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

[snerkler]

Todays the day boys and girls. A1 reviews

I can give you the A1 review without even using it

1) It will have mind blowing AF that all of a sudden makes the A9 series terrible
2) Dynamic range will the the best of all sports cams
3) Bird AF won’t be as good as Canon.
4) Menus will still have some frustrating features and there’ll be some frustrating “why have they done that“ nuance.
5) EVF will be Sony’s best yet and great for tracking sports, all other EVFs will now be terrible.
6) Ergonomics still won’t be as good as the R5.
7) 30fps won’t be available with all settings/file types.

 

[LeeRatters]

I can give you the A1 review without even using it

1) It will have mind blowing AF that all of a sudden makes the A9 series terrible
2) Dynamic range will the the best of all sports cams
3) Bird AF won’t be as good as Canon.
4) Menus will still have some frustrating features and there’ll be some frustrating “why have they done that“ nuance.
5) EVF will be Sony’s best yet and great for tracking sports, all other EVFs will now be terrible.
6) Ergonomics still won’t be as good as the R5.
7) 30fps won’t be available with all settings/file types.

I might give it a miss then. I can't see many benefits for me over what I have already.....

 

[nandbytes]

3) Bird AF won’t be as good as Canon.

 

[GyRob]

Anyone know this - so the a1 does 120 AF and exposure calculations a second now if I did a burst of say 10fps at 1/2000 of a second how many calculations will it do per frame .

Rob.

 

[dancook]

From what I've read that A1 shouldn't have an AA filter, the reason being is that it has the pixel multi-shift feature. Are they mutually exclusive? I don't know - but I hope it doesn't have an AA filter.

 

[woof woof]

I'm always a bit phased when people say "I don't shoot above ISO xxxx." What do they do? Use flash? Put down their camera and use their phone or just not bother at all? Not everything has to be gallery quality, IMO, some pictures can be just memory captures at ISO 25,600

Sorry for the interruption. As you were...

 

[robj20]

I'm always a bit phased when people say "I don't shoot above ISO xxxx." What do they do? Use flash? Put down their camera and use their phone or just not bother at all? Not everything has to be gallery quality, IMO, some pictures can be just memory captures at ISO 25,600

Sorry for the interruption. As you were...

Adjust aperture or shutter speed, so maybe use a tripod or rest the camera down.
Or use a flash, depends on the subject.

 

[dancook]

I'm always a bit phased when people say "I don't shoot above ISO xxxx." What do they do? Use flash? Put down their camera and use their phone or just not bother at all? Not everything has to be gallery quality, IMO, some pictures can be just memory captures at ISO 25,600

Sorry for the interruption. As you were...

With my A9 I don't shoot above ISO 6400 because my clients who are marketing directors for their respective schools do not want noisy images.

I reduce my shutter speed and take multiple images to account for hand shake, I cannot use flash to add light to a live performance orchestra.

They do not want 'memory captures' they want images to publicise the school


..phased?

 

[nandbytes]

I'm always a bit phased when people say "I don't shoot above ISO xxxx." What do they do? Use flash? Put down their camera and use their phone or just not bother at all? Not everything has to be gallery quality, IMO, some pictures can be just memory captures at ISO 25,600

Sorry for the interruption. As you were...

I am rarely in situations where I do need to push up ISOs. I use flash, not bother at all, or find other ways around it (fast lenses, tripods, etc).

I haven't come across a FF camera yet that I am actually happy with shots above ISO12800. Even at ISO12800 there's couple specialist cameras. After that I just don't bother at all (but I have rarely been in this situation as I almost always find a different way to reduce my ISO).

 

[Stephen L]

I can give you the A1 review without even using it

1) It will have mind blowing AF that all of a sudden makes the A9 series terrible
2) Dynamic range will the the best of all sports cams
3) Bird AF won’t be as good as Canon.
4) Menus will still have some frustrating features and there’ll be some frustrating “why have they done that“ nuance.
5) EVF will be Sony’s best yet and great for tracking sports, all other EVFs will now be terrible.
6) Ergonomics still won’t be as good as the R5.
7) 30fps won’t be available with all settings/file types.

