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

Stephen L said:
A very dreamy look from that lens, which suits the subjects fine. I said it's not always about ultimate sharpness! :)
Click to expand...

Many of the older Minolta lenses had a nice rendering, although this look is a bit down to processing too. ;) I tend to see things in shapes, and smoothing detail helps the shapes to work better for me.
 
The Minolta Rokkors are generally my favourite film era lenses of those I have.
 
I have one of those together with 24, 28 and 35mm f2.8's, 35mm f1.8, 45mm f2, 50mm f1.7 (two of those, MC and MD) 1.4 and 1.2 and 85mm f2.
 
"HAPPY NEW YEAR" everyone. (y) :):)


53EE3EB9-D206-4943-986C-82B8DE7F516B.jpeg
 
ancient_mariner said:
AF or MD?
Click to expand...

If it's the same as mine it's MF. MD is more a build/generation designation. The biggest differences for me are the style of build and the MD's tending to have better coatings than the early MC's with the more obviously metal bodies and scalloped focus rings.

The MC 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.7 I have are towards the top of my list of all time greats, with build that seems to compare to the pre ai Nikons I have but in a much smaller package. The MD's do generally give better image quality though, imo.
 
I was more interested in the mount & compatibility than age & finish.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I was more interested in the mount & compatibility than age & finish.
Click to expand...

I think they're all the same mount, SR, but people tend to call it MC or MD but really it is afaik SR and Mx is afaik just a designation that pins the lens down a bit more age, build, coating wise maybe.
 
This is a comparison between the Nikon 50mm f0.95, 1.2 and f1.8's but still interesting for Sony users IMO :D

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJutfzwJqig&feature=emb_logo


I did my own little comparison tests years ago going from f1.x to f2.8 not so much for light gathering ability and what that does for ISO and image quality but more for the bokeh and the look you get. What I decided was that the f1.8 options were enough for me because there wasn't any real limitation until I got to f2.8 for me maybe because I don't tend to like razor thin DoF look especially when people are involved as I prefer more depth. My little test didn't take into account the differences in look you'll get when using different lenses and I do understand that as per the vid the f0.95 might give a nicer look at f5.6 than the f1.2 or f1.8 and that alone could be a reason for choosing one lens over another even if you never use the widest aperture settings.

This like this short article from 2012, it says most of it for me.

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

In Defense of Depth

From Russian Noir by Jason Eskenazi By John Kennerdell If there's a single received idea that fires up the imagination of my young photographer friends these days, it's that for "professional looking" photographs they should buy fast lenses and then...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

I had an f0.95 for MFT and have two f1.2 lenses at the mo, Voigtlander 40mm and Minolta Rokkor 50mm but I don't think I'd buy a lens specifically because it had a wider aperture than f1.8. It'll be interesting to see what any upcoming Sony f1.2 lenses are like iq wise and size and cost wise too. BTW, that Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 is a gorgeos lens, at f1.2 the bokeh can be funky but it gives a lovely look when stopped down, a look that is different to the Minolta f1.7 and f1.4 lenses I have.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I think they're all the same mount, SR, but people tend to call it MC or MD but really it is afaik SR and Mx is afaik just a designation that pins the lens down a bit more age, build, coating wise maybe.
Click to expand...
AFAIK MAF is a completely different mount from MC/MD, with no physical compatibility.
 
ancient_mariner said:
AFAIK MAF is a completely different mount from MC/MD, with no physical compatibility.
Click to expand...

Dunno. Never heard of MAF. I know Minolta did A mount and also had the Dynax stuff which I know nothing about. But you learn something every day :D
 
woof woof said:
Dunno. Never heard of MAF. I know Minolta did A mount and also had the Dynax stuff which I know nothing about. But you learn something every day :D
Click to expand...
MAF = A mount, used until superceded by Sony FE mount.
 
