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

I just bought Topaz Denoise AI after my free trial had expired. Cost £38 with the 15% discount and I got upgraded to version 2.4.0. For anyone interested, here's what's new


Topaz.jpg
 
dancook said:
I didn't think to give it a try... I assume that would be the 'Camera Matching' colour profile offered by Lightroom - I added 'standard' to the comparisons

usedlens.co.uk

Sony A9 vs Hasselblad X907 image quality (color fidelity update) - Usedlens.co.uk

Comparing a speed freak full frame Sony A9 camera to the Hasselblad medium format camera built for quality,
usedlens.co.uk usedlens.co.uk

bearing in mind the Sony A9 is a custom wb that i had to gauge myself - I just replaced the camera matching standard, tried to play with exposure and WB a bit more, general point being it's been a lot more effort to get to this point that the Hasselblad which was 'out of camera'

Color Fidelity standard -> Camera Matching standard -> Hasselblad

Color-Fidelity-scaled.jpg


A9209287-3-scaled.jpg


B0001714-scaled.jpg
Click to expand...
they all look fine to me... I can see the difference because are "side-by-side" but if displayed on their own I wouldn't have a problem with any of them

snerkler said:
I don’t like any of the Sony colour profiles. I’ve used Sony standard and then tweaked colours etc and then saved as a preset. It would be nice to have that as a profile rather than preset but I don’t know how to do that.
Click to expand...

I don't mind them. They are slightly warmer than I like but nothing to lose sleep over. That's my starting point anyway.
 
Cupotea said:
The 24-105 is a real tempter! Most of the time it would be the perfect lens and combined with a fast prime for indoors it could be be all I need for a while.
Click to expand...
I'm only selling it as I need to rearrange my set up to be more video focussed, it's brilliant for the price and the OSS works flawlessly, I have no hesitation dropping the shutter speed right down.
 
imattersuk said:
I'm only selling it as I need to rearrange my set up to be more video focussed, it's brilliant for the price and the OSS works flawlessly, I have no hesitation dropping the shutter speed right down.
Click to expand...

only lens that I got full advertised 5 stops stabilisation with!
Its a really good lens.
 
TGphoto said:
Diminishing returns.

Clearly, there is a visible increase in quality from 8mp for 24 or 42mp. Beyond that you’re pretty much just wasting space on a hard drive IMO.
Click to expand...
Is there? Surely that depends on viewing medium etc? 4K TV’s don’t require more than 8.3mp so you’re not going to see any extra detail with 24mp etc
 
TGphoto said:
well that’s being pedantic isn’t it. Who only views images on a TV?
Click to expand...
Not at all, you claim that there’s a difference between 8mp and 24mp (which there is) but not really between 42mp and higher. Now whilst lenses struggle to resolve the full detail of high MP sensors there are some that show a significant difference between 42mp and 61mp, and lenses are only going to get better.

My point is that whilst you might not feel there’s much difference, to blanket state that higher mp is not necessary is unfair. To some it’s wanted as they want/need to extrapolate every last detail they can. As long as people understand the whys and wherefores of why they’re using high mp who are we to say what’s necessary or not (y)
 
imattersuk said:
My preference would be Sony 20mm (unless you really need wider) plus Sony 24-105mm then either the Tamron 70-180 or Sigma 100-400.

I think the Tamron's are OK, nothing more, nothing less. The 24-105 has OSS and a far more useful range than the 28-75.

You can buy the first two in the classifieds and save some £££
Click to expand...
Agree, I traded my Tamron 28-75 for the 24-105 and think it’s better, bigger range, OSS and image quality
 
TGphoto said:
Diminishing returns.

Clearly, there is a visible increase in quality from 8mp for 24 or 42mp. Beyond that you’re pretty much just wasting space on a hard drive IMO.
Click to expand...

I saw a sample image from a Phase One with the 100mp back. At 100% preview it was as resolved as a D810 file at full size. A remarkable feat of engineering and technology.

I'm on 50mp and it's rather lovely, but when funds recover I will certainly be looking at the 100mp options available to me.

snerkler said:
Is there? Surely that depends on viewing medium etc? 4K TV’s don’t require more than 8.3mp so you’re not going to see any extra detail with 24mp etc
Click to expand...

8k is coming soon :D - and that is around 30mp. Don't think really with this than 24mp is really what you are after in todays day and age.

