f 6.3 iso 1600
Rob.

DSC07341.jpgDSC07280.jpg
 
TGphoto said:
There is a fair amount more detail visible on the r4 shot even just on my phone viewing on here.
Click to expand...
Considering the torch is 60mm high and the biggest letter is 3mm high I'm just trying to say I'm not blown away at 60.2mp vs 24mp. Everyone will see it different though I understand that.
R4 90mm by liam tattersall, on Flickr
 
A brief moment of surprise when I saw the latest promotional email from Sony, Subject line was "Brand New: A8"

However I was disappointed to discover on opening the email it's a new Android OLED TV, rather than a surprise new high end camera :(
 
You could replicate that crop to that resolution on the A7ii or 5D etc.
 
Nice shot. And managed to get rid of the dust bunny with that crop too! :coat:
 
Not the same, the more you crop into the 24MP shot to get it to the same image size the more artifacts you introduce and the softer the image becomes with loss of fine detail. In this case the 24MP image has to be increased by 160% to match the riv file.

crop.jpg



Cropping into the riv file at 160% then matching that crop with the a9 file gives us... deeper the crop the more the A9 file will fall apart when viewed at high resolutions and especially if you want to print big at 300dpi or use the cropping for reach. The Riv will always crop and hold detail better.

Capture.JPG
 
Last edited:
GyRob said:
I don't think you would get the same detail though .
Click to expand...
Obviously it will have more detail, its almost 3x the MP, doesn't give 3x the detail or print size though. In reality its not a massive difference which is what i was trying to say but I guess we have too many R4 shooters :) Still, I'd rather a shot in focus than one heavily cropped, something the 200-600 and R4 can't do for some of us.

twist said:
The Riv will always crop and hold detail better.
Click to expand...
I never disputed that, I said I'm shocked at how little the difference actually is for such a high jump in MP. How many people here make very large prints out of interest?
 
Tatts said:
I never disputed that, I said I'm shocked at how little the difference actually is for such a high jump in MP. How many people here make very large prints out of interest?
Click to expand...

I make up to A3+ prints. At 300DPI I'd need 22mp which is slightly over 1.5x crop on A7RIV, but given the viewing distance and size I'd be happy with 240DPI which is about 15mp i.e. 2x crop on A7RIV.

A9 could never achieve either with 1.5x crop (11mp) or 2x crop (6mp).

Of course there's some really good upscaling software these days like gigapixel that do work rather well. But even this software work better with A7RIV files than A9 files since A7RIV will start off with more amount of detail for the same frame.

p.s. nothing against 24mp sensors, used them for a long time and I have got some great prints out of them too. Sometimes pixels do help and make a difference is all I'm saying :)
 
Last edited:
Tatts said:
Obviously it will have more detail, its almost 3x the MP, doesn't give 3x the detail or print size though. In reality its not a massive difference which is what i was trying to say but I guess we have too many R4 shooters :) Still, I'd rather a shot in focus than one heavily cropped, something the 200-600 and R4 can't do for some of us.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why I have a a9mkII and FE 600f4
.
Edit although I am quite happy with my R4 200/600 it's just that the A9 is so much better imho.

Rob
 
Last edited:
Tatts said:
Obviously it will have more detail, its almost 3x the MP, doesn't give 3x the detail or print size though. In reality its not a massive difference which is what i was trying to say but I guess we have too many R4 shooters :) Still, I'd rather a shot in focus than one heavily cropped, something the 200-600 and R4 can't do for some of us.


I never disputed that, I said I'm shocked at how little the difference actually is for such a high jump in MP. How many people here make very large prints out of interest?
Click to expand...

I kind of get what youre saying, youd think that the gain in MP would be equal to the magnification/file size, but its not the case. Im not a high res shooter, 24MP is more than enough for me but I do understand why some would buy into it for the reach.
 
Last edited:
Lot of willy waving going on here :ROFLMAO:

I had an R4 for a good while and image quality was superb. I found the a.f not great. So I got rid of it. I had only planned on keeping it for one project anyway although if the a.f had of been on a par with the A9 I would have maybe held on to it although I found the storage issues a hassle.

