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

imattersuk said:
So you're leisurely walking along the Thames with the A73 + Tamron 17-28 taking some landscape shots, playing with the wide angle range when a dude suddenly appears out of the blue on a hoverboard, you've got about 1 second to get a shot so you just have to pan away and hope for the best but expecting zero to be in focus :LOL:

Hampton Hoverboard by Pete Downham Photography, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Kewl..
 
imattersuk said:
So you're leisurely walking along the Thames with the A73 + Tamron 17-28 taking some landscape shots, playing with the wide angle range when a dude suddenly appears out of the blue on a hoverboard, you've got about 1 second to get a shot so you just have to pan away and hope for the best but expecting zero to be in focus :LOL:

Hampton Hoverboard by Pete Downham Photography, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Shouldn't they be called Hydroboards really?
 
Amazing. I'd never heard of these and I still don't understand how it keeps the weight of a person feet above the water :D

Voodoo? :D
 
Me, her, my A7 and Sony 28mm f2 walk to the shops.

f2 with No.4 close up filter.

H5ZY00O.jpg


f2, just looking for colour and bokeh.

KLfaI8m.jpg


f2, little Red Riding Hood.

k4K95zZ.jpg


f2 leaves.

paQSOUt.jpg


And lastly f5 and 1/10 sec hand held just to see if I could.

yZsVPod.jpg


I quite like this lens, the bokeh seems quite nice for a 28mm too, IMO.
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
So the missus went out with her mates, what to do?

Go out and test my new Samyang 18mm at night of course.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jN8BmM]Bewdley at Night by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jNd14B]Bewdley at Night by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jNcf4b]Bewdley at Night by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
Click to expand...
Nice shots. How do you get your images to look so sharp on here? What size do you upload to Flickr and what size do you post on here?
 
Don't know really Toby.

I post the BBCode at 1600 wide but no idea what else I do differently to you.

I've seen certain images on Flickr where you can zoom right in but I can't seem to on mine. Wish I could with 42MP to play with.

Perhaps someone here knows the answer to our questions?
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Don't know really Toby.

I post the BBCode at 1600 wide but no idea what else I do differently to you.

I've seen certain images on Flickr where you can zoom right in but I can't seem to on mine. Wish I could with 42MP to play with.

Perhaps someone here knows the answer to our questions?
Click to expand...
Thanks. It must be a combination of the file size you upload to flickr and then the size you post on here. As for zooming in on images on Flickr this will depend on your preferences and the file size you uploaded. That being said I think preferences only prevent others from seeing the full size image. I still don’t take chances though so my public images are 2000px on the long edge, and then I upload full res ones that are set to private so only I can see them.
 
Cheers Toby, I have only have the free account on Flickr so it may be that you have to go "Pro" to get the other upload & display options (never looked into it to be honest).
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I looked at all the reviews I could find before the purchase so I was hoping for a good lens.

I wasn't disappointed.

Go for it Stephen, but the £70 off is only valid until 4th October.
Click to expand...
I'll need to wait for another offer, I'm afraid. 3 bodies and 11 lenses in the last 2 months is enough for now. Even MrsL is starting to question the number of times Waldemar the DPD driver is visiting. He even waves at me when we pass in the car. She thinks we're having an affair. o_O
 
Stephen L said:
I'll need to wait for another offer, I'm afraid. 3 bodies and 11 lenses in the last 2 months is enough for now. Even MrsL is starting to question the number of times Waldemar the DPD driver is visiting. He even waves at me when we pass in the car. She thinks we're having an affair. o_O
Click to expand...
Man that sucks, he should know how the delivery driver/ male customer code works, he needs educating.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Don't know really Toby.

I post the BBCode at 1600 wide but no idea what else I do differently to you.

I've seen certain images on Flickr where you can zoom right in but I can't seem to on mine. Wish I could with 42MP to play with.

Perhaps someone here knows the answer to our questions?
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I use 1000 wide and all of my pictures look soft here. I might give 1600 a go. That flower picture above at f2 is really sharp on my screen, looks very soft here.
 
woof woof said:
That's interesting. I use 1000 wide and all of my pictures look soft here. I might give 1600 a go. That flower picture above at f2 is really sharp on my screen, looks very soft here.
Click to expand...
This is a trial using 1600 wide vs 1024 wide vs 800 wide (my normal), how does it look? Trouble with this size is portrait orientated shots don't fit onto my screen at 1600 and I have to scroll to see the full image :banghead:


A7R00822 by TDG-77, on Flickr

A7R00822 by TDG-77, on Flickr


A7R00822 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
This is a trial using 1600 wide vs 1024 wide vs 800 wide (my normal), how does it look? Trouble with this size is portrait orientated shots don't fit onto my screen at 1600 and I have to scroll to see the full image :banghead:


A7R00822 by TDG-77, on Flickr

A7R00822 by TDG-77, on Flickr


A7R00822 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...


1600 definitely looks sharper to me, and not just because it's easier to see I don't think.
 
Guys, I'm pondering buying the Sigma 16mm f1.4, but I've been considering stretching my budget and almost pressed the trigger for the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 which would suit me better for the convenience of the range of focal lengths. Then I watched a video comparing the Sigma trio with the 16-55 and it was pretty much a draw.