This of course depends on the size of your screen - and intended viewing distance.

I find QHD fine for a 27inch screen at 30cm away.

4k is really ideal for a screen 32 to 50 inch even quite close to it - and at far view distances a 4k 65 inch screen is great, put your nose in it and it's not so good.

85-100 inch screen with 8k will be amazing - and a much more modern way to display images than printing - and enjoyable too.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Not at all, you claim that there’s a difference between 8mp and 24mp (which there is) but not really between 42mp and higher. Now whilst lenses struggle to resolve the full detail of high MP sensors there are some that show a significant difference between 42mp and 61mp, and lenses are only going to get better.

My point is that whilst you might not feel there’s much difference, to blanket state that higher mp is not necessary is unfair. To some it’s wanted as they want/need to extrapolate every last detail they can. As long as people understand the whys and wherefores of why they’re using high mp who are we to say what’s necessary or not (y)
Click to expand...


My word. The fact is above 42mp the differences aren’t going to be visible to anyone unless you’re zooming to 100% on a 4K monitor. 42mp is plenty for prints at virtually any size and allowing plenty of room for cropping.

Lenses that can resolve 60mp+ are mega money and always will be, so again another issue with that.

I didn’t blanket state anything I said ‘Still think that’s wayyyyy more resolution than 99.999% of people would ever need. In fact I don’t know a single pro landscape photographer using a body that’s above 50mp personally.’ So my point was that it’s way more than almost anyone needs. I was referring to the likes of Tom Heaton, Nigel Danson, Stuart McGlennon, Neil Burnell etc all manage to do very well on less than 50mp, so it’s more than enough for average Joe.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming on this thread though, can barely say anything without people jumping down your neck.
 
if it didn't come at the cost of speed, AF and other usability things I'd happily take more resolution like 100mp :p
 
nandbytes said:
if it didn't come at the cost of speed, AF and other usability things I'd happily take more resolution like 100mp :p
Click to expand...

If you shot landscapes you really wouldn't care about these things. Usability is just down to how well laid out the body is. I'd argue my 645z is the most usable of the lot - in terms of lay out and controls it's even more logical than the D8x0 DSLRs, and they in turn more usable than the D3*** and D5*** cameras and D6/7** cameras. The two tripod mounts are a particular treat for switching between side ways and length-ways shots....as is the back LCD screen where you can see your chosen AF point. Simply meter, focus, set exposure and done. Doddle. No menus, no nothing, few buttons and done.

AF is independent of resolution - it's down the the camera maker how many AF points they put on, and where they put them. Speed - well - that's determined by your card and frame rate. No bothered by 3fps - wouldn't care if it had more or less, or could only do 1fps. Not arsed.

Anything under 36mp I wouldn't wipe my bum with and 50mp seems a good point, and 100mp if you have £5500 and are ok with a mirrorless system. I find EVF's irritating and unusable for how I shoot...others swear by them. Resolution though - take yer pick of the beasts. D850, A7r4, A1, 645z, GFX100s...lots of goodies to choose.

Len's - as @snerkler says they just develop ones that become more and more capable. Top grade G master zooms, Otus Primes etc and hoorah!!!
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Creating panos from A7RIV files is more of a post processing pain. My panos are easily close to 1GB in file size!
You are better off making panos with a lower Res body you get files that are more manageable.
Click to expand...

I downsize mine before stitching. Seems to work ok for me.
 
SFTPhotography said:
If you shot landscapes you really wouldn't care about these things. Usability is just down to how well laid out the body is. I'd argue my 645z is the most usable of the lot - in terms of lay out and controls it's even more logical than the D8x0 DSLRs, and they in turn more usable than the D3*** and D5*** cameras and D6/7** cameras. The two tripod mounts are a particular treat for switching between side ways and length-ways shots....as is the back LCD screen where you can see your chosen AF point. Simply meter, focus, set exposure and done. Doddle. No menus, no nothing, few buttons and done.

AF is independent of resolution - it's down the the camera maker how many AF points they put on, and where they put them. Speed - well - that's determined by your card and frame rate. No bothered by 3fps - wouldn't care if it had more or less, or could only do 1fps. Not arsed.

