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

addicknchips said:
they've simply priced it at what flagship pro body cameras sell for. its priced correctly imo as it spec and feature set should appeal to pros who need it. they have done well to yet again beat canon and nikon out the traps, but with the R5 not long out i think canon can afford to wait a bit before releasing their pro body.

looks like a fantatsic camera but for the money i think 90% of photographers would see better return in sticking with something for half the price and gassing the rest on glass.
Click to expand...

Especially if video isn't needed.

With the A1 I initially thought "How Much?" but it looks like it's well priced. That won't stop people whinging though and afaik this was the case with previous body and lens releases as people seem to look at the price in isolation without looking at what the competition costs. If there is any.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Especially if video isn't needed.

With the A1 I initially thought "How Much?" but it looks like it's well priced. That won't stop people whinging though and afaik this was the case with previous body and lens releases as people seem to look at the price in isolation without looking at what the competition costs. If there is any.
Click to expand...
Sure won't ;)

Other than perfecting animal eye-af I'm not sure where cameras can actually go now, so I hope that Sony concentrate more on lenses. A new lightweight 70-200mm f2.8 and 'nifty fifty' would be nice. Something a bit difference like an 18-50mm f4, or 20-50mm f4 would be nice too.
 
russellsnr said:
Hi, I am looking at a used A6000 as a back up and to use with my my 200-600 and 70-200 F4 as only just come over to the Sony system with an A9 just looking for advice from those who have been with Sony a lot longer than a few months. Thank You. Russ.
Click to expand...
I went from the A6000 to the A6500 mainly to get in body stabilisation. Both bodies were/are used almost exclusively for macro and I'm very pleased with the results. I did try the other day to use the A6500 with the 200-600 for perching birds in the garden. While the results were good the AF was very frustrating with lots of hunting. Maybe I am spoiled by the A9 but I won't be repeating the experiment, horses for courses etc.
As a non-birding body with less demanding subjects that A series are very good value.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure where cameras can actually go now
Click to expand...

The Sony images could have more depth and better colours with greater tonal quality. Basically what I like about Leica/Hasselblad imagery with Sony speed.

I'm currently decided not buy the A1 until they've come down in price a bit (memory cards too), since I'm no longer so excited I want to use them for things like street photography.

this was enough to remind me of how Sony just muddies the colours (looking at the wood)

screenshot.png

and this reminded me of how important micro contrast is for depth

yannickkhong.com

Micro-Contrast, the biggest optical luxury of the world — YANNICK KHONG

yannickkhong.com yannickkhong.com

i would be happy for several grand Sony lenses if it meant these kind of improvements.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Sure won't ;)

Other than perfecting animal eye-af I'm not sure where cameras can actually go now, so I hope that Sony concentrate more on lenses. A new lightweight 70-200mm f2.8 and 'nifty fifty' would be nice. Something a bit difference like an 18-50mm f4, or 20-50mm f4 would be nice too.
Click to expand...

The obvious thing to me would be the replacement of the last mechanics with a global shutter and then cameras will be purely electronic.

Other than that, who knows? Cameras could get faster at processing, more intuitive to use for people who don't take to it like us :D or some new feature could come along and we'll wonder how we ever managed without it.
 
dancook said:
The Sony images could have more depth and better colours with greater tonal quality. Basically what I like about Leica/Hasselblad imagery with Sony speed.

I'm currently decided not buy the A1 until they've come down in price a bit (memory cards too), since I'm no longer so excited I want to use them for things like street photography.

this was enough to remind me of how Sony just muddies the colours (looking at the wood)

View attachment 307680

and this reminded me of how important micro contrast is for depth

yannickkhong.com

Micro-Contrast, the biggest optical luxury of the world — YANNICK KHONG

yannickkhong.com yannickkhong.com

i would be happy for several grand Sony lenses if it meant these kind of improvements.
Click to expand...
Sony's getting better with it's colour science but there's no doubt there's some exquisite lenses out there that just make things pop. HB and Leica are a completely different market to Canikon ad Sony though (y)
 
woof woof said:
The obvious thing to me would be the replacement of the last mechanics with a global shutter and then cameras will be purely electronic.