Everytime I think about moving this lens on for something else it does something to change my mind. (Canon 200mm f/2.8L USM II)

DSC09836-4 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
 
1: Female Chaffinch
DSC00220 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

2: Blue Tit in the queue for the buffet waiting for the Marsh Tit
DSC00032 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

3: Male Chaffinch
DSC00139 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

4: Frosty Feet
DSC09648 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

5: Marsh Tit
DSC00241 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

6,7,8: I have tried for some time to see the elusive Bearded Tits, and I finally got to see this pair. Not the most amazing photos as they only posed on the grit trays and light was very poor but I am so chuffed to have finally seen these beautiful birds.

DSC09692 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

DSC09804 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr

DSC09719 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
 
Anyone considered moving away from the Sony A9? to what?

I max out the ISO at 6400 to avoid image noise that my clients find unacceptable.

This means I can be shooting indoors 200mm, f2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400 - so at 1/125th, movement by me or the subject is likely to cause blur, and so I burst every shot just to spread my bet that at least one is perfectly sharp.

The e-shutter is great, but still can get occasional banding issues, had me shooting a Christmas party at a lower than comfortable shutter speed to avoid banding.

So I'd like...
- cleaner high iso
- unobtrusive shutter
- sports capable AF/eye af and great buffer
- improvement in image quality would always be welcome

are the Nikon/Canon mirrorless worth looking into? I saw rumours the A9 III may have a high MP sensor, I'm not sure that's the right direction for high ISO handling and e-shutter readouts..
 
dancook said:
Anyone considered moving away from the Sony A9? to what?

I max out the ISO at 6400 to avoid image noise that my clients find unacceptable.

This means I can be shooting indoors 200mm, f2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400 - so at 1/125th, movement by me or the subject is likely to cause blur, and so I burst every shot just to spread my bet that at least one is perfectly sharp.

The e-shutter is great, but still can get occasional banding issues, had me shooting a Christmas party at a lower than comfortable shutter speed to avoid banding.

So I'd like...
- cleaner high iso
- unobtrusive shutter
- sports capable AF/eye af and great buffer
- improvement in image quality would always be welcome

are the Nikon/Canon mirrorless worth looking into? I saw rumours the A9 III may have a high MP sensor, I'm not sure that's the right direction for high ISO handling and e-shutter readouts..
Click to expand...

Might be worth trying a Canon R6? Though I'm not sure what you're looking for exists tbh
 
NewBeetle said:
Might be worth trying a Canon R6? Though I'm not sure what you're looking for exists tbh
Click to expand...

I'll have a look, thanks

Saw the Leica SL-S has great low-light ISO performance, shame that it's contrast detect only AF, and probably isn't ready for sport yet!

I guess I'll need to wait to see what else comes out.
 
dancook said:
Anyone considered moving away from the Sony A9? to what?

I max out the ISO at 6400 to avoid image noise that my clients find unacceptable.

This means I can be shooting indoors 200mm, f2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400 - so at 1/125th, movement by me or the subject is likely to cause blur, and so I burst every shot just to spread my bet that at least one is perfectly sharp.

The e-shutter is great, but still can get occasional banding issues, had me shooting a Christmas party at a lower than comfortable shutter speed to avoid banding.

So I'd like...
- cleaner high iso
- unobtrusive shutter
- sports capable AF/eye af and great buffer
- improvement in image quality would always be welcome

are the Nikon/Canon mirrorless worth looking into? I saw rumours the A9 III may have a high MP sensor, I'm not sure that's the right direction for high ISO handling and e-shutter readouts..
Click to expand...

I am surprised you find A9 AF/eyeAF not sports capable. It's considered to be one of the best or class leading only slightly beaten by the A9II.
 
dancook said:
Anyone considered moving away from the Sony A9? to what?

I max out the ISO at 6400 to avoid image noise that my clients find unacceptable.

This means I can be shooting indoors 200mm, f2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400 - so at 1/125th, movement by me or the subject is likely to cause blur, and so I burst every shot just to spread my bet that at least one is perfectly sharp.

The e-shutter is great, but still can get occasional banding issues, had me shooting a Christmas party at a lower than comfortable shutter speed to avoid banding.