Anything under 36mp I wouldn't wipe my bum with and 50mp seems a good point, and 100mp if you have £5500 and are ok with a mirrorless system. I find EVF's irritating and unusable for how I shoot...others swear by them. Resolution though - take yer pick of the beasts. D850, A7r4, A1, 645z, GFX100s...lots of goodies to choose.

Len's - as @snerkler says they just develop ones that become more and more capable. Top grade G master zooms, Otus Primes etc and hoorah!!!
Click to expand...

I shoot landscapes and other things too :)

I'd love a GFX100s but I do shoot a bunch of other stuff that just wouldn't work well with the GFX. then these is the price.....
for me A1 is really the best all-in-one body if everything promised on the spec sheet holds true. but I cannot afford the body but I already have the lenses for it.

I'll stick with the A7RIV for now.
 
nandbytes said:
Creating panos from A7RIV files is more of a post processing pain. My panos are easily close to 1GB in file size!
You are better off making panos with a lower Res body you get files that are more manageable.
Click to expand...

If you are making pano's it's because you want to make a higher res image than the camera can make. Otherwise you'd just shoot at a short focal length and crop 65x24 or something.

Re more managable - PC upgrade time :D

If it's not dual CPU, Monster GPU, 128gb RAM it's go home time :D
 
Just a simple Snapograph taken at Dungeness Romney Marsh Kent UK of one of the many old boats scattered about the beach that have just been Left To Rot.
I'm also working on a personal project called Things Left Behind and this will be one of the shots included.

RX10M4, 1/950th @ F5.6, ISO-100, Tripod.
Discarded Boat (5)-03504 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):sony:

George.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
With the 100S a 65x24 crop image is still 50MP
Click to expand...

I know - and 11k or so PX on the long side. That's a very big print :D

It's one of the most exciting camera's to be released in a long time. I hope people on here get them :D

My hope is that sensor makes it's way into the Pentax 645z successor - I'm very happy with the system as it is but if they s***can it I'll have to go mirrorless and Fuji it is :D
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
If you are making pano's it's because you want to make a higher res image than the camera can make. Otherwise you'd just shoot at a short focal length and crop 65x24 or something.

Re more managable - PC upgrade time :D

If it's not dual CPU, Monster GPU, 128gb RAM it's go home time :D
Click to expand...

I can think of two other reasons that are nothing to do with resolution.

1. You've got a lens mounted and you want to capture a wider FoV.
2. You've got a lens mounted and you want to capture a wider FoV with shallow DoF.
 
woof woof said:
I can think of two other reasons that are nothing to do with resolution.

1. You've got a lens mounted and you want to capture a wider FoV.
2. You've got a lens mounted and you want to capture a wider FoV with shallow DoF.
Click to expand...

1. Fit a wider lens
2. Buy a medium format camera :D :P

re 2 - try a 20 F.18 or 24F1.4 - they do the trick nicely BTW
 
LeeRatters said:
I very often prefer the look of a panoramic image than a single wide image.
Click to expand...

See - I avoid them like the plague - things like movement etc can throw them out - things like waves, waterflow, grasses moving etc. I'll always go for the single shot and use a wider lens if need be, but if you've had success stitching, stick with it as it will endow more res etc. I've found a lot of pano's have V and U shapes to them - depends on the stich but they aren't for me. Neither are actually extremely short FL's. 20mm on FF is as wide as I'd ever need and I prefer natural FL's of 28-50 for the bulk of my full frame work as it just feels a natural perspective.
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
See - I avoid them like the plague - things like movement etc can throw them out - things like waves, waterflow, grasses moving etc. I'll always go for the single shot and use a wider lens if need be, but if you've had success stitching, stick with it as it will endow more res etc. I've found a lot of pano's have V and U shapes to them - depends on the stich but they aren't for me. Neither are actually extremely short FL's. 20mm on FF is as wide as I'd ever need and I prefer natural FL's of 28-50 for the bulk of my full frame work as it just feels a natural perspective.
Click to expand...

Yes, movement etc can cause issues. I shoot 21, 40, 80-200mm. I just find a 40mm panoramic usually more pleasing than a 21mm image. Obviously depends regarding any foreground etc but that's generally what I prefer, for what I shoot...... ie Woodland images, lone trees, etc
 
SFTPhotography said:
1. Fit a wider lens
2. Buy a medium format camera :D :p

re 2 - try a 20 F.18 or 24F1.4 - they do the trick nicely BTW
Click to expand...