Other than that, who knows? Cameras could get faster at processing, more intuitive to use for people who don't take to it like us :D or some new feature could come along and we'll wonder how we ever managed without it.
Click to expand...
Global shutters for sure, that'll be the next "game changer". All the other stuff will just be extra 'toys' we don't need ;) I'm sure in 20 years time we'll all be wondering how we ever found 24mp images acceptable and that 150mp is the 'norm' ;)
 
dancook said:
The Sony images could have more depth and better colours with greater tonal quality. Basically what I like about Leica/Hasselblad imagery with Sony speed.

I'm currently decided not buy the A1 until they've come down in price a bit (memory cards too), since I'm no longer so excited I want to use them for things like street photography.

this was enough to remind me of how Sony just muddies the colours (looking at the wood)

View attachment 307680

and this reminded me of how important micro contrast is for depth

yannickkhong.com

Micro-Contrast, the biggest optical luxury of the world — YANNICK KHONG

yannickkhong.com yannickkhong.com

i would be happy for several grand Sony lenses if it meant these kind of improvements.
Click to expand...

can't see a problem with the sony which also seems a bit out of focus... though the main bit of difference I see is that the Leica red is "more red" than Sony's.
then again as we recently established the colours can change depending on what profiles you were using, lenses etc

on the other hand, I just don't understand the Leica thing. seems like a whole lot of money for not sure what.... for less money than M10-R you can pickup a A1 which is in every way more capable at least in my brains. Just couldn't justify a Leica.

As for micro-contrast... the comparison above is £2500 leica lens vs £250 consumer sony lens. I am not sure what that's meant to prove really...
 
nandbytes said:
can't see a problem with the sony which also seems a bit out of focus... though the main bit of difference I see is that the Leica red is "more red" than Sony's.
then again as we recently established the colours can change depending on what profiles you were using, lenses etc

on the other hand, I just don't understand the Leica thing. seems like a whole lot of money for not sure what.... for less money than M10-R you can pickup a A1 which is in every way more capable at least in my brains. Just couldn't justify a Leica.
Click to expand...

These weren't meant as single proof of anything, just reminders to me of how things are with my own cameras and why I don't enjoy the Sony image quality. The only reason I shoot with Sony is because of how capable the cameras are (technically).

If any manufacturer matched the technical capability with preferable image quality, I'd go with that.

nandbytes said:
As for micro-contrast... the comparison above is £2500 leica lens vs £250 consumer sony lens. I am not sure what that's meant to prove really...
Click to expand...

The article was for about micro-contrast not the image, the image was just a comment on how the yellows of the Sony blend.
 
Last edited:
I thought the notion that Sony have crap colours had been debunked time after time? I seem to remember the usual blogs and sites were full of this some time ago.
 
dancook said:
These weren't meant as single proof of anything, just reminders to me of how things are with my own cameras and why I don't enjoy the Sony image quality. The only reason I shoot with Sony is because of how capable the camera is (technically).

If any manufacturer matched the technical capability with preferable image quality, I'd go with that.

The article was for about micro-contrast not the image, the image was just a comment on how the yellows of the Sony blend.
Click to expand...

By image quality I guess you mean colour rendering.

Perhaps try the canons?
Not sure how much you rely on electronic shutters but if you are good mechanical shutter then R5/6 could be a good option.
 
woof woof said:
I thought the notion that Sony have crap colours had been debunked time after time? I seem to remember the usual blogs and sites were full of this some time ago.
Click to expand...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Original A7 bodies weren't the best but last couple generation I don't really see a problem tbh.
May be my eyes/brain needs some calibrating :LOL:

Moreover I haven't found a single brand that I prefer for everything. But if I had to pick one it'd be canon over all others.
 
nandbytes said:
By image quality I guess you mean colour rendering.

Perhaps try the canons?
Not sure how much you rely on electronic shutters but if you are good mechanical shutter then R5/6 could be a good option.
Click to expand...
Just been out with the R6, very pleased so far.
 
nandbytes said:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Original A7 bodies weren't the best but last couple generation I don't really see a problem tbh.
May be my eyes/brain needs some calibrating :LOL:

Moreover I haven't found a single brand that I prefer for everything. But if I had to pick one it'd be canon over all others.
Click to expand...