So I'd like...
- cleaner high iso
- unobtrusive shutter
- sports capable AF/eye af and great buffer
- improvement in image quality would always be welcome

are the Nikon/Canon mirrorless worth looking into? I saw rumours the A9 III may have a high MP sensor, I'm not sure that's the right direction for high ISO handling and e-shutter readouts..
Click to expand...
Wow, what’s the world coming to when clients (who I assume aren’t photographers) are complaining of noise :eek:

I’m not convinced Canikon are any better at noise handling tbh. The A9-II should negate banding issues with the faster mechanical FPS, but noise won’t be any better.

Are there any medium format cameras with AF up to the job?
 
LeeRatters said:
Same tree.

Softer light & edit.

There's more of this tree to come too.........

A7 & a panoramic with the Carl Zeiss 80-200/4


*** by Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

For me - that’s a super image (better on Flickr) (y)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Wow, what’s the world coming to when clients (who I assume aren’t photographers) are complaining of noise :eek:

I’m not convinced Canikon are any better at noise handling tbh. The A9-II should negate banding issues with the faster mechanical FPS, but noise won’t be any better.

Are there any medium format cameras with AF up to the job?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't a client complain about noise? it's degradation of image quality, unlike grain :)

In this case I'm taking portraits of pupils performing concerts, and I cannot go in front of the audience even to just move around.

It would not be a cost effective to invest in whatever medium format might be suitable, ibis and a long zoom would be needed - I can do what I need to do with 70-200mm @ 2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400, but as you can imagine to keep ISO at 6400, 1/125th is right on the edge of acceptable shutter speed when using the lens at 200mm.

It's not essential that I upgrade, I just don't like working at the edge of my comfort zone.
 
dancook said:
Why wouldn't a client complain about noise? it's degradation of image quality, unlike grain :)

In this case I'm taking portraits of pupils performing concerts, and I cannot go in front of the audience even to just move around.

It would not be a cost effective to invest in whatever medium format might be suitable, ibis and a long zoom would be needed - I can do what I need to do with 70-200mm @ 2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400, but as you can imagine to keep ISO at 6400, 1/125th is right on the edge of acceptable shutter speed when using the lens at 200mm.

It's not essential that I upgrade, I just don't like working at the edge of my comfort zone.
Click to expand...

Have tried using topaz Denoise AI in your workflow?
That might allow you to use higher ISO and/or shutter speeds.

I suggest giving it a try using their trial, it works really well.
 
nandbytes said:
Have tried using topaz Denoise AI in your workflow?
That might allow you to use higher ISO and/or shutter speeds.

I suggest giving it a try using their trial, it works really well.
Click to expand...

Nope, I’ve considered it previously and decided against it.

you’re suppose to use it before you start processing, I do a first cut selection to about 10% but then I usually cut that down again by more than half whilst processing.

I can’t remember how long it would take to batch denoise 300+ images every shoot, but it’s not something I wanted to waste time.

Particularly in December when jobs and processing are back to back with next day delivery.

I could reconsider it, it’s been a while
 
Last edited:
It looks like denoise lightroom batch integration is a new thing since I last looked, maybe that will work for me.
 
Noticed their offer was ending, and the code holiday15 gets another 15% off the 30% off, so it was $47

And if I see any increase in income before the tax year ends maybe I’ll can offset it against some tax. ( doubt it!)
 
dancook said:
Nope, I’ve considered it previously and decided against it.

you’re suppose to use it before you start processing, I do a first cut selection to about 10% but then I usually cut that down again by more than half whilst processing.

I can’t remember how long it would take to batch denoise 300+ images every shoot, but it’s not something I wanted to waste time.

Particularly in December when jobs and processing are back to back with next day delivery.

I could reconsider it, it’s been a while
Click to expand...
dancook said:
It looks like denoise lightroom batch integration is a new thing since I last looked, maybe that will work for me.
Click to expand...

yes the updates have made it better and faster to use. but still not the fastest.

I know they suggest using before processing but I don't. its a waste of time for me to do that on all the files and I only run it on files that are particularly offensive per say. I cannot say I have noticed a massive amount of difference (probably because I rarely shoot at or above ISO6400 and majority are below ISO3200).
 
dancook said:
Why wouldn't a client complain about noise? it's degradation of image quality, unlike grain :)

In this case I'm taking portraits of pupils performing concerts, and I cannot go in front of the audience even to just move around.