Sounds simple doesn't it? But then there's the real world.

I do have a 20mm f1.8 and I have a 17mm too and in the past I had a 12-24mm FF but with stitching it's possible to go wider and then there's the question of Brenizer method and how that look could be achieved with a wide lens. I don't think it could.

No, you can't replace every stitch with a wider lens and then there's the issue of carrying more lenses and doing lens changes. Yes stitching still gives issues.... taking multiple shots takes time and then there's the stitching but it is IMO still a viable thing to do and arguably sometimes preferable to buying and carrying a wide lens which wont always give you the same end result.
 
Last edited:
TGphoto said:
My word. The fact is above 42mp the differences aren’t going to be visible to anyone unless you’re zooming to 100% on a 4K monitor. 42mp is plenty for prints at virtually any size and allowing plenty of room for cropping.

Lenses that can resolve 60mp+ are mega money and always will be, so again another issue with that.

I didn’t blanket state anything I said ‘Still think that’s wayyyyy more resolution than 99.999% of people would ever need. In fact I don’t know a single pro landscape photographer using a body that’s above 50mp personally.’ So my point was that it’s way more than almost anyone needs. I was referring to the likes of Tom Heaton, Nigel Danson, Stuart McGlennon, Neil Burnell etc all manage to do very well on less than 50mp, so it’s more than enough for average Joe.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped coming on this thread though, can barely say anything without people jumping down your neck.
Click to expand...
Sorry, none of my posts were meant to be inflammatory in any way so apologies if they came across that way. I just don’t agree that anything over 42mp is pointless and tried to get my point across (y) For the record I’ve printed large with 16mp files and have been more than happy with them (y)
 
I've just read on digital camera world that the A1 can only shoot at 30fps with compressed raw, can anyone confirm this?

TBH I wouldn't even use it at 20fps let alone 30fps ;)
 
nandbytes said:
if it didn't come at the cost of speed, AF and other usability things I'd happily take more resolution like 100mp :p
Click to expand...
So would I
snerkler said:
I've just read on digital camera world that the A1 can only shoot at 30fps with compressed raw, can anyone confirm this?

TBH I wouldn't even use it at 20fps let alone 30fps ;)
Click to expand...
Yes iv seen this a few times but 20fps is enough for me anyway for birding.
Rob.
 
snerkler said:
I've just read on digital camera world that the A1 can only shoot at 30fps with compressed raw, can anyone confirm this?

TBH I wouldn't even use it at 20fps let alone 30fps ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah they said it's compressed raw or jpg for 30 fps.
 
snerkler said:
I've just read on digital camera world that the A1 can only shoot at 30fps with compressed raw, can anyone confirm this?

TBH I wouldn't even use it at 20fps let alone 30fps ;)
Click to expand...

Sony themselves said actually.
20fps with lossless compression or uncompressed. 30 FPS with lossy compression.

For me the main draw is the lag free, blackout free shooting at 50mp. I'd probably stick to using it between 10-15fps.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Sony themselves said actually.
20fps with lossless compression or uncompressed. 30 FPS with lossy compression.

For me the main draw is the lag free, blackout free shooting at 50mp. I'd probably stick to using it between 10-15fps.
Click to expand...
Blackout free shooting is a big draw I must admit.
 
nandbytes said:
And don't forget lag free. A7RIV isn't bad for EVF lag per say but its not perfect. You don't get DSLR /OVF level of lag free shooting for action.
Click to expand...
Tbh I’ve not had an issue with the lag, but yes if it can be eliminated it can only help (y)
 
This discussion about megapixels is interesting in the light of how many people are using Topaz denoise now in all sorts of places. If the noise floor can be kept lowish with a 50-65MP sensor then software will be much less needed & workflow less burdensome.

Personally, although I'm OK with my 24MP A7III, I'd love the r version for the extra detail.
 
ancient_mariner said:
This discussion about megapixels is interesting in the light of how many people are using Topaz denoise now in all sorts of places. If the noise floor can be kept lowish with a 50-65MP sensor then software will be much less needed & workflow less burdensome.

Personally, although I'm OK with my 24MP A7III, I'd love the r version for the extra detail.
Click to expand...

The recent high res sensors are nearly as good as low res sensors at ISO performance. You can downside them to get similar result to the low res sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top