I do remember this on the net some time ago and as far as I can remember people preferred Sony colours until they knew what camera took what picture and then some changed their mind.

I do remember my Canon DSLR reds used to blow very easily but that may be a lack of DR. I did read somewhere that some have a warmer look or more yellow etc... I'd have thought these things could be fixed in raw pretty easily but as with all the panic about menus this just passes me by.
 
nandbytes said:
By image quality I guess you mean colour rendering.

Perhaps try the canons?
Not sure how much you rely on electronic shutters but if you are good mechanical shutter then R5/6 could be a good option.
Click to expand...

Image quality is not just colour rendering - I mean everything, and importantly tonal quality & micro-contrast. What some might call Image pop / 3D rendering is not just sharpness and bokeh.

I rely a lot on electronic shutter, one reason i am reluctant to move.
 
dancook said:
Image quality is not just colour rendering - I mean everything, and importantly tonal quality & micro-contrast. What some might call Image pop / 3D rendering is not just sharpness and bokeh.

I rely a lot on electronic shutter, one reason i am reluctant to move.
Click to expand...

Are you attributing some lens qualities to bodies here?
 
dancook said:
Image quality is not just colour rendering - I mean everything, and importantly tonal quality & micro-contrast. What some might call Image pop / 3D rendering is not just sharpness and bokeh.

I rely a lot on electronic shutter, one reason i am reluctant to move.
Click to expand...

And neither is bad on Sony if anything I'd say tonal range is superior in many cases. In fact I would even go as far as saying micro-contrast is one of the reasons I picked Sony's way back when because they had "zeiss" lenses on a-mount which felt to deliver better micro-contrast than equivalent lenses from other brands even though Sony lenses weren't the sharpest.
Having said that Sony GM lenses and Sigma ART lenses seems to deliver well in this department.

If you rely a lot on electronic shutter you only have 3 FF options unfortunately - A9, A9ii and A1.
May be when canon comes out with their A1 competition it'll provide an alternative.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Are you attributing some lens qualities to bodies here?
Click to expand...

Well it is the combination,

I have 24gm, 35za, 50za, 85gm, 24-70gm, 70-200gm, 100-400gm on my Sony A9's

There are similarities in which the Sony renders colours and differences in how the lenses render contrast/tones etc..

But I have built up a general view of what the Sony produces versus what my other cameras produce.
 
nandbytes said:
And neither is bad on Sony if anything I'd say tonal range is superior in many cases. In fact I would even go as far as saying that's one of the reasons I picked Sony's way back when because they had "zeiss" lenses on a-mount which felt to deliver better micro-contrast than equivalent lenses from other brands even though Sony lenses weren't the sharpest.
Having said that Sony GM lenses and Sigma ART lenses seems to deliver well in this department.

If you rely a lot on electronic shutter you only have 3 FF options unfortunately - A9, A9ii and A1.
May be when canon comes out of their A1 competition it'll provide a alternative.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if I used the batis lenses, I'd see more of what I like - but they also are more likely to suffer chromatic aberration, and there isn't a wide selection
 
dancook said:
Perhaps if I used the batis lenses, I'd see more of what I like - but they also are more likely to suffer chromatic aberration, and there isn't a wide selection
Click to expand...

you aren't satisfied with GM lenses?
Especially lenses like 50Za and 85GM which Sony claimed were build with the "3D pop" in mind.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
Well it is the combination,

I have 24gm, 35za, 50za, 85gm, 24-70gm, 70-200gm, 100-400gm on my Sony A9's

There are similarities in which the Sony renders colours and differences in how the lenses render contrast/tones etc..

But I have built up a general view of what the Sony produces versus what my other cameras produce.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that lenses have an impact. I don't see how camera bodies can be fairly compared without taking the lenses into account. That goes for several of the things you've mentioned which at least on first look seem to be more lens related or at least lens related to some degree.
 
snerkler said:
Sure won't ;)

Other than perfecting animal eye-af I'm not sure where cameras can actually go now, so I hope that Sony concentrate more on lenses. A new lightweight 70-200mm f2.8 and 'nifty fifty' would be nice. Something a bit difference like an 18-50mm f4, or 20-50mm f4 would be nice too.
Click to expand...
I think something that works like Olympus pro capture with around 100 shots constantly buffered with top AF you would never miss a shot.