I had A9’s and an A9II at the same time, so have been able to use them side by side. They suit my needs better I don’t do much cropping and the a.f advantage of the A9 series cameras was more important to me.

They are both great and both have their pluses and negatives.

R4 is a wonderful studio camera, I dare says it would be great for landscapers as well. If you shoot anything that moves especially subjects that move fast the A9 or A9II are the better option.

There is no such thing as a one size fits all camera really, each are aimed at different types of users. If it was one size fits all there would be one camera model not several.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Lot of willy waving going on here :ROFLMAO:

I had an R4 for a good while and image quality was superb. I found the a.f not great. So I got rid of it. I had only planned on keeping it for one project anyway although if the a.f had of been on a par with the A9 I would have maybe held on to it although I found the storage issues a hassle.

I had A9’s and an A9II at the same time, so have been able to use them side by side. They suit my needs better I don’t do much cropping and the a.f advantage of the A9 series cameras was more important to me.

They are both great and both have their pluses and negatives.

R4 is a wonderful studio camera, I dare says it would be great for landscapers as well. If you shoot anything that moves especially subjects that move fast the A9 or A9II are the better option.

There is no such thing as a one size fits all camera really, each are aimed at different types of users. If it was one size fits all there would be one camera model not several.
Click to expand...

Right here comes my willy waving :wave: : I have to say I'm delighted with my A9/R4 combo. I've yet to shoot fast-moving people - my main interest - so I'm reaching for the R4 first most days. Still delighted that, if needed, severe crops can produce very usable images. Right, and now here's a picture of my fast moving willy...
 
f/2.8 said:
Lot of willy waving going on here :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

followed by:

f/2.8 said:
I had an R4 for a good while and image quality was superb. I found the a.f not great. So I got rid of it. I had only planned on keeping it for one project anyway although if the a.f had of been on a par with the A9 I would have maybe held on to it although I found the storage issues a hassle.

I had A9’s and an A9II at the same time, so have been able to use them side by side. They suit my needs better I don’t do much cropping and the a.f advantage of the A9 series cameras was more important to me.

They are both great and both have their pluses and negatives.

R4 is a wonderful studio camera, I dare says it would be great for landscapers as well. If you shoot anything that moves especially subjects that move fast the A9 or A9II are the better option.

There is no such thing as a one size fits all camera really, each are aimed at different types of users. If it was one size fits all there would be one camera model not several.
Click to expand...

he who lives in a glass house....
:exit:
 
Hey all - been a while :)

I'm looking to buy an A7 again and was thinking the A7iii, but the A7r iii isn't much more now.

I shoot mainly landscapes and I'll likely be using the Sony f4 glass as I liked it previously. Which camera would you choose?

Thanks.
 
Wissel said:
Hey all - been a while :)

I'm looking to buy an A7 again and was thinking the A7iii, but the A7r iii isn't much more now.

I shoot mainly landscapes and I'll likely be using the Sony f4 glass as I liked it previously. Which camera would you choose?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

hello :)
A7RIII personally especially as you like landscapes.
 
a7RII and save a bunch of cash for a nice lens? For landscapes you're not likely to be missing anything from either of the mk3 models.

As is usually the case (and particularly in this thread), 'old' equipment that only a couple of years ago was as good as it gets, is quickly tossed aside.

(a7RII wedding and motorsport shooter here, no issues with AF ;) )
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
a7RII and save a bunch of cash for a nice lens? For landscapes you're not likely to be missing anything from either of the mk3 models.

As is usually the case (and particularly in this thread), 'old' equipment that only a couple of years ago was as good as it gets, is quickly tossed aside.

(a7RII wedding and motorsport shooter here, no issues with AF ;) )
Click to expand...

Agreed, doesnt need the AF.
 
A7RII is certainly just as capable for landscapes and I enjoyed mine a lot, probably more than A7Riii in some ways. But the improvements that came to A7Riii is more than just AF.
- bigger longer lasting battery
- better ergonomics and that joystick is super useful.
- better EVF
- better sealing
- more effective IBIS
- dual card slots
- pixel shift
- of course better AF and adapter support
- higher frame rate
- ever so slightly better dynamic range
 
rob-nikon said:
I thought that was generally the point of this thread :popcorn:

(For clarity this is of course a tongue in cheek comment)
Click to expand...