8) hopefully Mk2 will be better - I’ll wait for that

 

[nandbytes]

8) hopefully Mk2 will be better - I’ll wait for that

or just buy the R5 for £3k less
then spend it on all the expensive RF glass.....

 

[jonneymendoza]

or just buy the R5 for £3k less [emoji14]
then spend it on all the expensive RF glass.....

And then after you do that, sony announces the A2 and it addresses your concerns lol

 

[nandbytes]

And then after you do that, sony announces the A2 and it addresses your concerns lol

I doubt that if they can't match canon's AF with their flagship.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I doubt that if they can't match canon's AF with their flagship.

Not been on the loop with the r5 but your saying the r5 has better af then even my a9?

 

[gman]

With my A9 I don't shoot above ISO 6400 because my clients who are marketing directors for their respective schools do not want noisy images.

I reduce my shutter speed and take multiple images to account for hand shake, I cannot use flash to add light to a live performance orchestra.

They do not want 'memory captures' they want images to publicise the school


..phased?

I do this with my Sony phone and the burst shot feature. Also handy for group shots as someone always blinks at the wrong time lol

Thinking of the A9, it would be an interesting test to use a shutter speed which would definitely create camera shake with a single shot and then see if 20fps will be fast enough to be able to produce a shot somewhere in between the shake which is sharp?

 

[nandbytes]

Not been on the loop with the r5 but your saying the r5 has better af then even my a9?

As as animal eyeAF goes yes. It's animal (inc. birds) eyeAF seems to work on the level of human eyeAF which is impressive.
In terms of subject tracking may be not but gets pretty close.

 

[gman]

yes you should almost as always want to use mechanical for landscapes. No reason not to especially with EFCS to avoid shutter shake.

So the measurements given on photonstophotos is photographic dynamic range (PDR).
The website is maintained by a professor at Harvard (Bill Claff), his explanation of PDR vs. DXO is given here:

Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is a More Useful Measure than the DxOMark Landscape Score: Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

His measurements are generally more reliable and accurate (I think with 5-10% margin according to Bill) than DXO. The error is kinda unavoidable because he builds his graphs from samples provided to him by various people (he doesn't and cannot afford all those bodies). You could contribute too if you wanted, its not hard and you can also do his measurements yourself. He will give you exact instruction on how to do both but being humans and all there will some minor errors here and there (in fact the instruction might now be on his website). But DXO is sometime just wrong, for example it doesn't even show the dual gain in dynamic range on some of the sensors. Plus there are many inconsistencies on DXO, for example the dynamic range of A99II is lower than that of A7RII on DXO even though Sony explicitly stated both bodies basically used the same sensor and processor.
In fact you can even contact Bill via. email or dpreview and he'll reply back to you clearing any doubt or concerns you have with measurements. So there is transparency in everything he does as supposed to DXO which is a blackbox.

A9's dynamic range was never great which is why it never interested me and still doesn't. Couldn't care less for it. If you want to see a dynamic range even worst have a look at D5 or D6. These bodies aren't built with high dynamic range in mind but for performing really well at high ISO for sport-togs. They do that pretty well. Personally I never shoot above ISO6400, only like 5-10% of my pics are between ISO3200-6400. So I only care about low ISO dynamic range for most bodies.

Based on his margin of errors, I wouldn't say A7RIV is better or worst than R5 (going by graphs alone that is). BUT one thing to note about R5 is that they are using some kind of baked in noise reduction at lower ISOs to "artificially" boost the dynamic range (denoted with the reverse triangles in the photonstophotos DPR graphs). So they are likely to have slightly less detail and perform not as well as other bodies with equal dynamic range and resolution like the Z7 or A7RIII/IV.
you can see the effect of that compared here on dpreview:

Canon EOS R5 review

Canon's EOS R5 is one of the best mirrorless cameras on the market today. But even with its 45MP sensor, 20fps bursts and 8K video, its not without its flaws. Find out all the ups and downs of Canon's latest mirrorless flagship right here.

www.dpreview.com

I just realised I spend far too much time reading these things

I'm sure I recently read that using electronic shutter doesn't affect the dynamic range on the A9, but it's the drive speed which can and you'll only get 14-bit in single shot mode? It may have been user comments though and not an actual article, but it grabbed my attention.