Rob.
 
nandbytes said:
you aren't satisfied with GM lenses?
Click to expand...

Not really, they are necessary for sharpness and (standard)contrast at wide open apertures. It's just the best choice I can make for professional work.

The 35mm ZA actually does have some of the nice micro contrast, but it suffers CA wide open.
 
Last edited:
But guys.. this started with

Toby - "Nothing really left to improve"
Me - "Image quality?"
Everyone else - "It's fine how it is"

So I can only assume, Sony do not need to improve image quality as everyone else but me is happy :) I just need to find another unicorn.
 
dancook said:
But guys.. this started with

Toby - "Nothing really left to improve"
Me - "Image quality?"
Everyone else - "It's fine how it is"

So I can only assume, Sony do not need to improve image quality as everyone else but me is happy :) I just need to find another unicorn.
Click to expand...

If I’m being picky I’d like better auto white balance and the woeful lcd screens to be improved.
 
dancook said:
But guys.. this started with

Toby - "Nothing really left to improve"
Me - "Image quality?"
Everyone else - "It's fine how it is"

So I can only assume, Sony do not need to improve image quality as everyone else but me is happy :) I just need to find another unicorn.
Click to expand...

Some of it is probably subjective. you are after all in a Sony thread where most people would think its imagine quality is fine. if it weren't why would they continue to shoot with it.
For me image quality and AF are top priorities. I don't see any other brand offering me anything that's conceivably better in terms of image quality, AF wise canon seems to provide what I'd like more so than Sony.
 
dancook said:
The Sony images could have more depth and better colours with greater tonal quality. Basically what I like about Leica/Hasselblad imagery with Sony speed.

I'm currently decided not buy the A1 until they've come down in price a bit (memory cards too), since I'm no longer so excited I want to use them for things like street photography.

this was enough to remind me of how Sony just muddies the colours (looking at the wood)

View attachment 307680

and this reminded me of how important micro contrast is for depth
Click to expand...
A simple unsharp mask contrast can match these
 
woof woof said:
I thought the notion that Sony have crap colours had been debunked time after time? I seem to remember the usual blogs and sites were full of this some time ago.
Click to expand...
Kind of. There's an interesting video by Manny Ortiz on YT who always debunked the colour thing showing that actually there is some truth to it. BUT it's all subjective.
imattersuk said:
Just been out with the R6, very pleased so far.
Click to expand...
I've just had a real bad case of deja vu, have you posted this exact sentence before?
nandbytes said:
you aren't satisfied with GM lenses?
Especially lenses like 50Za and 85GM which Sony claimed were build with the "3D pop" in mind.
Click to expand...
To my eyes the 85GM doesn't have as much pop as the Sigma Art, but that's me ;) I think it is very lens dependent, for example the Leica look that I like tends to be with the old lenses used on the film cameras, modern Leica lenses such as those for the SL are incredibly sharp but don't have special rendering to my eyes and as a result could not justify the cost over Sony and Canikon. I would rather lenses concentrate on "character" rather than outright sharpness
GyRob said:
I think something that works like Olympus pro capture with around 100 shots constantly buffered with top AF you would never miss a shot.

Rob.
Click to expand...
Could you imagine sifting through that lot, what a nightmare. I never used pro-capture on my EM1-II for that reason, 60fps would be a nightmare to go through.
dancook said:
But guys.. this started with

Toby - "Nothing really left to improve"
Me - "Image quality?"
Everyone else - "It's fine how it is"

So I can only assume, Sony do not need to improve image quality as everyone else but me is happy :) I just need to find another unicorn.
Click to expand...
I do think it's the lenses rather than the cameras (except for colours although lenses obviously affect colour too). The 'trouble' is Leica etc are a very niche market and people are willing to drop £6k on a manually focussing prime lens, as a result they can concentrate on every attribute to make sure the lens renders as pleasing as possible (to certain people). If Sony brought out a 50mm f1.2 at £6500 I doubt they'd get many sales.