Here's a nice antidote to bit waving...

fo6x3SK.jpg


When I bought that you could find them for under £20. I don't know how much they are now but I bet they're still affordable. Add a cheap adapter and you've got cheap fun for years :D
 
russellsnr said:
Hi, Thankyou. Have done a little more research and one thing that seems maybe to be a problem with the A9 is small static subjects, of course I cannot say there is or not but if there is a problem in that vein is it such a big problem? Thankyou, Russ.
Click to expand...
I've not come across that tbh, maybe some of the A9 shooters can help more? @twist is pretty clued up on these things (along with others)
Tatts said:
How large are you printing? If using a screen only, the majority won’t be able to tell the difference, it’s why I uploaded them two to show 24mp vs 60mp isn’t a massive difference. If making large prints then fair enough but on forums, social media, Flickr etc not really.
Click to expand...
TBH I've not invested to please the majority, I bought it for my needs. My needs are such that I like to have a camera that has the ability to crop heavily and maintain a decent amount of detail (y)
Tatts said:
Considering the torch is 60mm high and the biggest letter is 3mm high I'm just trying to say I'm not blown away at 60.2mp vs 24mp. Everyone will see it different though I understand that.
Click to expand...
This is very true and why we have to buy what's right for us and not everyone else. I've had 6mp, 12mp, 16mp, 20mp, 24mp, 45.7mp and 60.2mp bodies and know the pros and cons of each. You are right (imo) that a 60mp body doesn't crop 'that' much better than 24mp, or should I say not as much as you would assume considering the size difference, but it's enough for me to see the difference, and also allow the flexibility of using lighter lenses as discussed previously (y)
Tatts said:
You could replicate that crop to that resolution on the A7ii or 5D etc.
Click to expand...
It probably wouldn't look great ;)
Tatts said:
How many people here make very large prints out of interest?
Click to expand...
Depends what you call large? A lot of my prints are only A3 but I do occasionally print 75cm prints.
 
I should have mentioned I make videos as well :rolleyes:

I was never happy with my A7ii for video (loved it as a stills camera), which is why I'm looking at the iii's.

Needs to be a nice compact kit as now fulltime travelling in a motorhome (well, not right now obviously), so need a jack of all trades ideally.

I'm leaning towards the 3 usual f4 lenses and a prime (likely the 55 but maybe a Batis 40?) as had these before and liked them. Thing is now theirs the Sigma and Tamron offerings. How do these compare to the Sony's?
 
Wissel said:
I should have mentioned I make videos as well :rolleyes:

I was never happy with my A7ii for video (loved it as a stills camera), which is why I'm looking at the iii's.

Needs to be a nice compact kit as now fulltime travelling in a motorhome (well, not right now obviously), so need a jack of all trades ideally.

I'm leaning towards the 3 usual f4 lenses and a prime (likely the 55 but maybe a Batis 40?) as had these before and liked them. Thing is now theirs the Sigma and Tamron offerings. How do these compare to the Sony's?
Click to expand...

I went from A7 to A6000 to A7RII because A7ii is imo one of the worst updates and bodies. (anyone using A7II please don't take this personally, yes it can take good pictures too)

Anyway, sigma and tamron offerings are rather good and in some case better than Sony,

Tamron 17-28mm vs. Sony 16-35mm - in this case I'd say pick one which suits you needs better. comes down to f2.8 vs. f4 and the extra range. Also Sony has OSS which could be useful for video.
Tamron 28-75mm vs, Sony 24-70mm f4 - I would pick tamron as its optically better even if lacks the 24mm. The sigma 24-70mm f2.8 is supposed to be as good as GM but its much bigger.
Tamron 70-180mm vs Sony 70-200mm - again f2.8 vs. f4 and slightly extra range which may not be a big deal if you are going for high res bodies as you can crop. On the other hand sony has OSS which might help video once again.

Batis 40 was riddled with AF issues and not sure if they ever got fully fixed. I'd skip this one.
Also don't forget samyang lenses. AF may not be great for video though but optically they are great.
sigma DSLR ART primes that were ported to e-mount are also optically great as ever but huge and AF not good for video.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top