 

[nandbytes]

I'm sure I recently read that using electronic shutter doesn't affect the dynamic range on the A9, but it's the drive speed which can and you'll only get 14-bit in single shot mode? It may have been user comments though and not an actual article, but it grabbed my attention.

A9/ii are the only bodies I know off that can shoot fully electronic shutter without impact on dynamic range or image quality (i.e. no rolling shutter, banding issues are very minimal and only in corner cases etc).

You can check the dynamic range (ES vs MS) on the same website

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

But its dynamic range isn't great to start with anyway but that's not the point I know.

Of course A1 now can possibly do it all i.e. have high dynamic range, high ISO performance and not be compromised in anyway by electronic shutter.

 

[snerkler]

From what I've read that A1 shouldn't have an AA filter, the reason being is that it has the pixel multi-shift feature. Are they mutually exclusive? I don't know - but I hope it doesn't have an AA filter.

I wish all cameras got rid of the AA filter.

With my A9 I don't shoot above ISO 6400 because my clients who are marketing directors for their respective schools do not want noisy images.

I reduce my shutter speed and take multiple images to account for hand shake, I cannot use flash to add light to a live performance orchestra.

They do not want 'memory captures' they want images to publicise the school


..phased?

Has Topaz Denoise not helped in this regard?

Not been on the loop with the r5 but your saying the r5 has better af then even my a9?

As above, animal AF is a class above.

I'm sure I recently read that using electronic shutter doesn't affect the dynamic range on the A9, but it's the drive speed which can and you'll only get 14-bit in single shot mode? It may have been user comments though and not an actual article, but it grabbed my attention.

A9/ii are the only bodies I know off that can shoot fully electronic shutter without impact on dynamic range or image quality (i.e. no rolling shutter, banding issues are very minimal and only in corner cases etc).

You can check the dynamic range (ES vs MS) on the same website

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

But its dynamic range isn't great to start with anyway but that's not the point I know.

Of course A1 now can possibly do it all i.e. have high dynamic range, high ISO performance and not be compromised in anyway by electronic shutter.

From my reading yesterday I believe that the DR is still reduced using ES on the A9’s but not as much as other cameras due to the speed of the sensor readout. Apparently the reason for the reduced DR is due to the extra noise created by using a slower closing shutter meaning that stray light is still hitting the photosites for a period of time after. As soon as ES can ‘move’ as fast as mechanical shutters there will be no drop on DR. On that basis I’d expect that DR using global shutters will have better DR than with mechanical shutters.

 

[nandbytes]

I wish all cameras got rid of the AA filter.

From my reading yesterday I believe that the DR is still reduced using ES on the A9’s but not as much as other cameras due to the speed of the sensor readout. Apparently the reason for the reduced DR is due to the extra noise created by using a slower closing shutter meaning that stray light is still hitting the photosites for a period of time after. As soon as ES can ‘move’ as fast as mechanical shutters there will be no drop on DR. On that basis I’d expect that DR using global shutters will have better DR than with mechanical shutters.

AA filter has never bothered me tbh. R5 has it too.

Yes its slightly lower with ES on A9 but not enough to worth commenting over. Yep that's correct and global shutter will bring a lot more benefits including no loss in dynamic range.
A1 seems to be going in the right direction.... may be 5 years down the line we can afford the tech when it filters down to A7VI

 

[robj20]

I never knew there was a difference in DR between electronic and mechanical shutter. Wonder what the difference is on my A7C I know for starters it has among the best DR there is at 14.5EV.

 

[dancook]

I wish all cameras got rid of the AA filter.
Has Topaz Denoise not helped in this regard?