However, many of the commenters who watched that video made a point that the 16-55 2.8 lens on the a6600 will be no good for low light performance compared to the f1.4 lenses and therefore the ISO would need considerable increasing which will make it noisy.

It makes sense because aps-c has a smaller sensor than full frame with less light coming in and I think they said that f2.8 is equivalent to f4.2 on full frame (or something like that). Any thoughts on that? Anything smaller than f1.4 is going to be a problem once the daylight starts to go? I'd save £550 though by just buying the 16mm f1.4.
 
Merlin5 said:
Guys, I'm pondering buying the Sigma 16mm f1.4, but I've been considering stretching my budget and almost pressed the trigger for the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 which would suit me better for the convenience of the range of focal lengths. Then I watched a video comparing the Sigma trio with the 16-55 and it was pretty much a draw.

However, many of the commenters who watched that video made a point that the 16-55 2.8 lens on the a6600 will be no good for low light performance compared to the f1.4 lenses and therefore the ISO would need considerable increasing which will make it noisy.

It makes sense because aps-c has a smaller sensor than full frame with less light coming in and I think they said that f2.8 is equivalent to f4.2 on full frame (or something like that). Any thoughts on that? Anything smaller than f1.4 is going to be a problem once the daylight starts to go? I'd save £550 though by just buying the 16mm f1.4.
Click to expand...

They are different lenses tbh so depends on what you are wanting to shoot. I could equally make the case for owning both at the same time.

F2.8 is physical attribute of the lens and regardless of the sensor size it'll give the same exposure. What differs is the field of view and depth of field which will be equivalent to 24mm f4.2 on FF (at 16mm/2.8 on APS-C)

The ISO capabilities of APS-C sensors isn't all that bad tbh. I'd happily shoot up to ISO6400 on latest APS-C bodies.

If you don't mind adapting a huge lens then sigma 18-35mm f1.8 works really well in MC-11. But you lose out on the size advantage for trying to get best of both worlds. (Also at which point I'd argue why not just buy FF with a 24-70mm f2.8 lol)

Basically they are all a compromise, you need to work out which compromise works for whatever you want to shoot.
 
Last edited:
Id go with the middle one also, top one looks softer in the heather at the bottom. 2560x1440 screen by the way, but similar experience if i look hard enough on my phone.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Yep, 1600 deffo noticeably sharper (y)
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding how you're doing this, you're choosing between medium and large sizes of the Flickr bb codes? I've also noticed my photos being softer on here. But how are you getting your 3 photos all to look the same size?
If I post a photo at 800 and at 1600, the 1600 looks too big on here.


nandbytes said:
They are different lenses tbh so depends on what you are wanting to shoot. I could equally make the case for owning both at the same time.

F2.8 is physical attribute of the lens and regardless of the sensor size it'll give the same exposure. What differs is the field of view and depth of field which will be equivalent to 24mm f4.2 on FF (at 16mm/2.8 on APS-C)

The ISO capabilities of APS-C sensors isn't all that bad tbh. I'd happily shoot up to ISO6400 on latest APS-C bodies.

If you don't mind adapting a huge lens then sigma 18-35mm f1.8 works really well in MC-11. But you lose out on the size advantage for trying to get best of both worlds. (Also at which point I'd argue why not just buy FF with a 24-70mm f2.8 lol)

Basically they are all a compromise, you need to work out which compromise works for whatever you want to shoot.
Click to expand...

As far as what I want to shoot with the smaller focal range lenses, I guess landscape and street, and there might be times I want to shoot in low light, kind of like those evening photos of the pub a few pages back which were shot on an a7 lll. But since you're saying
aps-c up to ISO 6400 is fine, that gives me more confidence in an f2.8 lens.

Well FF would be better and I'd love an a7 lll but there's three things stopping me. On aps-c, I prefer the 1.5x increased focal range on the 70-350 telephoto lens, it's not big and heavy like a 150-600 lens, and it has real time tracking.
 
Merlin5 said:
If I'm understanding how you're doing this, you're choosing between medium and large sizes of the Flickr bb codes? I've also noticed my photos being softer on here. But how are you getting your 3 photos all to look the same size?
If I post a photo at 800 and at 1600, the 1600 looks too big on here.




As far as what I want to shoot with the smaller focal range lenses, I guess landscape and street, and there might be times I want to shoot in low light, kind of like those evening photos of the pub a few pages back which were shot on an a7 lll. But since you're saying
aps-c up to ISO 6400 is fine, that gives me more confidence in an f2.8 lens.

Well FF would be better and I'd love an a7 lll but there's three things stopping me. On aps-c, I prefer the 1.5x increased focal range on the 70-350 telephoto lens, it's not big and heavy like a 150-600 lens, and it has real time tracking.
Click to expand...

Well you have an A6600 right, take it out any try it at ISO6400 :)

The three sigma f1.4 primes, 16-55/2.8 and 70-350mm certainly make APS-C attractive.

p.s. APS-C doesn't give you more focal range just gives you a narrower field of view. Focal length like the aperture is independent of the sensor size and are physical attributes of the lens. What APS-C really gives you is more pixels i.e. resolution (which is useful) than actually extended focal range.
 
I keep meaning to try Topaz DeNoise on an image shot at max ISO on my A7Rii but keep forgetting to do it.

Might try over the weekend in the studio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top