I'd love M-series Leica quality with the performance of Sony and at Sony prices but I can't see that happening ;)
 
Last edited:
dcash29 said:
A simple unsharp mask contrast can match these
Click to expand...
You could probably replicate it to a degree, but you can't beat having it right straight from the optics (y)
 
Agreed but you pay your money and get what you get. Cant please everyone.

It all boils down to light.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Sure won't ;)

Other than perfecting animal eye-af I'm not sure where cameras can actually go now, so I hope that Sony concentrate more on lenses. A new lightweight 70-200mm f2.8 and 'nifty fifty' would be nice. Something a bit difference like an 18-50mm f4, or 20-50mm f4 would be nice too.
Click to expand...


With AF I reckon there'll be further attempts to improve video AF, especially with people walking towards and away from the camera?

High ISO performance seems to be a big deal as well, I'm sure they will continue to improve on that. Speaking of which, does anyone remember an article from many, many years ago where a new type of silicone or something was being tested for use in image sensors? I'm sure it was a British firm or uni, but I'm sure there was something about it being so sensitive to light that you could shoot in pitch black (or something like this). I wonder how they got on with it?
 
gman said:
With AF I reckon there'll be further attempts to improve video AF, especially with people walking towards and away from the camera?

High ISO performance seems to be a big deal as well, I'm sure they will continue to improve on that. Speaking of which, does anyone remember an article from many, many years ago where a new type of silicone or something was being tested for use in image sensors? I'm sure it was a British firm or uni, but I'm sure there was something about it being so sensitive to light that you could shoot in pitch black (or something like this). I wonder how they got on with it?
Click to expand...
I'm sure silicon sensors and processors will be replaced with organic ones in time. In fact when metalenses are developed cameras as we know them will be very different indeed. Imagine a 600mm lens the thickness or a layer of paint :eek:
 
I think I made the right choice starting with the 24-105mm. The OS has been very handy for video as has the reach, I'm watching my focal length closely and I'm well over 35mm a lot, more in the realms of 85mm and over. But as I'm converting 4k to 21:9 ratio then I need to zoom in post, so being able to go wider is handy.

On the downside, I ended up abandoning trying to get LR to read the Sony RAW files and bite the bullet and moved to their subscription package. Still use the desktop version though, that cloud one isn't for me. I'm now learning how to use Davinci Resolve 17 because as much as I like Premiere Pro, it's all becoming expensive for all the times I use it and I'm starting to really like DR17.

And just to add to the costs, I'm gonna need some new SD cards. Don't want to go nuts, I'm only hobbyist. The Lexar 1667x 128GB seems to be a good blend of value and performance. Why didn't Sony make both slots UHS-II? Seems daft to make the top slot UHS-I.
 
Last edited:
L
nandbytes said:
It's overpriced and inadequate performance imo. If I am not mistaken the write speed is only 90mb/s
I have faster UHS-I cards:



How else will they sell you the A9II for another £4K :p
Click to expand...
Lexar 1667 are 250mb/s read and 120mb/s write according to the Lexar website, I have some due to their decent speed for the price. I also have some of the Lexar 2000 that are 300/260mb/s read/write but tbh in the A7RIV I can barely tell the difference :eek:
 
snerkler said:
L

Lexar 1667 are 250mb/s read and 120mb/s write according to the Lexar website, I have some due to their decent speed for the price. I also have some of the Lexar 2000 that are 300/260mb/s read/write but tbh in the A7RIV I can barely tell the difference :eek:
Click to expand...

I was looking on wex....
www.wexphotovideo.com

Lexar 128GB 1667x (250MB/Sec) Professional UHS-II SDXC Card | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

They either have two variants or I guess better to believe the official website?

Even still the UHS-I card I linked above is slightly faster write speed for less money. I have two of those in 256GB for shooting landscapes and pixelshift on A7RIV.
Plus I have bunch of 128GB 280/260mb/s read/write tough cards from manfrotto. I can definitely tell the difference when I am shooting at 5-8fps.

I also have couple sandisk 300mb/s cards they are really nice too. but now I generally use the tough cards for most part.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top