DeNoise vs DxO Deep Prime - batch processing

I already bought DeNoise, which is a shame because when I actually tested it for what I needed - it did not perform well. (I'm also a day or two over my 30 day refund, doh!) I got it for when I need to do batch noise reduction on hundreds of event images. DeNoise creates a tif for each image...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

It’s not going to based on how long it takes

Dxo labs might be worth it though

 

[snerkler]

DeNoise vs DxO Deep Prime - batch processing

I already bought DeNoise, which is a shame because when I actually tested it for what I needed - it did not perform well. (I'm also a day or two over my 30 day refund, doh!) I got it for when I need to do batch noise reduction on hundreds of event images. DeNoise creates a tif for each image...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

It’s not going to based on how long it takes

Dxo labs might be worth it though

TBH I’ve found Topaz very slow and clunky, but results are good. I can see why batch processing would be a nightmare though

 

[woof woof]

With my A9 I don't shoot above ISO 6400 because my clients who are marketing directors for their respective schools do not want noisy images.

I reduce my shutter speed and take multiple images to account for hand shake, I cannot use flash to add light to a live performance orchestra.

They do not want 'memory captures' they want images to publicise the school


..phased?

I can understand people not paying you for noisy pictures but that's an entirely different matter to the comment I've read so many times on forums, "I never shoot above xxxxx." So obviously so that I thought it too obvious to mention. Even then there'll be exceptions. I don't suppose anyone would pay for the noisy picture you quite rightly wont take in your professional capacity as it'd be a waste of time as your client wont pay for it but there will be instances even in professional photography in which the noise just has to be accepted as par for the course and a price worth paying for getting the picture, any picture, at all.

So no, I wasn't talking about paid photography.

Sorry to mention it here but it does always make me wonder why. Not every picture is for sale. Not every picture has to be gallery quality, not every pictures has to get likes on social media or forums. Some pictures can be just captures of some moment, event or scene that's worth capturing to us and that may be a picture that can't really be captured with flash or a tripod.

Maybe I shouldn't have posted but it's a comment I've read multiple times and I just don't get it. Not for unpaid "work."

As I said. Sorry to interrupt. Carry on.

 

[woof woof]

I am rarely in situations where I do need to push up ISOs. I use flash, not bother at all, or find other ways around it (fast lenses, tripods, etc).

I haven't come across a FF camera yet that I am actually happy with shots above ISO12800. Even at ISO12800 there's couple specialist cameras. After that I just don't bother at all (but I have rarely been in this situation as I almost always find a different way to reduce my ISO).

For handheld pictures when flash or tripods aren't options there's the exposure triangle although there are situations when the shutter speed can't be too slow or it'll just be a blurry mess. There's post capture processing and boosting the exposure too. Not that I take that many pictures at very high ISO's but if it's a choice between taking a noisy picture or not taking a picture at all there are times when I'll take the picture if it's a picture I want.

From my profile "I take pictures of things I find interesting and places and people I love." If that takes ISO 25,500 so be it Others are obviously free to put the camera down and not take the picture.

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted but posts like yours do make me wonder... Why not just take the picture?

 

[gman]

Ironically, I did notice yesterday that the A9 seems to choose ISO 6400 as the default high value for the auto ISO feature lol

However, I have always had the opinion that almost anything with a photo, within reason of course, can be fixed or changed into something crazy creative on order to make work. But if it's not in focus then there's pretty much nothing you can do, hence my number one priority being the af system.

I'll also tend to lean on faster than perhaps necessary shutter speeds and worry about noise afterwards. But then most of my stuff is destined to be shrunk for online, so I've got an advantage there.

 

[snerkler]

Ironically, I did notice yesterday that the A9 seems to choose ISO 6400 as the default high value for the auto ISO feature lol

However, I have always had the opinion that almost anything with a photo, within reason of course, can be fixed or changed into something crazy creative on order to make work. But if it's not in focus then there's pretty much nothing you can do, hence my number one priority being the af system.

I'll also tend to lean on faster than perhaps necessary shutter speeds and worry about noise afterwards. But then most of my stuff is destined to be shrunk for online, so I've got an advantage there.

I think a lot choose 6400 as the default max ISO setting but I change mine to 12800. That being said I don't like intrusive noise so I don't tend to keep that many 12800 images, but will if they clean up well.