It would not be a cost effective to invest in whatever medium format might be suitable, ibis and a long zoom would be needed - I can do what I need to do with 70-200mm @ 2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400, but as you can imagine to keep ISO at 6400, 1/125th is right on the edge of acceptable shutter speed when using the lens at 200mm.

It's not essential that I upgrade, I just don't like working at the edge of my comfort zone.
Click to expand...

Can you talk to the school about the lighting to get that improved a bit for the photos? In similar situations I’ve been using primes 200 F2, 135 F2, 85 F1.4 up until recently with 1DX2 now finding the R5 is better. In relation to medium format, the GFX noise handling is quite good and the image stabilization excellent, however I’ve not tried it for this type of thing.
 
dancook said:
Why wouldn't a client complain about noise? it's degradation of image quality, unlike grain :)
Click to expand...
No reason I guess, just surprised that’s all. From my experience non togs don’t notice things like this. I’m guessing it’s the quality of light as much as it is the ISO, I know when I did some amateur boxing the noise at 6400 ISO was pretty bad due to the shocking lighting. Normally at 6400 ISO I perform very little NR if any.
In this case I'm taking portraits of pupils performing concerts, and I cannot go in front of the audience even to just move around.

It would not be a cost effective to invest in whatever medium format might be suitable, ibis and a long zoom would be needed - I can do what I need to do with 70-200mm @ 2.8, 1/125th, ISO 6400, but as you can imagine to keep ISO at 6400, 1/125th is right on the edge of acceptable shutter speed when using the lens at 200mm.

It's not essential that I upgrade, I just don't like working at the edge of my comfort zone.
Click to expand...
It’s a shame Sony don’t do a 200mm f2. You could get the 135mm f1.8 and crop, but then you’re going to accentuate the noise and probably won’t be any better off, could be worse off if you’re upping the shutter speed :(

I think you’re only options have already been mentioned, topaz or lighting at the school. Do they use a spotlight?
 
dancook said:
Nope, I’ve considered it previously and decided against it.

you’re suppose to use it before you start processing, I do a first cut selection to about 10% but then I usually cut that down again by more than half whilst processing.

I can’t remember how long it would take to batch denoise 300+ images every shoot, but it’s not something I wanted to waste time.

Particularly in December when jobs and processing are back to back with next day delivery.

I could reconsider it, it’s been a while
Click to expand...

I have Topaz and Noiseware. https://www.imagenomic.com/Products/Noiseware
Noiseware is way faster and more customisable.
 
I can’t change the lighting, and whilst they have a spotlight for the fashion show it’s not appropriate to use for a performing orchestra..

At least I have a 30 day money back option for denoise I can look at noiseware too.

I suppose it doesn’t feel too satisfying knowing I can manage the shoot at 6400, which will still be better IQ than 12,800 with noise reduction. I always want to achieve the best image quality possible.

When it came to the orchestra performing at the glive, My predecessor used at 300mm 2.8, whilst I had to use a 100-400 4-5.6. A 400mm 2.8 would be nice :) but it’s not cost effective!
 
dancook said:
I can’t change the lighting, and whilst they have a spotlight for the fashion show it’s not appropriate to use for a performing orchestra..

At least I have a 30 day money back option for denoise I can look at noiseware too.

I suppose it doesn’t feel too satisfying knowing I can manage the shoot at 6400, which will still be better IQ than 12,800 with noise reduction. I always want to achieve the best image quality possible.

When it came to the orchestra performing at the glive, My predecessor used at 300mm 2.8, whilst I had to use a 100-400 4-5.6. A 400mm 2.8 would be nice :) but it’s not cost effective!
Click to expand...

Being a "new" mirrorless system this is where Sony lacks. Probably because there is less of a market for it so it's one of the last things to get addressed.
But from what I gathered light was more of an issue then reach. So you'd benefit more from likes of 200mm f2 than a 300mm f2.8?
If you can get closer then the 135mm f1.8 would also give you fair bit more light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top