 

[LeeRatters]

8) hopefully Mk2 will be better - I’ll wait for that

And that's going to be the A12...? No, wait.... The A1ii..? Yes, that's less confusing

 

[woof woof]

Ironically, I did notice yesterday that the A9 seems to choose ISO 6400 as the default high value for the auto ISO feature lol

However, I have always had the opinion that almost anything with a photo, within reason of course, can be fixed or changed into something crazy creative on order to make work. But if it's not in focus then there's pretty much nothing you can do, hence my number one priority being the af system.

I'll also tend to lean on faster than perhaps necessary shutter speeds and worry about noise afterwards. But then most of my stuff is destined to be shrunk for online, so I've got an advantage there.

For me there are two influences on hand held shooting shutter speeds and they are how slow a shutter speed can I use and still get an acceptable picture and what shutter speed does the subject require? For example I once took a picture with my Sigma 20mm f1.8 at 1 second and it was fine but I couldn't do that every time and sometimes people (or other) shots need a decent shutter speed to acceptably freeze motion as people are rarely still unless specifically posing. 1 second would therefore be useless for many people shots.

The exposure triangle is there and whilst not being carved in stone as we can boost the exposure post capture it's at least a good indicator. Also, sometimes there's a balance between noise and DoF as f1.2 is all well and good but sometimes I'd rather use a smaller aperture and suffer the noise that comes with it rather than have a cleaner f1.2 picture with next to nothing in the DoF.

Anyway. These are personal choices we're all free to make. I'm especially free as I don't expect to sell my pictures and I'm frankly not at all bothered about likes on instagram, or whatever it is

I think the noisiest pictures I ever took were probably ISO 1600 pictures taken at gigs and not once did anyone ever mention the noise. The pictures were quite small though and there was motion blur if you looked for it. I wasn't being paid though. I just did it for fun and the memories.

 

[Stephen L]

And that's going to be the A12...? No, wait.... The A1ii..? Yes, that's less confusing

Or to make things clearer, the A2i.

 

[nandbytes]

Also, sometimes there's a balance between noise and DoF as f1.2 is all well and good but sometimes I'd rather use a smaller aperture and suffer the noise that comes with it rather than have a cleaner f1.2 picture with next to nothing in the DoF.

You just need to shoot more brick walls. No problems with DoF then or lack thereof

 

[woof woof]

Walls and fences is a thing of mine

 

[dancook]

Sony A1

join group

Facebook

www.facebook.com

Feedback from sport shooter on facebook,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonyalpha1/permalink/3497668557027687/

he posted some photos in the group too
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonyalpha1/permalink/3497870253674184/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonyalpha1/permalink/3497877353673474/

 

[woof woof]

Links no workie for me.

 

[snerkler]

AA filter has never bothered me tbh. R5 has it too.

Yes its slightly lower with ES on A9 but not enough to worth commenting over. Yep that's correct and global shutter will bring a lot more benefits including no loss in dynamic range.
A1 seems to be going in the right direction.... may be 5 years down the line we can afford the tech when it filters down to A7VI

AA filter doesn’t “bother me” but if I had the choice I’d choose not to have it. Assuming I’m still with Sony I’m hoping I can afford an A1 in 5 years time

 

[dancook]

Links no workie for me.

should be ok now, i caught fredmiranda URL in the urls.

 

[snerkler]

Just watched this, and whilst interesting am I missing something here as it was clear to me which was which? The enlarged A9 file clearly shows artefacting to my eyes. I don’t know if it works better with raw as he’s upscaling jpeg here.

View: https://youtu.be/TyNdi8y619o

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Other A1 reviews coming in thick and fast https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sony+a1

 

[dancook]

Just watched this, and whilst interesting am I missing something here as it was clear to me which was which? The enlarged A9 file clearly shows artefacting to my eyes. I don’t know if it works better with raw as he’s upscaling jpeg here.

View: https://youtu.be/TyNdi8y619o

Yea I jumped to the comparison, and picked out the upscaled one - you can see the artefacting..

 

[snerkler]

Other A1 reviews coming in thick and fast https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sony+a1

I see Jared has his up.

View: https://youtu.be/xAqUgZWWU8U